Beta
×

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!

Surprise Discovery In Earth's Upper Atmosphere

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the nothing-is-as-simple-as-it-first-looks dept.

Earth 243

elyons sends word out of UCLA of a completely unexpected discovery in the physics of the Sun-Earth interaction — a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere. "'It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down,' said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences. 'We all have thought for our entire careers — I learned it as a graduate student — that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field. The closer to southward-pointing the magnetic field is, the stronger the energy transfer rate is, and the stronger the magnetic field is in that direction. [It turns out that] if it is both southward and big, the energy transfer rate is even bigger.'" The researchers have two papers on the discovery coming out in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

cancel ×

243 comments

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

inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (-1, Flamebait)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403099)

Don't you people realize how you cheerish only discoveries that have potential to lessen human impact / global temp. change? You do realise that they are made by the same evil global conspiracy of scientists that mostly, by far, support current views regarding global warming?

I, for one, welcome our improving-understanding-of-universe overlords. Without bias.

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403127)

Can you support your premise that all scientists act in concert?

-jcr

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403175)

It was a MS virus that all the researchers touched and got infected with. Now, we are in a botnet phase. I mean, hey, nearly all scientist support weird ideas, like the earth not being the center of the universe, and that it is older than 5K year, or that GW is at least strongly influenced by mankind's contribution.

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (1)

Frnknstn (663642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403567)

Reread the post. He was being ironic.

Of course, there is a manner in which scientists do work in concert, and that's in 'consensus'. On this issue, the consensus is pretty clear. [slashdot.org]

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403131)

As one of "those posters", here is my one problem with global warming. Its not the "you broke it and its your fault" argument, its the "and we need your money to fix it" part. Funny how if you throw enough money at the problem it goes away. Give me more evidence first.

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (0, Offtopic)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403183)

Lots of money flowed to W and the neo-cons and now they are gone. See, a massive problem existed; money was thrown at it, and it nearly all went away (well, not the teabaggers; apparently they did not get enough of what ever they want).

So, when you throw money/whatever at a problem, it goes away.

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (1, Funny)

ciej (868027) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403237)

If I throw money at the democrats will they go away?

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (0)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403251)

If you don't, they will be just like the neo-cons; they will likely steal it.

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403271)

I suppose its relevant to point out the polarized views we see spewing out of the US are not interacting with the earths magnetosphere.

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403631)

Cool. Well, then it is not sticking. Will all the hot air will continue to warm up say mars or the moon?

I mean I can try to imagine some of the views spewing out of EU, Asia, Africa, South/Central America sure are not heating anything up. Why,just read some of what the froggies say about their upcoming tax. They are so mild about How about what the Germans talking about their nuke power plants being shut down and then depending on Natural gas from Russia and Turkey/Iran, as well as Coal from local and polish mines. No hot air on any of those debates. China? Well, they have less human hot air. Of course, when they do talk about things (perhaps how their gov handled the response on the earthquakes, etc), they just shot in the head or put in prison. They just do what their government says to do.

You know, come to think about, Maybe, just maybe, all nations that are democracy have lots of divergent views that are being spouted all over. What do you think coward?

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403799)

The hell are you going on about? that had nothing to do with hot air or pollution, it had to do with how people insist all opinions be either lumped into either democratic or republican bents, and then turning any debate into an us versus them argument rather than approaching each issue individually. You then have people going along with things in both parties, not because of reason but because you gotta root for your team..

you know...like a magnetic dipole.... story being about ionized particles interacting with the magnetosphere causing an energy transfer not the sun spewing hot air....

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (2)

Fleeced (585092) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404243)

Interesting, first poster says:

Lots of money flowed to W and the neo-cons and now they are gone ... So, when you throw money/whatever at a problem, it goes away.

This was pretty funny, and not surprisingly, was modded so... then the followup posts this comment:

If I throw money at the democrats will they go away?

For some reason - that was modded troll? I found the second one as equally amusing, and fail to see how the second was any more trollish than the first - particularly when the first even referred to tea-party protesters as "tea-baggers"

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403269)

well, not the teabaggers

I really don't understand why that's supposed to be funny...

I mean, I get why one regularly sees "M$" and "window$" and other equally stupid things on slashdot, but that one I don't get.

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403403)

well, not the teabaggers

I really don't understand why that's supposed to be funny...

I mean, I get why one regularly sees "M$" and "window$" and other equally stupid things on slashdot, but that one I don't get.

usually to "teabag" someone means to put your nutsac/balls up against their chin. the implication of course is that the one getting teabagged is "the bitch" of the person doing the teabagging. what that has to do with the atmosphere is anyone's guess

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403459)

Conservative retards have been throwing 'tea parties' lately to protest the evil government wanting to beat them up and take their lunch money and use it to murder babies. I don't think any of them have been told yet that they've forgotten the "without representation" part of the slogan. Calling it "teabagging" is an equally mature and significantly more amusing response to such actions.

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (2, Interesting)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403509)

Yeah, I know... and I get why Anderson Cooper would think that's hilarious.

What I don't understand is why your average garden variety left-winger on the internet (where you tend to hear/see it the most)--whether it be slashdot, kos, wherever else--thinks it's so hilarious. I guess what it boils down to for me is, I think it's downright odd how the Democratic party which wholeheartedly embraced liberty, freedom, and the "common man" at its core a generation ago--and still pays lip service to such things--has of late become so dominated by primarily the upper middle classes and the highly educated who are perfectly content to just trust in the government (and ad hom those who don't). I don't understand the scorn for the lower middle class / poor / etc who seem to be at these kind of rallies.

I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of things I don't understand... but the pure vitriol and loathing of the populist townhall protestors and tax protestors is just ... weird! ... to me.

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403545)

I don't understand the scorn for the lower middle class / poor / etc who seem to be at these kind of rallies.
I see. You have not been to one of these. It is NOT the lower middle class/poor. I went to one in Denver. Watching ppl drive away in Suburbans is not my idea of lower middle class. Think that there is a real reason why it is pushed by rush?

