Slashdot Mirror
Reversing Magnetic Poles Observed in Another Star
Babu 'God' Hoover tips us to news out of the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy that for the first time, a magnetic pole reversal has been observed in a star other than our own. Tau Bootis, while similar to the Sun, also has a planet more than six times larger than Jupiter orbiting at only a twentieth of the distance between Earth and the Sun. Scientists hope to use this discovery to learn more about the magnetic dynamics in the Sun, which can affect our telecommunications, among other things.
Star systems suffer from a similar naming convention problem as open source software.
Nobody is going to relocate to an outpost in Tau Bootis. On the other hand, everyone would be clambering to go and live at the iPost in Apple Centauri.
I'm pretty excited as well. I'm definitely in the camp that says our little species can't affect major global changes so easily, and I like to point to all the global warming and cooling that's been going on for millions of years. I also like to point out that when you change your methods and instruments for collecting data, you can't accurately form conclusions from them across methods. The more we study our sun and other stars, the more we can make an informed decision about what, if anything, is going on.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
Right. But in the meantime we have to go ahead with the knowledge we have, safe in the knowledge that even if we are by some twist of fate completely wrong about the causes of climate change that we have at least weaned ourselves off fossil fuels in the meantime.
Going on the assumption that man is causing climate change means we win either way, doing nothing in the hope that we're somehow wrong means that the very best possible outcome is that we're still completely dependant on fossil fuels in 50 or 100 years time. And the worst possible outcome doesn't bear thinking about. So, while it's all well and good to say we should be investigate every possible cause of climate change, there is absolutely no excuse for us to not be acting now to minimise our our impact on the environment.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
How long until it goes out and starts killing planets.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I don't disagree... well, except for the fact that we humans often go headlong into a decision, sure that we are right, only to find out later that .. well, ooops, maybe killing 6 million other people wasn't such a good idea.
I'm all for making life energy efficient, for not polluting our eco-systems, and for doing all we can to make life healthy. We should have been doing that all along. We may make our species extinct with gray goo before global warming has a chance, by the way.
My point was simply that more information means better decisions all around. I'm not advocating that we wait for the information before doing anything. I'm saying that every bit of information should be used to shape our decisions as we move along. Is anyone worried that we are almost out of helium? What effect does that have?
The brain trust needed to put all this together is huge, so sure, do what we can, but do not be blinkered into thinking that we are done with the decision making.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The article is a bit light on details.
How can we actually detect the magnetic field of another star?
I thought that the distance is certainly too big to observe it directly, and we barely have the resolution to tell that there is a planet there at all.
Makes sense to me. Additionally, even if there's even only a teeny-tiny effect that we have, who knows if that teeny-tiny effect can push the momentum in the other direction. I'm all about being proactive so I agree totally.
... why is this summary not on the front page but every darn iPhone and Vista news is there? The fan(boys/girls) and haters will always be able to find it to start their flamewars. The rest of us would some real 'new for nerds'. ;)
On a tangent
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
So, in your opinion, nothing should be done before we have everthing on the table? That might take a while, you know.
Oh sure, we need more data on climate change. Say, I have an idea: why don't we try measuring things right here on earth instead of on a star that's fifty light-years away? Because if we think climatologists are wrong and don't know what they are talking about, then why should we trust the astronomers?
Scientific research and progress is not nothing, but on the other hand, shut down enough fuel consumption by government mandate and see how little science is preformed. Maybe a better idea would be to take all the money the greens want to spend on stopping global warming and giving it instead as grants for University research - in all fields of science.
One major breakthrough could mute all the (possibly ill conceived) concerns with global warming (for just one example, think about the impact on finding high temperature super conductors.) Maybe we could take a fraction of it to start building nuclear power plants too.
I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
So you did go to the sex change operation?
I think finding evidence of these cycles in other parts of the galaxy may give us clues as to what to expect and that the cycles are not limited to our own solar system.
It has been my position that what we see happening is the result of an increase in energy absorbed by the earth system. The source(s) of that energy not immediate cleared and there may be several. We must realize that whenever the amount of energy flowing into a system increases it causes increased turbulence and change especially the rate.
