Slashdot Mirror
Puzzled Scientists Say Strange Things Are Happening On the Sun
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Robert Lee Hotz reports in the WSJ that current solar activity is stranger than it has been in a century or more. The sun is producing barely half the number of sunspots as expected, and its magnetic poles are oddly out of sync. Based on historical records, astronomers say the sun this fall ought to be nearing the explosive climax of its approximate 11-year cycle of activity—the so-called solar maximum. But this peak is 'a total punk,' says Jonathan Cirtain. 'I would say it is the weakest in 200 years,' adds David Hathaway, head of the solar physics group at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Researchers are puzzled. They can't tell if the lull is temporary or the onset of a decades-long decline, which might ease global warming a bit by altering the sun's brightness or the wavelengths of its light. To complicate the riddle, the sun also is undergoing one of its oddest magnetic reversals on record, with the sun's magnetic poles out of sync for the past year so the sun technically has two South Poles. Several solar scientists speculate that the sun may be returning to a more relaxed state after an era of unusually high activity that started in the 1940s (PDF). 'More than half of solar physicists would say we are returning to a norm,' says Mark Miesch. 'We might be in for a longer state of suppressed activity.' If so, the decline in magnetic activity could ease global warming, the scientists say. But such a subtle change in the sun—lowering its luminosity by about 0.1%—wouldn't be enough to outweigh the build-up of greenhouse gases and soot that most researchers consider the main cause of rising world temperatures over the past century or so. 'Given our current understanding of how the sun varies and how climate responds, were the sun to enter a new Maunder Minimum, it would not mean a new Little Ice Age,' says Judith Lean. 'It would simply slow down the current warming by a modest amount.'"
Just sayin.. you're warned..
Climate change is messing up our sun!
Scientists don't know everything about everything, but they want to know. That's how science works: it's a process.
...hey, if it buys us a hundred years to figure this pollution shit out, I ain't gonna look a gift horse in the mouth.
Are you?
The Sun God is angry! Sacrifice the corporate capitalists to appease the Sun God!!
I'll take the cash value of that Nobel Prize in lottery tickets, thanks.
OMG! More proof of climate change! Quick, give more money to climate 'scientists'!
I bet all you climate-change-deniers are feeling foolish now.
It is interesting how successful the Koch brothers were with their anti-AGW Think Tank funding. They couldn't discredit the science, so they discredited scientists instead. And have created this fantastic meme that it is the scientist side of this discussion that has a big economic interest in it.
so more like an extra year or two, at best, and probably more like a few months.
it's later than you think, and possibly too late already, only we hope not.
'Given our current understanding of how the sun varies and how climate responds, were the sun to enter a new Maunder Minimum, it would not mean a new Little Ice Age,' says Judith Lean. 'It would simply slow down the current warming by a modest amount.'
That's a glass half empty point of view. If we hadn't added a protective layer of CO2 to our atmosphere we could be in an ice age right now.
they are positive this won't slow down global warming.
the decline in magnetic activity could ease global warming, the scientists said.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Logic fail. I may have absolutely positively no idea why a refinery exploded but I can easily forecast what that will mean for gas prices.
Likewise they don't know why the sun is acting the way it is but they DO know that that includes very slightly less output and a shift in spectrum and they do know what effect that will have.
Winter?
The next ice age is approaching!
Screw Global Warming, nature is messing with us.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
In other news, archaeologists discover we were one year off in our estimates of the end of the next Long Count cycle on the Mayan Calendar.
Look, I know the sun hasnt been meeting its performance goals as of late, but its just going through some stuff, OK? The sun is working on getting its shit together and will be back better than ever, but you just gotta cool off man.
After witnessing the Aurora, I say this is sad news. Quiet sun means fewer displays like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEHRoyvh_Ec
And maybe no more of those wild sun moments when satellite engineers go berserk in fear.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Only Doctor Hans Zarkhov, formerly at NASA, has provided any explanation.
It is interesting how successful the Koch brothers were with their anti-AGW Think Tank funding. They couldn't discredit the science, so they discredited scientists instead. And have created this fantastic meme that it is the scientist side of this discussion that has a big economic interest in it.
Oceania always had a need for an Emmanuel Goldstein. Here, the Koch brothers are attributed with a near mythical level of persuasion even though on the propaganda front they're greatly outspent, for example, by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the EU.
