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)..."
The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics states that bodies in a system must remain in equilibrium. So if we're experiencing global warming where are we getting that energy from? It must be coming from somewhere?
... sunlight that would return to the Sun and heat it back up causing sunspots. I am currently drafting a bill that will move sunspots to the endangered phenomena list. That same bill will introduce that list and hopefully this will be reason enough to form it unlike Senator Kerry's attempt to create the list when he saw Rosie O'Donnell exercising (or so he thought).
The answer, fellow scientists, is that we are stealing that energy from the Sun.
Yes, my charts and ramblings reveal that our greenhouse gases are trapping sunlight
Gentlemen, we must act now. There is no more time for debating and arguing. The sunspots are going away and without that, we may lose our natural magnetic storms and maybe even the precious Aurora Borealis. Our Northern Lights are in danger while you sit back here comfortably in your chairs. Today we are polluters in the hands of an angry environment tomorrow we may be dead. We have angered the environment and now we must face the wrath of the environment. Including, but not limited to, the loss of sunspots.
I don't know about you but when I was a kid, we celebrated sunspots with our parents. Upwards we gazed directly into the sun, fueling the optometry industry. Yes, sunspots create jobs and foster growth. Do you want to share sunspot gazing with your children and their children? I know I do.
But all is not lost. The environment is injured and may be weak enough for us to stop it before it kills us all. I propose a preemptive strike now while we still have time. We could sneak in special units disguised in ponchos and Birkenstock's with thermonuclear weapons that would devastate the environment and save us from certain death at its hands. China has already rendered the environment obsolete and it is our turn to follow suit. Gentlemen, the question today is not if we should deal a final blow to the environment but when.
My work here is dung.
Better send a huge mushroom shaped spaceship to fire a bomb into it!
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
It's stuff like this that makes me ask when will those neo-republicons take global warming seriously??? There's carbon filling up everywhere, so much the sun is losing her spots, and we just sit here and do nothing about it!!!! We need more diamonds!!!! That will get rid of the carbon!! Obama will fix it. He'll give a cadillacic converter to every car, we'll be converting carbon to diamonds every day as we drive. Diamonds are the solution!!!
Qxe4
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
/rant
While it may not be time to panic, there are some other startling signs
At this point there's nothing really we can do, but it may need an explanation as to why it has hit such a low, and when the below-average maximum will occur (supposedly in 2012).
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
The boom-bust cycle that has plagued the economy for so long is clearly due to the Sun's influence. Our only hope of a stable economy is to destroy the Sun once and for all.
For too long we've been at the mercy of the whims of the Sun. Sure, we built that fancy iron core and produced a magnetic field to protect us from the harshest of the Sun's radiation, but the Sun still has almost total control over our precious climate. This situation is simply untenable. Millenia of effort and animal sacrifice have shown that the Sun simply cannot be negotiated with...our only chance is a massive nuclear strike.
That's ridiculous. It's obviously the other way around. Once the economy rebounds, the sun will return to its previous level of sunspot activity.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
The sun rotates. In the course of a month, we see it from all sides.
I picked a good year to get licensed for ham radio. I sure get sick of hearing about how you can work Australia on a wet noodle during high Sunspot years. At least the low bands are reliable, but then again those bands require ginormous antennas. So as a consequence my house looks like some sort of martian communications test zone. I think my neighbors fear me enough not to seriously ask what's going on.
My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
I would like to point out that this law states:
"If A and B are each in thermal equilibrium with C, A is also in thermal equilibrium with B."
Important links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroth_law_of_thermodynamics
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Good point...after decades of studying sunspot activity, it's only natural for the Sun to get self-conscious about everyone staring at its blemishes all the time. It's only natural it would try and hide them by turning the other way.
Not only is the summary ripped from the linked article without quoting it, but the article is plagiarized in whole from ScienceDaily! I knew I'd seen it before this article, and this explains why. The blogger even hotlinked the image from science daily, wasting their bandwidth.
The linked article in the summary should be adjusted to the original ScienceDaily article and the entire summary should be quoted from it rather than attributed to slreboy.
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
One day doesn't form a statistically significant sample, 365 days do.
The material world doesn't understand seconds either. Should we drop the whole of physics? A year is just a sampling period which can be compared to previous periods. Any natural cycles will be apparent regardless of the period chosen (nyquist notwithstanding).
The conditions on the shortwave bands seriously suck right now! I miss those "wet noodle" days that AI1P, Mr_Perl mentioned where you could work Australia with 4 watts into a mobile antenna on 20 meters and get a 589 report.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
As MC Hawking clearly states:
"You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game,
'cause entropy will take it all 'though it seems a shame.
The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state,
that entropy must increase and not dissipate.
