Slashdot Mirror


The Sunspot Cycle Explained

An anonymous reader writes "After the recent spate of auroras visible as far south as Florida and Greece, and radio amateurs having lots of fun bouncing their signals off the auroral curtain, maybe some explanation was needed. It has been known for a while that the peak of solar activity trail trails the sunspot cycle peak by a couple of years, but this BBC article appears to explain why. As you may expect most of the data came from the SOHO satellite and the theory has been put together by some scientists using what appears to be data mining."

133 comments

  1. Information by starfurynz · · Score: 0

    Very informative. It explained a lot so now There's even more useless trivia I kinow that may one day be useful.

    --
    We tend to become like the worst in those we oppose. --Bene Gesserit Coda--
  2. Re-run by allanweber · · Score: 2, Funny

    radio amateurs having lots of fun bouncing their signals off the auroral curtain

    Could this mean, that when I'm watching a re-run of my favorit tv-shop, it is actually a re-re-run??

  3. Links to the abstracts by mattjb0010 · · Score: 5, Informative

    As easy as one, two, three.

  4. Argh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    First e-bombing, now data-mining. They're really putting the Slash back into Slashdot!

  5. Wars and revolutions by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Now if only someone could explain the relationship between the sunspot cycle and wars and revolutions in the history of mankind, that would be cool...

    1. Re:Wars and revolutions by mattjb0010 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Easy, just write down all the wars and revolutions that don't coincide with the sunspots. :)

    2. Re:Wars and revolutions by grumling · · Score: 1
      People tend to reproduce in 20 year cycles. Maybe that has something to do with it?

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    3. Re:Wars and revolutions by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't think it's that simple. If you read history, you notice striking years of world-wide turmoil like 1848, 1863, 1905, 1968 or 1989. Take the 1968, the most obvious one. Why did the students of Beijing, Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Paris, Mexico City and Berkeley take it to the streets the same year? They didn't even fight for similar cases! Don't tell me that every year was like 1968, because it just wasn't.

    4. Re:Wars and revolutions by mattjb0010 · · Score: 1

      Or the Boer war which many parts of the British empire were involved with during a low part of a cycle. Anything can look significant if you pick and choose.

    5. Re:Wars and revolutions by 56ker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is none - people look for patterns where there aren't any. :)

    6. Re:Wars and revolutions by Captain+Poopypants · · Score: 0
      People tend to reproduce in 20 year cycles.

      With the sole exception of geeks whose reproductive cycle still remains a mystery to science. So far the scientists can say that this intriguing subgroup of the human race is mostly unable to attract the female of the species and thus must reproduce asexually. What exactly this process entails is shrouded in mystery.

    7. Re:Wars and revolutions by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      So remember students and politicians, next time you want to give a rousing 'go to war' speach or paint a placard and protest war, it's just the spots talking.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    8. Re:Wars and revolutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fault dear Brutus...

    9. Re:Wars and revolutions by bj8rn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But revolutions and wars and things never happen just like that. You can't start a revolution from nothing, despite of what some have said.

      Every revolution is preceeded by years of tensions quietly building up. But I don't think it is the sunspots that trigger the real action. You can't usually even really tell when some war or revolution actually begun. I mean, yes, you can say that WWII started on September 1st, 1939, but this is really only just the date when Germany attacked Poland. What about the events before? Or after? Yes, there was a war, but when did it begin? It's just the same with the 'War on Terror': for a lot of people, the date 09/11/2001 is when the 'war' began. But for some others, it's just a part of a process.

      Why was it that there were so many things happening in 1968? I don't know. Maybe it was just a coincidence. Maybe it was (or at least seems to be) the result of many things that had happened before. But. For some, the year 1968 WAS just like any other. Nothing really happened, nothing changed because of these riots in Paris and Berlin. Life went on just the same for many people.

      I don't put much value in the "evidence" presented on that webpage you linked. The choice of significant events is much too subjective to prove anything. Just like that other guy (whose post -- the grandparent of this one -- I regrettedly modded up; not the best way to waste a mod point) said, anything can look significant. It all depends on how you present things. Referring again to the linked webpage: the author consideres significant the increase in FBI's power after the Oklahoma city bombing, but the bombing itself was not mentioned separately, therefore not significant and not a sign of trouble (whereas FBI getting more power was considered to be a sign of stability by the author).

      Sunspots (and other natural things) may have an effect on what we do, but what we do to ourselves we still do by ourselves. Or are we just robots who are triggered by Sun activity?

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    10. Re:Wars and revolutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, the relationship that claims World War 1 was due to the sunspot peak between 1916 and 1918? Forgive me if I don't take it too seriously.

    11. Re:Wars and revolutions by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's a theory... Some evidence suggests that there's a link between global climate (ocean temperatures) and solar sunspot activity. This is known to affect floods and thus crop production. If you've got a population busy harvesting crops, then they're less likely to be motivated to start wars. Unemployment and poverty have been the major factors involved in starting wars.

