The End Of The Sun May Be Predictable

It is a few billion years from now but in the end our sun will burn out, cook earth and that will be the end of humans. New research about stars is beginning to show that waves of explosions precede the end life of stars. This is not occurring in the sun but it seems a certainty that one day they will. The end of us and all of earth will have nothing to do with religion. Instead physics will toss all religious myths into the waste bin.

I’ve not heard of any scientist in this field argue with the inevitability of this final end. It is known the sun formed from nuclear fusion. It has changed since it was formed and is about half way through its life.

What an educational thing it would be if preachers explained this inevitable end to human beings. They do not because the Christian business model does not allow it.

Preacher make their livings by talking to people. The collection plate is passed and those who listen pay for what they heard the preacher say. If the preacher told them he and their religion could do nothing about the inevitable ending life on earth the collection plate would be empty. Preachers do not talk of this grim truth.

Thank goodness their are tenured professors and funded researchers who can tell certain truths those in religion and politics cannot. Reality is a helpful thing to know about, even if it is not always good news.

 

 

31 Responses

  1. Jinx II

    I doubt we will be a species on this planet when the sun begins its extinction journey. We are in the process of destroying our habitat to the point where we cannot exist, and that isn’t counting the 2 little boys throwing tantrums that will incite a nuclear war!

  2. dean

    People are drawn to the brand of religion that says what they want to hear. Reality has little to do with that choice. My guess is they don’t want to hear that the world will eventually burn out.

  3. Catcher

    Jon “Preachers do not talk of this grim truth”. To the contrary. Just (about) three months ago, our pastor did, and not in the context of the apocalypse. ( Although some may compress time to incorporate the second coming with the sun burning up.) That won’t fly.

    Dean @ 8;00, “My guess is they don’t want to hear that the world will eventually burn out”. Actually, the SUN will burn out, taking the Earth with it is common knowledge.

    “Reality” is, most everyone knows the sun will burn out in time.

    Scare tactics do little to convert OR de-convert in the long term.

    1. Catcher 9:19 To the contrary.

      Good for him. I went to our nearby United Church of Christ this past Sunday. Three of the four pastors (two are women) gave different parts of the service and all introduced the theme of the message this church year, “Heaven is a place on earth.” This to indirectly emphasize, as the head pastor put it, “Christianity includes more than calling in to make a reservation in heaven.” Since none of the pastors takes much of anything in the Bible literally, I’m sure they would acknowledge to end of the earth. I’ve never heard them mention it. It would not challenge anything they believe or preach.

  4. Henry

    Jon:“Thank goodness their are tenured professors and funded researchers who can tell certain truths those in religion and politics cannot.”

    It is a good thing we have all those trained actors and performers at all the hurricane fundraisers lecturing us about the terrible problem of global warming denial. Meanwhile, Antarctica is gaining ice and new glaciers are forming in California.
    https://www.iceagenow.info/new-glacier-forming-california/

    We’ve got a lot of ground to cover in order to save the ozone hole.

    1. Henry 6:41 Antarctica is gaining ice and new glaciers are forming in California.

      You need to start a new career as a stand up comic. You act would be titled, “Jokes about global warming.”

      When you first posted the joke about Antarctica I posted a link showing there is more snow there because the temp is rising. The ice pack was getting thinner. Last summer the largest ice break off ever occurred. It is melting fast.

      The California “glacier” is so tiny I could hardly see it. Maybe the term “patch of unmelted snow” would be better. And, an arrow pointing to it would help.

      1. Henry

        Iceberg a68 will be around for years cooling off the earth. There was so much ice mass accumulated, it had to set itself free. If heat was a concern,it would simply shrink in place and be comfortably supported by the shore and shallow sea floor. Instead, it grew so much it could no longer cantilever out from the grounded portion of the iceberg. The mechanics point to cooling, not warming.

        1. Henry 1:08 The mechanics point to cooling, not warming.

          Such malarkey. Did you know they actually taking the temps around Antarctica? This means you can’t just make stuff up. From Wikipedia:
          Research published in 2009 found that overall the continent had become warmer since the 1950s,

          1. Henry

            From which scientist was that data? From one of the many that have been caught fabricating and manipulating data? That is a wholesale practice in the global warming “scientific” community. Just read your newspaper.

          2. Henry 1:51 From which scientist was that data? From one of the many that have been caught fabricating and manipulating data? That is a wholesale practice in the global warming “scientific” community.

