Slashdot Mirror
Solar Cycle 24 Has Started
radioweather writes "Solar physicists have been waiting for the appearance of a reversed-polarity sunspot to signal the start of the next solar cycle. As of Friday, that wait is over. A magnetically reversed, high-latitude sunspot emerged on the surface of the sun. Just a few months ago, an 'All Quiet Alert' had been issued for the sun. This reversed-polarity sunspot marks the beginning of the sun's return back to Solar Maximum.
Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to competing forecasts on whether it will be a highly active or a quiet low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of validity for some CO2 based global warming theories. Only time will tell."
Reversed polarity? These scientists have seen too much Star Trek.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Everyone knows that the last time there was some kind of reversal of polls on the Earth, the entire world lost electrical power for thousands of years and the whole planet was shattered into pieces!! We're lucky that gravity pulled it all together again and that electricity was discovered by Thomas Jefferson a few hundred years later. I think this is a sign of the creator's anger because we're all talking about man having come from monkeys instead of the real truth of Intelligent Design. It's a warning. If we don't get evolution theories out of the schools and replaced with science fact soon, he'll make more reversed spots on the sun and it will shatter into pieces. I don't think we'll survive that this time.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
It's tetryons, you insenstive clod.
That's why they started using the new term "climate change". If it gets cooler, they'll say "see, the climate is changing". They'll come up with some weather model that predicts a short-term cooldown but a long term warming. Either that or they'll use a different set of data to say that the warming is happening and that cooling is an illusion.
Just watch, when billions are at stake, dis-crediting will prove incredibly difficult.
Does this mean I will finally get some interesting stations on my new shortwave radio?
Let me guess.
You're part of the "9-11 Truth" committee... you think HIV doesn't cause AIDS... you think MMR vaccine causes autism... and your presidential candidate of choice is Ron Paul.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
> You're part of the "9-11 Truth" committee... you think HIV doesn't cause AIDS... you think MMR vaccine causes autism... and
> your presidential candidate of choice is Ron Paul.
Let me answer. I think 9-11 truth is a bunch of crock. I do think HIV causes AIDS. I think autism is genetic and I support Clinton and McCain (registered Democrat, btw). I'm going to make a guess here and say that you're an incredibly poor guesser and very quick to jump to opinions. That means you're either a liberal Democrat or an extreme conservative Republican, but given the AIDS/Ron Paul remark, I'm going to guess that you're a liberal Democrat and a troll.
Ha... there are those wacky global-warming-denialists everywhere. A couple of days ago one of them in a Finnish newsgroup tried to use the National Geographic "polar bears of Finland threatened by global warming" blunder to advance his cause... I have even seen people claim that that the greenhouse effect does not exist.
wikipedia: The Earth's average surface temperature of 15 C (59F) is about 33 C (59 F) warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
try writing the intro a bit better, spaz...
Homo Sapiens Americanus--A documentary in p
My wife's starting menstrual cycle #288, and lemme tell you, no "cycle" is fun.
Actually, 'climate change' is preferred instead of 'global warming' since it's very much possible that, while the average worldwide temperature is expected to increase, the temperature could decrease in some locations (Example: Gulf stream slowing down causing Europe to become colder)
Join the anonymous, help develop the network: http://www.i2p2.de
No, scientists use the term "global climate change" because it more accurately describes what may happen in the future than "global warming." Yes, on average the surface of the earth has been getting warmer globally, but it does not mean the entire world will just experience slightly warmer summers and winters. Just a few degrees centigrade has the ability to change ocean currents, wind patterns, and other natural events that regulate our climate.
If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of validity for some CO2 based AGW theories.
There are no more theories to test about carbon dioxide and its effects on global warming, are there? Al Gore and my local talk radio station both say 'the debate is over' and Al got the nobel prize for saying that, plus he invented the internet.
... doesn't someone make a cream for that?
what does this mean for radio propagation for the next year or few years? good or bad propagation? lots of RFI?
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
There is no good scientific evidence linking MMR to autism, or even decent circumstantial evidence supporting such a link. Most of the experiments claiming to indicate such a link have been thoroughly discredited, and the theories claiming to explain the possible cause and effect are mostly junk, too. Case in point: you posted a link to a video about thiomersal, a mercury-based compound used in some vaccines (presumably thiomersal, anyway, as I only read the blurb to verify it was the standard "evil mercury" story). Despite there being no convincing evidence of a link between thiomersal and autism either, is often implicated in the stories about how MMR causes autism. The problem is the MMR vaccine does not contain thiomersal, and indeed never has, so the attempts to explain one in terms of the other is baffling.
Actually, if you want to avoid the junk science and understand what real scientists trained in this field (not politicians, TV weather forecasters, sociologists and the other under-qualified catastrophic climate-change proponents) believe, the CGD Climate Research is a good source and is very relevant to this solar cycle post.
There are several coefficients they explain that are relevant to the earth's warming and cooling cycles. Also, be sure to read up on what real science has confirmed through ice core samples, helping us understand that CO2 lags, not leads, the warming cycles. As most peer reviewed studies have explained, you cannot have a cause-effect condition where A causes B when B follows A. This is called "correlation without causation" - yes, B and A are seen together a lot but causation cannot be established. It's like saying car accidents cause drunk driving because the two are so often found together. Most of the populist global warming information preys upon this intentional mix-up, either to further specific individuals research funding or provide a public stage. In a sense, you can't blame Al Gore too much - it's provided a hefty meal ticket and a peace prize for him.
But for those interested in objective science and getting to real answers about climate change (yes, there is lots of it!), solar cycles, earth orbit and axis tilt cycles, and cooling effects from exogenous events (asteroid impacts, supervolcano eruptions, etc.) have been demonstrated to provide overwhelmingly strong coefficients to climate variability and geologic change.
It'll take a miracle to get politicians and environmentalists of the global warming bandwagon; it's the perfect pretext to further their agendas. Well, a miracle, or half a decade of moderate weather. Remember how fast the fears of an oncoming ice age melted under a few warm summers?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
And I'm gonna guess you have no sense of humour and wouldn't recognize a joke if it stood up and slapped you.
If it is one thing we have learned from global warming is that sometimes it can lead to brief periods of global cooling - A Quote from a Global Warming Documentary
Lets just be honest shall we in saying that even after all the huge amount of data we have collected we know very little about what is going to happen as we move forward... Our arrogance in actually thinking we have control over what is going on I find quite interesting. Meaning, to me it is kind of like the 21st century version of the pope trying to explain why the black plague was occuring and what to do about it...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
NOT off topic. it means worked all states from his house using low power- easier when you have sunspots.
Anthromorphic would mean that it's man-shaped. Anthrogenic (caused by man) is the word you seek. Geeks should know more Greek.
You sound like a creationist who tries to shelter his fantasy against reality by claiming that scientists are just trying to discredit religion so they won't have to go to church.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
...because 95% of slashdot-reading geeks have no connection to the Lunar cycle. :)
Could this be the start of the "You must believe in manmade global warming like we do, or you're some sort of nutjob" argument?
Nice.
If you are a climate change skeptic, please spend a few days researching AIDS dissidents - you might find their research compelling. Google AIDS dissidents or AIDS rethinkers, and The Perth Group. The former AIDS researcher Rebecca Culshaw is also a very interesting place to start.
I am constantly disheartened when AIDS dissent gets lumped in with 9-11 conspiracy theories.
Well, my part of Europe (Netherlands) is definitely not growing colder. 12 years ago I moved from the middle of the country to the east part (Enschede, near Gronau). Back then winters with temperatures below -15 were not rare. We also used to have BIG thunderstorms with a LOT of rain falling in a short time. The sky would turn green before the rain, which was a sight to see. Now we have more rain but spread out over a lot of small showers. When there's snow (a normal occurrence in the years before the 1990s) the whole country is in turmoil, and last week, when temperatures were a tiny bit below freezing the weatherman kept going on about it being so very cold outside! The weather sure has changed a lot in the 12 years I live here.
But that's not all. I just read a book about the development of the Netherlands in the Industial Age. Amazing: we had to use icebreakers almost every year because the big rivers froze all the way up to very near the German border! I never have experienced that in my lifetime.
