Slashdot Mirror


Solar Dynamo Still Anemic, Magnetism and UV Lax

radioweather writes "While we are well along into solar cycle 24, there remains a significant gap between the predictions of where we should be, and where we actually are in the progression of the cycle. Recently, the sun went spotless again, and the solar Ap geomagnetic index, an indicator of the solar magneto, hit zero. It is something you really don't expect to see this far along into the cycle. In other solar news, scientists monitoring the SORCE solar satellite have found that solar ultraviolet emissions have dropped significantly in the past few years. The Solar Irradiance Monitor on the satellite 'suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.'"

156 comments

  1. oh noes! by tomalok · · Score: 1

    first step to solar fail?

    1. Re:oh noes! by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Could be. We know Mr. Sun can take long naps. And the one time we know for sure it happened was also known as the Little Ice Age.

      Don't go placing bets yet but hedging against it might be a prudent thing.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    2. Re:oh noes! by WoRLoKKeD · · Score: 3, Funny

      QUICK!

      Someone call Cillian Murphy!

      --
      Immolation is the sincerest form of flattery.
    3. Re:oh noes! by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, congress recently declared it Too Big To Fail

    4. Re:oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows this is caused by people driving their SUV's and destroying the environment. Save the Sun! Go green today!

    5. Re:oh noes! by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Or maybe Mz. Sun is expecting.

    6. Re:oh noes! by Urkki · · Score: 2

      Everyone knows this is caused by people driving their SUV's and destroying the environment. Save the Sun! Go green today!

      No no, SUV drivers are the saviors of future tropical paradise. Without their valiant effort, we would have no hope. But as we see this year, despite the Ancient Enemy, the feared Day Star trying to thwart the future tropical paradise, like TFA describes, this year was still record warm.

      I can't wait for the tropical paradise to come true. It's -13 F outside now, when it should be 77 F.

    7. Re:oh noes! by Ennui-DH · · Score: 1

      How is the IRA going to help?

    8. Re:oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obviously you're joking, but the real evidence for the Sun getting weaker due to CO2 is just as good as the evidence for the earth heating up due to CO2. There's a correlation there (as we drive more, the sun gets weaker), and correlation is enough for scientists to keep reeling in grant money (you know what they say, "publish or perish").

    9. Re:oh noes! by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 5, Funny

      Exactly. Most people think that humans naturally wake in the morning and sleep at night but that only came about during the 1900s. It was all part of FDR's socialist alien agenda to chill the planet by encouraging people to work during the day and thus arriving at work in the morning. Notice that the rise of the sun slows after the morning commute and falls in conjunction with the evening return. Coincidence? I think not.

    10. Re:oh noes! by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Nice one :) If I had mods points you'd have got one.

    11. Re:oh noes! by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Don't go placing bets yet but hedging against it might be a prudent thing.

      I thought we already were!

    12. Re:oh noes! by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, congress recently declared it Too Big To Fail

      Were they calculating in the English system or the Metric system?
      Errors like this never happen.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    13. Re:oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not suggesting some sort of massive conspiracy, just that scientists have bills to pay too.

    14. Re:oh noes! by Regnad2k7 · · Score: 0

      lol
      Howz them computer simulations comin'?
      Is it hot/cold enough yet?
      Ooh, sap!

    15. Re:oh noes! by Regnad2k7 · · Score: 1

      it's cold out.
      sunspots would predict that.
      are sunspots a good predictor?
      dunno, but it beats chicken little, at least in terms of track record.

      (thank gawd for /.)
      the Parent is a sane man.
      and i hate seeing the Left in a Crazy pissing match with the Right. Sometimes both sides piss grey, and then Green comes along and cracks me up, though.

      Hey.
      How are the Ozarks? They still got signs that read "the law ends here"?

      Nah, buggershit on that.
      I need my giganto urban pipe and my astraweb choo-choo.

    16. Re:oh noes! by Regnad2k7 · · Score: 1

      same back at your computer chair.
      HA!

    17. Re:oh noes! by Regnad2k7 · · Score: 1

      That was fuckin' golden.

    18. Re:oh noes! by Regnad2k7 · · Score: 0

      You can't get there from here...

      (go listen to some FST on youtube, Bozo. No, not the Bozos album again. Try to keep up)

    19. Re:oh noes! by Regnad2k7 · · Score: 1

      Mr. Key?
      Blackadder?
      Oh, forgettaboutit.
      forgettaboutitforgettaboutitforgettaboutit.
      Seeya, fellow Seekers!
      Now back to the funway, which is already in progress.

    20. Re:oh noes! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Amusingly you're kind of right, but it happened a long time before 1900. It used to be standard to wake up in the middle of the night. Probably a survival mechanism from the hunter-gatherer phase, a lot of characteristics from that period probably have little to no effect on evolution so we retain them. Some people still do it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, it's just the Sun reacting to the secret government regulations. The Republicans are already working to remove the interference so that the hedging and the resulting bubbling may continue.

    22. Re:oh noes! by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      let me guess, they'll print dollars and shovel them into the sun to keep it going?

    23. Re:oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People that don't get creeped out by realizing they are acting in coordination with millions of others are lacking some sort of survival instinct.

      To this day you can advance in business simply by being in place and set prior to your peers. Always get to go home early, too. The only better thing is doing the late to rise thing so you can create obstacles to slow down the early risers (lotsa power in having everyone have to wait until you get there to solve a problem).

      All of this is important because there is nothing left to do but destroy each other. Scientific advancement was fun while it lasted, but you monkeys don't deserve to get another step down this road. Time to let the slugs have their chance. Christmas EVE! Everyone pray for apocalypse.

    24. Re:oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be. We know Mr. Sun can take long naps. And the one time we know for sure it happened was also known as the Little Ice Age.

      Don't go placing bets yet but hedging against it might be a prudent thing.

      Oh crap on a crap cracker, somebody warn Mr. Blue Skies!

    25. Re:oh noes! by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to worry unless I someone tells me some evening that they can't get in contact with anyone on the day side of Earth.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    26. Re:oh noes! by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's the fact that nighttime is 16 fucking hours long some of us, this time of year. Ever tried going to bed at 4pm and getting up getting up at 8:00am? And that's just the 45th parallel.

      I'd go with survival mechanism for the bladder, but hey, opinions differ. Walking around may have scared the bears off, too. /end sarcasm

      Cheers :~)

  2. Sooo Booooring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a nerd and all and I see it's all sciency, but this reads like a journal entry from the world's most boring man.

    1. Re:Sooo Booooring. by masterwit · · Score: 2

      I'm a nerd

      Now are you? I actually found this interesting! Plus that is why we have comments...to explain this (later on...) to the rest of us. Moderation is gold.

      You want something recent and boring?

      --
      We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    2. Re:Sooo Booooring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shouldn't you be watching x-factor or some other lobotomised bullshit rather than posting here? happy xmas love and xx'es!

    3. Re:Sooo Booooring. by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      probably because it doesn't have any effect on you directly that you care about

      This is important for people who refract HF radio waves off the ionosphere back to earth because the amount of UV radiation determines the thickness of the layers of the ionosphere which determines what frequencies refract back and which don't.

    4. Re:Sooo Booooring. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2

      I'm a nerd and all and I see it's all sciency, but this reads like a journal entry from the world's most boring man.
       
      I agree. After reading the summary a couple of times all I am sure of is that the next X-Men movie will be set on the Sun, but the plot seems very confusing.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    5. Re:Sooo Booooring. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll have to forgive him - he came here because someone on /b/ told him /. was cool and he's still wondering where all the gay porn is ...

    6. Re:Sooo Booooring. by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      Hehe, the next paper in the series will probably be "lungs have the perfect construction for retaining enough oxygen that we can go about our daily lives but not too much such that our cells will burn out".

