Having looked into it several times (2 kids) we have decided that it is simply to expensive to store our own. Donating works well though. Often times the donation centres keep your name on a list so that you have priority for the future as well.
Also, be aware that while storing the cord blood is useful, actually allowing the blood to completely go to the baby is even better. All the blood in the cord / placenta is the baby's blood. By depriving it of that blood, that can put them down a lot of iron. Often letting the blood pump for 10 minutes after birth before clamping is sufficient (our doctor in Canada says the standard here is 1.5 - 2 minutes now but the parents can ask for more). Many mid-wives will actually let the placenta "birth" before clamping to be sure the baby gets all of its own blood.
Re:That's why I like the basic Kindle
on
The eBook Backlash
·
· Score: 1
I agree. I use a kobo now and I doubt I will rarely buy a paper book again. Tablets are too big and bulky - my wife even dumped her iPad for reading and bought a kobo too. Colour would be nice if you read magazines or something, but for printed word, the straight eReader is great - Compact, light weight and I will never lose my bookmark!
You are talking only about the total solar irradiance increase. This doesn't include other solar parameters such as x-ray flux, interplanetary magnetic field effects, etc that would all be effected solar quieting. How these things tie in is the question.
I agree that the TSI would not affect the warming enough however.
This is of course correct if you think purely about EUV/x-ray but the majority of the solar radiation is not of these type and varies by less than 1% over a solar cycle. This is what the climate models tend to incorporate.
X-rays especially are related to the acceleration of plasma and the magnetic energy conversion during reconnection events. The biggest of these are flares and tend to have a footprint on the solar surface in a sunspot. Therefore, I would venture a guess that the x-ray and EUV energies decrease as the magnetic field reversal becomes more dipolar near solar minimum (which is what the graph shows).
The question then becomes, can the x-ray/EUV events be correlated to macroscopic affects on the Earth? Given that the Earth and sun have been interacting for 4 billion years, it is certainly possible.
An examination of sunspots over the last 10+ years by looking at Fe lines shows that the magnetic fields and temperatures in the sunspots are decreasing. There is apparently a "minimum" value for the magnetic field for a sunspot to form. The average value has been decreasing rather rapidly of late (10 years or so). This leads to smaller and less intense sunspots. If the magnetic values generated are no longer strong enough to generate sunspots, how is the magnetic field of the sun affected? Will it still go through a 22-year cycle (I suspect yes, the lack of sunspots should not affect that cycle)? So simply the 11-year SUNSPOT cycle will be affected.
Further to this, I (as an actual real life scientist) have been looking at the activity of the solar magnetic field. Specifically the transition from a dipolar field (at solar minimum) to a non-dipolar field (near solar maximum) and back again. Given the long relationship the Sun and Earth have had (some 4 billion years) I thought I'd throw in some macroscale effects seen on the Earth for comparison. Very surprisingly, the sunspot cycle and the El Nino/La Nina cycle is actually reasonably correlated (remember, correlation does not equal causation). There is a bit looser relationship better the solar cycle and Typhoons (though this may be more related El Nino) and monsoon rains (very likely correlated to the El Nino cycle).
However, solar variation in radiation is not the cause (this is what is taken into account in climate models) but the magnetic fields and the solar wind appear to play a much larger role (See multiple articles by Scafetta and West for example). The solar wind interacts with polar atmosphere and there is a suggestion (questionable) that is may link the Quasi-biennial ocsillation to solar activity. There seems to be relationship, however, it is not clear what it is or how a lack of solar activity would affect the Earth (or what the "lag time" might be).
Will it get cooler if there is an extended period of low to no solar activity? Yes, there is strong evidence of that based on previous examples (Maunder and Sporer minimums for example). Will the cooling completely counteract the greenhouse gas warming? Good question.
You are describing technology, not science. People made everything you describe without using scientific theories.
Really? Please tell me that Bernoulli didn't do the SCIENCE behind understanding fluids and buoyancy. Or the science behind technology. No offence to any of the engineers out there, but with out physics, chemistry and even biology as building blocks there would be NO technology.
