Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sunspot Activity Continues To Drop

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the see-spot-run dept.

Space 435

slreboy writes "The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower. The year 2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73 percent). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87 percent)..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fun with statistics (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518237)

there was no sunspot activity yesterday. that's 1 out of 1 day or 100% !!


Re:fun with statistics (1, Insightful)

Big Nothing (229456) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518397)

Trolling aside, the sun doesn't follow the Gregorian calendar. Making statistics using the Gregorian calendar is therefore irrelevant at best.

Re:fun with statistics (4, Insightful)

the_lesser_gatsby (449262) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518677)

The material world doesn't understand seconds either. Should we drop the whole of physics? A year is just a sampling period which can be compared to previous periods. Any natural cycles will be apparent regardless of the period chosen (nyquist notwithstanding).

Re:fun with statistics (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518681)


We use the Calendar, and we use it together measurements, look for trends, make predictions, etc...
By your 'logic' Atomic vibrations don't follow our time keeping methods therefore any clock using them would be irrelevant.

An Inconvenient Preemptive Strike (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518257)

The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics states that bodies in a system must remain in equilibrium. So if we're experiencing global warming where are we getting that energy from? It must be coming from somewhere?

The answer, fellow scientists, is that we are stealing that energy from the Sun.

Yes, my charts and ramblings reveal that our greenhouse gases are trapping sunlight ... sunlight that would return to the Sun and heat it back up causing sunspots. I am currently drafting a bill that will move sunspots to the endangered phenomena list. That same bill will introduce that list and hopefully this will be reason enough to form it unlike Senator Kerry's attempt to create the list when he saw Rosie O'Donnell exercising (or so he thought).

Gentlemen, we must act now. There is no more time for debating and arguing. The sunspots are going away and without that, we may lose our natural magnetic storms and maybe even the precious Aurora Borealis. Our Northern Lights are in danger while you sit back here comfortably in your chairs. Today we are polluters in the hands of an angry environment tomorrow we may be dead. We have angered the environment and now we must face the wrath of the environment. Including, but not limited to, the loss of sunspots.

I don't know about you but when I was a kid, we celebrated sunspots with our parents. Upwards we gazed directly into the sun, fueling the optometry industry. Yes, sunspots create jobs and foster growth. Do you want to share sunspot gazing with your children and their children? I know I do.

But all is not lost. The environment is injured and may be weak enough for us to stop it before it kills us all. I propose a preemptive strike now while we still have time. We could sneak in special units disguised in ponchos and Birkenstock's with thermonuclear weapons that would devastate the environment and save us from certain death at its hands. China has already rendered the environment obsolete and it is our turn to follow suit. Gentlemen, the question today is not if we should deal a final blow to the environment but when.

Re:An Inconvenient Preemptive Strike (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518393)

Oh you whacky right-wingnuts!

We all know that reports of greenhouse heat trapping on Venus are all a commie conspiracy too.

I know your being funny, but for are other readers (3, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518503)

I would like to point out that this law states:

"If A and B are each in thermal equilibrium with C, A is also in thermal equilibrium with B."
Important links: []

and this: []

Re:I know your being funny, but for are other read (5, Funny)

blackfrancis75 (911664) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518811)

As MC Hawking clearly states:

"You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game,
'cause entropy will take it all 'though it seems a shame.
The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state,
that entropy must increase and not dissipate.

Creationists always try to use the second law, to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!"

grammar police (1)

mathamagician (1161303) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519181)

Sorry for picking but I believe you mean "for our other readers" not "for are other readers" in the title. Those phonetic word swaps are a pet peeve of mine. Anyway carry on.

Re:An Inconvenient Preemptive Strike (4, Funny)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518527)

We're not stealing the sun's energy.

They sun spots have realized we were watching them and it turns out they are shy. They are just on the other side of the sun now.

Re:An Inconvenient Preemptive Strike (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518983)

We're not stealing the sun's energy.

Surely it deserves rewarding for the work it does? Even more evidence that IP laws need reform -- er, that it's Microsoft's fault -- er, that it's those damn lawyers (except for the ones on our side).

Re:An Inconvenient Preemptive Strike (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27519087)

They are just on the other side of the sun now.

