|
The BBC is reporting that the Sun is the dimmest it has been in 100 years. It has hit a 50 year low for solar wind pressure, a 55 year low for radio emissions, and 100 year low for sunspot activity. No one is quite sure what it means.
The sun god is dead!
|
No one is quite sure what it means.
It means that we might be about to learn something interesting about how stars work :)
This could just be a perfectly normal statistical outlier. It could be an event that occurs with a period longer than we have been closely watching the sun.
It probably means that I bought a solar filter for my telescope last year so I could enjoy watching sunspots building up towards the next maxima in 2011 or so :(
The sun god is dead!
Oh no! We're all going to die! YIPE! YIPE! YIPE! YIPE!
Leave it to poodles to over react.
Leave it to poodles to over react.
GRRRRR! *bites the Old French Guy*
|
The BBC is reporting that the Sun is the dimmest it has been in 100 years. It has hit a 50 year low for solar wind pressure, a 55 year low for radio emissions, and 100 year low for sunspot activity. No one is quite sure what it means.
I'm pretty sure it means we are going to have a cold year or two. :)
Look, a cat.
The BBC is reporting that the Sun is the dimmest it has been in 100 years. It has hit a 50 year low for solar wind pressure, a 55 year low for radio emissions, and 100 year low for sunspot activity. No one is quite sure what it means.I'm pretty sure it means we are going to have a cold year or two. :)
Maybe the sun is helping us by counteracting global warming? [/snark]
Who knows? I bet not even SunnyG could figure it out. If he's weakened, we should take his stuff.
|
So how many years in a row does the planet have to get colder before people admit that its not warming anymore?
This is not a snarky question, I'm genuinely interested in the answer to that question.
The problem is global warming, excuse me, "human caused climate change" advocates have made it clear that the answer to that question is "Until we come up with another alarmist theory to justify dismantling the Western economic machine and empowering the Third World in pursuit of our political agendas."
One year of lesser temperature increase or ten years of temperature decrease, they have pre-emptively declared it a "variation" in a field that is "not yet fully explained".|
|
Thank god! Another politics thread for toxic rhetoric! How cool is that?
Its a sad, sad world where talking about the weather is deemed political.
When I was a child I heard that politics and religion were taboo topics among strangers. The weather was always assumed to be a safe and boring subject for any group.
Alas, the times seemed to have changed.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thank god! Another politics thread for toxic rhetoric! How cool is that?Its a sad sad world where talking about the weather is deemed political.
When I was a child I heard that politics and religion were taboo topics among strangers. The weather was always assumed to be a safe and boring subject for any group.
Alas the times seemed to have changed.
Hell, the way this place has been all week, a thread on the best piece in candyland could become political.
"Well, sure, the green piece is a good piece if you ignore the many years in which green was used as the symbol of facism in Italy. If that's your definition of a "good" piece, I can see you have no perspective whatsoever."
And yes, it is a damn shame that the various axe grinders can't make it through one stupid thread without bringing up some stupid political slant to that issue.
So how many years in a row does the planet have to get colder before people admit that its not warming anymore?
This is not a snarky question, I'm genuinely interested in the answer to that question.
Mmm... enough to make it a statistically significant change against the hundred year trend.
At the end of the day the evidence AND concensus support anthropogenic climate change. if you have a spare hour, you might want to learn a little more about the science and politics of anthropogenic climate change. ThisThis is a fairly good place to start as it is a cited discussion based on research into the history of scientific opinion on climate change.
|
|
Thank god! Another politics thread for toxic rhetoric! How cool is that?Its a sad, sad world where talking about the weather is deemed political.
When I was a child I heard that politics and religion were taboo topics among strangers. The weather was always assumed to be a safe and boring subject for any group.
Alas, the times seemed to have changed.
Like he said, I hadn't meant this to be a political thread. It was more of a gee whiz thing, like the threads about new dinosaurs and such. But Sebastian's right. It's a sad day when even making fun of the French can get political.
Edit: These days I hope global warming is happening so the damn snow will stop piling up in my front yard.
|
|
Mmm... enough to make it a statistically significant change against the hundred year trend.So how many years in a row does the planet have to get colder before people admit that its not warming anymore?
This is not a snarky question, I'm genuinely interested in the answer to that question.
