Use these links to navigate through this site
tut tut… be careful ladies & gents. In an attempt to prove yourself right you are becoming as misleading as the very 2012hoaxers themselves. Whether you like it or not the Suns activity is asking some serious questions…
That's interesting, because this page has been reviewed by at least two professional astrophysicists, and they gave no indication that we have overstepped the science.
What, in particular, do you feel we are overstating?
Yes,where are the two?
M6.6 and X2 flare with CMEs arriving within a couple days. Why aren't they explaining how this can happen in this current weak solar max? I look forward to their BS when the power goes out. 1989 ring a bell?
You have failed to mention that nasa also stated on their website that solar flares "charge" the magneto-sphere, and when a more rare CME occurs it reacts more violently with the magneto-sphere. They had no knowledge of this until the THEMIS crafts flew through the breach as it opened. I am glad to see that you have clarified that it isnt a permanent breach, but it occurs almost everytime a solar flare reacts with the magneto-sphere. And whos to say that a CME hitting a hyper-charged magneto-sphere wont reach the earths atmosphere?
We don't need to worry about solar energy reaching the atmosphere. Apart from the Earth being 93 million miles from the Sun, somewhere in its 360 degree orbit, it is very well protected with extensive magnetic fields and an atmosphere that deflects up to 95% of any solar energy. The 95% quote is in this NASA video at 2 min. 24 sec… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDGpfAzCaDk
Also another good NASA video: 'The Truth About 2012 - Solar Storms' …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvJfjVdJ79o
Arise, my pet. Arise!
Seriously, what is it with these random acts of necromancy that pop up every so often? Did you even notice that the post you responded to is from January 2010?
You have failed to mention that nasa also stated on their website that solar flares "charge" the magneto-sphere, and when a more rare CME occurs it reacts more violently with the magneto-sphere.
It isn't mentioned in the 2012Hoax article, because the citation links to the source at NASA's website, where you can read all about it. The charging of the atmosphere is mentioned on this very forum, which you might have known if you had bothered to search before launching an attack.
and when a more rare CME occurs it reacts more violently with the magneto-sphere.
It can, but not necessarily. Let's assume it does so routinely (even though it doesn't). So what?
They had no knowledge of this until the THEMIS crafts flew through the breach as it opened.
Yes, you can read all about it at the NASA article linked in the very section you're referring to.
I am glad to see that you have clarified that it isnt a permanent breach, but it occurs almost everytime a solar flare reacts with the magneto-sphere.
And yet the incidence of extreme solar weather remains about the same as it's always been. However, this is another avenue of study in how our geomagnetic field interacts with the solar wind, which in turn has provided a better understanding of how such events can occur. It's valuable information, sadly hijacked and warped by the usual array of Internet doomsayers.
And whos to say that a CME hitting a hyper-charged magneto-sphere wont reach the earths atmosphere?
Even if it does, so what?
It happens all the time and the result is called "Aurora Borealis". The magnetosphere compresses. Repeated activity charges the ionosphere successively until we see something called a GIC in the electricity infrastructure. That's the point.
And whos to say that a CME hitting a hyper-charged magneto-sphere wont reach the earths atmosphere?
So?
Your house could also be hit by a big fully loaded 747 with baby food.
But give us some numbers, how much energy per square meter are we talking about?
It is probably lower that your cell phone antenna.
This is an interesting page. If the sun reaches the solar max in 2013, there won't be any solar flares that could wipeout our electrical grid? Because I looked in this by Phillip C. Plait called "Death From the Skies". It was an interesting read. In the end of the book it had an appendix of a table of odds. The odds for a solar flare damaging us is (if I remember) 1 in a million something. Have you read the book and agree with the odds here?
The odds sound about maybe right. The thing is i realy doubt one Flare could distroy all the grids in the world …I mean i remember when it happen in Quebec. and i do remember when in the early 90 the Canadian main TV Satellite was damage we where a few days with tv black outs. In 2003 there was pretty big flare i remeber in the summer are town substation blow up we where out of power for 15 hours the substation was cooked…..I pretty flare seem to affect pretty my localised..
Quebec was an anomalous flare, not a bombardment of repeated flares charging up the magnetosphere around the globe.
1. US is the most vulnerable to a Class X solar flare due to long transmission lines and a centralized power structure. Warning time - less than 15 minutes so no… there will be little to no warning for power operators to take action. Note what happened during a solar flare that affected a Canadian power grid in 1989.
2. Solar max is going to be taking place late 2012. We recently faced a Class M solar flare signalling the beginning of the solar max. Fortunately, it was pointed away from us. If you believe in the conveyer belt theory governing sun spots, this upcoming solar max is forecasted to be the most intense in over 50 years. Also, predicted by NASA in a 2006 report. In addition, scientists have theorized that large solar flares like that of 1859 happen every 100 or so years. We are overdue for them.
3. Evidently, the Earth's magnetosphere which protects us from solar flares has been discovered to interact with recent solar flares causing a hole to form. No reason given to why this is suddenly occurring. This report was released by NASA. A sudden drop of altitude of a Quantas jetliner was blamed on cosmic rays and magnetic disturbances might be related.
4. Sure solar maxes have occurred before, but note that we are more heavily reliant on electronics and electrical circuitry. In 1859, we did not have the infrastructure that we have now. Even in 1959, we were more reliant on vaccuum tubes that are less
vulnerable to magnetic flux. Today even modern appliances have semiconductor chips
inside them.
5. Hardening of power plants. Although several government reports have noted that
the power grid can be hardened against solar flare activity, government has not taken
actions to prevent this from occurring, except sending up more satellites that will tell us when a solar flare will occur.
Out of all the doomsday theories out there, this is the most likely to occur.
In addition, scientists have theorized that large solar flares like that of 1859 happen every 100 or so years. We are overdue for them.
Support that statement. First time I have heard that.