Creationists always try to use the second law, to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!"
I realize that HAM radio is a bit of an anachronism in the eyes of most slashdot readers, but it's still the most viable medium for emergency communications. Unfortunately, with sunspot activity being so low, HF communications become very limited. Whole bands of RF spectrum are almost unusable, because the E-layer of the ionosphere can no longer bounce higher frequencies of radio waves. 40m wavelength and lower tend to still be usable, 20m is come-and-go, and 17m and higher become sporadic or completely unusable.
I'm 31, I've been a HAM for 6 years. My cell phone often doesn't get coverage where I roam, and my power and internet and landline phone have been knocked out by storms and provider mistakes. Radio works when all else fails... ...but sometimes it works better than others!
Not so. We have two statistical samplings, one with n=90, one with n=365. Based on the sample sizes and some other info, we can establish a confidence interval. Yes, the interval will be larger for the 90-day sample... but just because we can't be 100% confident of the exact results doesn't mean it's statistically meaningless.
One other note -- historical data must be used to establish that there are not periodic cycles with a frequency of less than one year, which would make the 90-day sample set inaccurate.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The sun is outsourcing its sun spot activity to another star in a less economically developed solar system.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
It's simply an early trend, which may point towards further decreasing sunspot activity. I hope you're not seriously trying to tell us you believe there's no difference between a 90-day sample period and a 1-day sample period.
Also, from the article, please note that scientists are not completely brain-dead:
Pesnell believes sunspot counts should pick up again soon, "possibly by the end of the year," to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013. But like other forecasters, he knows he could be wrong. Bull or bear? Stay tuned for updates.
In other words, they're not simply extrapolating the entire year based on a 90-day cycle. Rather, they're looking at how this period fits into a larger trend.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
whodathunkit
So basically we need to change the extent of gun ownership in either direction every day.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
There are several hundred years worth of data, showing a regular 11 year cycle. Even measurements plotted monthly map to that graph.
You seem to be displaying a form of anthropomorphism towards the sun. You can't just map the lifespan of a human to the lifespan of the sun and conclude that from your perceived frame of reference, a year is the equivalent of a fraction of a second or 'blip'.
Old != Static
That is not true at all. A 90 day sample out of 365 is a great grouping, not as good as a 365 sample, but still good enough. 1 day is not 90 days...in fact it is 90 times less accurate.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
I think his point was that you should not compare a year's worth of data to 3 months' worth. They could simply take the last 365 days and compare it to the 365 before that and it would make a lot more sense.
The problem, of course, is all the -other- people already using calendar years with their data like it means something.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Actually, the (less strawman) classic argument from the second law of thermo is to apply the second law to the universe. Is the universe a closed system? If so, then second law implies eventual heat death. Therefore, we should select at least 1 choice of these options:
1. Universe is not a closed system (religious types would argue this to be true, with God as the external thing affecting it)
2. Universe is of finite age (creationist types tend to go this way, which physics eventually caught up with as big bang beat out steady state theory. When steady state theory was popular, then option 1 was argued as the reason for option 2).
3. The second law is not universally true, it is simply a localized phenomena.
That's the basic form of the second law argument as I encountered it in casual conversation with actual engineers and science folks back when I was in college.
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.
They are acting like a jilted lover after being turned down by Sun.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/162748/sun_blundered_by_turning_down_ibm.html
You know, I've been wondering - doesn't Sun worship really make the most sense of pretty much any religion?
Unlike Jehova, I can actually prove that the sun is the source of all life on this planet, that it nourishes and sustains me and other living things, and that the world will end because of its actions.
We like to make fun of prehistoric religions, but sometimes I think they're actually pretty rational.
... 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.
our only chance is a massive nuclear strike.
I'd say we are currently in the perfect position to nuke it from orbit!!
How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
How can there be sunspots on the dark side of the sun?
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
National Geographic had a piece about this in 2007: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html It does seem to be compelling evidence that the global warming trend is outside the scope of human activity
every stain tells a story
Direct satellite measurements of solar output for the last 30 years.
Jupiter
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The article about Jupiter mentions nothing about a planet-wide increase in temperature. The Mars article mentions an increase in dust storm reducing albedo and therefore increasing light absorption. Still a far cry from the ggp's claim that 5 planets are all experiencing the same increase in temperature.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
That's probably the most profound thought I've read this year...
You must not have thought about it.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
ROFL, and how, pray tell, do those articles qualify as "30 years" of temperature data that "correlate with the rising temperature trends on Earth in that period." Oh, wait, they don't.
Hell, the Jupiter article isn't about planetary warming at all. And as for Mars, "Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming." (source).
See how I provided a citation for my quote? And how the article linked contains references for its claims? Neat, eh?
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.