-- Cheers!
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Let's hope for all our sakes that McCain and Clinton never run on the same ticket!
-- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
Facts from this OpEd:
2007 was predicted to be warmest ever
The world grew bitterly cold in 2007
Snow for the first time in 89 years in Buenos Aires
Snow in Daytona Beach
Chile saw worst winter in 50 years
Australia has coldest June ever
New Zealand's vineyards lost most of 2007 harvest due to record cold spring
44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire breaking over 120 years of records
Canada is predicting the coldest winter in 15 years
"Greenhouse gas" CO2 levels are up 4% since 1998 but temp remained flat
Dissenting views have been dismissed - seems like religion to me
Debate isn't over
I really, really feel bad for you. Not only for this post, but also for all your other replies to this article.
Have fun in your reality.
And I am constantly disheartened when I hear of this bullshit... even more painfully so, given my experience in the field of virology and immunology research.
Actually, I find "AIDS dissent", as you call it, far far more disturbing than the "9-11 Truth" conspiracy. At least in the case of "9-11 Truth", there remains at least SOME possibility for at least SOME of the minor claims of the conspiracy theorists. The case of "AIDS dissent" on the other hand, is rather similar to "gravity dissent".
P.S. As with any AIDS/HIV conspiracy theorist, I have a standing offer: inoculate yourself with 10X ID50 of purified HIV, and if you get a productive infection, but don't get AIDS, you get all my property, and the entire contents of my bank account... and I will quit biological science research. Deal?
1 - The earth is getting warmer on average (probable, even though temperature statistics alone fail to significantly indicate this as yet)
2 - CO2 levels are up (very certain).
3 - CO2 is the leading cause for this temperature increase (uncertain, some have suggested solar activity, and others suggest that increased CO2 is the result of an increasing temperature rather than the cause of it. It could be both cause and effect as well)
4 - CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels are a significant factor in the temperature increase (this seems likely if (and that's a big if) point 3 turns out to be true.
You cannot simply say that since most scientists agree on point 1, they therefore agree on points 2-4 as well. But that's exactly the sort of sloppy reporting we see so often on TV. The IPCC report did the same thing by the way: the science itself in the report is reasonably sound, but the summary and conclusion draw some rather wild and rash conclusions from the data. There was some last-minute "political" editing going on to make things seem more dire, and more certain, than the research actually indicated. This is why a bunch of scientists who collaborated on the IPCC report did not stand behind it when they read the conclusion. By no means do 99.9% of the experts in the field agree on point 3, not even close.
I stand by my previous statement: while we may be the actual cause of global warming, most of the debate is political rather than scientific, and scientists are not nearly as unanimous in their conclusions as is suggested in the media.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I call bullsh** on your post.
Are you implying that 99.9% of scientists agree with manmade global warming? News Flash: Desperate cries of a few scientists saying that "the science is closed" need to be heavily run through the bullsh** filter. It just smells bad.
The real global warming reason revealed!! ha
Didn't Coast To Coast deal with this last night? They Did! http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2008/01/05.html#recap
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
Actually it is the Mercury based preservitives in the MMR vacine that causes autism due to it accumulating in the brain.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
Brace yourself for a propaganda deluge from climate change denialists now that solar activity IS actually increasing (at least as part of its usual cycle). Never mind that solar activity has trended downwards since 1980, and yet we have experienced the most significant GLOBAL warming since then, including the shocking drop in arctic sea ice this fall. Climate change denialists know no shame.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
"I am constantly disheartened when AIDS dissent gets lumped in with 9-11 conspiracy theories."
Why!?!? They both contain the same amount of bullshit. I've got plenty of friends who would be glad to help you prove that HIV doesn't cause AIDS; you can share some needles with them or the like and later write to us and explain to us how the government slipped AIDS into your milk or the like.
If you'd heard all the asinine "causes" of AIDS I heard in the 1980's, you'd see why we're fine with using Occam's Razor in your case as well.
Just out of curiosity, are you a vegan/vegetarian?(no flame intended...I'm truly curious though I won't tell you why without an answer)
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
In regards to climate change, this statement is the most reasonable one I've heard:
By this criterion, carbon credits and taxes are a distraction from the real problem.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
How do they know this is cycle number 24 ? The sun has been going for over 4.5 billion years, so it must have had millions of cycles...
Me, I think this is Y2K over again but far larger and we can't just stay up over night to get it done by the deadline. We saw Y2K coming and it wasn't an issue until a few years before the deadline. Naturally, when we averted most problems the activists got no glory and instead were thought of as confirmed alarmists.
The world will not get it this time and we will just be lucky if the nicer projections become the future instead of the worst case ones. We shouldn't have gotten this close to the wire in the first place... Naturally, I'm sure some have been waiting or procrastinating (like consultants waiting so they can charge more; management procrastinating or just uninterested.)
A crisis is a great opportunity and the powerful people of the world are talented at exploiting such situations; they don't need to create them most of the time. Just because its exploited does not mean it doesn't exist. Now the US SS system going under, that is a manufactured crisis (FYI its just fine even if you don't fix any of it; going into national debt for a while is an option nobody dares to mention.)
Governments are guilty until proven innocent and any well designed government is based upon that precept; problem is that the citizens foolishly apply the opposite precept which is for the criminal justice system not for government.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Isn't there a prerequisite for a joke to be funny and not some disguised brush off as a wacko?
I might have to update my "remember to laugh" book here. Please tell me if i am wrong.
I have read a lot about mercury being linked to Autism. I remember reading something about a guy who was doing mercury decontamination to children with some positive effects*wasn't a complete cure but reduced the symptoms quite a bit). He was eventually jailed and lost his medical license because none of the treatments were FDA approved.
I think the mercury and lead links to autism have almost vanished since then. I wish I could remember his name.
So even your short-term statistical anecdotal evidence supports one of the skeptics' theories.
I won't even bother with your misleading arctic ice assertion, because I'm sure you won't care. Anthropogenic catastrophic global warming is no less a hoax than 9-11 truthers, HIV not causing AIDS, vaccinations causing autism, the "staged" moon landing, UFOs, intelligent design, and Rusty from K5 being Cowboy Neal's secret gay lover...
Ooops, I wasn't supposed to let that one out yet.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
Because it's convenient. Just as with the arbitrary number for the UNIX epoch, the Carrington rotation number, the NOAA active region numbers, and the solar cycle number are just sequential starting at an arbitrary time.
(okay, ARs cycled at 10,000 in 2002 so it's only 4 digits, but it's still a sequence)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Really, because that proof is a statistical one. Let's make two assumptions: measles causes autism in susceptible children and the damaging part is not deactivated in the measles vaccine; all children catch measles because it is so common. Result: vaccinations cause susceptible children to become autistic. However, the stats say there has been no change in the overall rate of austism. Yet we started this with a clear link between them. Well, we left out the time frame part of vaccination to autism but, hey, so do all the studies because they looked at whole populations in general and not individuals in short time frames. Result: individuals being damaged but overall no change. The thing I hate about statistics being quoted is that depending on what question you ask can get you a different result and most of the time you never see the question just the headline. Statisics does not disprove all links just like that, it only disproves the link you questioned.
Solar Irradiance verses Sunspots..
Ouch.. in a couple of years the Sun is going to add another 0.3 of Watts/m^2 to the Earth's energy imbalance problem!
With any luck the AGW deniers will finally get a clue !
Umm... is that why the Bush administration decided to remove every reference to manmade global warming, as well as projections of all negative effects of global warming from the last NOAA (or whatever it's called) reports? They were just correcting for the bias of the scientists that would receive so much money ($ 0.00) if they falsified the report to say that humans are causing global warming and that it will bite us in the ass?
Your post was off topic, but I have to reply.
