Puzzled Scientists Say Strange Things Are Happening On the Sun 342
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Robert Lee Hotz reports in the WSJ that current solar activity is stranger than it has been in a century or more. The sun is producing barely half the number of sunspots as expected, and its magnetic poles are oddly out of sync. Based on historical records, astronomers say the sun this fall ought to be nearing the explosive climax of its approximate 11-year cycle of activity—the so-called solar maximum. But this peak is 'a total punk,' says Jonathan Cirtain. 'I would say it is the weakest in 200 years,' adds David Hathaway, head of the solar physics group at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Researchers are puzzled. They can't tell if the lull is temporary or the onset of a decades-long decline, which might ease global warming a bit by altering the sun's brightness or the wavelengths of its light. To complicate the riddle, the sun also is undergoing one of its oddest magnetic reversals on record, with the sun's magnetic poles out of sync for the past year so the sun technically has two South Poles. Several solar scientists speculate that the sun may be returning to a more relaxed state after an era of unusually high activity that started in the 1940s (PDF). 'More than half of solar physicists would say we are returning to a norm,' says Mark Miesch. 'We might be in for a longer state of suppressed activity.' If so, the decline in magnetic activity could ease global warming, the scientists say. But such a subtle change in the sun—lowering its luminosity by about 0.1%—wouldn't be enough to outweigh the build-up of greenhouse gases and soot that most researchers consider the main cause of rising world temperatures over the past century or so. 'Given our current understanding of how the sun varies and how climate responds, were the sun to enter a new Maunder Minimum, it would not mean a new Little Ice Age,' says Judith Lean. 'It would simply slow down the current warming by a modest amount.'"
Scientists don't know everything (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists don't know everything about everything, but they want to know. That's how science works: it's a process.
Thanks alot, Sun... (Score:5, Insightful)
...hey, if it buys us a hundred years to figure this pollution shit out, I ain't gonna look a gift horse in the mouth.
Are you?
Re:Scientists don't know everything (Score:1, Insightful)
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/24/nebraska_approves_climate_denying_study_scientists_refuse_to_conduct_it/ [salon.com]
Re:CLIMATE CHANGE! (Score:4, Insightful)
OMG! More proof of climate change! Quick, give more money to climate 'scientists'!
I bet all you climate-change-deniers are feeling foolish now.
It is interesting how successful the Koch brothers were with their anti-AGW Think Tank funding. They couldn't discredit the science, so they discredited scientists instead. And have created this fantastic meme that it is the scientist side of this discussion that has a big economic interest in it.
Re:Logic anomaly. (Score:2, Insightful)
Shaddup!
Just look at the kings marvelous new robes, and don't be raining on the parade.
They've never seen this before but they are positive this won't slow down global warming.
Re:Logic anomaly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Logic fail. I may have absolutely positively no idea why a refinery exploded but I can easily forecast what that will mean for gas prices.
Likewise they don't know why the sun is acting the way it is but they DO know that that includes very slightly less output and a shift in spectrum and they do know what effect that will have.
Blah blah blah global warming blah blah (Score:0, Insightful)
OMFG, who cares. Jesus.
Re:A better title (Score:1, Insightful)
why are you modded up? people are morons...
Re:Thanks alot, Sun... (Score:2, Insightful)
You know as well as I do that the deniers will cry about how it was the Suns fault all along
A scenario which hasn't really been ruled out, you know. All sorts of things have been blamed for why climate models don't match reality - sunlight blocking soot, solar activity changes, and heat absorbed by oceans. I see it as models not matching reality. It may be that one or more of these excuses are valid or it may simply be that the models are in error.
whenever the higher intensity state returns we'll be right back where we are now.
Which isn't a bad place to be. Keep in mind that humanity does other things than merely emitting carbon dioxide such as reducing poverty.
Re:CLIMATE CHANGE! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is interesting how successful the Koch brothers were with their anti-AGW Think Tank funding. They couldn't discredit the science, so they discredited scientists instead. And have created this fantastic meme that it is the scientist side of this discussion that has a big economic interest in it.
Oceania always had a need for an Emmanuel Goldstein. Here, the Koch brothers are attributed with a near mythical level of persuasion even though on the propaganda front they're greatly outspent, for example, by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the EU.
My view is that over the decades, the environmentalism movement has fucked over a lot of people. I know I became disenchanted when Greenpeace (US branch, I believe) libeled Du Pont (incidentally with global warming FUD) while I was working there around 1990. The society-wide distrust of the AGW theory is one of those consequences.
People might still be willing to make small but meaningless sacrifices (such as recycling programs) for the environment, but when it affects your life and those you care about for little, if any, gain, people get more discerning.
Re:good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Global warming.. (Score:0, Insightful)
When I was young people were really worried about global cooling.
stop looking at the sun (Score:2, Insightful)
for causes and effects of global warming. It's a nearly
stable factor.
Do something about the shit under your nose.