By that do you mean that the temperature has to decrease for the same period of time that it increased or that it needs to decrease by the same amount it increased?
Also, and this is something that I really have never understood, why is global cooling preferred to global warming? Warmer weather tends to promote life and colder weather tends to kill life. So what is the average temperature assumed to be ideal (by those who are afraid of the earth warming)?
Edit: Again not snark. I've never heard good answers to these questions but maybe thats only because they are so rarely asked.
|
Oh, and by the way, shut up about "global warming"
The term among scientists and people who actually listen to scientists is "anthropogenic climate change" - which is demonstrable, universally accepted, and isn't amenable to some wag asking why if it's global warming we're getting six inches of snow in April.
The reason, you ignorant turd*, is because what was initially, and poorly, named as global warming manifests itself in large part by extremes of weather - any weather, all weather. Winters are colder, summers are hotter, storms more violent, floods more flood-y. Over a period that has not been experimentally determined, the factors that lead to these extremes of weather will, in fact, raise average global temperatures. The size of this increase and the time frame in which it will occur is under debate, but as it only takes a few degrees increase to royally screw up ecosystems world-wide, it's a matter of measuring how badly we're screwed, not if.
Anthropogenic Climate Change is so accepted by scientists that it is actually the name of the currently geological era in which we live - The Anthropogenic Era dates from the widespread adoption of man-made fire.
* 'ignorant turd' appellation applies to generic and hypothetical wags, and should not be applied to anyone who uses this messageboard, their families, or affiliates.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thank god! Another politics thread for toxic rhetoric! How cool is that?Its a sad, sad world where talking about the weather is deemed political.
When I was a child I heard that politics and religion were taboo topics among strangers. The weather was always assumed to be a safe and boring subject for any group.
Alas, the times seemed to have changed.
Like he said, I hadn't meant this to be a political thread. It was more of a gee whiz thing, like the threads about new dinosaurs and such. But Sebastian's right. It's a sad day when even making fun of the French can get political.
Edit: These days I hope global warming is happening so the damn snow will stop piling up in my front yard.
Yeah, it was an interesting thread, and a global warming joke was inevitable (and the one that was made was harmless and in good humor). But then the usual suspects started marshling and it looked like it was going to take a sharp turn into the toxic and angry very quickly, which would be a bummer. It'd be nice to be able to joke about political topics without getting involved in a full blown Serious Politics Discussion.
Mmm... enough to make it a statistically significant change against the hundred year trend.So how many years in a row does the planet have to get colder before people admit that its not warming anymore?
This is not a snarky question, I'm genuinely interested in the answer to that question.
By that do you mean that the temperature has to decrease for the same period of time that it increased or that it needs to decrease by the same amount it increased?
Also, and this is something that I really have never understood, why is global cooling preferred to global warming? Warmer weather tends to promote life and colder weather tends to kill life. So what is the average temperature assumed to be ideal (by those who are afraid of the earth warming)?
Edit: Again not snark. I've never heard good answers to these questions but maybe thats only because they are so rarely asked.
I am not a climatologist, but I did study as a biologist. I am inclined to trust the scientific opinion and expertise of my peers when they form a consensus.
I don't personally know exactly how long a trend would have to continue before it became statistically significant. However, I am sure that if you are interested you could pose the question to a climatologist thought their blog. I am sure that you will find a blogging climatologist somewhere on the net. I do know that we have seen over the last hundred year seen trends of 10 to 30 years and that temperature trends even now are up on average over their last upwards spike in a manner that is consistent with predictions based on climate models produced over 30 years ago.I can say that global average temperature is not solely governed by CO2 levels. The effect of global Dimming has been show to be substantial, so increasing numbers of flights and increasing of air particulates can counter the effects of warming caused by CO2. I cannot stress hard enough that the concussions related to climate change are based on very strong predictive theories which have been proven repeatedly right and that there is very strong consensus amongst climate scientists that global warming is occuring.
More over, at least some of the voices arguing against climate change have serious question marks hanging over their academic integrity. It is hard to explain, but it boils down to being that the core 'anti-climate change' movement in the scientific community where provably hired guns for the tobacco industry and are mostly speaking outside of their specialism.
|
|
Oh, and by the way, shut up about "global warming"
The term among scientists and people who actually listen to scientists is "anthropogenic climate change" - which is demonstrable, universally accepted, and isn't amenable to some wag asking why if it's global warming we're getting six inches of snow in April.