Since sunspots produce massive magnetic fields they're influence can be detected without visual observation, allowing sunspots on the opposite side of the sun to be imaged.

Re:An Inconvenient Preemptive Strike (2, Insightful)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519121)

Bitchin'! You have managed to give the looney left the final piece of the chain to link reduced sunspot activity to George W. Bush.

I want to drop a load on your face (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518265)

I want to drop a big fat load of shit on every fucking nerd's face.

Fuck you, faggot tech fags.

Re:I want to drop a load on your face (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518535)

Cool! you'll fit right into our LUG! We prefer scat and ubuntu, though occasionally we try fisting and debian.

Oh noes! Our star is dying (5, Funny)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518273)

Better send a huge mushroom shaped spaceship to fire a bomb into it!

Re:Oh noes! Our star is dying (1)

janeuner (815461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518567)

From [] :
"The Sun has instead been "infected" with a Q-ball - a supersymmetric nucleus, left over from the Big Bang - that is disrupting the normal matter. The situation compells humanity to send a spacecraft to the Sun in 2050, the Icarus I, which carries a massive payload, an experimental nuclear bomb, intended to reignite the Sun."

The part that makes the story completely unbelievable??? Humanity working together to fix something.

Re:Oh noes! Our star is dying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27519041)

I always thought the whole "SPACE IS COLD" scene ruined it, but this takes it even further.

I hate when they later "work-in" these CRAZEH stories for the specials.

Re:Oh noes! Our star is dying (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518625)

I advise that the astronauts be restricted to plastic cutlery, otherwise it could seriously ruin the potential for turning this whole idea into a decent sci-fi movie.

it's stuff like this (5, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518283)

It's stuff like this that makes me ask when will those neo-republicons take global warming seriously??? There's carbon filling up everywhere, so much the sun is losing her spots, and we just sit here and do nothing about it!!!! We need more diamonds!!!! That will get rid of the carbon!! Obama will fix it. He'll give a cadillacic converter to every car, we'll be converting carbon to diamonds every day as we drive. Diamonds are the solution!!!

Re:it's stuff like this (4, Funny)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518489)

I am old fashion kind of guy myself. Meaning, I want my air just like it the dinosaurs had it.. Thick and chocked full of that CO2....

Re:it's stuff like this (4, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518763)

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in one god. And his name is Zorgo. And he lives in that lake.

more fun with statistics (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518301)

There's a direct correlation between sunspot activity and the stock market and the economy.

Therefore once sunspots start again the economy will be okay and the stock market will rebound.

Re:more fun with statistics (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518461)

The boom-bust cycle that has plagued the economy for so long is clearly due to the Sun's influence. Our only hope of a stable economy is to destroy the Sun once and for all.

For too long we've been at the mercy of the whims of the Sun. Sure, we built that fancy iron core and produced a magnetic field to protect us from the harshest of the Sun's radiation, but the Sun still has almost total control over our precious climate. This situation is simply untenable. Millenia of effort and animal sacrifice have shown that the Sun simply cannot be negotiated with...our only chance is a massive nuclear strike.

Re:more fun with statistics (4, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518475)

That's ridiculous. It's obviously the other way around. Once the economy rebounds, the sun will return to its previous level of sunspot activity.

Another rubbish summer then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518305)


2012 (1, Offtopic)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518339)

The sun just needs to build up its reserve power before catastrophically attack the Earth in a fury of solar activity in 2012!

Re:2012 (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519107)

If Bush was around we would have started a pre-emptive strike against this foreign nation with WMDs.

Maybe we're on the wrong side of the sun? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518369)

We can't know how many sunspots there really are if we're only seeing only half the surface of our star, right?

Re:Maybe we're on the wrong side of the sun? (4, Informative)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518479)

The sun rotates. [] In the course of a month, we see it from all sides.

Re:Maybe we're on the wrong side of the sun? (2, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518515)

Good point...after decades of studying sunspot activity, it's only natural for the Sun to get self-conscious about everyone staring at its blemishes all the time. It's only natural it would try and hide them by turning the other way.

Pimple cream (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519171)

It used some Proactiv. Hope it doesn't experience any side effects

Re:Maybe we're on the wrong side of the sun? (1)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518519)

The sun is very "spinny" and "swirly." And spots last long enough to come into view eventually.