    12. Re:Wars and revolutions by calidoscope · · Score: 1
      I mean, yes, you can say that WWII started on September 1st, 1939, but this is really only just the date when Germany attacked Poland. What about the events before? Or after? Yes, there was a war, but when did it begin?

      You've made a good point about the start of hostilities not necessarily being the start of war.

      As for WWII, my contention is that it started in 1931 when Japan attacked China. The September 1, 1939 date is when Poland was invaded by Germany and the Soviet Union. Then again, Jerry Pournelle terms the period of 1914 to 1991 as the 70 year war.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    13. Re:Wars and revolutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      "unemployment and poverty have been the major factors involved in starting wars."

      you forgot oil

  6. Not very impressive by Brutulf · · Score: 0

    I saw it on wendesday. It wasnt very impressive. Just looked like two glowing clouds. A bit disappointing, really :/

    1. Re:Not very impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They come in many forms, the only ones I've seen (a few months ago when I was visiting a place far enough north) were very impressive, they looked like huge glowing curtains that were moving and changing their shape very quickly.

    2. Re:Not very impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll tell you, the cloud blob glow really sucks, but it's pretty amazing to see depending on how far south you are. I've lived in Yellowknife, which is at about 62 degrees north latitude. For months on end, the sky is lit up with aurora, but the strongest nights are the ones where the entire sky turns red and multiple sheets of white-blue, green, pink/purplse seem to originate from one spot and dance and sing around the sky. Yes, they do make sound sometimes too... simply amazing when you see the proper ones.

  7. As far South as WHERE? by PingXao · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With all those recent CMEs I've been scanning the skies at night for a couple of weeks now. At least the clear nights. I'm in the Northeast U.S. and I sure as hell didn't see any auroras. That was one of the things I was specifically looking for. I think the mention of visible auroras as far south as Florida is hogwash. Is that just something the OP made up for effect or did it actually somehow get that far south unnoticed by just about everyone in the Northeast?

    1. Re:As far South as WHERE? by shfted! · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it did actually make it that far. I have a friend who saw them easily in IN, and FL is hardly much further south.

      You can monitor current auroral activity here.

      You probably failed to see the lights due to the intense light pollution on the eastern seaboard, which is also the reason why there are no major observatories in the eastern states.

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    2. Re:As far South as WHERE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a friend who saw them easily in IN, and FL is hardly much further south.

      uhh...

    3. Re:As far South as WHERE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      couldn't find florida in here. I'm still sceptical.

    4. Re:As far South as WHERE? by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1
    5. Re:As far South as WHERE? by shfted! · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the difference between IN and the north pole versus FL and the north pole is not that great.

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    6. Re:As far South as WHERE? by PingXao · · Score: 1

      That's the same site I was monitoring while the CMEs were hurtling our way last week. None of the blue shaded area in the graphic ever went any further south than where it is right now, which as best as I can make out is ~Roanoke VA. Whenever I checked it wasn't even as far south as it is now (maybe I should check tonight!) That graphic never showed anything remotely close to the 0.1 level over the NY area. I suppose you could be right about the light pollution thing. We did have 1 night of good viewing in August. During the blackout.

      Apart from the light pollution, I thought the major reason that there aren't any major observatories was because there aren't any really high mountains. Except for the White Mountains, maybe.

      One of the things I want to do someday is see the aurora borrealis. I'd settle for australicus (sp?) too :) I always had the impression that they were spectacular, and I always assumed they would be bright enough to cut through even heavy light pollution. If not, then I suspect when I do finally see them they won't come close to meeting my expectations. Anyway, thx for the 411.

    7. Re:As far South as WHERE? by shfted! · · Score: 1

      If you have the chance, go to the north in the winter sometime. Perhaps on an Alaskan cruise near the end of the cruise season. You will see them in the continental states, but only when massive flares happen.

      If anything, their beauty is worth standing outside in sub-zero weather!

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
  8. Useful, I guess by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    if only to the power and comms companies. Always useful to know more about what affects you.

    I'm not sure there's much they can *do* about solar flares though, I mean, talk about force of nature! Volumes of incandescent plasma the size of the planet being ejected are always going to be tough to deal with!

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  9. Nice map, bub. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did not know that Alaska was just north of Washington.

  10. Let me see... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    We have been monitoring the sun from satellites for 40 years. We have been observing the sun with telescopes for a little over 400 years. Our collective experience with the Sun might be about 40,000 years.

    And we think we really understand this object that has been generating energy for 4 billion years through a process we are only now developing theories about. Lets have some humility humanity!

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    1. Re:Let me see... by fermion · · Score: 1
      I agree. Imprecise language, especially when used in science, is horrible.

