Slashdot Mirror
Of Late, Fewer Sunspots Than Usual
esocid writes "The sun has been laying low for the past couple of years, producing no sunspots and giving a break to satellites. Periods of inactivity are normal for the sun, but this period has gone on longer than usual. The sun usually operates on an 11-year cycle with maximum activity occurring in the middle of the cycle. The last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, with the next cycle just beginning and expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. Today's sun, however, is as inactive as it was two years ago, and scientists aren't sure why. In the past, solar physicists observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots, coinciding with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700." (More below.)
esocid continues: "The Hinode, a Japanese satellite mission with the US and UK as partners, has three telescopes that together show how changes on the sun's surface spread through the solar atmosphere. It orbits 431 miles (694 km) above the Earth, crossing both poles and making one lap every 95 minutes, giving Hinode an uninterrupted view of the sun for several months out of the year. Scientists are not extremely worried, but have added extra ground stations in case of interference from extra solar activity, and are ready for the Sun to resume its activity." (The Little Ice Age is fascinating, full stop.)
it's obvious why -- climate change and solar warming! we need legislation to fix this problem.
[move
I blame solar warming.
... the increased CO2 on Earth.
a little spotty?
I can confirm that after looking at the sun I too have come to conclusion that the spots must all be hiding on the other side. (I did not see any spots or anything after)
...Larry Niven's Fallen Angels. Basic back story was that global warming was corrected, but it was the only thing holding back the next ice age. Not a bad supposition for a 17-year old novel. Pretty fun read with some decent science, as well.
Mess not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
and we are still seeing global warming effects at a greater rate than expected, what will happen when the sun becomes active again ?
Incidentally this lull in solar activity coincides with there having been no discernable warming since 2000. But yeah, it's CO2 that's to blame for warming ... nothing to do with solar activity.. *rolleyes*
I have spoken'eth.
Apparently, no spotting at all. Word is the sun is tremendously worried and was seen at CVS in the pregnancy test section.
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Now it is just hiding.
While you probably don't agree with most of his stances on the myriad issues, his position on global warming is spot on. Even if all the hullaballoo surrounding whether humans are the primary cause of global climate change or not, if we take actions now to stem wholesale dumping of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, whether it turns out that we have a huge impact on the global ecosystem or not, at least the world we leave behind will be cleaner and more hospitable for our children and future generations.
With new data pointing to a possible solar cause to global climate change, it does not change the fact that sucking up all the available fuels and dumping CO2 into the atomsphere is making the world a worse place to live.
Hopefully we can make the right changes whether or not the science backs us up.
The Sun's spots are finally clearing up. Now it can stop being so shy around girls.
check figure 4 here.
How the little ice age (obviously a Liberal Conspiracy) is being used as a cover up for the fact that the evidence for Global Warming (another Liberal Conspiracy) is not as strong as it should be. They will even have tapes of Hillary Clinton secretly meeting with representatives of the sun, and possibly be able to tie the whole thing together with the sunspots being stolen by terrorists who are planning an attack using solar flares on the Olympics in Beijing as the beginning of a new Jihad.
Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
Even if he is right, that's all he is, johnny come lately.
What happens when an asteroid hits the sun? Does it splash? Or does it vaporize before it hits the sun?
I've read that sunspots are caused by the sun's internal magnetic field, how do we measure it?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
It's actually a 22 year cycle because every 11 years the sunspots have a different polarity of the magnetic field associated with each pair of spots.
...and expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012 Causing the apocalypse predicted by the Mayan calendar, no doubt.Your brain is not a computer.
The sun is dying! Quick, we need more greenhouse gases!
Surprised that nobody has yet linked this to the Mayan 2012 prophecy, in which The world will end on Dec 21, 2012... I'm not a big believer in apocalypse prophecies, I think it's just one of Man's primal fears and along with death, probably one of the reasons religions were created.
Procrastinators, Unite Tomorrow!!
isn't that when the mayan calendar is supposed to end?
http://skepdic.com/maya.html
so the sun is just preparing to shut down, for the coming end of the world, of course
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In the article I havent found anything that says what will happen to the solar system if the trend continues like it started.
