Sunspot Activity Continues To Drop 435
slreboy writes "The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower. The year 2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73 percent). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87 percent)..."
fun with statistics (Score:0, Insightful)
there was no sunspot activity yesterday. that's 1 out of 1 day or 100% !!
idiots.
Maybe we're on the wrong side of the sun? (Score:0, Insightful)
We can't know how many sunspots there really are if we're only seeing only half the surface of our star, right?
Like for like. (Score:1, Insightful)
Comparing a 90 day period to a 365 day period isn't a like for like comparison (obviously). Statistically it's meaningless. Why not pick a 1 day period when there wasn't a spot in 2008 and there wasn't a spot in 2009 and say "Sun spot activity is unchanged!". It's silly.
I wonder.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Should we implement a green tax in order to help the sun get its spots back?
On the other hand maybe the sun has discoved clearasil..
Re:fun with statistics (Score:2, Insightful)
Trolling aside, the sun doesn't follow the Gregorian calendar. Making statistics using the Gregorian calendar is therefore irrelevant at best.
Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The Sun does effect global temperature
2) It's effects are pretty immediate
3) The Global Warming Trend does not follow the Sun activities close enough for it to be the cause of the trend.
4) The only thing we know of at this time that could be causing this global warming trend is CO2
5)We are talking about the release of trillions of tons of CO2 that has been buried for millions of years.
6) If we keep increasing will will make the planet uninhabitable by us.
7) We have workable solutions to this right now.
Re:Here we go... (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the earth has actually been getting cooler since 2004. I also thought the earth constantly went through cycles of heating and cooling. What we do does affect the planet, by all means. How MUCH it is affecting is still very much up for debate.
Me, I like better fuel economy standards and tighter restrictions on discharges into lakes and streams, mainly because I breathe air and drink water. Unfortunately, the environment is now a tool for getting funding and to get that funding, you must agree with "conventional wisdom". THAT is why so many scientists agree. I'm sure that back in the 1600s, you had to agree that the earth was flat to get funding as well.
The best science that money can buy isn't always the best science.
Re:Here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Oceans operate on different time scales, no? So is "pretty immediate" geological time or something or a day or so?
3) Could be problems with this point based on 2. And by "trend" what are we talking about. There doesn't seem to be much of an upward trend lately. So if you are thinking the last couple of years have been on an upward trend, that's wrong. If you expand that timeline, we may still be on an upward trend.
4) "The only thing we know"
Given the lack of ability to put past weather information in a predictive model and get accurate results, I would say we don't know much at all.
My climate scientist friend I once spoke to almost 10 years ago now was more skeptical. Even if C02 does what you say, are there feedback loops that mitigate the warming? Cloud cover, stuff like that. We don't know.
6) You don't know 6 is true at all.
7) While I remain skeptical of global warming, I want to get off foreign oil in general. So may I propose a workable solution that many environmentalists don't like: nuclear power. Cut the red tape and streamline the process.
Re:Like for like. (Score:5, Insightful)
One day doesn't form a statistically significant sample, 365 days do.
Re:fun with statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here we go... (Score:2, Insightful)
You should pay more for your history.
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Now either disprove it, as GP did with the "sun causes global warming" theory, or provide another that also fits the evidence. You don't get to ignore a scientific theory just because you don't like the conclusion.
Re:Here we go... (Score:3, Insightful)
7) While I remain skeptical of global warming, I want to get off foreign oil in general. So may I propose a workable solution that many environmentalists don't like: nuclear power. Cut the red tape and streamline the process.
Which is ironic, because it's one of the most environmentally friendly means to generate power we have. The waste is well contained, and if we built newer reactors we wouldn't have to worry about waste at all.
Re:Like for like. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so. We have two statistical samplings, one with n=90, one with n=365. Based on the sample sizes and some other info, we can establish a confidence interval. Yes, the interval will be larger for the 90-day sample... but just because we can't be 100% confident of the exact results doesn't mean it's statistically meaningless.
One other note -- historical data must be used to establish that there are not periodic cycles with a frequency of less than one year, which would make the 90-day sample set inaccurate.
Re:Like for like. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's simply an early trend, which may point towards further decreasing sunspot activity. I hope you're not seriously trying to tell us you believe there's no difference between a 90-day sample period and a 1-day sample period.
Also, from the article, please note that scientists are not completely brain-dead:
Pesnell believes sunspot counts should pick up again soon, "possibly by the end of the year," to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013. But like other forecasters, he knows he could be wrong. Bull or bear? Stay tuned for updates.