      Key parts of the text would be better written
      It has been observed over several cycles that the peak of solar activity trail trails the sunspot cycle peak...
      and
      ... but this BBC article appears to provides a hypothesis of how.

      This would more clearly indicate that we have made observation that provide a possible cause and have developed a theoretical link between he cause and effect. Furthermore, the hypothesis can be used to predict future events to test it's validity

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:Let me see... by AmigaAvenger · · Score: 1
      speaking of monitoring, I just came across a site for any amateur astronomers who want to read what others are observing...

      http://www.observingthesky.org

      Great site, seems to have a fair amount of information regarding the recent solar flares also.

    3. Re:Let me see... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but big and shiny as it might be, the sun isn't nearly as complex as for example a fruit fly or a nematode.

      Of course, we are a long way from really understanding them.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  11. Aurora is so beatiful and here is the HOWTO by Pingo · · Score: 5, Informative

    This very radiant natural lightshow is mostly enjoyed by people living far north where there is no streetlights obscuring the show.

    However in recent weeks there has been very strong aurora far south and if you would like to know when it's time for a great show, check this NASA webpage http://sec.noaa.gov/rt_plots/satenv.html

    The last plot with the 'Estimated Kp' is what to look for. When the number is around 9, then there is great Aurora to be seen if the sky is clear and no streetlights around.

    If you live far north, then you might see Aurora with lesser values of this Kp index. Red bars in the plot is needed however. //Pingo

    --
    --- Linux or FreeBSD, it's like blondes or brunettes. I like both. ---
    1. Re:Aurora is so beatiful and here is the HOWTO by barakn · · Score: 1
      check this NASA webpage http://sec.noaa.gov/rt_plots/satenv.html. The last plot with the 'Estimated Kp' is what to look for. When the number is around 9, then there is great Aurora to be seen if the sky is clear and no streetlights around.

      Even when the Kp is 9 or 10, aurora are not guaranteed. A previous poster had a link to a much better page, which is an actual map of the aurora over the Northern hemisphere. That page is linked from this page, which has links to both hemispheres, 'movies', higher-res current estimates, and slightly older plots.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  12. Illuminati by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Funny

    It has nothing to do with sunspots, really. Those student riots and wars are somehow triggered by the Illuminati and the Gnomes of Zurich having their global conventions on the exact same day, which only occurs every 21 years.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Illuminati by bj8rn · · Score: 1
      Those student riots and wars are somehow triggered by the Illuminati and the Gnomes of Zurich having their global conventions on the exact same day, which only occurs every 21 years.

      So are the sunspots.

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    2. Re:Illuminati by barakn · · Score: 1

      No. The sunspot cycle is 11 years.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    3. Re:Illuminati by bj8rn · · Score: 1

      That's what they want you to think.

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
  13. yeah... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    Always remember, correlation =! causality.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  14. First Experience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hey Ogg, look! That big red thing is back again!"

    1. Re:First Experience! by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      "Ugg, no, it's Yellow."

      (Ogg hits Ugg in the head with a stick)

      "It's RED!"

      (Ugg hits Ogg in the head with a rock.)

      "It's YELLOW!"

      (Both look up)

      "Many pretty colors. Ogg say Red and Yellow."

      "Ugg say Red and Yellow"

      "Ogg say Orange you glad we can agree."

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:First Experience! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      "Actually it only seems red at the horizon because of the refraction of light due to the bending effects of the atmosphere."

      (Ogg and Ugg look at each other, nod, then beat proto-Poindexter to death with sticks and rocks.)

      Science, The Early Years.

  15. Sunset - politicians - war by Morgaine · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you're searching for the motive force behind wars, I think you're looking at too long a period of fluctuation in the 11-year sunspot cycle, because the relevant periodicity is a 24-hour one.

    The sun goes down, people engage in a spot of fun hanky panky, a politician is born, and you have wars. Pretty simple, very accurate, and as predictable as night follows day, which indeed it does.

    QED :-)

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:Sunset - politicians - war by the_consumer · · Score: 1

      I have it on good authority that day follows night. Your theory has been blown to pieces!

      --
      "If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
  16. Small Office Home Office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're stll using a SOHO satellite? They could have learned a lot more if they had upgraded to a larger enterprise class solution. Hmm, enterprise .. catchy!

  17. A Basic Knowledge of Sunspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Those who live and work in the high latitudes - such as in those few sources the US has where there is oil pay a lot of attention to sunspots. Communication disruptions are the biggest problem. Much more rare are power failures - but they have been known to bring down entire power grids. In 1986, British Columbia had a huge power failure. Not all the evidence is in about the recent East coast power outage - They still haven't determined what caused the lines to overheat in the first place - The Ohio company appears to have made mistakes - but they may also just have been trying to keep up with too much demand on the grid all day. Solar flares affect the grid in unexpected ways. That's one of the many reasons they're being watched so closely.