Nature is a wonderful and amazing thing. Science helps us to understand nature. Technology uses science based on natural discoveries to improve our lives (mostly). Without science we could never build planes, combustion engines, skyscrapers, spacecraft, build massive bridges, drill for oil, and many many other things. Science is the foundation of technology.
Now, let me guess. People could have made those things without doing science, right? Do you think that the Wright brothers just built their plane and said "okay, no problem, this will fly" ? No, they experimented with different designs and test flights - they didn't necessarily know the mathematics or the "theory" but they began to understand by EXPERIMENTATION what works - that is science as much as sitting at a desk and doing math to describe some abstract concept (flight).
LOL. For some time one of the Web interfaces (think corpo-ware) sold by my employer was broken under IE. Nobody noticed. For two+ years.
Our University recently e-mailed out to all students and employees to NOT download IE9 as none of the blackboarding, registration, payroll and admin, etc software works in IE9.
So - you are assuming that space science is solely NASA then? While that make up a large chunk of the resources for space science, they are not the only resource. As you say, DoD does provide instruments such as DMSP and LANL as does NOAA. In Canada our resources are small and we often have to use multiple agencies just to cover over a small project (for example, our current project uses funding from NSERC as well as CSA and CFI grants.
NASA does have several multi-spacecraft projects (see THEMIS for example). But, you are correct, ESA does have a leg up on this sort of stuff.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think that human space flight does have it's place. My question at this point is more "Is it worth (scientifically) putting money into human space flight or instrumentation and robotic exploration and space technology and engineer?" I would say without any reservation, that human space flight, at this point, is not worth it. Is it worth sending a couple of men to the moon to collect a few rocks and find out some tiny info about the 50 square km that they land in or use a high resolution imager to map the moon? Then using that same technology - adapt it to map Mars? Or Europa or Titan? That spacecraft could also have instrumentation to study high energy particles near the moon, looking at safety issues for long term stays - all sort of useful science that would lose out.
What about developing the engineering and technological means to allow for long stays on the moon? Spend 5-10 years researching astronaut safety, building materials, biospheres, ecological and environmental surveys for using natural resources - then go to the moon for extended stays of weeks and months? Using this technology to then go to Mars? It is the choice of where to put the limited funds for the next 5 years, 10 years... where will it be of the most use?
Actually, I am a space scientist. In fact we know all to well about the economics of doing our work. For many years we've had to scrounge money and expertise to engineer our projects. I have been advocating in Canada for many years about the problems with the CSA supporting human space flight while leaving potentially important scientific work behind. That is how things like micro- and nano- satellites and the cubesats have evolved.
As far as one offs - you are obviously not familiar with space instrumentation. Most projects I have been involved with use sensors that were developed long ago and have just been tweaked for new technology and communication. The last imaging project launched in 2000 used the same sort of imager design done in the 80's. The same design is once again likely to be used on the next set of flights, just with upgraded technology - better detectors and communication hardware. Ever heard of the DMSP and LANL satellites? They have many satellites, and continue to launch them all with the same instrument packages. This is the same for sounding rocket launches and ground-based stations. It is the norm not the exception to re-use designs that work. One-off such as the Hubble telescope and CASSINI tend to take millions and billions of dollars that few people can even get.
And believe me when I say, the data we retrieve is EXTREMELY important to us. We are careful to make sure that our projects are as cost-efficient but still get a "bang" for our buck. Many satellites we keep running long past their lifetimes, even if it is just for one or two instruments, the simple fact is that these instruments are generally hard to replace (money is usually the sticking point - competition for it is extreme).
So unless you are an actual expert in space science and instrument design, I would be very careful about who you insult.
And, really, as a scientist, sending PEOPLE into space is useless save to do maintenance for really science projects such as the Hubble Telescope. Even the space station is useless as most of the time is spent trying to keep it functioning than doing actual science.
What science can be done on the moon that a rover can't do?
I think that the astronauts are clearly not looking at the bigger picture of doing real science but simply looking at the fact that having a human (a very select human unless someone has a tonne of money) in space is cool.
Curling - now your talking sports. I bet all the chicks are falling over Kevin Martin after his gold medal though Kevin Koe sure attracted fans after those world championships!
