Argonath RPG - A World of its own
Argonath RPG Community => Speakerbox => Topic started by: Norrage on October 25, 2010, 08:22:37 pm
-
The sun is being really boring. Nearly 18 months after the "official" start of Solar Cycle 24, observers are looking closely at the ball of hot plasma in the sky asking, "What is wrong with the sun?"
To be honest, we don't know if there's something wrong or not; it depends on what your opinion of "wrong" is.
On the one hand, the sun is enduring the deepest solar minimum for a century, perplexing solar physicists, leading to some suggestions the sun may continue its blank stare for some time to come.
As sunspot number is astonishingly low, this means internal magnetic activity must also be low. For some reason, the usual cycle of 11 years from peak to trough -- from solar maximum to solar minimum -- has been interrupted. The fireworks we experienced in 2003 could be a thing of the past and we might be looking at another Maunder Minimum (an extended period of time from 1645 to 1715 when few sunspots were seen by astronomers).
As magnetic activity is low, this also means there has been a drop in solar energy output. There has been a 0.02 percent decrease in optical light and a 6 percent drop in ultraviolet light if we compare this solar minimum with the last one, 12 years ago. Although we're not going to freeze any time soon, the suns reduction in output could have consequences for our climate. But no, it won't save us from carbon-induced global warming, that problem is here to stay.
(http://i51.tinypic.com/10zybo6.jpg)
The sun is enduring the quietest solar minimum for over a century.
NASA
Not so boring
Although there is a possibility this solar minimum may continue, it is just as likely the sun is just being lazy, waiting to surprise us with a stealthy explosion of magnetic fury.
The sun could erupt with a rash of sunspots as the internal magnetic field becomes so stressed it rises through the solar photosphere, tearing apart the uppermost layers of hot plasma, creating dark patches of sunspot swarms. If this is the case, we can expect violent knots of magnetism to funnel multi-million degree plasma from the inner sun, high into the corona (the sun's atmosphere), creating arcades of bright coronal loops.
When this happens, the scene is set for the biggest explosions in our Solar System: flares and coronal mass ejections -- both of which can be very bad for planet Earth.
As global society becomes more advanced, we depend more and more on communications satellites. If we end up staring down the barrel of a solar flare, we could be hit by a CME bubble, sandblasting our atmosphere with solar ions. The delicate circuits onboard critical global positioning satellites (GPS) could be rendered useless, and the upper atmosphere may expand as it is heated, increasing the drag on orbiting satellites, causing them to crash and burn.
Even though sun-Earth interactions can be pretty (generating huge light shows known as aurorae at high latitudes), solar storms are generally very bad news for technology (and for humans) in space.
Global damage
Even on the ground we may not be safe. A vast amount of energy is dumped into our atmosphere, possibly overloading our national electrical grids. This could be very costly. Add the chaos of the loss of satellites and we could be looking at a huge mess and an even larger clean-up bill.
According to a recent estimate by an NOAA scientist, the next solar storm could inflict $2 trillion-worth of damage. Also, such a huge blast from the sun could take the world 10 years to recover... just in time for the next solar maximum to smack us again!
But wait a minute, why are we freaking out about being battered and bruised by the sun when it's currently acting like the perfect neighbor? It's being quiet, unassuming and shy; few sunspots, little solar activity and certainly no Earth-shattering solar flares. Why are we suddenly getting so worried?
Solar mysteries
The sun, in many ways, is still a mystery. As national infrastructures are becoming more susceptible to space weather, we get concerned for our growing fleet of critical satellites and huge electrical grids. The last thing we need is a sun with an unpredictable temper. If the sun gets angry, flinging CMEs in our direction, our current economic woes will be a cakewalk in comparison.
Although the sun has a periodic and predictable cycle, it still holds many surprises. For all we know it could continue to be "boring", sending solar astronomers asleep at their 'scopes for years to come. On the other hand, a rash of sunspots could appear very soon, revealing that we are in for a very rough ride.