            Some hyperbole there. This data about warming comes from more than one source. There is an area on the continent that is cooler. It may be catching some additional polar vortex which in turn might be a product of warming. Taking temps at several locations, the South Pole is getting warmer. Now, how much of the warming is made made and how much is a natural warm cycle can be argued about. It was warmer once. Alan Ashworth, retired from NDSU, found moth outlines in ice there. Others found plant evidence. Scientists find the rate and pattern one different from the past. I gave you my source. You have not given me yours. Please give us the propaganda site you are quoting from.

          3. Henry

            Jon:” Please give us the propaganda site you are quoting from.”

            NOAA.GOV 30% more sea ice in Antarctica. Then it calves. Surprise….surprise.

            We probably need to get this ozone hole thing going again so we can get some of this accumulating ice melted before it is too late. Anybody have a can of R12 sitting around. We need many.

            We yearly get global warming. The north and south hemispheres take turns. The Vikings also grew gardens in Greenland (green land). Eventually didn’t work so well for them. Too much cooling.

          4. Henry 4:43 I hope we can establish as a fact as you seem now willing to admit, it is warming on the South Pole. It has warmed 5 F.

            https://swfsc.noaa.gov/contentblock.aspx?Division=AERD&id=14838&ParentMenuId=42

            We can agree also climates change across the globe. It was once warmer there. It was once colder in ND and Central Canada. Our argument is only about whether the changes now occurring are affected by man produced carbon.

            I’ll go with the 99.9% of scientists who think it is affecting the rate and degree of change. When the newspaper reports record breaking climate experiences it adds to my confidence.

          5. Henry

            6:11, we do not agree on the temperature data sets. We actually do not know if there has been an increase or decrease in temps based on the measured numbers. Their reliability is zero due to the falsification. We need to throw all the temp measurements out. Imagery, however, does not lie. They have to acknowledge the ice increases. Unfortunately, this doesn’t play well with their narrative.

            Yes, we have climate change as I previously indicated.

          6. Henry 6:43 Their reliability is zero die to the falsification.

            So, you are saying all on site temperature measurements by government employees from any or all countries is false. If that is your argument?

            If so, I assume you have on site measurements from some source you trust that is different from those you claim to be falsified. Please provide that or stop posting about falsification.

          7. Henry 8:03 Sorry, that is propaganda. It had no data collected at the South Pole that would falsify other collected data. Again, if you have a data source rather than a propaganda source, please post it here.

          8. Henry 8:25 I’m trying to follow all this propaganda. There was NASA data collected years ago that showed cooling. That data was revived and now shows warming. Your propaganda sources tell us that the old data was correct and the new data was changed to falsely show warming and the motive was political.

            So, how do we know the earlier data was correct? I looked at several propaganda sites and found no explanation. I found this false statement that NASA never provided an explanation as to why the conclusion was changed.

            I looked for a minute or two and found why it was changed. It was changed because the methodology of collecting and analyzing data was improved. There were many scientists involved in testing and challenging the new methodology and it is supported by the scientific community.

            Here is an simply illustrated explanation from Bloomberg site. There is nothing I saw on several right wing propaganda sites that undercuts what is presented here:
            https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

          9. Henry

            Let’s say you are correct, and the “adjustments” were made to accommodate different methodologies of measurement. This doesn’t explain why the adjustments do not have trends to match the purported instrumentation changes made over time. One would expect changes in instrumentation to occur at distinct points in the timeline. Between changes, the data sets would all be corrected in the same direction. This isn’t at all the case. The individual adjustments are all over the place up and down when comparing the graphs with no discernable point where changes were made. It really points to fraud when the two graphs are compared. The only trend is the strong confirmation bias NOAA and NASA cling to. I like Goddard’s spirit of true science of testing the hypothesis. His skepticism of the temperature records also better explain what is going on with the increasing Antarctic sea ice.

          10. Henry 10:00 The Bloomberg site explains NOAA/NASA projections are based on 30 different computer models that measure fluxuations in the numbers and dampen them to establish the trend. There are plenty of trained people in climate and geology who could spot flaws and make a name for themselves by publishing about the flaw. Any professor who found a smoking gun could publish a profitable book and get rich on the lecture curcit. It has not happened. The only reason is because there is no smoking gun. Only right wing bloggers like your friend who are not in the field try unsuccessfully to make such a case.

            The Antarctic sea ice has argument has been debunked. The temp there is rising.