This is an interesting comment. My mother worked with mentally challenged kids for many years before retiring from the school division. Recently she was visiting while some friends had come over with their son. Afterwards, she asked if we knew if he had been diagnosed as autistic. We (my wife and I) said that our friends wouldn't believe that and some "holistic" doctors had told them that he was just sensitive to some preservatives and that was what was causing his issues... now, of course, he has gone into pre-school and his teachers are skeptical about this sensitivity. Our friends still refuse to believe there is anything else wrong.
So, I agree, people having spent time working with these kids can easily pick out others with the same problems (my wife and I also figured he was too... Personally, I think it is very obvious and our friends are desperately avoiding the issue).
In undergraduate physics, the student association had a file cabinet containing all exams from approximately the last 10 years in ALL classes required for a degree. In fact, to make money we took the last few years of exams for 1st year courses, solved the problems and copied and bound them and sold the booklets to people taking the course. Before the final we would hire a grad student or two to essential teach problems out of the book. When we started, we made nothing more than a few hundred dollars. By the end of my undergrad there, we were pulling in about $5k a semester because students realised that this prior knowledge was a key to passing the classes.
If their primary focus was education, you'd never attract good researchers. The university would make less money (since they get a piece of all the incoming grant money) and tuition would go up - way up. Without the good researchers, there would be a dramatic decrease in graduate students, which would mean the need for more instructors to teach labs - i.e. more money and even higher tuition.
Most universities I've been at recently, the large first year courses are getting more 'focus' and are often taught by dedicated instructors who don't do research or their research revolves around education (such as physics education which is actually a very large field).
Personally, I think back to the good old days when universities were for academics and research not just accepting 1000's of students so they can get a degree. I think it waters down the whole point of a degree and takes many hours of time which could be used for productive work. Yes, I admit I am an academic working as a researcher at a university and I'm proud of it. It took me many years to get where I am and yet I get paid a pittance in comparison with some of my friends who have either no degree (work in a trade as journeymen or masters) or have a bachelor's degree.
In reality, I expected to not make as much money but knowledge was its own reward... still, it would be nice to help pay some bills.
I think that the answer is reasonably simple though based on the understanding of a standard dipole magnet. If you "look" at a dipole magnet, you see the north (south) pole is populated by more positive (negative) charge. If you cut that magnet in half, you still have the same configuration.
Therefore, I believe what you would get is a migration of electrons toward the north pole of the dipole magnet you touch to the wire. You get electrons moving since they are more "free" than protons in matter. as the electrons propagate, even just a little, you get tiny bar magnets forming along the wire. The new magnet would completely form when the dipole field was reached at the far end. Depending on the resistance of the material, etc it would be a time related to the ability of the electrons to move in the material.
The interesting part would be the fact that there maybe (I don't know the answer as I am not a specialist in material science nor EM physics) tiny magnetic perturbation fields that propagate along the wire do to the small "shift" in the electrons (electron motion is a current - current produces a magnetic field).
So based on this physics, I would say no, this is not a "current of magnetism" as you put it. Monopoles are not moving, electrons are.
> Actually, not the Earth's field at all.
Not according to the article:
In addition to being protected by the Sun, we are also safeguarded by our planet's own magnetic field, which is strong enough to deflect the vast majority of incoming space radiation, or convert it into harmless, elementary particles.
Actually, that is somewhat true. The Earth's magnetic field does protect us from the solar wind which is the vast majority of the incoming radiation. However, this is not true for cosmic rays (I'm talking galactic cosmic rays also) which travel near the speed of light (energies near 1 GeV or greater). They are modulated solely by the Sun's magnetic field. The Earth's field is far to weak to deflect them. The Earth is protected from cosmic rays by it ATMOSPHERE. Cosmic rays enter the neutral atmosphere where they collide and produce a wide range of charged and uncharged particles including protons, electrons, and neutrinos. Most of these particles do not reach the ground and are "swallowed" by continuous interactions with the neutral atmosphere (save the neutrinos which travel unimpeded through the Earth).
This article is theoretical in nature however. They have obviously made some assumptions in their model (no model is ever 100% correct - or even close). So while they say that it is 2 orders of magnitude too small, is this because of their assumptions? What could be the error? We/They should look for actual evidence (you know, an experiment or observations in the real world) to back this claim up.
