Slashdot Mirror
Sunspots Return
We're emerging from the longest, deepest sunspot drought since 1913 (we discussed its depths here) with the appearance of a robust group of sunspots over the weekend. Recently we discussed a possible explanation for the prolonged minimum. The Fox News article quotes observer Michael Buxton of Ocean Beach, Calif.: "This is the best sunspot I've seen in two years." jamie found a NASA site where you can generate a movie of the recent sunspot's movement — try selecting the first image type and bumping the resolution to 1024. The magnetic field lines are clearly visible.
"This is the best sunspot I've seen in two years."
Very strange, as magnetic field lines are entirely imaginary.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I know it's popular here to say everything that comes from Fox News is complete bullshit, but maybe just once and a while they have a good article. We should be thankful for that.
CQ DX here we come! Time to hang wire and pound brass!
73, w7com
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Very strange, as magnetic field lines are entirely imaginary.
I guess you've never played with magnets and iron filings?
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
A broken clock is right twice a day, after all...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread478278/pg1
Another New Crop Circle Predicts July 7th 2009 - Earth getting a Major Solar Storm
Who embarrassed the sun this time? Don't you people know how awkward the sun feels when you make fun of it?
Sent from your iPad.
With the notable exception of 24h clocks.
I bet you were pretty happy to hear this.
The marks on your skin that looked like sunspots...
turned out to be rings around Uranus!
zing
Not visible != imaginary. Magnetic lines very much exist, as any kid who has played with a magnet and iron filings can tell you.
Amusingly, my captcha is arrogant
who tagged this NSFW. Seriously.
It's nice to see the new solar cycle is flaring up. I miss those nice auroras we could this during the last solar peak. Haven't seen one in about 3 years now. Some were so bright that you could see them in the city, very early in the evening.(at 56ÂN Magnetic Latitude).
Is it just me and where I live or have last summer and winter been pretty warm while this current summer seems cooler with the return of the sun's spot ? ;-)))
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
I saw the tag but haven't seen this explicitly mentioned yet: one theory is that lack of sunspots causes Earth to warm up. (There is a very strong negative correlation between sunspot activity and temperature on Earth.)
Maybe now we'll find out who's right.
Sun? Didn't they go out of business or something?
Free Martian Whores!
like ANYTHING Fox News allegedly reports about the so-called "sun" would be worth listening to.
If you have to censor some from speaking out about science for fear of the scrutiny maybe your science isn't really science at all. Anyone who questions the validity of a theory should be heard. I know that there will be those who will try to mock you but the science is the truth in and of itself, not a side effect of your belief in the science.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
No, the magnetic field is real but invisible. Magnetic field lines, on the other hand, are simply a mechanism for representing (e.g., on paper) magnetic field orientation and strength. The lines themselves are not real. (Compare with, for example, a topographical map. The height of the earth's surface is real, but the lines on a topographical map are a representation of height; they're not real.)
No, they're quite real. Being immaterial aspects of electro-magnetism,
they are, however, normally invisible. Here, however, you can see the
superhot plasma flowing along them, much as you can get iron filings
on a piece of paper to do with an ordinary magnet.
Oh sure...
Like ANY opinion Anonymous Cowards have about the so-called "Fox News" would be worth listening to.
;)
Anyone who questions the validity of a theory should be heard.
Anyone who offers valid criticisms of your theory with data to back them up should be heard. Saying anyone who questions a theory should be heard might sound nice in theory, but in reality it means you have a bunch of people throwing out unsubstantiated garbage in order to muddy the waters and further their own agendas, which are rarely motivated by scientific concerns.
The increase in temperature of planet Earth caused by Global Warming has changed the ambient temperature in our Solar System ever so slightly. This has caused irreparable damage the the Sun's delicate jet stream. The Cap and Trade bill will be too late to prevent Supernova.
Go check it out at http://www.solarcycle24.com/
This guy's everything about the sun that one can track. In particular, he has an image of the sun on the upper left hand corner that shows how pathetic this sunspot group.
I wouldn't say the sunspot drought is over, until there is sustained progress.
This is my sig.
