Reply With Quote
Bush will pay for this!!!!
Solar flares may pack a bigger punch
Scientists suggests solar cycle will be 30-50 percent more intense
Tuesday, March 7, 2006; Posted: 11:39 a.m. EST (16:39 GMT)
During the last cycle, solar storms caused extreme radio blackouts in the Pacific.
The next sunspot cycle will be between 30 percent to 50 percent more intense than the last one, scientists said Monday.
The cycle will also begin a year later than expected, in late 2007 or early 2008, and peak around 2012, said Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.
The new prediction is at odds with previous forecasts, which suggested that the intensity of the next solar cycle would be measurably smaller.
Accurately predicting the intensity of the sunspot cycle, which occurs about every 11 years, allows scientists to anticipate solar storms. They are caused by solar flares, or giant eruptions that burst from the surface of the sun.
Solar storms, which eject billions of tons of plasma and charged particles into space, can produce dazzling northern lights, but also disrupt power lines, radio transmissions and satellite communication.
The last time the solar cycle peaked was in 2001. During the last cycle, solar storms caused extreme radio blackouts in the Pacific.
For decades, scientists have tracked the solar cycle and appearance of sunspots, but they have been unable to accurately predict the intensity or timing of solar storms, which increase as the number of sunspots increases.
Dikpati, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said her team tested the new computer model using previous solar cycle data and had 98 percent accuracy.
David Hathaway, a solar astronomer with NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, does not doubt that the next sunspot cycle will be stronger than the previous one.
But Hathaway said his own research suggests that the next cycle will occur late this year -- earlier than what Dikpati predicted.
The current research, funded by National Science Foundation, is published in the latest Geophysical Research Letters.
Last edited by Sec24Row7; 03-07-2006 at 03:43 PM.
Bush will pay for this!!!!
Let's see Kyoto fix that !
It's those blasted space rockets mankind keeps sending up there. Do you
hear! All that space junk is affecting the sun. Now we can fix that by
just passing a space junk tax plan and the USA pay everyone a few billion
dollars per shot. Now that is only fair.
Sun spot cycles and their effects on earth's atmosphere have been going on "forever", let's assume.
Global warming, now rapid, maybe even at a "tipping point", has accelerated in close correlation with the Industrial revolution and the burning of carbon fuels.
Repug science is bull science.
What are the northern lights? Solar radiation interacting with the earth's atmosphere. This causes a decay of the atmosphere, but at the current rate of decay, the sun will expand and envelop the earth (about 2-5 billion years from now) before our atmosphere is completely gone.
The majority of this solar radiation interacts at the poles of the earth, and as we changed the complexion of the atmosphere, how do we know this isn't going to affect the Earth's ability to protect us from solar radiation, exposing us to more radiation and higher temperatures, and - gasp - perhaps melt the polar ice caps?
Last edited by Darrin; 03-09-2006 at 02:53 PM.
That's what I get for having 2 windows open at the same time.
Last edited by jochhejaam; 03-09-2006 at 06:21 PM.
Are you saying that Hoiberg's 3-pt fg percentage is the actual cause? Hoiberg will pay for this!!!!
I think it's worth looking into.
Careful Tests
The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.
The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.
Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.
The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.
Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.
In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.
Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.
So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.
But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
Last edited by jochhejaam; 03-09-2006 at 06:38 PM.
I'm not saying that the earth isn't heating up.
But...
We didn't cause the earth to come out of the ice age 15,000 years ago...
So what makes you think we have everything to do with it warming up now?
Bush invented cars, trains, boats and jet's. It's all his fault..
Hold on.. (presses gas pedal)..
Bush also invented "Fuel Injectors".. not only does it mix that sweet saudi juice it shoots it into your engine like the engine is snorting up a giant sized line of saudi coke.