(I guess that is the experimentalist in me... I never do trust models that much, especially when they don't predict the actual observations under the same conditions)
Actually, not the Earth's field at all. Cosmic rays are influenced by the Sun's magnetic field. If the field is larger there are less cosmic rays in the heliosphere thus less interacting with the planets.
The sunspot number data are actually very continuous - as your figure shows. There is no "sporadic" data. Observations (telescopic) started around 1610 by the English astronomer Thomas Harriot and Frisian astronomers Johannes and David Fabricius.1 as well as Galileo.
And, surprisingly, the thickness of tree rings corresponds very well with the isotope concentration. The is also related to the temperature at the tree of course. Whether the two are directly related - unknown...
It is not for consumer technology in the Antarctic. The radars they are building will measure the plasma in the ionosphere which, correlated with the other 20 SuperDARN radars and other space science instruments, will provide information on how space weather can affect communication satellites, GPS, and ground-based networks such as cell phones and electrical systems globally. The Antarctic and Arctic regions sit in a very good position to measure the affects of the Sun on the Earth as the solar wind directly interacts with the upper atmosphere in the polar regions. A better understanding leads to better technology, for example better electrical transformers exist now to protect against surges due to large solar storms.
Actually, this is a very interesting observation. In the last 5 years or so there has been a flurry of activity on this particular point.
Recently an article by Scaffeta and West (Physics Today - maybe 2007? Don't have the reference handy) tried to link the temperature drop to the solar cycle, specifically solar flares. In my opinion they got the conclusions wrong. They should have related the tropospheric temperature changes to the number of sunspots (a semi accurate value representing the solar activity).
Looking at past data, the Little Ice Age where a drop of 2 degrees in average temperature in Europe as measured, there was a period also known as the Maunder Minimum in which there were very few to no sunspots for about 75 years (7 solar cycles). It has also been noted that when the Sun is not very active and it's magnetic field (the heliosphere) is weak cosmic rays are greater. Therefore it is possible to measure from tree rings a similar cooling (tree rings are smaller when it is cooler) much further back then when sunspots were being counted. These periods of weak solar activity often correspond to climate change on Earth - usually cooling.
With the current solar cycle not true having started and the solar wind at it's lowest average velocity ever measured, it is safe to say the Sun is not very active (I qualify this since it does have some activity). Whether this means that we are entering into a period of little solar activity similar to the Little Ice Age of the 1650-1770 or just going through a lull in activity is not clear.
Given this reasonable evidence, it could be concluded that the Sun does affect the Earth's climate. However, it is also being affected strongly by humans. Therefore, "global warming" may continue but at a slower rate if the Sun remains quiescent.
Actually, forecast prediction has increased dramatically in the last 10 years based on the data from satellites nearer the Sun such as ACE and SOHO. Based on the solar information, ground-based and near Earth measurements have provided scientists (and engineers) the ability to combat potential events that could damage satellites (such as communication or GPS) or ground electrical systems. Based on observations of the Sun, we can give a forecast of as much as 3 days in advance with reasonable accuracy. Unexpected events do happen but overall, forecasting space weather is much easier than local tropospheric weather.
Indeed - you are correct by saying geostationary but they are also geosynchronous. GOES and LANL are geosynchronous but are at the zero inclination (this is a special case of geosynchronous orbit - called geostationary). In fact, looking at the LANL satellite page you see they also refer to it as "geosynchronous". Perhaps we use the term loosely but we do use it correctly.
This is wrong. The GOES satellites are geo-synchronous, meaning they remain at continuous location with respect to the Earth. This also means that they are not in polar orbits. These satellites are similar to the LANL satellites but occupy the western hemisphere. You may be thinking of the DMSP satellites.
GOES is useful at measuring the magnetic fields. It does not, however, measure the ionospheric particles such as is done with the SuperDARN coherent scatter radars or the EISCAT or PFISR incoherent scatter radars. The group at the University of Saskatchewan has also received money to build a new radar which is scheduled to be built on the NE corner of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic. It will be their 5th radar.
Re:"The magnetic field lines are clearly visible.
on
Sunspots Return
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No. Think of each integral as "stretching" to the next dimension. The path become a surface, etc.
