The Sun Has First Spotless Month Since 1913 571
radioweather writes "August 2008 has made solar history. As of 00 UTC September 1st 2008 (5PM PST)
we just witnessed the
first spotless calendar month since June 1913.This was determined according
to sunspot
data from NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center, which goes back to 1749.
In the 95 years since 1913, we've had quite an active sun, but activity has been
declining in the last few years. The sun today is a nearly featureless sphere and has been spotless for 42
days total, but this is the first full calendar month since 1913 for a spotless
sun. And there are other indicators of the sun being in a funk. Australia's
space weather agency recently revised their solar cycle 24 forecast, pushing the
expected date for a ramping up of
cycle 24 sunspots into the future by six months."
As one of the links above indicate, there was a "sunspeck" reported August 21/22, though. Reader MikeyTheK adds a link to a story at Daily Tech on the spotless record.
The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:5, Funny)
The sun has discovered the best acne medication in the universe.
Re:The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
All joking aside, does anyone else get the feeling they're changing the definition of a sunspot just so they can claim it was a spotless month?
"Sunspeck" my arse.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course. We have to show everyone that global warming is caused by a lack of sunspots, rather than the more obvious problem of excessive greenhouse gases. After all, the Earth is about be destroyed in the Rapture anyways, so why do we care?
Re:The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:5, Funny)
I blame Geroge Bush for all this. Notice this report is out and FEMA hasn't responded yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I blame Clinton for the 8 years of abnormally high sun spot activity during the 90s.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, the problem is obviously Windows Vista, with it's new and improved AeroGlass user interface. "Sunspots are making changes to your system! [Allow] [Cancel]?"
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I'm certainly no expert on gaming the mod system here, but I believe that "Underrated" gives karma, and has the valuable side effect of not being a blatant lie. YMMV.
Now, "Funny" would have been perfectly appropriate. And as much as it pains me to say it, when I've posted something funny I have always wished people would use the appropriate moderation. I've earned my karma the hard way: whoring for it. And that's not the same as class-clowning it.
Re:The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, the Earth is about be destroyed in the Rapture anyways, so why do we care?
Would be funny if it wasn't true - my mother-in-law just told me that global warming doesn't matter because when the world ends it will be an act of God and there will be nothing we can do about it anyway. The implications of this worldview are frightening.
Re:The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
The real sad part is, if she truely believed that then she would also believe/realize that we've been charged by God to be stewards of the land till that time. In other words, we should still care because he'll be taking it out of our security deposit.
Re:The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty much every established religion I know of sets forward the premise that one of our obligations for not being wiped off the planet summarily is being the caretakers.
The various Abrahamic, the Dharmic, and the Taoic religions all present the idea in one form or the other.
I know this is Slashdot, the realm of the overly pedantic, but please try not to have such a hair trigger. It was a valid assumption to make.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I know this is Slashdot, the realm of the overly pedantic
I believe the more correct term would be "excessively". ;)
Re:Rubbish (Score:4, Informative)
Taoism and the Environment [crvp.org]
Bhudism and the Envirnment [fwbo.org]
Islam and the Environment [islamonline.net]
Christianity and the Environment [boredofstudies.org]
And that's only a small selection of the articles and discussions. I think the thing you are missing is the same thing many miss but the poster I was actually replying to pointed out:
Few actually follow the tenets of their religion in all matters. Regardless of what our upbringing tells us, we can and often do act or believe in a manner contrary to it .
However, I believe my point still stands. The vast majority of established religions include the idea that it is our responsibility (for whatever reason as my "summarily wiped out" comment was factiousness) to use and preserve the resources of this world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't even make sense within the worldview.
Even assuming that the world won't end until God's ready, that leaves plenty of room for us to screw up the planet and make life hard. If the entire east coast of America is submerged under the sea, the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At this point, she has as much evidence for her world-view as you have for your prophecy that "east coast of America is submerged under the sea" is a real prospect.
People of diffeent religions should work on tolerance of one another's religious views.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If the entire east coast of America is submerged under the sea, the world isn't ended, now is it?
sounds good to me! Westside for life!
Re:The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:5, Interesting)
(disclaimer: I'm a christian with a CS degree)
After all, the Earth is about be destroyed in the Rapture anyways, so why do we care?