      --
      ics
  3. Sharp rise? by sjwt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it just me, or dose it seem the curve for the prediction coming out, shows a faster return then the fall coming in?

    A longer lower end may be followed by a slow return too.

    --
    You have 5 Moderator Points!
    Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    1. Re:Sharp rise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is just you, about to dose and typing as you fade away. Don't worry, except for the headache, all will be just fine tomorrow.

    2. Re:Sharp rise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The cycles are asymmetric, with stronger cycles being more asymmetric. A slow rise suggests a not so asymmetric cycle which will therefore be weaker.

  4. Corpse student by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I could make a better corpse student, I could pop out an answer as to why this is unacceptable!

  5. OhNos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we blame this on bush or al gore?

    *rabble rabble rabble*

  6. Nothing to worry about by Metabolife · · Score: 3, Funny

    It may be low now, but the sun is expect to reach peak intensity in 2012...

    1. Re:Nothing to worry about by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Is the Earth core going to stop then as well? And by 2012 you mean December 2012, right?

    2. Re:Nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      December 31st, at 23:59:59.

    3. Re:Nothing to worry about by Regnad2k7 · · Score: 1

      i'm already there.

      oh, no.

      i'm on FIRE!

      Looks fuckin' golden to me.

  7. Eureka! by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Funny

    When comparing the actual results to the predictions, the brief analysis given by the lead investigator Dr. Sunny M. Sparks was:

    "The fuck?!"

    Assestion to which the closer grad student, not fully comprehending the ramifications of such discovery, replied:

    "Not my fault! I swear! ... It was Jackson! He was playing WoW in the lab computer not two days ago."

  8. It is because of global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have to do something about that.

  9. Natural outcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are doomed! (TM)

    (well, we are eventually)

  10. Solar Cycle by pgn674 · · Score: 1

    While we are well along into solar cycle 24, there remains a significant gap between the predictions of where we should be, and where we actually are in the progression of the cycle.

    It took me a while to figure out what "solar cycle" meant. I thought it was talking about the 24th day of December. Then with all that talk of predictions of where we are in respect to the day, I had no idea what was going on.

    1. Re:Solar Cycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tnks for teh valubal new infos

    2. Re:Solar Cycle by ikkonoishi · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

      For those who still don't understand.

  11. Why Thinking by williams457 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It seems first stage and nature has a lot of changes, nobody day what will be result. Scented candles

  12. The pilot light's gone out by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    NASA needs some gas certified plumbing engineers to send out to service the boiler...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  13. This explains a lot by Glubbdrubb · · Score: 1

    Like why I can't seem to be able to tan at all...

    1. Re:This explains a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UV light coming from the fluro in your mothers basement isn't sufficient to create a tan, contrary to popular belief.

    2. Re:This explains a lot by Khyber · · Score: 1

      It is if you're using T5HO Reptile bulbs, and not the shit T12 6500K bulbs.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  14. OH NOES by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

    Peak solar!

    1. Re:OH NOES by thijsh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what we get for putting up so many solar panels in recent years, notice how this coincides with the graphs... How can we keep tapping the suns energy without thinking about mother earth and father sun... We are doomed! Donate now, and we *might* be able to prevent it (and take full credit for it), but if we can't it's your fault for not donating enough!!! Act now because peak solar is a proven fact, we have some scientists saying something to back it up!

  15. Relax by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    The sun's just doing its part to slow global warming.

    1. Re:Relax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you tell it to stop doing it. It is -26C and I could use some Global Warming right now...

    2. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      And yet in Nuuk, Greenland yesterday they had a high of 37 F, 16 F above average. While you've been freezing Arctic sea ice is still melting in some areas. Highly unusual for this time of year.

    3. Re:Relax by Troed · · Score: 1

      Everything you just posted is completely normal for a negative AO.

      http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html

      AO history:
      http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/month_ao_index.shtml

      Maybe you're young enough to believe that mostly-positive is "normal"? That's only since the end of the 70s (see first link) - it seems we're going to back to the climate regime we had in the decades previous to that right now.

    4. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      No, I was born in 1952. I know the current situation is largely due to the negative arctic oscillation. My main point is that when you're examining global warming you have to look beyond your local weather which is only a single piece of data in a much larger global picture.

    5. Re:Relax by Troed · · Score: 1

      So if everything we see now is normal and has happened before during the 20th century, why are you even talking about global warming? It obviously wasn't the cause decades ago, why would it be now?

      Science has very little to do with activism and political statements. Let's do science. The heat wave in Russia this year, as well as the current cold over Europe and North America, has nothing to do with global warming.

    6. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Everything that we now see happens on top of a base climate. The fact that we are seeing new daily record highs outpacing new daily record lows by over 2 to 1 is a pretty good indication the base climate is changing. [citation].

      The heat wave in Russia this past summer was unprecedented. A Russian scientists stated it had been at least 1000 years since such a heat wave has occurred there.

      As far as the cold over Europe and the US it is not record setting. Warmer temperatures lead to more snow (until it gets too warm to snow) because the colder air is the drier it is.

    7. Re:Relax by Troed · · Score: 1

      The heat wave in Russia this past summer was unprecedented. A Russian scientists stated it had been at least 1000 years since such a heat wave has occurred there.

      ... your point being? Let's see what NOAA has to say about that heat wave:

      Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave. It is not known whether, or to what extent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900.

      The indications are that the current blocking event is intrinsic to the natural variability of summer climate in this region, a region which has a climatological vulnerability to blocking and associated heat waves (e.g., 1960, 1972, 1988)

      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/moscow2010/

      As far as the cold over Europe and the US it is not record setting.

      You might want to revise that.

      December is on course to be the coldest since records began in 1910, the BBC weather centre has said. - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12078425

      Coldest December in Sweden in 110 years - http://www.thelocal.se/31072/20101226/

      In Berlin gab es Anfang Dezember den absoluten Kälterekord, "seit 100 Jahren war es hier nicht so kalt wie in der ersten Dezember-Dekade", so Globig. Das gelte auch für andere Regionen Deutschlands. - http://wetter.t-online.de/winter-extrem-neue-kleine-eiszeit-ist-jetzt-moeglich-/id_43699628/index

      Chicagoans shivered through the coldest December open in 27 years - http://blog.chicagoweathercenter.com/2010/12/chicago-books-its-coldest-december-open-in-27-years-highs-nearly-30-degrees-below-a-year-ago.html

      Sometimes I wonder if it's really the global warming advocates who seem to ignore science, at least when it's science and data that don't fit their agenda.

    8. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The unprecedented part of the Russian heat wave is not that there was a heat wave and not even the mechanism that caused it. Moscow reached a new all time high temperature of 102.2 F. The old record was 99 F in 1920. That's the global warming part. That's the part the Russian Scientist says hadn't happened for at least 1000 years.

      I'll consider it record cold in Britain when the Thames River freezes over as it did in the 1600's.

      Science says that Hudson Bay has not completely frozen over yet allowing the relatively warmer water in the bay to influence the atmosphere above it. Because of that influence the pattern of Rossby waves shifts causing the jet stream to pass over Spain instead of Northern England where it normally does. This draws Arctic air into Central Europe. Hudson Bay not being iced over yet is a result of global warming.

      Chicago? So what?

    9. Re:Relax by Troed · · Score: 1

      *smile* - thanks for proving my point. A record high for the last 90 years in Russia is "global warming" - but record lows for over a hundred of years in three European countries (likely more - I only searched for a few) isn't.

      Regarding Hudson Bay that's the negative AO and, see my first post, completely normal.

      As long as you understand yourself that you're doing activism and not science that's fine of course, but please make it clear in your posts. Some of us actually try to follow the scientific method.

    10. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're right and I overstated my case a bit. I should know better than to argue over individual events regarding global warming.

      But you never commented on the fact that new daily highs outnumber new daily lows for the past decade. That statistical analysis is an expected global warming effect.