Another statement that is unsupported by NASA.
this upcoming solar max is forecasted to be the most intense in over 50 years. Also, predicted by NASA in a 2006 report.
There is a 2009 report…you should probably read it. It shows that the solar minimum was unusually long, pushing the prediction of the solar max to Spring of 2013.
Your statements are either not backed by anybody, or are using out of date resources. Truthseeker, you have found a page that tells the truth…but I believe you need to be more willing to accept it. A solar flare can erupt at anytime, including during solar minimum. No solar flares are a "signal" to a solar max. I believe Astrogeek said that one of the largest solar flares we've seen was recorded during a solar minimum.
Out of all the doomsday theories out there, this is the most likely to occur.
I disagree, this theory has about the same chance as any others to occur. Little to none.
Just a quick reality check on your calculations. How is 4 years (2006 to 2010) a long solar minimum?
I think the thing you meant to refer to is the number of days sunspots completely disappeared off
the sun. Considering solar max has an early start, I would think that a solar max would be an
extended, protracted cycle rather than a short cycle like the solar minimum has been. It is interesting
to note however that the symptoms of global warming are the same as the beginnings of the weakening of Earth's magnetic field ( see hole in magnetosphere) as more solar energy penetrates the earth. Also,
interesting is the number of NASA probes that are studying the sun and the earth's magnetic field
currently. Should I list the warning signs?
More airline incidents. Quantas Jet A330 faced a magnetic disturbance that caused a sudden loss in altitude due to a systems failure. An electrical malfunction on an Air France A330 from Brazil. Interesting
these flights coincide with where the "hole in the magnetosphere" would form.
More droughts, superstorms, unusual weather patterns like El Nino, hail and tornadoes in California and India?
Melting of polar ice and glaciers.
More south migrating Aurora Borealis.
Mass beachings of migrating dolphins and whales.
As far as the length of the solar minimum: In 2009 the solar physicists were all wondering exactly when the sun was going to "wake up", because it was taking a longer than usual nap during its minimum. Yes, that refers to the number of sunspots in total… that's what the solar minimum is all about.
Your supposition appears to be at odds with the statements made by various solar scientists. The "max" has not had an early start. The minimum was extended, and just like 'maximum' we can't tell exactly when 'minimum' was until it has passed. At this point, because of the extended minimum, the guess (linked on the page) is that max will not occur until spring of 2013 and will be less active than normal.
Stronger cycles have been observed to 'ramp up' quickly, and the more active the cycle, generally the quicker it ramps up. This one is taking it's time. It is obvious now that we are past minimum, but solar activity is taking a longer-than-usual amount of time to ramp up. This means that Spring of 2013 may be too soon as well, it may be summer or fall of 2013. Making the prediction of when max will occur is more guesswork (albeit an educated guess) than anything else.
You appear to be drawing a link between solar activity and global warming. This may appear to make sense on its face, but it does not hold up under examination. The 'symptoms' of global warming are that the global temperature is rising. This has been recorded over several decades, and has nothing to do with the 11-year sunspot cycle. The sun is getting hotter, but it is a very gradual process that would take hundreds of thousands to millions of years in order to have any measurable change in the global temperature. The Milankovich cycles would have more of an effect than anything related to the sun's gradual warming.
As far as the 'hole in the magnetosphere', you appear to be misinformed. The South Atlantic Anomaly is not new. It was discovered in 1958 when we started trying to figure out why some of our newly launched satellites kept getting fried over the southern Atlantic ocean. It has probably been where it is now for the last 700,000 years (the length of the current dipole orientation). It is a "weak spot" in the magnetosphere, not a "hole", and it is not related to the gradual decline in the magnetic field strength of the earth, but rather is a consequence of the orientation of the earth's magnetic field. The wikipedia article appears to be right on the money:
The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) refers to the area where the Earth's inner Van Allen radiation belt comes closest to the Earth's surface, leading to increased levels of cosmic radiation at lower altitudes than elsewhere over the surface. The effect is a "weak spot" in the Earth's magnetic field, which can expose orbiting satellites and spacecraft to higher levels of radiation than usual. - Wikipedia
Just because NASA (or any one of the other space agencies, like ESA or JAXA) is looking at something doesn't make it sinister. In order to understand the nature of this planet, it is frequently necessary to investigate it. To take this implication to a ridiculous extreme, perhaps NASA is sending New Horizons to Pluto because they know that's where the reptilian alien bases are.
Your list of 'warning signs' are indeed 'warning signs', but not of impending solar activity. Some of them are related to global warming (melting glaciers), some of them are related to magnetic activity (aurora in more southerly latitudes) but are not particularly unique (reports of aurora as far south as Cuba and the Yucatan were observed in 1859, and some were seen as far south as the mid-Atlantic states in 2003, after an X 17.2 solar flare). The whale beachings are interesting and tragic, but you haven't shown that they are more common now rather than more widely reported, I don't think you'll be able to tie them in a correlation with sunspots or solar activity, let alone a causal factor.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Thank you for your input. It looks well thought out, but several updates are needed:
Sunspot activity is intensifying.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2010/02/100202_sun_flares.shtml
Global warming has been called by some a hoax. When compared to sunspot activity, global
climate has a better correlation. This has been proposed by several anti-global warming
scientists as a better way to explain the swing of temperature. Look at the global climate during this recent solar min. Global climate actually cooled while we go about with the same amount
of CO2 emissions.
As you have pointed out, the South Atlantic Anomaly is just that. It is located in the South Atlantic. This hole in the magnetosphere main sphere of influence will be the Northern hemispheres, unfortunately the highest impacting of vulnerable power grids.
