Community > Forum > The Spaceflight Cafe > Why the Sun seems to be 'dimming'

Why the Sun seems to be 'dimming'

Posted by: Sigurd - Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:48 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 63 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Why the Sun seems to be 'dimming' 
Author Message
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:27 pm
Posts: 72
Location: The Land of Hurricane Charley
Post    Posted on: Sun Jan 30, 2005 8:41 pm
Some program on the Science Channel a few weeks back said that the breakoff/melting of the Ross Ice Shelf alone would put everything south of Orlando under water. Not comforting when my part of Charlotte County is only 12 ft. above sea level.. (and, of course, south of Orlando)

_________________
"Floating down the sound resounds around the icy waters underground.."


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:09 pm
Posts: 268
Location: Orlando, FL
Post    Posted on: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:03 pm
thats wonderful for me... since we are 2 feet above sea level and 4 hours south of orlando.... *sigh*

_________________
University of Central Florida
Industrial Engineering Dept.
Class of 2010

UCF-LM CWEP Intern
Lockheed Martin Orlando
Missiles & Fire Control


Back to top
Profile YIM WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 191
Location: Cider country, England.
Post    Posted on: Mon Jan 31, 2005 4:36 pm
Please stop all this talk of global warming. I am absolutely freezing here, we don't all live in Florida! Enjoy it while it is above sea-level.

_________________
It was like that when I found it. Honest.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Mon Jan 31, 2005 6:38 pm
Sigurd wrote:
I guess you read it in a very simplistic way, as if you understood it as "if there is no safe level, then we shouldn't have it at all", no, if there is no safe level.. then we have to chose a level, causing "no" harm, but there will be no "perfect" level to chose from.

I think the statement should have read “there is no safe level of EMISSIONS”. I suspect that is what they meant, but it is not what they said. And I suspect this was not an accident. They want to alarm people to get them to act.
And it is very easy to alarm the general public. I used to work in a semiconductor factory where all sorts of dangerous gasses are used, and one co-worker was worried about nitrogen, because it is defined as an asphyxiant in the MSDS. I said not to worry because 78% of the air in this room is nitrogen. You should have seen the immediate panic reaction! This person, who should have known better, did not know that the Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen!
You and I know that the “safe” level is the one that keeps the Earth out of an ice age but does not let it get too hot. The “general public” thinks that nitrogen is toxic and the Apollo moon landings never took place. And they will think that all CO2 in the air is bad after reading that article as it is written.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Mon Jan 31, 2005 6:54 pm
campbelp2002 wrote:
Sigurd wrote:
I guess you read it in a very simplistic way, as if you understood it as "if there is no safe level, then we shouldn't have it at all", no, if there is no safe level.. then we have to chose a level, causing "no" harm, but there will be no "perfect" level to chose from.

I think the statement should have read “there is no safe level of EMISSIONS”. I suspect that is what they meant, but it is not what they said. And I suspect this was not an accident. They want to alarm people to get them to act.
And it is very easy to alarm the general public. I used to work in a semiconductor factory where all sorts of dangerous gasses are used, and one co-worker was worried about nitrogen, because it is defined as an asphyxiant in the MSDS. I said not to worry because 78% of the air in this room is nitrogen. You should have seen the immediate panic reaction! This person, who should have known better, did not know that the Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen!
You and I know that the “safe” level is the one that keeps the Earth out an ice age but does let it get too hot. The “general public” thinks that nitrogen is toxic and the Apollo moon landings never took place. And they will think that all CO2 in the air is bad after reading that article as it is written.


>>You and I know that the “safe” level is the one that keeps the Earth out an ice age but does let it get too hot.
Humm ? You mean "does not" get it too hot ?
EDIT: Oke seems you fixed the type in your post.

>>The “general public” thinks that nitrogen is toxic

I think more than 50% of the people even don't really know what nitrogen is and don't care if it's toxic or not.
Also I think most of the people on the other side who DO know what it is, that most of them also know what it really is.
And it's not that a co worker of yours is easily fooled that it's the same for everyone.

