SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Solar cycle 25 is here. NASA, NOAA scientists explain what that means:
Solar Cycle 25 has begun. During a media event on Tuesday, experts from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) discussed their analysis and predictions about the new solar cycle – and how the coming upswing in space weather will impact our lives and technology on Earth, as well as astronauts in space.
The Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel, an international group of experts co-sponsored by NASA and NOAA, announced that solar minimum occurred in December 2019, marking the start of a new solar cycle. Because our Sun is so variable, it can take months after the fact to declare this event. Scientists use sunspots to track solar cycle progress; the dark blotches on the Sun are associated with solar activity, often as the origins for giant explosions – such as solar flares or coronal mass ejections – which can spew light, energy, and solar material into space.
"As we emerge from solar minimum and approach Cycle 25's maximum, it is important to remember solar activity never stops; it changes form as the pendulum swings," said Lika Guhathakurta, solar scientist at the Heliophysics Division at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
NASA and NOAA, along with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other federal agencies and departments, work together on the National Space Weather Strategy and Action Plan to enhance space weather preparedness and protect the nation from space weather hazards. NOAA provides space weather predictions and satellites to monitor space weather in real time; NASA is the nation's research arm, helping improve our understanding of near-Earth space, and ultimately, forecasting models.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 17 2020, @06:13PM (20 children)
So is #25 the one that is finally going to disprove global warming?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 17 2020, @06:40PM (17 children)
Shirley, one solar flare can undo 100+ years of
millionsbillions of engines and thousands of factories spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.Is there a chemotherapy treatment for excessively low blood alcohol level?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2020, @09:15PM (16 children)
Climate change = natural variability + human influence
The models ignore the sun completely besides setting the solar constant at 1366 W/m^2. Guess where all that variability ends up in the equation above.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2020, @09:56PM (15 children)
The models ignore:
1) High energy nuclei cosmic rays coupling to the atmosphere and mantle
2) High energy proton/electron cosmic rays coupling to the magnetosphere and ionosphere
3) Solar wind protons/electrons coupling to the magnetosphere and ionosphere
4) Electric/magnetic field (induced) effects from the sun coupling to the magnetosphere and ionosphere
5) X-ray and gamma ray radiation from the sun coupling to the ionosphere and upper atmosphere
6) Joule (resistive) heating of the atmosphere as these currents flow through it
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday September 18 2020, @08:34AM (5 children)
The argument for doing something about global warming is a "balance of risks" argument.
The models certainly have some flaws. So there is a possibility that an overlooked factor could explain everything; I would argue the probability is reasonably small. There is also quite a possibility that there could be some flaws in the other direction e.g. positive feedback loops kicking in from global warming (e.g. permafrost thawing).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2020, @10:53AM (4 children)
Doing something means finding engineering solutions just like humans always have throughout history. Mother nature is not our friend.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday September 18 2020, @01:31PM (3 children)
Sure. I think the green lobby have mis-sold "fixing climate change" as being about *not* doing stuff - which is a hard battle to win. Far better to sell it as *taking positive action*; as you say, engineering solutions. With the advantage that we learn how to terraform.
As a first step, a lot of folks need to stop denying climate change and start talking about the best way to fix the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2020, @01:32PM (2 children)
It is not possible to fix the problem of "climate change". The engineering solutions are to adapt to it.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday September 18 2020, @02:22PM (1 child)
> The engineering solutions are to adapt to it.
I guess it is expensive either way, but that sounds jolly expensive - major flood relief schemes for all coastal cities (i.e. most cities in the world), just to start. I think it is cheaper to engineer solutions to carbon dioxide and methane emissions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2020, @03:45PM
7 meter levees were already built along the mississippi last century. It isnt a big deal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2020, @12:40PM (8 children)
Yes indeed, and there are very good reasons to ignore that stuff (you left out Solar neutrons, by the way). They also ignore couplings from black hole x-rays, galactic background radiation, and relativistic effects due to the Earth's gravity well. In fact, I can go on for quite a long time adding in insignificant effects that the models do not include.
Your very first objection really puzzles me. Do you know what the total flux of high energy nuclei cosmic rays are? Go look it up. We have to build very large detectors and set them out for very long times to detect a decent statistics of them, despite the fact that ionized nuclei are easy to detect. And if we end up getting a significant amount of them from the Sun, then we've got much bigger issues than climate effects because large fluxes of large nuclei from the Sun would mean that it has gone nova.
The rest of your examples seem to be an application of the fact that you just heard the word "couples" and you want to apply it to everything flying around in space (hey, the magnetic fields generated by the Starlink satellites are coupling to the Earth's magnetic field too, so don't forget them!). For instance, how do x-rays and gamma rays "couple" to the atmosphere? They "couple" in the same way that a bullet "couples" to your chest when you are shot.
There have been some interesting suggestions over the decades about whether cosmic rays "seed" cloud formation if the conditions are good (supersaturation conditions like you would get in a cloud chamber detector), but effects like those, if present, are not obvious in the data. We have a wonderful trove of decades of space- and ground-based detectors, and centuries of ground-based solar observations, and there are no strong correlations between the 11-year solar activity and climate effects. If these effects occur, they are at levels that are insignificant for driving the kinds of changes that the models focus on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2020, @12:55PM (2 children)
Do you know what percent of the Earths atmosphere is CO2? It is 0.04%. How can a trace gas have such a huge effect on the planet?