NASA has had the policy of investing in missions that carry the most value:
Planetary probes have been the most bang for the buck so the Pluto mission unless
you believe in Planet X in which case this mission would give more insight
The solar probes are very interesting. They study the sun spot activity, solar flare activity, and solar/earth interactions. Why even recently they had another probe to study the effects of
solar flares on earth:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204204309.htm
The warning signs I have listed:
Airline incidents - both occured in 2009
Mass beachings of whales and dolphins - started remarkably during 2004 and continue.
All unexplained except for it must be the sonar pulses the navy is using. In regards to
this, the earth's magnetic field is in decline.
Auorora borealis - unexplained phenomenon. We'll have to see how far south we can see them. In 1859, the aurora borealis was seen as far as Mexico. This happened to be the year of the Carrington solar flare incident.
http://io9.com/5458847/the-mystery-of-the-glowing-jellyfish-in-the-sky
Weird weather patterns - take your pick. I believe in the theory that radiation causes weather not just warm oceans which is contrary to the global warming belief that we should have less severe weather due to less of a gradient between cold and warm fronts. Note that during this solar min that certain years we had little to no hurricanes. One theory of note is to include the formation of cloud cover due to cosmic rays.
Tornadoes and hail in California
Hail in India
Hurricanes of unusual magnitude
Snow in the desert regions
Sunspot activity is intensifying.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2010/02/100202_sun_flares.shtml
Indeed, as it does on the upswing of every solar cycle.
Global warming has been called by some a hoax. When compared to sunspot activity, global climate has a better correlation.
You will have to support this statement.
This has been proposed by several anti-global warming
scientists as a better way to explain the swing of temperature. Look at the global climate during this recent solar min. Global climate actually cooled while we go about with the same amount of CO2 emissions.
Yes it has been proposed as such. Some global-warming denialists have also proposed that increased radiation from the sun is the cause, citing temperature increases on some planets.
However, neither of these ideas reflect mainstream thought, and I'm curious on how this bears on the subject of 2012?
I will quote Phil Plait here from his blog:
Is it possible that the Earth’s warming is caused by our nearest star?
Of course it’s possible. There are links to the Sun’s behavior and Earth’s climate (look up the Maunder minimum for some interesting reading), and it would be foolish to simply deny this. However, this is a vastly complex and difficult system to understand, and simply claiming "Yes it’s due to the Sun" or "No it’s not due to the Sun" is certainly naive.
But we do have some facts:
1) The Earth is getting warmer.
2) We are dumping more CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
3) A little greenhouse effect is a good thing (otherwise the average temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water). Too much, however, is Venus.
4) Some of this global warming is due to human causes. This is fact. The question is, how much?
5) There are political and ideological ramifications of global warming, and a lot of people — politicians, in fact — have a lot at stake and are known to twist science to meet their needs.
With all of these facts lined up, it’s clear that the one thing we need to do is be very, very careful when someone comes in and makes a broad, sweeping statement about global warming’s cause, especially when they have ulterior motives for saying what they do. This may sound like an ad hominem, but we have seen, over and over, how science gets abused these past few years by those in power. A jaundiced eye is critical in science, and a little skepticism — or in this case, a lot — is a good thing.
You should also be cautious of 'science by press release'. Frequently the press releases are written by people other than the scientists involved. The only sure way to know what the scientists are saying is to read the actual papers, not news stories or press releases about the papers.
As you have pointed out, the South Atlantic Anomaly is just that. It is located in the South Atlantic. This hole in the magnetosphere main sphere of influence will be the Northern hemispheres, unfortunately the highest impacting of vulnerable power grids.
Cite please. The big "hole in the magnetosphere" news recently was via THEMIS. This was a transient event. The big news was that this transient hole was larger than expected, and was caused by a CME that was oriented the same way as the earth's magnetic field. Conventional wisdom held that this should have reinforced the field, not caused a hole.
Some people talk about this "hole" as if it is a permanent feature. That does not appear to be the case.
NASA has had the policy of investing in missions that carry the most value:
Planetary probes have been the most bang for the buck so the > Pluto mission unless you believe in Planet X in which case this mission would give more insight
I can't quite make sense of this paragraph. Are you suggesting that New Horizons is looking for planet X? NASA has a track record of investing in missions with the most scientific value. This depends quite a bit on where the collective interest of the scientific community lies. I have no idea what the reject-to-accept ratio for proposed missions is, but I imagine that it is huge. There is a competitive process where various groups will propose missions to the NASA directorate. They have to 'sell' them on the benefits.
The solar probes are very interesting. They study the sun spot activity, solar flare activity, and solar/earth interactions. Why even recently they had another probe to study the effects of
solar flares on earth:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100204204309.htm
Yes, they are very interesting. Once again, I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you hinting that because NASA is studying the sun, or sunspots, or the effects of solar flares on earth that they are somehow worried about it, and are hiding this from the public? Or were you going in another direction with this?
Airline incidents - both occured in 2009
Which airline incidents?
Mass beachings of whales and dolphins - started remarkably during 2004 and continue. All unexplained except for it must be the sonar pulses the navy is using. In regards to this, the earth's magnetic field is in decline.
Please provide a reference that these "started remarkably during 2004". If they are unexplained, why do you think the sonar pulses had anything to do with it?
Auorora borealis - unexplained phenomenon. We'll have to see how far south we can see them. In 1859, the aurora borealis was seen as far as Mexico. This happened to be the year of the Carrington solar flare incident.
Indeed, as I point out on this very page.
http://io9.com/5458847/the-mystery-of-the-glowing-jellyfish-in-the-sky
Yes, I watched this news break on twitter. It is definitely "unexplained", because there are several competing (but entirely mundane) explanations, and nobody knows which one is right, yet.
Weird weather patterns - take your pick. I believe in the theory that radiation causes weather not just warm oceans which is contrary to the global warming belief that we should have less severe weather due to less of a gradient between cold and warm fronts. Note that during this solar min that certain years we had little to no hurricanes. One theory of note is to include the formation of cloud cover due to cosmic rays.
