As the summary says, is there any credible evidence that we are in fact moving through an interstellar dust cloud? And if so, could this really impact our environment to the extent that it causes a new ice age? I know that this isn't likelly to happen in 2012, even if many sites claim so. But I'm mostelly interrested in knowing if we are in fact moving through this interstellar dust cloud and what the possible effects of this might be? I know that NASA has been speculating about if this could have caused mass extinctions earlier in earths history, but such an event must have taken time and not happened just in the timespan of a couple of years, right?
Richard, I have searched high and low for information to that effect, with little success. Most of it simply leads to woo-woo sites and message boards. I did find this from 2003, and this from 2005. Another article from 2000 suggests that volcanoes on Io might be spewing dust into the solar system. The models mentioned in the 2005 article had yet to be supported by any observational evidence at the time of writing, and I've seen nothing new. To the contrary, the earth is getting warmer on average.
Alex Pavlov, in the 2005 article, says that it may take as many as 500,000 years for our solar system to clear a large dust cloud. As such, I strongly suspect we aren't talking about an ice age and mass extinctions by 2012, if that is what you are implying.
Thank you for the sites. It was acctually the one from 2005 that I've read earlier, and misremebered it to be published by NASA. Judging by the first site, and indirectlly the second, the dust cloud that we are moving through now isn't going to cause any environmental effects on earth, only an increased risk for damages to satellites etc. Right?
I also found it interesting that the sun seem to have a second cycle of 22 years, in addition to the regular 11 year solar cycle. I didn't quite grasp what this whole 22-year cycle was about, other than the effects it had on the heliosphere. But, wouldn't scientists, based on that cycle, be able to predict when the heliosphere will begin to regain strenght again? I've only seen speculations about wheter or not the heliosphere decline would stabilize or start regaining strength in the time ahead. But anyhow, interresting indeed.
To be honest, now that I think of it, it must have been the article from 2005 that doomsayers converted to fit their "prophecies".
I've acctually seen the second model in the article mentioned in another science article (slightlly modified though). I think that it might have been on NASA's website, acctually perhaps it was the article I linked in another thread (the one about near-earth supernovas). It speculated about if it was possible to link certain mass extinctions to the "escape" of hydrogen, I think. Anyway, I can't seem to find any mentioning of this happening in the timespan of only a couple of years.
Finally, as you said, the models mentioned in the article from 2005 seem to be really hypothetical, and hard to prove correct (or disprove for that matter). But, even if they were correct, wouldn't even a fast drop in temperature take several hundreds to thousands of years?
Hi Richard;
I also found it interesting that the sun seem to have a second cycle of 22 years, in addition to the regular 11 year solar cycle. I didn't quite grasp what this whole 22-year cycle was about, other than the effects it had on the heliosphere.
The 22 year cycle is an extension of the 11-year cycle, or to be more accurate, the 11 year sunspot cycle is a part of, and a consequence of, the 22-year magnetic polarity cycle.
The sun has an overall magnetic field which is, in general, oriented in a north-south polarity much as the earth's is. At solar minimum the sun's magnetic field is as close as it gets to a 'dipole' configuration (with a single north and south pole). Even in this quiet phase it has more than one north and south magnetic pole. As the magnetic cycle progresses, the sun's magnetic field 'winds up', becoming more and more tangled and complicated. Sunspots, each with their own north and south pole, appear, and become more numerous until, at solar max, the sun's magnetic field looks more like a pincushion than anything else. Magnetic field lines are twisted and tangled, and great loops of solar material are caught up in them in prominences and filaments, both of which are more common during this phase. At solar max the activity reaches its peak, and then begins to quiet down, with the generic solar magnetic field having reversed phase.
One 22-year (approximate) cycle represents one full phase change from a north-south minimum, through solar maximum where the field changes to south-north, through solar minimum, then back to max where a second polarity reversal occurs to a north-south, then back to a north-south solar minimum (caveat, I'm not actually sure where in the cycle the solar scientists start measuring, but it would make sense to start it at either a minimum or a maximum).
So, the 11-year sunspot cycle was recognized first, but now we recognize that the sunspot cycle is actually a part of the 22-year magnetic cycle.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. The sun have always been an object of great interrest to me, but it's just recentlly that I've acctually started to learn something about it=) While we're on the subject, there is one thing that puzzles me. Some months ago I saw something on NASA's website about how the currents (don't know if that is the correct word) on the sun had been running at record high speeds, at least the northern ones. Could this in someway be associated with the 22-year solar cycle? I mean, wouldn't faster currents provide an increase in magnetism (working like a dynamo)? But perhaps this is acctually contraproductive when talking about the heliosphere, since the solar winds where supposed to be suppressed by faster currents thus not inflating the heliosphere as much as when solar winds are stronger?
Thank you for the sites. It was acctually the one from 2005 that I've read earlier, and misremebered it to be published by NASA. Judging by the first site, and indirectlly the second, the dust cloud that we are moving through now isn't going to cause any environmental effects on earth, only an increased risk for damages to satellites etc. Right?
You're welcome, and we've already covered this subject in this thread, of which you were a principal part. What I notice, however, is that you've gone from asking about cosmic dust causing global warming à la Dmitriev, to worrying about cosmic dust causing an ice age. As I mentioned in the "Apocalypse 2012" discussion, we've sent crap all over the solar system, with no ill effects from space dust that I know of.
I also found it interesting that the sun seem to have a second cycle of 22 years, in addition to the regular 11 year solar cycle.
The 22-year cycle is two 11-year cycles, wherein the main north-south polarity of the sun switches and then returns to normal.
EDIT: See Astrogeek's reply. We posted at the same time, and his is a much better answer than mine.
But, wouldn't scientists, based on that cycle, be able to predict when the heliosphere will begin to regain strenght again?
Not necessarily.
another thread (the one about near-earth supernovas).
Yeah, that's the one. ;)
But, even if they were correct, wouldn't even a fast drop in temperature take several hundreds to thousands of years?
Yes, and I speculate that technology has reached a point that enables humanity to sustain itself against such events, and I further speculate that these capabilities will only expand, especially if manned interplanetary spaceflight remains a human goal or perceptible climate changes force such considerations. But as I said before, right now the world is warming on average.
Yeah, even I can admit that I really do start to sound like an broken record=) But, this time it wasn't as much that I was afraid of an impending ice age by 2012, more that I wanted to know if this theory holds any water whatsoever (acctually more of an quasi-scientific curiousity). I acctually start to see a pattern when it comes to doomsday scenarios: as soon as there are more or less qualified evidence of a causes to previous mass extinctions they tend to magically be appliable to events taking place in 2012. Just thinking on how doomsayers manage to get all the pieces fit together makes my head spin.
And I do believe that you are correct, perhaps humans as a species might be the first inhabbitants of this earth to acctually survive what would have been a mass extinction to previous species if such an event where to occur in the future.