However using this logic I was able to predict the extreme weather that we are now having three years ago.
See: The Watch Tower Event observations and tracking Earth Space Systems Tracking & Notifications http://www.infiniteplaythemovie.com/watch_tower.aspx
The good thing is that the solution to the problem whether we mankind contribute to global warming or if it is a natural cycle is the same!
Adaptability and energy efficiency is the remedy. In order to adapt to climate change we need to have distributed smart energy systems and efficiency in energy use and natural sources of free flow energy utilized like the big fusion reactor in the sky over our heads.
So the same approach that allows us to adapt to natural climate cycles that produce extreme weather and forced relocations of the population also reduces the creation of green house gasses etc.
So there is no debate needed as to the cause. We need to simply implement the solutions which are the same for both causes.
In our history it was observed that the Sun was split down the middle before the Great Floods. This would have been sun spots which are visible to the naked eye collecting around the vertical axis which they do during the suns polarity shift in a very active regular 11 or 22 year cycle and perhaps a longer term cycle we are not aware of.
It is also possible that the sun which affects the earth's magnetic field could cause or be causing the shift of the earth's polarity in concert. During this time the earth's magnetic field declines amount to a "Shields' down condition" any outburst X class solar flare pointed at the earth would do great damage, possibly cooking that part of earth facing it
In 2012 when the Sun will reverse polarity and it is predicted to be a very energetic peak the earth and it's population could face some major cataclysmic activity.
Lastly if you take into account government preparations some done in secret it may indicate there are other that have already figured this out as a possibility.
So if in 2012 you see a dark dividing line down the center of the Sun, it is time to head for the mountains, which is why the Government may have built facilities underneath the Denver airport (mile high above sea level) to allow a select few to survive a cataclysmic floods leaving the worker bees to drown.
"an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
Hmm.. I'm pretty sure I can do my share of the damage, in fact I'm pretty sure I'm doing my share of the damage. Please see:
http://f8d.org/?c=33
We havn't been a "little" species for a while now, you know.
By not fully predicable I refer to that the flows that occurs are similar to the weather we experience here on Earth. The weather can be predicted with an acceptable accuracy over a week, but longer than that is hard. However the timeframe for magnetic fields are different, so they are predictable over a longer period of time.
Anyway - this means that the flows inside a star can change pattern, or that the electrical currents induced can change (not always the same thing) and they in turn will cause the magnetic field to change. Changes involves flares, sunspots and magnetic field disturbances - even as far as changing the polarity. So if our sun does that it's not surprising that another star with similar properties also exhibits the same behavior.
More interesting stellar objects to study would be red stars like the Betelgeuze star or giant blue stars like Rigel. Since they are much larger they can offer different results. Same goes for white dwarfs. Some stars are very strong in their radiation and can provide a great deal of information from a distance, but not everything. There may still be surprises waiting for us!
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I hope they can learn what is needed so we can get past it.
But that's not possible, since the Earth is less than 10 kiloyears old! It's just those crazy scientists making up numbers again.
:)
(lol
Why would you bring up climate change? We've known for many years that the Sun flips its magnetic field every 11 years or so. This is simply the first time we've observed it in another star. The flipping of Sol's magnetic field causes a change in the number and size of sunspots which do affect solar output. This has been taken into account with climate models that show the earth is warming due to human influence. This news story offers absolutely no information pertinent to climate change.
Because we do not know some things does not mean we cannot know others. The fact that the theory of General Relativity does not work at atomic distances does not mean that we can't use it to determine clock skew in different gravity fields. GPS would not work without taking General Relativity into account if you want proof you can hold in your hand. Because we do not know everything about Quantum Mechanics does not mean that we cannot use the theory to create lasers, which are a direct result of quantum mechanical theory. You would not have CD and DVD drives if the theory wasn't mostly correct.