Hurricanes fluctuate in number and intensity. You will have to show that there is a trend that matches the sunspot cycle.
Tornadoes and hail in California
What's unusual about that? We don't get tornadoes out here with the regularity of the Mid-West, but we do get them.
Hail in India
Is that unusual? I don't know. During monsoon season they get some very severe weather in India. I don't see this as being a particularly good indicator of anything. You would have to show that this is evidence for your idea and not evidence of global warming in general.
Hurricanes of unusual magnitude
Yes. 2005 had two of the six strongest storms on record. http://www.hurricane.com/hurricane-records.php
However, you will have to show again that this is better explained by your idea than by global warming (or other causes).
Snow in the desert regions
That's not all that unusual either, as desert-dwellers will tell you.
http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/2006/03/11/143-days-of-record-setting-dryness-is-over/
Note: I edited this post after Truthseeker posted a reply. No significance should be drawn from the fact that his reply does not address some of the points in this post. We await future replies from Truthseeker.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
To support the statement that global warming is due to sunspot activity, I thought I include a video presentation by David Archibald that correlates the sunpot activity and the "Little Ice Age".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbAe_g41Zl4
Mainstream thought is swinging away from CO2 emissions toward
this new theory as the leaked emails about ignoring inconsistent data in recent years (during the solar min) have received a lot of public attention.
Other evidence that does not make sense are the lack of hurricanes during this past minimum which is contradictory to the increasing number of hurricanes due to warmer seas feeding the hurricanes. As stated before, radiation from the sun drives storms… not just warmer weather.
Which report were you reading? Note nowhere does it say this is something we discovered back in 1956 and it is completely normal with no interaction from solar storms. The fact that you mention a wikipedia article with no references does not promote confidence in your data.
Quote:
Northern IMF events don't actually trigger geomagnetic storms, notes Raeder, but they do set the stage for storms by loading the magnetosphere with plasma. A loaded magnetosphere is primed for auroras, power outages, and other disturbances that can result when, say, a CME (coronal mass ejection) hits.
The years ahead could be especially lively. Raeder explains: "We're entering Solar Cycle 24. For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such a CME should open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma just before the storm gets underway. It's the perfect sequence for a really big event."
Sibeck agrees. "This could result in stronger geomagnetic storms than we have seen in many years."
—-
Assuming global warming exists, the contradictory data is the fact that last year during the
solar minimum, no hurricanes were reported. My point is no solar storms, no hurricanes. See below for further scientific correlation between sunspot activity and global temperatures.
For the warning signs, do your research. None of the statements you give have any scientific basis. Quantas QF72, Air France 447 are the airline incidents.
I'm sure the people in DC area would disagree with your assessment of what is normal with the weather. Global warming by definition is that global temperatures increase. These past few years coincidentally with the solar min that global temperatures have decreased. Hence, the global warming email coverup about covering up data that does not fit into the global warming model.
Speaking of CME,
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/1006050.html
Auorora borealis as far south as Canada and Alaska…
I realize now that we are talking about two different things.
I assumed you meant the "South Atlantic Anomaly" which was discovered in 1958.
I see now that you are referring to the THEMIS data.
You realize that the "breach" reported by THEMIS was transitory, right? The idea that the magnetosphere could be breached is not even new to this report. The surprise was that the polarity of the CME that caused the breach and allowed the solar particles to load the magnetosphere was opposite of the then-current thinking. The expectation was that a CME with a polarity that was the same as that of the magnetosphere would reinforce it, not breach it. The surprise was that it caused this breach.
You appear to be claiming that since the geomagnetic storms may be stronger than in many years, that there is something unusual going on?
Since the cycle runs 11 years, and since even numbered cycles tend to have CMEs polarized the right way to cause breaches, then we should look back at solar cycle 22. Cycle 22 began in 1986 and ran until 1996. Of the list of major power outages at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_outages only one (the 1989 Quebec outage) is attributable to a geomagnetic event. (It is probable that smaller power outages were caused by geomagnetic activity)
So while power outages due to large geomagnetic storms appear to be a problem, they do not appear to be a major problem.
I'm sorry, but "do your research" is not a valid argument. If you make the claim, it is incumbent upon you to support it.
I did not claim that the DC weather over the past week or so is "normal". In fact you did not list the DC snow/ice storm in your list of unusual weather. What I said what that the examples you gave were not necessarily all that unusual. In particular tornadoes in California. I live here. There have been several reported tornadoes over the last few decades. They are not as frequent as you will find in other areas, but we do get them. Here's a list dating back to about 1880.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Quantas QF72: A fault in the primary Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU 1) is blamed. No indication of solar activity during October 2008, and indeed very close to the solar minimum.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_43.aspx
One comment speculates that a VLF transmitter in Australia may be a causal factor:
http://aircrewbuzz.com/2008/10/systems-fault-identified-in-qantas.html
Air France 447 crashed into the Atlantic on 1 June 2009. The FDRs (Flight Data Recorders) have yet to be recovered. No definitive cause of the crash has been determined, although it is listed as a "potential pitot tube failure".
There is no indication that either of these are related to solar activity.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
The point of these arguments was not solar activity would have direct
correlation. The point was that the earth's magnetic field is weakening,
making noticeable these warning signs.
The first mentioned flight Quantas QF72 preliminary fault was that a sensor
that measures the magnetic field for altitude went berserk due to some
magnetic anomaly (It was theorized that cosmic rays had affected the
instrument). It was suggested by scientists that cosmic rays increase during a solar min.
The second mentioned flight Air France 447 had a large number of
autonomic messages that a severe electrical malfunction occurred before the plane disintegrated. As airplanes are hardened against lightning strikes and the weather was not more severe as it had been flying in, one can only assume they also ran into a magnetic anomaly.