In other words, they're not simply extrapolating the entire year based on a 90-day cycle. Rather, they're looking at how this period fits into a larger trend.
Re:Here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought the earth has actually been getting cooler since 2004. I also thought the earth constantly went through cycles of heating and cooling. What we do does affect the planet, by all means. How MUCH it is affecting is still very much up for debate.
Don't confuse speed with position. While 2008 was the coldest year since 2000, it is still the ninth warmest year since 1880 [xinhuanet.com]. Global warming theories do not require a strictly increasing average global temperature over time.
Re:An Inconvenient Preemptive Strike (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here we go... (Score:2, Insightful)
"The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
I agree with getting off the oil habit, but those worshiping in the church of global warming are going about it all wrong. President hopeychange is planning to "spread the warmth" around to the less fortunate planets in our solar system. A new 167% income tax on those filthy rich making over $13,000 per year will be used to load our excess heat into large gas-bags shaped like Rush Limbaugh and delivered to our unfortunate neighbors that are only cold because of our oppression.
--I have no sig
Re:Here we go... (Score:1, Insightful)
Wow I didn't know that the US has less gun violence than Japan......
Talk about statistical cherry-picking.
Re:Like for like. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More Politically Correct BS - The SUN is the pr (Score:3, Insightful)
You should hope you're wrong. The good thing about the global warming scare, true or false, is it gives the masses of dumb people some kind of tangible cost in the near future for their use of an unsustainable and unhealthy energy policy.
The backlash against "global warming" hype will have the opposite effect, it will make people say 'fuck it, I'm gonna drive an SUV and leave my AC at 68 degrees all day'.
Global warming is not the only (potential, if you buy into it) problem with our energy policy. Another is just plain old air quality. Our air quality is shit, and one big reason is our use of hydrocarbons.
Another flaw is that, holy shit! Guess what?! There's only so much oil and coal in the ground and it's going to get more and more expensive to pull out of the ground!
Then of course there's the US (and other country) blood spilled in pointless middle east wars, etc...
The people most scared and scary about global warming may or may not be dumbasses. But at least the actions it makes them drive towards are the right actions.
Re:Venus (Score:1, Insightful)
There isn't any current history of temperature trends on Venus.
However, there are of Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, and Pluto.
As the most mind-boggling coincidence EVAR, all five show global warming over the last 30 years that correlate with the rising temperature trends on Earth in that period.
Since that's too much to give any credit to as being purely a mind-boggling coincidence, the ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION is that our evil CO2-emitting ways are completely 100% responsible not only for our own planet warming a smidgen (until 1998, anyhow) but EVERY OTHER MEASURED PLANET IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM AS WELL.
It's just amazing how trivial human actions are the only allowable explanation for universal phenomena, isn't it? Why, we should have a name for that. We could call it 'religion', perhaps.
Common sense doesn't work well in some cases (Score:3, Insightful)
... like guns, or global warming.
In general, our common sense fails us badly whenever we're looking at rare events -- and in spite of what the evening news may make you believe, shootings are rare events. The solution is to look to science and statistics rather than common sense.
The correct approach to gun regulation is to examine the numbers and look at what kinds of gun control actually have beneficial effects on crime rates. Also, we need to analyze the incidence of crimes prevented by gun ownership. Even the Brady Campaign acknowledges about 100,000 such per year in the US; pro-gun organizations estimate much larger numbers.
These numbers can provide a truly rational basis for making decisions about gun control, which we can then balance appropriately against the limitation of human rights imposed by gun control, which is where common sense comes in.
If common sense alone were sufficient, we wouldn't need science and math.
Getting back to (or at least closer to) the topic, science is the right way to approach questions about global warming and man's impact on it as well. In both cases, our approach may change the more we learn, but the RIGHT way to handle it is to make policy supported by our best scientific understanding... with an appropriate appreciation for the limits of that understanding, and balancing the policy changes against impacts on people and their way of life.
"Balancing", BTW, doesn't mean "ignore the science if it would upset the economy", but it does mean that pragmatic concerns must be considered and weighed against the risks predicted by the science... and those risks must be evaluated not only in terms of likely severity, but also in terms of degree of certainty.
Re:Venus (Score:3, Insightful)
There isn't any current history of temperature trends on Venus.
However, there are of Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, and Pluto.
As the most mind-boggling coincidence EVAR, all five show global warming over the last 30 years that correlate with the rising temperature trends on Earth in that period.
And I suppose you have sources for this data you claim exists? You know, so we can all examine it?