What you are basically saying is that we should throw up our hands and say that whether climate change is occurring due to human influence is unknowable. That sounds nothing like an 'INFORMED decision' as you put it. If you are truly interested, do some research yourself. I questioned man's influence on climate change also until I looked into it. Researchers who study the subject are almost completely of one mind, that humanity is influencing the climate and causing the world to be warmer that it has been in the past. These are people that spend their lives looking at all of the evidence, people that ask the questions you want the answers to and try their best to find them. The people that just throw their hands up and say that it is unknowable are the ones that deny global warming is happening. Some point to one of the warmest years on record being in the 1940s, but that is explainable due to normal cycles. Check out the trends though. Global warming is a FACT, that human influence is causing it is a theory with mountains of evidence supporting it and no evidence against it. The only other thing that people can point to as the cause for global warming is "something we don't know yet".
Don't.
Cross.
The.
Streams.
It would be bad.
One man's constant is another man's variable.
If you cram six billion termites into the same relative space to size as six billion humans on this planet, I'm sure that in a good amount of time you'll see some pretty significant damage take place.
This isn't to say that it is indeed possible that there are other factors not related to our activity as causes of global warming. I am saying it seems that a lot of those who don't believe we have a significant effect on the planet tend to be the ones that don't want to either act in order to possibly mitigate the impact, or find it completely plausible that we could terraform some other world, but there's NO way we're responsible fucking up the Earth!
Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
Well, let hope there really will be a change at the polls this Nov, 2008... We've just got to start reversing the damage done at the polls from the last 8 years...
I think the climatic change is part of rejuvenation process a natural cycle, one that man has experienced before.
What evidence is there that humans have experienced before? Humans have been present for only a small fraction of our star's existence, so what evidence, if any, is there that the Earth experienced episodes in such a natural cycle before?
I think finding evidence of these cycles in other parts of the galaxy may give us clues as to what to expect...
True enough...
...and that the cycles are not limited to our own solar system.
Astrophysical theory has understood that the sun is a typical kind of star with many similar examples for a long time. Nobody claims that sunspots are unique to our particular G2 dwarf star. The "sun" in "sunspots" is a historical artifact of language.
It has been my position that what we see happening is the result of an increase in energy absorbed by the earth system.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the earth system". Do you mean the entire solar system, or the Earth-Moon system, or do you mean just the planet Earth as a closed thermodynamic system? If the last option, are you suggesting that the solar constant varies over time? This is already measured to vary noticeably. Nobody has yet seen any correlation between this change and changes in earth's weather.
We must realize that whenever the amount of energy flowing into a system increases it causes increased turbulence and change especially the rate.
In the sense that that's so vaguely stated that you can make it fit anything, maybe. In any case, increases in "turbulence" are not at all an inevitable result of a net influx. That's just hand-waving.
However using this logic I was able to predict the extreme weather that we are now having three years ago.
Was your prediction "three years from now, there will be X amount of precipitation, temperatures between T1 and T2 over a specific interval, Y tropical storms, and so on" or was it instead "sometime in the future, there will be weather which someone will feel justified labeling 'extreme' but whose exact nature and timing I don't specify"? If the latter, then you made no prediction at all, because virtually any weather could be labeled "extreme", and periodic fluctuations in weather and even climate are expected by chance alone.
The good thing is that the solution to the problem whether we mankind contribute to global warming or if it is a natural cycle is the same! Adaptability and energy efficiency is the remedy. In order to adapt to climate change we need to have distributed smart energy systems and efficiency in energy use and natural sources of free flow energy utilized like the big fusion reactor in the sky over our heads. ...
So there is no debate needed as to the cause. We need to simply implement the solutions which are the same for both causes.
That's patently false. If an action of ours is directly causing an effect, we can always choose to refrain from that action, even if we can undertake some different action to remedy the effect regardless of the cause. If you gain weight and don't know whether it's something you do or that it's genetic, you're claiming that the only sensible thing to do is exercize. Clearly it also makes sense to eat less in the case of *either* cause.
In our history it was observed that the Sun was split down the middle before the Great Floods.
Which "Great Floods" are those? What makes some floods "Great Floods" instead of regular floods, and how much of that thing does a flood need to be "Great"? I'm not aware of any scientific documentation on this supposed "splitting".
This would have been sun spots which are visible to the naked eye collecting around the vertical axis which they do during the suns polarity shift in a very active regular 11 or 22 year cycle and perhaps a l
Your post makes no sense. I award you no points, and may the gods have mercy on your immortal soul.
