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.
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.
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.
That's no intro, that's text ripped directly from TFA - which is almost worse in a way. As for AGW, well, use your brain and have an educated guess. What's on everybody's mind these days? That's right, Global Warming. And what's the big debate around this? Right again, whether or not we're responsible for it, i.e. whether or not it's Anthromorphic.
Not necessarily. You can always reverse your polarity and explore the other hemisphere.
... 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.
And I'm gonna guess you have no sense of humour and wouldn't recognize a joke if it stood up and slapped you.
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!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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?
Conditions will start to improve. The best conditions will be in three to four years when sunspots peak. When the sunspots peak (and if you can receive single sideband), you will be able to hear hams from around the world using milliwatts. There will be times when you can hear all of the bands being active all of the time day and night.
sudo mod me up
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)
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.
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.
No, because one has nothing to do with the other. If temperatures are increasing and the energy from the sun is decreasing, then we must be retaining the energy we get for longer periods of time. How would we do that? Greenhouse effect. What causes greenhouse effect? Mainly in our case, CO2, which is exactly what we are pumping into the air in large quantities. If anything, this observation would provide further evidence for climate change caused by humans.
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®ion=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
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.
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?
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.
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
Am I the only one who notices that a well reasoned and calm arguement never has a reply?
Fear the power of NTie!