You must have an office on K Street, and get frequent visits from the pharmaceutical companies. The evidence I've seen showed that thimerosal was indeed added to MMR and other childhood vaccines in the 90's and into the 2000's, and IS STILL IN SOME FLU VACCINES. It took public outcry and state government intervention to get thimerosal removed from childhood vaccines. While research has shown that the MMR and other vaccines themselves do not cause autism, science HAS proven that mercury does cripple neuron development. The effects of mercury in a developing brain are not unlike those exhibited by many people diagnosed with autism (everything's developing normally for a few years, then suddenly starts regressing). The mercury may be the trigger for someone who's at risk of autism.
The previous link seems to come from an organization with an agenda, and leaves opportunity for suspicion. This one, however http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDnfeIwd0wI, is from University of Calgary. While their research was based on "safe levels" of mercury-based amalgams used in dentistry, the effects of mercury on the brain cannot be disputed. I doubt they have much bias other than to progress research.
It was funny because it was a brush off of a wacko. Of course, if you are the same sort of wacko, it won't be funny. But evidently enough people with mod points aren't 'no-such-thing-as-human-caused-climate-change' wackos to get the joke modded up. Doesn't that just piss you off?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Okay, so show us the data from a reputable source like the NOAA showing the trend in low level cloud cover. Should be simple to test that theory.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I did a bit if web reading on how magnetograms are made. It appears they use the polarity of light itself to determine the magnetic field on the surface. At first I had a silly vision of a bunch of tiny magnets on sticks "pointing" to different parts of the sun, like magnetic pixel detectors. But one cannot really "aim" magnets like that.
But isn't the polarity of light at any given spot composed of an intensity of polarity and an angle, 1 to 180 degrees since its bipolar? But they seem to use only black and white for the "angle". Shouldn't they assign colors to each of the 180 possible angles? What does black and white correspond to? I need some education here.
Table-ized A.I.
Ok, so it's volcanoes, but what caused that magma to get so hot smarty-pants?
I used to volunteer with Earth First, and let me tell you how it works. We scare the piss out of everyone, get them to donate billions of dollars, and spend all the money on hookers and blow. Pretty much standard operating procedure in liberal activist circles, don't you know.
I mean, it's not like any of us were dirt poor, living out of our cars, and dumpster diving for food. Nope, we were all trust fund babies with millions in the bank who just wanted to piss off our rich industrialist parents. This whole global warming thing is just an overblown case of teenage rebellion.
(The scary thing is, people really believe that.)
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
British NHS hospitals have QUIETLY phased out or phasing out Thermosol (Mercury based preservitives) because of the MMR and Autism link.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
Then let's have somebody explain Milankovitch cycles and their effects on climate change.
When they've done that "global warming" might have a bit more credibility IMO.
The Machine stops.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Much of what you say flies in the face of what I've heard from reputable sources. Can you back up your claims please? (Preferably without referring to a right-wing blog)
You say that the IPCC report draws 'rather wild and rash conclusions from the data': is that your opinion, or the opinion of someone with qualifications? Because I've read the exact opposite: that the IPCC was deliberately cautious in their conclusions.
You say that 'a bunch of scientists who collaboration the IPCC report did not stand behind it when they read the conclusion'. How many is 'a bunch'? Keep in mind that thousands of scientists were involved with the project, ranging from reviewers to authors. You say that some did not stand behind the conclusion: do all dissenters think the report blamed human CO2 emissions too strongly, or do some feel it did not go far enough?
The dispute is not over the basic science, but over the degree of effect we are having. No one disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere: the only dispute is over how much of an effect that is having on the atmosphere. Given that there is no way to give an exact answer to that question (due to the uncertainty inherent in computer models), at some point we have to agree on a best guess and go with that. That's what the IPCC represents to me: a consensus (so far as one can be reached) on our best guess.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
Ok for the past 10 years, the sun has been on a steady decline in activity and this point in time marks the increase in it's activity? So if the solar theory of global warming is true shouldn't we have seen a reduction in global temperatures in the past 10 years? instead of a increase?
Yes, it is. Well, I'll actually give you a choice. You're either a nutjob or an oil company shill. The choice is yours!
Have a nice day.
Second, my comment was in regards to the parent assertion that lower activity + increased warming debunks the skeptics' claims. The theory predicts that lower activity would lead to increased warming, so to the extent that his anecdotal evidence is meaningful, which is not much, it would tend to support those claims, not refute them. That was the full extent of the argument I was making, and your response was either negligently or intentionally misleading in mischaracterizing it.
Finally, do you really think that any study I could link to on the web would really lead to a definitive answer all by itself? No, I'm sure you're just looking for opportunities to make rhetorical points. Go find your own evidence from whatever you consider reputable sources.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
I find the 9/11 "truth" movement particularly annoying. They've let themselves get mired in so much hysterical bullshit that they've made a phenomenal smoke screen protecting Bush and Co from their (in my opinion criminally negligent) handling of the event. At the very least, after the first plane went down, the others should have been blown out the sky by fighter planes. There was plenty of time, and it's not like the didn't know which planes were hijacked, but instead Bush just twiddled his thumbs and let the WTC get hit again, directly causing the deaths of thousands of people. By making so many absurd claims they've made anybody saying anything about how 9/11 occurred look like a psychotic, which is disgusting.
Sky Is Falling
While I do believe the climate is changing, and it always has; I also believe it might be for the better.
Case in point. 7000 years ago there was little if any industrial CO2 from mankind. Mostly limited to camp fires and cooking to a very much reduced population count. mankind's influence was very small.
The fact remains ice caps since then have grown but have recently begun melting. That is since 7000 years ago when life was more diverse (and warmer) many glaciers and ice caps didn't exit. Now even if you don't agree with carbon dating because it is too abstract for your brain, look at this link below.
And if junk science Suzuki or Gore (pretty quiet right now) beg to differ, I would love to hear their rational explanation for 7000 year old tree stumps under glacial receding ice. For if that ice was meant to be permanent, it would carbon date many millions of years, not 7000.
7000 year old tree stumps under glacial flows
To me, warming is welcome. Many fish will grow larger in Northern and Southern lakes and more habitual land will result. Maybe even in time ferns will once again grow in Alaska.
Perhaps you should ACTUALLY READ the article I linked to. That article, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A by Mike Lockwood of Rutherford Appleton Laboratories (ever heard of Rutherford?) discounts ANY significant solar influence on the warming that has occurred since 1980. The article gives data on both absolute energy output, and cosmic ray flux. All of the solar parameters, including cosmic ray flux trend in OPPOSITE DIRECTION NEEDED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECENT WARMING. Why don't you read the information I post before trying to unethically disseminate your misinformation.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
I don't believe anyone is denying that there are natural non-man-made temperature cycles; that has minimal bearing on the fact that in addition to those we're having a massive effect on the climate. Pointing to a natural cycle doesn't somehow "prove" that we're not, it's not as if it's one or the other.
Whatever happened to science being about questions and answers and not some popular vote on how we worship this week? There is plenty of evidence suggesting that humans might not be the entire (sole) cause of global warming and there is plenty of it suggesting that we aren't the defining factor in it. No, what pisses me off is that people like you think you have found your holy grail and want to stop everyone else from looking. This is the most unscientific thing that could come from a group of people that claim science to the be basis of their beliefs and the answers to their problems. It actually takes a lot of scientific interpretations over to the religious like faith side of arguments. And you want to pretend that your interpretations of things are somehow better then everyone else's so they are wackos too incompetent to understand your positions and undeserving the entertainment of their own.
Three fourth the science behind global warming and humans being the cause of politically motivated. All the answers presented thus far stem with the desire to limit first world countries and promote third world countries by either direct payments or investments in infrastructure and industrial development. If someone as bright as you is completely convinces this isn't a scam of some sorts, fine. but what you want to believe and the evidence doesn't equal the same things. Keep your beliefs as solid as you want in something we actually know very little about. Keep on denying the chance that something you believe in could be wrong. Continue to act like a religious zealot in your beliefs and cast all non believers off as wackos not worthy of your cult. It doesn't bother me one bit at all. But it does make me think that there is a scam afoot more then ever.
BTW, I have some swamp land in Nevada for sale if your interested. It isn't swampy right now but it should be in the next couple hundred of years and you should be able to get some good productive use out of it between now and then. Assuming that your beliefs are true that is.