I think there is a bit of difference in thinking here. Most people are thinking of a line as a discrete thing that iron filings or plasma or whatever exist on, making the "lines" real. That was what I was trying to show with my example. You have the correct thought that the "line" is just a mathematical construct - your integration shows this.
Slashdot Mirror
Having looked into it several times (2 kids) we have decided that it is simply to expensive to store our own. Donating works well though. Often times the donation centres keep your name on a list so that you have priority for the future as well.
Also, be aware that while storing the cord blood is useful, actually allowing the blood to completely go to the baby is even better. All the blood in the cord / placenta is the baby's blood. By depriving it of that blood, that can put them down a lot of iron. Often letting the blood pump for 10 minutes after birth before clamping is sufficient (our doctor in Canada says the standard here is 1.5 - 2 minutes now but the parents can ask for more). Many mid-wives will actually let the placenta "birth" before clamping to be sure the baby gets all of its own blood.
I agree. I use a kobo now and I doubt I will rarely buy a paper book again. Tablets are too big and bulky - my wife even dumped her iPad for reading and bought a kobo too. Colour would be nice if you read magazines or something, but for printed word, the straight eReader is great - Compact, light weight and I will never lose my bookmark!
You are talking only about the total solar irradiance increase. This doesn't include other solar parameters such as x-ray flux, interplanetary magnetic field effects, etc that would all be effected solar quieting. How these things tie in is the question. I agree that the TSI would not affect the warming enough however.
X-rays especially are related to the acceleration of plasma and the magnetic energy conversion during reconnection events. The biggest of these are flares and tend to have a footprint on the solar surface in a sunspot. Therefore, I would venture a guess that the x-ray and EUV energies decrease as the magnetic field reversal becomes more dipolar near solar minimum (which is what the graph shows).
The question then becomes, can the x-ray/EUV events be correlated to macroscopic affects on the Earth? Given that the Earth and sun have been interacting for 4 billion years, it is certainly possible.
An examination of sunspots over the last 10+ years by looking at Fe lines shows that the magnetic fields and temperatures in the sunspots are decreasing. There is apparently a "minimum" value for the magnetic field for a sunspot to form. The average value has been decreasing rather rapidly of late (10 years or so). This leads to smaller and less intense sunspots. If the magnetic values generated are no longer strong enough to generate sunspots, how is the magnetic field of the sun affected? Will it still go through a 22-year cycle (I suspect yes, the lack of sunspots should not affect that cycle)? So simply the 11-year SUNSPOT cycle will be affected.
Further to this, I (as an actual real life scientist) have been looking at the activity of the solar magnetic field. Specifically the transition from a dipolar field (at solar minimum) to a non-dipolar field (near solar maximum) and back again. Given the long relationship the Sun and Earth have had (some 4 billion years) I thought I'd throw in some macroscale effects seen on the Earth for comparison. Very surprisingly, the sunspot cycle and the El Nino/La Nina cycle is actually reasonably correlated (remember, correlation does not equal causation). There is a bit looser relationship better the solar cycle and Typhoons (though this may be more related El Nino) and monsoon rains (very likely correlated to the El Nino cycle).
However, solar variation in radiation is not the cause (this is what is taken into account in climate models) but the magnetic fields and the solar wind appear to play a much larger role (See multiple articles by Scafetta and West for example). The solar wind interacts with polar atmosphere and there is a suggestion (questionable) that is may link the Quasi-biennial ocsillation to solar activity. There seems to be relationship, however, it is not clear what it is or how a lack of solar activity would affect the Earth (or what the "lag time" might be).
Will it get cooler if there is an extended period of low to no solar activity? Yes, there is strong evidence of that based on previous examples (Maunder and Sporer minimums for example). Will the cooling completely counteract the greenhouse gas warming? Good question.
You are describing technology, not science. People made everything you describe without using scientific theories.
Really? Please tell me that Bernoulli didn't do the SCIENCE behind understanding fluids and buoyancy. Or the science behind technology. No offence to any of the engineers out there, but with out physics, chemistry and even biology as building blocks there would be NO technology.
Nature is a wonderful and amazing thing. Science helps us to understand nature. Technology uses science based on natural discoveries to improve our lives (mostly). Without science we could never build planes, combustion engines, skyscrapers, spacecraft, build massive bridges, drill for oil, and many many other things. Science is the foundation of technology.