      What will you say in 20 years as the world continues to warm from the excess of CO2 that human activity has added to the atmosphere? Based on what I hear from climate scientists I'd be willing to make a substantial wager with you about that.

    11. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You want science on cold winters in a warming world, here it is.

    12. Re:Relax by Troed · · Score: 1

      With regards to statistics that could be either UHI or the fact that we've for the last 2-3 decades been in a warm oceanic cycle (or both, of course). http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html

      I actually tried to make a long bet with someone who, like you, believe CO2 controls our climate a week ago. I would be making it very public, and I would like "the other side" to be a publically recognizable entity, but my suggestion was for $1500.

      Short version: We'd both select _one_ climate model, he one from the CO2-crowd (note - a single one) and I one based on the solar->magnetic->clouds->oceans->atmosphere hypothesis, and in ten years we would see which model had tracked the observations most closely.

      (I'd use Bob Tisdale's excellent work on integrating ENSO effects for one part - see http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/11/multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface_17.html )

      Unfortunately it seems he wasn't willing. I'm assuming that's because he knows that, so far, no CO2-based climate model has been successful at predicting anything when verified against observations ;)

      http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a928051726&fulltext=713240928

      (Yes, I'm of the Popperian school of science. Feel free to launch hypothesises but if they have no predictive powers they're falsified)

    13. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The urban heat island effect is well compensated for. A recent study that used Anthony Watts surfacestations.org list of well and poorly sited weather stations found that poorly sited stations actually show slightly less warming compared to the well sited stations. (Menne 2010)

      Other studies showing the urban heat island effect is not a significant factor affecting temperature trends:
      Peterson 2003
      Parker 2006
      Jones et al 2008

      The NASA page you cited discussed the causes and effects of the UHI effect but says nothing about its effect on global temperature trends.

      I'm trying to figure out what you mean by a "warm oceanic cycle". While changes in currents and atmospheric effects can change the distribution of heat in the oceans which will effect adjacent land temperatures it doesn't change the total heat energy stored in the oceans. Over 99% of the heat energy in the Earth system, including the oceans comes from greenhouse warming. Without the buffering effect of the oceans absorbing over 90% of the enhanced greenhouse warming we would already have surface temperatures much higher than they are now.

      I probably shouldn't be making any 20 year bets since I'm old enough that it's at best 50-50 whether I'll still be among the living in 2030.

      Regarding climate models, they don't make any predictions. In order to make a realistic prediction they would have to know the inputs of things subject to natural variability ahead of time. Inputs such as insolation, CO2 levels and the timing of events like ENSO among other things. Instead they make projections based on various input scenarios. They are tested and validated by hindcasting using the actual observations of those inputs.

      In 1988 James Hansen made projections based on three scenarios (A, B & C). Scenario B came out closest to reality and the projections based on it are reasonably close to the reality we observe today. Here is a discussion of that.

      As far as falsification of greenhouse gas (mostly CO2) driven climate change one of the most straightforward predictions made by the theory is that the stratosphere will cool some because of it. This has been observed. If it hadn't it would call into question the theory. If the warming were being driven by increased insolation the stratosphere would be expected to warm.

    14. Re:Relax by Troed · · Score: 1

      1) No, UHI is not well compensated for. I linked to that NASA study for that very reason - what it found was that the effect is much larger than anyone had thought before (thus invalidating the papers you list).

      Did you know that flags used for the station data in model runs aren't time dependent? I.e, if a station happens to be considered urban from 1996 onwards that is then considered to be true for all earlier observations as well, when it in reality was rural. This causes old temperatures to be artificially lowered over time.

      2) On warm oceanic cycles you only need to follow the Tisdale link I gave you for more SST information. I'm somewhat confused, it's a well known fact that there are cycles where the oceans give up and/or absorb less or more heat to the atmosphere.

      3) If climate models don't make predictions then they cannot be used for policy making. Since they are, they thus make predictions. All predictions made so far have been falsified (yes, that includes Hansen's - please never ever link to realclimate. That's an advocacy site not interested in real science - they admit to censor things that don't fit their agenda). If you make enough predictions some of them are bound to be within the error bars of observed data though - but that doesn't mean anything in itself.

      4) There can be any number of reasons for a cooler stratosphere, lack of falsification is not the same as verification.

      I would agree with you with regards to rerunning models with actual forcings as they happen - if no weighting is changed. As far as I know, that's not true, and thus the models aren't verified by observations but constantly changed to fit the facts, after the fact. That's not science.

    15. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Again, the NASA study you link to makes no comment on the UHI effect in relation to temperature trends. It doesn't say anything about the effect being larger than anyone who had thought before. It just examines the variables that go into the effect and how different factors affect it.

      The Menne paper compares well sited stations (presumably not affected by UHI effects) to poorly sited stations and finds a slightly higher warming signal in the well sited stations than in the poorly sited stations. So tell me again how UHI effects are distorting global temperatures upward?

      I did look at the Tisdale link. It shows correlation but is pretty weak on causation. When he publishes it in a peer reviewed journal I'll take it more seriously. McLean (2009) who did get a similar argument published in the AGU journal has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

      Predictions vs. projections may be a semantic argument. The fact is that climate models produce results that are far better than random guessing so they have value.

      Realclimate is run by a number of the most prominent people in in the field. If you want to know what they are saying about the science it's the place to go. If you don't care what they say you can just dismiss it as an agenda driven site. What is your evidence that they are agenda driven? Is it that you don't like the science they publish? They censor unscientific BS.

      What does weighting have to do with anything? The big climate models, the General Circulation Models (aka Global Climate Model or GCM) are based on the physical world. They are not an exercise in curve fitting. They use the actual physical relationships discerned by observation and analysis to model the climate. When changes are made to the models there is a basis in physical reality and new understanding for the changes.

    16. Re:Relax by Troed · · Score: 1

      Short:

      The NASA study was a reply to your comment about records in highs outnumbering lows. You seem to be discussing something else now. As far as I recall Watts has a few things to say about Menne though.

      Climate models (emphasis on plural!) produce results better than random guessing. Single climate models (singular) don't. This is where you say "aha!" and remember the old thought experiment in statistics with regards to coin flipping. That's, again, why in a long bet I would want my CO2-hugging opponent to select _one_ model from today's crop and stick with it. I'd do the same, of course.

      Realclimate censor things they don't like, and they themselves are the judges of what's not to like. That's advocacy, not science :) Please remember I'm a strict Popperian. Feel free to publish your hypothesis and it will be debunked if it's not good.

      Changing the weighting of a model to fit the facts, after the fact, is not "new understanding".

      (PS: I find it somewhat humorous that the way Foster et al debunks McLean et al is similar to how the Mann hockeystick has been thoroughly destroyed. There's definitely a lack of professional statisticians verifying climate papers)

    17. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I still don't see that the NASA study has anything to do with record highs outnumbering record lows. I guess you're saying that increased urbanization has caused the change in the ratio over the years but I don't buy it.

      Why limit yourself to one model? The IPCC AR4 results were presented as an meta-ensemble of a number of models. Each model has its strengths and weaknesses. Combining them suppresses weather noise in the models making the underlying forced change more visible. It turns out that the meta-ensemble outperforms any single model when compared to the real world. More on that subject here. I'm curious, what exactly is it you think climate models are projecting?

      I would say as leading scientists in the field the people at Realclimate are perfectly capable of judging what is good science. Please point out evidence of their advocacy for anything other than good science. As I said, they censor unscientific BS. I guess what you are saying when you claim to be a strict Popperian is that you don't think global warming theory is falsifiable. I think it is completely falsifiable just maybe not on a time scale people like you can live with. Don't you think another 20 or 30 years of intense study of the subject will clarify the outcome?

