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!

Solar Cycle 24 Has Started

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the tell-me-where-the-flare-is dept.

Space 258

radioweather writes "Solar physicists have been waiting for the appearance of a reversed-polarity sunspot to signal the start of the next solar cycle. As of Friday, that wait is over. A magnetically reversed, high-latitude sunspot emerged on the surface of the sun. Just a few months ago, an 'All Quiet Alert' had been issued for the sun. This reversed-polarity sunspot marks the beginning of the sun's return back to Solar Maximum. Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to competing forecasts on whether it will be a highly active or a quiet low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of validity for some CO2 based global warming theories. Only time will tell."

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

Impossible (3, Funny)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 6 years ago | (#21931910)

Reversed polarity? These scientists have seen too much Star Trek.

Re:Impossible (5, Funny)

deniable (76198) | more than 6 years ago | (#21931936)

Someone needs to remodulate the flow of coffyon particles through the navigational percolator.

Re:Impossible (4, Funny)

polar red (215081) | more than 6 years ago | (#21931940)

that would make great coffee

Re:Impossible (2, Funny)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933118)

What's all that churning and bubbling? You call that a radar screen?
No sir, we call it Mr. Coffee. Would you like a cup?

Re:Impossible (2, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933732)

YES! I always have coffee when I watch radar. You know that!
Of course I do, sir.

No! (3, Funny)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#21931966)

It's tetryons [memory-alpha.org] , you insenstive clod.

Re:No! (1)

AWhistler (597388) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932162)

I would, but I just can't fit all those pieces together neatly. I'll stick with coffyons.

Re:No! (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932394)

Try gluons or you may have more luck with Tachyons, they take longer to set.

Re:Impossible (5, Informative)

Frozen Void (831218) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932104)

Reversed Polarity is just change from + to - or south to north. Nothing magical about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle [wikipedia.org]
The physical basis of the solar cycle was elucidated in the early twentieth century by George Ellery Hale and collaborators, who in 1908 showed that sunspots were strongly magnetized (this was the first detection of magnetic fields outside the Earth), and in 1919 went on to show that the magnetic polarity of sunspot pairs:

        * is always the same in a given solar hemisphere throughout a given sunspot cycle;
        * is opposite across hemispheres throughout a cycle;
        * reverses itself in both hemispheres from one sunspot cycle to the next.

Re:Impossible (4, Funny)

mboverload (657893) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932202)

NEXT TIME ON 24!

Bill Buchanan: The Sun is going to destroy Los Angeles if we don't stop it!
Jack Bauer: Get me on a plane to the moon.

Re:Impossible (4, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932352)

Chloe: Jack, the only flight I can get you on is a Chinese moonshot.

Jack: Damn it Chloe.

Chloe: whimper

Re:Impossible (4, Funny)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932318)

Reversed Polarity is just change from + to - or south to north. Nothing magical about it.
Reversing polarity can really break stuff, though. I hope the sun's got a diode.

Re:Impossible (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932366)

Don't worry it runs on AC.

Re:Impossible (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932858)

But does it run...

Oh, never mind :P

Re:Impossible (5, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933792)

Yes, imagine a Beowulf cluster of Suns!

Re:Impossible (2, Funny)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933970)

that would be way too milky ...

Re:Impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932866)

That's right, I'm a powerhouse!

Re:Impossible (3, Informative)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932378)

Reversed Polarity is just change from + to - or south to north. Nothing magical about it.
But of course. That's obvious. Which means it's a joke. How can anyone take such a comment seriously? On slashdot of all places? And it was modded down too!

I think we've been invaded by non-slashdotter aliens.

Re:Impossible (3, Informative)

mindwhip (894744) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932922)

*sigh* its Doctor Who... and the correct quote is reverse the polarity of the neutron flow". Star Trek stole the idea later....