That supports their hypothesis though, since they say it's this lack of solar activity that has caused more cosmic rays to hit earth which in turn causes global warming (well i think that's how their hypothesis goes)
You can't resign from the debate because it's been politicized. You can, however, at least use Occam's Razor to figure out which side has more financial and power-related incentive to skew the facts... you can also look at primary literature to get an idea about the science itself, although it's unlikely you'll understand enough to interpret it - I cannot... I may have a graduate degree, but in a different science.
I often think that rense.com subscribers should sterilize themselves. I now resign from any conversation or debate with anyone who is even remotely associated with that site.
There's no one driving SUV's on other planets; how do you account for increased global warming there?
References, plz?
Solar Cycle 24... Is that like Jack Bauer's period? ...you guys are great. I'll be here all week.
Good post.
/. has a 99% male userbase, I find it puzzling.
Funny thing, as I was reading, I assumed you were a woman. Then I re-read it and nothing in it gives a clue either way. Knowing that
*
Warning: From sources I'm too lazy too look up, I hear a very small percentage of people are not susceptible to the HIV virus. Granted the odds are low, but if some resistant bastard takes your money, well that would just suck. Of course if if they all did it...
Your grasp of the Air Force kill chain and command and control (in unprecedented circumstances, no less!) are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
JOIN US FOR PONG!
How much does the oil company shill position pay? Apparently not as good as AGW shill.
JOIN US FOR PONG!
Of course it doesn't prove anything, but when the natural cycles appear to be so much more dramatic than what we're told is our effect, we might expect a higher level of proof before discounting nature's role. And blaming the majority on a single factor in such a complex system should throw up a few red flags of its own.
JOIN US FOR PONG!
why would they compete against scientists? There are plenty of scientists on both sides of the debate. It's the politicians and bureaucrats who want to direct the billions who they'd be fighting against. I'm not arguing that oil lobbyists don't have more influence than is healthy, but so do those working against the oil companies.
Bad for the goose, bad for the gander.
JOIN US FOR PONG!
Tell me, what is rense.com?
I don't want to go there for fear of never talking to you again.
I must admit I haven't read any of the thousands of independent proper scientific papers that keep on showing over and over in multiple different domains and research areas and parts of the world that we have a serious mostly-man-made problem on our hands, so I can't really comment on the details - I presume you've read most of the papers, since you seem to understand how it works and why virtually every single climate model is flawed. Anyway, I nonetheless do think there is cause for at least a fair amount of alarmism (and thus more intense research remains warranted) even if the current global warming is 99.999% natural --- why? Simply because the Earth is now operating under *entirely* different conditions from every previous +/- 100,000 year warming cycle. For example, during the previous peaks, the planet had things like rainforests which very possibly played a huge part in bringing the CO2 back under control each time. Very very shortly (e.g. by 2050), we are going to have effectively no rainforest left ... so the situation is ENTIRELY different to previous peaks, regardless, and we NEED to know how this is going to affect how things pan out. Other examples include a significantly changing ocean ecology (plankton/algae levels etc.).
No matter what, red flags should be going up all over the bloody place, and we must research and understand this thing as best as humanly possible, no matter what is causing it.
Mutation of the CCR5 gene (CCR5 delta 32). The mutation is present in some 10% of Europeans and provides a level of resistance to HIV infection (but not total immunity). The mutation seems to decrease susceptibility to smallpox and bubonic plague, while increasing susceptibility to West Nile virus.
But then again, I could be wrong.
More than likely they'll claim that the planet is cooling down because of their ingenious carbon trading scheme.
Are you a climate scientist? Can you tell me where you got your PhD? If not, then shut the fuck up with your "it's all politically motivated" crap. You are a prime contributor to Slashdot's terrible signal to noise ratio.
Of course not. But that's beside the point. The burden of proof should be on the model makers, and when there are large discrepancies between real world observations and the key outputs of the models (such as their claim that upper atmosphere temperatures should be rising as fast or faster than surface temperatures) cannot be validated, I would tend to take any claims based on said models with large grains of salt.
Or possibly the research showing that while CO2 and temperature are correlated, the rise in CO2 seems to lag the rise in temperature. Given that the main theory is that CO2 causes rises in temperatures (just look at these ice cores!), I think that there is a lot of room for skepticism.
Maybe, but if CO2 doesn't really cause the warming, and it's really just a bunch of plant food, then what's the point? There are also theories that a warmer world would be better, not worse. I don't disagree with this, but we should require extraordinary proof from those who want to cause a lot of damage to the world's economies, including stopping people who are currently mired in poverty from climbing out and improving their standard of living. In my opinion, they haven't come anywhere near that standard.JOIN US FOR PONG!
No, honestly, if there is data showing a trend in upper level clouds, and a theory that explains climate change in terms of solar magnetic flux, I'd love to hear it. You're saying decreased solar heat output means decreased solar magnetic flux, an increase in high level clouds which trap more heat than they reflect, and that the resultant increase in temperature more than offsets the temperature loss from decreased solar output, is that it? Fascinating. You sound quite educated in physics, astrophysics, and climatology. Truly, the debate on global warming is better for the mere existence of intellects such as yours.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Silly you! You forgot to tell us who "those working against the oil companies" are! Obviously, politicians have to be getting their agenda and funding from somewhere. They must be at least as wealthy as Big Oil, and they must hold at least as much power as the United States government. Oh, and they clearly are capable of mind control, rallying the vast majority of climate scientists to their side. Finally, and most absurdly, they must have something HUGE to gain from their intricate and costly conspiracy. Government spending as a result of environmental policy isn't going to scratch the surface of what it must cost to orchestrate such a global conspiracy.
Follow the money and the motivation. Certain people make tons of money off the status quo, and thus have tons of money to throw around to influence the debate and the science. Scientists aren't rich, the liberals you think are trying to scam you aren't rich, and none of them have anything to gain by advancing the idea of global climate change. The people you support, the rich and powerful who would stand to lose the most from any changes to the global economy, they are the ones running a scam. Why are falling for such an obvious ploy? I really doubt you are in the 'rich and powerful' category, and you thus have little to lose if we do change the global economy. The economy won't even shrink, it will grow if we become more efficient and waste less. But certain people will have to pay more of their fair share of the impact that they cause, and they don't want to. They want you to pay for their mistakes, and yet you want to kiss their ass, not kick it. You sir are a grade A chump.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Your mom dropped you on your head a few too many times? That's the only explanation for your shortsighted and illogical statement above.
Ignorance warrants caution. When we have a perfect climate model, we'll know exactly how much pollution is sustainable. Until then we need to be content with managing the risk somehow.
Frankly, I find your claims of economic damage to be alarmist. I have never seen a convincing analysis that concludes that there would be global economic catastrophe on the level you're discussing. I could harry you now by turning your entire post against you, but you get the idea.
I thought 'climate change' was preferred because AWG proponents were tired of the weather not cooperating with their doomsday predictions and they needed to hedge their bets just in case things went the other way. I'm not being cynical. I think THEY are!
The Splintered Mind - Overcoming
There are two separate factors here: the actual heat flux from the sun, and the influence of the sun on the Earth's magnetic field, which can result in changes in the cosmic ray flux. The theory goes that fewer cosmic rays means fewer clouds, which means a warmer climate. What you will find if you read this article published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, is that all of the solar parameters, be they the heat flux from the sun, or the cosmic ray flux trend in exactly the wrong direction to explain the warming since 1985. To quote the conclusion of this article:
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Oh. Snap. Son.
Now you're the one being a lying, shameless propaganda shill.
Solar output HAS increased significantly, and scientists studying global warming DID have to adjust their future climate change estimates by up to 33% to compensate for the discrepancy.
That's no hand-waving, and is undeniably true whether you are a cheerleader or a denier of global warming.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Wow, you linked to an animation. That is definitive proof. I recall seeing similar proof in a feature film much like Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. I believe it was called Ice Age 2. I thought I was already convinced global warming was real after watching that movie but after seeing the animation you linked to I'm just blown away. I'm ready to vote for billions of $ to be invested in technology to prevent natural occurrences from re-occurring.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
HONESTLY, are you implying that the animation of the ice extent is FALSIFIED?!!!! These things are a matter of public record and are splattered all over the web. It has been reported ad nauseam by numerous media outlets, such that any falsification would become obvious because those who have access to the raw data could easily point out the errors. The animation is based on actual satellite measurements; it is not a theoretical prediction. It has already happened.