I know you were joking. But I thought I'd throw in what christians actually believe. The earth isn't destroyed in the rapture, directly anyway. In the rapture, the christians (from other humans' perspective) simply disappear. You non-christians are left to fend for yourselves. :-)
Having said that, christians have been predicting the rapture for centuries. And jesus comes right out and says that it's going to seem like it's taking forever and should be any minute when it's really far in the future.
So it's silly for people to use that as an excuse to not care about the environment. The destruction of the environment is not a christian value so I'm not sure why these people are thinking like this. Must be either an extra helping of crazy, dumb, or both.
Re:The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's interesting you say that. There's supposed to be a awesome party afterwards... but it wont last.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So, the mankind fends for itself, just like it has for eons, but all the religious zealots will be gone. Is there anything I can do to speed up the Rapture?
Re:The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:5, Funny)
So, the mankind fends for itself, just like it has for eons, but all the religious zealots will be gone. Is there anything I can do to speed up the Rapture?
Paint "666" on your forehead, marry someone of your own gender, and vote for the Democratic Party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:5, Funny)
Not to mention that it should probably be titled "It's been a spotless month, from the part of the sun that we can actually see - I mean, who knows what's happening on the other side?"
So what you're saying is the article should really say "The Sun, after centuries of being mercilessly mocked by Earthlings for its persistent spotting problems, has decided to turn around and show the Earth its backside from now on."
First "Spotless Month"? - Ah, the great change... (Score:3, Funny)
I guess this had to happen eventually - the Sun, mother to our own Mother Earth, is having a "spotless" month - the great change is upon her. It can be a difficult adjustment - but it is, after all, a part of life...
Re:The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:4, Informative)
Best technique: Wait two weeks. (Score:3, Informative)
Best technique: Wait two weeks. The Sun's rotation is about 27 days.
Two weeks? You can get the data in ~8 days. (Score:5, Informative)
STEREO A and B are more than 70 degrees apart [nasa.gov], so you'd only need to wait 8.25 days from when it leaves the sight of STEREO A 'til it's seen by STEREO B. In a few years, we'll have real-time view of the far side of the sun. (until they come back around near Earth again)
Re:The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:4, Informative)
Check out NASA's Space Weather site [spaceweather.com] or the Stereo pictures NASA is getting and you will not wonder what is going on on the back side of the sun.
Re:The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:4, Interesting)
first off. sun spots do tend to last longer than 12 days.... the larger objects can sometimes be recognized on their second or third passes. that's more common during solar max...
now If you look at the green, EIT spectrum from SOHO..sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov (which reveals magnetic forces really well) where the sunspots are going to form is very obvious.. so even the minute "sun specks" are visible as large areas of twisting magnetic energy. the magnetic field lines have to get pretty concentrated to form a visible sunspot...
I find it funny they keep pushing back cycle 24 start time.. a year ago it was suppose to be a noticeable increase back in April. the lengths people go to so as to avoid a panic just astounds me.
Re:The real reason this is News for Nerds (Score:5, Informative)
No, on the contrary. Small "sunspecks" cannot be seen without modern equipment and thus do not exist in the earlier records.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno about changing definitions, but when my club [chesmontastro.org] set up for our big annual star party, the solar observing was a complete bust - no flares, no spots, just a big rubber ball....
Politics in Science (Score:5, Insightful)
> All joking aside, does anyone else get the feeling they're changing the definition of a sunspot just so they can claim it was a spotless month?
Actually my thought was more the opposite. I have made spaceweather.com one of my daily visits. When it looked like a sunspot MIGHT be forming the official sunspot number went from zero to three. Eh? Don't you actually have to have a spot to count it? Then the area of interest went away and they put the number back at zero. Looks like somebody decided somebody jumped the gun and corrected the records.
Now why might this have happened? Why do papers predicting a period of low solar activity fail to be published (see the full articles)? Could it be the same reason scientific papers questioning global warming end careers without ever seeing the light of day? And of couse the refrain from the warmers is "all peer reviewed science supports man made Global Warming!" Science isn't becoming politicized, it IS politicized. Global Warming is the vehicle whereby "Scientific Socialism" is to bring untold political power to the 'elite educated and wise' few, and a rational planned and controlled world to the poor miserable peasants who would otherwise revert to cannibalism (or worse, a life of free markets without the elites) without their enlightened rule. Thus whether it is true or just a fairy tale is a question that must not be permitted to be entertained by 'serious people.' And the quickest way to ensure that is to define the phrase 'serious people' such that it excludes all who disagree with the official party policy.