Because I betcha that if Congress gets Cap and Trade in place, throw in some Kyoto claims, that in a few years if we see a cooling trend beyond our current one, they will lay claim to proof they were right.
In other words, the salesmen won. No matter the out come they will claim to have proven themselves. In the end all we get will be more embedded taxes.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Yeah, because the field is not uniform the iron filings clump around the actual physical lines. It's the same thing with gravity - the field is not uniform, but concentrated along specific lines protruding out of the earth. Sometimes you get tripped up when you walk through one of the bigger gravitational field lines. Here in Michigan you can clearly feel them when driving your car through them - it feels like the road is all bumpy.
*end sarcasm*
The comment that they are imaginary does suggest that the plasma (or something) on the sun somehow concentrates the field much the way iron filings concentrate them. Once you have filings it concentrates the field and you get more filings attached to the end thus creating lines. Similar must occur on the sun or the lines would not be visible.
You BETTER not be knocking the Time Cube, biach.
Indeed, what is the reason behind the field lines, by current theory?
Isn't plasma a decent conductor? The electrons moving pretty much as they please?
Isn't it entirely possible that the lines themselves, made of either plasma or iron filings, are actually caused/created by the amount of intensity of magnitized matierial present in the field? (the magntized material interaciting with the other material itself)
Which is why American kooks are twice as smart as European kooks... because they're right twice as often.
My density is fairly close to that of water, just like everyone else. I do have a degree in physics, though, if that helps.
Who's dense? You just backed up his point.
Anonymous Coward: ready to doubt that shiny yellow thing is really the "sun", for no reason other than Fox News said it was.
Yeah, everything Fox says is automatically false.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
IIRC, the last time sunspots were at a minimum like this, earth was in the little ice age, and hundreds of millions of people died due to crops freezing, glaciers overrunning towns, disease, etc.
So maybe we're supposed to be in another little ice age, but all the greenhouse gases warmed the planet and saved us?
O____O
If you have to censor some from speaking out about science for fear of the scrutiny maybe your science isn't really science at all. Anyone who questions the validity of a theory should be heard. I know that there will be those who will try to mock you but the science is the truth in and of itself, not a side effect of your belief in the science.
This basically sums up the postmodern approach to science. When all truth is relative, then science itself has no basis for an exalted place in the hierarchy of rationality. With nothing to "prove" itself except itself, science becomes a rolling definition of "what works for me, today." From there, it's a small step to seeing science as a means, not an end... and specifically: a means of enacting social change.
Presto. :/
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
"The iron filings in the photo appear to be aligning themselves with discrete field lines, but in actuality, they are creating the field lines by concentrating the magnetic field along a random topographic path, and not along any line that actually exists in the field. In other words, the lines formed by the iron filings would not exist without the iron filings, and so the magnetic field lines you see are a not a demonstration of a lines in the magnetic field. Magnetic fields are continuous, and do not have discrete lines."
Wikipedia
Depends on how broken it is. If it's just slow or fast, it will be right much, much less than twice a day. Only analog 12 hour clocks that are actually stopped are right twice a day, and that assumes the hands are still intact and point unambiguously. Digital clocks that are blinking 12:00 could be interpreted also as being correct twice a day (providing they lack an AM/PM indicator - if not, then they're right once a day). Some digital clocks blink until set, but continue to count time, which would make them perpetually incorrect unless they just happened to be started at 12:00.
Magnetic field lines are not really like the lines on a topographic map. The lines of a magnetic field represent paths from high potential to low potential, rather than delineations of equal-potential regions.
It's more like a river. The river flows perpendicular to the lines on the topographic map, from high to low, and its "line" is quite real, while the lines on the topographic map are not. Thus it is an unfair comparison to say magnetic field lines are "imaginary" in the same sense that contour lines on a map are. You cannot physically demonstrate the contour lines on a map, whereas you can demonstrate (with water or iron filings, as the case may be) a path from high potential to low potential.
IOW, inasmuch as there is a very real path that a drop of water will take when placed at any specific point on a 3-D surface, there is also a very real path that an electron will follow from a specific starting point in a 3-D electromagnetic field.