Additional signature: The neoconservative dream world: A world with no empirical fact, only opinion.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
READ THE EFFING ARTICLE!!!
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Sorry, isn't ice cover currently up a million square kilometres (globally) compared to the average? Of course, as a skeptic (I beg your pardon, "denialist"), I'm far too stupid and evil for anything I say to have value.
Do you have any proof for your claims?
Only some idiots in the USA deny man made global warming. The rest of the world agrees it is happening right now.
Everybody knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 -> higher temperature, plain simple.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
Solar output HAS increased significantly, and scientists studying global warming DID have to adjust their future climate change estimates by up to 33% to compensate for the discrepancy.
No, it has not.
Solar output is at the minimum right now. The magnetic cycle influences the solar intensity only by 1% +/- anyway. Thats much to less to have a significant influence on the climate.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
ROFL,
you are obviously not able to read the graph you posted.
It is winter in the northern hemissphere, ofc RIGHT NOW there is a little bit more ice, if you would look a bit closer to your graph you would see: the amount of ice had a clear down trend as well in its minima as in its maxima from 2003 to 2007. With the absolute minimum in the summer 2007. The current high point is still far away from the historical ones 79, 82, 84 and 98.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"cosmic rays being a major influence on low level cloud formation"
The problem with the cosmic ray theory is that there has not been any increase in cosmic rays over the 30 odd years we have been observing them. In other words how can no change in cosmic rays cause a change in cloud cover?
The implicit assumption of "skeptics" (and I used the term lightly) is that the IPCC has not investigated solar flux. The IPCC attribution graph shows this assumption is false, in fact it shows that the IPCC belives the sun is responsible for roughly a quarter of the warming and humans for more than half.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
None of the Global Warming theories I've seen take into account water vapor which is a great heat sink which holds temperatures up, and the molten core of the planet which also is a major contributor to planetary heating.
Take a look at what most of the alarmists are attempting to do, slow down the world's economy and cause us to agree to 'carbon taxes' collected by the UN.
The US may use a larger part of hydrocarbon based fuel but we feed more millions world wide than any other country. When you want to limit the use of gas and oil in the US, how many millions are you willing to sentence to starvation to do it?
The graph you supplied SHOWS the minimum sea ice extent I was discussing, which happened in the fall of 2007. It then rises again as winter arrives. What the graph does not directly show is the ice thickness. The reason the arctic sea ice reached an extreme minimum this fall was that it was extremely thin relative to previous trends. This summer, there was a cyclical shift in heat flows to the Arctic Ocean that caused the sea ice to melt. These cyclical heating shifts have happened in the past, but previously they have not had much effect on the area of the ice because in the past the ice was much thicker. The accumulated warming of the past decade has resulted in an extremely thin ice sheet that is very vulnerable to melting under the right conditions.
In other words, the area of the ice is less important than its thickness. The shocking drop in arctic sea ice extent this fall is only important in that it indicates that the ice has become thin due to years of warming. The peak ice area that you allude to is likely a huge area of very thin ice, that will melt quickly in the summer.
As for the "denialist" moniker, I define a denialist as a person who distorts facts in order to deny scientific reality. A skeptic, on the other hand simply doubts. Implicit in the term is a search for truth, and a belief that truth is difficult to discover. Skepticism does NOT imply the distortion of facts to convince uninformed people of one's position.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
I'll double that bet if you go first!
The Earth's average surface temperature of 15 C (59F) is about 33 C (59 F) warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.
With wacky conversions like that, people wonder why the US doesn't want to go with the metric system?
Really? Please explain to me why there are HIV positive people who never get AIDS. Please explain to me why there is a syndrome called Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia, or ICL for short, that is clinically identical to AIDS, except for the fact that its victims are embarrassingly HIV negative.
I will gladly inject myself with HIV - if someone can ever produce a vial of purified virus (hint, it's never been done, and never will be done). As for sharing needles, you are aware that some needle sharing programs were halted after those who were participating actually suffered *higher* rates of HIV/AIDS, aren't you? Explain that one. Drug abusers wasted away and died young well before the HIV era.
No I am not a vegan. Does pidgeon-holing people help you deal with claims that you might find otherwise intellectually taxing?
That's very kind of you, but I am quite capable of reading the graph. For one thing, the graph shows global ice coverage, not just the arctic. Is global warming not happening in the antarctic? For another thing, if you think you can see a meaningful trend in four years of data that noisy then I have some homeopathic remedies to sell you. Finally, the global ice coverage in 1998 (to pick one of the years you mention) was considerably lower than it is at present, going by the graph.
Thank you. A useful graph to help keep things in proper numerical perspective.
QRZ DE KG4ULP
A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
Henrik Svensmark is one of the main proponents of the theory that cosmic rays have an impact on climate. Following is a quote from an article by Henrik Svensmark written in May 2000:
Citation: Marsh, N. G. and H. Svensmark. "Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays". Physical Review Letters. 85, 4 (2000).
His ideas involve cosmic ray influence on LOW CLOUDS. In that case, under the theory, fewer cosmic rays imply fewer low clouds, which would imply a warmer climate. This idea has significant weaknesses which are covered here for example. One of the main problems with this idea is that cosmic rays have, since 1985 trended in the opposite direction necessary to explain the warming.
Now you seem to be suggesting that someone has reversed the theory, and now say that cosmic rays influence HIGH CLOUDS?!! Who exactly has made this postulate? Where are your citations? What are the reasons for the switch? Without such information, I have to strongly suspect that what you say comes straight from an oil industry funded PR firm that is responding to growing public knowledge about the science.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
I'm curious. The satellite data only goes back about thirty years, just about enough for a single datum in climate terms. It seems quite a leap to suggest this is unprecedented (my apologies if I have misunderstood you) from the data available. Can you give me a reference to the historical data on ice thickness? What is your evidence for blaming global warming on thinning ice? I thought ice accumulation was due to precipitation, which is supposed to go up with the temperature, not down, according to my understanding of AGW theory.
Something else you might be able to explain for me: looking at this NASA time-lapse film of a year in the life of the arctic, the annual variance in ice coverage is enormous - on the order of six to seven million square kilometres of the stuff appears and disappears every year. How does accumulated warming affect ice that isn't there for nearly half the year?
I'm asking in good faith. I'm not out for a fight.
Regarding the epithet "denialist", can you name any individual who actually deserves it?
Yes, just like the 99.9% of scientists in relevant fields who accept atomic theory, general relativity, and the heliocentric solar system are just doing so to make themselves rich and powerful at the public's expense.
Interstingly atomic theory, general relativity and especially the heliocentric solar system were formulated by individuals against a prevailing and very strong scientific consensus backed up by political and religious interests.
None of them were accepted by a scientific consensus until long after they were formulated.
I can't think of a scientific theory created by consensus.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
This alone isn't reason to refuse acceptance of any evidence, theories or deny any debate or conversation on the matter. The fact is there will always be another side to every argument and not everyone is out to get you even if they seem to be siding with your mortal enemies.
Actually, it doesn't have to be about money. Political ideology is in and of itself just as powerful as religious dogma and as valuable to some as money. I have heard of people dieing for the causes they believe in and they won't collect money or power when they are dead. At the time global warming was first being pushed, there were groups attempting to get the US and other countries to use their influence to forgive the third world debt and it disappeared when the UN came out with the Kyoto accords.
Now if we follow the money and watch the debate, we can quickly see the an unterior agenda on the political side. We have groups sponsored by the UN which BTW was behind part of the forgive the third world debt push who's only goal was to find human causes for global warming. Now this isn't saying that it doesn't exist or that it isn't happening. But it is saying that there is political biases surounding the entire debate including anything coming from the IPCC. If somehow you have been blinded by that bias, I am sorry but you are no longer an objective observer in the debate. That is fine but don't let your prejudices sequester other ideas that might be more right or more wrong. If there is a problem, we won't get to the root causes of it and we will most assuredly miss the solutions. Dismissing dissent as wackos solely because they don't agree with you won't help you case. Before you know it, everyone but you will be a wacko.