      My perception when you say "Changing the weighting of a model to fit the facts, after the fact, is not "new understanding"." is that you think they are just using numerical methods to fit the output to the real world observations. That is simply not the case. Changing the weighting because of a new understanding of the underlying physical process is a perfectly valid technique.

      I wish you guys would get over your vilification of Mann. It's been 12 years since the "hockeystick" graph and there have been at least 10 other papers I'm aware of since then by different researchers using different sets of proxies that show substantially the same thing as Mann's original graph. I guess if you can't discredit the science you try to discredit the scientist. Why don't you move on to the more recent stuff?

      I meant to ask you in my last post what are some of the reasons for stratospheric cooling other than increases in GHG's? I'll even volunteer one. Ozone depletion is a factor. With less ozone in the stratosphere less incoming ultraviolet radiation is captured allowing more radiative energy to get through to the surface rather than remaining in the stratosphere. I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss something out of hand without offering an alternative or at least a reason why it is wrong.

    18. Re:Relax by Troed · · Score: 1

      This is getting nowhere - but I'll leave you with an observation. You're doing advocacy (as are the people behind Realclimate) - I'm doing science. Observations trump models - always. If models cannot be verified by observation they aren't scientific.

      You'll realize this in a few years ;)

      (PS: Plate tectonics was discredited by leading scientists in the field. That's why real science has nothing to do with consensus, ever)

    19. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Well, you're right. We're both tied to our positions. Time will tell who is right. But I kind of enjoy conversations like this. It forces me to dig deeper and expands my knowledge of the subject.

      Of course observations trump models. In a subject like climate science where we don't have the option of performing direct experiments (there isn't a 2nd Earth to run tests on) models are the way we bring together the different factors we discover into a coherent whole that can be tested against the real world. Considering the complexity of the subject I don't think GCM's are doing that bad and they'll get better as our understanding improves.

      Yes, I'm fully aware of the plate tectonics example. Another good one is the Missoula Floods first brought to light by J. Harlen Bretz in the 1920's. It took 40 years of debate for Bretz's findings to be accepted.

      You might want to check out the most recent post over on RealClimate. The subject is "Science is self-correcting: Lessons from the arsenic controversy". They outline three lessons from the recent kerfuffle.

      Lesson one: Major funding agencies willingly back studies challenging scientific consensus.

      Lesson two: Most everyone would be thrilled to overturn the consensus. Doing so successfully can be a career-making result. Journals such as Science and Nature are more than willing to publish results that overturn scientific consensus, even if data are preliminary – and funding agencies are willing to promote these results.

      Lesson three: Scientists offer opinions based on their scientific knowledge and a critical interpretation of data. Scientists willingly critique what they think might be flawed or unsubstantiated science, because their credibility – not their funding – is on the line.

      I don't see how anyone can really believe that so many climate scientists are pushing an agenda that doesn't conform to reality. Their credibility is on the line.

    20. Re:Relax by Troed · · Score: 1

      Climategate (yes, that Climategate. Don't trust the reporting of it on Realclimate - read the emails yourself, look through the documents and data) proved beyond reasonable doubt that some climate researchers, interestingly the same as behind Realclimate, are absolutely not:

      willing to publish results that overturn scientific consensus, even if data are preliminary

      That's one of the main reasons why I don't ever trust Realclimate on anything that has to do with science. Gavin especially.

      Now I do not in any way believe there is a conspiracy or coverup. We're seeing the normal slow process of shifts in ideas back and forth, it simply takes time for new thoughts to blend through.

      The CO2 hypothesis only gained acceptance when we realized that the climate models we had a few decades ago couldn't model the observed temperatures if we didn't add a forcing agent.

      One of my reasons for linking to Tisdale's work (not peer reviewed, granted, let's see if any one of the offers for co-publishing he got comes through) was that he shows that maybe the models didn't need CO2 as a forcing agent at all, maybe it was just us not understanding the ocean's reaction to ENSO events.

      I'm also somewhat tired of the whole "peer reviewed" discussion. Yes it's a way to get a somewhat reasonable input filter on what you read, but it doesn't in any way mean that things that aren't peer reviewed cannot be correct. You just need to do the filtering yourself, and Tisdale's reasoning and data look valid so far to me.

    21. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      There is no smoking gun in "Climategate". Maybe a smoking cap gun. You read scientific malfeasance in it only if you are already primed to do so.

      ... willing to publish results that overturn scientific consensus, even if data are preliminary ...

      That's one of the main reasons why I don't ever trust Realclimate on anything that has to do with science. Gavin especially.

      I don't understand. What does a scientific journals willingness to publish "results that overturn scientific consensus" have to do with RealClimate and Gavin Schmidt?

      The idea that CO2 in the atmosphere affects temperatures was first advanced by Savante Arrhenius in 1896 in his paper "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground". That's not just a few decades ago and long before any serious models were developed. More recently scientists such as Richard Alley have come to the conclusion that it's impossible to understand temperatures on the Earth at any time in its history without taking CO2 levels into account. Alley calls it "the big dial" on Earth's thermostat.

      It looks to me like you're just trying desperately to find a reason other than CO2 for most of the current warming. To do that you have to overcome the physics of CO2's absorption of infrared radiation. Tell me again how CO2 is not capturing IR in the atmosphere like it does in the laboratory.

      Regarding ENSO I want to know what drives it. As I said before Tisdale shows correlation but is pretty weak on causation. It certainly is a major factor in natural variability with global effects but what is the mechanism that drives it.

    22. Re:Relax by Troed · · Score: 1

      I assume you haven't read the Climategate contents then, it's impossible for anyone who claims to follow the scientific method to do so and then claim there's no sign of malfeasance. Again, do not trust the reporting - study it yourself. I have.

      As for Arrhenius, a fellow Swede, is this were I reply that he wasn't not a "climate scientis"? ;) He did calculations on greenhouse gasses, but that's not the same thing as what I wrote with regards to models and the need for CO2 as forcing agent.

      (Arrhenius, btw, thought increased levels of CO2 would be benificial. I'm quite sure they are, as indicated by the greening of the biosphere)

      If you're a scientist there should be no need for me to explain why the Earth's atmosphere and a laboratory are different. Convection, saturation and huge oceans are only the beginning of such an explanation and is best left to any sensible reader.

      Finally, with regards to ENSO. What can heat oceans? Not the atmosphere, the heat budget goes in the other direction. The only thing that can heat the oceans would be the sun through short wave radiation, and while we don't see huge changes in the visible spectre (TSI - sometimes confused as being the total!) when moderated through clouds we easily get changes in radiation absorbed by the oceans large enough to cause ENSO like variations.

      It looks to me like you're just trying desperately to state that only CO2 can be responsible for most of the current warming.

      Why? :) Not trying to falsify and finding other explanations is not science.

    23. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Well, I haven't read them directly but I followed the news. All I saw was a bunch of misinterpretation. There was no interference with peer review. The kerfuffle over "hide the decline" and the "trick" was way overblown. Without more context about how the code in question got used the comments in the code are meaningless. Kevin Trenberth's comment that it's a travesty we can't account for the lack of warming was a comment on the observation system's inability to comprehensively track the energy flow in the system.

      Yes, I figured you were a Swede based on your Sig although I don't get what Troed refers to if anything. I will say it's impossible to tell just based on the way you write English. I'm about half Swedish blood myself from my mothers side. Her maiden name was Englebretson.

      Climate science is a multidisciplinary field that includes physics, chemistry, geology, paleoclimatology and a number of other fields. I think physicists studying radiative transfer are kind of the leaders in the field though. I would say Arrhenius's work on the greenhouse effect qualifies him as somewhat of a climate scientist. I know he thought it would be beneficial but he also thought it would take 3000 years to double CO2, not less than 300 years (at our current pace). Of course that was at the end of the Little Ice Age and our understanding has improved over the years. If CO2 doubled over 3000 years it would give the natural systems a much better chance of being able to adjust successfully. I think ocean acidification is as big a problem as simple global warming.

