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."

24 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Impossible by QuickFox · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Impossible by deniable · · Score: 5, Funny

      Someone needs to remodulate the flow of coffyon particles through the navigational percolator.

    2. Re:Impossible by polar+red · · Score: 4, Funny

      that would make great coffee

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    3. 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.

    4. Re:Impossible by mboverload · · Score: 4, Funny

      NEXT TIME ON 24!

      Bill Buchanan: The Sun is going to destroy Los Angeles if we don't stop it!
      Jack Bauer: Get me on a plane to the moon.

    5. Re:Impossible by mrbluze · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reversed Polarity is just change from + to - or south to north. Nothing magical about it. Reversing polarity can really break stuff, though. I hope the sun's got a diode.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    6. Re:Impossible by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Funny

      Chloe: Jack, the only flight I can get you on is a Chinese moonshot.

      Jack: Damn it Chloe.

      Chloe: whimper

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Re:Impossible by Nimey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, imagine a Beowulf cluster of Suns!

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  2. This is Simply a Sign by eno2001 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  3. No! by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's tetryons, you insenstive clod.

  4. discredit global warming theories? no way by altoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. 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
  6. Re:AGW? WTF does THAT mean? by teslar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Glad it's not a menstrual cycle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not necessarily. You can always reverse your polarity and explore the other hemisphere.

  8. Sun Spots.... by 3seas · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... doesn't someone make a cream for that?

  9. Re:discredit global warming theories? no way by ZombieWomble · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:any ham radio gurus? by Enleth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That depends. Generally speaking, high solar activity is good because the ionosphere is ionised enough and deflects the radio waves better (that's why there's poor propagation in winter - less solar radiation reaches the more distant hemisphere due to longer nights and lower angle). However, too high activity causes interferences and distrupts communication. So it's the best when the Sun is moderately active.

    --
    This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
  11. Re:discredit global warming theories? no way by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny

    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. Other than that it's a swell theory.
    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  12. 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.

  13. Re:discredit global warming theories? no way by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  14. Re:discredit global warming theories? no way by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Lol.. So if I don't agree with you I'm a wacko? Is that how it works. I guess I can see the funniness of it now. It is the "you have to believe what we believe to be taken seriously" joke right?

    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.

    Doesn't that just piss you off?
    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.
  15. Re:discredit global warming theories? no way by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Why are falling for such an obvious ploy?

    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.

    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.

    Your righ