I am no expert on this field and I am interested in some expert explaining the effect of this trend.[insert lame sig here]
In an age where we are more and more dependent on electronics, radio (e.g. mobile phones), and satellite radio services (e.g. GPS), it is an incredible fluke that we are not being unduly affected by the sun's radiation.
Though I'm glad the threat of solar flares and radiation is being taken seriously (e.g. NASA's STEREO project) I do wonder if at least some of the technology we thrive under won't fail miserably when the next solar maximum takes place?
A few hundred years ago William Herschel was able to notice the inverse relationship between sunspots and the price of wheat.
http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/education/bios/herschel.html
I find it amazing that this relationship (sun spots vs agricultural output) is dismissed so easily by the current anti-CO2 crowd. I am all for eliminating pollution but I am very worried that the focus on CO2 is completely wrong and is doing a great disservice to humanity.
CO2 is the breath of life.
_GP_
Jerks.
This was proposed by Russian scientists months ago.
...to spend their time sunspotspotting.
Great job. Where do I sign?
I speak England very best
You expect that the /. audience is actually aware of what spotting means. Remember, most have hardly touched a woman, now you expect them to understand menstrual cycle issues.
I think your comment was right on the spot.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
How exactly does one "adjust for major volcanic eruptions" when calculating global temperatures?
Please explain, I really want to know.
Sorry, Jupiter is experiencing warming near the EQUATOR, not the poles like I erroneously posted in the above post.
Hey Bush is to blame for everything else. George W, Cheney and Haliburton must have fooled with the Sun too (slightly facetious post)
Great this is how the world ends not with a bang but without sunspots. Enter dramatic music and dramatic gopher.
Guess we need to get ready to pump up the greenhouse gasses to compensate.
No Sun, that's a BAD Sun!
please people, please, do not go into the CVS unless the change is major enough to warrant the attention. every little class tweak is not Changelog-worthy. There are a lot of eyes reading this CVS, and we don't want to be too verbose. And as for pregnancy...
wait, what?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
ZOMBIE HITLER WALKS THE FACE OF THE EARTH
LUSTING FOR TEH SWEET TASTE OF JEW FLESH
WHO CAN STOP THIS UNDEAD MADMAN?!
"The sun has been laying low for the past couple of years, producing no sunspots and giving a break to satellites. Periods of inactivity are normal for the sun, but this period has gone on longer than usual. The sun usually operates on an 11-year cycle with maximum activity occurring in the middle of the cycle. The last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, with the next cycle just beginning and expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. Today's sun, however, is as inactive as it was two years ago, and scientists aren't sure why. In the past, solar physicists observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots, coinciding with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700."
Just google "Vallejo bankrupt" when you get a chance to get a glimpse at how well legislating economic nonsense works out in the long run.
Clearly some very mean people are not paying their fair share!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
Especially illustrative is the butterfly diagram:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
There is indeed a relatively unusual lull in sunspots, but not too different from, say, the situation around 1900.
1. Group A declares GLOBAL WARMING (and soylent green) comes from PEOPLE
2. Group B declares Nuh-uh! Not it doesn't!
3. World expends great effort in reducing human contribution, reducing warming by (a little bit)
4. Natural warming/cooling cycles shift, reducing warming by (a lot)
5. Earth cools due to natural cycle before effects of #3 really kick in.
6. Group A declares GLOBAL COOLING also came from human behavior. See! Told You So! Our efforts worked! We should do more of #3!
7. Group B says zOMG! The earth is cooling! Build more SUVs! Save the planet! Save the tropical fish from extinction!
8. The current arguments continue
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
And those few who actually are climatologists, like Mr. Hanson, know that they are lying. The facts are plain. There has been no warming (except where they move thermometers to hang over asphalt parking lots), and now there is cooling, in sync with the sunspot minimum in progress, and the Pacific Decadal Occilation. 31,000 climatologists, climate scientists and other scientists just signed a petition against the 1900 IPCC sociologists and a handful of scientists getting their grant money from promoting warming alarmism. The ice sheets are getting thicker, too. You are sooo easily deceived. Would you happen to be interested in buying a bridge? Or male enhancement pills?
At least, that's how the Globe might cover it.