Re:Politics in Science (Score:5, Informative)
Sun spot cycles we a well known phenomenon. [wikipedia.org]
The low point of the cycle has been predicted for 2007-2008 for the last 20 years!
This graph [nasa.gov] is one such prediction that you say has been suppressed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Where is your evidence of valid "scientific papers questioning global warming ending careers without ever seeing the light of day"?
Start with the article linked by Slashdot, then wander over here, then Google is yer friend:
National Post: The Deniers [nationalpost.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're invoking a rightwing Canadian paper's column that's anchored on a statistician whose official report to the government [wikipedia.org], disagreeing with some climate science, wasn't peer reviewed by anyone except some people he picked himself to review it. A disagreement that he backed up by saying the statisticians he disagreed with are "isolated from the statistics community". But yet you're claiming that the ones who disagree with those stats are buried and ignored.
That's quite a mess. Tell me more about Capricor [wikipedia.org]
Re:Evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice that contrary to your assertion that there is some sort of conspiracy to stiffle critics and ruin their carers, Mann's web site goes to the trouble of pointing out it's own critics in the "other opinions" section on the RH side of the page.
Skepticisim: First you post an "insightfull" anti-science troll worthy of M.Chrichton, then you do exactly what you claim this cospiracy is doing by backing up your claim with politically inspired psuedo-science regurgitated from a right-wing rag. That is not skepticisim, it is in fact what phycologists call "projection".
Occam's razor: Would indicate that it is YOU allowing YOUR politics to intefere with science and this global conspiracy of which you speak is nothing but a figment of your imagination brought about by your apparent inability to be skeptical of your own assumptions.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
...which is Proactiv. I'll be straight up with you - the sun don't want no bumps on its face, so it's using Proactiv, which helps moisturize its situation and preserve its sexy.
Bad summer (Score:2)
Great, now I know why summer this year was, well, pretty nonexistant really.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Someone killed summer.
Temperatures were much lower than average.
Skies were much more overcast.
I didn't even see a Michael Jordan Ballpark Frank commercial.
Global warming my ass.
Re: (Score:3)
LHC?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Ok, who switched on the LHC!
Ha!, that'll stop the critics who think the earth will vanish in a instant... see nothing to worry ab.o.u..t... [KABOOOMMMMMM
imagine all the drivers getting lost (Score:4, Informative)
A weak solar cycle may postpone this problem.
Re: (Score:3)
When a big solar storm turns off GPS for a few hours or days. I know some people that have become dependent on their nav-computers.
If drivers cannot find their way around the old fashioned way then maybe they have no business on the road and should have their licenses revoked.
Re:imagine all the drivers getting lost (Score:4, Interesting)
It's quite strange. A friend of mine moved so I plucked his new address into my little gps nav unit and used it to find his house. A week later I thought about it and couldn't even think of how to get there so I pulled up the route and used it again with out a second thought. After about 2 months of this it dawned on me that I had no idea how to get there without my little nav unit. I finally forced my self to find it without the unit. One time doing that and I didn't need it any more.
I can't wait (Score:3, Funny)
I can't wait to come back later and find out how this is caused by George W. Bush, the US, or Bush's failure to sign on to the Kyoto treaty (even though Clinton was president at the time).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And isn't President Bush the only leader of an industrialized nation which actually cut carbon dioxide emissions, Kyoto or not?
Re:I can't wait (Score:4, Informative)
Sunspots down... temperature down? (Score:4, Interesting)
OH MY
So... CO2 causes global warming, apparently on Mars and Jupiter too. Yet when sunspot activity decreases, this whole global warming trend slows down (to the tune of no increase of global temperature in over 8 years). And in the 1990s when sunspot activity was some of the highest ever recorded, global temperatures rose. I wonder if this is a coincidence.... or is it?
So really... are you all still addicted to that theory? That it's all about the CO2?
Re:Sunspots down... temperature down? (Score:4, Informative)
The next few centuries could be fun!
Re:Sunspots down... temperature down? (Score:4, Informative)
This is precisely what is being discussed right now among some climatologists. The problem isn't so much that there is a solar sunspot minimum, but rather that the current trend is that the number of sunspots is still statistically dropping when in fact it should be going up dramatically.... given a more typical historical trend over the past couple of centuries.