    I've probably seen the aurora 300-400 times. It is one of the beautiful things to my eye in nature. If it's out, in my experience - it can change in 5 minutes time from close to nothing to wild. Photos don't do it justice - but this site has some movies too, that give just a slight feel of it.

    The BBC article is very simplified - A fairly new technique - called "helioseismic holography" allows astronomers to actually 'look through' the sun to image the magnetic fields of very large sunspots like the present pair (they occur in pairs - corresponding to a north and south magetic pole).
    This present sunspot pair is the largest we've ever measured.

    The particles themselves don't really emit the light - "the electrons that cause auroras do not come directly from the Sun"

    Sunspots can be seen under certain lighting conditions when the sun is rising or setting even with the naked eye.
    Chinese astonomers recorded them long before they were one of the first things that we're recorded by the inventors and early users of the telescope.

    Sunspots - a reduced number of them - have been correlated with cooler weather trends.

    There was about a 70 year period of fairly recent time - 1645 -1715 that apparently saw no auroras - even at high latitudes - kids thought they were mythical stories by the time they appeared.

    The solar flare a few weeks ago was the strongest we've ever measured, and we can expect to see more as that same pair of sunspots rotates around to face Earth.

    The solar eclipse will be tomorrow - there will be some great photos that will come out in the next few days.

    1. Re:A Basic Knowledge of Sunspots by Orne · · Score: 1

      Umm, all the evidence *IS* in on the recent East coast power outage. You could have gone to the NOAA website and pulled up the data on August 14th, and seen that there were no events, and only an early morning warning that day (yes, I know the page is in GMT, blackout was at 16:10 EPT = 21:10 GMT)... it takes about a K-6 on the scale before the utilities even start considering conservative ops, and we check real-time DC amp ratings at various stations for actual indications of SMD events.

    2. Re:A Basic Knowledge of Sunspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The statement wasn't that the blackout had a connection to solar flares - but others have.

      There was an omission in the data about the blackout - widely reported - that the underlying cause of what first caused the lines to overheat and expand in Ohio when they were not operating at peak capacity has not been found. The grid had "unusual stresses" on it that day.

  18. Re:Old tech radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How comes that one never seems to have modpoints when one needs them ;)

  19. Is SOHO really a satellite? by JessLeah · · Score: 0

    It does not orbit Earth.

    1. Re:Is SOHO really a satellite? by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well its a SOLAR satellite.

      --
      Wanted : A Signature.
  20. Re:England loves to mangle sports names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans think they're tough, but in reality are giant pussies. Look at the giant military these people have. And what are they doing with it? Fighting in little pussy wars against half-dead 3rd world countries, then pat themselves on the shoulder because they're so great and stuff.

  21. rtfa? by michiel.h · · Score: 1
    but this BBC article appears to explain why.
    Which roughly translates as:

    I didn't actually read the article, just looked at the pretty pictures and guessed it had something to do with suns and stuff. Or maybe with 20th century impressionism.
  22. 1815-1817? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brazil's independence was not in that range, it was in 1822.

    But then again we hardly see any auroras. Well, maybe in the far, far south...

  23. What?! by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

    An anonymous reader writes

    Is he allowed to do that?

  24. Your point, sir - it doesn't remotely resemble one by slyborg · · Score: 1
  25. I'm no solar physicist but... by kisrael · · Score: 1

    I'm not solar physicist, but it seems like the article is attributing intention to the sun, as if it "wants" to "shed its magnetic skin", like it was a purposeful way of "dealing" with the increasing tension.

    --
    SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    1. Re:I'm no solar physicist but... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with a little anthropomorphizing if you don't take it too seriously? Haven't you ever said, when working on a slow computer, "well, it's got to think about that for a while" or "god, it's being stupid today"?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:I'm no solar physicist but... by kisrael · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with a little anthropomorphizing if you don't take it too seriously? Haven't you ever said, when working on a slow computer, "well, it's got to think about that for a while" or "god, it's being stupid today"?

      Now, I'm all for anthromorphizing in those two examples...it's just another way of summarizing the observed behavior. But if you said "this computer HATES me, that's why it's messing up", then I would think you were being silly. With this article, it's the latter case...implying it's explaining WHY there are so many corneal ejections ("so it can shed its skin") when really it's mixing cause and effect (the ejections may well allow for the flip, but the "need to flip" doesn't bring on the ejections)

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    3. Re:I'm no solar physicist but... by barakn · · Score: 1
      corneal ejections

      Owwwww!!!! My eye!!!!!!

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  26. We can't predict weather either..... by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    but that hasn't stopped some people from claiming that we have managed to cause "global warming". We aren't accurate 30 days out, nor a quarter, yet we are expect to believe we can be accurate 50 to 100 years? We cannot seem to predict the ozone hole! (which isn't there right now...)