Now, let me guess. People could have made those things without doing science, right? Do you think that the Wright brothers just built their plane and said "okay, no problem, this will fly" ? No, they experimented with different designs and test flights - they didn't necessarily know the mathematics or the "theory" but they began to understand by EXPERIMENTATION what works - that is science as much as sitting at a desk and doing math to describe some abstract concept (flight).
LOL. For some time one of the Web interfaces (think corpo-ware) sold by my employer was broken under IE. Nobody noticed. For two+ years.
Our University recently e-mailed out to all students and employees to NOT download IE9 as none of the blackboarding, registration, payroll and admin, etc software works in IE9.
That was good for a laugh!
So - you are assuming that space science is solely NASA then? While that make up a large chunk of the resources for space science, they are not the only resource. As you say, DoD does provide instruments such as DMSP and LANL as does NOAA. In Canada our resources are small and we often have to use multiple agencies just to cover over a small project (for example, our current project uses funding from NSERC as well as CSA and CFI grants.
NASA does have several multi-spacecraft projects (see THEMIS for example). But, you are correct, ESA does have a leg up on this sort of stuff.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think that human space flight does have it's place. My question at this point is more "Is it worth (scientifically) putting money into human space flight or instrumentation and robotic exploration and space technology and engineer?" I would say without any reservation, that human space flight, at this point, is not worth it. Is it worth sending a couple of men to the moon to collect a few rocks and find out some tiny info about the 50 square km that they land in or use a high resolution imager to map the moon? Then using that same technology - adapt it to map Mars? Or Europa or Titan? That spacecraft could also have instrumentation to study high energy particles near the moon, looking at safety issues for long term stays - all sort of useful science that would lose out.
What about developing the engineering and technological means to allow for long stays on the moon? Spend 5-10 years researching astronaut safety, building materials, biospheres, ecological and environmental surveys for using natural resources - then go to the moon for extended stays of weeks and months? Using this technology to then go to Mars? It is the choice of where to put the limited funds for the next 5 years, 10 years... where will it be of the most use?
Actually, I am a space scientist. In fact we know all to well about the economics of doing our work. For many years we've had to scrounge money and expertise to engineer our projects. I have been advocating in Canada for many years about the problems with the CSA supporting human space flight while leaving potentially important scientific work behind. That is how things like micro- and nano- satellites and the cubesats have evolved.
As far as one offs - you are obviously not familiar with space instrumentation. Most projects I have been involved with use sensors that were developed long ago and have just been tweaked for new technology and communication. The last imaging project launched in 2000 used the same sort of imager design done in the 80's. The same design is once again likely to be used on the next set of flights, just with upgraded technology - better detectors and communication hardware. Ever heard of the DMSP and LANL satellites? They have many satellites, and continue to launch them all with the same instrument packages. This is the same for sounding rocket launches and ground-based stations. It is the norm not the exception to re-use designs that work. One-off such as the Hubble telescope and CASSINI tend to take millions and billions of dollars that few people can even get.
And believe me when I say, the data we retrieve is EXTREMELY important to us. We are careful to make sure that our projects are as cost-efficient but still get a "bang" for our buck. Many satellites we keep running long past their lifetimes, even if it is just for one or two instruments, the simple fact is that these instruments are generally hard to replace (money is usually the sticking point - competition for it is extreme).
So unless you are an actual expert in space science and instrument design, I would be very careful about who you insult.
And, really, as a scientist, sending PEOPLE into space is useless save to do maintenance for really science projects such as the Hubble Telescope. Even the space station is useless as most of the time is spent trying to keep it functioning than doing actual science. What science can be done on the moon that a rover can't do? I think that the astronauts are clearly not looking at the bigger picture of doing real science but simply looking at the fact that having a human (a very select human unless someone has a tonne of money) in space is cool.
Curling - now your talking sports. I bet all the chicks are falling over Kevin Martin after his gold medal though Kevin Koe sure attracted fans after those world championships!
