Slashdot Mirror
Sunspot Activity Continues To Drop
slreboy writes "The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower. The year 2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73 percent). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87 percent)..."
there was no sunspot activity yesterday. that's 1 out of 1 day or 100% !!
idiots.
We can't know how many sunspots there really are if we're only seeing only half the surface of our star, right?
Comparing a 90 day period to a 365 day period isn't a like for like comparison (obviously). Statistically it's meaningless. Why not pick a 1 day period when there wasn't a spot in 2008 and there wasn't a spot in 2009 and say "Sun spot activity is unchanged!". It's silly.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Is this caused by global warming?
Should we implement a green tax in order to help the sun get its spots back?
On the other hand maybe the sun has discoved clearasil..
1) The Sun does effect global temperature
2) It's effects are pretty immediate
3) The Global Warming Trend does not follow the Sun activities close enough for it to be the cause of the trend.
4) The only thing we know of at this time that could be causing this global warming trend is CO2
5)We are talking about the release of trillions of tons of CO2 that has been buried for millions of years.
6) If we keep increasing will will make the planet uninhabitable by us.
7) We have workable solutions to this right now.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Bitchin'! You have managed to give the looney left the final piece of the chain to link reduced sunspot activity to George W. Bush.
Do you have ESP?
You should hope you're wrong. The good thing about the global warming scare, true or false, is it gives the masses of dumb people some kind of tangible cost in the near future for their use of an unsustainable and unhealthy energy policy.
The backlash against "global warming" hype will have the opposite effect, it will make people say 'fuck it, I'm gonna drive an SUV and leave my AC at 68 degrees all day'.
Global warming is not the only (potential, if you buy into it) problem with our energy policy. Another is just plain old air quality. Our air quality is shit, and one big reason is our use of hydrocarbons.
Another flaw is that, holy shit! Guess what?! There's only so much oil and coal in the ground and it's going to get more and more expensive to pull out of the ground!
Then of course there's the US (and other country) blood spilled in pointless middle east wars, etc...
The people most scared and scary about global warming may or may not be dumbasses. But at least the actions it makes them drive towards are the right actions.
There isn't any current history of temperature trends on Venus.
However, there are of Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, and Pluto.
As the most mind-boggling coincidence EVAR, all five show global warming over the last 30 years that correlate with the rising temperature trends on Earth in that period.
Since that's too much to give any credit to as being purely a mind-boggling coincidence, the ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION is that our evil CO2-emitting ways are completely 100% responsible not only for our own planet warming a smidgen (until 1998, anyhow) but EVERY OTHER MEASURED PLANET IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM AS WELL.
It's just amazing how trivial human actions are the only allowable explanation for universal phenomena, isn't it? Why, we should have a name for that. We could call it 'religion', perhaps.
... like guns, or global warming.
In general, our common sense fails us badly whenever we're looking at rare events -- and in spite of what the evening news may make you believe, shootings are rare events. The solution is to look to science and statistics rather than common sense.
The correct approach to gun regulation is to examine the numbers and look at what kinds of gun control actually have beneficial effects on crime rates. Also, we need to analyze the incidence of crimes prevented by gun ownership. Even the Brady Campaign acknowledges about 100,000 such per year in the US; pro-gun organizations estimate much larger numbers.
These numbers can provide a truly rational basis for making decisions about gun control, which we can then balance appropriately against the limitation of human rights imposed by gun control, which is where common sense comes in.
If common sense alone were sufficient, we wouldn't need science and math.
Getting back to (or at least closer to) the topic, science is the right way to approach questions about global warming and man's impact on it as well. In both cases, our approach may change the more we learn, but the RIGHT way to handle it is to make policy supported by our best scientific understanding... with an appropriate appreciation for the limits of that understanding, and balancing the policy changes against impacts on people and their way of life.
"Balancing", BTW, doesn't mean "ignore the science if it would upset the economy", but it does mean that pragmatic concerns must be considered and weighed against the risks predicted by the science... and those risks must be evaluated not only in terms of likely severity, but also in terms of degree of certainty.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
There isn't any current history of temperature trends on Venus.