The idea that this represents the common man would be like having the king of england attend the boston tea party. Basically, the very ppl, neo-cons, that ran up the vast majority of the debt are attending it and trying to point the finger at obama. Now, I am not a fan of Obama's action (though even as a Libertarian, I voted for him to avoid the thought of Palin as a pres), I can say that he was put in a horrible situation. OTH, I have not been impressed by his actions.
But the tea baggers keep pointing their finger at dems while out and out refusing to take responsibility for the nightmare that they got us into. These are the same sets of idiots that voted in W. TWICE.

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (0)

amilo100 (1345883) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404169)

Basically, the very ppl, neo-cons, that ran up the vast majority of the debt are attending it and trying to point the finger at obama.

You seem to ignore that fact that the vast majority of the debt was run up under a Democrat controlled congress.

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (2, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404355)

really? The pubs had control of congress from 94-2000, while the dems had control of the presendcy; The pubs had TOTAL control of dc from 2000-2006. pubs had WH from 2006-2008, while neither party control congress during that time (dems controlled house, but the pubs had a slight edge on the senate).

So, where did it get us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms [wikipedia.org] It MASSIVELY shot up when pubs had total control. It does not appear to matter which congress has it, but which president has it. For example, reagan and W never saw a deficit that they did not love. OTH, CLINTON (a dem) fought against the neo-con deficit and turned it around. So do the dem controlled congress of the 60's/70's, who paid off most of WWII debt.

Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (0, Flamebait)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403683)

Those lower class people are the ones who believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago. Blindly trusting government has its risks, but it beats trusting some TV evangelist any time.

I just dropped a deuce (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403347)

It's an unfortunate inevitability of life -- everybody poops. And
while this task can occasionally provide us with an opportunity to
relax or engage in some deep thinking, there are other instances when
this basic undertaking becomes a chore no person should have to
endure. Whether or not these stooling sessions can be tolerated, is
often determined by one single factor: where it is taking place? If
you're alone in the privacy of your own home, why not make an hour of
it and get some reading in? However, if you're at work with your boss
sitting in the adjacent stall, you'd better hold off on dropping
anything for fear of creating an embarrassing splash. With that in
mind though, things could be worse, and here are eight examples of how
much worse..

8-The Wilderness Toilet

This is essentially taking a #2 in a wall-less bathroom. Sure,
you're in a pretty remote location, but it's not so remote that they
haven't needed to accommodate other people with full bowels. At any
second, some fellow hiker could round that nearby group of trees and
put an eyeball on you while you prepare to release yesterday's granola
bar. It's also safe to assume that since this toilet is on a path
intended for people who want to get away from the hectic bustle of
society, that same society's emphasis on cleanliness and sterile
toilets is far removed as well. And since the act of pooping leaves
man at nearly his most helpless, this would seem like the ideal time
for a voracious wild animal to attack. So, not only is this an
uncomfortable practice, but it's a dangerous one as well.

7-School

Kids can be merciless. They will go to great measures to find any
points of weakness in their unfortunate victims, and to a youth,
finding out that someone has been pooping presents an incredible
opportunity for ridicule. Yet, at times your body requires you to crap
at these academic establishments, and so you are immediately presented
with the impossible task of somehow taking an undetectable dump, or
completely leaving school. If you excuse yourself from class, the time
you spend in the bathroom will surely be recorded by your callous
peers, and upon return, you will be thoroughly mocked. If you try and
poop in between class, you'll be too worried about the possibility of
being tardy, and you'll probably pinch it off before you're completely
done. And even if you muster up the courage to attempt this risky
procedure, there's always the risk of someone walking in and berating
you while you take part in what should be one of mankind's most
private moments. So please children, let each other poop in peace.

6-Your New Girlfriend/Boyfriend's House

Let's say you're about to leave your newly-acquired significant
other's residence after your first sleep over, when nature suddenly
decides this would be the perfect moment to defecate. Maybe it's the
nerves after a night of apprehensive tongue-kissing and heavy petting,
or maybe it's the three-bean taco salad you ate prior to the
caressing, but whatever the case, your body's telling you it needs to
be relieved immediately. Now the bathroom in this situation is
certainly not the problem; it's clean, and probably provides some sort
of reading material. The problem is what will happen to this new and
delicate relationship once the odorous evidence of your actions hits
the air. There may be an air-freshener, or perhaps you're carrying
some matches, but that will only mask the smell, and the psychological
damage of having your body demonstrate what it's like at its most foul
will forever remain in the nostrils of their brain. This will
permanently change how your significant other looks at you.

5-The Port-a-Potty

Here's what the Port-a-Potty brings to waste elimination sessions:
One--They're typically found in unfamiliar, public locations that can
make an already-taxing exercise more stressful. Especially, as you,
the pooper, realize there's a massive line of concert or tractor-pull
attendees waiting outside who will soon discover you've not taken a
#1. Two--Extremely unclean facilities that, due to their often-remote
locations, don't easily accommodate cleaners. Three--The disgusting
split-second glimpse you get of that mysterious dung-urine-water that
you're about to add to, right before either gingerly setting yourself
atop the seat or hovering an inch above said seat. I wish man hadn't
invented this monstrous building.

4-The House Party

You're attending what some annoying guy is describing as the most
legendary party ever, when the large amount of spirits you've consumed
starts to disrupt your bowels. So you immediately locate that massive
line of people looking to empty their alcohol, and join the
congregation awaiting the one bathroom in the entire house. Luckily,
the line moves fairly quickly due to the fairer sex's ability to
utilize a single toilet in large groups, and the fact that the
majority of people are just urinating. Unfortunately, as you reach the
front, the line continues to grow behind you with people just as
anxious to relieve themselves. Only they're not taking a #2 like you
are. As you finally enter what is always a very unkempt bathroom and
proceed to clean off all the errant urine around the stool, you become
completely aware that what you're about to do is going to take some
time. Not only will the massive and continuously growing line become
increasingly upset as you attempt to poop, but eventually your
bathroom-disrupting exploits will be known by all at this bash. And
that same annoying man who termed this party as legendary, will term
your dump "the crap heard around the party." Good luck hooking up
now.