This is an interesting comment. My mother worked with mentally challenged kids for many years before retiring from the school division. Recently she was visiting while some friends had come over with their son. Afterwards, she asked if we knew if he had been diagnosed as autistic. We (my wife and I) said that our friends wouldn't believe that and some "holistic" doctors had told them that he was just sensitive to some preservatives and that was what was causing his issues... now, of course, he has gone into pre-school and his teachers are skeptical about this sensitivity. Our friends still refuse to believe there is anything else wrong. So, I agree, people having spent time working with these kids can easily pick out others with the same problems (my wife and I also figured he was too... Personally, I think it is very obvious and our friends are desperately avoiding the issue).
In undergraduate physics, the student association had a file cabinet containing all exams from approximately the last 10 years in ALL classes required for a degree. In fact, to make money we took the last few years of exams for 1st year courses, solved the problems and copied and bound them and sold the booklets to people taking the course. Before the final we would hire a grad student or two to essential teach problems out of the book. When we started, we made nothing more than a few hundred dollars. By the end of my undergrad there, we were pulling in about $5k a semester because students realised that this prior knowledge was a key to passing the classes.
If their primary focus was education, you'd never attract good researchers. The university would make less money (since they get a piece of all the incoming grant money) and tuition would go up - way up. Without the good researchers, there would be a dramatic decrease in graduate students, which would mean the need for more instructors to teach labs - i.e. more money and even higher tuition.
Most universities I've been at recently, the large first year courses are getting more 'focus' and are often taught by dedicated instructors who don't do research or their research revolves around education (such as physics education which is actually a very large field).
Personally, I think back to the good old days when universities were for academics and research not just accepting 1000's of students so they can get a degree. I think it waters down the whole point of a degree and takes many hours of time which could be used for productive work. Yes, I admit I am an academic working as a researcher at a university and I'm proud of it. It took me many years to get where I am and yet I get paid a pittance in comparison with some of my friends who have either no degree (work in a trade as journeymen or masters) or have a bachelor's degree.
In reality, I expected to not make as much money but knowledge was its own reward... still, it would be nice to help pay some bills.
Interesting thought experiment.
I think that the answer is reasonably simple though based on the understanding of a standard dipole magnet. If you "look" at a dipole magnet, you see the north (south) pole is populated by more positive (negative) charge. If you cut that magnet in half, you still have the same configuration.
Therefore, I believe what you would get is a migration of electrons toward the north pole of the dipole magnet you touch to the wire. You get electrons moving since they are more "free" than protons in matter. as the electrons propagate, even just a little, you get tiny bar magnets forming along the wire. The new magnet would completely form when the dipole field was reached at the far end. Depending on the resistance of the material, etc it would be a time related to the ability of the electrons to move in the material.
The interesting part would be the fact that there maybe (I don't know the answer as I am not a specialist in material science nor EM physics) tiny magnetic perturbation fields that propagate along the wire do to the small "shift" in the electrons (electron motion is a current - current produces a magnetic field).
So based on this physics, I would say no, this is not a "current of magnetism" as you put it. Monopoles are not moving, electrons are.
> Actually, not the Earth's field at all. Not according to the article:
Actually, that is somewhat true. The Earth's magnetic field does protect us from the solar wind which is the vast majority of the incoming radiation. However, this is not true for cosmic rays (I'm talking galactic cosmic rays also) which travel near the speed of light (energies near 1 GeV or greater). They are modulated solely by the Sun's magnetic field. The Earth's field is far to weak to deflect them. The Earth is protected from cosmic rays by it ATMOSPHERE. Cosmic rays enter the neutral atmosphere where they collide and produce a wide range of charged and uncharged particles including protons, electrons, and neutrinos. Most of these particles do not reach the ground and are "swallowed" by continuous interactions with the neutral atmosphere (save the neutrinos which travel unimpeded through the Earth).
This article is theoretical in nature however. They have obviously made some assumptions in their model (no model is ever 100% correct - or even close). So while they say that it is 2 orders of magnitude too small, is this because of their assumptions? What could be the error? We/They should look for actual evidence (you know, an experiment or observations in the real world) to back this claim up.
(I guess that is the experimentalist in me... I never do trust models that much, especially when they don't predict the actual observations under the same conditions)
Actually, not the Earth's field at all. Cosmic rays are influenced by the Sun's magnetic field. If the field is larger there are less cosmic rays in the heliosphere thus less interacting with the planets.