Firs of all, what makes you think I support anyone in this? Is it because I called you out on your religiously fanaticism over the subject? I am not with you so I must be against you? And if I am against you I must be siding with your enemy? You have to be careful in your clumsy assumptions. right now it is you looking like the wacko more then the guy who suggested global warming might get a face lift.
And I ask you the same thing. I am willing to listen to the parts of the discusion that make sense. I am willing to listen to the answers that will have a meaningful effect. What I am not willing to do is follow the faith blindly and without questioning the one thing that sticks in my side, why does every question need to be silences as soon as possible? And BTW, there are far more enterprising ways of solving the problem is the human use of fossil fuels are the actual problem other then limiting what developed countries can do in the hope of propping up under developed countries. If dissent is such a scam, then why are these other solutions purposely buried in favor of carbon credits and exploiting third world countries? It would seem to be the scam, at least on the solutions side is what you are supporting. Surely in this modern day and age we can find ways of figuring out how to counter the effects of AGW without transferring wealth or putting severe economic barriers up. I am a simple idiot and I can think of several ways.
Your righ
What worries me is that there are too many people out there who want to use Solar Cycle 24 to tie in with the end of the Mayan calendar on December 21, 2012. :-/ And there's good reason for this: the period right after the potential next peak of Solar Cycle 24--when we get the most solar flares and coronal mass ejections--could potentially be right around the December 21, 2012 time period.
Actually, although the CO2 levels have been going up, temperature has refused to also go up for seven years. But temperature also refused to go up for thirty years after World War II. Before World War II, temperatures had been going up without CO2 also going up.
Barely worth even quoting wikipedia for, but mods are on crack, so...
"Since sunspots are dark it might be expected that more sunspots lead to less solar radiation and a decreased solar constant. However, the surrounding areas are brighter and the overall effect is that more sunspots means a brighter sun."
Ha. The US Air Force has had a depressingly effective policy of not standing behind pilots that do things wrong. The effect this has on the service overall is "by the book" and getting verification of everything.
Imagine if you will that you are at the controls of a fighter plane lined up behind a passenger aircraft that has been hijacked. One report of such a hijacking crashing into a building when for the last 40 years no hijack has resulted in loss of all of the passengers. OK, someone comes on the radio ordering you to shoot the plane down. Are you going to do it?
Remember, if do you it and it turns out badly the Air Force has spent the last 20-30 years proving they will not stand behind you. You will be in court with people saying that you were never given that order, that you misinterpreted the order and that you fired on the wrong plane.
Still think any fighter pilot would shoot down a passenger plane? Without a written order signed by the president? I don't believe for a second that any Air Force pilot would today stick his neck out that far. Would they have in 1960? Yes. How about 1970? Almost certainly. 1980? Maybe, but there is some question. 1990? Almost certainly not. 2001? Are you kidding?
None of which is to say that what I described is not, in fact, EXACTLY what should have happened. Note that I didn't criticize the Airforce for not obeying the order to shoot down a hijacked civilian plane, I criticized G. H. W. Bush for not ordering it done. Leadership would have been him going up on television and expressing his regret, but in face of having just watched a plane fly into the WTC, with the knowledge there were two more in the air, that "We have no Choice." J. F. K. would have done it. Eisenhower would have done it. Bush did not.
Take a look at this.
I'm not making any claims to it but it seems to cover and summarize some of the reasons why we should be skeptical. It makes me wonder a few things. I have known this information for a while but I have never seen it presented like this.
I actually found it while doing a search to find out who all the scientist pushing global warming is and why they are supposed to be more right then wrong. As it turns out, this over whelming consensus is still the 1000 or so papers searched for anything specifically saying Man wasn't the cause. Of course they could have said the sun was the cause of man was only part of the cause or anything but because they didn't say man wasn't the cause, it means that everyone agrees that man is behind global warming. Well, if you want to believe what they believe that is.
Anyways, I think your spot on and if they get so upset over being cautious, I would think it is all the more reason to be cautious. There is too much at risk to simply jump in because of peer pressure and ridicule. I don't want to influence your opinion, it seems like you got a level head more then me. So take it for what you think it is worth, I just figured you might enjoy it a little.
Well, I'll give a shot at elaborating about that, though this isn't really my exact field. The data on paleo sea ice thickness is likely indirect. Firstly, it is somewhat straight forward to tell whether or not a particular area has been covered in ice during the summer or not in the past. The reason for this is that if an area is covered in thick ice, there will less light making it through to the water, and also less surface gas exchange. This will in turn influence the types of micro-organisms that can live near the surface of the water. When such organisms die, they drop to the sea floor, and a certain percentage of them will become fossilized. If you drill into the sea floor and find a layer with evidence of photo-synthetic organisms, this would probably be construed as evidence that the area was ice free in the summer during the time when the layer was deposited. There are also certain isotope ratios that one can measure in the mud sediments to infer water temperature. It is also possible to tell where thick ice existed at certain times, since ice can become so thick that it scrapes the sea floor. From these markers, and likely many more, one will be able to infer much about what areas were ice free in the summer, and this will be a good proxy for ice thickness. Finally, it is fairly straight forward to gather evidence of temperature and climate from Arctic lakes, by drilling mud sediments and measuring certain isotopic markers. This will give a measure of the climate near the sea ice. Gaining a fuller picture of paleo-sea ice is probably a matter of piecing many diverse clues together.
Well, we are talking about sea ice. Glaciers on mountain tops are a result of snowfall that does not melt over the summer. Though some sea ice is likely also a result of precipitation, there is a far larger source of water for it: the ocean. It is a relatively straight forward step to infer that sea ice thickness is largely a function of temperature, since colder temperatures will result in more ocean water freezing. One can see this when observing the freezing of lakes. Since bulk water contains so much heat, it takes very cold temperatures to freeze it, and the colder the temperatures, the thicker the ice. Compare two identical lakes, one that has experienced temperatures of -5C for a week, and one that has experienced temperatures of -25C for a week. Which one would you like to skate on?
The sea ice accumulates in the winter, when there is no sunshine most of the time, and starts melting in the summer, when the sun shines most of the time. Let's imagine that during the winter, a certain amount of ice forms, due to cold temperatures. Then imagine that the summer is particularly warm, and that more ice melts in the summer then has frozen in the previous winter. This will result in thinner sea ice. Once the ice gets thin enough, it begins to crack and break up, exposing more open water. And since sea ice is 10x more reflective to sunlight than open water, the water will absorb more sunlight, thus increasing the melting.
In the past, there was a centre of sea ice that would not melt in the summer. That centre of int
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Tell me what you think of this article. It seems that the debate started politicized.
And yes, I have looked at a lot of the literature and understand quite a bit of it. The thing is, that even the people who wrote the literature don't seem to think it says what some political entities like the IPCC want to claim it says. There are some 400 scientists that says the IPCC misrepresented their works.
The later had been submitted to slashdot but I don't remember it being on any of the lists or the front page of slashdot. It is as if it was ignored. And while it should be noted that they don't dispute AGW, they are disputing how the IPCC claimed their works represented stuff that it didn't and removed comments or rewrote them for added effects. In any case, it does bring some things into question which should make you ask again on a few understood beliefs.
> Actually, 'climate change' is preferred instead of 'global warming' since it's very much possible that,
> while the average worldwide temperature is expected to increase, the temperature could decrease in some
> locations (Example: Gulf stream slowing down causing Europe to become colder)
Granted, but regarding the example, well, even with the gulf stream slowing down accounted for in all
current models the temperature in northern europe (which owes it's habitability to the gulf stream)
is still expected to rise.
But ye, global warming as such will also cause localized temperature decreasing effects, such as the gulf
stream slowing down, but wether that will result in actual decrease in average temperature as a whole
depends on a whole bundle other things, too.