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

Re:Impossible (1)

mindwhip (894744) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932962)

Of course what I mean is while Star Trek did it once, Doctor Who started the trend of using the same phrase to explain 100 different technobabble things ;)

This is Simply a Sign (5, Funny)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 6 years ago | (#21931960)

Everyone knows that the last time there was some kind of reversal of polls on the Earth, the entire world lost electrical power for thousands of years and the whole planet was shattered into pieces!! We're lucky that gravity pulled it all together again and that electricity was discovered by Thomas Jefferson a few hundred years later. I think this is a sign of the creator's anger because we're all talking about man having come from monkeys instead of the real truth of Intelligent Design. It's a warning. If we don't get evolution theories out of the schools and replaced with science fact soon, he'll make more reversed spots on the sun and it will shatter into pieces. I don't think we'll survive that this time.

discredit global warming theories? no way (3, Insightful)

altoz (653655) | more than 6 years ago | (#21931972)

That's why they started using the new term "climate change". If it gets cooler, they'll say "see, the climate is changing". They'll come up with some weather model that predicts a short-term cooldown but a long term warming. Either that or they'll use a different set of data to say that the warming is happening and that cooling is an illusion.

Just watch, when billions are at stake, dis-crediting will prove incredibly difficult.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (2, Funny)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932006)

Let me guess.

You're part of the "9-11 Truth" committee... you think HIV doesn't cause AIDS... you think MMR vaccine causes autism... and your presidential candidate of choice is Ron Paul.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (0, Troll)

altoz (653655) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932056)

> You're part of the "9-11 Truth" committee... you think HIV doesn't cause AIDS... you think MMR vaccine causes autism... and
> your presidential candidate of choice is Ron Paul.


Let me answer. I think 9-11 truth is a bunch of crock. I do think HIV causes AIDS. I think autism is genetic and I support Clinton and McCain (registered Democrat, btw). I'm going to make a guess here and say that you're an incredibly poor guesser and very quick to jump to opinions. That means you're either a liberal Democrat or an extreme conservative Republican, but given the AIDS/Ron Paul remark, I'm going to guess that you're a liberal Democrat and a troll.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932336)

And I'm gonna guess you have no sense of humour and wouldn't recognize a joke if it stood up and slapped you.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933424)

Isn't there a prerequisite for a joke to be funny and not some disguised brush off as a wacko?

I might have to update my "remember to laugh" book here. Please tell me if i am wrong.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933856)

It was funny because it was a brush off of a wacko. Of course, if you are the same sort of wacko, it won't be funny. But evidently enough people with mod points aren't 'no-such-thing-as-human-caused-climate-change' wackos to get the joke modded up. Doesn't that just piss you off?

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

joshv (13017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932648)

If you are a climate change skeptic, please spend a few days researching AIDS dissidents - you might find their research compelling. Google AIDS dissidents or AIDS rethinkers, and The Perth Group. The former AIDS researcher Rebecca Culshaw is also a very interesting place to start.

I am constantly disheartened when AIDS dissent gets lumped in with 9-11 conspiracy theories.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (5, Funny)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932786)

And I am constantly disheartened when I hear of this bullshit... even more painfully so, given my experience in the field of virology and immunology research.

Actually, I find "AIDS dissent", as you call it, far far more disturbing than the "9-11 Truth" conspiracy. At least in the case of "9-11 Truth", there remains at least SOME possibility for at least SOME of the minor claims of the conspiracy theorists. The case of "AIDS dissent" on the other hand, is rather similar to "gravity dissent".

P.S. As with any AIDS/HIV conspiracy theorist, I have a standing offer: inoculate yourself with 10X ID50 of purified HIV, and if you get a productive infection, but don't get AIDS, you get all my property, and the entire contents of my bank account... and I will quit biological science research. Deal?

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (0, Flamebait)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933202)

"I am constantly disheartened when AIDS dissent gets lumped in with 9-11 conspiracy theories."

Why!?!? They both contain the same amount of bullshit. I've got plenty of friends who would be glad to help you prove that HIV doesn't cause AIDS; you can share some needles with them or the like and later write to us and explain to us how the government slipped AIDS into your milk or the like.

If you'd heard all the asinine "causes" of AIDS I heard in the 1980's, you'd see why we're fine with using Occam's Razor in your case as well.