The sunspot number data are actually very continuous - as your figure shows. There is no "sporadic" data. Observations (telescopic) started around 1610 by the English astronomer Thomas Harriot and Frisian astronomers Johannes and David Fabricius.1 as well as Galileo.
And, surprisingly, the thickness of tree rings corresponds very well with the isotope concentration. The is also related to the temperature at the tree of course. Whether the two are directly related - unknown...
It is not for consumer technology in the Antarctic. The radars they are building will measure the plasma in the ionosphere which, correlated with the other 20 SuperDARN radars and other space science instruments, will provide information on how space weather can affect communication satellites, GPS, and ground-based networks such as cell phones and electrical systems globally. The Antarctic and Arctic regions sit in a very good position to measure the affects of the Sun on the Earth as the solar wind directly interacts with the upper atmosphere in the polar regions. A better understanding leads to better technology, for example better electrical transformers exist now to protect against surges due to large solar storms.
Actually, this is a very interesting observation. In the last 5 years or so there has been a flurry of activity on this particular point.
Recently an article by Scaffeta and West (Physics Today - maybe 2007? Don't have the reference handy) tried to link the temperature drop to the solar cycle, specifically solar flares. In my opinion they got the conclusions wrong. They should have related the tropospheric temperature changes to the number of sunspots (a semi accurate value representing the solar activity).
Looking at past data, the Little Ice Age where a drop of 2 degrees in average temperature in Europe as measured, there was a period also known as the Maunder Minimum in which there were very few to no sunspots for about 75 years (7 solar cycles). It has also been noted that when the Sun is not very active and it's magnetic field (the heliosphere) is weak cosmic rays are greater. Therefore it is possible to measure from tree rings a similar cooling (tree rings are smaller when it is cooler) much further back then when sunspots were being counted. These periods of weak solar activity often correspond to climate change on Earth - usually cooling.
With the current solar cycle not true having started and the solar wind at it's lowest average velocity ever measured, it is safe to say the Sun is not very active (I qualify this since it does have some activity). Whether this means that we are entering into a period of little solar activity similar to the Little Ice Age of the 1650-1770 or just going through a lull in activity is not clear.
Given this reasonable evidence, it could be concluded that the Sun does affect the Earth's climate. However, it is also being affected strongly by humans. Therefore, "global warming" may continue but at a slower rate if the Sun remains quiescent.
Actually, forecast prediction has increased dramatically in the last 10 years based on the data from satellites nearer the Sun such as ACE and SOHO. Based on the solar information, ground-based and near Earth measurements have provided scientists (and engineers) the ability to combat potential events that could damage satellites (such as communication or GPS) or ground electrical systems. Based on observations of the Sun, we can give a forecast of as much as 3 days in advance with reasonable accuracy. Unexpected events do happen but overall, forecasting space weather is much easier than local tropospheric weather.
Indeed - you are correct by saying geostationary but they are also geosynchronous. GOES and LANL are geosynchronous but are at the zero inclination (this is a special case of geosynchronous orbit - called geostationary). In fact, looking at the LANL satellite page you see they also refer to it as "geosynchronous". Perhaps we use the term loosely but we do use it correctly.
This is wrong. The GOES satellites are geo-synchronous, meaning they remain at continuous location with respect to the Earth. This also means that they are not in polar orbits. These satellites are similar to the LANL satellites but occupy the western hemisphere. You may be thinking of the DMSP satellites.
GOES is useful at measuring the magnetic fields. It does not, however, measure the ionospheric particles such as is done with the SuperDARN coherent scatter radars or the EISCAT or PFISR incoherent scatter radars. The group at the University of Saskatchewan has also received money to build a new radar which is scheduled to be built on the NE corner of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic. It will be their 5th radar.
No. Think of each integral as "stretching" to the next dimension. The path become a surface, etc.
I think there is a bit of difference in thinking here. Most people are thinking of a line as a discrete thing that iron filings or plasma or whatever exist on, making the "lines" real. That was what I was trying to show with my example. You have the correct thought that the "line" is just a mathematical construct - your integration shows this.