    One volcanoe, a bunch of wildfires, or a hurricane does things to the environment we can lay little claim in judging to their fullest extent yet we claim to know our effect?

    As you put it, we don't know jack about that giant shiny object in the sky, let alone all its effects on our planet.

    Man is anything but humble, let alone when some of those men have an ajenda to push. Environmentalist or Corporate love humility, for the other guy.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:We can't predict weather either..... by JDevers · · Score: 1

      We can't predict the WEATHER, as in the day to day flow of air, all that well, but we are pretty good at predicting the CLIMATE, as in the general pattern of temperature and moisture.

      Global warming is definitely more related to climate than weather.

    2. Re:We can't predict weather either..... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Correction: we can't predict the weather, and we simply don't know whether or not we can predict the climate. Your statement is completely ridiculous; we've been seriously trying to predict the climate for, what ten years? These are predictions that are supposed to be for decades or centuries into the future. None of these things have come remotely close to being tested yet. The closest any of them have come to being tested is running several different simulations on the same data and seeing how well they match.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    3. Re:We can't predict weather either..... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      We can't predict the WEATHER, as in the day to day flow of air, all that well, but we are pretty good at predicting the CLIMATE, as in the general pattern of temperature and moisture.

      Actually, we are no better at predicting climate than weather. What looks like "greater accuracy" in predictions is simply the effect of scale. Weather and climate are, essentially, the same things on different scales. "Weather" happens in smaller areas over shorter periods of time. Predicting that the climate on a scale of months is about as accurate as predicting weather on a scale of hours. Both weather and climate are chaotic systems that become totally unpredictable beyond a certain number of iterations in any model. Climate change isn't more predictable, it just happens slower.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:We can't predict weather either..... by SEE · · Score: 1

      Okay, we can't explain the pattern of ice ages, we don't know what caused the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age, and we have yet to find a generally accepted explanation as to why upper troposphere temperature reading badly conflict with surface temperature readings, in defiance of all theoretical models.

      Yet, despite the fact that we can't explain climate, you think we can predict it?

    5. Re:We can't predict weather either..... by RayBender · · Score: 1
      Actually, we are no better at predicting climate than weather. What looks like "greater accuracy" in predictions is simply the effect of scale. Weather and climate are, essentially, the same things on different scales.

      No, that is not true. Weather is a dynamical phenomenon that is "chaotic" in the sense that the variables are exponentially dependent on initial conditions. Climate is the set of variables that describe the statistical behaviour of the weather. There is a big difference: we may not be able to predict the eaxct arrival time of a storm, but we CAN predict the mean temperature in LA over the next six months. Fundamentially, given good measures of the energy flow in and out of a climate system you can predict things like mean temperature, and with some understanding of the fluid dynamics and radiative transfer properties you can predict the variance in the temperature. But you cannot necessarily predict the exact time sequence of those variables (i.e. the weather). This is a critically important distinction, which a lot of people miss (or deliberately misrepresent for political reasons).

      Let me put it a different way: climate is not totally unpredictable, because you know perfectly well that the mean global temperature isn't ever going to be 1000 deg C (until the Sun runs out of fuel, that is). Stated yet a different way, while the exact path in phase space in a chaotic system takes (the weather) is unpredictable, the volume in which the system can move (the climate) is finite, and hence predictable.

      So, what does all this mean? It means that when scientists predict global warming, they can do it with much more certainty than with which they forecast the weather next week.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    6. Re:We can't predict weather either..... by RayBender · · Score: 1
      None of these things have come remotely close to being tested yet. The closest any of them have come to being tested is running several different simulations on the same data and seeing how well they match.

      We can and have compared models to historical records, with good matches (i.e. start the model with historical data up to AD1000, then run for the next 500 years and compare the model output with the actual historical record) . That's prehaps not a pure "prediction", but a model that accurately describes the past probably will do a decent job in the future. I suspect that you just don't want to hear that global warming is a real problem.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    7. Re:We can't predict weather either..... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Historical data is nice, but not terribly fine-grained. I don't think a climate model based on once-a-year temperature and precipitation records like you find in glaciers is going to be all that great. Even disregarding that, it's like successfully predicting the weather for ten weeks, and then saying everything works and you can certainly predict the weather for one more week with good accuracy. Lots of things could change in that last week. We have lots of indications that climate can change rapidly as well, so there's no reason to believe our models are particularly accurate in that respect.

      I have no vested interest in global warming being true or false. But I do get tired of "the sky is falling", when, first, we still don't know why it's happening, second, we have no idea if it's normal, and third, we have no idea if it's a good thing or a bad thing. If you can point me to some good, reliable data that shows conclusively that it's overwhelmingly caused by human activity, and it's going to be a bad thing when it arrives, I'd love to see it.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    8. Re:We can't predict weather either..... by RayBender · · Score: 1
      we still don't know why it's happening, second, we have no idea if it's normal, and third, we have no idea if it's a good thing or a bad thing.If you can point me to some good, reliable data that shows conclusively that it's overwhelmingly caused by human activity, and it's going to be a bad thing when it arrives, I'd love to see it.