The lines themselves are imaginary, but they are real paths. Of course, there are infinitely many of the paths, densely packed, and so we pick only a few representative paths and call them the "magnetic field lines".
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Anyone who offers valid criticisms of your theory with data to back them up should be heard.
Tell that to Pons and Fleischmann.
They might get a Nobel yet.
the Dow Industrials climbed 400 points.
They're no more real than latitude lines. The magnetic field is continuous, it doesn't possess discrete lines. Objects IN the field can form a line, but that is more of a spontaneous symmetry breaking effect... I.E., iron filings could form a hundred distinguishable lines, or a thousand. The filings experiment is neat, but I think it gave millions of schoolkids the idea that there is an actual number of preferred lines running from one end of the magnet to the other.
A cone doesn't have a finite number of preferred paths down from the top. But if you pour water on the top, the water will run downhill and form a number of discrete streams. That does mean that there are 'lines of gravity'.
/facepalm
Magnetic field LINES are a mathematical construct. The magnetic field is real. Iron filings are just a way to visualize it. If there were "lines" then what would be in the space between them - couldn't be magnetic field lines... The magnetic field is continuous, therefore no lines.
No, I'm pretty sure they're still around. They're the ones with the topless chick on the third page, right?
Oh, and LCD clocks...
Argh. "That DOESN'T mean that there are 'lines of gravity'."
Magnetic field LINES are a mathematical construct. The magnetic field is real. Iron filings and plasma etc simply flow in the field. If there were lines, what would be between the lines? There could not be more lines. Therefore it is a continuous field. Iron filings simply represent that field.
Plasma on the other hand is an entirely different case because it is made up of charged particles. Plasma is therefore affected by the electric field as well as magnetic field. In fact, plasma flows with the rules of magnetohydrodynamics.
Depends on how broken it is.
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Obviously it's man-made global (solar?) warming that is causing this increased sunspot activity...
By that logic, a riverbed only makes a line when it has water flowing in it.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Not true at all. My local lake physically demonstrates a gravitational equipotential line, which are, at that scale, the same as contour height lines.
Magnetic field "lines" are fairly similar to fluid flow lines, except with fluid flow lines, you're generally representing the fluid flow using exemplar paths -- so, the lines illustrated are actually fluid particle paths. (You don't generally talk about fluid flow in the context of a potential but no fluid.) Magnetic field lines, on the other hand, are representing the magnetic field -- not the interaction between the magnetic field and charged particles. The magnetic field (and its "lines") are the same even if there are no interacting charged particles.
Um, if it helps you to understand it that way, sure, magnetic field lines are indeed imaginary.
Now, you just need to remember that electric field lines are real, since they make a 90 degree angle with magnetic field lines.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Um, no.
Unless you're going to flood the entire planet, you'll have a hard time illustrating the lines on Mount Everest. I'll admit that contour lines are sometimes demonstrable, but not as easily as the paths perpendicular to them.
Besides which, if the contour line that delineates the lake's boundary is a "real" line because there's water on one side of it, that basically argues for the fact that the field lines are just as "real" since they are similarly demonstrable using charged/magnetic particles. Difference being, I can't think of much of any way to physically demonstrate the equipotential regions of a magnetic field the way a lake would show the equipotential regions of potential energy.
You don't generally talk about fluid flow in the context of a potential but no fluid.
Continental divide.
Anyway, yeah, I'm just pointing out that the magnetic field lines are more analogous to fluid flow, not the contour lines, on a 3-D surface.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Anyone who offers valid criticisms of your theory with data to back them up should be heard.
Tell that to Pons and Fleischmann.
They might get a Nobel yet.
Probably not.
If cold fusion turns out to be, as it looks, a combination of erroneous measurements and wishful thinking, then they will be ignored and eventually forgotten.
On the other hand, if cold fusion turns out to have been a real effect after all, then somebody should hunt them down and shoot them, because by their actions, they made it look like bad measurements, chicanery, and hype, and thus made sure nobody would take it seriously. If there really was something there, their actions set science back significantly.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The 12 hour or 1/2 Day clock is an intended EVIL against humanity - indicting every human on Earth as Dumb, Educated Stupid and Evil - for imaginary Cubed Earth has 4 Days within simultaneous rotation.
http://timecube.com/
Just as a continuous line contains infinitely many points, a continuous field in 3-D space can contain infinitely many lines. Just sayin'.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
That they are discrete, perhaps, is a misconception. You won't hear me claiming they're discrete.