3-The Airport

Now certainly there are dirtier bathrooms than this, and as far as
public pooping goes, it can be a lot worse. However, there is one
aspect of the airport restroom that has recently made us all question
what else those toilet stall walls have seen. And that's Senator Larry
Craig. It's hard enough for me to get over the fact that maybe 5
minutes ago another man sat on this seat and emptied his waste, but to
think that maybe a publicly elected official was in here copulating
with a random stranger pushes me over the edge. How do I overcome that
fear? Can I simply lay strips of toilet paper down over the seat, as
if I was taking a normal #2? Or do I select the one odd stall without
a door, knowing that surely a heterosexual Senator would be
uncomfortable accosting me an exposed setting? No, ultimately what I
must do is hold it. Hold it until I get on the plane and am able to
enter a restroom where it's well known that people never engage in the
act of fornication.

2-The Gas Station

Simply put, these are the most vile, repugnant, and unkempt
bathrooms on the planet. Since the opening of any gas station, not
once has an employee walked into that waste collecting room with the
intention of tidying things up a bit. The poo that sits unflushed in
the toilet is the same poo that has sat in that lavatory for the past
25 years, and it now has begun to move freely on its own. Attempting
to wash your hands in this room will only lead to the contraction of
some sort of a disease and the walls appear to have some sort of goo
running down them, which originates at the ceiling. Also, this room
seems like a strange place for a security camera to be located.

1-The Squat Toilet

The squat toilet, or the "no toilet" as I like to call it, is a
terribly-designed contraption that requires the dumper to hover over a
small hole and precisely aim his or her stool before releasing
it. Since this is the primary toilet in certain parts of the world, a
wide-eyed Westerner can be certain that his first attempt at hitting
this two-inch mark will most likely result in a fresh log between his
feet. Leading to the realization that if your dung is just going to
end up on the ground, there is no reason to stand in this dank, public
restroom to drop it. Also, you'll have to completely remove any
clothing below the waist, since you're most likely opposed to getting
your feces on your pants. TP can also be a problem in some of the
squat toilets since a number of them aren't equipped to handle this
apparent Western extravagance. Instead, squat toilet patrons are
content using their hand and some water, which they believe is just as
effective and just as sanitary. Ultimately, using these toilets will
make you homesick.

Misleading interpretation (5, Insightful)

mudshark (19714) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403115)

Saying "It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun" when they're talking about the interaction of the solar wind and the magnetosphere is more than a little disingenuous....

Re:Misleading interpretation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403189)

Saying "It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun" when they're talking about the interaction of the solar wind and the magnetosphere is more than a little disingenuous....

OTOH it's bound to get bandied about by those scratching around for some explanation for GW other than human fossil fuel consumption ("It's magnets!!"). So that single line will probably garner his research way more publicity that it would otherwise receive.

Re:Misleading interpretation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403903)

Oh wouldn't they just when we all know that science is done when a critical mass of scientists all start nodding their heads in unison like a field of bobble-head dolls.

As all good, slashdot-reading scientists know, Svante Arrhenius discovered everything of importance about climate science over a hundred years ago so anything that conflicts with his revealed truth is clearly a ploy by the petroleum producers and their minions.

Can Its Power Be Tapped? (1)

sanman2 (928866) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403259)

Would there be some way to tap the energy from these fluctuations? Instead of solar power arrays in space, could we just have giant blimps floating in the upper atmosphere with large coils in their superstructure to take advantage of magnetic fluctuations? They could then beam that energy down as microwaves to a receiving station.

Re:Can Its Power Be Tapped? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403355)

Why do one thing if you could take the opportunity to do 3? Mixing capturing electricity from this source and bringing it down by wires, with an spatial elevator, and maybe more energy orbital getting "traditional" solar energy. This could even turn profitable in the middle term building a spatial elevator

Re:Can Its Power Be Tapped? (-1, Troll)

Oflife (1636567) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404263)

No, big oil and any remaining loyal neocons would arrange for them to be shot down or suffer some other inexplicable misfortune.

Re:Misleading interpretation (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403367)

more than a little disingenuous

Disingenuousness in Global Warming research (sorry I mean Global Warming agitprop)?

I'm shocked.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1511/ [climateaudit.org]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm/ [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2898/ [climateaudit.org]
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm/ [skepticalscience.com]

Gore showed me a scary graph in a film and I believe him and that's all that matters.

Those links are worth nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403447)

Only one of those links seemed like a credible source, the BBC (which was broken link but one that could be easily modified to work). I did want to give the two other ones a chance, though.

BBC article doesn't tell about any flaws in the current scientific consensus on anything. It simply mentions that Al Gore's video was found to not stay true to the consensus on 9 things. Nothing major in climate warming, just specific, poorly chosen examples. An example given:

Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

The climateaudit has a FAQ. One of the questions is "Does your work disprove global warming?" and the answer:

We have not made such a claim. There is considerable evidence that in many locations the late 20th century was generally warmer than the mid-19th century. However, there is also considerable evidence that in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, the mid-19th century was exceptionally cold. We think that a more interesting issue is whether the late 20th century was warmer than periods of similar length in the 11th century. We ourselves do not opine on this matter, other than to say that the MBH results relied upon so heavily by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2001 report are invalid.

And then... It also has a newer entry that newer, published data no longer has these problems!

In MM03, we were not in a position to fully diagnose the problems, but we are now. Also, the simple comparison of archived series versions to versions actually used revealed the unreported editing of the Gaspï½ series, which also had important consequences. This effect was not specifically analyzed in MM03, but was analyzed here. In short, we believe that the present articles are a definitive resolution of issues first raised in MM03.

Your link actually supports the claims! (or well, it says that the reports about it are scientific and fully auditable)

The skeptical science link... It's just pure bullshit. Just look at the comments which give reference links.

