"Not that unusual compared to some previous solar cycles."
WHY is everyone here failing to get the point?
It DOESN'T MATTER if it was less than the last solar cycle... it is STILL more active than LAST YEAR, so it can be expected to be warmer than LAST YEAR.
This is not exactly genius material, and I haven't been trying to "blame" all of Earth's warming on the sun. But the sun plays a role, and denying that is just plain bullshit.
"So don't blame the sun, it makes you look stupid."
It makes YOU look stupid to conflate "weather" with "climate".
Regardless of whether it's "lower than normal" for a peak, it's STILL the peak of the 11-year cycle, and it can STILL be expected to be WARMER THAN NORMAL for the last 11 years, give or take, because it's STILL the peak solar activity for that period.
"Troll"??? This is EXACTLY the same argument used by AGW proponents, when they are confronted with the fact that Country X had a colder-than-normal winter last year: "That's not climate, it's weather."
I will remind people here that "troll" is not a substitute for "I disagree", and it is also not an acceptable means of expressing your own hypocrisy.
"You are aware that this is a PREDICTION by Kaku, not an observation, right?"
I think that goes without saying, since it was posted in 2009.
But here's the important part: that prediction appears to be true. We have been seeing ACTUAL unusual solar activity, just as he predicted. So... where's the beef?
"Despite the recent flare activity, this is one of the weakest solar cycles (so far) in many decades."
Nevertheless, this is the time of the peak of the 11-year cycle, and we ARE getting more activity than we have in recent years. It is not surprising that we are experiencing a heatwave.
"How many satellites and power grids have been knocked offline by solar activity?"
That's kind of a silly thing to ask. Regardless of whether it did damage, the recent flare was in the same general class as those that DID cause telephone service in Illinois to go down in 1974, and the power grid in Ottowa to go down in 1988. (I'm not positive I have those years right, but I think so.)
Your argument is kind of like saying that since a tsunami did not hit a major population center, it couldn't have been a big tsunami. When a more realistic assessment is probably: "Coastal cities got lucky for a change."
"By the way, we haven't yet hit the peak - probably still a year away , but it likely won't be much more severe that what we've seen so far."
The peak should happen ABOUT now... the "11 years" is only approximate (and in fact I think the average is more like 10.8, if memory serves). But some of them have been 9+ years, others 12+ years. The recent flares are rather to be expected... after all, it *IS* a cycle, not just a spike in the graph. The middle of the last peak was about 2002, which means it should just be starting to hit peak pretty close to now. Peaks typically last a couple of years... like I said, not a spike.
Also, one must keep in mind that there are known, longer-term cycles than just the 11-year cycle. For example, in this graph, you can clearly see that sunspot activity has averaged a great deal higher during the latter half of the 20th Century than in the latter part of the 19th. There are cycles that are in the 100-year range, and cycles that are in the 1000-year range. The fact is, we are just now coming off of what is called the "solar grand maximum", even though it may be somewhat milder given this short-term cycle, than the last Grand Maximum.
It should also be noted that even though flare and sunspot incidence has been down, on average, over this last cycle, total solar irradiance is still pretty close to average. But we only have that data for the last 30 years or so... less than 3 of the short cycles.
When all exceptional wheather events point in the same direction, it stops being "wheather" to be "climate".
And by the way: they have NOT "all" been pointing in the same direction. Here, for example, we've had close to record cool Springs and early Summers for the last two years. In fact most of last summer was fairly cool, as well.
"When all exceptional wheather events point in the same direction, it stops being "wheather" to be "climate"."
When ONE YEAR has a major heatwave, which happens to correspond pretty much exactly with a flurry of solar activity, it is WEATHER, and you cannot call it "climate" for a good 15 years... and even then, only if it is part of a trend.
Remember: approximately the last 10 years have NOT been increasing significantly in temperature. Now we have one that looks like it is, but it happens simultaneously with the peak of a well-known 11-year solar cycle, and physicists are saying that they had underestimated the solar activity at this peak by as much as 20 TIMES.
Yeah. That's weather. Until proven otherwise... and that will take a while, if it ever happens at all.
"Depends on the wind condition and humidity dont you think?"
That's a fair statement, since ice and snow can sublimate directly into the atmosphere, if the air is dry. But on the other hand, it can do that at 10 below too.
"... er 40% melted away, 97%...er wait. What does this really mean?"