Like for like. (1, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518379)

Comparing a 90 day period to a 365 day period isn't a like for like comparison (obviously). Statistically it's meaningless. Why not pick a 1 day period when there wasn't a spot in 2008 and there wasn't a spot in 2009 and say "Sun spot activity is unchanged!". It's silly.

Re:Like for like. (4, Insightful)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518661)

One day doesn't form a statistically significant sample, 365 days do.

Re:Like for like. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518819)

If any meaningful information can be gathered from sunspots at all, I'd guess that you would need at least several thousand years worth of data. Maybe we extrapolate this from the effect on lunar dust, who knows? But 365 days in the life of the sun is a blip, and sunspot activity is just as likely to double in the next 100 hours/days/years as it is to halve.

Re:Like for like. (5, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518927)

Comparing a 90 day period to a 365 day period isn't a like for like comparison (obviously). Statistically it's meaningless.

Not so. We have two statistical samplings, one with n=90, one with n=365. Based on the sample sizes and some other info, we can establish a confidence interval. Yes, the interval will be larger for the 90-day sample... but just because we can't be 100% confident of the exact results doesn't mean it's statistically meaningless.

One other note -- historical data must be used to establish that there are not periodic cycles with a frequency of less than one year, which would make the 90-day sample set inaccurate.

Re:Like for like. (3, Insightful)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518985)

It's simply an early trend, which may point towards further decreasing sunspot activity. I hope you're not seriously trying to tell us you believe there's no difference between a 90-day sample period and a 1-day sample period.

Also, from the article, please note that scientists are not completely brain-dead:

Pesnell believes sunspot counts should pick up again soon, "possibly by the end of the year," to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013. But like other forecasters, he knows he could be wrong. Bull or bear? Stay tuned for updates.

In other words, they're not simply extrapolating the entire year based on a 90-day cycle. Rather, they're looking at how this period fits into a larger trend.

I wonder.. (3, Insightful)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518383)

Is this caused by global warming?

Should we implement a green tax in order to help the sun get its spots back?

On the other hand maybe the sun has discoved clearasil..

Re:I wonder.. (2, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518727)

Actually, no it's discovered clearasol.

Thankyou, I'll be here all week!

Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518399)

"The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market."

First the pirates, then the stockmarket, then sunspots. Is there anything that global warming doesn't affect?!

Re:Global Warming (1)

The name is Dave. Ja (845139) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518839)

Heat piracy!

We've been stealing the unique output of this "star", and now the cows are coming home to roost. We've been warned about this by our friendly RIAA (Radiating Industry Association of All) - if we keep illegally taking this stuff and not supporting the stars, eventually they will stop producing.

Re:Global Warming (1)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518975)

First the pirates, then the stockmarket, then sunspots. Is there anything that global warming doesn't affect?!

Uh, in the case of pirates, you have the relationship backwards. Global warming does not cause pirates; it's a lack of pirates that causes global warming [] .

Right on schedule? (0, Redundant)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518407)

Jupiter's Great Red Spot is shrinking [] , the number of sunspots on our sun is dwindling, and it's getting closer and closer to December 21, 2012 [] . Anyway, it's been nice knowing you guys, but "So long, and thanks for all the fish [] "!

Re:Right on schedule? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27519145)

Do you like to put fish sticks in your mouth?

Here we go... (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518425)

1) The Sun does effect global temperature
2) It's effects are pretty immediate
3) The Global Warming Trend does not follow the Sun activities close enough for it to be the cause of the trend.
4) The only thing we know of at this time that could be causing this global warming trend is CO2

5)We are talking about the release of trillions of tons of CO2 that has been buried for millions of years.

6) If we keep increasing will will make the planet uninhabitable by us.

7) We have workable solutions to this right now.

Re:Here we go... (2, Funny)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518499)

But how can I tie this to a poticial ideology? I hate fact based science.

Re:Here we go... (4, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518541)

Facts do have a liberal bias.

Re:Here we go... (0, Offtopic)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518595)

Right. Like the fact that as rates of legal gun ownership go up, gun violence goes down. Talk about in inconvenient truth.

they also go down when gun ownership goes down (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519105)


Re:Here we go... (1)

howdoesth (1132949) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519231)

Gun ownership is a liberty. You seem to have confused Liberalism with liberalism.

