What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
164 Comments
- roffelmeh, on 01/07/2008, -10/+76"The major climax of this new cycle is predicted to be in 2011 or 2012."
Maya Calendar ends 2012 - MortalCoiled, on 01/07/2008, -6/+61Yes; after all, the sun is ultimately responsible for global warming.
- theexitwound, on 01/07/2008, -14/+66Not mentioned in the article, but the climate on Earth is very closely linked with the sun's activity.
- itanius, on 01/07/2008, -9/+561. Mayan calendar ending 12/21/2012
2. Solar Cycle 24
3. ??????
4. PROFIT!!! - Tbar1, on 01/07/2008, -2/+42Wait a minute. This story has Cycle 24 as being early? It's not early, it's almost a year LATE. It was originally scheduled for Mar 2007. When that date came and went, it was rescheduled for Mar 2008. You had better enjoy 24 'cause according to NASA, 25 is gonna be a Downer. So much so that it will probably be the start of another, hopefully 'Little' Ice Age. We are scheduled for a 'Big' Ice Age anytime now.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_long ...
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html - yohnkrb, on 01/07/2008, -0/+39My calendar ends in 2008...
- iloveazngurlzs, on 01/07/2008, -4/+36Galactic Warming?
- TheGooseyOne, on 01/07/2008, -6/+33Obviously caused by global warming.
- inactive, on 01/07/2008, -1/+27no.
- inactive, on 01/07/2008, -1/+26I'm not trying to be an ass here, but would an article about the sun's cycle really need to mention that the earth's climate is closely linked with sun's activity? You would think that would be 5th grade common knowledge. Then again, it is surprising to see all those plants growing when the sun comes out... ah, the mystery of it.
- ncdave101, on 01/07/2008, -1/+21[citation needed]
- gm33, on 01/07/2008, -1/+19I think you mean 8 MINUTES
- mrblonde314, on 01/07/2008, -3/+17I feel mongered with fear =*(
- noahhoward, on 01/07/2008, -0/+13Oh so global warming is caused by ozone depletion now? Will you at least go an learn about the stupid arguments you're going to use?
- jmpeagle, on 01/07/2008, -1/+14I heard it would be very difficult for us here if the sun just disappeared.
- seanhive, on 01/07/2008, -2/+13Dust off the Icarus, we're goin in.
- moocow1452, on 01/07/2008, -2/+13Some theorists have this crazy idea that the sun will emit something to the like of an EMP that will wash over the entire planet, frying everything in it's path and leaving us in the Amish Age.
Bring Futurama DVD's and a crank generator, this may get ugly. - LucasVB, on 01/07/2008, -4/+13And why are you bringing this entirely coincidental and unrelated fact to the discussion?
- silverchrysalis, on 01/07/2008, -1/+9at least Amish people make good mashed potatoes. so no one will starve
- giveer, on 01/07/2008, -0/+7Someone's digging gm33 down because he has his scientific facts correct? That's not very Digg-ish.
- gds923, on 01/07/2008, -4/+11I amazing to think how many things like this go on in the universe that we have absolutely no control over.
- rootbeerinacan, on 01/07/2008, -3/+10You're a ***** retard....
- tyywebb, on 01/07/2008, -0/+6............................................________........................
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
.........................,/...............................................”:,........
.....................,?......................................................,.....
.................../...........................................................,}....
................./......................................................,:`^`..}....
.............../...................................................,:”........./.....
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../.....
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/...........
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../.............
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
............/.`~,......`-...................................../...................
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__...........
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,....
.....`=~-,__......`,.........................................................
...................`=~-,,.,......................................................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__..
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
........................................_..........._,-%.......`...............
..................................., - stephant, on 01/07/2008, -0/+6I'm pretty sure you are trying to be an ass and, yes, after reading the comments on digg, every article about the sun needs to mention that it has a major impact on the earth's climate (and might even be solely responsible for it). The reason, and you already know this, is that there is a group of people in the world that think mankind is primarily responsible for the climate on earth and that we can essentially override the influence of the sun through our evil and wasteful living.
I have no idea how people can be so certain that a .7 degree difference in the average earth temperature over a hundred or more years can be solely the responsibility of man and has nothing to do with the sun or any other factor. I'm not sure how they would explain ice ages or former periods of earth warming but it probably has something to do with George Bush. - bxblox, on 01/07/2008, -2/+8my money is on nothing happens...
- Tbar1, on 01/07/2008, -0/+6April 26, 2007
NOAA Space Environment Center
The next 11-year cycle of solar storms will most likely start next March and peak in late 2011 or mid-2012 - up to a year later than expected - according to a forecast issued by the NOAA Space Environment Center in coordination with an international panel of solar experts. The NOAA Space Environment Center led the prediction panel and issued the forecast at its annual Space Weather Workshop in Boulder, Colo. NASA sponsored the panel. Expected to start last fall, the delayed onset of Solar Cycle 24 stymied the panel and left them evenly split on whether a weak or strong period of solar storms lies ahead, but neither group predicts a record-breaker.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2847.htm
This Digg story is in accurate! It states;
"It has been stated by officials at NOAA that due to the early appearance of these spots it shows that this could be a very strong solar season with bigger storms and more sunspots than previously monitored sun cycles."