If you ask me, this is misleading in a way that HAS TO be deliberate. It states that some melting as been observed over close to 97% of the ice sheet, but doesn't say how much has actually melted... and I am guessing damned little since they make a big point of one place being close to zero or a few hours.
But when expressed the way this is, it gives the unwary an impression that 97% of the ice has melted away... but that is not even close to the truth.
Dr. Michio Kaku said that physicists and astronomers underestimated the level of solar activity for 2012. (See at about the 2:00 point.)
In addition, as you know if you have been paying attention, we have in fact had significant solar activity and some rather massive solar flares.
It is not at all surprising that we are experiencing a heatwave. And it just so happens to correspond to the normal 11-year cycle peak, so it is even doubly non-surprising.
It very much remains to be seen whether this weather constitutes "climate".
Repeat: it ISN'T just a matter of cost. In many places it quite literally is not a viable option.
In some areas not far from here, for example, solar simply isn't viable, unless you have 10 acres to spare per home, and the money to line them will cells.
"It's a painless process that doesn't cost you anything, except maybe a few minutes responding to the DMCA notice."
It is nothing of the sort.
I notice that you neglected to mention that little part about how the provider is required by law to wait a minimum of 10 days before restoring the content.
It is a painFUL process, that [a] puts the burden on innocent parties and [b] has been horribly abused, in order to do everything from keeping people from putting up birthday messages with (fair use) music in them, to chilling political speech.
The DMCA take-down process is an abomination that must end.
"The alternative pre-DMCA was to have your video, audio, or text removed and No Way to have it restored."
Nonsense. The alternative pre-DMCA was to have infringement proven in court before it could be taken down. Which is the way it should still be.
No shit, Sherlock. That doesn't mean I have to appreciate a device that is designed to monitor my moment-to-moment activities being attached to my house. It may be legal, but I question the ethics.
"It's a little different as a corporation, but if you do something illegal you could just get away with it and make a ton of money. Or you could get caught and fined. "
And that's the problem with our laws today: the entire current "punitive damages" arrangement.
The first problem is, when corporations are fined by government or regulatory agencies, the money doesn't go to the people who were actually defrauded. When a corporation is caught doing something like that, they should be forced to make every effort to discover who was actually damaged, and recompense them, BEFORE any "fines" are even considered.
Then, and only then, should punitive damages be levied. And they should be large enough that the corporation LOSES money when it is all done. Anything else isn't really "punitive" at all.
"After all, if they are providing a service and you're unhappy with the terms, go elsewhere."
The problem is that it's effectively a government-endorsed monopoly, and solar (in most places) is not yet cost-effective.
"And put your tinfoil hat back on, and wait for that stalker to go through millions of records to find your house."
It has already been well-established that there are all kinds of things a moment-to-moment analysis of a person's electrical usage can tell about them (as long as a few other pieces of information are known). I have never seen anyone seriously attempt to dispute that. Is that what you are doing?
I did not say the power company is interested in me. We don't even have those here, but just hypothetically, the police might be looking for some free information, or a private investigator, or even a private firm could buy the information from the utility company for the purpose of selling certain products. So the fact that a given home is one out of millions is completely irrelevant. People can be (and are) singled out by LEAs and corporations for various reasons, some less savory than others.
If you think those scenarios are unrealistic, then you haven't been paying attention to the news.
Slashdot Mirror
"But it will be orders more when the temperature is more than zero."
Actually no, it won't, as anyone who has good experience with winter Chinook winds can attest. It works best when the air is cold, dry, and moving.
The problem is that when the air is warmer, the humidity is also higher, and it's that much harder for sublimation to take place.
"Not that unusual compared to some previous solar cycles."
WHY is everyone here failing to get the point?
It DOESN'T MATTER if it was less than the last solar cycle... it is STILL more active than LAST YEAR, so it can be expected to be warmer than LAST YEAR.
This is not exactly genius material, and I haven't been trying to "blame" all of Earth's warming on the sun. But the sun plays a role, and denying that is just plain bullshit.
"It's misleading to those without good reading comprehension."
Yes, it most certainly is.
How much of the ice MASS melted? Please find those figures for me in those numbers, and then we can chat.
"So don't blame the sun, it makes you look stupid."
It makes YOU look stupid to conflate "weather" with "climate".