In regards to your previous statements, yes the problem is with the effect of the geomagnetic field on power stations. If the geomagnetic field does
interact with a even cycle solar flare and CME, we will be having a lot of trouble in power stations. Something that might be put to the test in this upcoming CME and Class M solar flare event.
In regards to your conclusions without any evidence, I point to the following:
1. Chennai was hit by hailstorms for the very first time in recorded history
2. Mass whale and dolphin beaching have been suggested to happen
in 10 year cycles (pretty close to the solar cycle wouldn't you say?) Whale
activists blame it on naval sonar tests which is why I mentioned this. Meanwhile, the number of mass whale and dolphins have increased substantially compared to past years. Scientists suggest it is due to overpopulation. Ummm… overpopulation? Whales are recovering their populations so what is happening to them now should have happened to them when their populations were larger.
3. Hurricane trend. Compare a year with a solar min and note very few hurricanes. Compare a year with a solar max and note larger, more impressive hurricanes. Again, Earth's magnetic field weakening at the same time the solar cycle changes as usual.
4. Earth's magnetic field. You mention solar dynamics as the sole cause for what happens on earth. Note that earth's magnetic field has also been declining in recent times. This has been amplifying the effects of the solar cycle.
My conclusion from these warning signs is that the effects of a solar max with the earth's weakening magnetic field will be worse. Whether or not it will affect the power grid will depend on the strength of the storm and any CME that interacts at the same time. We shall watch the upcoming CME event's effect on the Earth's magnetosphere and power grids.
Although this article wanders in its conclusions, the basic information is
there with good references.
That article appears to rely on the older NCAR prediction of a stronger-than-average solar cycle rather than the more recent NOAA prediction of a weaker-than-average solar cycle.
Regardless of the strength of solar cycle 24, I am skeptical of claims that the upcoming solar cycle spells doom for our communications or electrical grids.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
The first mentioned flight Quantas QF72 preliminary fault was that a sensor that measures the magnetic field for altitude went berserk due to some magnetic anomaly (It was theorized that cosmic rays had affected the instrument). It was suggested by scientists that cosmic rays increase during a solar min.
Last bit first, that's not a suggestion, that's a fact. The sun's magnetic field protects the solar system from cosmic radiation. At minimum it is weaker, and more cosmic radiation penetrates.
However, for the rest of this paragraph:
The report on the incident blames the ADIRU. This is not a "sensor that measures the magnetic field for altitude". I am somewhat familiar with aircraft instrumentation, and I am unfamiliar with any such instrument. Altitude is measured by a barometric altimeter, and attitude is measured by a gyroscopic device. Neither of these utilize sensing magnetic fields. Can you please provide the name of this instrument?
The ATSB is examining the possibility of a cosmic ray impact affecting the AIRDU (see http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2009/11/18/qf72-did-a-cosmic-ray-zap-the-airbus/) but this does not conclude that a cosmic ray impact was the cause of the spurious data.
A cosmic ray impact is not a "magnetic anomaly".
The second mentioned flight Air France 447 had a large number of autonomic messages that a severe electrical malfunction occurred before the plane disintegrated. As airplanes are hardened against lightning strikes and the weather was not more severe as it had been flying in, one can only assume they also ran into a magnetic anomaly.
Why can you "only assume that they also ran into a magnetic anomaly"? I can assume lots of other causes, such as a catastrophic electrical failure or an iced up pitot tube. You appear to be cherry picking your events and then making an unwarranted assumption that they can be explained only by a "magnetic anomaly". This is particularly interesting in that such a "magnetic anomaly" a) has not been shown to exist and b) has not been shown that it could cause the kinds of effects that you are citing.
In regards to your previous statements, yes the problem is with the effect of the geomagnetic field on power stations. If the geomagnetic field does interact with a even cycle solar flare and CME, we will be having a lot of trouble in power stations. Something that might be put to the test in this upcoming CME and Class M solar flare event.
Why "lots of trouble"? Considering that the next solar cycle is predicted to be less active than normal, please support this.
What "upcoming CME and Class M solar flare event"? Are you making a specific prediction?
In regards to your conclusions without any evidence, I point to the following:
That's actually funny.
1. Chennai was hit by hailstorms for the very first time in recorded history
OK. Why does this support your idea that solar flares or CMEs are to blame, as opposed to global warming (which is predicted to provoke severe weather)?
2. Mass whale and dolphin beaching have been suggested to happen in 10 year cycles (pretty close to the solar cycle wouldn't you say?) Whale activists blame it on naval sonar tests which is why I mentioned this. Meanwhile, the number of mass whale and dolphins have increased substantially compared to past years. Scientists suggest it is due to overpopulation. Ummm… overpopulation? Whales are recovering their populations so what is happening to them now should have happened to them when their populations were larger.
Why does this support your idea that solar cycles are to blame? You've committed a logical fallacy here. There may or may not be a correlation between dolphin and whale beachings and solar cycles, but you have to show a causal link. Other explanations include:
Researchers tracking the beaching of whales in the region since 1920 said strandings tend to occur in 12-year cycles that coincide with cooler, nutrient-rich ocean currents moving from the south and swelling fish stocks.
(via http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2664/whales-beachings-increase)
3. Hurricane trend. Compare a year with a solar min and note very few hurricanes. Compare a year with a solar max and note larger, more impressive hurricanes. Again, Earth's magnetic field weakening at the same time the solar cycle changes as usual.
Interesting, because the extract of this study (http://www.texasclimate.org/ClimateConsequences/SolarCyclesHurricaneFrequency/tabid/465/Default.aspx) suggests that an inverse relationship may exist. Regardless, I see very little correlation between the number of hurricanes and tropical storms (via http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/atlhist_lowres.gif) and the sunspot cycle (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png)
4. Earth's magnetic field. You mention solar dynamics as the sole cause for what happens on earth. Note that earth's magnetic field has also been declining in recent times. This has been amplifying the effects of the solar cycle.
