It washes away parts of the upper atmosphere leaving us exposed to more
cosmic rays.

http://www.hamqsl.com/solar3.html#addwebsite

On Nov 14, 6:49*pm, dave wrote:
It washes away parts of the upper atmosphere leaving us exposed to more
cosmic rays.

http://www.hamqsl.com/solar3.html#addwebsite

Nothing new; it's been doing that for billions of years already.

In related news, eventually the Sun is going to turn into a red giant
and engulf the Earth, thus utterly destroying it.

--
David Barts
Portland, OR

David Barts wrote:
On Nov 14, 6:49 pm, wrote:
It washes away parts of the upper atmosphere leaving us exposed to more
cosmic rays.

http://www.hamqsl.com/solar3.html#addwebsite

Nothing new; it's been doing that for billions of years already.

In related news, eventually the Sun is going to turn into a red giant
and engulf the Earth, thus utterly destroying it.

Wrong! We are entering a part of the galaxy that is relatively dense
and we don't know what will happen. This is uncharted territory.

On Nov 15, 8:03*am, dave wrote:
David Barts wrote:
On Nov 14, 6:49 pm, *wrote:
It washes away parts of the upper atmosphere leaving us exposed to more
cosmic rays.

http://www.hamqsl.com/solar3.html#addwebsite

Nothing new; it's been doing that for billions of years already.

In related news, eventually the Sun is going to turn into a red giant
and engulf the Earth, thus utterly destroying it.

Wrong! *We are entering a part of the galaxy that is relatively dense
and we don't know what will happen. This is uncharted territory.

There is nothing I see on that linked page to back up that assertion.

Moreover, how exactly are we "entering a part of the galaxy that is
relatively dense"? We're on one of the rotating spiral arms of the
Milky way. We're moving at pretty much the same speed as the rest of
the arm. It's very hard to "enter" a part of the galaxy we're pacing
at the same speed.

Absent any links that actually back up what you're trying to assert, I
find your assertions to be highly questionable.

--
David Barts
Portland, OR

David Barts wrote:


Moreover, how exactly are we "entering a part of the galaxy that is
relatively dense"? We're on one of the rotating spiral arms of the
Milky way. We're moving at pretty much the same speed as the rest of
the arm. It's very hard to "enter" a part of the galaxy we're pacing
at the same speed.

Absent any links that actually back up what you're trying to assert, I
find your assertions to be highly questionable.

--
David Barts
Portland, OR

More to come

The solar system is always plowing through interstellar material. The
Sun's giant magnetic field thwarts much of the dust from entering the
solar system. But the magnetic field weakens periodically, on a cycle
that lasts roughly 22-years. The cycle is related to an 11-year cycle of
sunspot activity.

This is the first of the related dust storms that has been seriously
monitored by a spacecraft.

Some day, the influx could get worse. The solar system is plowing toward
the fringes of a galactic cloud known as the G-cloud.

"The time of the entry into the G-cloud is unknown, but is expected to
occur any time in the next 10,000 years," Landgraf said. "There will be
a constant increase [in dust rates], because the G-cloud is more dense
than the local interstellar cloud that is now surrounding our Sun."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...rm_030814.html

On Nov 15, 11:31*am, dave wrote:

The solar system is always plowing through interstellar material. The
Sun's giant magnetic field thwarts much of the dust from entering the
solar system. But the magnetic field weakens periodically, on a cycle
that lasts roughly 22-years. The cycle is related to an 11-year cycle of
sunspot activity.

These are two distinct phenomena. The solar wind is not the same thing
as an intrastellar dust cloud. There was nothing in the link you
furnished that indicated the increased amount of intrastellar dust
would accelerate the rate of atmospheric depletion (which is such a
minute fraction of the atmosphere per year that it's of no immediate
threat).

And did you notice the statement in that article that no serious
consequences are expected from passing through that dust cloud? There
*might* be a slight increase in the number of visible meteors
("shooting stars") at night, that's about all they anticipate.

Hardly a doomsday scenario. In fact, seeing more shooting stars at
night sounds like a plus.

--
David Barts
Portland, OR

David Barts wrote:
On Nov 15, 11:31 am, wrote:

The solar system is always plowing through interstellar material. The
Sun's giant magnetic field thwarts much of the dust from entering the
solar system. But the magnetic field weakens periodically, on a cycle
that lasts roughly 22-years. The cycle is related to an 11-year cycle of
sunspot activity.

These are two distinct phenomena. The solar wind is not the same thing
as an intrastellar dust cloud. There was nothing in the link you
furnished that indicated the increased amount of intrastellar dust
would accelerate the rate of atmospheric depletion (which is such a
minute fraction of the atmosphere per year that it's of no immediate
threat).


I said no such thing. I said the atmosphere would have reduced ability
to protect us from cosmic rays.

http://www.ibex.swri.edu/

On Nov 16, 8:46*am, dave wrote:
David Barts wrote:
On Nov 15, 11:31 am, *wrote:

The solar system is always plowing through interstellar material. The
Sun's giant magnetic field thwarts much of the dust from entering the
solar system. But the magnetic field weakens periodically, on a cycle
that lasts roughly 22-years. The cycle is related to an 11-year cycle of
sunspot activity.

These are two distinct phenomena. The solar wind is not the same thing
as an intrastellar dust cloud. There was nothing in the link you
furnished that indicated the increased amount of intrastellar dust
would accelerate the rate of atmospheric depletion (which is such a
minute fraction of the atmosphere per year that it's of no immediate
threat).

I said no such thing.

Actually, you did. You said it was "getting troublesome" and that it
"washes away parts of the atmosphere". If part of the atmosphere is
getting "washed away", that's depletion.

I said the atmosphere would have reduced ability
to protect us from cosmic rays.

Well, did you say the atmosphere was being "washed away", or didn't
you? Make up your mind.

http://www.ibex.swri.edu/

Yet another link that contains nothing immediately relevant to what
you are claiming.

--
David Barts
Portland, OR

On 11/16/10 1:34 PM, dave wrote:


Yet another link that contains nothing immediately relevant to what
you are claiming.

--
David Barts
Portland, OR

Bye donkeydicks

Your spelling is atrocious, and everyone knows that horsecock is the
smart investment right now anyway. So there.

- J.

Yet another link that contains nothing immediately relevant to what
you are claiming.

--
David Barts
Portland, OR

Bye donkeydicks