Just out of curiosity, are you a vegan/vegetarian?(no flame intended...I'm truly curious though I won't tell you why without an answer)

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

kabz (770151) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932746)

Let's hope for all our sakes that McCain and Clinton never run on the same ticket!

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933100)

Actually it is the Mercury based preservitives in the MMR vacine that causes autism due to it accumulating in the brain.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933452)

I have read a lot about mercury being linked to Autism. I remember reading something about a guy who was doing mercury decontamination to children with some positive effects*wasn't a complete cure but reduced the symptoms quite a bit). He was eventually jailed and lost his medical license because none of the treatments were FDA approved.

I think the mercury and lead links to autism have almost vanished since then. I wish I could remember his name.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932084)

you think MMR vaccine causes autism

Maybe it does [google.com] ?

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (3, Insightful)

ZombieWomble (893157) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932206)

There is no good scientific evidence linking MMR to autism, or even decent circumstantial evidence supporting such a link. Most of the experiments claiming to indicate such a link have been thoroughly discredited, and the theories claiming to explain the possible cause and effect are mostly junk, too. Case in point: you posted a link to a video about thiomersal, a mercury-based compound used in some vaccines (presumably thiomersal, anyway, as I only read the blurb to verify it was the standard "evil mercury" story). Despite there being no convincing evidence of a link between thiomersal and autism either, is often implicated in the stories about how MMR causes autism. The problem is the MMR vaccine does not contain thiomersal, and indeed never has, so the attempts to explain one in terms of the other is baffling.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932406)

The problem is the MMR vaccine does not contain thiomersal, and indeed never has, so the attempts to explain one in terms of the other is baffling.
Other than that it's a swell theory.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (2, Insightful)

catchblue22 (1004569) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933132)

Brace yourself for a propaganda deluge from climate change denialists now that solar activity IS actually increasing (at least as part of its usual cycle). Never mind that solar activity has trended downwards [royalsociety.org] since 1980, and yet we have experienced the most significant GLOBAL warming since then, including the shocking drop [youtube.com] in arctic sea ice this fall. Climate change denialists know no shame.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (0)

kylben (1008989) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933484)

Never mind that solar activity has trended downwards since 1980, and yet we have experienced the most significant GLOBAL warming since then
The solar cycle theory of GW says that decreased solar activity increases temperature, not lowers it. It has to do with, IIRC, the solar magnetic field blocking cosmic ray flux, cosmic rays being a major influence on low level cloud formation, and low-level clouds reflecting infrared back into the atmosphere.

So even your short-term statistical anecdotal evidence supports one of the skeptics' theories.

I won't even bother with your misleading arctic ice assertion, because I'm sure you won't care. Anthropogenic catastrophic global warming is no less a hoax than 9-11 truthers, HIV not causing AIDS, vaccinations causing autism, the "staged" moon landing, UFOs, intelligent design, and Rusty from K5 being Cowboy Neal's secret gay lover...

Ooops, I wasn't supposed to let that one out yet.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933918)

Okay, so show us the data from a reputable source like the NOAA showing the trend in low level cloud cover. Should be simple to test that theory.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21933620)

Really, because that proof is a statistical one. Let's make two assumptions: measles causes autism in susceptible children and the damaging part is not deactivated in the measles vaccine; all children catch measles because it is so common. Result: vaccinations cause susceptible children to become autistic. However, the stats say there has been no change in the overall rate of austism. Yet we started this with a clear link between them. Well, we left out the time frame part of vaccination to autism but, hey, so do all the studies because they looked at whole populations in general and not individuals in short time frames. Result: individuals being damaged but overall no change. The thing I hate about statistics being quoted is that depending on what question you ask can get you a different result and most of the time you never see the question just the headline. Statisics does not disprove all links just like that, it only disproves the link you questioned.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

kenspi (1213804) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933752)

Your post was off topic, but I have to reply.

You must have an office on K Street, and get frequent visits from the pharmaceutical companies. The evidence I've seen showed that thimerosal was indeed added to MMR and other childhood vaccines in the 90's and into the 2000's, and IS STILL IN SOME FLU VACCINES. It took public outcry and state government intervention to get thimerosal removed from childhood vaccines. While research has shown that the MMR and other vaccines themselves do not cause autism, science HAS proven that mercury does cripple neuron development. The effects of mercury in a developing brain are not unlike those exhibited by many people diagnosed with autism (everything's developing normally for a few years, then suddenly starts regressing). The mercury may be the trigger for someone who's at risk of autism.