A continuous field contains infinitely many paths from high to low potential, all of which are "lines". A representative few are used to approximate the field when we're drawing it, which leads to the misunderstanding about them being discrete.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
That's what happens when you stop using Clearasil!
Summation 2
Those interested in this kind of stuff may want to check out http://spaceweather.com/ -- it's like a weather site, for space!
I'm not sure get your meaning. My observation is that people believe what reinforces there existing beliefs. Regarding a finding which goes against their beliefs, they are willing to take that one in a million chance and - like Jim Carey in "Dumb and Dumber" - say, "So your saying there's a chance?" OTOH, if something they believe has a one in a hundred chance of being wrong, they will stand behind it firmly as irrefutable proof.
All that said, I really don't think people have changed very much since we climbed down from the proverbial tree and had our first drum circle.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Anyone who questions the validity of a theory should be heard.
Anyone who offers valid criticisms of your theory with data to back them up should be heard..
I'll have to agree with eln. There's somebody out there who's going to be questioning anything you can think of. There just isn't time to pay attention to everybody, no matter how wacky.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I almost had a degree in art but dropped out. My density is closer to methylene iodide.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Magnetic field lines are not really like a river. The lines of a magnetic field represent paths around a center rather than paths from high potential to low potential. It's more like a car. The wheels on a car move around a central point, creating a "circle" which is quite real, while the line of a river is not. There, now it's a car analogy.
Somebody modded this 'Troll'?
That means a dedicated Fox viewer has mod points to spend. Just be glad s/he is spending them here in a silly forum rather than actually doing anything in the real world. Because that would be dangerous.
Anyway. . , the best lies are seeded with just enough truth to keep you listening and trusting. This is why it doesn't matter if they happen to be right once in (very long) while. Over-all their intention is to harm your mind, so it's best to sever your connection to them altogether. There are far better sources of information out there.
Mind you, ALL big media is misleading, even the 'good' guys avoid talking about real stuff. Fox is just the Strawman for everybody to poke at and keep the circus spinning. Those sad people who actually take Fox at face value are so low down the food chain of awareness that they essentially deserve what's coming. It might take a hundred more lives or so, but they'll learn eventually. Right now, however, they're just above "Retarded Child" on the awareness index. Pity them, but treat them like a roaring house fire. Stand well back and certainly don't get intimately involved!
-FL
If the this sunspot cycle had kept on schedule, then the peak activity would have been around 2012. Each cycle Earthlings become more dependent on their satellites (e.g. GPS) and electric grid. Both of these can be severely disrupted by large solar storms. My pet hypothesis is that nastiness in 2012 could have been caused by the peak, but that is unlikely now.
A plane is continuous, and it is made up of an infinite number of discrete lines. Just like there are an infinite number of latitude lines.
That is one way to think about it but that isn't entirely correct. A line is a discrete mathematical construct. A field is a continuous function but a "line" is not. Think about it this way: let's say you have a piece of paper and some "string". You place several piece of string on the paper. There is "space" in between the pieces of string. You then proceed to add pieces of string in between the others. You can continue to do this ad infinitum (assuming smaller and smaller pieces of string) but they will never match the piece of paper, i.e. the continuous field. They can approximate it but it will never be the same.
In this way, the magnetic field "line" is a mathematical construct used to determine topology. Electric field lines and gravity field lines are much the same thing. There is nothing wrong with saying "magnetic field line" save that iron filings or plasma or whatever is not on a line but in a field. They can be used to visualize the field, so to speak.
Oops - I should have said that a field is a continuous function in 2 or 3 dimensions but a line is not... a line is continuous in 1 dimension (essentially a line is a 1-D field).
Magnetic field lines are not really like the lines on a topographic map. The lines of a magnetic field represent paths from high potential to low potential, rather than delineations of equal-potential regions.