So this indicates that human attempts at greenhouse gas control are effectively equivalent in impact to tossing deck chairs off the Titanic to slow the rate of sinking. Hubris, anyone?
Invenio via vel creo
"Second, while the warming of Jupiter can be explained by increases in solar output, the warming of Earth can not. Do you honestly think climate scientists don't take this into account?"
You mean climate scientists like Svensmark who have proven a direct correlation between cosmic radiation, cloud cover, and the temperature of the earth?
I don't know who these 'climate scientists' who say otherwise are, but most of the ones I see express opinions are not scientists, but either journalists or populistic politicians. The IPCCs report is a minority opinion that was HEAVILY censored before release.
CO2 is a crock.
I have spoken'eth.
It due to those damn Americans and their SUV's that solely caused global warming -and- by relation the are to blame for the diminishing sunspots.
My theory is that it will get warmer, then cooler, then warmer, etc.
My Theory is irrefutable.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Falcon Punch works every time!
The great Flying Spaghetti Monster feels the "sauce" on the planet is getting a little too hot, and reached out with his noodly appendage has lowered the heat for us all. All hail his Al Dente-ness!.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
im starting to believe mayans were right.
Read radical news here
My jeep polluted and made the sun die :'(....
While you are looking around for the missing Sunspots, let us know if you find any of the Sun's Neutrinos. I hear they lost a bunch and cannot find them.
It's the spin! The stars are the next to go. Robert Charles Wilson warned us about this!
I bet Jupiter is just laughing at all of this right about now. ...that would be Uranus.
Heh. No, dearie. That was my satire at people who treat it as some kind of fucked-up religion. The moment you go some variant of "OMG, you're not worthy to question The Great Scientists", you're not about science any more.
Get this: you don't need anyone's seal of approval to use your own head. Einstein was a nobody working as a patent office clerk, when he thought he could do better than the great Lorentz. Galileo was a nobody to question the great scientists of the Aristotelian establishment. Etc.
There is _nothing_ that's sacrosanct and beyond questioning, no matter what Great Man said it. Even if he's a scirentist. In fact, _especially_ if he's a scientist.
Now I'm not saying that you or I are as smart as Einstein but the principle remains the same. Capisci? Attitudes like, basically, "OMG, don't even try to question The Scientists, you're not worth it," have _nothing_ to do with _science_. That's how religion works, not science.
Science works more like, "Ok, let's see your data."
And in a nutshell _that_ is what ticks me off about the carbon cultists. That fucked up attitude that there's only one Truth, some High Priests... err... "Scientists" hand it down as some sacrosanct beyond-questioning Holy Truth, and you're not worthy to question Them. And everyone is the Enemy if they even try to think about it on their own. That's _not_ science. That's religion in pseudo-science garb.
Regardless of whether the scientists studying that are right or right, and they probably are are real scientists... the gang of rabid eco-zealots waging holy crusade in their name, are not. They just perverted that science into some weird kind of religion.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Well, but on the other hand you could describe the early adopters as "hasty," too. It all depends on what the precise right time to jump on the bandwagon is, isn't it?
I'm OK with a President who is inherently cautious, who doesn't suggest certain threats are "imminent" until they damn well are, and who is more reluctant than recent Presidents to propose radical restrictions on our freedoms to address such "imminent" threats.
I mean, it's not like we need the President on board to be doing something, is it? It's not like the rest of us can't be reducing CO2 emissions all on our own -- driving less, saving energy, turning out the lights and turning up the thermostat -- if we choose to do so.
This may seem like, 'no big deal'. But the amateur radio community needs sun spots to give us good ionospheric propagation.
I was an active ham back in college - about 1998. 20 meters was great back then. But I moved into a series of apartments where I couldn't put up an antenna, and the Internet came along, so I let it slide. Recently, my wife sort of convinced me to take the hobby back up again (probably to take some of my time away from Poker), and now that I'm back on the air.... the Sun isn't cooperating. :(
But that's ok. At least we're on the upswing rather than the downswing.
Although these cycles average at 11 years (actually 11.1), they vary markedly between approximately 9 and 14 years. So while this one is running longer than average it's going to be another 18 months or so before it's really unusual.
