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.'"
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?
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
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
QUICK!
Someone call Cillian Murphy!
Immolation is the sincerest form of flattery.
It may be low now, but the sun is expect to reach peak intensity in 2012...
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."
Don't worry, congress recently declared it Too Big To Fail
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.
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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
For those who still don't understand.
This can be because
Sun has already been bought by Oracle?
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."
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.
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.'"
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~
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."
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~