      Go read the National Academy of Sciences Report from their working group on climate change. Keep in mind that any politically sensitive report written by a committee of scientists is going to be very, very cautious in any conclusions. Scientists in general are loath to make any definitive statements, because it is in the nature of our training to always expect that we might be wrong (Certainty is for the religions). That being said, the mere fact that many scientists are saying in (for them) pretty strong terms that this is real and that this is a problem should make clear to you how serious this is. As for "overwhelming", well, what do you want - a personal note from God? Go educate yourself and keep an open mind. Learn the physics of radiative transfer and climate models. Understand the scientific method. Don't listen to either Green peace or Fox News but try to determine the truth for yourself. Read the primary litterature, but remember that science at that level is a debate, with people taking both sides. Things like the IPCC and the NAS report are the result of those debates, and it's pretty clear that the majority of scientists are coming down on the side of "global warming is real, mostly caused by us, and will be a problem".

      I take it from your choice of words that you at least acknowledge that it is happening. That's a pretty big step that a lot of "skeptics" refuse to take. As for "why"; if there is one thing that we actually do understand very well, it is the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases on the transport of radiation (heat) in the atmosphere. There is incontrovertible data (google "keeling curve") evidence for increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. You would have to concoct some pretty unlikely scenarios for why such an increase wouldn't result in an increase in temperatures. The fact that we do see the temperature increase coincident with the CO2 increase is a strong indication that they are linked.

      Now, "normal". We do know that current levels of CO2 (and temperature) have not occurred at least in the past 400,000 years (scroll down). There was an interesting review in Science magazine about 3 years ago that showed even more data - but I'm afraid I can't find a WWW link. In any case, we do know that current CO2 levels are not "normal" to the current climate regime, and that the CO2 increase is entirely due to human sources.

      Now for "bad"; we are talking major climate shifts at a rate that we have never before seen in climatological data (ice cores, tree rings, sediment layers), with the possible exception of certain mass-extinction periods (KT, PT etc), where the rates may have been as fast, though it is hard to tell. We're taking a rather delicate, metastable system and giving one helluva horse-kick. This is where there is uncertainty; it might merely be the end of places like Bangladesh, while Canadian farming does ok. Or you might see the Gulf stream shut down and the West Antarctic ice sheet melt. Those are sort of the end-ranges of probable outcomes under the current assumption of a doubling in CO2. Note that if we keep burning coal into the 2100's we are talking about much more than a doubling of CO2. At that point most indications are for very bad things to happen (sea level rise on the order of 10-50 meters) etc. The models, like any work of science, admit uncertainties. But that normal "hedging" is misused by people with a political agenda to try and undermine the science. The fact is that basically all the models show warming; the question is just how much, and

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    9. Re:We can't predict weather either..... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      No, that is not true. Weather is a dynamical phenomenon that is "chaotic" in the sense that the variables are exponentially dependent on initial conditions. Climate is the set of variables that describe the statistical behaviour of the weather.

      Your understanding of the difference between climate and weather are in error. Climate is no less chaotic than weather because it is nothing more than aggregate (usually seasonal) weather data collected over a period of years. Climate is made out of weather.

      There is a big difference: we may not be able to predict the eaxct arrival time of a storm, but we CAN predict the mean temperature in LA over the next six months.

      Sure, you can predict the mean temperature, but it's no more astoundingly accurate a climate prediction to say "it'll likely be cold in the winter" than it is an amazingly accurate weather prediction to say "it'll likely be cold tonight after the sun goes down".

      Let me put it a different way: climate is not totally unpredictable, because you know perfectly well that the mean global temperature isn't ever going to be 1000 deg C

      Saying the temp won't be 1000C isn't prediction; it's being rational about the range of possibility. Saying it might be 1000C next year is as unlikely a prediction as a weather prediction saying it'll go from 19C at 2:30pm to 500C at 2:45pm. Knowing the range is a prerequisite for prediction, not a prediction itself (of course, catastrophic variables like the sun going supernova are discarded at this stage, being 7-sigma events).

      Stated yet a different way, while the exact path in phase space in a chaotic system takes (the weather) is unpredictable, the volume in which the system can move (the climate) is finite, and hence predictable.

      You've got to be kidding. You're saying just knowing (say) what the highest and lowest possible temperatures are from a given initial condition after a given period of time is a valid prediction of temperature? Knowing where the temperature won't be is not the same as accurately predicting where it will be; reason being, as the model advances, the "realm of possibility" expands rapidly. This is where accuracy of the model and its initial starting condition becomes critical. One minor error, over-simplification, or misrepresentation in the model will eventually send it off into the weeds, meaning whatever "prediction" it comes up with essentially worthless. The worst part is, there's no way to "take into account" the unknown values that eventually threw the whole thing out of whack. Chaos always wins.