Regardless of whether it's "lower than normal" for a peak, it's STILL the peak of the 11-year cycle, and it can STILL be expected to be WARMER THAN NORMAL for the last 11 years, give or take, because it's STILL the peak solar activity for that period.
Get a clue.
"Troll"??? This is EXACTLY the same argument used by AGW proponents, when they are confronted with the fact that Country X had a colder-than-normal winter last year: "That's not climate, it's weather."
I will remind people here that "troll" is not a substitute for "I disagree", and it is also not an acceptable means of expressing your own hypocrisy.
"You are aware that this is a PREDICTION by Kaku, not an observation, right?"
I think that goes without saying, since it was posted in 2009.
But here's the important part: that prediction appears to be true. We have been seeing ACTUAL unusual solar activity, just as he predicted. So... where's the beef?
"Despite the recent flare activity, this is one of the weakest solar cycles (so far) in many decades."
Nevertheless, this is the time of the peak of the 11-year cycle, and we ARE getting more activity than we have in recent years. It is not surprising that we are experiencing a heatwave.
"How many satellites and power grids have been knocked offline by solar activity?"
That's kind of a silly thing to ask. Regardless of whether it did damage, the recent flare was in the same general class as those that DID cause telephone service in Illinois to go down in 1974, and the power grid in Ottowa to go down in 1988. (I'm not positive I have those years right, but I think so.)
Your argument is kind of like saying that since a tsunami did not hit a major population center, it couldn't have been a big tsunami. When a more realistic assessment is probably: "Coastal cities got lucky for a change."
"By the way, we haven't yet hit the peak - probably still a year away , but it likely won't be much more severe that what we've seen so far."
The peak should happen ABOUT now... the "11 years" is only approximate (and in fact I think the average is more like 10.8, if memory serves). But some of them have been 9+ years, others 12+ years. The recent flares are rather to be expected... after all, it *IS* a cycle, not just a spike in the graph. The middle of the last peak was about 2002, which means it should just be starting to hit peak pretty close to now. Peaks typically last a couple of years... like I said, not a spike.
Also, one must keep in mind that there are known, longer-term cycles than just the 11-year cycle. For example, in this graph, you can clearly see that sunspot activity has averaged a great deal higher during the latter half of the 20th Century than in the latter part of the 19th. There are cycles that are in the 100-year range, and cycles that are in the 1000-year range. The fact is, we are just now coming off of what is called the "solar grand maximum", even though it may be somewhat milder given this short-term cycle, than the last Grand Maximum.
It should also be noted that even though flare and sunspot incidence has been down, on average, over this last cycle, total solar irradiance is still pretty close to average. But we only have that data for the last 30 years or so... less than 3 of the short cycles.
When all exceptional wheather events point in the same direction, it stops being "wheather" to be "climate".
And by the way: they have NOT "all" been pointing in the same direction. Here, for example, we've had close to record cool Springs and early Summers for the last two years. In fact most of last summer was fairly cool, as well.
"When all exceptional wheather events point in the same direction, it stops being "wheather" to be "climate"."
When ONE YEAR has a major heatwave, which happens to correspond pretty much exactly with a flurry of solar activity, it is WEATHER, and you cannot call it "climate" for a good 15 years... and even then, only if it is part of a trend.
Remember: approximately the last 10 years have NOT been increasing significantly in temperature. Now we have one that looks like it is, but it happens simultaneously with the peak of a well-known 11-year solar cycle, and physicists are saying that they had underestimated the solar activity at this peak by as much as 20 TIMES.
Yeah. That's weather. Until proven otherwise... and that will take a while, if it ever happens at all.
"Depends on the wind condition and humidity dont you think?"
That's a fair statement, since ice and snow can sublimate directly into the atmosphere, if the air is dry. But on the other hand, it can do that at 10 below too.
"... and this is the first time after 140 years, the summit has been observed to melt significantly."
Define "significantly". According to TFA, the summit was observed to be at or slightly above 0 degrees celsius for a few hours.
That's not enough to melt a decent snowbank in someone's yard "significantly". I doubt the summit had anything to worry about.
We have been having an unusual amount of solar activity this year. Didn't you notice the news about yet another flare the other day?
Hint, folks: it tends to get warm when that happens.
And considering that it's right at the predicted peak of the current 11-year solar cycle, I'd say it's a good bet this is weather, not "climate".