ROFL
Long term mass balance records from Lemon Creek Glacier show slightly declining mass balance with time.(Miller and Pelto) The mean annual balance for this glacier was −0.23 m (−0.75 ft) each year during the period of 1957 to 1976. Mean annual balance has been increasingly negatively averaging −1.04 m (−3.4 ft) per year from 1990 to 2005. Repeat glacier altimetry, or al ude measuring, for 67 Alaska glaciers find rates of thinning have increased by more than a factor of two when comparing the periods from 1950 to 1995 (0.7 m (2.3 ft) per year) and 1995 to 2001 (1.8 m (5.9 ft) per year).(Arendt, et alia) This is a systemic trend with loss in mass equating to loss in thickness, which leads to increasing retreat—the glaciers are not only retreating, but they are also becoming much thinner. In Denali National Park the terminus of the Toklat Glacier is retreating 24 m (78 ft) per year and the Cantwell Glacier 10 m (32 ft) per year.(Pelto5) There are many surging glaciers throughout Alaska whose terminal locations are due partially to climate and partially to surging behavior. These glaciers are all retreating overall, punctuated by short periods of advance.
The Last Ice Age
The last Ice Age, the Wisconsinan, began about 50,000 years ago. As the environment cooled, a large ice sheet formed in the Hudson's Bay region, and began to spread south. One lobe entered central Iowa and moved as far south as Greene County. Then, as the climate warmed about 30,000 years ago, this lobe "retreated," or melted. Then as temperatures cooled again, another glacier, the Des Moines Lobe, entered Iowa and pushed down through the center of the state to reach Des Moines about 17,000 years ago. It finally retreated 14,000 years ago
Ok let's take 78ft/year... the Highest rate seen...
14,000 * 78ft /5280 (I'm giving you a few thousand years here just to be safe)
That's 206 miles...
Des Moines Iowa = 41 35' 27" N 93 36' 41" W
Edge of Hudson Bay (Not gonna go past that it's clear enough just to the edge) 56 52' 43" N 89 08' 10" W
Distance Calculation Results
Distance between 45 35'27"N 93 36'41"W and 56 52'43"N 89 8'10"W is
804.0282 statute miles
This calculation assumes the earth is a perfect sphere
with a radius of 3963.1 statute miles
This is query number 959022 since Jan 24, 1997.
Using http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~cvm/latlongdist.html
804 MILES
That's right... the retreat you hear so much about happening in Alaska and Glacier National park is FOUR TIMES LESS than the retreat that had to happen starting 14,000 years ago when there were no Carbon based fuels being used...
But hey... It's Bush's Fault
The consequences for being wrong are much worse for rejecting global warming than embracing it.
Did you read anything I said?
Rofl...
Only if one accepts both the theory of anthropocentric global warming as well as the hypothesis that it could be controlled with marginal decreases in the production of greenhouse gases.
What if we had to go back to the pre-Industrial Revolution way of life? I have a very hard time believing that the worst-case scenario for global warming is worse than going back to the world as is existed around 1700.
How are you going to tell me that we are making the earth warmer when 14,000 years ago the earth was warming up four times faster?
How are you going to tell me that it is hugely harmful to the environment that this happens?
Everyone hates smog. Reduce emissions to lessen air pollution. That's fine.
But PLEASE... don't think you are saving Arctic Fox pups or some other bull because of it.
Anytime there are glaciers or ice sheets on the surface of the earth... it is still in an ice age.
That's not necessarily true. At least not by our definition
Love warming.
It too ing cold then.
I agree that the focus on warming is misguided even if it's true. Smog and small-particle pollution have very noticable and dare I say marketable (in a policy selling sense) effects on people. Might as well start there.
But we could never "go back" society and people would not allow that. In fact, it might even be impossible to go back. If we moved forward, with enough money and man power, then we could find a way. Man's possibilities are endless when we are unified and motivated.
The ramifications if we do not embrace the hypothesis are disasterous.
The ramifications of not embracing the hypothesis that the earth will explode unless you get laid tommorow are disasterous too, but I think the women of earth are willing to take their chances.
except 99.9 percent of all professional academics don't back the explosion hypothesis.....on the other hand...
The number of academics that disagree with the amount that carbon emissions affect warming is MUCH greater than 1 in 1000
Show me a link.
I happen to know for a fact that you are wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