Re:Misleading interpretation (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403377)

While the 'global warming implications' that would be inaccurately applied to this paper are unfortunate his statement isn't scientifically inaccurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosphere [wikipedia.org]

Re:Misleading interpretation (1, Offtopic)

Nein Volts (1635979) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404375)

Exactly! Just say it's natural phenomenon! Just like coal burning plants have nothing to do with aerosolized thorium and mercury levels in our waters.

anti-solar prejuices, prior neglect (0, Troll)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403123)

Sounds like another shoe drops in the solar - terrestial interactions with regard to global warming and climate change. Why wasn't this found 20 years ago? Because IPCC and NASA haven't been diligently working a major term, the many solar-terrestial interactions, in the general energy equation? Because they are happy worshipping simplistic false models that say "Send academia, modelers and autocrats more money"?

Or (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403161)

it was something unexpected (which it was), so nobody was looking in this direction. It would be interesting to find out if this was discovered because of all the hoopla about GW. I am guessing that it is the case. IOW, this would not likely have been found except that ppl are concerned about getting the facts, rather than just trolling.

Re:Or (4, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403305)

The problem many people (or at least I!) have with PARTS of the GW / global climate change conversation is that it's clear that we have at best a minimalistic understanding of climate. I don't even think most climate scientists would deny this... Like you point out--this is a great example of a really interesting (and fundamental!) discover. New discoveries in terms of carbon sequestration (or lack thereof in many cases), cloud vapour / temperature interactions, etc are being found all the time. The technology we have available to monitor global temperatures and carbon levels, arctic ice, etc, and the tools (better satellites, etc) are likewise exponentially improving.

I don't think you can find a person out there who would deny that strong scientific progress is being made.

The problem is with the non-science aspects of the movement. Heck, the problem is that it IS a movement. Things like Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and some scientists who do seem to be more interested in a political agenda more than a scientific one do not help. That is to say, of all the parts of what you call the "hoopla about GW" (nice desc!) we can really do without the hysteria and the partisan politicking (why is global warming even a partisan issue to begin with?! -- and I'm fully expecting a partisan respose ;-) )

Re:Or (5, Funny)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403359)

(why is global warming even a partisan issue to begin with?! -- and I'm fully expecting a partisan respose ;-) )

Is 'both sides are filled with morons' partisan?

Re:Or (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403487)

On the contrary, I think you've hit upon the only logical answer...

Re:Or (1)

hoooocheymomma (1020927) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404125)

It all started when they divided the Earth up into hemispheres...

Re:Or (2, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403569)

Concern troll. Al Gore and AEI with their daffodil ads are not the same thing. Al Gore may be a politician, he may not be your kind of politician, but the science is on his side.

The pseudoscience is on the side of the "skeptics"

Re:Or (2, Insightful)

amilo100 (1345883) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404185)

Al Goreâ(TM)s movie was nothing but misrepresented propaganda. I watched his movie and came under the impression that we are screwed. At one point he very dramatically illustrates that see levels will rise by 7 meters. What he conveniently left out was that it will happen in *a millennium*. This is nothing but a documentary by a Micheal Moore environmentalist.

I believe that global warming is real and that something should be done. But I doubt a collection of half truths and over-reaction will be helpful. A calm and rational approach would be much better.

Re:Or (1)

IllForgetMyNickSoonA (748496) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404289)

So... 7m raise in sea levels is OK for you if it doesn't hurt you personally?

I haven't seen the film you are talking about, and I can not comment about whether the 7m raise is a realistic prediction or not. I also can't comment on whether it will be caused by humans or not. However, you also don't seem to argue such points, you only seem to be saying "oh, it'll happen in a 1000 years, so who cares".

I don't think your in 1000 years living grandgrandgrand....children would be happy with this statement.

Re:Or (3, Insightful)

Fleeced (585092) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404275)

The pseudoscience is on the side of the "skeptics"

Do a survey at any green movement rally, and see what percentage of these people are anti-nuclear and anti-GM, or support "alternative" medicine over the conventional (scientific) kind. How many anti-vaxxers would you expect to find in the crowd?

None of this reduces the validity of AGW of course, but it does put paid to the notion that people follow this cause because they are more scientifically rational... indeed, there seems to be a general fear of technology in the green movement (and to be clear, I'm not talking about the scientists here, as much as the supporters).

In short, my global warming skepticism, though a minority view amongst scientists (and I accept that it IS a minority view) is still scientifically based... most of the green movements support of the "consensus" view is not scientifically based at all - it just happens to conform to their world-view.

Minority scientific opinion <> pseudoscience

And this is where you would be wrong (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403575)

There are constant changes to the model, but nothing HUGE. My understanding from talking to some NOAA scientists that I know, that it would take something totally unknown coming from out of the solar system or from the middle of the earth.

As they pointed out, the simplest item to look at are the glaciers. Overall, they are melting very fast. Some new ones are started, but that is due to increased moisture in the air. That is like the center of Antarctica is growing again, but that is due to increased moisture due to the high melting towards the edge. It use to be melting took place truly on the edge, and now, it is quite far inland.

Re:And this is where you would be wrong (3, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403911)

There are few changes to the very basic set of facts: that there is warming, and a significant proportion of it is anthropogenic. But there is huge disagreement on the details and especially in predictions. That's to be expected, because many of the systems we're attempting to model have sensitive dependence on parameters and initial conditions. Whether, for example, a shutdown of thermohaline circulation [wikipedia.org] is likely, and under what circumstances, isn't at all well understood--- and that's just picking one large-impact uncertainty.

Re:Or (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403593)

(why is global warming even a partisan issue to begin with?! -- and I'm fully expecting a partisan respose ;-) )

It became partisan when republicans through the 90's up til about 2005, were saying that GW was not occurring. Now, the top neo-cons claim that it is not man made, but there is overwhelming scientific evidence that says otherwise. I am not a climatologist, but I know a few of them who are. Other than Dr. Grey, all of them say that it is occurring and man is partially responsible (though none appear to agree to what degree we are). OTH, The doc was adamant that this was just a cycle. BTW, He is one of the very few scientist that has the clout and knowledge to be able to prove it IFF he is right. The vast majority of the ppl that signed up on the ANTI-GW were either not in the field or were not even studying it. Totally ridiculous.

Re:Or (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403757)

Most of Dr Gray's "debate" is personal attacks on the young whipper snappers talking about climate change. If he gets something that actually stands up he has the clout to get people to listen.