On a related note the period of 'no sunspots' is referred to as the Maunder Minimum, though it should be noted that there were still sunspots, and the cycles did continue, just at a greatly reduced intensity.
Note: I do not look at the sun directly, nor do I play someone who does so on TV.
Yes, IPPC was censored. All there recommendations were toned down by politicians. IPPC scenario are generally called "best case scenario". They are already being revised up.
And yes, you must be right because you say so. All of IPPC knows nothing about climate. I mean, it is only their damn *JOB* to know.
What are you nutters going to say next? Oh wait! I know,
* year 2002 => "There is no global warming! There is no record more than few years and people can't be trusted with their thermometers."
* year 2007 => "Global warming is from the sun only!! We have direct evidence from Mars and Jupiter and Uranus that they are warming too. We must trust all those "direct" evidence!!" (they couldn't trust local thermometers before and suddenly they embrace temperatures on Mars????? - that's some baseline there!)
* year 2008 => "There is no global warming! There is a global cooling!!! See sun spots!! And if there is warming, see 2007!!"
Side note by anti-reality crackpots: "People who's JOB is to study these things, obviously are stupid and incompetent. And the 99%+ agreement means the http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/distortions.htm
So, who are the people that deny reality? Same people that finished off the passenger pigeon - the once most abundant bird in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon
"In 1896, the final flock of 250,000 were killed by American sportsmen knowing that it was the last flock of that size"
But hey, at least these people felt good at a time!
Fight on in spite of reality!
A lot of good that will do when all it takes is one asteroid or super volcano to make your children extinct.
Exactly why every cent to be devoted to "fixing" global warming should be devoted to space exploration instead. Then it doesn't matter who the planet is destroyed by, if indeed that is the course it is on by fate or chance or purpose - and we know we can go into space, we don't necessarily know we can "fix" global warming or the best way to do so.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
somebody already linked it to mayan
Apocalypse, well let us look at the small history of apocalypses, I mean that as if they all failed up to now and don't let us get started on the fact that the mayan calendar don't predict any apocalypse , it is simply a digit-end in their calendar (a bit like 999 to 1000... Oh , wait, many people went crazy at that time too. Funny.) mayan which could not even predict their own end by the way.
So yes, you are right, this is a play on man's primal fear. Move along. nothing to see here. Except the crazy as usual.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
If I recall correctly, Jupiter produces far more heat than it absorbs from the sun, and any increase in heat is more likely to be due to an increased period of activity on Jupiter rather than the Sun.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Man! Part of the post was somehow erased when submitting!! Thank you slashdot for not quoting >
The part that was erased was regarding Rutherford model of the atom - nucleus with electron cloud. In first half of 1900s, some physics still believed the atom model was not as described by Rutherford's *direct* measurements in his alpha scattering experiments. So, about 1% of physicists did not agree - does that mean there wasn't consensus about the model??
This is exactly the same with current view of global warming by the denial crowd - and media is even playing into their hands! They take one person from the mainstream and put them in a "debate" against some crackpot from the tiny minority.
If media wants to be fair about discussions about Holocaust, (for example), and if they want to discuss it why not put some KKK extremist on the other side to debate?? That would rightly be never tolerated! So why is it tolerated with respect to established science?
The bottom line is people want to distort reality to feed good. That's why there is the denial culture that is prevalent in the mainstream (NOT in science community!).
http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/distortions.htm
Don't really care if the rocks are uncomfortable. Presumably there is a narrow band that 'life as we know it' exists within. 0K..270K really doesn't matter, we'd all be dead. Suppose the narrow band is in the range 290K .. 310K. Then 1K is ~5%. Thats a bit more troubling. What is the actual range?
Second, I think part of the issue is about distribution - head in the oven, feet in the fire - and all that. Although, the feet in the SUV, head up the ass seems more popular...
And now the source of the problem is revealed:
The sun is suffering from gender identity issues. Someone needs to take him aside and quietly explain to him that guys do not get knocked up. This lack of spots is just an indication that his acne is finally going away. Of course, that means he will probably be leaving home soon - and won't that mess up our planet's energy balance.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Even NASA's data seems to disagree with you. We had twice your number since 1970 alone. Go figure. A 0.05% increase per decade, over a century, is 0.5%. (And over 150 years, it's 0.75%.) Now it doesn't go the full 1.2% we'd need to explain the Global Warming (unless it went up as a different rate before), but it almost halves the effect we can blame ourselves for.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Meaning, it is speculated that when you have less solar activity, it leads to more lower cloud cover.