There are no "climate scientists" (Score:3, Insightful)
There are only weather forecasters. Climate science is not science, that would require testability and we don't have anything to test with. When weather forecasters start chucking millions of tonnes of sulphate aerosols (or whatever) into the atmosphere, then it will be science.
Re:Here we go... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:this is an old specious argument (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, because Prohibition worked so well with alcohol, and works so well with drugs. The majority of gun crime in the US is committed by people who have illegally obtained the weapons in the first place, in violation of existing gun laws. Stricter laws will not do anything to reduce that level of crime.
Here's where maybe we can agree. In Arizona, anyone can obtain a CCW with the appropriate training. I have no problem making people get training to carry a gun, but that right needs to be open to everyone. Also, a factoid. In any given year you can count on one hand the number of gun crimes committed by CCW holders (of which there are many ten-thousands) The city in which I live has gun ownership rate in excess of 50% of the households. There has been one gun related murder in the last 5 years, and that was an illegal alien Mexican drug dealer that ended up dead in a retail parking lot. He brought his problems with him. 1 person in five years with a population of more than 20K with more than 10K guns present tells me that guns are not the problem. If free access to guns was the primary cause, then the murder rate in my city would be off the chart. it is not.
Just because something seems obvious does not mean it is true. As my statistics teacher taught me (or maybe is was my chemistry teacher), correlation does not imply causality.
Yes, it's obvious that if there were no guns they would be no gun crime. There would be other types of violent crime though, human nature being what is is. There would be 40k less deaths a year from cars if there were no cars, so we should make it really hard to get those too.
My proposal is proper training as a requirement to have either. There is a reason that speed limits in Germany are higher than the US, yet the per-capata death rate for drivers in Germany is markedly lower, and that is proper training.
Also, I'd like to direct your attention to the fact that the recent spate of shootings in the US occurred in states that have some of the strictest gun laws. Ironic, no?
Re:more fun with statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
the sun is the source of all life on this planet
All life on this planet? [wikipedia.org]
Re:fun with statistics (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
That's probably the most profound thought I've read this year...
You must not have thought about it.
Re:Here we go... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, that's a bit more questionable, isn't it? There has been casually observable evidence for the Earth's roundness in certain places (shorelines, where one has an opportunity to see a ship vanish over the horizion hull first, rather than just get too small to see), and if one knows the mechanism causing a lunar eclipse, the always circular shadow of the earth strongly suggests it's spherical.
OTOH, the geometry of the lunar eclipses was not well understood by most 'ordinary' people (even today), many didn't live on seashores, and historically, most people were illiterate and unable to read descriptions about these things. So, it is pretty unlikely 'the overwhelming majority of people' would think you were a nutter for proposing the earth was flat.
Perhaps the parent exaggerated a bit, and meant that throughout recorded history, the idea that the earth was round instead of flat was known by educated people of the times, and accepted as true by a significant proportion.
Re:fun with statistics (Score:1, Insightful)
Furthermore, the sun is approximately 1,676,700,000,000 days old. How significant is a sample of less than %0.00000000025?
Re:Venus (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen, I'm not going to argue the science but what drives me bonkers about both sides of the Global Warming debate is that it completely misses the point that affects us and our surroundings the most: pollution.
Heavy metals in the water, shitty particles in the air, poison in our food. I don't understand why we bicker about the temperature when it's undeniable how much trash we have injected in to our surroundings.
Is clean air, water, and food too much to ask? I'm not even talking about deforestation, over-fishing, and the deleterious affects of industrial agriculture.
We have a footprint, and a great big ugly one at that. We don't live responsibly. Global Warming is a big red herring and I sometimes wonder who benefits from us focusing on it.
So... (Score:3, Insightful)
P.S. the "shift" key down next to the "z" key makes big letters.
Re:Venus (Score:2, Insightful)
....They believe that anthropogenic climate change is real....
That is exactly right, they BELIEVE, but do not know this for a fact. Prestigious bodies of scientists have in the past believed certain things to be true and later turned out to be false.
There are many cycles in nature, climate being just one. There is indeed evidence that long ago the average temperature of the Earth was significantly warmer than it is today. Greenland is called that for a reason. It was within human history once a green land. Ice cores drilled to the bottom of the ice contain molds, pollen and other microscopic evidence of plant life now still in existence on the East Coast of the United States.
Even if we are in a warming cycle at this time, this does not mean we cannot enter a cooling cycle at a later time. Besides, even if it does get warm enough to melt all the ice in Greenland, so what? Would it be so bad to be able to grow food in places now covered with ice? I am quite certain that there are many Canadians who would not mind a milder climate. There is also evidence that the world's ocean where once much lower than they are today.