The delay of the start of the next sunspot maximum cycle is what is causing all sorts of head scratching and wondering if there is some other cycle that until now hasn't been observed in the sun. All I can say is thank goodness that there is historical data going back to the 1700's that can confirm this is something that could happen, even if there are a few individuals who don't get it.
And yet, what is being missed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"what happens when sunspots increase?"
Uh, let me guess here. Temps increase.
I think what needs to be focused on is not the "who's right or wrong about global warming," but the fact that there are so many factors involved. We need to understand how CO2 (or any other green house gas) affects the temps so we can manipulate temps and offset the cooling cycles of the Sun and keep a more consistent temp base for the planet. UNLESS, the Earth itself requires heating and cooling cycles to sustain life.
The process
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And yet, what is being missed (Score:4, Interesting)
Nasa [pewclimate.org] is calling your statistic irrelevant. Not to mention that 1934 was warmer than 2001 by about 0.1 degrees celsius. I'd give it about 5-7 years before that record is broken - which should be right about the time we hit another sunspot maximum.
Re:And yet, what is being missed (Score:5, Interesting)
Nasa [pewclimate.org] is calling your statistic irrelevant. Not to mention that 1934 was warmer than 2001 by about 0.1 degrees celsius. I'd give it about 5-7 years before that record is broken - which should be right about the time we hit another sunspot maximum.
I like that you're making falsifiable predictions. Most people talking about this issue won't even do that.
Re:Sunspots down... temperature down? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok. I'll bite.
What are you trying to say? Dont be vague, just say it.
I'm not "addicted" to the theory of CO2 having a negative role in "climate change". I'm as "addicted" to that "theory" as I am "addicted" to the theory of "gravity". I simply dont know any better, logical, explination. Perhaps CO2 impact is more of a hypothesis, but a lot of scientists are pretty sold on it.
So if CO2 isn't a negative catalyst in global climate change, then what effect is it having on our planet? I mean, as far as I know, the CO2 isnt blowing out into outer space. Its going into the atmosphere and staying there (or being sequestered by other catalysts, but the pace of carbon output is known to currently be greater than the system can take it).
I mean, stand in an air tight room, and pump CO2 into that room. You will quickly learn how changing an atmosphere by adding additional gases can really change things up.
Again, for the "anti-greenhouse gas" people, please explain what effects CO2 is having, if its not having an effect on "climate change".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sunspot activity or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with human caused global warming. Bear with me for a second here.
It's been conclusively proven that increased carbon dioxide in a system prevents more incoming solar energy from escaping a system. This is demonstrable on a small scale with basic equipment, and is readily observable.
It is also simply a fact that humans have been dumping huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I doubt anyone on this website doubts this.
This kno
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this really history? (Score:2)
So let me get this straight.
This has happened before, we're on the low point of a cycle according to even the wikipedia information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png [wikipedia.org]
Is there really any significance other than that? I don't mean that in a smartass way, genuinely wondering here.
It seems to show the sun has active sunspot cycles, and less active sunspot cycles. Thus, we are at one of the less active cycles.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it is history since it happened in the past. That's how history works. It's probably not a piece of history that will hold great meaning for many people, but this is the "News for Nerds" website.
Nope, there's not a lot of other significance, unless you're interested in things like radio wave propagation or the effect of solar weather on space hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
If I understand correctly, we should be moving towards the maximum after the minimum in 2006-ish, but we are not; instead the number of spots is still going down. See the raw data [nasa.gov], and take into account that the cycle is on average about 10.5 years long.
Sun had a profitable month? (Score:2)
Am I the only one who read the headline and thought "Sun Microsystems actually had a profitable month?" Doh!
Re:Sun had a profitable month? (Score:4, Funny)
nope :) I was just wondering what version of SunOS they had in 1913 :)
Re: (Score:2)
SunOS 3.11 for steam workstations.
Maybe that's why... (Score:3, Informative)
the Arctic ice refused to melt this summer. Does anyone remember the warning in June that the North Pole would be ice free? [nationalgeographic.com]
Of course, their prediction was way off [theregister.co.uk] (as always). When someone realized how bad their prediction was, they fear monger some more with more dire warnings! [chron.com]
Remember that they have only been keeping sat. data for ice extent for a little over 3 decades, which of course is when the sun has been in a very active period.