Re:Here we go... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27519233)

Wow I didn't know that the US has less gun violence than Japan......

Talk about statistical cherry-picking.

Re:Here we go... (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518509)

Okay, there's one theory.

Re:Here we go... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518635)

I have read many hypothesis presented for other causes, but I haven't read any that got through the peer review process with out being found false.

Re:Here we go... (1)

hoooocheymomma (1020927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518895)

I haven't read any that got through the peer review process with out being found false. []

As long as gobs of scientists are saying global warming hysteria is, at present, unfounded, I have to assume that you are full of crap. Well, unless "peer review" means pulled out of your own personal ass.

Re:Here we go... (1)

Cynonamous Anoward (994767) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519147)

Pulled out of own ass.....

Interesting....I think you have stumbled upon the long lost "infallible peer review" method....

Re:Here we go... (3, Insightful)

geekboy642 (799087) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518719)

Yes. Now either disprove it, as GP did with the "sun causes global warming" theory, or provide another that also fits the evidence. You don't get to ignore a scientific theory just because you don't like the conclusion.

Re:Here we go... (3, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518585)

I thought the earth has actually been getting cooler since 2004. I also thought the earth constantly went through cycles of heating and cooling. What we do does affect the planet, by all means. How MUCH it is affecting is still very much up for debate.

Me, I like better fuel economy standards and tighter restrictions on discharges into lakes and streams, mainly because I breathe air and drink water. Unfortunately, the environment is now a tool for getting funding and to get that funding, you must agree with "conventional wisdom". THAT is why so many scientists agree. I'm sure that back in the 1600s, you had to agree that the earth was flat to get funding as well.

The best science that money can buy isn't always the best science.

Re:Here we go... (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518689)

You should pay more for your history.

Re:Here we go... (4, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518781)

I'm sure that back in the 1600s, you had to agree that the earth was flat to get funding as well.

The best science that money can buy isn't always the best science.

Actually, no. If at any point in recorded history, you proposed that the earth was flat, the overwhelming majority of people thought you were a nutjob.
The idea that Columbus' opponents thought the earth was flat was made up by supporters' of Darwin in the 1800's to belittle their opposition (not all of which was religious).
Columbus' opposition said that if the diameter of the earth was what they calculated it to be (which it turns out was a reasonable approximation of the actual diameter of the earth), Columbus and his crewmen would run out of fresh water before they reached East Asia. Columbus, using his own calculations, said the earth isn't that big. It turns out that Columbus got lucky, because neither side was aware that there was another land mass between Europe and Asia (there is reason to believe that there were Europeans who did know, but that is speculation).

Re:Here we go... (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518871)

How MUCH it is affecting is still very much up for debate.

Only for quacks like you. Scientists pretty much all agree at this point.

Re:Here we go... (1)

hoooocheymomma (1020927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518973)

You and your bias. You need to keep your whole, "air breathing, water drinking" agenda out of this.

I'm sick of you liberals bashing pollution just because you want to drink clean water and breath clean air.

Try not being so selfish.

Re:Here we go... (3, Insightful)

saforrest (184929) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519081)

I thought the earth has actually been getting cooler since 2004. I also thought the earth constantly went through cycles of heating and cooling. What we do does affect the planet, by all means. How MUCH it is affecting is still very much up for debate.

Don't confuse speed with position. While 2008 was the coldest year since 2000, it is still the ninth warmest year since 1880 [] . Global warming theories do not require a strictly increasing average global temperature over time.

Re:Here we go... (5, Insightful)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518637)

2) Oceans operate on different time scales, no? So is "pretty immediate" geological time or something or a day or so?

3) Could be problems with this point based on 2. And by "trend" what are we talking about. There doesn't seem to be much of an upward trend lately. So if you are thinking the last couple of years have been on an upward trend, that's wrong. If you expand that timeline, we may still be on an upward trend.

4) "The only thing we know"

Given the lack of ability to put past weather information in a predictive model and get accurate results, I would say we don't know much at all.

My climate scientist friend I once spoke to almost 10 years ago now was more skeptical. Even if C02 does what you say, are there feedback loops that mitigate the warming? Cloud cover, stuff like that. We don't know.