1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
nuff said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Explain to me why most people who get HIV, also get AIDS or die of other causes before it could develop; statistically more so than any exceptions you might find. As for any who truly NEVER get AIDS: Anomalies exist for everything, YAY evolution!!
Explain why there are millions of people HIV positive with AIDS right now, millions have died but there have likely been under 100 cases of ICL reported, and let me qualify this with....EVER. And 40,000,000 living with AIDS to 100 with ICL is a ratio they call statistically insignificant.
Explain to me people with ICL have a significantly better prognosis than someone with HIV.
Ever consider that a syndrome isn't a tangible thing that they can bottle and some might share a few symptoms with other diseases? Speaking of, what was the last pure virus you extracted and then bottled recently?
Does pidgeon-holing people help you deal with claims that you might find otherwise intellectually taxing?
No, the vegetarian thing had nothing to do with your thinly veiled attempt to make an ad-hominem attack.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
I was going to mod this thread until I saw your post. That's the worst shit I've read in a long time. Sharing needles isn't a factor? That's exactly how my sister caught it, you fucking moron. She died ten years ago.
So some HIV-positive people never get AIDS? Stop the presses! It's a miracle! No one in the history of the world has ever been a carrier of disease and never shown symptoms of it before... except Typhoid Mary. And a few million other people. Aside from them though (hey, maybe they're aliens or something) it doesn't happen ever.
A disease that simulates another disease? Oh, how extraordinary! Medical personnel have all kinds of different names for that, because it HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. Hundreds of people are misdiagnosed every year because they show symptoms of of a disease that are different from the one they actually have or because so many diseases have such similar symptoms. Look it up. You must be amazingly ignorant if you don't realize that -- or more likely, you know it but choose to ignore it to make your ideas look legitimate.
Yeah, I know my post is flamebait, but like I said, my sister died of it. I actually have an idea what I'm talking about. It feels rather like your dead relative is being made fun of when run across shit like this. My siblings aside, everything the parent post cited is easily-refutable nonsense. I'm just a volunteer caregiver, not even a nurse, and even I know better than that.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
[blockquote]Climate change denialists know no shame.[/blockquote]That may very well be true, but when I'm pursuing research grants and funding, I'll give blowjobs to just about anybody.
So basically what you are saying is that if they have any response at all, then your statement is proven correct?
wtfe
expandfairuse.org
Not to mention the fact that Finland is too warm to ski in during the coldest winter season this year...
I was going to mod this thread too, but decided I wanted to respond instead. If you look at my past postings, you'll see 95% of them are +4 or +5.. I make a concerted effort to only post to slashdot when I feel I have something useful to share. I am not a troll, and I hope you can read my post with all of this in mind.
Sharing needles isn't a factor? That's exactly how my sister caught it...
I'm sorry to hear your sister died-- it's difficult to lose anyone you care about, especially long before you'd expected to have to prepare for their loss. That said, his point was that sharing needles isn't a factor *if* AIDS (the breakdown of the immune sistem) isn't a bloodborne illness. No one disputes that hiv exists (afaik), just that hiv is the true cause of AIDS. I am not a doctor, a medical researcher, or a virologist-- my understanding is that of a lay person. If I recall, Duesberg has pointed out that hiv is in a family of retroviruses that are all rather benign. It definitely exists, and I don't think Duesberg or others are denying this; just contesting the correlation between hiv, and persons dying of immune system breakdowns.
So some HIV-positive people never get AIDS? Stop the presses! It's a miracle! No one in the history of the world has ever been a carrier of disease and never shown symptoms of it before... [SNIP] A disease that simulates another disease? Oh, how extraordinary!
Again, I'm not a virologist, and the last time I knew any of this information with better than an extremely casual recollection was a long time ago (when I watched a documentary centered around Duesberg and his contentions). That said, Duesberg has some pretty elegant arguments about various rules and tenets of virology (tenets that are held true by all scientists, afaik), and hiv does appear to break several of them. In previous instances (such as Scurvy), when medicine *thought* it had finally found a virus that broke these rules, eventually it was revealed that indeed the rules remained unbroken and the cause was elsewhere. Combine that with the curious way in which statistics are gathered (people who die of "AIDS" but don't have hiv, and are nicely lumped into some other statistical category to keep the status quo).
The fact of the matter, in my opinion, is that there is some compelling, or at least interesting evidence in support of Duesberg-- and no one can say he is not intelligent, respected, and qualified enough to raise these sort of questions. I'm not a virologist, so I can't refute or support them, but I can listen with an open mind. I sure as hell still practice safe sex, and I definitely would not inject myself with hiv tainted blood (but some doctors have, and afaik none have died of AIDS yet-- although I occasionally google trying to see if the status on this has changed). The point is that there is some argument to be made in support of Duesberg and his theories, and there is no harm in listening and examining these theories with an open mind (and for this reason he has the support of several Nobel prize winners, etc). I find it a little upsetting that some doctors and researchers who do not support the party line about where AIDS comes from, are ignored, their careers tainted, and all research continues in one direction. These are intellectuals dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and advancement of medicine-- they aren't making these claims for attention: they genuinely believe we've made a mistake somewhere along the line, and it's probably in our best interest to at least hear them out (which is why a host of publications have featured articles by Deusberg.. as wikipedia notes: "His letters and commentary on the subject have since been published in other journals including Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmaco
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
I went to the top of Norway last year to see the Aurora, got a reasonable view but would like to go again when the solar cycle is at it's peak. Guess I should figure that to be about 5 years from now?
So thats what happens when he uses the sonic screwdriver to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
IIRC, we observe comic rays using huge tanks of water at ground level.
Um, you are aware that Al Gore is a partner in the largest carbon-trading firm in the world, aren't you? And that as such, he has a vested interest in promoting carbon offsets because it will make him rich? Not that he's doing so badly, collecting $25k-$100k for his speaking engagements, a big chunk of change from the Nobel committee, and a few bucks from "A Convenient Lie".
Meanwhile, over 100 respected climate scientists recently signed a report stating the AGW thesis is quite flawed. But don't let the facts get in the way of your closed mind.
What was once true, is no longer so
Well, calculating out everything suggested and the effect which the CO2 should have, the only thing that comes even slightly close to explaining the heating trend we are seeing is the CO2.
The fact that CO2 should have a given impact far larger than anything we've looked at and we are seeing a massive heating trend which nothing else comes close to explaining is part of the argument certainly worth mentioning. The greenhouse gas nature of CO2 is based on physics the fact we're putting massive amounts in the atmosphere is undisputed. The impact of other factors is nowhere close to explaining the impact we've seen. -- That argument is remarkably hard to avoid.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Dad, is that you? Goddamnit, how did you get on the internet again?
Nice hypothetical, but we'll never know, because there WEREN'T any fighters in the air at the time.
please spend a few days researching AIDS dissidents
I have, and their research is total garbage. Back in the day, they raised a few valid objections which over the years were dealt with experimentally. Today someone who denies the AIDS-HIV link is out there with flat-earth types.
"No, scientists use the term "global climate change" because it more accurately describes what may happen in the future than "global warming." Yes, on average the surface of the earth has been getting warmer globally, but it does not mean the entire world will just experience slightly warmer summers and winters. Just a few degrees centigrade has the ability to change ocean currents, wind patterns, and other natural events that regulate our climate."
========
Gee.. You just defined 'weather'.
Now then? How does that justify 'carbon credits'? Oh.. thats right, to support the desires of a global g'ment.
The rest of the world agrees it is happening right now.
Bullshit, we don't.
Everybody knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 -> higher temperature, plain simple.
Simple answers to incredibly complex questions are nice, but in most cases wrong.
Go and see movie 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' and 'Manbearpig',the famous episode of South park.
I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
Europe is warmed by ocean currents that bring warm water up from the equator. If the ice caps melt they will either cool all that water, or change the currents (I can't remember off-hand), the end result being the heat that is piped up to Europe will be shut off.