          11. Henry

            Nothing in your 10:58 materially rebuts my 10:00. It is full of confirmation bias repeat, political rhetoric, and in practice, dismissiveness of the scientific method. Not a spark of interest in questioning the falsified data. You provide no explanations to my noted points. Furthermore, the news reporter site you provided provides no explanation for the spike in temperatures in the 1930’s. Their explanation is a scientific fail just on that one item, in addition to all the previous points I made that you have no rebuttal.

          12. Henry 7:06 I looked through pages of comments to the blog written by your hero, Steven Goddard. An actual scientist came on and totally debunked him.

            The scientist provided a link with peer reviewed explanations for all that you complain about. Goddard refused to look at them. Instead he reverted back to his theory that it is all a conspiracy.

            Like all conspiracy theorists, he avoided taking on the challenge and reverted back to the “motives” of scientists. So please continue believing in Goddard and unfounded conspiracy theories. Goddard is not a scientist, does not think like a scientist and does not write like one. He thinks and writes like a conspiracy theorist.

          13. We’ve had several posts her about the alleged conspiracy theory involved in global warming data. I’ve learned that if you want to be a celebrity critic of global warming you cannot stick to scientifically collected data, you need to make up your own. After that, there is another requirement, preach that the data scientists collect is all false because it enriches them.
            I found a couple of helpful article about the South Pole area with discussed a lot. One is this one from National Geographic. It goes with a team who took the temperature and salinity of water in one area. They found the ice is melting on the bottom. It may take a very long time, but unless something changes it will melt. There is agreement among scientists that the small area in Antarctica that is holding its own against ice melt will eventually be swamped by the world wide increase in water temps.

            http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/antarctica-sea-level-rise-climate-change/

            Another overview article was published in Slate.com. It had been reviewed by a climate scientist. It explains the Antarctica is both gaining through more snowfall but also losing ice. It is losing faster than it is gaining.

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass.html

            It is true a previous projection from NASA years back stated the earth was cooling, not warming. Since then several things about data collection and analysis have changed and it now says confidently the earth is warming. The reasons this change occurred were many. The previous locations of data collection had changed, sometimes because a location was unavailable and sometime was not in a good place for this kind of data collection. The original data was “raw” and not weighted by the land or water mass represented. It was not treated with modern statistical techniques.

          14. Henry

            Jon, I see you have no rebuttal. Duly registered.

            On another note, here is a list of all the things global warming causes. God help us. Unfortunately, the list ended two years ago. We have snowfall increase, snowfall decrease, snowfall heavy, snowfall thicker, and snowfall reduction all due to global warming. Similarly, there is ice sheet growth and ice sheet shrinkage tied to global warming.

            http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

            We need to get a handle on global warming. Probably should get some white tarps ordered up from China to cover the oceans. Water vapor is a much larger contributor to global warming than CO2 can ever be due to quantities and opaqueness. The water vapor in the atmosphere needs to be controlled. Probably should start taxing to pay for “water credits” and subsidize PVC tarps. We should do this and really feel good about ourselves!

          15. Henry 4:11 Jon, I see you have no rebuttal. Duly registered.

            There are some things not important enough to rebut. Since you insist I’ll deal with your post which said, (paraphrasing) “The graph should look like this…”

            The NASA graph SHOULD look like whatever the data it is based on plots. The dots land where the data says they should be and the lines connecting the dots follows them where ever they go.

          16. Henry

            Jon:“The NASA graph SHOULD look like whatever the data it is based on plots.”

            Golly gee, who could disagree with that? However, the million dollar question is what the data is. We have yet to see a reasonable explanation for the previously mentioned anomalies. I would suspect if a credentialed scientist with peer review available were to question this anthropo global warming scheme, they would be treated much the same as you have me. They would be labeled a conspiracy theorist, mocked, belittled, etc. The brave scientist that would dare ask questions would lose his research dollars on his own projects faster than a police officer losing his job after wearing the wrong kind of yoga pants.
            http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/06/officer-fired-rebel-flag-boxers

        2. Henry

          P.S. And if there is any doubt as to the A68 iceberg pointing to global cooling, just look at the time of year it broke off, in the middle of winter when melting was zilch and cooling and snow/ice accumulation was maxed. Sometimes timing is everything.

  5. entech

    I am surprised that Henry keeps on with all the various conspiracy theories, both those that say why and those that say why not.
    It is quite clear that it is all the insidious work of Satan. All happened since the fall. 🙂

Leave a Reply