I don't think I said that. Be that as it may, yes, the magnetic field of the earth is declining. It is also several thousand years away from a magnetic pole reversal. It is also stronger than it has been for most of the earth's history. It is currently as strong as it has been for the last 50,000 years. The earth's magnetic field goes through periods of strengthening and decline.
What does this mean for geomagnetic storms? They will probably become stronger. However, the cycle in 2012 is now predicted to be weaker than normal, not stronger. The decline is currently at a rate of about 5 percent per century. If we extrapolate that across three years that means that in 2012 the field will be 0.15 percent weaker. This does not scream "danger" to me.
My conclusion from these warning signs is that the effects of a solar max with the earth's weakening magnetic field will be worse. Whether or not it will affect the power grid will depend on the strength of the storm and any CME that interacts at the same time. We shall watch the upcoming CME event's effect on the Earth's magnetosphere and power grids.
I suggest you review your warning signs. You appear to be accepting things as "warning signs" that most scientists would reject.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
I have a hard time trying to justify the facts when you do not do the same. As I continue from stating facts to making a hypothesis, you are simply arguing each fact, which is not open to criticism unless you have facts to support your argument. As such, I refuse to acknowledge your comments as facts.
For your curiosity for those air flights:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25580574-952,00.html
Upcoming solar flare and CME event:
http://solarcycle24.com/index2.htm
For your vocabulary building:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
Cosmic ray includes electrons. As electricity (defined as the flow of electrons) and magnetism have a unified field theory, what you stated is obviously wrong.
As you pointed out, whale beaching may occur in 12-year cycles, which is very close to the 11-year solar cycle. This however does
not explain the rash of beaching since 2004.
Hail storms and thunderstorms, which are illustrations to my examples of tornadoes in California and hail in India, take their energy from
the atmosphere. The more radiated the atmosphere, the more energy the storm can draw upon. The theoretical superstorm is one where a storm somehow uses the energy from the Van Allen radiation belt. Hope that you never see this superstorm.
The 2009 report that you alluded to does not take the conveyor belt theory into account. I find it hard to believe that it is taking all the facts into account. From the various articles I have read, this report is right only about one thing. Solar max climax will be delayed. In no definite terms have scientists been able to predict the severity of solar storms. If they did, they would have predicted and took action on the solar flares that caused problems before they wreaked havoc on the various power grids, communicatons, and satellites. A very expensive loss of time and money.
I have a hard time trying to justify the facts when you do not do the same. As I continue from stating facts to making a hypothesis, you are simply arguing each fact, which is not open to criticism unless you have facts to support your argument. As such, I refuse to acknowledge your comments as facts.
I'm sorry that you feel that way, but this is how it works ("It" meaning science). You bring a set of facts to the table, and a hypothesis, and explain why your hypothesis explains those facts. You do not bend, misconstrue, or alter the facts to support your hypothesis.
I have consistently argued against your interpretation (in most cases, misinterpretation) of the "facts".
For example, you claimed that the number and intensity of hurricanes per year supported your idea that they are related to the sunspot cycle. Specifically you claimed that the years coinciding with solar minima had fewer hurricanes than years that coincided with solar maxima. I spent some time researching this claim, and showed that not only was your claimed correlation incorrect, that there was at least one published paper claiming the exact opposite.
For your curiosity for those air flights:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25580574-952,00.html
Yes, I have read about the flights. There is nothing in those reports that supports your claims. In fact you claimed that the Qantas (not "Quantas") flight was experienced difficulty due to a non-existent instrument. I was generous enough to also consider "attitude" instead of "altitude", as you claimed. Neither of these instruments work on the principle that you claimed.
Upcoming solar flare and CME event:
http://solarcycle24.com/index2.htm
The only forecast on that page is for an 'unsettled' geomagnetic field over the next three days. Is that what you are referring to?
For your vocabulary building:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
I know what a cosmic ray is.
Cosmic ray includes electrons. As electricity (defined as the flow of electrons) and magnetism have a unified field theory, what you stated is obviously wrong.
Apparently you did not bother to read that page.
Cosmic rays are energetic particles originating from outer space that impinge on Earth's atmosphere. Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are protons, about 9% are helium nuclei (alpha particles) and about 1% are electrons…
So, 1% are electrons. Would you care to restate your assertion that I am wrong when I said that a 'cosmic ray is not a magnetic anomaly'? Are you claiming that cosmic rays cause these 'magnetic anomalies'? If not, then why did you bring them up?
As you pointed out, whale beaching may occur in 12-year cycles, which is very close to the 11-year solar cycle. This however does not explain the rash of beaching since 2004.
You have yet to provide evidence of a 'rash of beaching (sic) since 2004', or that if such a trend exists, why it should be blamed on the cause you propose.
Hail storms and thunderstorms, which are illustrations to my examples of tornadoes in California and hail in India, take their energy from the atmosphere.
Yes.
The more radiated the atmosphere, the more energy the storm can draw upon.
I think you mean 'heat' here.
The theoretical superstorm is one where a storm somehow uses the energy from the Van Allen radiation belt.
Please provide a citation for this "theoretical superstorm". Also please explain why, if such a superstorm could exist, it would not occur over South America and the South Atlantic, where the inner Van Allen Belt is closest to the earth.
Hope that you never see this superstorm.
I seriously doubt that I ever will.
The 2009 report that you alluded to does not take the conveyor belt theory into account.
Yes, it did. See http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/May_24_2007_table.pdf It appears that once again you are not bothering to check your facts. That is from the original (2007) NOAA report, which predicted the solar minimum to occur in May 2008, with max occurring near August 2012. This report was superseded by the 2008 report which was also based on the extended minimum, and pushed the solar max out to May of 2013.