The previous link seems to come from an organization with an agenda, and leaves opportunity for suspicion. This one, however http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDnfeIwd0wI [youtube.com] , is from University of Calgary. While their research was based on "safe levels" of mercury-based amalgams used in dentistry, the effects of mercury on the brain cannot be disputed. I doubt they have much bias other than to progress research.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932304)

Let me guess. You're part of the "9-11 Truth" committee... you think HIV doesn't cause AIDS... you think MMR vaccine causes autism... and your presidential candidate of choice is Ron Paul.
Regardless of the GPs other beliefs, he's right about the climate debate. Whether or not climate change is actually happening, whether or not the change is caused largely by man, the public debate on this matter has been thoroughly perverted from a scientific into a political debate, by all sides involved. Believers of global warming may well be right, and there is some evidence that they are (though not nearly as overwhelming as Gore would have you believe). But when the debate is no longer about science but about agendas, power and money, you'll have a hard time getting anyone accept proof that would run counter to the belief that we are the cause of global warming. Even just publishing that proof to the masses may prove hard.

It'll take a miracle to get politicians and environmentalists of the global warming bandwagon; it's the perfect pretext to further their agendas. Well, a miracle, or half a decade of moderate weather. Remember how fast the fears of an oncoming ice age melted under a few warm summers?

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (0)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932498)

Whether or not climate change is actually happening, whether or not the change is caused largely by man, the public debate on this matter has been thoroughly perverted from a scientific into a political debate, by all sides involved. Believers of global warming may well be right, and there is some evidence that they are (though not nearly as overwhelming as Gore would have you believe). But when the debate is no longer about science but about agendas, power and money, you'll have a hard time getting anyone accept proof that would run counter to the belief that we are the cause of global warming. Even just publishing that proof to the masses may prove hard.
Yes, just like the 99.9% of scientists in relevant fields who accept atomic theory, general relativity, and the heliocentric solar system are just doing so to make themselves rich and powerful at the public's expense.

You sound like a creationist who tries to shelter his fantasy against reality by claiming that scientists are just trying to discredit religion so they won't have to go to church.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932780)

I really, really feel bad for you. Not only for this post, but also for all your other replies to this article.

Have fun in your reality.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (0, Troll)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932814)

Yes, just like the 99.9% of scientists in relevant fields who accept atomic theory, general relativity, and the heliocentric solar system are just doing so to make themselves rich and powerful at the public's expense.
Do you perhaps mean 99.9% of the scientists who are actually quoted when the climate issue comes up? There are many who are not heard. And what is it that these 99.9% of them actually agree on?

1 - The earth is getting warmer on average (probable, even though temperature statistics alone fail to significantly indicate this as yet)
2 - CO2 levels are up (very certain).
3 - CO2 is the leading cause for this temperature increase (uncertain, some have suggested solar activity, and others suggest that increased CO2 is the result of an increasing temperature rather than the cause of it. It could be both cause and effect as well)
4 - CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels are a significant factor in the temperature increase (this seems likely if (and that's a big if) point 3 turns out to be true.

You cannot simply say that since most scientists agree on point 1, they therefore agree on points 2-4 as well. But that's exactly the sort of sloppy reporting we see so often on TV. The IPCC report did the same thing by the way: the science itself in the report is reasonably sound, but the summary and conclusion draw some rather wild and rash conclusions from the data. There was some last-minute "political" editing going on to make things seem more dire, and more certain, than the research actually indicated. This is why a bunch of scientists who collaborated on the IPCC report did not stand behind it when they read the conclusion. By no means do 99.9% of the experts in the field agree on point 3, not even close.

I stand by my previous statement: while we may be the actual cause of global warming, most of the debate is political rather than scientific, and scientists are not nearly as unanimous in their conclusions as is suggested in the media.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933658)

There was some last-minute "political" editing going on to make things seem more dire, and more certain, than the research actually indicated.