Re:Maybe that's why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that recorded history is but a tiny fraction of human existence, which is in turn but a tiny fraction of earth's existence, I have a hard time believing anything anyone says about long-term trends. We just don't know.
Re:Maybe that's why... (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell are you smoking? There was a warning that it *could* be ice free. Not to mention that North Pole being ice free is not the same as no ice anywhere. And so far, they're on track to have the smallest summer covering ever. By a few million square kilometers.
Really. If climate change wouldn't be such a huge issue, I'd take comfort in the fact that the only people disputing it can't even read the articles they're quoting. Instead, it's just depressing.
Re:Maybe that's why... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7585645.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7588329.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Yes, stay in your magic fluff land in-spite of reality.
Forecast pushed back (Score:4, Informative)
Cue the theories (Score:5, Insightful)
As to how the Earth is heating up due to there being too few sun spots or birds are falling out of the sky and little children are being eaten by monsters at the worlds edge.
I'm really interested in stories about science but every one like this seems to be taken as an excuse for the uninformed to come up with todays hair brained theory to scare the masses. I wonder if we can link this to terrorism in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
If only mother nature were cooperative... Well, before Newton discovered gravity, you could still get killed by a falling rock.
Sadly, just because we don't know have a cause for why less sunspots might cool the planet doesn't categorically rule it out. The only intellectual discipline that can have the rigor of a mathematical proof, is well, mathematical proofs, and after that, the universe is decidedly less cooperative. All you can really say is, based on what we know, sunspots probably shouldn't be chan
Google "95 year Cycle" (Score:2)
Awesome misread (Score:2, Funny)
Does this affect total power output? (Score:2)
So,
I know sun spots are a different temp than the sun overall - has this had an effect on the energy output of the sun?
Every time *I* miss a month... (Score:5, Funny)
...my boyfriend panics.
Don't be so hasty... (Score:3, Informative)
Until Netcraft confirms this, it hasn't happened.
August numbers in (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Standby and get ready! (Score:5, Insightful)
to 'prove' that global warming isn't manmade.
There we go, asking people to prove negatives again. Why don't you start by proving that it IS man-made?
Or conversely, prove that it ISN'T caused by the belly button lint of invisible space goats.
Re: (Score:2)
There we go, asking people to prove negatives again. Why don't you start by proving that it IS man-made?
OK, I confess... I knew it was wrong... I did it anyway.
Damn sunspots... I hate them all!
Re:Standby and get ready! (Score:5, Insightful)
"There we go, asking people to prove negatives again. Why don't you start by proving that it IS man-made?"
The argument being made is that it HAS been proven, as far as one can prove anything in such indeterministic systems.
Of course, we had proof for years that ulcers were caused by stress. Nope - bacteria.
Proof that the continents were immobile in their positions. Well, not so much proof as that it was just so totally OBVIOUS that continents couldn't move, and that "continental drift" was a crackpot theory. Until it wasn't.
AIDS was a breakdown of the immune system because of IV drug use, exposure to multiple venereal diseases, and the generally unhealth lifestyle of the gay community. Until they isolated a virus.
The reality is that scientific "proof" consists of general agreement among communities of people about the interpretation of observed phenomena, and that agreement can be driven by MANY factors, not just how well the data fits. One CANNOT get to the level of mathematical proof. So there will always be a role for skeptics, and those that just won't accept that, if you have a square peg and a round hole, you just pretend the peg's squareness doesn't exist, because it MUST fit into the round hole.
Re:Standby and get ready! (Score:4, Insightful)
The argument being made is that it HAS been proven, as far as one can prove anything in such indeterministic systems.
If by GW you mean AGW then like hell it has. If you read ./ summaries, a few newspapers and A. Gore, then perhaps its a "fact". But read the source peer reviewed articles they claim to summarize. They use phrases like "it suggests", and "gives support to" rather than phrases like "statistically significant".
A good question to ask is how is the "mean" earth temperature measured, both current and Historic and whats the variance?
There are some facts out there that do matter (e.g. CO2 increases from industrialization). But thats not a proof of any claimed causal effects.
We simply have not been doing this sort of modeling long enough nor tested it enough to give credible confidence intervals yet. I'm not saying that mitigation programs now don't make sense. They do, but I can think of a lot of better reasons that AGW.