You are talking about electric field. Magnetic field do not have a scalar potential to be talking about "high" and "low" from (which is related to the gradient of the potential). The vector potential of a magnetic field is very difficult to find common analogies with.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
They do this every cycle. It's not exactly news. Next we'll be seeing news stories like "this is the last year with all even digits for a decade" about facts that have been known for the last two thousand years.
Okay, everybody! I have already admitted several times that I had it backward. It was just an "oops" moment on my part. But please read the rest of the thread before continuing to post "Isn't that backwards?"
I think you two are mistaking "conceptual" for "imaginary". The mathematical "real line" is itself a conceptual construct. Humans do not have the cognitive machinery to sense a point/line/circle. Without defining what is meant by real arguing over what is not real ( imaginary ) is meaningless. There are no lines there that one can be seen/sensed/ measured on it's own, instead there is how the iron fillings/plasma align that makes our primate brain see lines. This is just the Machs principle that it is meaningless to talk about the distance from earth to the moon without moon being there. Please someone reply with an example of a "real line", e.g. is the line I draw on the paper a real line? or is it just the difference on reflection from paper that makes my brain to interpret it as "a line"? What you are arguing over is not physics but meaning. If you can gather some magnetic field lines and put them in vase, water them and sell them for a buck then they are more real. There is no "real flower", just instances of the concept of flower, it is your mind that simplifies your view so you can hold onto a "real flower".
> there is also a very real path that an electron will follow from a specific starting point in a 3-D electromagnetic field.
Yes, there is such a path. And that path is most certainly *not* a magnetic field line. An electron in a magnetic field is acted on by a force perpendicular to the field lines. Your error is just as bad (in much the same way) as the error you seek to correct.
Electrons may follow paths that spiral *around* and along magnetic field lines. It's these paths that give rise to the loops we see in the sun's corona when we look in the frequency band.
Ummm, if you won't hear them until you know they have valid criticisms then how do you know whether or not their criticisms are valid?
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
the magnetic field lines you see are a not a demonstration of a lines in the magnetic field. Magnetic fields are continuous, and do not have discrete lines."
Wikipedia
Magnetic fields are continuous in what sense? mathematically continuous or some other sense that has not been stated? We have not seen anything continuous in our physical reality/this universe yet. also who and by what principle/fact/logic/data one can state :"Magnetic fields are continuous, and do not have discrete lines" ? without defining a) what is meant by continuous?
b)How that conclusion came to be? and why did he/she stop there? they should have also added "God is Love" it just blends right in.
Eh, the volume of a degree compared to the volume of the average human body is so small that it can't really affect it, but thanks.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, so yes, occasionally FOX might report something correctly. Now, if we could just get them to stop automatically calling politicians "Democrats" when they are involved in a sex scandal, regardless of their party affiliation, they might be worth watching...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Since there will of course be a lot of nonsense about this having implications for the reliability of the IPCC's statements on climate change and so on, it is worth posting the following:
We have direct measurements of incoming and outgoing solar radiation. We have satellites in orbit that detect incoming as well as outgoing radiation of all wavelengths. From these direct measurements we know that the recent change in outgoing radiation is greater than the changes in incoming radiation. We know that the change is in the region of the spectrum where CO2 and other greenhouse gasses absorb radiation the most. We also know from isotopic analysis that a majority of the increase in CO2 concentration is fossil in origin ( fossil fuels are virtually depleted in Carbon 14 since it decays radioactively over periods of several thousand years ), thus excluding the possibility that what we see is a feedback effect from changes in solar activity.
Thus we more or less know that the sun is not to blame, no matter how poorly we may understand its sunspots, cycles and whatnot. The change in radiation balance is due to neither a direct solar effect nor the type of feedbacks that occur during ice age termination. If either of the two was the case then the isotopic studies would have detected it since the CO2 in oceans and plants have comparable C14 concentrations as the atmosphere. Instead what we see is an increased concentration of fossil carbon in the atmosphere, and together with it a reduction in outgoing infra-red radiation consistent with the absorption spectra of the greenhouse gases we emit.
10/19/09, the end is nigh!
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Iron fillings don't flow in the field. They don't move. They simply align with the field.