Umm... is that why the Bush administration decided to remove every reference to manmade global warming, as well as projections of all negative effects of global warming from the last NOAA (or whatever it's called) reports? They were just correcting for the bias of the scientists that would receive so much money ($ 0.00) if they falsified the report to say that humans are causing global warming and that it will bite us in the ass?

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

alexj33 (968322) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932876)

I call bullsh** on your post.

Are you implying that 99.9% of scientists agree with manmade global warming? News Flash: Desperate cries of a few scientists saying that "the science is closed" need to be heavily run through the bullsh** filter. It just smells bad.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

nido (102070) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933324)

All good points.

But when the debate is no longer about science but about agendas, power and money,
However would our global elites justify their 'carbon taxes' if it was definitively determined that changes in underwater volcanic activity [sciencedaily.com] was the primary cause behind observed climate changes?

In regards to climate change, this statement is the most reasonable one I've heard:

Select and undertake only those actions which are also worth undertaking for other reasons or for their own sake, until the emergency itself becomes certain. -linky [winwenger.com]


By this criterion, carbon credits and taxes are a distraction from the real problem.

It will not discredit global warming theories (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933394)

Me, I think this is Y2K over again but far larger and we can't just stay up over night to get it done by the deadline. We saw Y2K coming and it wasn't an issue until a few years before the deadline. Naturally, when we averted most problems the activists got no glory and instead were thought of as confirmed alarmists.

The world will not get it this time and we will just be lucky if the nicer projections become the future instead of the worst case ones. We shouldn't have gotten this close to the wire in the first place... Naturally, I'm sure some have been waiting or procrastinating (like consultants waiting so they can charge more; management procrastinating or just uninterested.)

A crisis is a great opportunity and the powerful people of the world are talented at exploiting such situations; they don't need to create them most of the time. Just because its exploited does not mean it doesn't exist. Now the US SS system going under, that is a manufactured crisis (FYI its just fine even if you don't fix any of it; going into national debt for a while is an option nobody dares to mention.)

Governments are guilty until proven innocent and any well designed government is based upon that precept; problem is that the citizens foolishly apply the opposite precept which is for the criminal justice system not for government.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

alexj33 (968322) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932542)

Could this be the start of the "You must believe in manmade global warming like we do, or you're some sort of nutjob" argument?

Nice.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932034)

Just watch, when billions are at stake, dis-crediting will prove incredibly difficult.
You're speaking as if you know some ultimate truth here?

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932070)

Ha... there are those wacky global-warming-denialists everywhere. A couple of days ago one of them in a Finnish newsgroup tried to use the National Geographic "polar bears of Finland threatened by global warming" blunder to advance his cause... I have even seen people claim that that the greenhouse effect does not exist.

wikipedia: The Earth's average surface temperature of 15 C (59F) is about 33 C (59 F) warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (5, Informative)

Mathiasdm (803983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932118)

Actually, 'climate change' is preferred instead of 'global warming' since it's very much possible that, while the average worldwide temperature is expected to increase, the temperature could decrease in some locations (Example: Gulf stream slowing down causing Europe to become colder)

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1, Insightful)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932364)

If it is one thing we have learned from global warming is that sometimes it can lead to brief periods of global cooling - A Quote from a Global Warming Documentary

Lets just be honest shall we in saying that even after all the huge amount of data we have collected we know very little about what is going to happen as we move forward... Our arrogance in actually thinking we have control over what is going on I find quite interesting. Meaning, to me it is kind of like the 21st century version of the pope trying to explain why the black plague was occuring and what to do about it...