And in regard to general agreement in the scientific community WRT AGW? If you don't agree or are even just a little bit skeptical, you would have left that community a long time ago. Using a set of examples where there "was general agreement" that turned out to be wrong does not support the idea that "general agreement" on AGW is evidence of AGW.
Re:Standby and get ready! (Score:4, Funny)
Adrian Cronauer: Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P.
Re:Standby and get ready! (Score:5, Insightful)
They use phrases like "it suggests", and "gives support to" rather than phrases like "statistically significant".
Actually, the Fourth Assessment Report [www.ipcc.ch] produced in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a report with several hundred scientific contributors and co-authors, uses phrases like "very high confidence" and "very likely".
"There is very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming" (p. 37)
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations" (p. 39)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Standby and get ready! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Standby and get ready! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course atmospheric/climate scientists have considered the impact of the sun. Please, don't assume they're complete idiots.
The problem with global warming alarmism is not not the climate science is poor, but that it is used to rationalize unnecessarily intrusive interventions in people's lives that have little to do with preventing catastrophe, and very questionable impact on net emissions.
The obvious, least economically damaging, least intrusive way to handle the problem is to simply internalize the costs that CO2 emissions throw off, either by tradeable caps or a tax, and then apply the funds to mitigating the damage. Then, you don't have to do impossible calculations about which activities are "truly wasteful", and people can decide how they cut back. And even if they don't, such a solution is still robust, as such a decision would just generate more funds with which to handle the problem.
But the most vocal alarms don't want this. Instead, they propose a laundry list of intrusive interventions, and then want to pick and choose which technologies are the "right" ones. If they were honest about wanting to avert catastrophe, the debate today would be about the size of the tax or cap, not about whether we should ban this particular product on the grounds that it gets an emotional reaction out of some people. Alarmism has been more about whether you're "on the team" or not. If the most efficient solution for you is to get better insulation rather than a hybrid, well, the latter would signal that you're "one of them" and the former wouldn't, so ...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My test of whether someone is genuinely concerned about catastrophe rather than power over others, is not passed by offering voluntary "carbon offsets" that have questionable impact anyway and aren't subject to 3rd party auditing.
To pass it, the alarmist would have to advocate replacing all measures to combat CO2 emissions, with some method of internalization of the environmental costs (possibly with a subsidy to those that remove it from the atmosphere). That means they would advocate:
-No subsidies for sp
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To pass it, the alarmist would have to advocate replacing all measures to combat CO2 emissions, with some method of internalization of the environmental costs (possibly with a subsidy to those that remove it from the atmosphere). That means they would advocate:
-No subsidies for specific technologies.
-No efficiency mandates.
-No banning of products on the grounds that they are "inefficient".
-No subsidies for ethanol.
Yeah, that sounds fantastic, except for the whole "internalizing externalities" thing. How ex
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, crap, did I post this without checking the AC box?
Not conservatives, scientists (Score:3, Insightful)
As a conservative I believe more power to the individual and local governments rather than federal, lower taxes, lower spending.
Conservatives are cautious about global warming because Liberals are trying to introduce legislation based on it. We are handcuffing business, raising taxes, and affecting our day-to-day lives because of "global warming."
If this is what has to be d
Re:Not conservatives, scientists (Score:4, Interesting)
"On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that Global Warming does not exist"
No there isn't. All the evidence points towards global warming. It's not 100% reliable at present, but there's really no evidence that GW doesn't exist or is some sort of fallacy.
"and it is being pushed by Liberals with an agenda."
That is an unfortunate truth, that it's been jumped on by lovers of hyperbole, by luddites and socialists and all sorts of others with an agenda or something to sell.
These two things are seperate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Political ideology does not refute accumulated scientific knowledge.
Can you reference any "evidence that Global Warming does not exist and it is being pushed by Liberals with an agenda"? Your belief is not sufficient.
Re:Standby and get ready! (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, my tinfoil hat is much, much bigger than yours. The Powers That Be [PTB] (the queen, the rothchilds' the Colonel, etc.) control both the conservatives and liberals at the highest levels. They play us off each other and maintain their own power my ensuring the general public is clearly divided against each other, ignoring the rich and powerful who are the real problem.