6) You don't know 6 is true at all.

7) While I remain skeptical of global warming, I want to get off foreign oil in general. So may I propose a workable solution that many environmentalists don't like: nuclear power. Cut the red tape and streamline the process.

Re:Here we go... (3, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518925)

7) While I remain skeptical of global warming, I want to get off foreign oil in general. So may I propose a workable solution that many environmentalists don't like: nuclear power. Cut the red tape and streamline the process.

Which is ironic, because it's one of the most environmentally friendly means to generate power we have. The waste is well contained, and if we built newer reactors we wouldn't have to worry about waste at all.

Re:Here we go... (1)

squoozer (730327) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518791)

I think you were correct right up to 7. Most of the alternatives aren't as good as what we have right now. There is no realistic alternative to the car and all the alternatives to electricity generation are very expensive or unreliable. Space heating is also a serious problem.

Converting to a very low or zero carbon world would involve rebuilding just about every home, office block and factory as well as throwing away and remaking every car. That isn't going to happen any time soon. The expense would make the current financial system bailout look like pocket change.

I fully intend to build a zero carbon home in the not to distant future but the reality of the matter is we took 200 years to make our built environment, it will take 200 years to re-make it carbon neutral.

Re:Here we go... (3, Funny)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518821)

You are missing a whole bunch of ~'s

6- (1)

manonthemoon (537690) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518829)

Don't overstate the case. It would make the planet less live-able in certain areas (principally by being underwater) and make other areas much more live-able for humans. The problem is the dislocation (which would likely happen over multiple generations) not any threat to the species.

Re:Here we go... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518859)

6) If we keep increasing will will make the planet uninhabitable by us.

So, problem solved. Nobody left to burn fossil fuels. The planet's ecosystem recovers and the cockroaches, the proper inheritors of the planet continue on. Just like they did prior to the human infestation.

Re:Here we go... (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518933)

1) correct

2) some, and some are delayed (trade winds, ocean currents, heat redistribution)

3) see 2 - then the correlation is incredibly high ( [] )

4) absolutely no. on the contrary, the correlation for CO2 models and observed climate over the last decade are next to nil

5) Percentages of percentages

6) absolutely no

7) absolutely no

Re:Here we go... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518949)

6) If we keep increasing will will make the planet uninhabitable by us.

Even if we don't, the planet will become uninhabitable. And it will take about the same length of time on the order of hundreds of millions to a billion years. I wonder where hysterical crap like this comes from? It's like the "Iraq caused 911" nonsense that ran through the US a few years ago. Nobody said it or even seriously implied it. Yet somehow there was a bunch of people believing it.

Re:Here we go... (1)

The_Quinn (748261) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519059)

4) The only thing we know of at this time that could be causing this global warming trend is CO2

I am not a climatologist, (you don't sound like one either), but I've read that CO2 levels tend to lag, not lead, warming cycles.

6) If we keep increasing will will make the planet uninhabitable by us.

Your language is the Environmentalist equivalent of the Christian Armageddon. What is obvious about your statement is the irrational fear you convey to try and scare people into agreeing with your point of view.

What you are completely ignoring is the incredible life-enhancing and life-extending benefits that comes from altering the environment. The vast increase in quality and quantity of life that humans have over that of 150 years ago is scarcely mentioned in this ongoing debate.

Re:Here we go... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27519077)

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to 1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 Ãff" 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapor and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and Ãff" in the end Ãff" are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man-made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:

  1. None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.
  2. No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man-made causes.

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It's normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10: The earth's poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

There are several motives for the media and politicians to lie to you about global warming, aside from money and control.

  • The media sells more papers, magazines, and television ratings soar when their audience is scared of some imminent catastrophe that your respective service is reporting on [] . Although, they can't decide whether we're going to burn to death, freeze to death, or drown. []
  • Environmental organizations and some scientists will lie to you because their funding depends on it. If theres no crisis to work through, then they start losing funding. This is well documented. []
  • Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets.
  • Development and industrialization of third world countries will be stamped out, along with hundreds of millions of lives, all under the guise of "saving the planet from climate change". It's absolutely sickening. So, who's really on the "immoral" side? Us or the alarmists?
  • Wanna talk about new taxes and restricted freedoms? Try carbon taxes on everything and strict regulations for everyone....all coming soon by convincing you that CO2 & greenhouse gases are somehow evil and you must pay to emit them. Too bad they can't tax the oceans since they are the cause of 96.5% of all greenhouse emissions, naturally, eh! Also too bad they can't go back in time and tax the dinosaurs since CO2 levels were MUCH higher back then and it must have been their fault.