However, there are of Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, and Pluto.
As the most mind-boggling coincidence EVAR, all five show global warming over the last 30 years that correlate with the rising temperature trends on Earth in that period.
And I suppose you have sources for this data you claim exists? You know, so we can all examine it?
There are only weather forecasters. Climate science is not science, that would require testability and we don't have anything to test with. When weather forecasters start chucking millions of tonnes of sulphate aerosols (or whatever) into the atmosphere, then it will be science.
Deleted
Yes, because Prohibition worked so well with alcohol, and works so well with drugs. The majority of gun crime in the US is committed by people who have illegally obtained the weapons in the first place, in violation of existing gun laws. Stricter laws will not do anything to reduce that level of crime.
Here's where maybe we can agree. In Arizona, anyone can obtain a CCW with the appropriate training. I have no problem making people get training to carry a gun, but that right needs to be open to everyone. Also, a factoid. In any given year you can count on one hand the number of gun crimes committed by CCW holders (of which there are many ten-thousands) The city in which I live has gun ownership rate in excess of 50% of the households. There has been one gun related murder in the last 5 years, and that was an illegal alien Mexican drug dealer that ended up dead in a retail parking lot. He brought his problems with him. 1 person in five years with a population of more than 20K with more than 10K guns present tells me that guns are not the problem. If free access to guns was the primary cause, then the murder rate in my city would be off the chart. it is not.
Just because something seems obvious does not mean it is true. As my statistics teacher taught me (or maybe is was my chemistry teacher), correlation does not imply causality.
Yes, it's obvious that if there were no guns they would be no gun crime. There would be other types of violent crime though, human nature being what is is. There would be 40k less deaths a year from cars if there were no cars, so we should make it really hard to get those too.
My proposal is proper training as a requirement to have either. There is a reason that speed limits in Germany are higher than the US, yet the per-capata death rate for drivers in Germany is markedly lower, and that is proper training.
Also, I'd like to direct your attention to the fact that the recent spate of shootings in the US occurred in states that have some of the strictest gun laws. Ironic, no?
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
the sun is the source of all life on this planet
All life on this planet?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Listen, I'm not going to argue the science but what drives me bonkers about both sides of the Global Warming debate is that it completely misses the point that affects us and our surroundings the most: pollution.
Heavy metals in the water, shitty particles in the air, poison in our food. I don't understand why we bicker about the temperature when it's undeniable how much trash we have injected in to our surroundings.
Is clean air, water, and food too much to ask? I'm not even talking about deforestation, over-fishing, and the deleterious affects of industrial agriculture.
We have a footprint, and a great big ugly one at that. We don't live responsibly. Global Warming is a big red herring and I sometimes wonder who benefits from us focusing on it.
The entire state of North Dakota doesn't exist? With its lax gun laws it had TWO murders in 2008, both STABBINGS! Mexico does have strict gun laws and look where they're heading.
P.S. the "shift" key down next to the "z" key makes big letters.
....They believe that anthropogenic climate change is real....
That is exactly right, they BELIEVE, but do not know this for a fact. Prestigious bodies of scientists have in the past believed certain things to be true and later turned out to be false.
There are many cycles in nature, climate being just one. There is indeed evidence that long ago the average temperature of the Earth was significantly warmer than it is today. Greenland is called that for a reason. It was within human history once a green land. Ice cores drilled to the bottom of the ice contain molds, pollen and other microscopic evidence of plant life now still in existence on the East Coast of the United States.
Even if we are in a warming cycle at this time, this does not mean we cannot enter a cooling cycle at a later time. Besides, even if it does get warm enough to melt all the ice in Greenland, so what? Would it be so bad to be able to grow food in places now covered with ice? I am quite certain that there are many Canadians who would not mind a milder climate. There is also evidence that the world's ocean where once much lower than they are today.
All theory is gray