      I am a computer geek (system/DB admin) not a scientist but I've had a lifelong love of science. I've had 200 level and some 300 level science courses in college so I think I understand the field better than most people. But that means nothing. I know there is a difference between the laboratory and the real world but that just modifies what we see in the laboratory. It doesn't eliminate it.

      There is heat transfer both ways between the ocean and the atmosphere. If you don't think the atmosphere can transfer heat to the ocean (and land surface) you should look into the term "downward longwave radiation". I'm not saying the upward and downward transfer are equal just that it goes both ways. At night if the air is warmer than the water there will definitely be a net positive transfer to the ocean from the atmosphere.

      I've never seen any evidence that ENSO is driven by changes in cloud cover. I would tend to think it's more likely that changes in cloud cover are driven by ENSO. But it's not a subject I'm all that studied up on.

      I wouldn't call myself desperate about it at all (and I'm sorry about using that term on you). I mostly just believe that scientists in the field know what they are talking about and are not deliberately trying to mislead anyone. If they changed their tune and started saying ENSO is important then I'd listen to them.

      Scientist generally don't set out to deliberately try to falsify or find other explanations for a theory. Instead they say something like "That doesn't seem quite right." or "We need to understand this better. Let's investigate it." Occasionally they'll make a discovery that leads in a completely different direction but it's a relatively rare thing.

      Certainly there will be enough evidence to confirm of falsify the theory in another 20 or 30 years. But it may not be safe to wait that long to act.

    24. Re:Relax by Troed · · Score: 1

      Well, I haven't read them directly but I followed the news.

      Then I suggest you do. You will change your mind afterwards, I promise.

      Have a great New Year! :)

    25. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I doubt that but I'll see if I can't spend some time on it.

      Glad Nyåren

    26. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You know there's so much of the climategate emails to read through. Maybe you could point me to some specific examples you think I should read.

    27. Re:Relax by Troed · · Score: 1

      After having thought about it, sorry. The point is to have a revelation yourself, me sending you links wouldn't be that much different of an experience from what you've got by reading reports.

      After having studied the Climategate files my own revelation was: Phil Jones is not a valid scientific source. Gavin/RC is not a valid scientific source. UAE is not a valid scientific source.

      Yours may of course differ, but it needs to be yours :)

    28. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Ok, but after reading the excerpts that everyone was all excited about a year ago and figuring out the context I decided it wasn't worth my time to delve in that deeply. I've heard nothing new since then. After hearing the results of several official inquiries into the matter there are still no big revelations, just some nits to pick that don't affect the fundamental science.

      As I said before, the idea that climate scientists are part of some big conspiracy to falsify the science and have been successful at it for as long as they have (since at least the 1980's) just doesn't make sense to me given the attention the matter has received over the years. There are too many people involved over too long a time to sustain such a conspiracy. Any scientist could make his name overturning the current consensus.

      On the other hand there is good reason for the fossil fuel industry to oppose the conclusions. The necessary response would eventually eliminate their industries. It's an amoral business decision.

    29. Re:Relax by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      One other thing, I've never heard Gavin Schmidt's name mentioned in relation to the Climategate emails. Phil Jones, Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth but never Schmidt.

    30. Re:Relax by Troed · · Score: 1

      Climategate search engine: http://www.climate-gate.org/

      You might want to look at

      tag: gavin
      tag: realclimate

  16. PLASMA ENERGY PHYSICS u shit heads by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

    Gravity physics does not explain the universe. How the fuck is solar energy higher further away from the sun's surface ? Because the sun is connected by plasma to other stars.

    1. Re:PLASMA ENERGY PHYSICS u shit heads by Regnad2k7 · · Score: 1

      Yum
      a bit like-a da sah-sa-jez (learn Chicagoanese) inna my a-piz-za pie.
      http://media.photobucket.com/image/sausage+pizzeria+due+/TIPT544/PIZZA/sausagepizz.jpg

    2. Re:PLASMA ENERGY PHYSICS u shit heads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how do plasma physics explain superparamagnetism?

  17. Re:Relax ... there's a correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn Piers Corbyn is a weather forecaster in Britain who uses solar activity and the phases of the moon to predict weather. His long range forecasts are somewhat more accurate than those of the UK Met Office (not hard, they got fired by the BBC).

    Corbyn points out that the solar activity and moon phase are about the same as they were 132 years ago and the weather is about the same.

  18. still waiting to use... by bball99 · · Score: 1

    a brand new-in-the-box 10-meter HF/FM transceiver purchased after Cycle 23...

    25 watts and work the world!

    1. Re:still waiting to use... by Regnad2k7 · · Score: 1
    2. Re:still waiting to use... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      I still don't know if the 15m and 10m bands on my Trio TS-520 work :-/

      73s de MM0YEQ

  19. Signs of Grand Minimum by Glock27 · · Score: 0

    This cycle is matching up very nicely (along with the previous two cycles actually) with the beginning of the Dalton Minimum, which produced sharply colder temperatures around the globe.

    Here's a relevant article.

    Corbyn’s prediction:
    Piers Corbyn believes that the last three winters could be the harbinger of a mini ice age that could be upon us by 2035, and that it could start to be colder than at any time in the last 200 years. He goes on to speculate that a genuine ice age might then settle in, since an ice age is now cyclically overdue.

    So, there's no immediacy to global warming, we have time to get it right - rather than wrecking our economy for most likely no reason.

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    1. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Plekto · · Score: 2

      Isn't this a great thing, though? I'd think that a significantly lower output would give our planet's defenses a bit of a breather to possibly recharge. And, to be honest, the planet will be fine. CO2 levels are extremely low compared to past levels. The planet was just fine back then when it was at 8-10X the current levels, even. Sure, the ice caps might melt a bit, and you probably should wear more sunscreen, but that's about it until the next Ice Age that we are heading into will get started. Even that will be survivable - just ask the people in Moscow if they are planning to evacuate because of the cold.

      Global warming is happening. And so what? The planet will be fine and life will go on.

      A link about historic CO2 levels:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
      Looks horrible, correct? All it will likely do is trigger the next ice age to start in 30-50 years instead of the normal 200 or 300.

      http://biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html
      Suddenly it's not so horrible. It takes insanely high levels to actually cause problems in terms of damaging the ecosystem. Even at our current levels, we are only at the "o" in Epoch at the far right of the graph. It seems high to us, but it's a blip in the overall picture.

      What's worrying though is this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
      This damage is man-made and potentially is something that could actually destroy our ability to live a decent life. But nobody at all is doing anything about it. (lower oxygen production, 1/6th of the world's food supply vanishing, and many other ills as a result) We'll "survive" if it gets out of control, but it won't be pretty.

    2. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by PotatoFiend · · Score: 1

      So, there's no immediacy to global warming, we have time to get it right - rather than wrecking our economy for most likely no reason.

      Yes, let's jump to grand conclusions based on a single unproven assumption. Betting all life as we know it against maximizing profits is a perfectly rational course of action.

      --
      "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power." -- James Madison
    3. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's jump to grand conclusions based on a single unproven assumption.

      I bet you didn't even see the ironic redundancy in your post.

    4. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Glock27 · · Score: 1

      So, there's no immediacy to global warming, we have time to get it right - rather than wrecking our economy for most likely no reason.

      Yes, let's jump to grand conclusions based on a single unproven assumption. Betting all life as we know it against maximizing profits is a perfectly rational course of action.

      Uh, no. No one is saying global warming will destroy "all life as we know it". In fact, the alarmists never mention the benefits of global warming for some - it's all about the negatives. Think of Canadian wheat for instance.

