Surprise Discovery In Earth's Upper Atmosphere 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.
Misleading interpretation (Score:5, Insightful)
Can Its Power Be Tapped? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If I understand correctly then the effect is caused when a solar flare blasts against the earth's normal flow of magnetic energy. When the solar flare blasts the earth's atmosphere in a way that we have less friction then there are less storms. When a flare blasts directly against that normal current we get a lot of storms.
My thought is that it's kind of like spraying a ball with a water hose. As you move towards the side of the sphere some of the water follows the surface of the ball all the way around and
Re: (Score:2)
"The exosphere is the uppermost layer of an atmosphere. In the exosphere, an upward travelling molecule can escape to space if it is moving fast enough to attain escape velocity; otherwise it will be pulled back to the celestial body by gravity. In either case, such a molecule is unlikely to collide with another molecule due to the exosphere's low density."
I believe this is the particular line you were referencing? In which case maybe I do grock what you were getting at.
Re: (Score:2)
The part where global warming was observed without it's presence?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/solarcycle/ [wired.com]
Surprise! Discovery In Earth's Upper Atmosphere (Score:5, Funny)
I know! I know! (Score:3, Funny)
"It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun."
The orbiting teapot [wikipedia.org] must have boiled! ;)
Gosh! (Score:2)
diff eq problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
> "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!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Something else that has been observed but mostly not well understood is how this may effect rainfall. There are a couple of low level magnetic north poles sitting off Perth and they formed about the same time as the rain stopped in that area.
it's still the sun... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the sun is a fan, not a lightbulb?
The Hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not. His basis for discounting this in climate change is false. While its true that this form of energy transfer would have been occurring for as long as our planet has had a magnetosphere it does not follow that the amount of energy transferred via that mechanism has remained static over that time.
Re: (Score:2)
science has left the building folks....
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Additionally just because the mechanism for energy transfer has been present all along does not mean the amount of energy transferred is static. This mechanism could be transferring an increased amount of heat in recent times.
Can anyone actually dismiss this out of hand because it doesn't fit the idea of a primarily human caused global warming and still call it science?
Global warming is a reality in my mind. And quite frankly the track record of climatology results in my own anecdotal experience of temperat
It gets hotter? (Score:5, Funny)
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 ? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I was hoping for (Score:5, Funny)
Whales and flowerpots.
Disappointment is me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't forget that there is still only 1 out of 8,767,128 chance that it will even happen.
Shortwave propagation (Score:5, Interesting)
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].)
that damn sun (Score:2)
What this thread needs... (Score:2)
...is a flame war centred around the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Can one of our atheist friends here on Slashdot outline to us, where this discovery stands in relation to the Second Law? Have we finally arrived at the moment we've all been breathlessly waiting for; the Second Law's violation?
I'm seriously hoping so; I've waited for years now for the ability to have a magnetic motor next to the power supply in my desktop, and run it without plugging it into the wall. That would seriously be awesome. ;)
Yeah, but... (Score:2)
Does it run Linux?
Re: (Score:2)
No. It runs windows. The solution to global warming is to format and load linux on the box. Then it just sit in the closet and gather dust as it runs happily along.
Anyone who admins *nix and windows equipment knows what I mean. The windows boxen stay clean and sparkly. By the time you finally have to physically interact with the *nix machine you'll be choking on the dust.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
At one time scientific consensus was that washing your hands before operating was unnecessary and the man who suggested otherwise was turned into a pariah.
And that "Miasma" was the cause of tuberculosis despite hard evidence to the contrary.
Consensus means absolutely nothing if you are being rational about the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
At one time scientific consensus was that washing your hands before operating was unnecessary . . .
To be fair, that consensus was held before science was applied to the proposition of washing your hands before surgery.
Re: (Score:2)
By your rationale, I would assume you do not know how to read or write, as once upon a time in the not-too-distant past, you couldn't speak, frequently shit your pants, and crawled around all day eating debris off the floor.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you support your premise that all scientists act in concert?
There's some bias in this direction when funding is centralized. I'm sure somebody can provide a concrete example, but as heresay, I've been told that a scientist simply can't get funded for certain areas of investigation.
And not just "way out whacky" stuff, but things that go against the grain. Chugging-vials-of-h.pylori kinds of experiments, for instance. Sometimes the consensus is wrong, yet it's expensive to find that out.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ra
Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (Score:5, Informative)
Have you missed the fact that people all across the nation are angry with both republicans and democrats? More than one republican who assumed that he could just get in front of this movement has been booed off the stage.
Politicians are the problem. The republican/democrat distinction is just a distraction. Both sides want to take away your freedoms and your money - they just pay lip service to different ideals when they do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your unspoken assumption (that the poor and lower class are somehow politically "pure") and revolution must come from the bottom up is ridiculous outmoded 20th century fringe left thinking.
Every western liberal movement in history has been driven by the upper and upper middle classes. Do you people actually think Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were just "middle class" regular Joes? From the Lords in the middle ages who conspired against their king to give us the Magna Carta to the idle over educated we
Re: (Score:2)
WindBourne I've been on this site for many years and you are most definately *not* a Libertarian, you are a Social Democrat through and through.
Stop talking out of your bum it cheapens us all.
Re: (Score:2)
The LMC/"poor" are politically illiterate and are too busy surviving to attend rallies.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
"It does not appear to matter which congress has it, but which president has it."
uh huh
"the dem controlled congress of the 60's/70's, who paid off most of WWII debt"
Make up yer damn mind already.
