Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Solar pulses suggest heavy Australia rain
#1
Source: Reuters

SYDNEY, March 19 (Reuters) - Links between the sun's magnetic pulse and Earth's climatic systems point to heavy rainfall later this year and in 2008, which could break Australia's worst drought in 100 years, new scientific research says.

The theory, which has been submitted for publication in the journal Solar Terrestrial Physics, is based on correlations between Australian rainfall and 11-year peaks in the sun's magnetic emissions, and switches in the sun's poles, which also occur every 11 years. The last flip occurred in 2001.

"The sun is now in a similar position in terms of its magnetic field as it was in the 1920s," Associated Professor Robert Baker of the University of New England said.

Eastern Australia this year and next is seen following a similar path to the particularly wet years of 1924 and 1925.

"If it keeps tracking...we would therefore expect average and above rainfall for eastern Australia," Baker said.

"The sunspots are starting to increase again and as it increases over the year historically that's been a time of above average rainfall," he said. According to Baker's theory, 2009 would be the next period of potential drought in Australia.

Baker produced his theory from work on physical models of sunspot behaviour, which showed correlations between sunspot minimums and eastern Australian droughts over the last 100 years.

"It just went from there... It's just asking good questions."

Baker says that weather effects of changes in the sun are additional to the impact of "flavour of the month" climate change from greenhouse gases.

The theory opens the way for better predictions of droughts and floods, Baker said.

After the present cycle of increased sunspot activity, the following cycle will be dominated by the lowest activity from sunspots and magnetic activity in 100 years. This raised the possibility of widespread drought again, in the 2020s.

"The last time that happened was the Federation Drought of around 1900," Baker said.

The link between sunspots, solar magnetic activity and increased rain occurs through interaction by solar activity with Earth's atmosphere to increase cloud formation.

In following established patterns of pulses in the sun, the theory is hoped to lead to increased forecasting certainty and management of water resources.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SYD25508.htm
Reply

#2
Glad to see that they have used science as the excuse, I do believe we will have relief from the drought this year, but it is all politics and nothing else.
Reply

#3
I know scientist always try to explain things in a scientific way but I thought it was good news that they are predicting some drought relief for Australia. Another science article that I seen I thought was pretty funny. Scientist are theorizing why humans aren’t furry and they think it’s because of parental selection. Hairless babies were more attractive than hairy ones and mothers would let the hairy babies die. icon_lol

Why aren't humans furry?

A prize-winning paper suggests that humans are hairless apes because Stone-Age mothers regarded furry babies as unattractive Medical Hypotheses, an Elsevier publication, has announced the winner of the 2006 David Horrobin Prize for medical theory. Written by Judith Rich-Harris, author of The Nurture Assumption and No Two Alike, the article, "Parental selection: a third selection process in the evolution of human hairlessness and skin color" was judged to best embody the spirit of the journal. The £1,000 prize, launched in 2004, is awarded annually and named in honour of Dr. David Horrobin, the renowned researcher, biotechnology expert and founder of Medical Hypotheses, who died in 2003. Harris' paper describes Stone Age societies in which the mother of a newborn had to decide whether she had the resources to nurture her baby. The newborn's appearance probably influenced whether the mother kept or abandoned it. An attractive baby was more likely to be kept and reared. Harris' theory is that this kind of parental selection may have been an important force in evolution. If Stone Age people believed that hairless babies were more attractive than hairy ones, this could explain why humans are the only apes lacking a coat of fur.

Harris suggests that Neanderthals must have been furry in order to survive the Ice Age. Our species would have seen them as "animals" and potential prey. Harris' hypothesis continues that Neanderthals went extinct because human ancestors ate them. This year's prize judge was Professor Jonathan Rees FMedSci of Edinburgh University, Scotland - co-discoverer of the 'red hair gene'. Professor Rees said: "This paper is an excellent example of the kind of bold thinking and theorizing which David Horrobin intended to encourage when he began Medical Hypotheses. I hope that Judith Rich Harris' idea provokes debate and further investigation of this topic."

Full Article | Source: Medical News Today
Reply

#4
so what happened to all the fury babes?
Reply

#5
They make it sound like the mothers killed the furry babies. They probably came up with that theory because there have been cultures that would kill babies that they felt were inferior. Like the Spartans for example would only let the strongest babies live so they could have strong warriors.
Reply

#6
some cultures still kill babies today for specific reasons, but how do you know if a baby is going to be strong when it is first born - strange stuff.
Reply

#7
Somehow they were able to determine a baby’s strength by bathing it in wine. Here’s a quote from one site.

The goal of education in Sparta, an authoritarian, military city-state, was to produce soldier-citizens. In ancient Sparta, the purpose of education was to produce a well-drilled, well-disciplined marching army. Spartans believed in a life of discipline, self-denial, and simplicity. They were very loyal to the state of Sparta. Every Spartan, male or female, was required to have a perfect body.

It began in infancy. When a Spartan baby was born, soldiers came to the house and examined it carefully to determine its strength. The baby was bathed in wine rather than water, to see its reaction. If a baby was weak, the Spartans exposed it on the hillside or took it away to become a slave (helot). Infanticide was common in ancient cultures, but the Spartans were particularly picky about their children. It was not just a matter of the family; the city-state decided the fate of the child. Nurses had the primary care of the baby and did not coddle it.

http://www.historywiz.com/didyouknow/spartanfamily.htm
Reply

#8
Im furry!  :shock:
Reply

#9
But are you cute William?

Richard,
Thanks for that, interesting on how they would decide on which baby is which, I suppose it was a time and place where they needed to do such things.
Reply

#10
I have a difficult time accepting the " cute baby" selection. As a new mother I remember thinking my babies were absolutely adorable. Looking back some of them were( I had 4) and some of them well.... they weren't hideous( OR FURRY! lol!!) but ...:-). I see this blindness? in new mothers all the time . Love is blind.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 Melroy van den Berg.