Re:Or (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403811)

Ah, you know him too :). But that is the way that he has been. I met him first back in the 80's, and he seemed cantankerous then (I went to CSU and knew ppl out at atmos). But I think that he really wants to prove that others are wrong. I hope that he is working hard on it (sadly, for the last several years, he has spent more time working with Klotzbach to get him up to speed with hurricane predictions). Seriously, I think that with a bit of time, he will either find evidence to convince others of his belief, OR figure it out that he was wrong (though I do not know him enough to say that he would admit that he was wrong).

Re:Or (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403633)

Cool. Then what's next weeks excuse? Thirty years ago you would ask a scientist about global warming and climate change. Now you just have to ask an old farmer or a ski lift operator.
It was all cut and dried in general terms long before the film came out and it became a political/armageddon cult/economic issue. Nitpicking about specifics that might swing things a fraction of a percent either way doesn't wind the clock back. Most of this "climate change doubt" crap comes out of the "Heartland Institute" anyway, take a look on the net and see what they think about smoking. That's right, a bunch of "experts" with no experience or education that will tell you what you pay them to say. The climate change "debate" is pretty well reality vs PR and is occurring because people want to make money out of it. If the wackos in the nuclear lobby had kept out of it with stupid ideas like carbon credits and carbon taxes to nobble their opposition it would all be a lot simpler - things have been overhyped in both directions.

Re:Or (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403751)

The climate change "debate" is pretty well reality vs PR and is occurring because people want to make money out of it. If the wackos in the nuclear lobby had kept out of it with stupid ideas like carbon credits and carbon taxes to nobble their opposition it would all be a lot simpler - things have been overhyped in both directions.

I agree. I think that the west is in for a LOT of trouble by trying to take full responsibility and to be the ones doing things. Kyoto has been a disaster since NONE of the participants have met any real goals (those who did not have to change DID make theirs; whoppie). I can not stand W, but he was right on not participating. In 3 short years, China double their CO2 emissions, and they are on the path to double it again in 3 years. Scarey. Ppl are not paying attention.

France and Canada have the right idea in taxes, but it is being implemented wrong. It should be a cap on new CO2 emissions (as in absolutely no new emissions, without taking out the old stuff), and then a tax on ALL GOODS based on the CO2 emissions from whence they came from (not what went into it, but how much emissions from where it comes). If you do that, then ALL NATIONS will end up competing to get their emissions low FAST. In fact, because of the nature of pollution (it spreads everywhere), it should be a tax on the pollution that went into the good. Yes, I know. That hurts the economy. So, you start it out at say 5%, and then have regions graded on what their emissions are. Most importantly, Over time, RAISE THE TOP RATE, say 1% a year. For example, France might be 20% of 5%. OTH, China would be 100% of 5%, and probably so would USA, and other nations. The simple fact is, that every country will RIGHTLY KNOW that the approaches being taken will hurt THEIR NATION. OTH, this other approach is EXTREMELY FAIR to all. In addition, since it is applied to ALL GOODs, it can not run into trouble, other than the formulas (what percentage of the top rate) used. But that is a different issue.

Re:Or (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403881)

Personally I think the extra layer of abstraction with carbon trading and credits are just going to be another way to launder money in the Bahamas, Christmas Island or other places with little pollution. Direct regulation would be hard but I don't see how anything else could work without it just being a game of business as usual and playing the loopholes on paper. The ironic thing is the trading was only put in to get the USA to agree on Kyoto, but a change in government finished that leaving us with a bizzare scheme to try to run it by remote control with economic pressures. A tax that cannot be traded is a different story but still difficult to do.

Re:Or (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403929)

Yeah, the cap/trade is going to be a true disaster in the making. I think that it will be destroying the west. EU pushes their companies to be loyal and stay there, but we have not done that since reagan. Add in more expensive energy, combined with much of Asia having their money fixed against the dollar as well as major trade barriers, I think that we will not only see the wholesale destruction of much of the west, but that our energy bill will have the exact opposite impact. Basically, GE coal plants will simply shift to China/India/Brazil/Mexico, etc and these countries will grab them as a way to get "cheap" energy in relatively quickly.

As to the tax, I think that it really is not that hard. Make is a sales tax, base it on which country the majority of the item came from. Obviously, some companies will try to play games, but, I think that a rap on the hand, along with a stiff fine, will get their attention.

Re:Or (5, Interesting)

Budenny (888916) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403883)

There are legitimate reasons to be unconvinced, no matter what the affiliations of the people offering them may be.

We have an hypothesis about the reaction of the earth's climate to CO2 emissions. The hypothesis is first, that the additional CO2 warms by absorbing IR radiation. That this will occur is not subject to dispute, its basic physics, and has been known for around 100 years. It was only partially known to Aarhenius, who seems to have got the effect right but to have overestimated its magnitude, but the effect itself has been known. This is a relatively minor component of the hypothesis. If this effect were all there was, doubling of CO2 levels from around 300ppm to around 600ppm would raise the average temperature of the planet in the lower troposphere by roughly 1 degree centigrade. This would not be terribly serious - in fact, it might even improve life, and its of the same order as natural variations anyway.

The second hypothesized effect is that when the climate warms by any amount, from any cause, there is positive feedback. This feedback amplifies the effect. So the warming of 1 degree caused by CO2 rises is hypothesized to lead to further warming of a further few degrees. The amounts are uncertain. The total warming effect could be anything from 2-5 degrees C. Even at the lower levels, this would lead to significant problems, and at the higher levels, particularly over 5 degrees, we would be looking at climate disaster.

However, its a question whether the climate reacts to warming by positive feedback, and if so how strongly, or by negative feedback. To have concerns about feedback is not denialism or flat-earth -ism. Its quite reasonable.

This is where we come into the evidence issue. The decisive evidence for feedback would be if the climate were now genuinely warming faster than or differently from ever before. And this is where the question of the refusal of the climate science community to reveal their data becomes important. We have Jacoby, d'Arrigo, Mann, Thompson, Jones and others refusing to reveal the data which would allow replication and verification of their results. Their defenders meanwhile abuse everyone who does not simply believe, without proof, that the results are as represented.