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932684)

Well, my part of Europe (Netherlands) is definitely not growing colder. 12 years ago I moved from the middle of the country to the east part (Enschede, near Gronau). Back then winters with temperatures below -15 were not rare. We also used to have BIG thunderstorms with a LOT of rain falling in a short time. The sky would turn green before the rain, which was a sight to see. Now we have more rain but spread out over a lot of small showers. When there's snow (a normal occurrence in the years before the 1990s) the whole country is in turmoil, and last week, when temperatures were a tiny bit below freezing the weatherman kept going on about it being so very cold outside! The weather sure has changed a lot in the 12 years I live here.
But that's not all. I just read a book about the development of the Netherlands in the Industial Age. Amazing: we had to use icebreakers almost every year because the big rivers froze all the way up to very near the German border! I never have experienced that in my lifetime.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932132)

No, scientists use the term "global climate change" because it more accurately describes what may happen in the future than "global warming." Yes, on average the surface of the earth has been getting warmer globally [nasa.gov] , but it does not mean the entire world will just experience slightly warmer summers and winters. Just a few degrees centigrade has the ability to change ocean currents, wind patterns, and other natural events that regulate our climate.

No junk science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932286)

Actually, if you want to avoid the junk science and understand what real scientists trained in this field (not politicians, TV weather forecasters, sociologists and the other under-qualified catastrophic climate-change proponents) believe, the CGD Climate Research [ucar.edu] is a good source and is very relevant to this solar cycle post.

There are several coefficients they explain that are relevant to the earth's warming and cooling cycles. Also, be sure to read up on what real science has confirmed through ice core samples, helping us understand that CO2 lags, not leads, the warming cycles. As most peer reviewed studies have explained, you cannot have a cause-effect condition where A causes B when B follows A. This is called "correlation without causation" - yes, B and A are seen together a lot but causation cannot be established. It's like saying car accidents cause drunk driving because the two are so often found together. Most of the populist global warming information preys upon this intentional mix-up, either to further specific individuals research funding or provide a public stage. In a sense, you can't blame Al Gore too much - it's provided a hefty meal ticket and a peace prize for him.

But for those interested in objective science and getting to real answers about climate change (yes, there is lots of it!), solar cycles, earth orbit and axis tilt cycles, and cooling effects from exogenous events (asteroid impacts, supervolcano eruptions, etc.) have been demonstrated to provide overwhelmingly strong coefficients to climate variability and geologic change.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932426)

Just watch, when billions are at stake, dis-crediting will prove incredibly difficult.
Yes, how can Big Oil possibly compete against all those super-rich scientists?

shortwave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21931984)

Does this mean I will finally get some interesting stations on my new shortwave radio?

Re:shortwave (2, Interesting)

jrmcferren (935335) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932830)

Conditions will start to improve. The best conditions will be in three to four years when sunspots peak. When the sunspots peak (and if you can receive single sideband), you will be able to hear hams from around the world using milliwatts. There will be times when you can hear all of the bands being active all of the time day and night.

I for one (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932014)

welcome our reversed polarity solar overlords

Too many links (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932028)

I cant find TFA >.

AGW? WTF does THAT mean? (0, Offtopic)

cryophan (787735) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932078)

try writing the intro a bit better, spaz...

Re:AGW? WTF does THAT mean? (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932106)

WTFOMGBBQ - didn't you read the TLA alert [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:AGW? WTF does THAT mean? (3, Interesting)

teslar (706653) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932152)

That's no intro, that's text ripped directly from TFA - which is almost worse in a way. As for AGW, well, use your brain and have an educated guess. What's on everybody's mind these days? That's right, Global Warming. And what's the big debate around this? Right again, whether or not we're responsible for it, i.e. whether or not it's Anthromorphic.

Re:AGW? WTF does THAT mean? (2, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932360)

Right again, whether or not we're responsible for it, i.e. whether or not it's Anthromorphic.

Well, anthromorphic isn't even a word. I'm sure you meant to type anthropomorphic, which would then mean that we're attributing human characteristics to global warming. That doesn't make much sense, though. The word you want is anthropogenic.

Re:AGW? WTF does THAT mean? (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932440)

If we're going to anthropomorphize global warming, I'd like to propose a Santa who molests you.

Anthromorphic (1)

The Cornishman (592143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932438)

Anthromorphic would mean that it's man-shaped. Anthrogenic (caused by man) is the word you seek. Geeks should know more Greek.

Re:Anthromorphic (1)

BorgCopyeditor (590345) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932492)

Geeks who know more Greek know that the combining form for "human" is "anthropo-," while the combining form for "man (male human)" is "andro-."