My view is that over the decades, the environmentalism movement has fucked over a lot of people. I know I became disenchanted when Greenpeace (US branch, I believe) libeled Du Pont (incidentally with global warming FUD) while I was working there around 1990. The society-wide distrust of the AGW theory is one of those consequences.
People might still be willing to make small but meaningless sacrifices (such as recycling programs) for the environment, but when it affects your life and those you care about for little, if any, gain, people get more discerning.
You think you do, but if you knew more about how the planet operates, you'd know that a warmer planet won't be as pleasant to live in. But screw science, right? Whatever feels good or seems good must be good. You're an island, and everything else will figure out a way to work, and there won't be any periods of instability while hundred-year-old industries and economies adjust to large changes in climate. Right?
I'm guessing the solution will involve Bruce Willis and a spaceship full of nukes flying to the sun to save us all
Korma: Good
It's all the fault of Edward Snowden !
Edward Snowden would be a good name for some evil antagonist who creates heavy global cooling.
Yes. I believe the time tested manner of calming down the sun is via human sacrifice. Quick, build more pyramids!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I see I'm the only one who RTFA (saw this yesterday). The most this will do is to slow global warming somewhat.
However, in 10,000 years when the seasons have flipped and the northern hemisphere has winter in June and summer in December they'll probably have another ice age. Ice ages are cyclical.
Free Martian Whores!
Wikioedia won't tell me how much money Greenpeace has, but the indication I got is that compared to the Koches, Greenpeace is a pauper. Koch could BUY the entire environmental movement if it were for sale. And you act like it's just them, when every oil company and other polluter wants to spread the disinformation.
My view is that over the decades, the environmentalism movement has fucked over a lot of people.
Yeah, DuPont, Monsanto, the oil companies, and all the other dirty bastards that foul my air and water.
The society-wide distrust of the AGW
Doesn't exist. It's only the right wing minority who have been brainwashed by the Koches. Everyone else listens to the scientists.
You know what? Fuck DuPont. Do a little research on those filthy bastards, it's sickening.
Free Martian Whores!
I note that global climate seems to be going through a startlingly fast, almost uniquely fast change. (Well, ok, there are similar almost-vertical pulses of warming about every 120-140kY.)
The sun seems to be going through a startling, unobserved mixture of activity.
Generally, when one startling random happenstance occurs in close proximity to another, it's not unreasonable to wonder if they're connected.
One might point out that our understanding of solar cycles comes from direct observation of approximately only 250-some years.
Observation of a system can only observe periodicity of 0.5N, and suggest confirmation 0.33N; that is you only get a HINT that something is periodic after you see it twice, and really only a strong suggestion of periodicity after the third observation. Turning that around, then, the longest periodic cycles within our 4.5-billion-old Sun that we could have directly observed is not much more than 80 years. (Granted, one can make some inferred solar observations on a longer scale based on tree ring data, etc.)
That's an amazingly short time, given the scale of our sun's span. We don't really know all that much about it.
-Styopa
Discrediting scientists (and by extension science) is going to be paying dividends for a long time. I wonder how quickly it'll accelerate the USA's loss of leadership in the sciences.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
You think you do, but if you knew more about how the planet operates, you'd know that a warmer planet won't be as pleasant to live in.
Social evolution can happen at a very rapid pace when needed, so I am not worried about that. Humans can and will adapt as needed.
What I do know, is that Geologically speaking, we are still in an ice-age(inter-glacial period, but still an ice age as we currently have ice-caps), so I know for a fact that earthly life as a whole will be quite happy once we have moved away from the unusually cold climate and can return to a warmer and more fruitful climate instead.
Sure there will be disruptions, but change is both disruptive and unavoidable, so we will deal with it.
How do you respond to this: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/secret-environmental-cost-us-ethanol-220037254.html
I think this is just the beginning. The environmental movement has a lot to answer for, including out of control forest fires, millions of deaths from malaria, and so on. I'm not saying that a clean environment is a noble goal, just that proper evaluations are needed.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
I don't think you can blame the environmental movement for rampant and anti-environmental profiteering by agribusinesses realising that biofuel crops can be a huge money-spinner. I mean literally that very article has environmentalist groups arguing against it.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
millions of deaths from malaria
Yeah, that's the point where you really proved that you don't know what you're talking about.