The motives for deception are there. Do your part to fight alarmism!

CO2 is NOT a pollutant!

Educate yourself! []

Antarctica is getting colder and thicker: [] ), and we know that any fluctuating warming/cooling is due to natural occurrences, and not human activity.

" [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

If you're still not convinced that scientists are capable of being slanted in their research, check out this article: []

For those who believe environmentalists are innocent: [] [] []

For those who believe there is a consensus: [] []

To see what happened in a debate between alarmists and skeptics: []

Re:Here we go... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27519093)

No, not insightful at all.

1) CO2 is not the most abundant green house cause in the atmosphere. H2O is.
2) CO2 is plant food. C02 fixation is based on a faulty premise that Venus is the victim of a run away green house effect. There is no evidence that Venus ever had a less hostile atmosphere.
3) If the sun is the largest part of the equation of energy on this planet, changes in amt of energy from the sun will trump any trends that CO2 may be contributing to.
4) How can we properly estimate solar radiation that was happening 200 years ago with any degree of accuracy?

Re:Here we go... (2, Insightful)

tugboat0902 (1339165) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519173)

It's strange, but I was recently looking at some ice core CO2 data and noticed that CO2 levels have been so much higher in the past during periods when global temperature was lower than it is now.

"The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."

I agree with getting off the oil habit, but those worshiping in the church of global warming are going about it all wrong. President hopeychange is planning to "spread the warmth" around to the less fortunate planets in our solar system. A new 167% income tax on those filthy rich making over $13,000 per year will be used to load our excess heat into large gas-bags shaped like Rush Limbaugh and delivered to our unfortunate neighbors that are only cold because of our oppression.

--I have no sig

Re:Here we go... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27519191)

1998 is *still* the hottest year on record....

why (2, Informative)

esocid (946821) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518451)

is it taking editors the 2nd time around [] to post these stories.

While it may not be time to panic, there are some other startling signs
  1. Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20 percent drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990sâ"the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s.
  2. Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft have also shown that the sun's brightness has dimmed by 0.02 percent at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6 percent at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996.
  3. Finally, radio telescopes are recording the dimmest "radio sun" since 1955.

At this point there's nothing really we can do, but it may need an explanation as to why it has hit such a low, and when the below-average maximum will occur (supposedly in 2012).

Re:why (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518607)

The only study I am aware related to this has to do with light hitting the planet. In that study the light hitting the earth wasn't unchanged, just the light hitting the ground. This lead to the conclusion that both particulate matter and contrails were causing more light to be reflected. Actually slowing the effects of global warming, but not stopping it.

Re:why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518655)

He is quoting the article.

This has happened before (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518473)

Great timing (4, Interesting)

Mr_Perl (142164) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518497)

I picked a good year to get licensed for ham radio. I sure get sick of hearing about how you can work Australia on a wet noodle during high Sunspot years. At least the low bands are reliable, but then again those bands require ginormous antennas. So as a consequence my house looks like some sort of martian communications test zone [] . I think my neighbors fear me enough not to seriously ask what's going on.

Re:Great timing (1)

j0se_p0inter0 (631566) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518643)

Hah, I came in here to make this same post. I got licensed January '08. HF propagation has been absolutely miserable for the most part. We've had a few brief flurries of prop where I got a small taste of things to come, and I want more. I look back at the previous peak around 2001 and I'm kicking myself for not getting licensed sooner...come on, Sun! Oh well, more time to get better equipment and improve my antennas I suppose. If one can get a good enough setup to work in these conditions, just imagine how well it will work once the cycle picks up!

Re:Great timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518995)

Ahh stop your whining... :) Hit 30M, and below. Even 20M is hopping during the day. Last week I worked a QRP /MM station in West Angola using an IC-7000 @50W using PSK31 on 20M with a Comet H-422 dipole. Got the QSL to prove it. Once the flux index goes through the ceiling everyone will be coming out of the woodwork, and complaining about the LID's. hi hi..