As long as the data and algorithms are not placed in the public domain for inspection and validation, it is going to be reasonable to be skeptical. All that the authors have to do to eliminate this skepticism is to publish. Until they do, it is going to remain an open question whether there is anything very special going on with climate in terms of the last 2,000 years, and so it will remain an open question whether feedback works the way that the IPCC hypothesizes.

And so, it will remain an open question whether the reaction of the climate machine to an initial warming of 1 degree will be an ultimate stable state of no change, +1, +2 or +5.

In the same way as when I drink a cup of coffee, you cannot predict my future temperature solely by reference to the heat content of the coffee, nor can you make any assumptions without examining the way my body reacts about whether the feedback will be positive or negative, so you need evidence in the form of the behavior of the climate to tell what sort of feedback mechanisms occur. It is very, very odd, inexplicable in fact, that the climate science community seems to see it as positively wrong to ask for the data on what is allegedly going on with the climate to be released. Free the data, free the code, and lets see if the studies prove what they purport to.

Re:Or (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403917)

Based on purely anecdotal evidence, it seems to be getting worse: my impression is that climate scientists who entered the field after it became a partisan political issue are much more likely to have axes to grind one way or another. The 40+ y.o. PhDs entered the field because they were interested in science, but a lot of the under-40 crowd entered the field to join a battle on one side or another.

Re:Or (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29404007)

They entered the field because they were HIPPIES. Before them, there was no "climate change" science. Back then the lie was "nuclear winter" all over the place, and they needed something resembling a social science to spread propaganda. The scam of Climate Change works because the tricked people are different every time, because a sucker is born every second. That's the reason things like the Disney movies keep working. But in a few years, there will no be people left that knows that the field is just bullshit originally created to satisfy a political agenda. That's why it's very important to discredit all their field now that there are still people that remembers how they came to be.

There has never been interest in science in that field. They are not even sciencists, and they keep using extrapolation with bad data to keep frightening people and get money from the taxpayers.

Re:Or (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403457)

The Nuclear missile mob have known this for donkeys, as well as an 'anomnolys' in a few spots.
Some Hawks have even said nuclear 'testing' in this region, that is both radioactive and sweeps the radioactive dust away - well most of it anyway. Because of he re-entry blackout, they have ways and means around this too. Not news.

Re:anti-solar prejuices, prior neglect (1, Interesting)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403283)

I was wondering how long it would take the anti-global-warming fringe to latch onto this one and say "Look! This shows scientists don't actually know everything, and therefore it proves that they don't know anything!"

Re:anti-solar prejuices, prior neglect (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403455)

I am 20+ yrs annoyed how long various solar questions and basic research have remained unplowed ground, with rather dismissive treatment in the AGW stampede. I note numerous irregularities in the AGW shove similar to deliberate actions that in my personal experience got PhDs (e.g. Cornell, Hopkins, one a nationally known professor) fired for said irregularities.

I also think that the real GA Landis might have some conflict of interest with my statement, such as the InP solar cell patents that might benefit from an AGW hysteria. However I do think that orbital solar is a potential major industry down the road as the major step into the industrialization of space, for 30+ years. Just not down the socialist roads. I

Re:anti-solar prejuices, prior neglect (0, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403557)

It's obvious that there are very serious conflicts of intrest in GW and AGW research.

The primary sponsor of all (A)GW research is the IPCC.

The only reason the IPCC gets money is (A)GW.

Every kid can tell you what is bound to happen next. Obviously the IPCC has been caught several times making propaganda by spreading lies it's own scientists don't agree with (most famous the hokey stick graph). This "somehow" keeps happening, and even today you can find that graph in IPCC materials.

How much do we bet that next month "IPCC scientists find that GW is even worse than thought today" ?

Re:anti-solar prejuices, prior neglect (1)

bdeclerc (129522) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403717)

So, basically, since the claim that the "IPPC is the primary sponsor of all AGW research" is a *lie*, can we just ignore everything else you say about this subject?

Re:anti-solar prejuices, prior neglect (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404085)

We all know which side of the argument is trying to force no end of regulations, beliefs and laws on the other.

So it seems a bit of a idiotic question : you can do whatever you want, as far as I'm concerned. The reverse, as is plain to see, is not true.

Why can't YOU leave the rest of us alone ? I'm fucking tempted to move to China these days. One is actually more free there, and the people are actually more tolerant of differing viewpoints, that's how "liberals" have changed America. Heh, perhaps I'll take the middle road and see about Singapore or thereabouts.

Oh and needless to say, the IPCC sponsorship thing is true. And if you count IPCC + it's members you will find that you've accounted for over 80% of all climate research, it's that bad.

Re:anti-solar prejuices, prior neglect (1, Informative)

khayman80 (824400) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404223)

Obviously the IPCC has been caught several times making propaganda by spreading lies it's own scientists don't agree with (most famous the hokey stick graph). This "somehow" keeps happening, and even today you can find that graph in IPCC materials.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this, but the Mann et. al. 1999 reconstruction [dumbscientist.com] was accurate and has been independently confirmed [dumbscientist.com] by many researchers. Those links contain many references to peer-reviewed research papers that you can read to learn about paleoclimatology temperature reconstructions.

Re:anti-solar prejuices, prior neglect (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403837)

got PhDs (e.g. Cornell, Hopkins, one a nationally known professor) fired

Given how difficult it is to fire tenured faculty -- and how even if it happens at a state university [wikipedia.org] , to say nothing of the really famous private ones, it makes the national news -- I'm going to have to go with [citation needed] on this one.

Re:anti-solar prejuices, prior neglect, re PhDs (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404059)

PhDs were from those schools, not those schools' faculty.

Prof was fired as an outside consultant and consulting company with a payroll of about a dozen with a cushy contract, about $3m/yr in today's scrip, by a Fortune 50 company, not as a professor. And it was an unpublicized matter that neither wanted out in public.

The prof would have jeopardized future funding, grants and donations where he was actively seeking about $50m in today's scrip, and had been lead to expect a good chunk of it if he could deliver technically and politically. The contracting F50 company and manager would have been further embarrassed over various failure issues.