DDT was not banned from the world, only the US. The US does not have millions of deaths from malaria.
In point of fact, DDT is still in use around the world. Unfortunately, mosquitoes have developed resistance to it and humans haven't. The decline is DDT usage is not due to the US banning it, but rather due to the fact that it's not working very well anymore and the health problems it causes for humans are beginning to outweigh the benefits.
Here, the Koch brothers are attributed with a near mythical level of persuasion even though on the propaganda front they're greatly outspent, for example, by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the EU.
I hope you realize that's not a very fair comparison. There are at least three fundamental errors that make the comparison misleading:
1) You are comparing two oil tycoons to Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the European Union
The Koch brothers run a privately owned company with an estimated income of around $100 billion per year
Greenpeace has an income of around 0.35% of Koch industries, around 350 million.
The World Wildlife fund has an income of around 0.25% of Koch industries, around 250 million.
The European Union has a budget of around 160% of Koch industries, around $160 billion per year
You needed to throw the European Union into the comparison to make the comparison look even remotely reasonable. Otherwise the groups you're looking at would be at a more than 100 to 1 funding disadvantage. However, other than to make the comparison look less ridiculous, it doesn't really seem reasonable to include the EU in your comparison.
2) You seem to categorizing all money spent by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the European Union (which includes 28 different countries) as propaganda.
This is a ridiculous assumption to make, however, it may surprise you to know that Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the European Union have other things to spend their money on than climate change. Greenpeace maintains a small fleet of ships, and runs a variety of different environmental campaigns, the World Wildlife Fund is more concerned with Wilflife preservationt than Global Warming and the European Union is a government that runs many programs that have nothing to do with climate change.
3) No one know how much money the Koch brothers spend on climate change propaganda.
Koch industries is a privately owned company and thus doesn't have to reveal how much money it spends on anti-climate change propaganda. It seems likely, however, if they spend as little as 1% on opposing climate change they'd outspend the Greenpeace and the WWF entirely. Once you account for the actual breakdown of spending on climate change for those groups, the Koch brothers could easily outspend them with 0.1% of annual revenue.
While I agree that some people do have Koch brother myopia, they are in fact, one of the largest funders of anti-regulatory and right-wing propaganda groups in the world. Most of that funding is done in secret because they are not compelled to reveal any of it. They are in fact, running a shadowy propaganda war against environmental groups because they directly profit from lax environmental laws (because of lower costs, and increased ability to shift clean up burdens to tax payers).
I know I became disenchanted when Greenpeace (US branch, I believe) libeled Du Pont (incidentally with global warming FUD) while I was working there around 1990.
Ah, yes. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Incidentally, I've never really been a big fan of Greenpeace either, but I try not to let the messenger colour the message.
People might still be willing to make small but meaningless sacrifices (such as recycling programs) for the environment, but when it affects your life and those you care about for little, if any, gain, people get more discerning.
That is probably true. However, the problem may be the perception of the gain versus the perception of the cost. I know many people (on Slashdot even) have claimed that switching to a low carbon energy infrastructure would result in global poverty. But to stop global warming completely in it's tracks would cost us close to 2% of world GDP, fairly close to what the world spends on sewers and sewage treatment. If you figure the cost is everyth
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The meme I've seen is "if we do something like the tree-huggers demand of us, we'll all be shivering in the dark". It would be interesting to map its origin and spread.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
What I do know, is that Geologically speaking, we are still in an ice-age(inter-glacial period, but still an ice age as we currently have ice-caps), so I know for a fact that earthly life as a whole will be quite happy once we have moved away from the unusually cold climate and can return to a warmer and more fruitful climate instead.
Sure there will be disruptions, but change is both disruptive and unavoidable, so we will deal with it.
See, this is where denialism turns into woo-woo religion. You "know for a fact" that the planet's going to do better once it warms up, do you? You know for a fact that we can indeed deal with this disruption, do you?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Send people to Mars. While the level of solar activity is low and the risk of CMEs is less.
Have gnu, will travel.
I don't think you can really call the long steady states of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment "bare survival", or claim that hotspots of social change like the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa are "thriving". Progress is restrained in resource-constrained societies, which is what you get during periods of major social upheaval.