Re:Great timing (1)

rkfig (1016920) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518725)

No kidding. I finally stepped up to a real HF rig after getting sick of my dad talking about how he worked Christmas Island with a quarter wave dipole on ten meters. At least now I get some good DXing on 20 and 40. One can only hope that we have now hit rock bottom.

Laws of energy conservation? (1)

TheHawke (237817) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518525)

The pendulum swings both ways, and I think that Sol may swing back with a fury from this sub solar minimum to an above level solar maximum. We may wind up with the predicted power problems and possibly airline flights having to fly lower than usual to reduce dosages to their pax.

Then again, we don't really know our star very well and it is an older one, in the scope of things.

Plagiarism (5, Informative)

momerath2003 (606823) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518545)

Not only is the summary ripped from the linked article without quoting it, but the article is plagiarized in whole from ScienceDaily [] ! I knew I'd seen it before this article, and this explains why. The blogger even hotlinked the image from science daily, wasting their bandwidth.

The linked article in the summary should be adjusted to the original ScienceDaily article and the entire summary should be quoted from it rather than attributed to slreboy.

Re:Plagiarism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27519015)


The day after tomorrow? (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518563)

Another plot to "The day after tomorrow"? THE END IS NEAR!! RUN FOR THE... ops... run for... where? nevermind.

Global electrical grid failure to come (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518721)

Not now the sun is quiet.

What this quiet time is doing is failing to pressure us into hardening the electrical grid against electromagnetic storm events. So in 5 or 10 years when we pull up out of this point we will all have electrical cars pulling power from desert and off shore wind farms over long lines. Then the electromagnetic storm will take out the continental electrical grid. [] []

Fun times.

I've been a Ham radio operator for 51 years.. (2, Interesting)

the_rajah (749499) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518735)

The conditions on the shortwave bands seriously suck right now! I miss those "wet noodle" days that AI1P, Mr_Perl mentioned where you could work Australia with 4 watts into a mobile antenna on 20 meters and get a 589 report.

Re:I've been a Ham radio operator for 51 years.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518961)

Maybe there's simply a correlation between sunspots and people pretending to be in Australia.

Bad news for Amateur Radio (5, Informative)

sdaemon (25357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518877)

I realize that HAM radio is a bit of an anachronism in the eyes of most slashdot readers, but it's still the most viable medium for emergency communications. Unfortunately, with sunspot activity being so low, HF communications become very limited. Whole bands of RF spectrum are almost unusable, because the E-layer of the ionosphere can no longer bounce higher frequencies of radio waves. 40m wavelength and lower tend to still be usable, 20m is come-and-go, and 17m and higher become sporadic or completely unusable.

I'm 31, I've been a HAM for 6 years. My cell phone often doesn't get coverage where I roam, and my power and internet and landline phone have been knocked out by storms and provider mistakes. Radio works when all else fails... ...but sometimes it works better than others!

the answer is obvious (2, Funny)

Darth (29071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518943)

The sun is outsourcing its sun spot activity to another star in a less economically developed solar system.

Less sunspots, snow in Oklahoma in April... (1)

kannibul (534777) | more than 5 years ago | (#27518953)

Sunspot activity obviously has a lot to do with "global warming"...

Little Ice/Maunder Minimum not AGW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27518999)

Of course, that would be science instead of fascist politics.

Or maybe they were right in the 70s when they warned of the next ice age.

"El Nino is climate change, La Nina is weather"

More Politically Correct BS - The SUN is the prblm (1)

lrohrer (147725) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519031)

Extremely simple explanation for global warming is *sunspots*: []

NASA s latest report (March 2009) on sunspots is that there will be a massive ramp up of activity in 2010. It does not look that way to me nor the above author. Still another year or so is required to truly show the statistical trend.

Real science will prevail.

We could make our own sunspots. (1)

ChrisAugh (1385037) | more than 5 years ago | (#27519211)

All we need to do is generate solar fusion eruptions by directing highly energetic particle beams (see article [] ) onto the sun's surface thereby causing a superfluid gas eruption.

Cutbacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27519221)

With the way the economy is now even the Sun has been forced to do some rightsizing while they explore new synergies and refocus on their core competencies.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?