Slashdot Mirror
The Sun Has First Spotless Month Since 1913
radioweather writes "August 2008 has made solar history. As of 00 UTC September 1st 2008 (5PM PST)
we just witnessed the
first spotless calendar month since June 1913.This was determined according
to sunspot
data from NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center, which goes back to 1749.
In the 95 years since 1913, we've had quite an active sun, but activity has been
declining in the last few years. The sun today is a nearly featureless sphere and has been spotless for 42
days total, but this is the first full calendar month since 1913 for a spotless
sun. And there are other indicators of the sun being in a funk. Australia's
space weather agency recently revised their solar cycle 24 forecast, pushing the
expected date for a ramping up of
cycle 24 sunspots into the future by six months."
As one of the links above indicate, there was a "sunspeck" reported August 21/22, though. Reader MikeyTheK adds a link to a story at Daily Tech on the spotless record.
Don't worry, some discredited scientists will find a way to pin the sunspot shortages on human activity so we can go back to our regularly scheduled societal self-flogging.
Yes I am still addicted — if by "addicted" you mean "actually fucking trained in astronomy and physics". As opposed to, say, "sock-puppet so busy grinding political axes for my team that I can't possibly acknowledge anything that counters my conservative world view."
Since you apparently have spent SO MUCH TIME studying the work of solar and planetary atmospheres scientists and have SUCH A COMMANDING GRASP of radiative transfer in fluids, please tell me: in the absence of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, why is Venus so hot? And, just to save me the trouble of writing a response to your failed guess: no, it is not the atmospheric pressure, since Venus and Earth have comparable values of that if you include the liquid oceans.
Or you could feel free to shut up on topics you do not understand. Just saying it's an option..
P.S. It may be a coincidence, it may not. It is more likely of a coincidence than is the AGW argument. Perhaps if the political offices would quit editing out those aspects of government scientific reports they don't like it would be easier to find out.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Actually you're very wrong on all 3 counts.
Muslims don't believe they're stewards of the earth, they don't believe they have any control at all (given their average government, that may be a truth however). Muslims have predatory farming practices. Only Jews really believe in their stewardship of the earth, and Christians believe they're stewards, not of the earth, but of Gods people, for them earth is a tool to grow humanity. Sure, abuse is to be prevented, and it must remain possible to keep doing that in the long term, but that's it. If that means covering the planet in solar panels, eradicating all but token forests, then that should be fine with Christian theology. The main difference between muslim views and christian ones is that Christians believe they can change the earth to do their bidding. So do Jews, but they try to change the earth only insofar necessary to protect what is already there.
In the Dharmic faiths certainly the Sikh, but they're not alone in this don't believe they steward the earth.
And Taoic religions don't even believe the earth exists, never mind that it is to be cared for. Their "average" principle is that the earth will die anyway - a millenia earlier or later doesn't really change things. Neither does a million years earlier. Every last Taoic faith agrees with Christianity in that it considers human concern superior to nature's concerns.
Even your "not being wiped off the planet" stuff is ridiculous. In an extremely broad sense you're perhaps right, but then you'd have to include the hindu ideal, put somewhat disrespectfully : to pursue money, sex and enlightenment (which used to be in practice equivalent to holding political power, even if not in theory).
That's how a Hindu prevents himself from being "wiped off the earth" : money, sex and power. Christians would advise abstention from same (esp. power) in order to prevent being wiped off the earth. Sorry if I offend anyone's sensibilities, but I am trying to make the point that there are differences between religions, that can often spill over, esp. with a certain religion, into the political realm, GW policy being part of that.
So really you're only right for a single, tiny religion, Judaism.