But they also align with each other. The external field is amplified in the locations where there are iron filings in alignment with the field. Each iron filing is more affected by the magnet field generated by the other iron filings than it is by the external magnetic field, which is what then causes them to move and form into lines.
At a certain distance from any given iron filing, the force exerted by the positive end of the filing is exactly counterbalanced by the force exerted by the negative end. The same is true of the "line" of iron filings as a whole. This distance is related to the strength of the external magnetic field in which all the iron filings are contained.
As the field strength drops off, the lines of filings should become closer to each other as the iron filings are less able to influence each other. This is the opposite of the (imaginary) field lines which are normally spaced closer in areas of higher field strength.
Can you confirm or correct any of this?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Holy smokes!
All the dedicated Fox Viewers have mod points today!
Ha ha! The Slashdot editors have an awesome sense of humor. --Kind of like giving chili peppers and bubble gum to the house pets, except not cruel.
-FL
Exactly. The don't move, the simply align with the field. The direction the face is based on the direction of the field at the position of the filing itself. Think of each filing as a compass needle that points in the direction of the field at any point.
Unfortunately, iron filings themselves make for a difficult example other than showing the field. You are right, they become magnetized themselves via induction. The actual physics of the situation changes due to the small changes to the field. However, a sufficiently strong magnet will override any field cause by the filings themselves. Also, remember that the filings are each a "bar magnet" if you will and have a north and south pole which of course point toward each other (via attraction) which tends to cancel out many of the first order effects of the filings.
Your assumption of the filings moving and forming into lines however is incorrect. If you look closely, the filings don't all lie on a line, but simply close together. You're assumption of the effects that the filings have on each other is good though and this tends to cause the "gaps" you often see in pictures of magnets and filings (such as here.
You are also very correct in what you see is actually the OPPOSITE of what the "lines" themselves are doing. As the strength of the field increases, the "lines" get closer together while far from the magnet the lines are further apart. This is evident in the picture in the link above.
Also, you could set up an experiment where you had say some number of filings spread out nearly uniformly (as much as possible). When the magnet was applied, the filings would "spin" and align with the field (magnetic and the induced field). If you took a picture and did the experiment again, you would see a completely different "view" of the filings.
Good call... I'd give you an 'A' :)
When they do, will you post it on slashdot where I'm likely to see it? Hopefully before I die of old age.....
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Well, Fantastic Chump, allow me to explain a simple little thing for you. Among the media, there ARE NO 'good' guys. The best of them are whoring themselves out, and/or have a secret agenda.
I happen to like the Wikileaks site. They may be the best example today of impartial reporting. But, even those people are attention whores with an agenda.
It doesn't matter that I happen to agree with this reporter, or that reporter - or even that I agree with this media outlet, or that. They are all whores, trying to sway your opinion into line with THEIR views.
Fuck 'em all. And, while we're at it, fuck all the chumps who swallow all the bullshit thrown at them.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Who said it was a good article? Hannah Montana? It mentions global warming as fact when the off-screen debate whether global warming is caused by human activity has turned into the debate whether it is happening at all. I don't see any redeeming value here.
...cast a glare in my eye...
Well, Fantastic Chump, allow me to explain a simple little thing for you. Among the media, there ARE NO 'good' guys.
Actually, that was one of my points. Sadly, we're on the same page.
With friends like these. . .
-FL
Everyone here is stupid. Of course it's because greenhouse gases. It is known by everyone that we are warming up the planet with greenhouse gases and now we are warming up the sun. Stop driving your SUVs and maybe we'll live a few more years.
If we keep churning out greenhouse gases at the rate that we are going now for a few more years we'll start warming up the Milky Way and then we'll get another big bang and have other life forms to compete with who will probably eat us for fun.
Very strange, as magnetic field lines are entirely imaginary.
Yes, there is this wonderful historical book - I think the title was the 'Bible' or something - that had the teachings of a great REAL scholar, and he never mentioned these imaginary fields..
Saying anyone who questions a theory should be heard might sound nice in theory, but in reality it means you have a bunch of people throwing out unsubstantiated garbage in order to muddy the waters and further their own agendas
Yeah, that's the same excuse they used to dismiss Galileo.