>>And the Apollo moon landings never took place.
Where do you live.. ? all people I know accept it as facts.. and I think most of the people see it as a fact.... I think your "idea" about "general public" is a little "screwed" ;)


>>The article says that there is "no such thing as a safe level of carbon dioxide".
>>That is an unnecessarily alarming and technically false claim.


actually they mentioned it a few times in the same article, letting the people clearly understand what they are talking about, only "neurotic" people could read it wrong, as your answers clearly stated that you "have" this psychological problem.

There is nothing wrong with the article, the sentence is "exactly" correct, technically true claim and not alarming at all.

I have studied psychology, and trust me, there is no problem with those articles, but there is only a problem with "you".
Your IQ is maybe not low..., but it seems you're a little paranoia and you show narcistic properties, while putting yourself better as the general public with expressing them as neurotic people (while it's actually YOU, who sees such things in those texts).

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:43 pm
Posts: 97
Location: Canada
Post    Posted on: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:57 pm
Whoa there Sigurd, you almost sound like DKH there.

Perhaps some moderation is called for? I'd suggest that comments come from the context of the poster and the conversation, rather than the index of your intro psych text.

Disclaimer:
Yes, you had some good calls on the typo, nitrogen generalization (although I did like his anecdote about the co-worker – I think we all can think of some similarly paranoid person)

- regarding the Apollo moon landings... Well, the 'general public' likely takes what is given to them by the mass media, which seems to unilaterally accept them as fact. The problematic sub-groups, however, are the conspiracy theorists and the semi-informed and partially educated individuals. I have had many conversations with various people falling into the latter category, and have come to see that there is a considerable group out there that fully believes what is told to them on a certain tv program aired on FOX (I believe) a number of years ago. The problem there is that there is enough believable evidence that, if you don't look further anywhere else, any intelligent individual would agree that there is a good possibility that the landings were faked.
Okay, so he may have been to generous with his idea of 'general public', but there are some ... 'paranoid' and misinformed individuals out there who shouldn't be completely missed.

-regarding the article
I don't think that campbelp has been the first to be guilty of reading an article quickly and responding too fast (I can think of many on this site). He became focused on his own perception of the media's agenda, imposing this onto what he was reading. Being aware of the various undercurrents and motives in media (and yes, the bbc and nature do qualify as such sources) can actually be very important, believe it or not. Not only may they have an agenda, but they also gain readership by being somewhat sensational (which the BBC does seem to edge towards on many of their climate change articles)
In Nature: http://www.climateprediction.net/scienc ... esults.pdf
Quote:
“This lack of an observational constraint, combined with the sensitivity of the results to the way in which parameters are perturbed, means that we cannot provide an objective probability density function for simulated climate sensitivity” – P. 404


Seems to correlate to BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210629.stm
Quote:
“Scientists behind the project, called climateprediction.net, say it shows that a "safe" upper limit for carbon dioxide is impossible to define.”

“However, with our current state of knowledge, we can't yet define a safe level in the atmosphere.”


That, and the rest of the quotes throughout the article seem to pump up a sense of urgency that Peter is picking up on.
It doesn’t seem to me, though, as if they’re talking about emissions specifically at all. Their model’s limitations don’t allow the setting of an upper limit of total CO2 concentration.

Peter, maybe read a bit more carefully and tone down the sensitivity a little bit (or at least phrase it in a manner that acknowledges the obvious)
(hey, we missed you at the regional Narcissistics Anonymous meeting)

and Sigurd, either put that psych text back on the shelf, … or perhaps read the rest of it.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:05 pm
I just believe in the Dilbert Principal. It says, basically, that everyone is an idiot 99% of the time because there is so much information in the world today that everyone has specialized, and everyone is an idiot outside his own specialty.

Once my boss at that same semiconductor company (but not the same person who was afraid of nitrogen) said we could eliminate the lower 20% of a data distribution. I pointed out that what used to be 21% above the bottom would then be in the new lower 20%. He insisted (this is really true) that we could eliminate that too, and keep doing so until there was no more bottom 20%! He really knew better, or I like to think so.

