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.'"
Re:Global warming.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I was alive then, and I can remember the CIA put forward proposals to do things like scatter soot on the Antarctic, dam the Gulf Stream and create a huge lake in the middle of Africa. The environmentalists on Earth Day 1970 were all warning about a new Ice age.
Here are a couple of papers from the scientists of those times...
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0493/106/3/pdf/i1520-0493-106-3-413.pdf
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1971)010%3C0703:TEOAAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Re:The winter is coming (Score:4, Interesting)
I see I'm the only one who RTFA (saw this yesterday). The most this will do is to slow global warming somewhat.
However, in 10,000 years when the seasons have flipped and the northern hemisphere has winter in June and summer in December they'll probably have another ice age. Ice ages are cyclical.
Re:CLIMATE CHANGE! (Score:3, Interesting)
Wikioedia won't tell me how much money Greenpeace has, but the indication I got is that compared to the Koches, Greenpeace is a pauper. Koch could BUY the entire environmental movement if it were for sale. And you act like it's just them, when every oil company and other polluter wants to spread the disinformation.
My view is that over the decades, the environmentalism movement has fucked over a lot of people.
Yeah, DuPont, Monsanto, the oil companies, and all the other dirty bastards that foul my air and water.
The society-wide distrust of the AGW
Doesn't exist. It's only the right wing minority who have been brainwashed by the Koches. Everyone else listens to the scientists.
You know what? Fuck DuPont. Do a little research on those filthy bastards, it's sickening.
Re:Scientists don't know everything (Score:3, Interesting)
The peer review process, which has been around quite some time, works to prevent exactly the problems you claim exist with science today
No, the peer review process is broken as several articles here have pointed out recently. Little actual review is accomplished as there's no money in the review, and you don't get any credit for doing so.
Re:Global warming.. (Score:4, Interesting)
The incompleteness of its own knowledge must be one of the subjects a wise consensus addresses, yes.
Bullshit. It has been ruled out. (Score:0, Interesting)
If it were the Sun, then the entire atmosphere, top to bottom, would have warmed. Except the stratosphere cooled and the surface warmed, just like an extra blanket on your body makes your skin warmer and the outside of the blanket cooler.
If it were the Sun, the equator would warm more than the poles, recieving, as they do, more sunlight. Except it's the other way around, as if the escape of heat is being retarded from the earth, rather than more heat pumping in.
"It's the sun!" has been ruled out 100% finally.
Re:Global warming.. (Score:2, Interesting)
A lot of scientific study and peer review has gone into the subject of global warming, and we are informed that it is indeed happening, and caused by mankind. To me this seems like a settled matter.
The next issue is whether this warming is a Bad Thing. It may be for certain people, but there will be winners, too. Overall - not so clear-cut. More study needed.
The final issue is the appropriate response. This is the area which seems to have almost no scientific analysis. The knee-jerk reaction is that we are emitting greenhouse gases, so the solution is to emit less, regardless of the collateral damage (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/secret-environmental-cost-us-ethanol-220037254.html). Any alternative responses, which include doing nothing, are deemed off the table.
It is the response to AGW that is messed up and devoid of rigorous scientific debate.
Re:Global warming.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Not to detract from the post's point, but it does conflate democracy with consensus. And that is terribly wrong.
Democracy is about viewing the world through a binary filter so that the choice to take any action is decided by Yes/No votes. And counting the votes. Consensus is different. It is about arguing over how to view the world until the overwhelming number of those involved agree on a point of view. The actions that follow from that PoV are then obvious.
There are two kinds of consensus:
1. Normal consensus is typified by a significantly large subgroup that says "I don't think that is right but I can live with it"
2. Super consensus is typified by almost the entire group saying "This is the very best we can do."
I doubt that there is a super consensus among scientists about AGW. I expect a large number feel that it is in our best interests to act as if AGW is happening, whether that proves to be true or false at some later time.
Re:Global warming.. (Score:4, Interesting)
consensus is not the same as reality
And authority is never the source of truth. It's a good reminder, and one that needs to happen frequently.
At the same time, authority is frequently a necessary shortcut. Most casual participants in the Global Warming "debate" don't have the time to deep-dive the dozens of interrelated specialties needed to understand climate science. Instead we choose the narrative we find most convincing, whether it's ((greedy grant-seeking scientist supporting Al Gore's vision for controlling us all)) or ((greedy carbon-heavy corporations fueling disinformation campaigns against truth-seeking academics)). Arguing-to-consensus supports the latter by reminding us that there's strong agreement among people doing real-world investigation, and that's the closest to the truth we can get in time to make a decision.
Truth is not democratic in nature.
Another good reminder, but I'll nitpick a little: the scientific community isn't a democracy but a worldwide collection of highly-specialized researchers. Fallible? Yes. Corruptible? Some of them. But it's not the same thing as inviting all members of the populous to pick their favorite option after 8 months of intense media campaigns.