Re:Anthromorphic (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933490)

Geeks who know more English know that "man" is a valid synonym for for "human".

Re:Anthromorphic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21933148)

If anything it would be 'anthropogenic'. And you feel qualified to lecture about knowledge of greek?? STFU, GBTW, those burgers wont flip themselves dimwit.

Glad it's not a menstrual cycle... (2, Funny)

bondjamesbond (99019) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932092)

My wife's starting menstrual cycle #288, and lemme tell you, no "cycle" is fun.

Re:Glad it's not a menstrual cycle... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932172)

Not necessarily. You can always reverse your polarity and explore the other hemisphere.

Re:Glad it's not a menstrual cycle... (1)

hubie (108345) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932882)

It is too bad you got modded down. Maybe it is because I am married as well, but your comment made me laugh out loud.

CO2 based "theories"? (1, Funny)

dtjohnson (102237) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932166)

If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of validity for some CO2 based AGW theories.

There are no more theories to test about carbon dioxide and its effects on global warming, are there? Al Gore and my local talk radio station both say 'the debate is over' and Al got the nobel prize for saying that, plus he invented the internet.

Re:CO2 based "theories"? (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932466)

It's a sexy science with lots of money so there are lots of theories to be tested. We've still got plenty of junk science to fund. We still need a dozen studies on how oil and coal are good for us plus studies to show that CO2 is good for plants.

Re:CO2 based "theories"? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933544)

DO you have an issue with coal and oil? I mean a study saying that aren't bad doesn't mean they are good. It sounds more to me like your on the bandwagon simply to satisfy your desires concerning Coal and oil. Something that seems equally wrong and out of context.

Re: CO2 based "theories"? (1, Troll)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932526)

Al Gore and my local talk radio station both say 'the debate is over'
The scientific debate *is* over, just as the scientific debates over the age of the earth and the reality of evolution are over.

But that doesn't end the _public_ debate, which is kept going because you've got some people who desperately want the public to believe something other than reality.

Re: CO2 based "theories"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932694)

Keep smoking that stuff Black Parrot. Or are you Al Gore?

The scientific debate isn't over, Al Gore won but didn't win, and the Earth is not flat.

Go join the Al Gore Should Be President Flat Earth Global Warming Society to Take Away All SUVs But Let Al Gore Fly His Private Jet and Power His Hungry Energy Inefficient Home.

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932764)

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/ [boston.com]

Facts from this OpEd:

2007 was predicted to be warmest ever
The world grew bitterly cold in 2007
Snow for the first time in 89 years in Buenos Aires
Snow in Daytona Beach
Chile saw worst winter in 50 years
Australia has coldest June ever
New Zealand's vineyards lost most of 2007 harvest due to record cold spring
44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire breaking over 120 years of records
Canada is predicting the coldest winter in 15 years
"Greenhouse gas" CO2 levels are up 4% since 1998 but temp remained flat
Dissenting views have been dismissed - seems like religion to me
Debate isn't over

Sun Spots.... (3, Funny)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932178)

... doesn't someone make a cream for that?

Re:Sun Spots.... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933934)

Let's send up lawyers to pop the Sun's zits.

HAM TLA (-1, Offtopic)

grumling (94709) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932186)

QRP WAS at the QTH!

Re:HAM TLA NOT Off topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932428)

NOT off topic. it means worked all states from his house using low power- easier when you have sunspots.

any ham radio gurus? (2, Interesting)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932204)

what does this mean for radio propagation for the next year or few years? good or bad propagation? lots of RFI?

Re:any ham radio gurus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932348)

Hams are looking forward to the increasing cycle, as this will mean improved propagation.

Re:any ham radio gurus? (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932910)

Hams are looking forward to the increasing cycle, as this will mean improved propagation.
If "increasing cycle" refers to more occurrences of petrified Natalie Portmans with hot grits, then, yeah, I'd look forward to the propagation too!