Re:anti-solar prejuices, prior neglect (1)

amilo100 (1345883) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404199)

I was wondering how long it would take the anti-global-warming fringe to latch

I thought that we were all against global warming (even Al Gore)?

Surprise! Discovery In Earth's Upper Atmosphere (5, Funny)

lewoot (1636471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403135)

Okay so when I first saw the title, I read it as "Surprise! Discovery In Earth's Upper Atmosphere" and thought the landing a couple of days ago was a hoax or something.

Re:Surprise! Discovery In Earth's Upper Atmosphere (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403323)

Okay so when I first saw the title, I read it as "Surprise! Discovery In Earth's Upper Atmosphere" and thought the landing a couple of days ago was a hoax or something.

No, it's Columbia and maybe still a little bit of Challenger that are in the upper atmosphere. Oh, I'm going to burn in hell for making this joke...

Re:Surprise! Discovery In Earth's Upper Atmosphere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403825)

However, in case you burn up in atmospheric re-entry there isn't anything left to burn in hell, is there?

Re:Surprise! Discovery In Earth's Upper Atmosphere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403925)

That's assuming there's no hell in the atmosphere. But consider: without atmospheric conditions, how could there be fire in hell?

I know! I know! (3, Funny)

Cheesetrap (1597399) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403171)

"It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun."

The orbiting teapot [wikipedia.org] must have boiled! ;)

Gosh! (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403193)

I hope it's not a subspace anomaly left open by a Goa'uld mothership!

diff eq problem? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403217)

> "Heejeong separated the data into when the solar wind was fluctuating a lot and when it
> was fluctuating a little," he added. "When the interplanetary magnetic field fluctuations
> are low, she saw the pattern everyone knows,

That is, the likelihood of "substorms" in Earh's ionoshpere is a function of how "northward"
or "southward" Earth's manetosphere is. More southward, more storms, worse
satellite TV reception.

> but when she analyzed the pattern when the interplanetary magnetic field was
> fluctuating strongly, that pattern completely disappeared. Instead, the strength of the
> flows depended on the strength of the fluctuations.

There's this "interplanetary magnetic field" between the Sun and Earth. The solar wind
is Earthward charged particles from the Sun. These particles interact with the Earth's
magnetisphere. When you have large changes in the solar wind, there are more
substorms, and worse satellite TV reception.

So, pseudo-diff-eq, their contribution is the second term (or maybe I'm missing the point):
                substorm likelihood =
                southwardness of magnetosphere +
                change of solar wind intensity with respect to time

Poor graduate student. So much data...
It's good to see some basic science being done though. More, please!

it's still the sun... (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403277)

solar winds = sun. root cause people.....

I fell for it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403279)

I read the title, and said "the landing was a hoax?"

Read Tesla & Heaviside from 100 years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403291)

Tesla predicted, then went out and measured it a century ago. He went on to show how the energy could be tapped and directed on a global scale.

Formal equations were worked out by Heaviside and then for the next 100 years from time to time people rediscover part of it and claim they're first.

Schumann applied it to global lightning detection but seems to have missed entirely that the energy can be accessed.

Re:Read Tesla & Heaviside from 100 years ago (1)

Latinhypercube (935707) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403725)

Please tell us more... Very Interesting....Links please !

The Hell? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403325)

Why is this being tagged "climate change" with people yammering about global warming? This is a previously unexpected form of energy transfer but would have been occuring since...oh...our planet had a magnetosphere and there is not a single mention in the article concerning climate change or global warming.

Re:The Hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403415)

Your question basically amounts to "Why are they acting like they're idiots who are desperate to deny well-accepted science at any cost, reason be damned?" And the most likely answer to that question is "Because they are."

Re:The Hell? (3, Insightful)

mspohr (589790) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403579)

Why is this being tagged "climate change" with people yammering about global warming? This is a previously unexpected form of energy transfer but would have been occuring since...oh...our planet had a magnetosphere and there is not a single mention in the article concerning climate change or global warming.

I agree that there is no link to climate change but that doesn't stop all of the conspiracy theorist trolls. Without the link to climate change, we could only talk about this new science that was discovered and that would be boring. Now we get to waste our time reading the standard climate conspiracy rants.

Re:The Hell? (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403897)

so a previously unknown variable is discovered and you discount it because it doesn't fit your current hypothesis??!!

science has left the building folks....

Re:The Hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29404127)

What are you even talking about? The fact that this is newly discovered has no bearing on the climate change debate because this effect would have been going on since the earth developed its own magnetic field. it is not some new effect that never happened before, its an effect with hadn't noticed before.

the sun has been ejecting ionized particles for a rather long time you know. And the earth had to have a magnetosphere long before life began.

this is not a 'new variable' in climate change because its not a change, its just something we hadn't noticed before that would have been occurring ever since we had a liquid iron outer core.

Re:The Hell? (1, Insightful)

Megane (129182) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404231)

What are you even talking about? The fact that this is newly discovered has no bearing on the climate change debate because this effect would have been going on since the earth developed its own magnetic field. it is not some new effect that never happened before, its an effect [we] hadn't noticed before.

It is not that it is an effect we hadn't noticed before, it is that it is an effect that we haven't noticed before so it isn't in the models that the global warming crowd love to use to point out confirming the existence of global warming. It's not a new variable in climate change, but it is a new variable in existing climate change models, which previously did not take it into account. And that's the whole problem with relying on computer model simulations as though they were undeniable fact.

It gets hotter? (5, Funny)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403327)

Larry: This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down.

Interviewer: So, the temperature actually goes up when the sun sets?

Larry: Er, no.

Interviewer: No? What does happen then?

Larry: Um, well... the temperature goes... down, I guess.

Interviewer: Okay. Thanks for that Larry.

Who writes this stuff ? (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403335)

TFA is one of the most confused articles I've seen in a long time.

If Stuart Wolpert had just let the scientists write it, chances are it might be intelligible. As it is it was muddled, convoluted, mis-stated, and just plain wrong on many points.

Never let a journalism student, or worse yet, one who hung around after graduating into the Science buildings.