      So, what does all this mean? It means that when scientists predict global warming, they can do it with much more certainty than with which they forecast the weather next week.

      Hogwash. A non-linear system (climate) that's an aggregate of smaller non-linear systems (weather) cannot be more predictable than those smaller systems. It's a quaint notion of 19th-century Newtonian Determinism that the little errors cancel each other out when you move up to larger scales, but that's not how it works. A slower moving system like climate will take longer than a faster one like weather to deviate from reality in a simulation, but that does not mean it's more predictable-- it's just scaling. here is a simple, concise article on the subject of climate vs. weather prediction. I can find something with more deep science, if you like, but it's a good starting point.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    10. Re:We can't predict weather either..... by RayBender · · Score: 1
      Climate is no less chaotic than weather because it is nothing more than aggregate (usually seasonal) weather data collected over a period of years.

      Again, climate is the set of variables that describe the statistical properties of the weather. Things like the mean and variance of temperature, rainfall, wind etc etc. It could also include the probability distribution of those variables. Even if you can't say exactly what the temperature in LA will be next month, you can give a probability distribution for it. What is so hard to understand about that? Have you never heard of statistical averaging (go look up "central limit theorem")?

      Knowing where the temperature won't be is not the same as accurately predicting where it will be.

      I disagree. Depending on how well you know where the temperature won't be, you can have a good idea of where it will be (if I know it won't be warmer than 21C and it won't be colder than 20C, what do you think I can predict about the temperature?). This is just semantics. 1000C was just pulled out of a hat; we can still use fairly simple physics to rule in a much tighter range than that. To illustrate the point: consider a pot of boiling water. You would have a very hard time predicting the exact flow patterns in the water (non-linear fluid dynamics that are hideously dependent on intial conditions). BUT you CAN predict with a high degree of precision both the time it will take to boil off all the water, and the frequency distribution of e.g. the bubbles.

      reason being, as the model advances, the "realm of possibility" expands rapidly. This is where accuracy of the model and its initial starting condition becomes critical

      I don't think you understand how the modeling is actually done. You run many, many models with a huge range of initial conditions, and you look at the distribution of outcomes. Climate models are not used in the same way as weather models; they are essentially used to "propagate" probabilities forward in time. The exact time-dependent path of the variables is less important, and you are not as sensistive to initial conditions.

      If you had actually read the article you sent me you'd have seen the phrase "attempts to treat climate prediction as an intial value problem will not be successful". That is what you seem to think climate models are, and I'm telling you that they are not. However, it does not necessarily mean that they are less accurate than weather models, as long as you understand what it is you are predicting (probability distributions of variables, not the variables themselves). That being said, as you go forward in time the width of the probability distribution can increase, but it doesn't do it in an exponential fashion, precisely because there are bounds that can be imposed from knowledge of the phyical processes involved, as well as statistical data from the past. The biggest uncertainty in climate models comes from uncertainties on the various phyical prescriptions used in the model (how clouds are treated etc). There modelers rely on using a wide range of presciptions, and factor in the associated range of outcomes in the resulting probability dsitribution.

      Sure, you can predict the mean temperature, but it's no more astoundingly accurate a climate prediction to say "it'll likely be cold in the winter" than it is an amazingly accurate weather prediction to say "it'll likely be cold tonight after the sun goes down".

      But that's not the prediction being made. The prediction is "if you double atmospheric CO2 levels the mean global temperature will rise between 2 and 8 degrees." I would argue that that has about as much certainty as the statement "it will get colder when the Sun goes down" (a fair bet but not necessarily guaranteed).

      A non-linear system (climate) that's an aggregate of smaller non-linear systems (weather) cannot be more predictable than those smaller systems.It's a quaint notion of 19th-century Newtonian Determinism that the little errors cancel each other out when you move up to larger scales, but that's not how it works.

      Wrong. Go look up thermodynamics.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
  27. Re:The purpose of the wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They stole the land, that's why they get attacked. History didn't start yesterday you know.

  28. Cool sun photo at APOD by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

    Another cool sun photo, of the suns corona. The short paragraph also discusses the total solar eclipse tomorrow, sorry for most of us it is southern hemisphere only.

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  29. Sun:Earth correlation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Now that we have this theory relating the sun's surface/coronal activity to the reversing of its magnetic field with a given periodicity, what say we look for a possible analog with the earth. Might there be a relation between surface/atmospheric events on the earth and the reversing of it's magnetic poles (eg. volcanic activity increase, polar ozone hole size increase timing relative to a pole reversal event?) Any armchair scientist care to correlate the solar pole reversal with the longer period of the earth's pole reversals?