"... er 40% melted away, 97%...er wait. What does this really mean?"
If you ask me, this is misleading in a way that HAS TO be deliberate. It states that some melting as been observed over close to 97% of the ice sheet, but doesn't say how much has actually melted... and I am guessing damned little since they make a big point of one place being close to zero or a few hours.
But when expressed the way this is, it gives the unwary an impression that 97% of the ice has melted away... but that is not even close to the truth.
Dr. Michio Kaku said that physicists and astronomers underestimated the level of solar activity for 2012. (See at about the 2:00 point.)
In addition, as you know if you have been paying attention, we have in fact had significant solar activity and some rather massive solar flares.
It is not at all surprising that we are experiencing a heatwave. And it just so happens to correspond to the normal 11-year cycle peak, so it is even doubly non-surprising.
It very much remains to be seen whether this weather constitutes "climate".
Repeat: it ISN'T just a matter of cost. In many places it quite literally is not a viable option.
In some areas not far from here, for example, solar simply isn't viable, unless you have 10 acres to spare per home, and the money to line them will cells.
Ah... it was a few years ago, but I think you are correct and I was mistaken. It was a "fix Word" function, not FrontPage.
As I recall, though, FrontPage code used to be almost as bad.
Back in the day, when DreamWeaver was still at MacroMedia, it used to have a "fix FrontPage code" menu option.
"Few do. I've seen youtube yank videos & then restore them the next day."
Well, that's pretty weird, because they are required BY FEDERAL LAW to do so. Just look up the language of the DMCA yourself.
"As I said, you can always get your energy elsewhere"
And as I stated, no, you can't. In most places in the U.S., it just isn't a viable option.
"Corporations get fined first and THEN sued by their victims."
Uh... that's pretty much what I wrote.
But I have to wonder about "neuroscience" ASSUMING that an affection for guns has to be "cured".
Other video games have other forms of violence, whether it's punching mushrooms or dumping barrels on somebody's head.
I think there are a number of assumptions here that are probably unwarranted.
"It's a painless process that doesn't cost you anything, except maybe a few minutes responding to the DMCA notice."
It is nothing of the sort.
I notice that you neglected to mention that little part about how the provider is required by law to wait a minimum of 10 days before restoring the content.
It is a painFUL process, that [a] puts the burden on innocent parties and [b] has been horribly abused, in order to do everything from keeping people from putting up birthday messages with (fair use) music in them, to chilling political speech.
The DMCA take-down process is an abomination that must end.
"The alternative pre-DMCA was to have your video, audio, or text removed and No Way to have it restored."
Nonsense. The alternative pre-DMCA was to have infringement proven in court before it could be taken down. Which is the way it should still be.
No shit, Sherlock. That doesn't mean I have to appreciate a device that is designed to monitor my moment-to-moment activities being attached to my house. It may be legal, but I question the ethics.
"It's a little different as a corporation, but if you do something illegal you could just get away with it and make a ton of money. Or you could get caught and fined. "
And that's the problem with our laws today: the entire current "punitive damages" arrangement.
The first problem is, when corporations are fined by government or regulatory agencies, the money doesn't go to the people who were actually defrauded. When a corporation is caught doing something like that, they should be forced to make every effort to discover who was actually damaged, and recompense them, BEFORE any "fines" are even considered.
Then, and only then, should punitive damages be levied. And they should be large enough that the corporation LOSES money when it is all done. Anything else isn't really "punitive" at all.
"After all, if they are providing a service and you're unhappy with the terms, go elsewhere."
The problem is that it's effectively a government-endorsed monopoly, and solar (in most places) is not yet cost-effective.
"And put your tinfoil hat back on, and wait for that stalker to go through millions of records to find your house."
It has already been well-established that there are all kinds of things a moment-to-moment analysis of a person's electrical usage can tell about them (as long as a few other pieces of information are known). I have never seen anyone seriously attempt to dispute that. Is that what you are doing?
I did not say the power company is interested in me. We don't even have those here, but just hypothetically, the police might be looking for some free information, or a private investigator, or even a private firm could buy the information from the utility company for the purpose of selling certain products. So the fact that a given home is one out of millions is completely irrelevant. People can be (and are) singled out by LEAs and corporations for various reasons, some less savory than others.
If you think those scenarios are unrealistic, then you haven't been paying attention to the news.
There's another name for that: market rigging. And it's illegal.