Re:Who writes this stuff ? (4, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403407)

Something a scientist writes might also be so steeped in jargon that it's less intelligible to anyone not familiar with that particular research field. That's why we need more people like Niel deGrasse Tyson, who can live in the academic world but also communicate very well with non-academics.

Re:Who writes this stuff ? (1)

izomiac (815208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403771)

I've heard someone make the claim that if you understand your research well enough you should be able to accurately describe it to a layman in three sentences or less. I'm not entirely sure I'd agree, unless you relax the term "layman" to mean that they at least remember their introductory course to the subject (e.g. Biology, Chemistry, Physics).

In my own experience, I've seen the full spectrum of jargon use, but it certainly didn't correlate with knowledge or specialization. One of the most knowledgeable people I've seen (some of the research equipment is named after him) used virtually no jargon, but I've also seen many graduate students that can only speak of their research in technical terms. My hypothesis is that the better you understand something, the more ways you can accurately describe it. From there, some people merely choose to use the simplest description.

For that reason, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to expect scientists to write about their research in layman's terms. If this is a weak point for them, then they need more practice. Who knows, maybe it'll give them another perspective. In any case, it'll definitely improve their teaching ability.

I was hoping for (5, Funny)

jnnnnn (1079877) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403345)

Whales and flowerpots.

Disappointment is me.

Re:I was hoping for (2, Funny)

Myrcutio (1006333) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403437)

no no no, that's only on the 42nd day of each month.

Re:I was hoping for (2, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403601)

Don't forget that there is still only 1 out of 8,767,128 chance that it will even happen.

evolution (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403365)

it sounds like the earth has evolved to absorb even rear-facing southward magnetic solar wind. Darwin was right!

Hummer Humbug (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29403463)

Hello, hello, hello. After how much time some REAL Science - and not GreenPeace fictions about Hummers warming the Earth. Not that I think anyone has any sane reason to own or operate such a behemoth. All this "Global Warming" is 100% B.S. run by politicos for their own unlisted agendas.

Re:Hummer Humbug (-1, Offtopic)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403649)

Why? What is wrong with a hummer. I keep talking to the wife about it, but hey. Sure, it might warm things up a bit, but I really do not think that anybody is blaming Global Warming on that. Well, not that I have heard. Of course, some wives, GF might be opposed to it, but different strokes, for different folks. Literally.

Re:Hummer Humbug (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403817)

Good point, Hummers are not on the road long enough to burn much fuel anyway.
Their point is not transport, it is a status symbol to say to the world "I'm rich and so is my mechanic".
Patriots also buy the things to send the message - "We won the Cold War and here's proof the USA can match the crappiest stuff out of the Communist Bloc".

Forgot one (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403845)

Military buffs get the things to show that they too can get the quality you expect from the lowest bidder at a special inflated military price.

Re:Hummer Humbug (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403861)

hehehe. Sorry. I am really punchy. I have been up working on rebuilding a system for a bit . You may wish to check out that last definition here [wikipedia.org] and re-read what I wrote (or should I re-read your post?).

Re:Hummer Humbug (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404113)

Ok, now I know a bit more US slang.
The last mixup was "pasties" which are a sort of english folded pie and a cover for nipples in places bizzare enough to have strip shows where nipples must be hidden. Seems pointless, and I got a good laugh out of being called naive by some guy that was paying money to not see nipples.

Re:Hummer Humbug (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404167)

hehehehe. Yeah, I love the differences in slang. Way too funny. My wife is UK-borne Indian and sometimes interesting to hear what she has to say about the language.

Normally, I try to assume that somebody is from another country before assuming the worse about them. It pays off more often than not. What is odd is how many /.ers assume that everybody is American.

BTW, I am not certain, but I think that pasties are pretty much gone, except for waitresses. It was something from the 50's, in 'respectable' places like Las Vegas. To be honest, I would not be surprised if I am wrong. I could see places in the bible belt requiring them.

Whoosh! (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403939)

Then again...
This IS Slashdot, so it is quite understandable that many might first think of a Hummer [wikipedia.org] instead of a hummer [wikipedia.org] , despite all those references OP made to "wives" and "girlfriends".

maybe (1, Interesting)

rphy (1614581) | more than 4 years ago | (#29403635)

... its HAARP

Hotter when the sun went down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29404003)

"This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down"
Oh really? He's never been to New Mexico, then. I swear it has sometimes become hotter after the sun's gone down during the summers.

IRREVERENT AND RATHER OFF-TOPIC ANONYMOUS COWARD POWERS ENGAGE!

Shortwave propagation (4, Interesting)

dtmos (447842) | more than 4 years ago | (#29404325)

To me, the most interesting point of this discovery is that it should improve our understanding of shortwave radio propagation.

It has always frustrated me that the same space program that is producing the data needed to understand the physics needed to make accurate, day-to-day predictions of ionospheric propagation -- a hundred-year-old mystery -- is also the same space program that replaced commercial HF communication with satellites, greatly reducing the economic value of such predictions (and, therefore, the science funding to make them). So now that we have the ability, we no longer have the desire . . . unless one is an amateur radio operator, and it's harder to think of an entity lower on the economic value chain than that.

The most difficult path for shortwave links is one that passes near the magnetic poles, like the path from Southeast Asia to the US East Coast that passes over the north magnetic pole. Energy from the solar wind couples into the Earth's magnetic field; in particular, charged particles are directed parallel to the field. This is great for propagation over most of the planet; however, near the poles the magnetic field becomes vertical and these particles are directed perpendicular to the ground, where they form a ring of radio wave attenuation and refraction [noaa.gov] in the upper atmosphere that closes this path for many days out of a given month. To open this path there has to be minimal energy coupling from the solar wind, and there is very little understanding of when this will occur. Even the best propagation prediction software (e.g., VOACAP [voacap.com] and Proplab Pro [spacew.com] ) is based on statistics, giving one the probability of a given path being open.

This discovery should add to our understanding of how and when these paths will open. Until then, we have to survive on "Space Weather" web sites like [noaa.gov] these [qsl.net] , and turn on a radio to see for ourselves what the day brings.

(Those interested in an accessible introduction to HF propagation can check out K9LA's propagation site [verizon.net] .)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>