      At any rate, global power generation could be moving much more rapidly towards less carbon emissions, if it weren't for the irrational fear of nuclear power exhibited by the eco-fringe. Market forces should also prevail as solar power actually becomes competitive with fossil fuels.

      There never has been a major crisis, it's been manufactured. Even NASA is beginning to come around.

      Note that that study predicts only ~1.7 C warming with CO2 doubling from current levels - and that (as always) presumes no change to solar or volcanic inputs.

      Another point often discarded by the alarmists is no matter what Western society does to mitigate CO2, Russia, India, China and the "developing world" will swamp those efforts. China's CO2 output in 2030 could equal the ENTIRE WORLD's output today. The good news is that so far the real world has not reflected the alarmism from the GW proponents computer models. Most /. readers are familiar with the GIGO principle I'm sure.. ;-)

      Merry Christmas!

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    5. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's quite a gap between on the one hand a scientist who "believes" and "speculates", and on the other hand the idea that there "is" no immediacy to GW.

    6. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Piers Corbyns beliefs and speculations aren't based on any actual science or evidence. And you go on to repeat the tired fallacy that CO2 emissions reductions will "wreck our economy", which is just the right-wing version of alarmism. No matter what it is, as long as it opposes your ideology, it will "wreck the economy". Funny how economists disagree and generally advocate pricing carbon.

    7. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no. No one is saying global warming will destroy "all life as we know it". In fact, the alarmists never mention the benefits of global warming for some - it's all about the negatives.

      Some countries can experience mild benefits under mild warming. Above 3 C or so, there mostly aren't benefits anymore, just negatives.

      Think of Canadian wheat for instance.

      Canada isn't going to be the new Kansas. They don't have the soil for it.

      At any rate, global power generation could be moving much more rapidly towards less carbon emissions, if it weren't for the irrational fear of nuclear power exhibited by the eco-fringe.

      The eco-fringe isn't what's holding back nuclear power, but it makes a convenient ideological scapegoat doesn't it?

      Market forces should also prevail as solar power actually becomes competitive with fossil fuels.

      If you were so pro-market, you'd advocate eliminating the negative externality from carbon by pricing it. And solar power probably isn't going to become competitive with fossil fuels anytime soon, barring lots of subsidization or a price on carbon. Even if it were competitive, that still doesn't argue against pricing carbon, since it otherwise it won't be as competitive as it should be.

      There never has been a major crisis, it's been manufactured.

      A libelous statement unsupported by evidence.

      Even NASA is beginning to come around.

      The NASA study uses a model on the low end of climate sensitivity, so it's not surprising that it comes up with a low end sensitivity. The actual new effect, from negative carbon feedback, is actually rather small -- most of the low sensitivity comes from choosing a model with weak warming. If they'd done their study with pretty much any other model, they'd get a higher sensitivity.

      Another point often discarded by the alarmists is no matter what Western society does to mitigate CO2, Russia, India, China and the "developing world" will swamp those efforts. China's CO2 output in 2030 could equal the ENTIRE WORLD's output today.

      China is investing in more alternative energy than the U.S. is and, according to their new 5-year plan, will likely start experimenting with environmental taxes on emissions.

      The good news is that so far the real world has not reflected the alarmism from the GW proponents computer models.

      To the contrary, the modern climate is within the ensemble spread of climate model predictions. It's not even as if you need a fancy "computer model" to predict this, either. Energy balance equations from the 1970s or early get the magnitude of warming right.

    8. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Xyrus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except that Piers Corbin is not a climatologist, is a borderline quack, and none of his "research" in this area is backed up by peer reviewed articles.

      Now add to this that the past three winters have actually been some of the warmest winters (especially in the arctic) we've had, there is nothing very "harbinger" about it. Warmer winters mean more precipitation, which is what we've been seeing. Currently, there are wide swaths of the arctic that are as much as 20F warmer than their average, hence for the first time on record there has actually been an arctic ice REDUCTION in winter which you can see for yourself here http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html, or you can go by ice volume here http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php . In addition, global temperatures have still been rising even during a solar minimum. Even with the moderate La Nina we're still having near record warmth for the globe.

      I think I'll continue following the consensus of the body of climate science, thanks.

      --
      ~X~
    9. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Glock27 · · Score: 1

      Isn't this a great thing, though?

      Absolutely. It's good to see a rare common-sense post on /.

      The ocean acidification issue is worrisome, but there is little to be done about it in the short term. It will take a breakthrough in geoengineering to reverse things given how the next fifty years is likely to shake out.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    10. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Glock27 · · Score: 1

      Piers Corbyns beliefs and speculations aren't based on any actual science or evidence.

      That is completely incorrect. You'd better do some more reading.

      Are you denying that Solar Grand Minima have an effect on the Earth? Ludicrous if so...

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    11. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Glock27 · · Score: 1

      BTW, nice job posting AC... LOL

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    12. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The planet was just fine back then when it was at 8-10X the current levels, even.

      The Sun was considerably cooler back when CO2 levels were orders of magnitude greater than they are today. The Sun gets hotter as it ages.

      All it will likely do is trigger the next ice age to start in 30-50 years instead of the normal 200 or 300.

      According to scientists who study Milankovitch cycles the next glaciation of the current ice age we are in probably won't begin for at least 20,000 years.

      It takes insanely high levels to actually cause problems in terms of damaging the ecosystem.

      How much "damage" occurs is also a function of the rate of change. The current rate of change in CO2 levels is an order of magnitude or more greater than natural change rates.

      Ocean acidification is the other half of the damage we are inflicting on the planet.

      Global warming is happening. And so what? The planet will be fine and life will go on.

      Yes, the planet will go on and life will still exist. But it will be a planet that is largely unrecognizable to the current population of humans.

    13. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      AC is spot on.

    14. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by riverat1 · · Score: 0

      And yet despite the current solar minimum the 2010 calendar year is guaranteed to be in the top 3 warmest years in the instrument record period. The 2010 meteorological year (Dec-Nov) is already the hottest year on record.

    15. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the folks that made up their minds before they did the research and then curve fit the data to prove their "hypothesis". The current state of climate research is owned by dogmatic people trying to further their agenda. It is not science, it's a religion.

    16. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by slyborg · · Score: 1
      I was going to mod this Funny, assuming it was a joke, but I've decided to post the actual snippet describing Corbyn's scientific methods:

      Corbyn's 'method' for making weather predictions: Corbyn 'studies the sun': He looks at the flow of particles from the Sun, and how they interact with the upper atmosphere, especially air currents such as the jet stream, and he looks at how the Moon and other factors influence those streaming particles. He takes a snapshot of what the Sun is doing at any given moment, and then he looks back at the record to see when it last did something similar. Then he checks what the weather was like on Earth at the time - and he makes a prophecy.

      I also note that the referenced website bills itself "The WORLDWIDE LEADER in WEIRD". My feeling: don't think this type of input is really more relevant to public policy than Al Gore's movies...

    17. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      So, there's no immediacy to global warming, we have time to get it right

      Isn't that convenient? The planet is steadily getting warmer, we have enormous evidence that it's caused by greenhouse gases, sea levels are rising, polar ice is shrinking, glaciers around the world are melting, the ocean is getting more acidic... but hey, someone has predicted (based on a method that is only one step removed from astrology) that we're actually starting an ice age, so there's no hurry to actually do anything!

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    18. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Plekto · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we're tough. I'm sure some of us will survive. I just sort of feel sorry for the unfortunate people who live in coastal areas, because it's going to get a lot worse. IIRC ~70% of the world's urban areas are near oceans or in coastal plains. Definitely time to move inland to at least 100-200ft.

    19. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Well, sea level rise is a slow motion disaster. It's not that hard to get out of the way, just expensive. The biggest danger is that sea level creeps up then along comes a hurricane and the storm surge goes far inland like what happened with Katrina along the Mississippi coast.