And a tiny change in cloud cover means a BIG change in temperature. They reflect a lot of incoming solar heat - in the form of light in the short infrared through ultraviolet portion of the spectrum - back out before it has a chance to be absorbed, re-radiated in the long infrared, and trapped by the greenhouse gases.
So if:
- lower sunspots are associated with
- lower solar wind and solar magnetic field, which
- reduces deflection of cosmic rays, which then
- create more ions in the air, thus
- nucleating more condensation, leading to
- clouds forming sooner and more densely, thus
- reflecting more sunlight
you can see a large change in temperature in rather short order, even if the solar surface temperature and the resulting incoming solar heat and light (above the atmosphere) doesn't change at all.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Google reveals that it is 31000 American scientists, 9100 of which have PhDs.
Apparently, no spotting at all. Word is the sun is tremendously worried and was seen at CVS in the pregnancy test section.
Actually it just got hold of some benzoyl peroxide. It's ecstatic that its acne has finally cleared up.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
could fill a proverbial thimble.
The changes we're witnessing (Solar activity, climate change here and on other bodies) are very likely related, but we don't have the proof or experience yet to determine that, or what the ultimate result will be.
Lets face it. We know next to nothing about how Sol works and cycles. We've been paying attention for, maybe, 400 years. The longest running cycle we've noticed is ~ 22 years, for the sunspots. 22 years is absolutely nothing in celestial time.
The timespan of humans on this planet hasn't yet been sufficient to do long-term forecasting, unfortunately. That doesn't mean that we should bury our heads in the sand and ignore the changes around us.
It may be that we are not responsible for the changes happening in our environment, but we sure as hell have to deal with them. It behooves us to take action to try to prevent what may end up being cataclysmic environmental changes.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
Lesson learned. Next big bang, use protection.
XenoPhage
Technological Musings
In the past, solar physicists observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots, coinciding with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700."
This is really really *really* hard to say. Our data on sunspots in prior to about 1750 is pretty dismal. Most of the mentions of sunspots are casual or even accidental observation. You can find a lot of data on this at the NOAA ftp site:
Reports of sunspots from 164BC to 1918AD
Monthly average of sunsports from 1749 to present
Note two things: One, that there were reports of sunspots between 1650 and 1700; two, that the data prior to 1749 is inaccurate and (pardon the pun) spotty.
Note that the monthly averages file (the second one) is fairly accurate, as the older data in that file was made by the Royal Observatory and the later data in that file was made by the NOAA. I find it really hard to jump to the conclusion that the little ice age was a result of sunspots. Without a time machine, I don't think we could say that with any degree of certainty.
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
The original post was about "NO" sunspots when, in fact, there have been sunspots. All the replies seemed to have gone off on wild tangents full of worthless (IMHO) speculation. Here, from a recent ARRL propogation report, are some actual facts.
This week we saw only one sunspot, numbered 997, and only on Labor Day, May 26. Alas, this was another sunspot left over from fading Cycle 23, and the appearance was very brief. One day it weakly emerged, and it quickly faded from view. The previous five days were spotless; spots appeared on the five days prior to that, and previous to those spotted days were ten days of no spots.
Recently we offered notes from Dr. Kenneth Tapping, showing why he doesn't think this minimum is unusual. Dr. Tapping is an astrophysicist at the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory in Penticton, British Columbia (see, http://tinyurl.com/3lqtab).
The notes were offered after Dr. Tapping was widely misquoted several months ago (and since then, as the mangled quotes seem to have taken on a life of their own) on various web sites claiming that Dr. Tapping foresaw possibly decades of no sunspots, and then trying to link this to several sorts of worldwide calamity. Some pieces even claimed that the sunspot cycle hit bottom a year and a half ago, and that no sunspots have been observed since, a false claim easily refuted by existing data, widely available.