The 2006 NCAR report is listed on that page as "Podladchikova, et. al. 2006 152–197 Integral of sun spot number used as precursor" Sorry, my bad, it is the one below that, listed as "Dikpati, et al. 2006 155–180 —B Modified flux - transport dynamo model calibrated with historical run of sunspot area"
I find it hard to believe that it is taking all the facts into account. From the various articles I have read, this report is right only about one thing. Solar max climax will be delayed.
Are these articles in the popular media, or are they from scientific journals? If possible, please cite them, so that I can read them.
In no definite terms have scientists been able to predict the severity of solar storms.
This is true, because no agency attempts to predict 'solar storms'. They make predictions about the overall intensity of the solar maximum, not about individual solar storms.
As far as predicting solar cycles, NOAA has a fairly good track record. It remains to be seen whether the NOAA forecast of a milder-than-average solar cycle will occur, or the NCAR prediction of a stronger-than-average cycle occurs.
If they did, they would have predicted and took action on the solar flares that caused problems before they wreaked havoc on the various power grids, communicatons, and satellites. A very expensive loss of time and money.
Well, technically speaking NASA, NOAA and NCAR can't "take action" in the manner you suggest. That would be a funding decision up to congress.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Puffery. Your article on hurricanes and solar activities isn't an article. It's an abstract. I am pretty sure that article does not look at the current solar min and lack of hurricanes because of the date published and current data would contradict the hypothesis put forward.
Your other article has the same problem as the 2006 report that you seem to contradict. All except one predict the solar max in 2011 to 2012, which we know to be wrong.
Scientific study to study the possibility that whale beachings are
related to solar activity:
Several other articles suggest climate change causes has and will cause more whale beachings, but as I suggested before, climate change or global warming does not exist according to the current global temperature data. (See Climategate). The only fact here is that whale beachings are increasing.
Airline incident. From the article I submitted, it is clear that the same instrument was affected. You ask which instrument and my guess would be the GPS. Interference with the GPS can cause a miscalibration of altitude and position. The computer thought the airplane was climbing too rapidly based on data received from this instrument.
Thunderstorms, hailstorms, oh my. If your premise of storms feeding off heat is true, we would have had a large number of thunderstorms and hurricanes during the solar min. We did not. Storms feed off electromagnetic energy not heat. An imbalance of electromagnetic activity along with a gradient between hot warm moist air and cold dry air.
Semantics. Anything that causes electricity and light (this itself is an electromagnetic phenomenon) is considered an magnetic phenomenon.
As an afterthought, the articles that you have provided have been varied and untested. The scientific process is that an article is published and the scientific community then tests the hypothesis presented. If proven, the hypothesis is turned into a theory. Thus so far, most of the articles have not been tested yet (ie. blogs, graduate papers, etc.)
Let's look at the history so far of this discussion:
Breach in the magnetosphere (THEMIS data) that you confused with a vulnerability in the magnetosphere.
Your insistence that global warming exists and can cause the warning signs. Global warming does not exist due to conflicting data during this particular solar min. Try something else.
Your elaboration about the earth's magnetic field strengthening is incorrect. A pole reversal will occur. The only question is when.
Puffery.
Really. Your handwaving notwithstanding, you have not proven your case.
Your article on hurricanes and solar activities isn't an article. It's an abstract.
This is interesting, because the "scientific study" you cite below is also an abstract. Regardless, yes, is an abstract. If I felt like it would make a difference in this argument then I would pay the $9 to retrieve the full article. Not that I doubt the validity of the paper, but I have not seen a willingness on your part to think outside of your predetermined box.
I am pretty sure that article does not look at the current solar min and lack of hurricanes because of the date published and current data would contradict the hypothesis put forward.
So, September 2008 is too old? What data since 2008 would tend to contradict the "hypothesis put forward"?
You have claimed that the frequency and intensity of hurricanes are related to the solar max, but you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support this. On the other hand, I have found and posted links that show the number of sunspots per year and the number of storms per year, categorized by strength. I suggest again that you begin at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastprofile.shtml which shows the number of named systems (yellow), the number of hurricanes (green/hatched) and the number of category 3 or greater hurricanes (red) per year. The solar minimum and maximum years can be constructed from data from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SDIC) which has sunspot numbers back to 1750. Solar max years are: 1848, 1860, 1871, 1884, 1894, 1906, 1917, 1928, 1937, 1947, 1958, 1968, 1979, 1989 and 2000. I invite you to show me the correlation between solar max and the number/intensity of storms that you claim exists.
Your other article has the same problem as the 2006 report that you seem to contradict.
Which "other article"? I have posted so many links here that I have no idea at this point which one you are referring to. This is compounded by the fact that you appear to be ignoring some… er… several, of the points I made.
All except one predict the solar max in 2011 to 2012, which we know to be wrong.
The 2008 NOAA prediction is based on a review of the available scientific literature, including the 2006 NCAR paper, as I pointed out to you.
Scientific study to study the possibility that whale beachings are related to solar activity:
This article, oh, excuse me… this abstract of an article, is dated in 2003, and only studies sperm whales, and therefore does not, and could not possibly support your claim that there have been a "rash of beaching[s] since 2004"
Several other articles suggest climate change causes has and will cause more whale beachings,
Yes, there have been some articles that suggest that global changes in water temperature may cause certain populations of cetaceans to be stressed, and may cause beachings. However, you don't believe in global warming, so why are you citing this as evidence for your case?
but as I suggested before, climate change or global warming does not exist according to the current global temperature data.
You claimed that global temperatures tracked the sunspot cycle, and that the number of hurricanes per year also tracked the sunspot cycle. You have not shown that either of these correlations exist.
(See Climategate).
Believe me, I am very familiar with that. I won't get into a protracted argument with you about global warming, because I am more concerned with the whole 2012 mythology at present.
The only fact here is that whale beachings are increasing.
You are now retreating from your claim that there has been a significant increase in whale beachings since 2004.