And then there was the time I got a problem wrong in a math class. I was solving an equation in algebra and added a number to one side of the equation without adding the same number to the other side. I even questioned the instructor about it when he pointed out my error, wondering why I couldn’t do that! Of course I really knew better, it was just my turn to be an idiot!

I have heard of polls where 1/3 of the respondents say the Apollo landings were a hoax. That is just way too many hoax believers for my liking! Of course I may be an idiot to believe that 1/3 figure. At least I hope I am.

And as your own quote
“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892”
shows, even really smart people can be idiots sometimes.

And yes, I do like to hear myself talk. How great the internet is!


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:09 pm
Posts: 268
Location: Orlando, FL
Post    Posted on: Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:37 pm
sorry luke.r :P It's hard to imagine it being freezing, I've never even seen snow and anything below 60F is considered freezing for us ;)

_________________
University of Central Florida
Industrial Engineering Dept.
Class of 2010

UCF-LM CWEP Intern
Lockheed Martin Orlando
Missiles & Fire Control


Back to top
Profile YIM WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:44 pm
Hey slycker :)

I guess I sounded a little like DKH :) But on the other side, I'm human and don't like hiding my frustrations. I guess everyone understood my point of view, while I didn't created lies or used DKH style words ;)

I didn't wanted to start a long discussion (as Ekkehardenjoyed before with campbelp2002), while I do wanted to express my frustration, so opening a backfire effect to campbelp2002, with the opposite things he did (the psychological things that actually frustrate me) was the easiest trick to make me very clear and understandable.

campbelp2002,

No bad feelings on my side, just expressing frustrations ;) and now it's gone :)

>> "everyone is an idiot 99%"
Everyone makes mistakes... and very often.. but I would just call it humans :), in my opinion, idiot is someone making mistakes while he knows the right answer or solution.

>>there is so much information in the world today that everyone has specialized, and everyone is an idiot outside his own specialty.
Very true :)

>>I have heard of polls where 1/3 of the respondents say the Apollo landings were a hoax. That is just way too many hoax believers for my liking! Of course I may be an idiot to believe that 1/3 figure. At least I hope I am.
I guess it depends who and where they polled it :).
But if it would be so many... it would be a shame... time to bring them up to the moon as vecation :)

>>even really smart people can be idiots sometimes.
Now I wish I was smart, not only an idiot :P

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:22 pm
Posts: 843
Location: New York, NY
Post    Posted on: Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:11 pm
eraurocktchick87 wrote:
sorry luke.r :P It's hard to imagine it being freezing, I've never even seen snow and anything below 60F is considered freezing for us ;)


duude.... snow is awesome..... and temperatures under 32 are cool too (presuming you have enough clothing on, it's painful to be outside in a swimsuit then (yes i have done this)). you're missing out.....

_________________
Cornell 2010- Applied and Engineering Physics

Software Developer

Also, check out my fractals


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:09 pm
Posts: 268
Location: Orlando, FL
Post    Posted on: Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:16 pm
Yup, I know I'm missing out, I'll get around to finding time for a real winter one of these years. I was supposed to go to Lake Tahoe this winter, but alas, the money issue did not work out as I had hoped :(

campbelp- I'd like to think that most of us on this forum can succeed in only being idiots 75% of the time, but you're statement on specialization is completely true.. Unfortunately in today's society, broad knowledge of many subjects will rarely get you anywhere in the job market :?

sigurd- if you're an idiot, I'd hate to think of what that would make me ;)

_________________
University of Central Florida
Industrial Engineering Dept.
Class of 2010

UCF-LM CWEP Intern
Lockheed Martin Orlando
Missiles & Fire Control


Back to top
Profile YIM WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:01 am
Well, after reading the article again, I have to agree that it does not really imply we need zero as the goal. It implies that any more increase probably is not safe. I have to agree with that. And the Netherlands has more to fear from rising sea levels than any other country I would think.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:06 am
campbelp2002 wrote:
Well, after reading the article again, I have to agree that it does not really imply we need zero as the goal. It implies that any more increase probably is not safe. I have to agree with that. And the Netherlands has more to fear from rising sea levels than any other country I would think.