Re:any ham radio gurus? (3, Interesting)

Enleth (947766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932368)

That depends. Generally speaking, high solar activity is good because the ionosphere is ionised enough and deflects the radio waves better (that's why there's poor propagation in winter - less solar radiation reaches the more distant hemisphere due to longer nights and lower angle). However, too high activity causes interferences and distrupts communication. So it's the best when the Sun is moderately active.

Re:any ham radio gurus? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932558)

More solar activity means better propogation at higher frequencies. For Example, 21 MHz, 28, MHz, and 50 MHz bands open up for long distance HF communication. But during periods of low sunspot activity these bands may only be usable for local communications.

Why this is interesting... (1, Funny)

Bazman (4849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932520)

...because 95% of slashdot-reading geeks have no connection to the Lunar cycle. :)

Re:Why this is interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21933902)

OK I'm just gonna go ahead and give this a preemptive

WHOOOOOSH!!!

for good measure. You're gonna need it.

Re:Why this is interesting... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933966)

...because 95% of slashdot-reading geeks have no connection to the Lunar cycle. :)

You mean solar cycle. We *do* come out at night for pizza hops.
   

Priorities... (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 6 years ago | (#21932728)

Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to competing forecasts on whether it will be a highly active or a quiet low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of validity for some CO2 based global warming theories.
...but far more importantly, how long it will take until my shortwave reception improves.

doh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21932896)

The real global warming reason revealed!! ha

Cycle # (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933362)

How do they know this is cycle number 24 ? The sun has been going for over 4.5 billion years, so it must have had millions of cycles...

Why Jan 1 1970 as the epoch? (2, Informative)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933502)

Because it's convenient. Just as with the arbitrary number for the UNIX epoch, the Carrington rotation [wikipedia.org] number, the NOAA active region [nasa.gov] numbers, and the solar cycle number are just sequential starting at an arbitrary time.

(okay, ARs cycled at 10,000 in 2002 so it's only 4 digits, but it's still a sequence)

The "Ham Radio New Year" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21933378)

Thank God the hams checked in. I thought all hope was lost here, turning yet another topic with at least some hope of being centered around DIY techie hobbies into just another stream of political BS. I may have set the min too high, but I was surprised Intelligent Design didn't make it in here somewhere. All the other crackpots sure came out on this lovely Sunday morning.

ANYWAY, after 14 years as a Technician (formerly "No Code Tech") class operator, I finally passed my General about a month ago so that I can actually get on the air when the prop returns. I didn't think 11 years would really feel that long, yet pass by so quickly. I'm ready to get on board for this one, and I hope my first is going to be a good one. I've had a 10m rig for 10 years that I was planning to convert into a 2m IF rig for microwave work, but then AO-40 died and its tough to find microwave sigs on the birds anymore. Now I'll be able to use it straight up. I've also been SWLing PSK and SSTV for years now, and will probably buy or build a K2 or K3 and the Small Wonder PSK20 in time for the summer. I'm a condo dweller and my options are severely limited, unfortunately, but I hope to do something interesting with the few options available to me. This antenna - http://degood.org/coaxtrap/ [degood.org] - interests me as my 4th-floor attic centerline almost perfectly runs north-south and I'm near Central NJ. Good shots to the west and Europe - not so much to the retirees in Florida, though. If I can work Europe on 2 watts PSK31, I will be very excited.

Doh... This is going to HURT !! (1)

FirstOne (193462) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933636)

Solar Irradiance verses Sunspots [wikipedia.org] ..

Ouch.. in a couple of years the Sun is going to add another 0.3 of Watts/m^2 to the Earth's energy imbalance problem!

With any luck the AGW deniers will finally get a clue !

Magnetogram and light (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21933920)

I did a bit if web reading on how magnetograms are made. It appears they use the polarity of light itself to determine the magnetic field on the surface. At first I had a silly vision of a bunch of tiny magnets on sticks "pointing" to different parts of the sun, like magnetic pixel detectors. But one cannot really "aim" magnets like that.

But isn't the polarity of light at any given spot composed of an intensity of polarity and an angle, 1 to 180 degrees since its bipolar? But they seem to use only black and white for the "angle". Shouldn't they assign colors to each of the 180 possible angles? What does black and white correspond to? I need some education here.
     
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?