Re:Global warming.. (Score:1, Insightful)
This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community,
The support was just as valid as the current support for the warming argument. People were just looking at a different part of the "historical" graph.
Re:Global warming.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Sounds like standard denial to me.
Re:Scientists don't know everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Global warming.. (Score:1, Insightful)
It was just as much as a Fail as the current Global Warming science though.
Seventeen years now, isn't it?
Not taking a stance here, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I note that global climate seems to be going through a startlingly fast, almost uniquely fast change. (Well, ok, there are similar almost-vertical pulses of warming about every 120-140kY.)
The sun seems to be going through a startling, unobserved mixture of activity.
Generally, when one startling random happenstance occurs in close proximity to another, it's not unreasonable to wonder if they're connected.
One might point out that our understanding of solar cycles comes from direct observation of approximately only 250-some years.
Observation of a system can only observe periodicity of 0.5N, and suggest confirmation 0.33N; that is you only get a HINT that something is periodic after you see it twice, and really only a strong suggestion of periodicity after the third observation. Turning that around, then, the longest periodic cycles within our 4.5-billion-old Sun that we could have directly observed is not much more than 80 years. (Granted, one can make some inferred solar observations on a longer scale based on tree ring data, etc.)
That's an amazingly short time, given the scale of our sun's span. We don't really know all that much about it.
Re:glass half empty (Score:3, Insightful)
So, the sun is behaving differently than any other time in it's recorded history. Researchers don't know why. But Judith Lean feels comfortable stating conclusively what effects this unknown, unexplainable change might have.
Re:Global warming.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it very interesting how you so easily fall into that trap; the idea that consensus governs reality.
No, reality lies outside of consensus. Sometimes it takes decades (occasionally, centuries) for consensus to match reality.
That's not to say global cooling is the correct model, but to claim it is incorrect simply because it has not gained a consensus inside of 40 years is rather disingenious.
Re:CLIMATE CHANGE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Discrediting scientists (and by extension science) is going to be paying dividends for a long time. I wonder how quickly it'll accelerate the USA's loss of leadership in the sciences.
Re:Global warming.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that when the reality is unknown, you make your decisions on the best available evidence - the consensus. You don't grab on to whatever contrafactual theory you prefer and hope that history vindicates you by dumb luck. The man who bets his savings on a million-to-one shot is a moron whether the horse wins or not.
They just can't admit it... (Score:0, Insightful)
... that global temperature is tightly coupled to solar luminosity.
Let's say that solar flux does change by 0.1%, which would mean it falls by 3.839 x 10^23 W = F
The mean distance from the Sun to the Earth, 1 AU, is 149 597 871 = R.
That means that the change in total incident radiation on Earth from the Sun is F / (4*pi*R^2) = 1.365 megawatts per square kilometer.
The radius of the Earth is 6371 km, making the Sun-facing normalized area = pi*6371^2 = 1.275 x 10^8 km^2
That makes the total energy loss incident upon the earth 1.741 * 10^14 watts. Earth's albedo is about 0.3, so that leaves 1.218 x 10^14 fewer watts contributing to planetary heating, or 1.053 x 10^19 kwh/day. (the incidence angle of solar energy is baked into the albedo number, so it would be incorrect to integrate the angle of incidence in the first step)
If you don't believe that the gain or loss of 1.053 x 10^19 kwh/day (10.5 million petawatt hours - 73,600 years worth of global energy production) of heating energy will have a significant effect on global temperatures, with all due respect, you're a blithering idiot. Yet, global warming alarmists insist that solar forcing has little or nothing to do with the global warming equation.
Re:Global warming.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your post is completely correct.
Nevertheless, consensus is not the same as reality. A true scientific mindset appreciates not only the fact that consensus may point to a clear conclusion, but also the potential that it might be wrong.
I am not correcting your choice, I am correcting the way you chose it. Truth is not democratic in nature.
Re:good! (Score:5, Insightful)
You think you do, but if you knew more about how the planet operates, you'd know that a warmer planet won't be as pleasant to live in.
Social evolution can happen at a very rapid pace when needed, so I am not worried about that. Humans can and will adapt as needed.
What I do know, is that Geologically speaking, we are still in an ice-age(inter-glacial period, but still an ice age as we currently have ice-caps), so I know for a fact that earthly life as a whole will be quite happy once we have moved away from the unusually cold climate and can return to a warmer and more fruitful climate instead.
Sure there will be disruptions, but change is both disruptive and unavoidable, so we will deal with it.
Re:CLIMATE CHANGE! (Score:5, Insightful)
millions of deaths from malaria
Yeah, that's the point where you really proved that you don't know what you're talking about.
DDT was not banned from the world, only the US. The US does not have millions of deaths from malaria.
In point of fact, DDT is still in use around the world. Unfortunately, mosquitoes have developed resistance to it [wikipedia.org] and humans haven't. The decline is DDT usage is not due to the US banning it, but rather due to the fact that it's not working very well anymore and the health problems it causes for humans are beginning to outweigh the benefits.