  30. these sunspots by ShadowRage · · Score: 3, Informative

    were visible with the naked eye a few weeks back when we had the fires here in southern california, the smoke was so thick, you could still see the sun, but not in its right glory, you could see the big sunspots as shown here: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/

    it was interesting to say the least..

  31. Re:it's an attack by WankersRevenge · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Actually that's pretty funny. For the movie illiterate, it's a reference to Flash Gordan and the destruction of the earth via. manipulated natural events.

  32. Re:Your point, sir - it doesn't remotely resemble by JessLeah · · Score: 1

    Actually, I'm not a 'sir'.

  33. They did not steal the land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They stole the land, that's why they get attacked. History didn't start yesterday you know."

    They did not steal it. That is another neo-nazi lie. Besides, the anti-semitism and attacks by Muslims predates the modern state of Israel.

    Yes, history did not start yesterday, but your knowledge of apparently does. Stop reading Mein Kampf.

  34. Accelerated Solar Aging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So with this new understanding of regular ejections of billions of tons of matter from the sun, does anyone know if scientists are changing their minds about how long the sun will still last?

    The reason I ask is because apparently gravity created by the mass of the sun is roughly equivalent to the outward expansive force caused by the fusion reaction going on inside. If the mass is decreasing more rapidly because of these regular shedding events, I'd expect the ETA of our sun going red-giant and consuming the inner planets would be sooner than originally thought.

    1. Re:Accelerated Solar Aging? by PassiveLurker · · Score: 1

      Umm, No. Let's do a couple back-of-the-envelope calculations, shall we?

      OK, assuming the Sun has a density of 1 (which is actually fairly close overall) and a radius of 350,000,000 m:

      Mass = Density * Volume
      = (1000kg/meter-cubed) * (4/3*Pi*(r-cubed))
      = 1000kg * 3.14159 * 1.333 * (350,000,000m)^3
      = 1.8 x 10^29 kg

      Now, I'm not sure which ton they're using, but since this is a BBC article, I'm assuming they mean a megagram.

      So, losing a billion tons (a trillion kg) would be about:
      10^12kg/3.8 x 10^20 kg = 5.6 x 10^-18 solar masses
      = .000000000000000056% of its mass

      Not a whole lot, really.

      Of course, all this is moot, since the actual rate of fusion is actually *governed* by the amount of gravity. The less mass, the less gravity pushes in on the fusion core, the less heat, the slower fusion actually occurs. It all balances out.

      In fact, the life of the sun would be lengthened by removing mass, as smaller cooler stars (red dwarfs) burn much, much longer than larger ones. Think slowly smoldering cinder versus raging bonfire - which uses up its fuel quicker?

  35. Lexicon by TildaBang · · Score: 1

    I've heard that they say "skips rolling" when this type of weather is happening. Can anybody confirm this?

  36. Aurora Sounds by tkw954 · · Score: 1
    I come from a dark part of Canada and I remember a winter, about '96 or '97, that had awesome northern lights almost every night.

    On a few nights, you could hear them making a crackling sound, keeping time with the visuals. It was one of the most eerie things I've experienced.

    Anyone else heard the aurora?

    1. Re:Aurora Sounds by PassiveLurker · · Score: 1

      This is a suprisingly common phenomenon, which many people have tried to explain to some avail.

      The key lies in noticing that the sounds are, as you mention, timed perfectly with the visuals. As the aurora occurs about 60 miles up, if this were really the sound of the aurora itself it would come at least 5 minutes later. (5 secs per mile, at least at STP, which it isn't that high up).

      So...current theory has it that the aurora is producing radio waves which travel the speed of light, which produce electric fields at ground level. The same way that static electricity will cause things to move and crackle, so too this happens when the local electric field is altered. Usually anything really dryed-out will work - pine needles, leaves, even dry hair.

      One thing that might confirm this - the sounds that you have heard - did they occur on very dry nights, e.g. when it's extremely cold out?

    2. Re:Aurora Sounds by tkw954 · · Score: 1
      One thing that might confirm this - the sounds that you have heard - did they occur on very dry nights, e.g. when it's extremely cold out?

      That's exactly right; -30 degrees C in a stubble field on the prairies. Absolute humidity of approximately zero.

    3. Re:Aurora Sounds by ear2ground · · Score: 1

      I worked in the Arctic - I listened for this since I read of this.
      I wasn't sure... One night - very cold - like described, but there was little around to interfere with - it was pretty much hard packed snow - and I could only get a little away from camp where it was noisy.
      Inconclusive.
      I just heard from someone who said they *heard* the recent aurora on a PA system.

      --
      Subduction leads to orogeny
  37. Re:Your point, sir - it doesn't remotely resemble by slyborg · · Score: 1

    That was a gender and genus-neutral 'sir' :-) In case you are, perhaps, a cat.