Cycle 24 is ONE YEAR LATE! NOAA actually said' "Expected to start last fall (2006), the delayed onset of Solar Cycle 24 stymied the panel and left them evenly split on whether a weak or strong period of solar storms lies ahead..." - HalBSure, on 01/07/2008, -0/+6Thanks, Sarah!
- vdgmr1213, on 01/07/2008, -1/+7I hear they moved it to the Day After Tomorrow.
- VelvetoneFusion, on 01/07/2008, -0/+5Yeah, its a sign, alright..."Going Out Of Business"...
Thank you for that opportunity, sir - webdeshel, on 01/07/2008, -2/+7This is great news for all the Amateur Radio ops (Hams to the mass population) out there. We have the most fun when the solar cycle maxes out. All I can say is: too bad we have to wait until 2011.
- MJG2007, on 01/07/2008, -5/+10Um. Solar cycles aren't related to global warming. It's just a period of about increased magnetic activity that happens every 11 years and has no real impact on our climate. Mostly it just means more sunspots, more magnetic storms and has no correlation to climate change on Earth (people might have noticed if every 11 years the world gets warmer and then cools off again).
But thanks for playing. - Tbar1, on 01/07/2008, -2/+7Read this story from a Member of the IPCC!
Christopher Monckton, Denpasar, Bali
As a contributor to the IPCC's 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate's alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year's Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.
Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.
At the very heart of the IPCC's calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: "The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005)." Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.
Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physicalthe Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC's 2007 report do not mention it once.
At the very heart of the IPCC's calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: "The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005)." Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.
Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physical, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC's 2007 report do not mention it once.
The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earth's surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the "surface forcing"), and the temperature will scarcely respond. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earth's surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the "surface forcing"), and the temperature will scarcely respond."
http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp? ...
The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient!!!!!!!!! - Metatron197, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4it doesnt care about you either
- thedarkrabbit, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4Screw the Mayans... My Calendar ends on 12/31/08....
Of course... then I'll just get a new one. WHEW... crisis averted. - stephant, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4No, "ultimately" it's Republicans and American greed that is responsible, right? You do understand that virtually ALL energy on the planet comes from the sun, don't you? Seriously, this climate debate has become so transparently a poitical attempt to influence policy and culture that it's scary. People have been saying "THE END IS NEAR!!!" since the beginning of history. And every time someone says it we all have to adopt their political or religious views to fix the problem. Strange, isn't it.
- latrosicarius, on 01/07/2008, -2/+6omgomgomgomg
- x0epyon0x, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4LMAO....have you seen the movie Terminator 2: Judgment Day? Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't have taken his comment seriously.
- fuzzmeister, on 01/07/2008, -3/+6But if you look at temperature graphs, it doesn't work that way.
- rarson, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3"In the current situation, mankind is responsible. "
But not SOLELY. - thedude42, on 01/07/2008, -2/+5LMAO.... did you read the article? The max doesn't occur till 2011 or 2012... and this isn't news, unless announcements from NASA nearly 2 years ago is news.
As for sunspots, yeah, NASA was already asked that question:
"Fortunately for beach-goers, elevated levels of solar activity around the peak of the sunspot cycle do not substantially increase the risk of sunburns on Earth. Our planet's atmosphere acts as a shield against the most harmful forms of radiation -- and the shielding actually increases slightly near the peak of the solar cycle. So, if you failed to buy any super-protective Solar Max Sunscreen for your Labor Day on the beach, you can relax. There was nothing to worry about beyond the usual forms of skin cancer and exposure-related maladies" - rowlodge, on 01/07/2008, -2/+5the sky is falling !
- ryan83189, on 01/07/2008, -1/+4Notice how they aren't calling it global warming anymore, it's "climate change", so they can say that their wickerman is causing record cold temperatures and snowfall too. God forbid if the earth cools naturally after this, they will think they single handedly saved it, and be so full of themselves.
- Mononuclear, on 01/07/2008, -1/+4The only time links break is when you paste a link and then go back and edit a comment. Each time you edit a comment you have to redo the link before clicking submit comment.
- smurfsahoy, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3I'm pretty sure we had airplanes and power grids 11 years ago...
- diablozx9, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3GREAT movie quote......
- rarson, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3That's because the climate is a complex system with many variables. You can't just take one of those variables and expect temperature to exactly follow it.
- MrXfromPlanetX, on 01/07/2008, -2/+5There are a couple of videos on the global warming issue on http://nprsucks.blogspot.com
NPR has been running a story every day to scare the crap out of people about global warming, but the ice caps are melting on Mars as well, per NASA. Did NPR mention that . . . No. They just trashed the guy from NASA when he said he didn't know if global warming was being caused by humans.
Don't get me wrong, I agree we the person who wrote the page. I won't to do something about pollution, but I don't think the UN should be policing the world to enforce carbon credits. - Vulphaestion, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3For the last time; the Mayan calendar "ends" in 2012 just like how our calendar "ended" in 1999. It's the end of a bak'tun, and they celebrated this.
- aroundtown, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3That's okay, the Mayan's were long gone before that date anyhow.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 166 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is