Well technically, since people do dispute it, it is not in fact universally accepted.
And taking as a given that a hypothesis can be "amenable", that demonstrates a pre-emptive decision to reject any dissent, no matter the evidence presented.|
|
Where do you live, if I may ask?Heh. In my house I can always make my kids laugh by telling them how much I am looking forward to global warming in the Northern Hemisphere this year. :)
Edit: These days I hope global warming is happening so the damn snow will stop piling up in my front yard.
Eastern/South-eastern Ohio at the moment.
edit: For full disclosure, I must admit that global warming doesn't really bother me. Last year it was too cold in these parts and it was much harder to maintain the garden. I really am rooting for slightly warmer weather this year (with a decent amount of rain) so that I don't have to pay horrendous prices for other people's vegetables (imported from parts tropical I might add). :)
Thank god! Another politics thread for toxic rhetoric! How cool is that?Its a sad, sad world where talking about the weather is deemed political.
When I was a child I heard that politics and religion were taboo topics among strangers. The weather was always assumed to be a safe and boring subject for any group.
Alas, the times seemed to have changed.
Like he said, I hadn't meant this to be a political thread. It was more of a gee whiz thing, like the threads about new dinosaurs and such. But Sebastian's right. It's a sad day when even making fun of the French can get political.
Edit: These days I hope global warming is happening so the damn snow will stop piling up in my front yard.
Yeah, it was an interesting thread, and a global warming joke was inevitable (and the one that was made was harmless and in good humor). But then the usual suspects started marshling and it looked like it was going to take a sharp turn into the toxic and angry very quickly, which would be a bummer. It'd be nice to be able to joke about political topics without getting involved in a full blown Serious Politics Discussion.
Come one, Sebastian. 'Fess up that you've taken out a copyright on the term Global Cooling, and are waiting to cash in down the line.
OK, here's your 25 cents for using your term. ;)
By that do you mean that the temperature has to decrease for the same period of time that it increased or that it needs to decrease by the same amount it increased?
If you can show a greater net cooling trend superimposed over the warming trend, it's done. Basically, if any combination of time and/or magnitude overshadows the warming, then you'd say net cooling is going on. Also kep in mind it's a global mean: if Ohio cools by 1 degree, for example, but the entire Pacific Ocean warms by 2 degrees, that's net warming, not cooling -- but it's still colder in Ohio.
Also, and this is something that I really have never understood, why is global cooling preferred to global warming? Warmer weather tends to promote life and colder weather tends to kill life. So what is the average temperature assumed to be ideal (by those who are afraid of the earth warming)?I think the main thing is that 90% of the world's population lives on or near the coast, where the effects are most noticeable. But that's not to say it would be all bad -- if the Arctic melted, you could take a ferry from Canada to Russia. That's kind of an exciting thought.
One thing to bear in mind is that, geologically-speaking, there have been times in the past warm enough that there were no ice caps at all. On a smaller time scale, we're still leaving the last big ice age (ended approx 11,000 years ago), so some warming is expected. The question is, are we warming faster than we should be, for reasons that can be controlled? And the answer is -- although no one on either side will admit it -- no one really knows at this point.
Mmm... enough to make it a statistically significant change against the hundred year trend.So how many years in a row does the planet have to get colder before people admit that its not warming anymore?
This is not a snarky question, I'm genuinely interested in the answer to that question.
By that do you mean that the temperature has to decrease for the same period of time that it increased or that it needs to decrease by the same amount it increased?
Also, and this is something that I really have never understood, why is global cooling preferred to global warming? Warmer weather tends to promote life and colder weather tends to kill life. So what is the average temperature assumed to be ideal (by those who are afraid of the earth warming)?
Edit: Again not snark. I've never heard good answers to these questions but maybe thats only because they are so rarely asked.
As for why cooling is slightly more preferable. basically, it isn't the heat that will do us in, it is the increased instability in the climate. A Cooler global climate means a less volatile, less changeable climate. Don't get me wrong, a major drop is still devistating, but it is mildly preferable to a substantial increase.