Still, I don't begrudge those who feel it's worth following up on how it came to pass, and not entirely trusting the combination of federal investigations and the media. you think HIV doesn't cause AIDS... That's a twist I haven't heard before. The typical conspiracy theory that I've always heard around AIDS was that it was an attempt to cull African population that got out of hand (or didn't, depending on how far you thought the culling was meant to go). you think MMR vaccine causes autism... I thought the jury was still out on that one? and your presidential candidate of choice is Ron Paul. Hmmm... given that 1:10 people are leaning toward Paul in the NH primary, I don't think it's fair to tag his supporters are wingnuts. They're a sizable demographic and one that should be treated like any other citizens. Regardless of how I might feel about him (another story), he does have some interesting things to say, and like all dark horse candidates he brings issues forth which the others would rather not have to discuss. This is a good thing.
PS: Had you really wanted to respond to the OP, you could simply have pointed out that the term "climate change" was originally introduced by those who sought to cool the political debate (pun intended), and not by those who wished to hedge their bets. However, as the climate is large and complex, it was quickly realized that the term was more suitable (some parts of the earth's surface are, indeed, cooling).
PPS: I'm still waiting for someone to find a reasonable explanation for why water vapor is such a popular topic when it comes to climate change feedback cycles, but agriculture-introduced, ground-cover water vapor is entirely ignored in all of the models that I've seen. If you want a factor that has introduced permanent greenhouse gas increases, wouldn't you look at the largest single change to the earth's lower atmospheric composition in the past 1000 years? That, by the way, would be irrigation which has created a permanent change in the ground-cover water vapor over a sizable fraction of the earth's surface, especially at mid-to-central northern latitudes.
Am I the only one who notices that a well reasoned and calm arguement never has a reply?
Fear the power of NTie!
Why should I?
... why should I watch a movie then?
If you don't know that more greenhouse gases mean higher temperature and if you don't know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Many thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to craft a long response.
Unfortunately I find many of the explanations you don't completely convince me (which is not to say you are wrong or that I cannot be convinced). Here are some problems:
(1) why is the antarctic expanding (other than a minor calving peninsula)? Surely the same processes affecting the arctic are also at work in the antarctic.
(2) What are the error bars on the proxies you describe? Could you point me to any references explaining (a) the physical processes connecting the proxies to ice thickness and (b) the experimental data validating the hypothesis?
(3) I follow your explanation of what happens in summer, but I don't follow how this affects the ice that grows in winter.
(4) How do we know that the ice that recently melted did not previously melt in summer, say, 1000 years ago?
The real question, as far as I'm concerned, is not whether the globe is warming - I'm pretty sure it is - but whether and how much of it is anthropogenic or natural. I have been following this debate fairly closely the last few years and was quite surprised at how flakey the AGW argument is, which is why I remain skeptical. For what it's worth, I am a practicing scientist. While I'm not a climate scientist, I flatter myself that I can follow a well presented argument and I can spot the difference between a hand-waving explanation and a solid piece of science. I've spent some time at RealClimate.org, but frankly it's far too one-sided to be considered a real scientific forum. Not to mention the RC prediliction for censoring awkward questions. Have you read climateaudit.org? If not, you should take a look. CA makes it clear the AGW argument is not even close to settled for anyone requiring standard scientific rigour.
-- Ralph
I think the "huge tanks of water" you are thinking of are for nutrino detection and these are below ground level. I have no idea why you emphasised "at ground level"?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Actually, I find "AIDS dissent", as you call it, far far more disturbing than the "9-11 Truth" conspiracy. At least in the case of "9-11 Truth", there remains at least SOME possibility for at least SOME of the minor claims of the conspiracy theorists. The case of "AIDS dissent" on the other hand, is rather similar to "gravity dissent".
P.S. As with any AIDS/HIV conspiracy theorist, I have a standing offer: inoculate yourself with 10X ID50 of purified HIV, and if you get a productive infection, but don't get AIDS, you get all my property, and the entire contents of my bank account... and I will quit biological science research. Deal? The ORTHODOX "AID$ Machine" has built a TERMINATOR Empire of High Tech HIV Theorists such as yourself to undermine mankind through a series of denials and evasions.. The HIVAIDS $campaign began as a "Conspiracy Theory" in 1980 and every COVER-UP and theory has been jaded by an "AID$" Researcher rather than independent scientists working together. The words "Conspiracy" & "Theorist" are not bad words people just like to throw daggers as if they are superior in some way. The Religion of HIVAIDS seems hipocritical especially when self styled "HIV THEORISTS" have never landed on the moon and seen Green cheese nor have they entered the Matrix and taken the red pill. a Janitor at Mc Donalds could hold more IQ to so called Conspiracy Theories than someone tagged a Virologist or M edical D eity...One's "Title" can be held against them belittling them to the point of being called names which is not surprising. No matter how one Deny's,Disagrees,or Dissents "the Religious" aspect over rides the "political" aspect of the issue and you automatically become guilty of heresy with no questions asked. Religion rears it's ugly head in all forms of Politics and Science...The Oneness versus Trinity debate has killed millions of people in the name of GOD. MEUGE Since you have "proposed" someone Incoculating or injecting some theorized strain of HIV into them[which has been Done some years ago
I'm still waiting, or are you too afraid to actually be called out into the light?
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
"Explain to me why most people who get HIV, also get AIDS or die of other causes before it could develop; statistically more so than any exceptions you might find. As for any who truly NEVER get AIDS: Anomalies exist for everything, YAY evolution!!"
About 13,000 people a year die of AIDS in the US. The estimated infected population is 1 million. These statistics have been quite steady for some time. In 2004, the age adjusted death rate in the US was about 800 per 100,000. The death rate from AIDS is 1300 per 100,000 people with HIV. Note this is a very rough comparison, that's not terribly statistically rigorous, but it gives you an idea of the relative risk of being HIV postitive.
Now the difference between 800 per 100000 and 1300 per 100000 is a significant difference, but it's less than double. I am not sure why this counts as an epidemic. Diabetes, smoking and heavy drinking will probably up your chances of dying just as much. Further, that's a death rate of 1.3% per year. You realize it would take over 50 years for you to have a 50% chance of dying? Roughly 25 years for a 25% chance. Given that most people with HIV are over 20 (and the average age even higher) - your chances of living a long life don't seem much hindered by HIV. Before you claim that this is all due to the wonders of ARV therapy, remember that the estimates include about 500,000 people who are HIV+ who don't know their status, and thus are not receiving treatment.
Now, I've looked at the studies, and I am convinced that a positive HIV test coorelates with increased risk of future disease, and premature death. These studies however cannot prove causation. I firmly believe that whatever anti-bodies the HIV tests are dredgeing up, they are simply related to immune processes that are a response to some other disease state. There are a host of known diseases that will cause false HIV+ test results, including leprosy and TB - so this is not at all a far fetched hypothesis.
And don't get me started on HIV RNA tests. These test can amazingly find HIV RNA in healthy people, with no risk factors, who test negative on the HIV antibody test. Yep, it's a fact. Many totally healthy people are walking around with HIV RNA in their bodies.
Anomalies are often indications that your hypothesis is incorrect. In science, you don't just ignore such anomalies. It is a rather large anomaly, don't you think, that when a disease you claim is caused by a particular virus, is also observed in people who do not have this virus. That's a head scratcher, even if the numbers are small.
"Ever consider that a syndrome isn't a tangible thing that they can bottle and some might share a few symptoms with other diseases? Speaking of, what was the last pure virus you extracted and then bottled recently? "
Certainly - this is a big problem with the definition of AIDS. It's grown and expanded since it's inception to include quite a few diseases - all of which pre-date the AIDS era. The HIV virus is rather unique in this respect.
As for pure virus extract - all I said was that I would gladly inject myself with purified HIV virus. Could you explain what my failure to produce said extract on my own has to do with anything. If such an extract does not exist, one wonders how they arrived at the HIV RNA tests, as it seems a rather straightforward requirement to have isolated and purified an entity before you can sequence it's genome. For example, to sequence my DNA, you'd want a pure sample of my cells and nobody else's cells right? But with HIV it doesn't seem this is possible, so we sequence genes found floating around in a soup of human cellar material. One wonders why healthy people test positive for HIV RNA.