171–180 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is a correlation, it’s definitely interesting, the same way all science is interesting.
lol, all science is bad at stats, and uses correlation as causation
Interestingly this happens every 11 years and also their is a longer cycle called the Hale cycle which is double the length at 22 years. It flips from a mostly dipole where the poles match the orientation of earth to a reverse and much more irregular magenetic orientation. I didn't see anything about how this really affects Earth directly other than what I knew previously about sun spots make Coronal Mass Ejections s…
Mostly affects cloud formation [1] 1. https://home.web.cern.ch/news/news/physics/cloud-discovers-n...
While certainly solar activity affects the atmosphere broadly, such as ozone levels influenced by UV radiation and solar particles, the CLOUD study writeup here doesn’t show a direct impact on the specific aerosol-forming reactions.
So, while solar activity influences some chemistry such as ozone formation, it’s unclear if it affects the reactions described by CLOUD.
It's just really sad to see all in the storys about the ends of earth. Every thing a new day to kill us. Now were to be wiped out enterirely.
It's not a story about the end of the earth. It's a story about a regular recurring solar phenomenon.
It's just really sad to see all in the storys about the ends of earth. Every thing a new day to kill us. Now were to be wiped out enterirely.
Relax. Humanity has always produced stories about the ends of earth, and we always will. It's just something we do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The point of the show is to bring science to common people. Many of the startalk episodes he brings on pop culture icons or sports commentators. They dumb down the content substantially, but my mom and my grandma really liked those types of episodes so it must work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of the show is to bring science to common people. Many of the startalk episodes he brings on pop culture icons or sports commentators. They dumb down the content substantially, but my mom and my grandma really liked those types of episodes so it must work.
Okay, but why does he need an idiot to ruin the show? NDT himself could sell the show, he is good at explaining things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a story about the end of the earth. It's a story about a regular recurring solar phenomenon.
I don't think the earth can servive without the sun. Pretty basic, I think.
The current cycle seems to be stronger than usual. And produce some strong solar flares recently. Those could cause problems for electrical grid. But there have been stronger cycles back in the 1950s.
If you're open to exiting an novel theories on why this happens, check out Dr. Robitaille liquid sun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUZ0Obpihbc
Very interesting hypothesis. Anyone here with more expertise want to comment? The summary is that the sun is actually metallic hydrogen, which forms a lattice similar to layers of graphite. This both explains the black-body radiation of the sun and provides a mechanism to explain sunspots and the solar maximum and pole flip: sunspots are non-hydrogen elements that are excluded from the metallic hydrogen lattice and p…
It isn't surprising that there is messy magnetic field when Sun is pure conductor.
Metallic hydrogen probably has something to do with magnetic field on Jupiter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're in an ice age now. Humans have always lived in an Ice Age. It's called the Quaternary glaciation and it's been filled with individual glacial periods. You might want to read up on terminology. Physics, thermodynamics, informs us that the glaciers aren't coming back while the insulation in the atmosphere is high and still increasing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
> To geologists, an ice age is defined by the presence of large amounts of land-based ice. That's pedantic. > Physics, thermodynamics, informs us that the glaciers aren't coming back while the insulation in the atmosphere is high and still increasing. Meh. The running hypothesis on the "other side" is that we're going to have a pole shift and grand solar minimum at the same time. Now, as you can see, I haven't really…
The "other side" in this instance is fossil fuel funded think tanks promoting bonkers denialism ala the same institutes and their pro tobacco work in the decades earlier.
What "pole shift"? Magnetic pole on earth or the sun? The Earth magnetic pole flipping this century or the next is improbable at best and the solar pole flip happens every 22 years or so, neither that nor a grand solar minimum has anything to do with the glaciers on earth.
> I haven't really done the prerequisite reading
You might like to start with Syukuro Manabe's 1967 Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity - it was 15 years old when I first read it in an applied mathematics class prior to a career in geophysical exploration for minerals and energy clients.
It's 57 years old but still an absolute stonker of a paper, rightly considered the single most influential paper in climate research. (and only 19 pages).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04...
> I have, however, read about all the stupidity surrounding "global warming" and how it was totally going to end the planet in 2000 and 1980 and 2024
Ignore that, that's not science that's media spin, half coming from people that really struggle to convey what a slow rolling train wreck climate change will be and desperate to urge people to take steps before it's too late, the other half coming from groups paid to up the FUD and hype in order to dilute the threat which has clearly woirked in many cases (you seem to be a fine example).
> This only makes me NOT want to spend my free time untangling "conclusive" climate decisions backed by ""science""
It's not much harder than understanding the heat equations.
> I, as an individual, don't have a horse in this race.
Exactly. Like many you're likely old, will be dead before this is a big issue, have no children, don't care about them if you did, and can't be arsed consuming less or making an effort. It's completely understandable.
> I don't believe in either one because my carbon emissions can be eclipsed by a volcano or a plane in a few hours.
Collectively though, it's the sum total of human emissions that are the problem, with a small percentage being the biggest problem and being reluctant to set an example.
> It's completely useless to expect me to not buy a car or to watch my energy consumption when it's not going to make a dent anyway.
Indeed, just rearrange your deck chair and listen to the band playing onwards.
Of course if you are in your 20s (as your HN profile claims) then you might want to do something that has an impact on the world about you and the people you know .. other than rolling coal and buying a lambo or whatever.
I recall a few years ago a what seemed to be ground-breaking white paper from I think a Russian scientist, who argued (and convincingly) that there are two cycles at work, one deep in the Sun, the other shallow. The co-incidence of these two cycles both being at maximum, or both being at minimum, explaining the extremes of solar activity.
That sounds like Gnevishev, M. N.; Ohl, A. I. (1948). "On the 22-year cycle of solar activity" which first appeared in the Russian journal Astronomicheskii Zhurnal 76 years past.