Who is to determine what is valid? You? The author of a theory? There is no high council of science to filter out the scientifically sound from the crap.
I'm not saying you have to take the time out to disprove every man, woman and child who comes to a research center claiming that God is the cause of XYZ and not biology, chemistry and physics. A simple one time answer works in that case.
If anything muddies the waters it's "scientists" passing off bad research in order to generate grant money. The agenda that is really bringing down research isn't a religious one, it's from within the community itself. And it's also the kinds of "research" that makes the public both confused and skeptical of sound scientific research. From where I sit I'm skeptical of any researcher who can't answer to data that can offset their theory.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I shook the magic 8 ball 42 times and 27 times it said signs point to no. You can't argue with data like that.
I'll bet the sun doesn't have a magic 8 ball. Unless ... maybe that's the spot.
You are lucky, Ed Gruberman. Few novices experience so much of Ti Kwan Leep so soon.
"We're emerging from the longest, deepest sunspot drought since 1913"
I for one blame global warming and by extension, George W. Bush.
global warming. bull fucking shit.
no bro, it just mean you have a dirty cone! Now go wash it and try again you filthy scientists!
"Anyone who questions the validity of a theory should be heard"
Rubbish, if you don't question the validity of the question then we end up teaching creation science and every other crackpot theory in schools because some institute with absolutely no scientific standing has questioned evolutionary theory, heliocentric theory, germ theory, or some other theory that they don't like. When this happens it is no longer science, it's mearly uninformed opinion.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Anyone who offers valid criticisms of your theory with data to back them up should be heard.
If you decide the criticism is not valid without hearing it first, it means you are prejudiced. Am I missing something?
... the economy is finally turning around?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
What? Are we thinking of the same magnetic field lines? They're the ones you normally see drawn spanning from the N to the S pole on a magnet in diagrams.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Magnets have "north" and "south" poles, so it's still more or less analogous.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
True. The electrons will move as described by the right-hand rule. I'd forgotten this.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
You can continue to do this ad infinitum (assuming smaller and smaller pieces of string) but they will never match the piece of paper, i.e. the continuous field. They can approximate it but it will never be the same.
But isn't that basically what you're doing when you calculate a triple integral?
You're approximating first a 1-D path, then 2-D surface, then 3-D space by successively integrating a differential, which is essentially a point (0-D). Infinitely many points are used to define the line, infinitely many lines define the surface, and infinitely many surfaces are layered into the space.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
And Not defending FOX but just about everything from every other news agency is complete bullshit as well
Congratulations, scientists now have the evidence to show that the result of combining Sun, Telescope and Remaining Eye is a two year recovery period.
And of course a -political- organization like the IPCC is totally free of political concerns.
If you believe that : I have a bridge to sell you, interested ? Perhaps some prime (post-warming) seaside property ?
Remember, the contour lines aren't real; they're an imaginary construct used to illustrate height. The lake is real, and since its boundary is determined by height (more or less), the real object's border matches a single contour line. That doesn't make the contour line real.
Continental divide.
No engineer I've talked to considers the continental divide to be part of fluid flow or fluid mechanics. I'll ask some geologists, and then quiz them about fluid flow lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_divide
Drainage is basically just a form of applied fluid flow.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
The cost of global warming, in my estimate, is past the quintillion dollar mark because it will adversely affect the entire economy of the planet for hundreds - to thousands (perhaps) of years to come. The cost of just acting without knowing what is real and what is just wish thinking on the part of ignorant people who want to enforce thier will on all under the guise of altruism can be staggering without any real benefit. Not knowing quite enough science got us into this mess, and it should be sound science that gets us out. The whole albedo posts above just illustrates how important it is to *really* understand the problem so an efficient means of reducing the problem can be found.
That being said, Obama's plan for global warming research dollars is 400 million in 2009 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjcyODIyZGM2MGU1ZDdkNDgxZDc3OTNjYjM4ZDY1ODI= whereas the womens shoe market in 1996 is 37 billion dollars: http://www.packagedfacts.com/sitemap/product.asp?productid=130270 As far as I have been able to tell, we have spent less money than the womens shoe market in one year on the all time effort of solving a human life ending enviornment problem - does that make sense to anyone???
