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."

11 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Impossible by Frozen+Void · · Score: 5, Informative

    Reversed Polarity is just change from + to - or south to north. Nothing magical about it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
    The physical basis of the solar cycle was elucidated in the early twentieth century by George Ellery Hale and collaborators, who in 1908 showed that sunspots were strongly magnetized (this was the first detection of magnetic fields outside the Earth), and in 1919 went on to show that the magnetic polarity of sunspot pairs:

            * is always the same in a given solar hemisphere throughout a given sunspot cycle;
            * is opposite across hemispheres throughout a cycle;
            * reverses itself in both hemispheres from one sunspot cycle to the next.

  2. Re:discredit global warming theories? no way by Mathiasdm · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  3. Re:discredit global warming theories? no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:AGW? WTF does THAT mean? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Informative

    Right again, whether or not we're responsible for it, i.e. whether or not it's Anthromorphic.

    Well, anthromorphic isn't even a word. I'm sure you meant to type anthropomorphic, which would then mean that we're attributing human characteristics to global warming. That doesn't make much sense, though. The word you want is anthropogenic.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  5. Re:Impossible by QuickFox · · Score: 3, Informative

    Reversed Polarity is just change from + to - or south to north. Nothing magical about it. But of course. That's obvious. Which means it's a joke. How can anyone take such a comment seriously? On slashdot of all places? And it was modded down too!

    I think we've been invaded by non-slashdotter aliens.
    --
    Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
  6. Re:any ham radio gurus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    More solar activity means better propogation at higher frequencies. For Example, 21 MHz, 28, MHz, and 50 MHz bands open up for long distance HF communication. But during periods of low sunspot activity these bands may only be usable for local communications.

  7. Re:Impossible by mindwhip · · Score: 3, Informative

    *sigh* its Doctor Who... and the correct quote is reverse the polarity of the neutron flow". Star Trek stole the idea later....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Doctor

    --
    [The Universe] has gone offline.
  8. Why Jan 1 1970 as the epoch? by oneiros27 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  9. Re:discredit global warming theories? no way by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1, Informative

    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.

    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.
  10. Re:Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? by baileydau · · Score: 2, Informative

    Australia has coldest June ever
      Yes, we did have a cold winter this year (here in North Queensland, and many other places as well), but overall, 2007 was one of the hottest years on record. See: http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmean&region=aus&season=0112 (this graph shows annual mean temperature anomaly (base 1961-1990))

    According to my "optical integrator", it appears to be about 4th or 5th hottest

    --
    Ever stop to think ... and forget to start again?
  11. Re:discredit global warming theories? no way by Brickwall · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

    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