However, if I had to place a bet, I would say there are better odds of a mediocre solar maximum. I doubt we'll be cooked or frozen by the sun; we just have to wait and see, without getting all dramatic.
(http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2008/07/11/11jul_solarcycleupdate_resources/ssn_predict_l.gif)
-
Twenty - Argonath's Astrophysics fan?
-
What the fuck?
-
Twenty - Argonath's Astrophysics fan?
Is it bad?
-
It's the apocalypse. The Winchester brothers caused it.. Its all cos of Lucifer rising.
-
Looks like copy-pasta.
-
Lets see... there was a similar even 300 years ago, that lasted 60 years.
If measurements regarding electro-magnetic data from the end of that period did not show anything unusual, chances are nothing unusual will be this time. A few sattellites may fail (see ya later US players) but can be replaced.
The second thing that was included the is the carbon-induced global warming that still has to be proven to be happening as man-made.
Science is starting to become like religion... present a possible doom scenario, let the people fear for events that could happen, and get money from them for more research.
-
Seeing as I'm a Geography student...I can say that from my knowledge of atmospheric absorbtion and global rotation...this won't affect the entire world. The areas affected will be small, and probably not densely inhabited...if not un-inhabited.
The second thing that was included the is the carbon-induced global warming that still has to be proven to be happening as man-made.
Exactly. Global warming cannot be justified seeing as we have had some of the coldest winters in decades quite recently, climate change can be explained, but not global warming on it's own. As for it being something caused by man...that seems to be the easy answer to everything, which in simple terms means that no-one really has a clue what is causing it.
-
Science is starting to become like religion... present a possible doom scenario, let the people fear for events that could happen, and get money from them for more research.
Scientists, do not have any agendas behind them. They do not do science for the sake of money. I would really feel sorry for the person who does science for the sake of money, as that's just sad. Beside that, scientist also tell how the world works, rather than is it good or bad.
Is it bad?
No. Not at all, but understand that there aren't a lot of us in here, who share your enthusiasm in that particular field.
-
Can you put all that into a humorous picture or so, I am unable to read those paragraphs.
-
Can you put all that into a humorous picture or so, I am unable to read those paragraphs.
Sun seems to be a lazy-ass dude and not taking regular showers. Scientist believe that one day sun will take a really long shower, that will cost earth a lot of money.
-
lol @ twenty copypastaing to look smart
-
Looks like copy-pasta.
Ofcourse did i copy pasta it, do you think i am going to typ, while english is not my language? Lol
-
Ofcourse did i copy pasta it, do you think i am going to typ, while english is not my language? Lol
Yes.
-
Ofcourse did i copy pasta it, do you think i am going to typ, while english is not my language? Lol
I've even taught some people in here some physics even though English is not my native language as well.
-
(see ya later US players)
:LOL:!!!!
copy paste or not, its some interesting info as i am a fan of the Universe. But to keep my humour touch... 2012 IS COMING!!!!
Now seriously... Nice information, interesting to read :)
-
i hope no retard posts in here its 'burning out'
If the sun shoots out again but with a one time huge force, depending on how far it reaches, it will be pretty cool to see or pretty bad if it reaches close enough to inflict damage.
-
Scientists, do not have any agendas behind them. They do not do science for the sake of money. I would really feel sorry for the person who does science for the sake of money, as that's just sad. Beside that, scientist also tell how the world works, rather than is it good or bad.
Unfortunately your view is limited to scientists in countries like Russia, who still seem to be owrking for science mainly. In the US and other countries, the salaries of scientists get paid by companies or government they do research for. As a result any scientific report where the data does not match the desired outcome will have a conclusion that either asks for more study, or does not fully match the rest of the data in the report, as peopletend to read only the conclusion.
-
Exactly. Global warming cannot be justified seeing as we have had some of the coldest winters in decades quite recently, climate change can be explained, but not global warming on it's own. As for it being something caused by man...that seems to be the easy answer to everything, which in simple terms means that no-one really has a clue what is causing it.
It is not an easy answer but a lucrative one. It allowspeople to sell things and governments to raise taxes.