May the Maths Be with you!
Do you have any idea how much energy the sun puts out?
Why I'm sure we're not causing so much damage is because humans haven't been around all that long. The industrial revolution is only pretty recent, and back when we were just getting started as a species (thousands of years before the first factory or automobile was ever made), we were in the tail end of an ice age. Things have been warming up since then, without us having any reasonable way of causing it. I also know that where I live now in a nice temperate zone, a few million years ago it was a lot hotter, like, tropics hotter. The planet goes through cycles, this is a scientific fact. It's been doing this since the planet started cooling down from its molten state at the start of the solar system. Are we going to blame the dinosaurs for global warming back when they were around enjoying the heat?
Furthermore, the theory of global warming I've always heard about from scientists is a lot different from what seems to be the typical use by most in the media and politics. A few degrees over thousands of years, is what they claim, not "oh noes, we're all going to die in 10 years when the seas rise 50 feet all of a sudden".
Lastly, it's just common sense. You look at other planets around here like Venus and Mars. Venus somehow got a runaway greenhouse effect, having once been supposedly rather Earth-like. Were there humans there screwing everything up, or just bad luck with some natural forces? What about Mars, and reports of decreasing polar caps over several years, corresponding almost directly with the same thing here on Earth?
Occam's Razor folks, it's probably Sol's fault.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
It comes down to a simple choice, made all the more easier by the fact that global warming, as it's defined, will take thousands of years to cause us any trouble.
Either:
a) Spend trillions, ruin our economy, and come up with solutions to a problem we don't know anything about, including whether it actually exists or what's causing it.
b) Spend a few million, help our long-term economy, and come up with useful science to help us make reasonable decisions and along the way come up with theories that may have useful applications in other areas.
I prefer b, let's get some real science here and adequate review. Most of the people whining about global warming in the it'll-kill-you-tomorrow camp seem to be politicians, the media, and scientists with expertise in what would happen *if* there is climate change (biologists, etc.), not scientists with expertise in what can cause climate change.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
a) Spend trillions, ruin our economy, and come up with solutions to a problem we don't know anything about, including whether it actually exists or what's causing it.
b) Spend a few million, help our long-term economy, and come up with useful science to help us make reasonable decisions and along the way come up with theories that may have useful applications in other areas. How do you know that fixing global warming now will ruin our economy? We are talking about reducing waste. That usually means being more efficient and doing more with less. Also, those trillions, who are they going to, and won't that help our economy? I think the economy will change, certainly, but will it die? That's more ludicrous than the silliest kind of global warming predictions Most of the people whining about global warming in the it'll-kill-you-tomorrow camp seem to be politicians, the media, and scientists with expertise in what would happen *if* there is climate change (biologists, etc.), not scientists with expertise in what can cause climate change. Where are you getting that info from? It seems you are just making things up to suit your argument. This is so typical of global warming deniers. You've made up your mind and damn the facts, you'll make up some of those too. You don't want global warming to be true, and you'll make up whatever facts you need to in order to reach that conclusion.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
First of all, I must be a pedantic astro geek on this one and inform you that both sakdoctor and the original article have the spelling of Bootes wrong. Bootes is a constellation named by the ancient Greeks. The designation Tau is to indicate the brightness of the star in the constellation. Alpha Bootes would be the brightest star in Bootes, Beta Bootes the second, et cetera. So there really is a proper naming convetion for these bright stars in well-known constellations. Its problem is simply that it's in Greek.
The more numerous background stars all have much less interesting catalog numbers. I'm sure however, that should we ever build (or find) a colony on a planet orbiting IC871621, that we'll happily rename it to something a little easier to say and remember. Until then, it's an utterly unremarkable star.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
That doesn't meet the requirements of Occam's Razor: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." "it's probably Sol's fault" isn't a solution in that it doesn't explain climate change that we've been seeing. Take a look at solar output over the last 30 years. Then take a look at temperature graphs. You cannot make the one explain the other, so you have to disregard it as a valid solution. Now look at a graph of carbon dioxide levels and see how well it matches the temperature graph. Using Occam's razor, CO2 levels causing the rise in temperatures is the simplest solution that actually fits with observed data.