Sea level change thanks to the melting of land locked Ice is also a serious consideration for place like Florida, Louisiana and Bangladesh.You must understand, we are talking about average global temperatures changes of only a few degrees. While that doesn't sound like a lot, the changes can be much more extreme on a local level. The video i dumped into my first post on this goes into a lot more detail about that and talks about exactly how accurate climate change models have been at predicting the effect of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Ironically, the net result of global warming is that we will experience a flash ice age, within the next twenty year. (See north Atlantic conveyer current collapse.)
|
|
Eastern/South-eastern Ohio at the moment.Where do you live, if I may ask?Heh. In my house I can always make my kids laugh by telling them how much I am looking forward to global warming in the Northern Hemisphere this year. :)
Edit: These days I hope global warming is happening so the damn snow will stop piling up in my front yard.
Wow, you guys get it worse then we do here in Utah. You must really love global warming.
Oh, and by the way, shut up about "global warming"
The term among scientists and people who actually listen to scientists is "anthropogenic climate change" - which is demonstrable, universally accepted, and isn't amenable to some wag asking why if it's global warming we're getting six inches of snow in April.
Well technically, since people do dispute it, it is not in fact universally accepted.
And taking as a given that a hypothesis can be "amenable", that demonstrates a pre-emptive decision to reject any dissent, no matter the evidence presented.
It is a demonstratable concensus amongst the scientists with a specialisation in climate science.
|
|
It is a demonstratable concensus amongst the scientists with a specialisation in climate science.
Which remains something other than the definition of "universal".
Which does not constitute a refutation of its pre-emptive denial of being disproven.Compare and contrast:
"Intelligent design is a demonstrable consensus amongst the scientists with a specialization in ID science, and is thus universally accepted, and not amenable to some wag asking why if it is intelligent design we have vestigial organs."
Please just trample me to death now Sebastian. I can't take the threadjacking any more.
Sorry dude. Thank you very much for the cool video by the way.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Pass it over. Is it grapeasaurus rex?I used to love that flavor, but they got rid of it.Please just trample me to death now Sebastian. I can't take the threadjacking any more.I've made some Kool-Aid for both of us. It will end the pain.
Ecto-Cooler. Sorry about that. Slimer always has held a soft spot in my heart.
|
|
Ecto-Cooler. Sorry about that. Slimer always has held a soft spot in my heart.Pass it over. Is it grapeasaurus rex?I used to love that flavor, but they got rid of it.Please just trample me to death now Sebastian. I can't take the threadjacking any more.I've made some Kool-Aid for both of us. It will end the pain.
That stuff went with me on many deployments when I was in the service. It was a lot better then the powdered drink mix they put in MREs.
|
|
Compare and contrast:
"Intelligent design is a demonstrable consensus amongst the scientists with a specialization in ID science, and is thus universally accepted, and not amenable to some wag asking why if it is intelligent design we have vestigial organs."
If there was any such thing as a scientist with a specialization in intelligent design, I'd be happy to compare and contrast. I might as well compare and contrast with a unicorn.
See, real scientists actually publish reproducible research in refereed journals.
|
|
Sorry about the sun-cooling thing. We'll have that fixed for you soon. If you would like to help, you could simply give a short prayer to Sarenrae.
The betrayer shall be cast down, and her works trampled beneath the myriad feet of God. She shall be rent asunder, the blood of treachery feeding the ever-increasing strength of Rovagug, and this flawed and tragic creation shall finally find the peace it screams for.
If there was any such thing as a scientist with a specialization in intelligent design, I'd be happy to compare and contrast.
Michael Beehe is the closest I've seen -- his knowledge of biology above reproach -- but unfortunately he falls victim to the seductive argument of "I can't personally explain it, therefore God did it."
|
|
Michael Behe is the closest I've seen -- his knowledge of biology above reproach -- but unfortunately he falls victim to the seductive argument of "I can't personally explain it, therefore God did it."
Hm. Good publication history, although I can't help but shift the goal-posts slightly and point out he has no research on the subject of ID.
It really is a seductive argument, though, isn't it? Wraps everything up with a neat little bow.
And yes, it is a damn shame that the various axe grinders can't make it through one stupid thread without bringing up some stupid political slant to that issue.
Up for a game of Hero?