If we're going to have social upheaval, I think it should be on our terms, for our reasons, and not the atmosphere's.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
but here is the point you, and people like you, don't seem to grasp:
The warming won't end unless we stop emitting, or find a good way to remove excess CO2.
" unusually cold climate and can return to a warmer and more fruitful climate instead."
and then what, as it continues to warm? hmm?
Why do people think oh., the caps will melt, and the it will be over and we will be fine?
The caps are currently acting as a break, along with the oceans, when the caps are gone the temperature increase will be faster. And it's happen to fast to adapt to 200 degree summers.
If an iron asteroid the size of Texas was heading towards the earth would you want to take ction od just shrug and say well change happens!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Gather 'round, kids. Parent post is a classic example of the Gish Gallop.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The sun is not a type of star that will go nova. Enlarge and fry the Earth, yes. Nova, no.
"If you knew about science, you'd know that a warmer planet would be a lot more pleasant to live on. But of course, you don't."
based on what? how is 150 degree summer and no land to grow crops 'better'?
You think it's going to rise a few degrees and then stop? Without us taking action?
Explain how the acid level in the ocean ring and killing off the number 1 Oxygen maker is a a good thing.
"IPCC-predicted temperature increases will cause less disruption than the kind of carbon emission reductions that would be necessary to "stabilize" the climate.
it's predicted no such thing.
Read it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Lately research has pretty much shot down the idea of a really significant role for cosmic rays impacting climate. This Guardian article contains links to several recent papers on the subject.
The truth is that IF solar output is indeed declining, the earth's climate is going to dramatically cool...
You only think that if you think climate scientists are full of it. What climate scientists say is that a new Maunder minimum like period would only delay the warming by a decade or so.
The problem with such breezy assumptions is that if the Koch brothers really are spending that kind of money, then why aren't we seeing the results? They should be able to get a lot of reporters to downplay climate change for example. Instead, we see reporters who strain to get climate change into a story.
How would you know if you were seeing the results of that funding or not? It takes a lot of money to conceal the truth. Have you ever considered that maybe your own opposition is one of the end results of that funding? The Koch brothers don't need to generate certainty that climate change isn't a problem, they only need to create enough doubt to enable themselves to continue operating the way they always have.
Incidentally, you are the one who claimed that the Koch brothers "are greatly outspent". What I've provided is a simple analysis that says the Koch brothers could relatively easily outspend what each of those organizations spends on climate change. We don't know whether they spend more or less because they are not obligated to reveal that. Do you have any evidence to support the assertion that you made?
The EU plans to spend roughly 30 billion Euro per year on climate change for 2014-2020. That's apparently 20% of its budget.
You seem to imply that's 30 billion a year on climate change propaganda, but that spending includes greenhouse gas emission reductions, energy efficiency improvements, and adaptation programs. I'm not sure any of it will be spent on advocacy, other than incidentally in the promotion of some specific programs such as a trade-in program for old appliances. Much of the reason for that spending is focused on mitigating risk and saving the EU money through reductions in energy import costs, pollution clean up and reduced medical costs.
And while Greenpeace and the WWF have other things to spend money on, they're primarily propaganda organizations.
While true of Greenpeace, both organizations combined are much, much, smaller than Koch Industries (less than 1% of the size). Additionally, they only spend a part of their budget on climate change issues. From their financial statements, greenpeace spends about $35 million a year on climate change programs. The WWF spends about 80 percent of their budget on programs, and about two thirds of that is spent directly on conservation programs, leaving about 25% (33% of 80%) or roughly $66 million of their total budget that is spent on education and advocacy campaigns, most of which have little to do with climate change.
Which is a large amount and probably underestimated by the people who made the study in question. Public sanitation is an obvious public good. Stopping global warming "in its tracks" is not.
That evaluation is dependent on what you believe. You believe that public sanitation is an obvious public good, but it wasn't perceived as such when it was first introduced. It was highly controversial, there were people who said sewers would begger the United Kingdom for no benefit. Does that sound familiar at all?
If the predictions are accurate, at a minimum spending 2% of GDP on prevention could save us 6% of GDP on adaptation. The EU believes it will also result in less pollution, lower medical costs, and reduced vulnerability to oil price shocks, which is why they're commiting to spend 20% of their budget on making those changes regardless of what the rest of the world is doing.
Fanatically anti-fanatical