I'm living safe in belgium 5 meters high (with dikes, we can protect it to a sea level 15 meters higher than now)

The netherlands is "sinking" in height every year, it has nothing to do with the sea, but with earth's tectonic plates.
In the netherlands some places are very far below sea level and they fight yearly to keep the sea away, it will be difficult in the future to keep the sea away also in belgium, we'll also have to help the netherlands with their problems and accept the people moving into our country (and also into germany etc).

This article translated: (sorry for the dutch way of writing :p, didn't changed all words from it's location)
http://www.hovorotterdam.nl/inhoud.asp-415DL.htm

A recent document of the American Security Agency the FBI, keeps in mind that half of the netherlands in 2007 could be flooded with water.
We fight now already for centuries to keep our feats dry. Such a scenario is a chalange to test how much succesfull we where and will be in the future.
How much will the upcomming projects costs ? ... etc..

So far the translation.

I guess everyone wonders how long they can keep the sea in it's current position.
The lowest point is currently 6,74 meters BELOW sea level...
(shows what parts are below sea level) http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=MBZ302750

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Netherlands
In years past, the Dutch coastline has changed considerably due to human intervention and natural disasters. Most notable in terms of land loss are the 1134 storm, which created the archipelago of Zeeland, and the 1287 storm, which killed 50,000 people and created the Zuyderzee (now known as the IJsselmeer), giving Amsterdam direct access to the sea. The St. Elisabeth flood of 1421 and the mismanagement in its aftermath destroyed a newly reclaimed polder, replacing it with the 72 km² Biesbosch tidal floodplains. The most recent storm disaster occurred in 1953, during which large parts of Zeeland were flooded and 1,836 people were killed.

http://www.thehollandring.com/1953-ramp.shtml


http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/duchflod.htm
In addition, the Netherlands is sinking along an axis that runs from the southwest to the northeast. By 2050 land north of the line, already below sea level, will have fallen another 16 inches (40.64 centimeters). Cities such as Amsterdam and Rotterdam, with solid foundations, should stay above water, but they could become islands if the dikes break.


Our world is changing.. also we have to change... else we may see things we don't wanne see...
I guess we're not waiting to donate similar as in the recent tsunami disaster to hundred of thousands of people affected by a flood in the netherlands and with a few thousand dead... since the last flood (1953), no same freak weather happened again.. so it's all not tested regulary... If some dikes fail... some parts can be flooded up to 6+ meters high... imagen that wall of water coming at you....
Since 1953 there lives more people in the netherands and a lot closer to the sea... making it a terrible wheater target.

While we can't stop the netherlands from sinking lower... if we don't act.. the sea level will rise a lot faster.. giving the netherlands even less time to change... with a LARGE chance of many thousands of deads.

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Last edited by Sigurd on Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:21 am, edited 3 times in total.



Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:09 pm
Posts: 268
Location: Orlando, FL
Post    Posted on: Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:16 am
Sounds like our coast and the hurricanes. In some areas, up to 35 feet of the coast is missing in the aftermath of the storms, having been washed away. I guess the same goes for many other parts of the world. I think many people would be amazed to see how much land would be swallowed by the ocean if water levels raise just a few feet as a result of global warming or some other natural "disaster"...

_________________
University of Central Florida
Industrial Engineering Dept.
Class of 2010

UCF-LM CWEP Intern
Lockheed Martin Orlando
Missiles & Fire Control


Back to top
Profile YIM WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:40 am
Somebody comparing a moderator/administrator to me and escaping without anything more than a mild rebuke? Man this place is softer than a sigh.

DKH

P.S. And Campbelp2002, I know a few dutch people ... they're pretty tall generally speaking, so maybe they'll be able to keep their heads above water longer than we think?

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use