      I don't expect the human race to go extinct any time soon from climate change. Our intelligence and adaptability will keep us going as long as some of us can find food and shelter. But population levels could be drastically lower than they are today. We may not be able to support the level of infrastructure we do today.

    20. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Gordonjcp · · Score: 0

      The planet is steadily getting warmer, we have enormous evidence that it's caused by greenhouse gases

      Can you show me even *one* piece of genuine evidence that it's caused by "greenhouse gases"?

      So far, all the wooly-minded AGW believers have been able to produce is "it's caused by carbon dioxide". Why is it caused by carbon diodide? "Because carbon dioxide causes the greenhouse effect." Okay, but how? "Because it traps heat" Right, and how does it do that? "Because it's a greenhouse gas".

      No-one can actually come up with a testable explanation for how it's all supposed to work. It's amazing how no-one has called the AGW believers out on their bad science. I guess it's all down to their carbon dioxide magic sky pixie.

    21. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      " Even with the moderate La Nina we're still having near record warmth for the globe."

      My section of the globe is having record cold, not record warmth. All that cold air that should be in the Arctic is flowing south through here. So there should be a southern wind somewhere, and apparently it's over Greenland.

      The Dalton, Sporer, and Maunder minima all existed, AGW has no explanation for them. CO2 levels say the temperature should have been constant. It was not. Something else is going on. Exactly what is the great question.

      you might also look at the less than stable temperature history of the Eemian interglacial. Apparently, "stable temperatures" and "interglacial" do not go together.

    22. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whoa. That is so completely, totally wrong, I hardly know where to start.

      The greenhouse effect is very well understood. It's the sort of thing you derive as an exercise in an undergrad electromagnetism class. You can find a discussion of it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect, but the basic idea is very simple. When light hits any material (solid, liquid, or gas), some energy is transmitted, some is reflected, and some is absorbed. The details depend strongly on both the material and the frequency of the incoming light. That's why different objects are different colors: because they vary in how much light of each color they reflect.

      The energy from the sun is primarily in the ultraviolet and visible frequencies. When it hits the earth, much of the energy is absorbed, then re-emitted as lower frequency infrared light. Many materials (including glass, which is how greenhouses work, and carbon dioxide, which is how the earth's greenhouse effect works) are more reflective of infrared light than of ultraviolet or visible light. That's how they hold in energy: a larger fraction of the energy coming in gets through than of the energy trying to get out.

      All of the above is easily testable, and every time you get into a car that's gotten hot by sitting in the sun, you are witnessing the greenhouse effect in action.

      If I may offer a suggestion (and I mean this sincerely, not as an attempt to be insulting), one of the most important things you can know is what you don't know. You clearly know almost nothing about the science of climate change and the evidence supporting it, yet you seem to believe that you know a lot about it. You don't. Making false claims and throwing out insults about "wooly-minded AGW believers" who actually know far more than you does nothing useful: not for you, not for them, not for society. You owe it to yourself to be better than that.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    23. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by lessthan · · Score: 1

      The sun's rays hit the earth. the earth translates the radiation in to infrared. CO2 absorbs infrared and heats up. Thus, a warmer planet. Like a car in the parking lot allows sunlight in, but doesn't let heat out. Wikipedia article. Rather than complain that no one can explain it to you, maybe you should try explaining it to yourself?

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    24. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      My section of the globe is having record cold, not record warmth.

      Um, congrats? Hence why I said the global temps are near record warmth. Yes, some areas of the globe are experiencing cooler temps, but overall the temps are above average.

      The Dalton, Sporer, and Maunder minima all existed, AGW has no explanation for them.

      Huh? Why the hell would AGW have an explanation for solar activity? Especially solar activity that happened centuries ago?

      You are confusing AGW with Heliophyisics. They are two very different topics.

      CO2 levels say the temperature should have been constant. It was not.

      When? During the solar minima? If CO2 levels were relatively constant and solar output decreases, what on earth would make you think that temps would stay constant?

      You're just making shit up. AGW is a recent phenomena. AGW is not historical nor paleoclimatology. Before you start making claims like this you may want to look at the research. Otherwise you just sound like an idiot.

      Something else is going on. Exactly what is the great question.

      In regards to what? Solar activity? We know relatively little about the sun, mainly because we can't get a good look at it's internal mechanics. Then again, as I've said before, heliophysics is an entirely separate branch of study.

      If you're talking about climatology, then where is your proof that something else is going on? There's an entire world out there waiting for your genius insight to show why all the current research is wrong and you are right.

      Until you have something more substantial than idle speculation and gut feeling, I think I'll side with the mountains of evidence and research.

      Apparently, "stable temperatures" and "interglacial" do not go together.

      So, you're basically saying that climate scientists are idiots? That none of them have stopped to analyze previous periods and the climatological factors to get a better handle on the current situation? That none of them have looked at the solar records, or have bothered to take into account any of the most basic fucking facts in climate science? Are you really that ignorant about the climate sciences?

      You "pointing out" these things to climatologists would be like me pointing out using a keyboard to someone on Slashdot. Let me know when you have some real research to contribute to the discussion, preferably in the form of a peer reviewed science article.

      --
      ~X~
    25. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      The thing that concerns me about all this "little ice age" business is what happens when it *ends* and we've been keeping temperatures artificually high through the greenhouse effect. Sure, that might make for a relatively nice few decades or evena century or two of what should be cold weather, but it will also mean skyrocketing temperatures once insolation (energy from the sun) returns to normal levels. What will we do then?

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    26. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignorance 4tw. ;-)

    27. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Glock27 · · Score: 1

      What will we do then?

      We'll use our many decades of increased science and engineering to fix the problem. ;-)

      Think how far we've come with aviation since 1940 for instance....

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    28. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      CO2 absorbs infrared and heats up.

      More so than any of the other gases in the atmosphere? How?

    29. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "instrument record after adjustments"

      It's not anywhere close to being one of the warmest years if you remove the adjustments, or if you only count those thermometers not situated near human settlements.

    30. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by lessthan · · Score: 1

      Yes, CO2 absorbs infrared, more than O2 and N2. As to how... Do you know how light/radiation works at all? Do you know why the sky is blue or why a black object in the sun heats up faster than a white one? Because it doesn't seem like it. If you don't know that, how can you argue about global warming at all?

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    31. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Do you know why the sky is blue or why a black object in the sun heats up faster than a white one?

      Yes, I do. None of that has is particularly relevant too, because it doesn't answer my question. Can you explain how carbon dioxide is heated more strongly than nitrogen or oxygen, without invoking your magic carbon sky pixie?

    32. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Where do you get It's not anywhere close to being one of the warmest years if you remove the adjustments..."? The data is not that useful without normalization and correction for known errors. If you prefer check out the satellite data for 2010. It's showing higher temperatures this year than the ground station based measurements.

      Of course satellite temperature measurements are not measured directly but inferred from the radiation spectrum coming off the Earth.

    33. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by lessthan · · Score: 1

      Absorption spectra aren't relevant? Are you kidding? When have I invoked a "magic carbon sky pixie?" CO2's absorption spectra strongly includes infrared, whereas nitrogen and oxygen doesn't. Like white and black boxes in the sun, the greater the radiation absorption, the faster and hotter the object heats. CO2 absorbs more IR than O2 and N2. This is an innate physical property, due to the configuration of the electrons and nucleus of the atoms involved. More radiation absorbed means more energy, which means heat. How is this a puzzle or unclear?

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    34. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Good god, at last! Someone who *can* explain the mechanism by which increasing the amount of CO2 can cause the atmosphere to warm up!

      It still doesn't mean that human activity is putting much of a dent in atmospheric CO2 levels, though. Frankly I'd be more worried about increasing concentrations of carbonic acid than the tiny amount of additional atmospheric heating caused by the tiny increase in CO2. You've got hot water vapour and you've got hot carbon dioxide; the conditions are perfect for it.