You Parisians would be amusing if you weren't so sad. The two party system is one of the greatest evils ever pushed upon mankind.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
So the democrats have total control now, so why am I constantly hearing shrill screaming from "the left" about the evil republicans stopping the magical quarter billion person national health care and *never* hearing about the same type of "evil" democrats who are the *real people stopping it*.
If the democrats wanted it they could just vote for it. How does the average "left" wing supporters head not implode from the cognitive dissonance on display at the moment?
Anyway isn't attributing deficits to the Pre
Re: (Score:2)
Republican President & Republican Congress: deficits soar
Republican President & Democratic Congress: deficits increase, but not as much
Democratic President and Democratic Congress: again, deficits increase but not as much as the first pairing, but taxes increase even more
Democratic President and Republican Congress: we get surplusses
The last nine years seem
Re: (Score:2)
Your observation is the result of democrats attempting to play the underdog card. A few posts up someone even attempts to misconstrue the number of seats held by the republicans from 2000 to 2006 without even bothering to check just because this point was hit so hard with him.
The problem is, the people are against most of the health care reforms. I know at least 5 people who claimed to of been life long democrats until the dems started calling them republicans for being against the current health care bills
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Appealing to populist demand is fucking insanely stupid. Shit, why not put Paris Hilton in the VP office at least we know there will be something good to watch, duh doy dee duh doy dee duh.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
It's like a woman, the more you try to understand, the more crazy and disappointed you will be in the end.
You have people here who think down modding means "I don't agree with your post" and that agreement is never subject to reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I suppose its relevant to point out the polarized views we see spewing out of the US are not interacting with the earths magnetosphere.
Or (Score:2)
Re:Or (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
(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: (Score:2)
On the contrary, I think you've hit upon the only logical answer...
Re: (Score:2)
How very neutral of you! [gotfuturama.com]
I hate you filthy neutrals! With enemies you know where they stand, but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me. [gotfuturama.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Lust for gold!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 hel
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The 1000 years does matter though, one always needs a sense of proportion. If it were witihin 100 years, then the required effort needs to be compressed than if it were 1000 years. Also, the ways to solve the problem change depending upon the time scale. I think the effect is real, the necessary effort per time frame is open to debate mainly because the time frame is open to debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
See, there's the partisan response I was looking for!
And this is where you would be wrong (Score:2)
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 mo
Re:And this is where you would be wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 ap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 part
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
There's a debate about how much positive feedback exists, but the case for negative feedback is very weak. For example, events such as Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events [noaa.gov] are the best examples of abrupt climate change in the paleoclimate record. These ancient events are worrying because they show the climate has a propensity to shift quickly from one state to another, given
Re:Or (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
why is global warming even a partisan issue to begin with?!
It's naturally partisan. Everywhere, not just in the developed countries, we have a natural division between wealthy and those with much lower resources. This manifests everywhere as common conflicts of interest, between employer and employee, polluter and those affected, rich people and the envious, etc. Environmentalism naturally falls in with the beliefs of the people with lower resources (and those who purport to represent them). And global warming is merely a huge potential environmental problem that w
Re: (Score:3)
'And global warming is merely a huge potential environmental problem that will primarily affect people with few resources.'
The disruption of the food chain and death of the human race primarily affects people with few resources? *scratches head*
Re: (Score:2)
*light bulb glows* oooooooo nm, nm I figured it out. Pretty much all the resources are in the hands of less than 1% of the global population and on a national basis no more widely dispersed than 5% in any nation.
Of course the death of human race primarily affects people with few resources, there aren't very many humans who have many resources.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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 benefi
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 d
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
We all know which side of the argument is trying to force no end of regulations, beliefs and laws on the other.
Very insightful-- in that this summarizes the thought process of the anti-global warming crew: We don't like the political implications, therefore, the science must be wrong.
Do you see that this argument is a non sequiter?
The universe is the way it is. Your dislike of political implications does not change the science. Carbon dioxide in that atmosphere does what it does, and whether you like or dislike the politial implications does not change its effect on global warming.
The anti global warming fringe
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you didn't bother to read anything in those links. As I've said, many studies have examined the PCA centering issues, and found no significant differences when using different methodologies. I'm baffled as to why you find it necessary to tell me to google the Wegman Report, when I discussed it at length in the first link of my previous comment. It's perfectly normal for laymen to be confused about these issues (they ARE complicated). But it's ludicrous to suggest that the scientific community as a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Simply calling a group "fringe" does not make it so. Fringe relative to whom? Mainstream society is overwhelmingly skeptical, so if anything the pro global warming hug fests that one sees on echo chambers like this are the true fringe.
Whether you like it or not.
Just calling it how I see it btw.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply calling a group "fringe" does not make it so.
Well, of course. I call it fringe science because it is fringe science, not the other way around.
Talk to some atmospheric scientists-- real atmostpheric scientists, people who actually do measurements, and computer models, and physics. Not to the people who say "we don't believe the measurements, and making more measurements won't help, we won't believe them no matter how many there are. We don't believe the computer models, and making better computer models won't help, we don't believe any computer mo
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
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' plac
Whoosh! (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
This is precisely what I was into. HAARP is explicitly considered an ionospheric heater. It has an unparalleled ability, as far as we know, to charge and even drain the ionosphere. Further, HAARP-like facilities are installed around the world.