Ice age you say? Thank God we have cheap heating fuel.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Of course, the big coronal mass ejections which are associated with very intense ionizing particle fluxes at satellite level are not encountered in solar minimum.
However, the trapped proton fluxes of the Van Allen belts, mainly present in low earth orbit and medium earth orbit (roughly from 500 km to 18000 km) show an inverse dependance to the solar activity: they are more intense in solar minimum. In solar maximum, the atmosphere is heated up and expands, causing more trapped protons to decay. The increase in solar activity is also correlated with a decrease of cosmic rays coming from outer space, which are important contributors to the trapped neutrons belts.
For satellites in geosynchronous orbits which are mainly crossing electrons belts, it's the reverse story, though.
To get back on the topic, here are the current solar cycle predictions.
the economy. Now you finally reveal it. Reduce CO2, save the economy. What BS! You guys are the new religion, just admit it already...
Irradiance is the energy that gets to ground level. The problem there is that the atmosphere absorbs everything outside a narrow band. Just because most UV doesn't get to ground level (or life would be well and truly fucked), it doesn't mean that the atmosphere doesn't get warmed by it anyway.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The sponsor of the petition seems to be this:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Note that these are "scientists", not climatologists. I'd be interested to know how many specialize in climate related fields.
Including Edward Teller and other dead scientists? This site has been thoroughly debunked as a fake. Sorry, anyone can claim anything on the Internet. For instance, did you know that eighty bajillion scientists believe in global warming? It's true, and I can show you their signatures, which all look suspiciously like mine, but that's just a coincidence. I also have similar proof that I have had sex with every hot chick on the planet.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When George Bush came into office, we had sunspots and nine planets. Now ...
[Insert pithy quote here]
Maybe the sun has 1 BILLION sunblock? Or, got solar chemotherapy?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
There have been sunspots. I check spaceweather.com everyday, sunspots are popping up all the time, though small and they go away quickly.
Surprised no one has mentioned shortwave reception. Kinda sucks these days if your trying to get into shortwave, sunspots help.
When the revolution comes the person who modded this 'Redundant' will be first against the wall. 'Redundant' doesn't mean, 'I disagree and wish to censor.' Man if I catch you in meta-moderation you shit...
The glaciers on Kilimanjaro are evaporating from a lack of moisture, not melting due to too much heat.
So what? So there's no little black spots on the sun today. It's the same old thing as yesterday...
Just cool it,,, ok.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Or maybe more tax money?
Many of these people are nothing but watermelons -- green on the outside, but red to the core.
Reference: My kindergarten, first, second, and third grade teachers. We were taught "global cooling" as fact in public elementary schools, and that if we didn't stop polluting the Earth and blocking all the sunlight then our grandchildren would freeze to death.
I'm dead serious about that and not exaggerating in the slightest. That is what the mainstream public school science curriculum was teaching in my part of the world. I know it's fashionable to deny that global cooling was ever taken seriously, but I assure you that a lot of kids from my generation were taught to be terrified of it.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
earth@sol/# shutdown -h now
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
I'm not sure which one it is. I didn't mean to imply climate scientists have a lack of respect for science, that's absurd. I meant to imply that those that deny that human activity is changing the climate have a lack of respect for science.
I think I'll keep my civic, despite your generous offer of SUV.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Do you realize the 40% of the CO2 released by man is NOT absorbed back into the system?
Do you understand that Algea does not convert CO2 to O2 but just use it in the process of photosynthesis and releases again latter? At night plants respire, that converts O2 to CO2. Then foliage rots, it release CO2 as well.
You don't even know the basics of photosynthesis, yet you want to deride the findings of thousands of scientist around the world?
What a jack-ass.
Do you even have the sense to realize that if what you are saying is true, the CO2 wouldn't be climbing at an unprecedented rate?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The increase in temperatures on the earth do not match the cycles the sun has gone through in the last 100 years. Initially it seems like a good thing, but then when you actually study it it turns out to be false.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Group A finds the the current rapid increase in CO2 is generated by people
Group B offers no solid counters, therefore result to strawmen and non sequiters.
World tries to fins away to reduce human impact.