What worries me most however is that the effects of the measures people strive for seem to be completely unknown, and there for might be more damaging as the problem.
Apart from that, the three volcanic eruptions this year have put more CO2 in the atmosphere as all human activity. And only one of them was so kind to reduce its carbon footprint by stopping all air traffic...
-
Stars in general are truly fascinating cosmic objects. Some are millions times larger than our sun, and some are much more minuscule compared to our sun. Our sun is just the right size. Larger stars are often identified by the apparent and absolute luminosity. You cannot tell how big a star is just by looking at it, because small objects look bigger up close, antonymous to large objects from far away.
Smaller stars tend to be tons more bright in color than larger stars, typically more to the white or light blue side of the scale, and are much hotter. Larger stars are more bright in luminosity, are closer to the red side of the scale, and are much cooler. Temperature of stars can be determined by the apparent luminosity and absolute luminosity, because we know that brighter stars are much cooler. We also know that cool, large stars are brighter, hence we can determine its size. The reason is obvious behind the brightness of the larger stars.
Refer to this graph.
(http://www.le.ac.uk/ph/faulkes/web/images/hrcolour.jpg)
As you can see, as luminosity increases, the lower the temperature and the more redder the star gets. Our sun is somewhere along the middle of the main sequence.
Lower magnetism on the sun is going to reduce the amount of ultra-violet radiation given out from it, and consequently, Earth's ozone layer will be unable to regenerate from UV rays splitting Oâ‚‚, so we are not going to freeze over. If anything, it's going to get hotter. But since our sun is a main sequence star and basically a base for the "average star" which is determined by the possibility of life, this is not going to be permanent. A star cannot change that fast (unless a supernova was occurring). Our sun still has tons of hydrogen to convert into helium, so it's not going to suddenly change like that as well. In the event that it does run out of hydrogen, it'd have to resort to the converted helium, which it will later convert into many other elements, until it reaches iron; iron killed a star. Not to mention, the sun would expand to huge distances and become a red super-giant, which would completely engulf all of the inner planets.
Think of this as the sun's period, like the female's menstrual cycle. It comes and goes, and it's nothing out of the ordinary. The sun is what it is, and literally can't turn its back on us that fast.
-
Unfortunately your view is limited to scientists in countries like Russia, who still seem to be owrking for science mainly. In the US and other countries, the salaries of scientists get paid by companies or government they do research for. As a result any scientific report where the data does not match the desired outcome will have a conclusion that either asks for more study, or does not fully match the rest of the data in the report, as peopletend to read only the conclusion.
Not unfortunate at all. I have just different definition of scientist than you do, Gandalf. for example, a person who does research for company, so working for a company is not a scientist, but a researcher.
-
Not unfortunate at all. I have just different definition of scientist than you do, Gandalf. for example, a person who does research for company, so working for a company is not a scientist, but a researcher.
Incorrect. The people are working for the Government or an University, and there for are scientists.
However their funding comes from the private sector or is by Government directive.
While they should remain independent as scientists, if they are aware that their paycheck depends on the outcome of their research being favourable, it is pretty easy to use scientific language in a way htat hides the results.
-
Incorrect. The people are working for the Government or an University, and there for are scientists.
However their funding comes from the private sector or is by Government directive.
While they should remain independent as scientists, if they are aware that their paycheck depends on the outcome of their research being favourable, it is pretty easy to use scientific language in a way htat hides the results.
We once again, did not talk from the same people. but ok. The scientists in the University. Yes, it is true, that they get funding from private sector or from the government. What isn't true is that they will twist the truth just to get a bigger paycheck. What is actually a big part of scientists work? Articles articles articles in known scientific publications. If a scientist do not publish any articles he is not really a scientist and will loos any kind of funding. Now what do scientific articles have to do with funding? Well other scientist read these articles and give reviews if it is a bad one the scientist will lose his reputation and also his funding as well.
Conclusion: Scientific world is self-correcting one, where one individuate can't just twist the truth for his own benefit without serious consequences.