Here's how it works:
The 'PTB' have recently given a lot of money and power to the libs to promote the global warming idea base on "science". This is a check on the conservatives, whom they slowly put in power over the last few decades in order to check the liberals they let in in the 60s and 70s, and so on. The dems will continue to gain power in congress and win the presidency this year, but the failure of Global Warming models, which all assume a constant input from the sun, and failed policies based on the incorrect global warming/evil CO2/oil shortage assumption, will give the 'PTB' the opening they need to put the conservatives back in power, thereby checking the soon-to-be-powerful dems. What's more, the failure of "science" will foster a mistrust of real science in the general public, keeping us ignorant and controllable.
Some of you might point out that even if the top 1% have a greater portion of the wealth now than they did 50 years ago, our standard of living has steadily improved (at least in Europe and America). This is true in many respects, such as the portion of our income we spend on food, access to communication, healthcare technology, etc. It's false in many others, however, such as quality of food (tasted a tomato lately?) and quality of communication (TV, blogs, and underfunded print media narrowly focused on national issues, vs. community clubs like the Elks and Lions and well funded print media focused on local issues). Plus, you have to take into account opportunity cost. How much more could our lives have improved had government made better decisions.
What's more, we've become dependent on a system controlled by a select few. Healthcare is better, but you'd better keep working or you won't be able to see a doctor when you need to. Home 'ownership' is up when you ignore mortgages, but real debt-free ownership is way down. Water and Mineral rights are independent of land, so even those who think they own land can have it effectively taken away at any time. They're handing out plenty of fish but jealously guarding the poles and nets.
Remember, it's not the guy with the thin black mustache you've got to watch out for. If he were evil, he'd be a complete failure because he looks it. The truly successful evil person is the ones that convinces his victims that he's not good. As I said, my tinfoil hat is the 10-gallon kind.
Re:Does this mean less solar output? (Score:5, Interesting)
2008 is going to be the coolest year of the 21st century so far. A combination of an el nina and low sunspot activity. But it's still on target to be one of the warmest years on record. It ought to have been one of the coldest years on record.
Tim.
Re:Does this mean less solar output? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. It is global. Not regional. Arctic is continuing to warm despite "cold in my area" bull.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7585645.stm [bbc.co.uk]
2. We know *SHIT* about mars climate.
3. Solar output is monitored.
It is really sad when these deniers bring out Mars as their joker card when they are talking about Global Warming. Just few years ago they were saying that there is not enough data on EARTH to even say that EARTH was warming. But given one or two data points on other planet from REMOTE INDIRECT OBSERVATION and they launch themselves to conclusions about it.
It is sad that these people justify their positions by their "beliefs" without knowing or understanding any data.
Is it SO difficult to go to the library, you know, sit down and read the temperature read some books about expeditions to the arctic? Number of people that died trying to conquer it?? Now we have people kayaking to the damn north pole!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7588329.stm [bbc.co.uk]
But no, there is no global warming. The ice just "went because god made it so"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sunspots do not correlate with solar heating by irradiation in the sense of "the sun feels warm on my skin." However, they do correlate with the degree that the upper atmosphere gets swept by magnetic fields and particles from the sun, and this in turn appears to have an effect upon cloud formation -- changes of 3-4% in cloudiness and concurrent changes in cloud top temperatures have
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No shit. Nobody questions that. It is all about how much you are going to be taxed on the way there, and maybe beyond.
Re: (Score:2)
What a ridiculous question. I mean really, "who cares?"
I only want to know if it has been consecutive days of a Julian calendar month. That is all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Could this coincide with the upcoming Apocalypse on December 21st 2012?
Nah. Apocalypse? The classical Mayans would have had a party, which is what they did at the end of a lesser calendar cycle.
Then they'd either have started the Long Count cycle over or (much more likely in my opinion) modified it slightly to keep going. For instance, they could have added another cycle consisting of (for instance) 20 b'ak'tun.
The classical Mayans also occasionally dated events far in the future, which hardly suggests that they thought the world was ending. See the Wikipedia article on t [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. Google for "little ice age". That's the last time there was a serious drop in solar activity. Basically, sunspots are a proxy for activity in the solar furnace: the fewer sunspots, the lower the sun's energy output. Less solar output means less solar heating of Earth and lower global temperatures. One month isn't going to make a difference, but if the sun goes into a prolonged period of low activity (lasting a full solar cycle or more) we'll notice the results.