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)
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 ;-) )
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.
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.
evolution (Score:1, Insightful)
it sounds like the earth has evolved to absorb even rear-facing southward magnetic solar wind. Darwin was right!
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.
Re:Or (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: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:Or (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 participants have met any real goals (those who did not have to change DID make theirs; whoppie). I can not stand W, but he was right on not participating. In 3 short years, China double their CO2 emissions, and they are on the path to double it again in 3 years. Scarey. Ppl are not paying attention.
France and Canada have the right idea in taxes, but it is being implemented wrong. It should be a cap on new CO2 emissions (as in absolutely no new emissions, without taking out the old stuff), and then a tax on ALL GOODS based on the CO2 emissions from whence they came from (not what went into it, but how much emissions from where it comes). If you do that, then ALL NATIONS will end up competing to get their emissions low FAST. In fact, because of the nature of pollution (it spreads everywhere), it should be a tax on the pollution that went into the good. Yes, I know. That hurts the economy. So, you start it out at say 5%, and then have regions graded on what their emissions are. Most importantly, Over time, RAISE THE TOP RATE, say 1% a year. For example, France might be 20% of 5%. OTH, China would be 100% of 5%, and probably so would USA, and other nations. The simple fact is, that every country will RIGHTLY KNOW that the approaches being taken will hurt THEIR NATION. OTH, this other approach is EXTREMELY FAIR to all. In addition, since it is applied to ALL GOODs, it can not run into trouble, other than the formulas (what percentage of the top rate) used. But that is a different issue.
Re:Or (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:Or (Score:3, Insightful)
As to the tax, I think that it really is not that hard. Make is a sales tax, base it on which country the majority of the item came from. Obviously, some companies will try to play games, but, I think that a rap on the hand, along with a stiff fine, will get their attention.
Re:Or (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 helpful. A calm and rational approach would be much better.
Re:The Hell? (Score:1, Insightful)
It is not that it is an effect we hadn't noticed before, it is that it is an effect that we haven't noticed before so it isn't in the models that the global warming crowd love to use to point out confirming the existence of global warming. It's not a new variable in climate change, but it is a new variable in existing climate change models, which previously did not take it into account. And that's the whole problem with relying on computer model simulations as though they were undeniable fact.
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:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (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 wealthy children of Merchants in the 1700-1800s who didn't like the establishment and so decided to use their wealth and connections to agitate and stage liberal revolutions over throwing their respective kings.
Every great western movement against governments has been driven by the well to do who have the time, means and connections to sit around and ponder over throwing the king in the first place.
We have ample opportunity to see what happens when the poor and lower class overthrow their governments and take control by the way. Every third world country and half of Eastern Europe and South America through the 19th and 20th century answered that question.
This uniquely western middle class self hatred must stop.
Re:inb4 "that explains global warming" posters (Score:1, Insightful)
really? The pubs had control of congress from 94-2000, while the dems had control of the presendcy; The pubs had TOTAL control of dc from 2000-2006. pubs had WH from 2006-2008, while neither party control congress during that time (dems controlled house, but the pubs had a slight edge on the senate).
So, where did it get us?
Um... a budget surplus?
First, stop considering who is in the WH. They only make suggestions to the congress. Congress is in control of spending. Sure, the Prez can veto a budget, but then the government shuts down and the Prez gets the blame because ignorant people don't understand that congress controls the government.
OTH, CLINTON (a dem) fought against the neo-con deficit and turned it around.
Bullshit. Read the above statement. CONGRESS CONTROLS THE BUDGET! Clinton tried to veto it and Newt shut the government down. Clinton had to give in and not get all the liberal, hippie, tree hugging BS he wanted.
The pubs had TOTAL control of dc from 2000-2006. pubs had WH from 2006-2008, while neither party control congress during that time (dems controlled house, but the pubs had a slight edge on the senate).
The Republicans barely had control... it was so close in fact that when a single Republican changed party, it changed control. (Jeffords sound familiar)! Matter of fact, when Jeffords jumped to become and an independent, it gave control of the Senate back to the Democrats. Republicans gained control of the Senate in 2003 but lost the control again in 2005. So that's just TWO years that Repubicans held the Senate. Those two years by the way broke records in regards to government tax receipts because the economy was so good. Although I agree that spending was out of control... That happens when the control is so close. You can't get anything passed without paying everyone off.