-
We once again, did not talk from the same people. but ok. The scientists in the University. Yes, it is true, that they get funding from private sector or from the government. What isn't true is that they will twist the truth just to get a bigger paycheck. What is actually a big part of scientists work? Articles articles articles in known scientific publications. If a scientist do not publish any articles he is not really a scientist and will loos any kind of funding. Now what do scientific articles have to do with funding? Well other scientist read these articles and give reviews if it is a bad one the scientist will lose his reputation and also his funding as well.
Conclusion: Scientific world is self-correcting one, where one individuate can't just twist the truth for his own benefit without serious consequences.
Then explain last years climate change problem... where a group of scientists were caught changing data and writing reports to make it fit in to the lucrative climate change movement.
There are several other examples I can give, where scientists publish articles and research reports, however with conclusions written to fit the purpose of the funding.
Recently I had a nice fight with people over a report stating that Russian men die young as a result of acloholism in its conclusion. When reading the full report, it was a research done in three areas that had suffered from economic crisis during the Yeltsin area, and the scientists interviewed family of the deceased men in a specific age group on alcohol consumption
When reading the report the conclusion should have been that during the economic downturn a significant increase in death by alcoholism was found in the specific age group.
The conclusion however stated that Russian men die young due to alcoholism, fitting rather well in the Governments efforts to reduce drinking.
The people writing the report are accepted scientists, and their research and any article regarding it was passing any review. The only thing where a broad generalization was made was in the conclusion of the report, the part that gets released to the press.
-
Then explain last years climate change problem... where a group of scientists were caught changing data and writing reports to make it fit in to the lucrative climate change movement.
There are several other examples I can give, where scientists publish articles and research reports, however with conclusions written to fit the purpose of the funding.
Well you explained yourself there. But those scientists like you said in that example were caught. Could you tell me, how they were caught? Or could you, even show me their paper? Unless it is in Russian, then it won't help me at all. Also you can't generalize like that. Otherwise Bianconeri would soon bring me as a proof against evolution just because I am a scientist as well.
Recently I had a nice fight with people over a report stating that Russian men die young as a result of acloholism in its conclusion. When reading the full report, it was a research done in three areas that had suffered from economic crisis during the Yeltsin area, and the scientists interviewed family of the deceased men in a specific age group on alcohol consumption
When reading the report the conclusion should have been that during the economic downturn a significant increase in death by alcoholism was found in the specific age group.
The conclusion however stated that Russian men die young due to alcoholism, fitting rather well in the Governments efforts to reduce drinking.
The people writing the report are accepted scientists, and their research and any article regarding it was passing any review. The only thing where a broad generalization was made was in the conclusion of the report, the part that gets released to the press.
Well what was the age group the men died in that specific area at that time? At young age? If so, we can logically deduce that the press release was kind of right.
:ps: (http://rlv.zcache.com/ussr_cccp_cold_war_soviet_union_propaganda_posters-p228800039578614985trma_400.jpg)
-
I've even taught some people in here some physics even though English is not my native language as well.
That's just the estonian ability of being better at english than some of the native speakers. I've personally corrected erroneous grammar usage by some of the most prominent brits that have played on Argonath.
(http://rlv.zcache.com/ussr_cccp_cold_war_soviet_union_propaganda_posters-p228800039578614985trma_400.jpg)
ýõт, the glass is too small?
-
the glass is too small?
vodka glass.
Unless you drink directly from the bottle or a regular glass, it should look normal :poke:
-
Unless you drink directly from the bottle or a regular glass, it should look normal :poke:
You're not looking at it from a russian's perspective :lol:
-
(see ya later US players)
:lol:
I found another guys..check it out:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1171951/Meltdown-A-solar-superstorm-send-dark-ages--just-THREE-years.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1171951/Meltdown-A-solar-superstorm-send-dark-ages--just-THREE-years.html)
-
Unless you drink directly from the bottle or a regular glass, it should look normal :poke:
Uh, you should go to Russia, my friend.
-
Astrophysics.....I do like