Also, in the upper atmosphere the effects of this stuff are quite large:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018SW001956 [wiley.com]
https://eos.org/features/how-sudden-stratospheric-warming-affects-the-whole-atmosphere [eos.org]
http://saber.gats-inc.com/publications.php [gats-inc.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2020, @08:49PM (1 child)
I don't refute that the rarefied upper atmosphere expands and contracts from joule heating, but you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of heat capacity, gas density, etc., if you think this is significantly heating the global atmosphere (which ignores the fact that it cools radiatively back off after the source of joule heating stops).
The whole point of the first article you posted was that the upper atmosphere expands radially as it heats and causes issues such as atmospheric drag on low satellites. Your second article talks about mixing of atmospheric layers, which is interesting from the standpoint of atmospheric forecasting and dynamics, but again, is irrelevant to this discussion.
Both effects you've pointed out, happen on timescales every day of about 12 hours. Turns out there is this really hot and bright source of light out there. You get both of your effects in spades EVERY DAY! Almost like clockwork.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19 2020, @06:49AM
Yep, very large diurnal pattern for CO2 as well.
https://meteo.lcd.lu/papers/co2_patterns/co2_patterns.html [meteo.lcd.lu]
Basically there is no argument you can use to dismiss these other effects that can't be used to dismiss CO2.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday September 18 2020, @01:40PM (4 children)
> We have to build very large detectors
Just to knock this argument on the head, the reason solar ions are rare at ground level is because they get absorbed in the upper atmosphere and turn into muons, so this doesn't affect GPs argument. You have about one muon going through you every second by the way.
But I think you are right - the effects are quite small and likely to be negligible.
Another effect which is not accounted for in the models that I came across recently - trees release interesting chemicals that make clouds, so the albedo model is probably wrong for heavily forested regions. Again, likely to be a small effect, but another tricksy little detail.
The point is, the change in temperature seems to be pretty serious, and likely to be caused by human activity. Most extrapolations are quite scary. We would be negligent not to sort it out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2020, @01:59PM (2 children)
Based on what? This is the same reasoning people use to say a trace gas like CO2 can't have much influence. This type of thing is common for complex systems, 100 ug of LSD can have a huge effect on a 80 kg person. That is 0.000000125%.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday September 18 2020, @02:49PM (1 child)
> Based on what?
Well, weather forecasting is pretty good.
I liked the linked paper by the way. OTOH, I think it is a bit of a stretch to go from "there is this phenomenon that we don't quite understand" to "these models are all wrong".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2020, @03:50PM
Weather forecasting also ignores CO2, so then CO2 doesnt matter much either. The point is once you are accepting trace gases can have huge influence on the atmosphere via feedbacks you have to look at all the small influences the same way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2020, @08:33PM
I wasn't talking about the ones on the ground. I was talking about the ones you have to send up on long duration balloons to the top of the atmosphere for several weeks, like CREME or SuerTIGER, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2020, @07:17PM
No.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2020, @10:06PM
Don't start rumours that the sun causes global warming, or St Greta will go blind glaring at the sun.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 17 2020, @06:58PM (4 children)
The censors will choke over
What can we do to be prepared? Is it possible to have enough replacement electrical transformers to get the electrical grid into a relatively working condition? And quickly.
Would we really be willing to try to build all our electronics to be EMP hardened? (also: in case of an EMP bomb over our hemisphere from Iran or Sweeden)
If electrical power over a significant part of the US were lost for two weeks, we would be back to the stone ages and savagery. No groceries on store shelves. No power to pump fuel at gas stations. Thus no trucking. Very quickly all fuel would be siphoned out of tanks. No more trucks coming to deliver fuel to gas station. Refineries might not even be running. No trucking to bring more groceries or ammunition. Hoarding of TP.
Twitter being down would put our government into total chaos.
Twitter back online would put our government into total chaos.
Is there a chemotherapy treatment for excessively low blood alcohol level?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2020, @08:36PM (1 child)
CME is not an EMP.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19 2020, @04:48AM
CMEs can cause EMOs, which are like EMPs on steroids. The Carrington Event is the current known record holder, but much smaller events have caused major blackouts. Not protecting our electrical grid is negligent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2020, @10:50PM
And remember that DJT is raiding funds from FEMA to pay unemplooyment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2020, @10:36PM
is this sort of thing new to you?
these concerns you cite have been considered for years -- there was even a recorded incident in the victorian era where a telegraph machine burst into flames--and it was one of the few powered 'grid' things anyway yet it was badly affected.
plenty of journalists have spent time wondering what would happen in the modern age (like the 50s or 60s or whichever intervening decade since popular since originally covered the concept).
anyway, I'm prepared for the stone age -- I have a lot of rocks in my yard and I am prepared to throw them at people. my real concern is toliet paper and where to find that if our new shitty diets require extra use of an increasibly hard to get item.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2020, @08:33PM (1 child)
If by "so variable" being "so not variable", then it would be right.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-sun-is-surprisingly-weaksauce-compared-to-other-stars [sciencealert.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2020, @01:35PM
Hey, Jim, look at the flashing light I built. It's turns on and off 100 times a second!
That's nice, Carole, but that isn't really variable. There are lights that turn on and off 1 million times a second.
So, Jim, you are saying the light I created isn't variable?
Yes, Carole, your light isn't variable because there is something that is more variable than your light.
Jim, you are a moron.
(And Carole is correct).