Re:CLIMATE CHANGE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Here, the Koch brothers are attributed with a near mythical level of persuasion even though on the propaganda front they're greatly outspent, for example, by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the EU.
I hope you realize that's not a very fair comparison. There are at least three fundamental errors that make the comparison misleading:
1) You are comparing two oil tycoons to Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the European Union
The Koch brothers run a privately owned company with an estimated income of around $100 billion per year
Greenpeace has an income of around 0.35% of Koch industries, around 350 million.
The World Wildlife fund has an income of around 0.25% of Koch industries, around 250 million.
The European Union has a budget of around 160% of Koch industries, around $160 billion per year
You needed to throw the European Union into the comparison to make the comparison look even remotely reasonable. Otherwise the groups you're looking at would be at a more than 100 to 1 funding disadvantage. However, other than to make the comparison look less ridiculous, it doesn't really seem reasonable to include the EU in your comparison.
2) You seem to categorizing all money spent by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the European Union (which includes 28 different countries) as propaganda.
This is a ridiculous assumption to make, however, it may surprise you to know that Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the European Union have other things to spend their money on than climate change. Greenpeace maintains a small fleet of ships, and runs a variety of different environmental campaigns, the World Wildlife Fund is more concerned with Wilflife preservationt than Global Warming and the European Union is a government that runs many programs that have nothing to do with climate change.
3) No one know how much money the Koch brothers spend on climate change propaganda.
Koch industries is a privately owned company and thus doesn't have to reveal how much money it spends on anti-climate change propaganda. It seems likely, however, if they spend as little as 1% on opposing climate change they'd outspend the Greenpeace and the WWF entirely. Once you account for the actual breakdown of spending on climate change for those groups, the Koch brothers could easily outspend them with 0.1% of annual revenue.
While I agree that some people do have Koch brother myopia, they are in fact, one of the largest funders of anti-regulatory and right-wing propaganda groups in the world. Most of that funding is done in secret because they are not compelled to reveal any of it. They are in fact, running a shadowy propaganda war against environmental groups because they directly profit from lax environmental laws (because of lower costs, and increased ability to shift clean up burdens to tax payers).
I know I became disenchanted when Greenpeace (US branch, I believe) libeled Du Pont (incidentally with global warming FUD) while I was working there around 1990.
Ah, yes. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Incidentally, I've never really been a big fan of Greenpeace either, but I try not to let the messenger colour the message.
People might still be willing to make small but meaningless sacrifices (such as recycling programs) for the environment, but when it affects your life and those you care about for little, if any, gain, people get more discerning.
That is probably true. However, the problem may be the perception of the gain versus the perception of the cost. I know many people (on Slashdot even) have claimed that switching to a low carbon energy infrastructure would result in global poverty. But to stop global warming completely in it's tracks would cost us close to 2% of world GDP, fairly close to what the world spends on sewers and sewage treatment. If you figure the cost is everyth
Re:Global warming.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thanks alot, Sun... (Score:1, Insightful)
Trivializing the Holocaust by comparing skeptics to holocaust deniers is horrible. You should reflect on your soul and get some counseling.
Re:good! (Score:2, Insightful)
If you knew about science, you'd know that a warmer planet would be a lot more pleasant to live on. But of course, you don't.
IPCC-predicted temperature increases will cause less disruption than the kind of carbon emission reductions that would be necessary to "stabilize" the climate.
Re:Global warming.. (Score:2, Insightful)
^^^ This is an example of deniers having moved the goalposts. Now that they can't obstruct and say "no, AGW is a hoax", so instead they obstruct by denying that sea levels rising and lands near the equator (you know, those lands populated by brown people) becoming less fertile are a bad thing.
Once you bash into their skulls that yes, brown people are people too, and they're not going to stay in the same place and starve to death /and/ that getting our coastal areas inundated is bad, then they'll obstruct by denying that we can do anything good about it that won't cost JOBS and TAX MONEY.
Re:good! (Score:5, Insightful)
What I do know, is that Geologically speaking, we are still in an ice-age(inter-glacial period, but still an ice age as we currently have ice-caps), so I know for a fact that earthly life as a whole will be quite happy once we have moved away from the unusually cold climate and can return to a warmer and more fruitful climate instead.
Sure there will be disruptions, but change is both disruptive and unavoidable, so we will deal with it.
See, this is where denialism turns into woo-woo religion. You "know for a fact" that the planet's going to do better once it warms up, do you? You know for a fact that we can indeed deal with this disruption, do you?
Re:Global warming.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd be amazed at how many politicians (and I'm thinking of politicians specifically here) take the lack of certainty in the outcome of an event as a justification for doing whatever sounds really good to them at that particular moment in time.
Re:she said "modest" (Score:5, Insightful)
That's like being in a car hurtling towards a cliff and deciding not to do anything, because we don't really 'know' whats going to happen, it's all speculation.