Natural warming/cooling cycles doesn't "shift" becasue there is too much CO2. This shift is based on the enviroment, there is no garrentee it will shift cooler with the addition mega tonnage of CO2 it can not absorb.
Group C continue to profess there ignorance as truth, doesn't bother to study or understand even the most basic elements of the science, and continues to confuse the issue.
Note Group A consist of almost every scientist, group B is filled with Fundamentalists and politicains, and groups C is full a poor excuses for limp wristed cum stains.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And as more science was done, more evidences and facts where determined, and the outcome changes. Welcome to the big world, jack ass.
On the other hand, the fact that you kindergarten teacher taught it clearly out weighs the mountains of evidence, so carry on.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So the Earth will turn into the most awesomest waterpark ever!
Global warming/Little Ice Age issues aside, I'm more concerned with the enormous amount of satellite-based technology that we've deployed in the past few years. The time of solar minimum, a minimum that seems to be taking its time about not being a minimum anymore.
When the sun wakes up again we may find stuff in space getting fried. And techie stuff on Earth stopping working. Important, mission-critical stuff.
...laura
Ancient Maya All Ready Knew
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=208132&cid=16997444
Didn't you get the memo?
The CVS hasn't been touched lately because it's been deprecated. We switched over to SVN three weeks ago, and you still don't have a single commit. Would you please stop camping on the CVS and start merging to the SVN... and what's this about you being pregnant?
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
OK, geekoid, this is a personal message.
I believe in Global Warming, and I think I've made that pretty clear. I didn't so much as hint otherwise. I was replying only to the people who don't believe that Global Cooling was ever presented as fact, as if they admit that it was and then was later dispelled, then Global Warming must also be untrue. Well, you and I both know that's not the case.
So why the personal attack? We're not even in disagreement here, and I certainly didn't do anything to call for that. You usually have interesting things to say, and it's beneath you to act this way.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
yes but we also use Grey's Anatomy for porn
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
They're on bloody holiday! Scientific mumbo jumbo be damned. ;)
That NASA article is 5 years old. Within the last year or so Nature has run a report of a comprehensive review of solar radiance studies. The conclusion was that changes in solar radiation represent only a small part of recent warming. The link is one of the other responses in this thread.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
This is totally contrary to what I remember.
I VERY CLEARLY remember being told in 1969 in elementary school that CO2 would "turn earth into Venus due to the greenhouse effect".
Go ahead and claim otherwise. Maybe both were being told at the same time. Maybe you can accuse me of lying, just like I can accuse you of lying.
I believe a lot of people claiming this are confused by "nuclear winter" which was popularized around 1983. I also pretty clearly remember people arguing against that by saying "everybody knows pollution will make the temperature go up, not down".
yar
The new cycle started back in February and is proceeding normally. http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
You can view current solar activity here and there is at least one spot. http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest.html
"I'm never encouraged when a solar scientist describes the face of the sun as "dead"."
Why would I accuse you of lying? Both hypotheses were bandied about during that timeframe, back before they had enough data to tell which was actually happening.
I believe a lot of people claiming this are confused by "nuclear winter" which was popularized around 1983.Nah. I was taught about cooling in the 70s, the idea being that smog particulates would raise the Earth's albedo, causing water to freeze into white ice, further raising the Earth's albedo, etc.
Again, I'm absolutely not arguing against global warming, just presenting anecdotal evidence to the people who claim for whatever reason that the opposite was never taught.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Don't be too sanguine that the "global cooling" folks are all nutters.
A 2001 NASA/GISS study by Drew Shindell found a causal link between the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum (a prolonged period of no sunspot activity first observed by Galileo). The causal link was the loss of facular ultraviolet radiation from sunspots. The effect was a general -0.3 to -0.4 degrees Celsius cooling of the Earth, but since windborne oceanic moisture slowed down, inland winters became more severe.
We've already seen a -0.1 degrC (-0.33 w/m-2) effect from a decrease in solar radiance since the early 1990's. Some astrophysicists are already predicting an additional -0.1 to -0.2 degrC decrease in solar energy by 2025.
Although that's almost as much as the temperature decrease modeled to cause the Little Ice Age, remember the planet has warmed since then, so the effect will be to blunt global warming first, not send us back into another Little Ice Age.