I think anyone who objectively steps back, realizing that the data so far suggests we need to act now, will realize we need to have that understanding now. I can only conclude that the bulk of the world either dosen't believe its true, dosent care (afterall you will be most likely be dead before it ruins the planet), or are just insane.
Because your last 50s year's of data is crap.
GIGO.
No. Think of each integral as "stretching" to the next dimension. The path become a surface, etc.
I think there is a bit of difference in thinking here. Most people are thinking of a line as a discrete thing that iron filings or plasma or whatever exist on, making the "lines" real. That was what I was trying to show with my example. You have the correct thought that the "line" is just a mathematical construct - your integration shows this.
washes. ive found if you just cut back on the amount detergent you use it helps.
what do you mean..."read the article"??
Well my density is closer to that of beer. And no, I don't have a degree in physics.
Anyone who offers valid criticisms of your theory with data to back them up should be heard. Saying anyone who questions a theory should be heard might sound nice in theory, but in reality it means you have a bunch of people throwing out unsubstantiated garbage in order to muddy the waters and further their own agendas, which are rarely motivated by scientific concerns.
In a non-commercial situations this usually seems to work as designed. If the valid criticisms reflect poorly on a very profitable product backed by a powerful chemical company, It's very doubtful that any news org can stand up to the pressure. This is true no matter how independent that news org claims to be. The fiasco with rBST and the history surrounding attempts by FOX and other media outlets to publish reports critical of rBST is an important example of how ineffective the "Free" media in the US is when large advertisers have them by the short hairs.
Sun? Didn't they go out of business or something?
No, I'm pretty sure they're still around. They're the ones with the topless chick on the third page, right?
They were until they were bought by Oracle, and now the topless chicks work directly for Larry Ellison. Page 3 is now ad space - you can buy it, in fact, however the cost is rather prohibitive and depends on the number of processors on your graphic designer's workstation.
Even the anti skeptics site skeptical science refers to him, so no Solanki is not a climate heretic.
I wish I had mod points because the parent post succinctly disarms the above many-threaded debate.
These opinions are my own and not necessarily
the opinions of God or any other supreme being.
No, I was suggesting that ONE particular person was being a lazy ass, and trying to put demands on me as a result. As I have mentioned, one of his questions could have easily been answered had he bothered to spend literally 10 seconds on Google.
Further, I had in fact answered one of Geoffrey's posts, and I have just answered another one, at length, with a reply that indirectly references about 150 or more peer-reviewed scientific papers. That will have to be good enough, because I am tired of catering to lazy asses who believe what they are told on the 11 o'clock news, and who can't be bothered to do any real research or even lookups on their own.
When asked for a peer-reviewed article, you presented a list of scientists. It doesn't really matter what you've written in any other post-- that kind of category error gives the appearance that you think science is democratic because that's the only scenario in which this wouldn't be a category error.
Most of your other complaints follow the same pattern. It's not that I haven't read your other posts, so there's no need to wait for Slashdot to get fixed. In fact, I've been reading your posts on this subject for many months now. Your recent post did include a peer-reviewed article, which is progress of sorts and I applaud you for it. (Although the objections in my previous comments still stand.) But as far as I can tell, none of your previous comments contained even a single direct link to a peer-reviewed article. It's hard to be certain when you spam dozens of links into a single post, so I may very well have missed a direct link to a legitimate journal. If that's the case, I apologize and humbly ask-- again-- that you copy the link here so I can see whatever evidence you've seen that makes you so... excitable.
Note that peer review is a necessary but not sufficient condition for establishing a valid scientific claim. Not all peer-reviewed papers are accurate, as I've shown. But if you want respect from scientists, you have to first rise above this reliance on pseudo-scientific websites that display approximately the same level of rigor and oversight as this site.
Hmm.. okay. Well, anyway, it's been... interesting. Just FYI, I'll be linking to your comments and quoting them when I finally get around to writing a blog article about my experiences debating climate change with the general public. It's usually helpful to see opposing points of view, and so far your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position.