    35. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      You realize that most of the folks working in Climatology are not climatologist either don't you. The earliest you could get a Degree or PhD in "climatology" was about 2000, so every senior researcher in the field is not really a climatologist.

      In other news, they are also not true Scotsman.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    36. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by lessthan · · Score: 1

      The atmospheric carbon dioxide amount in 1900 was 280 ppm. Today, it is 390 ppm. For something that is supposed to be a closed cycle, that is a crazy increase.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    37. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      In 1900 the margin of error was considerably greater. Don't trust any gas concentration values older than about the 1950s. We haven't been good enough at it for long ;-)

    38. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by lessthan · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, I would take the measurement with a grain of salt, had the measurement been taken in the 1900s. That number was generated recently, from ice cores taken from the Arctic and Antarctic. Air gets trapped in the ice, which can be measured for content. Due to the rather consistent nature of the weather at the poles, you can correlate depth with time. The deeper the air pocket, the older it is.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    39. Re:Signs of Grand Minimum by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Can you explain how carbon dioxide is heated more strongly than nitrogen or oxygen, without invoking your magic carbon sky pixie?

      A science teacher probably could. Have you ever met one?

      Or do you live in one of those places where they aren't allowed, on account of all that thar evillution.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. Re:Relax ... there's a correlation by tonique · · Score: 0

    Piers Corbyn is a weather forecaster in Britain who uses solar activity and the phases of the moon to predict weather. His long range forecasts are somewhat more accurate than those of the UK Met Office

    Now, you really need to have something to quantify that statement, preferably with clear criteria how to assess accuracy of predictions. You can't trust your memory on things like this: you're likely to remember only recent things -- with bias.

  21. This can be because by WetCat · · Score: 2

    This can be because
    Sun has already been bought by Oracle?

  22. Old SOL doesn't like it by grumling · · Score: 2

    The Sun is a very old thing. Like most old ham radio operators, SOL didn't like the FCC screwing around with the testing. "BY GUMMIT! I had'ta take the 25WPM test to get my Extra, so should all you youngins!" he was heard exclaiming after the rule change. So ol' Sol got together one morning over coffee with all his buddies on 80 meters and hatched a plan: "I'll just turn down the sunspots for a while, they tend to inflame my gout anyway. That way they'll have to use CW, since they all live in deed-restricted tract houses and can't put up boomers like we have!"

    And so, as the newly-licensed HAMs bought their Miracle Whips and Outbackers, in the hopes of cycle 23 kicking up and making it easy to work the world, their hopes (and bank accounts) were quickly dashed on the reality of all quiet bands (except for those old guys talking about their aches and pains) and those weird sounds at the bottom of the band. Some took to new methods, and some picked up the old ways, but the old guys, with their antenna farms and "full limit" linear amps got to keep "their" voice subbands and coffee klatches, comforted in the knowledge that their frequency will continue to belong to them, for as long as they can keep it.

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    1. Re:Old SOL doesn't like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha, thanks, that was a good read to wake up to! The problem is though, it's probably true! The sun certainly is old enough to be a crotchety ham.

      73

    2. Re:Old SOL doesn't like it by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      That's the problem, the CW test isn't really as relevant but there *should* be a section on using digital modes like PSK. Then we wouldn't have twats like this

      73s de MM0YEQ

  23. Maunder Minimum baby by mbone · · Score: 1

    Well, who knows, but it would be nice if we were entering a new Maunder type Minimum. We could use some help keeping the planet from overheating.

  24. Windows to blame! by KingFrog · · Score: 1

    Freakin' Microsoft. Who gave them the contract to upgrade SunOS, anyway?!?

  25. Damn those SUVs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not content with raping Mother Earth, they're affecting the sun now.

  26. Sun scores poorly on NASA performance review by I_am_Jack · · Score: 1

    Is it me, or shouldn't we be thinking about a performance improvement plan to get those UV emissions up by the next solar cycle?

  27. Precursor by kenbo0422 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a precursor to a Supernova.

    1. Re:Precursor by ziggyzaggy · · Score: 1

      no worries, our sun is way too puny, one eighth the mass, to get it up and make a money shot like that

  28. The Russians by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    I remember reading 10 - 15 years ago about a couple Russian scientists that said we didn't have to worry about global warming because there would be a mini ice age commencing somewhere around the year 2010. No, really... I did read that. Boy those Russkies are smart.

    Should we be working on a space-based mirror system to concentrate sunlight and maybe prevent 10,000 foot thick glaciers marching down the continent all the way to Omaha? If you thought GW was going to screw up the environment, think about that. Far worse.

    Or maybe a series of electric power satellites, 1000's of terawatts that would, when the waste heat is dumped into the atmoshphere, just maybe help things along to thwart the glaciers.

    We may yet have to do something...

  29. Sun dying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2012? Oh no! Must make sacrifice! Call uncle Nayam the heart surgeon!
    Oh wait! Must first go to country where a religion is allowed that professes killing.

  30. Don't worry, it's just the Singularity ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... attending to its self-preservation, counteracting our global warming. If this doesn't work, it moves to the plan labeled "SkyNet".

  31. In the LONGER Term: Variability by BoRegardless · · Score: 0

    The Maunder Minimum is well known in the 1600s. Millions of people starved when cold weather limited growing and ruined crops in Northern Europe. Our current minds tend to forget this.

    A friend who used to run the Mojave Solar Telescope Array noted the last time I saw him that the solar physicists who analyze the Sun, still can't do reliable long range solar forecasts.

    Those solar cycle changes can result in large changes on the earth that completely change the lifestyle in a region.

    Richard Henry Dana in the 2nd Edition of his book Two Years Before the Mast, noted that between the early 1800s when he was collecting hides in California and when he came back as a retiree on the first railroad about half a century later, that the Los Angeles Basin climate had abruptly changed to a dry climate. There was 'no more waist high fields of grass over the plains and thus no more cattle herds', or words similar to that.

    The Sun rules! Gore doesn't & committees on climate change don't. In the long run the 110,000 year repeating glacial ages rule the habitability of the Northern Hemisphere. Regardless of man, Canada and all of Scandanavia and northern Europe, Russia & Siberia will disappear under kilometers of ice, again. That 110,000 year variation appears to be largely due to solar irradiance changes due to orbit changes of the Earth around the Sun.

    The Long Term counts. All else is noise.

  32. Dalton minimum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually, some scientists noticed early the the recent solar minimum we experienced was looking a lot like the Dalton minimum. And so far it continues to resemble it. If so, we are probably in for some cooler weather.

     

  33. FUCKIN' SOLAR MAGNETOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do they work???

  34. Re:In the LONGER Term: Variability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Long Term counts. All else is noise.

    True words. Thank you for your post, very inspirational, even if you probably didn't intend it to be. No matter what we do, want, need or hope for, the universe will do what it pleases.

    We'd be better off if we lived accordingly, i.e. without sweating the small stuff.

  35. Solar Activity seems to be low? by Jerome+from+Layton · · Score: 1

    Let's see what happens in the next couple of years. If the peak is supposed to happen in 2012 and we are looking at uncharacteristic low activity now, what will the shape of the activity lines show us? There are multiple possibilities and catastrophy theory suggests a violent outcome is not out of the question, but the probability is low. From the comments, I will agree the weather this year has been strange with record lows and highs all over the place and some at the same place. Right now, Florida is just getting over an early cold snap that threatens their agriculture while central and south Texas is unusually warm with some places in the eighties. New England and Europe are both suffering from the cold while, at the same time, Greenland and Ice Land are both well above their average temperatures for the same period. For what it is worth, here in Utah, my heating bill more than doubled from November to December and the December consumption was higher than the previous year by about seven percent. The Summer was cooler and late enough to trash my garden schedule. If this continues, I'll have to build green houses.