Airline incident. From the article I submitted, it is clear that the same instrument was affected. You ask which instrument and my guess would be the GPS.
So, you don't know, you are just guessing. The ATSB report pegged the problem that occurred on the Qantas flight on the ADIRU unit, not a GPS. I strongly doubt that the level flight of the aircraft is solely dependent upon a GPS. You came up with a fictional instrument (stated as an authoritative fact) that would be severely affected by your "magnetic anomaly" which you still haven't supported.
The Air France flight is still a big mystery, and until ( or if) the flight data recorders are recovered, it will probably remain one.
How you can make this enormous leap to the conclusion that the "same instrument was affected" on both flights is beyond me.
Interference with the GPS can cause a miscalibration of altitude and position. The computer thought the airplane was climbing too rapidly based on data received from this instrument.
You haven't read the ATSB report on the Qantas flight, have you? I suggest you do so. The ADIRU is not an instrument. It is a computer.
Thunderstorms, hailstorms, oh my. If your premise of storms feeding off heat is true, we would have had a large number of thunderstorms and hurricanes during the solar min.
Why? Is it significantly hotter during solar minimum? Perhaps you mean maximum? Is it significantly hotter during solar maximum?
We did not.
Please remember that this is your idea, that the global temperatures track the solar cycle. It appears to me that you have just disproved your own theory.
Storms feed off electromagnetic energy not heat.
This appears to run counter to every theory of meteorology I have ever heard of. Please support this idea.
An imbalance of electromagnetic activity along with a gradient between hot warm moist air and cold dry air.
Wow, this just gets wilder and wilder. You seem to be confused by the fact that large storms have a lot of electrical energy, and are conflating that with this unique idea of yours that this electric (or 'electromagnetic') energy causes these storms.
I think I'll see if I can get a meteorologist to weigh in on this part of the conversation.
Semantics. Anything that causes electricity and light (this itself is an electromagnetic phenomenon) is considered an magnetic phenomenon.
You appear to be hopelessly confused about the differences between "electromagnetic radiation" and "magnetic phenomenon". This is not semantics. You appear to be saying that electricity and light and magnetism are all the same. They are related, but they are most definitely not the same thing.
As an afterthought, the articles that you have provided have been varied and untested.
No, the articles and links that I provided show that your ideas are either unsupported by the evidence, or contradicted by the evidence.
The scientific process is that an article is published and the scientific community then tests the hypothesis presented. If proven, the hypothesis is turned into a theory. Thus so far, most of the articles have not been tested yet (ie. blogs, graduate papers, etc.)
I'm sorry, but no. The scientific method is not anywhere nearly as simplistic as you suggest. And why are my articles deemed (by you) to be 'untested' while yours are ok? I have dealt fairly with your references, and have actually read them. Yet the article I quote (from "Geo-Physical Letters", no less, a publication of the American Geophysical Union) are untrustworthy in some manner?
Let's look at the history so far of this discussion:
Breach in the magnetosphere (THEMIS data) that you confused with a vulnerability in the magnetosphere.
Yes, I was misled by your language (implying that the weakening magnetic field of the earth combined with the "hole in the magnetosphere" combined to cause the Air France disaster) and by your serious error in placing the two flights close to each other ("nteresting
these flights coincide with where the "hole in the magnetosphere" would form.") when in reality the Qantas flight had an issue over while enroute from Perth to Singapore (you also misidentified the year of the incident, claiming that "both happened in 2009"). I assumed from context that you were referring to the South Atlantic Anomaly, because of the location of the Air France crash, as well as the way you discussed the "hole in the magnetosphere" as if it were a permanent feature. When I realized my error, I corrected myself.
I suggest that you look back over the claims you have made here, and correct yourself.
Your insistence that global warming exists and can cause the warning signs. Global warming does not exist due to conflicting data during this particular solar min.
What conflicting data disproves global warming?
Try something else.
Why? Apparently I like banging my head against the brick wall that is your willful ignorance of even the most basic fundamental facts of the topics you bring up.
Your elaboration about the earth's magnetic field strengthening is incorrect.
I did not say that the earth's magnetic field is strengthening.
A pole reversal will occur. The only question is when.
Sometime in the next several thousand years, at the earliest.
Is that it? But! But, you are leaving so much out of this recap! But instead of trying to list all of the claims you have made and have left unsupported, I will simply invite readers to view the entire thread.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Hello.
I have looked back on the posts that we had a discussion and I
don't think that neither you nor I are objective in the least.
My points:
1. Earth's magnetic field is weakening. I gave warning signs as reasons. I don't have to. It's already been proven that earth's magnetic field has been weakening the last 50 years. Empirical
measurement shows this. http://www.redicecreations.com/news/2004/weakeningmagnetics.html
2. THEMIS breach. A powerful solar flare and a CME will do the same damage as was done on a Canadian power grid in 1989. If you do your calculations, 22 years ago when we had even numbered sun cycle is when this last happened. This happens to be 1988. The only question is how severe. Last CME and Class M solar flare has a 5%
chance of causing a severe geomagnetic storm. These odds are
much greater than none. How about Class X solar flares? Yes we have had them in the past, but we will have them now? Yes, the warning sign of seeing the Aurora Borealis as far south as Mexico is something to look for.
3. Conveyer belt theory. By the conveyer belt theory, the strength of the next solar max will be greater than previous solar maxes. I acknowledge that differences in opinion make this point moot. You can't prove it or disprove it because there simply isn't enough data… unless you are Mayan.
As for the other points:
Detection of cosmic rays uses its electromagnetic properties. As said before, it's about semantics. I know cosmic rays are energetic particles which are not just composed of electrons. You know the same.
Global warming. In case you missed the big controversy, global temperatures have been rising except for these past few years (2006 to 2010) during the solar min. I have presented the case to you that sunspots have a better correlation to global temperature change than CO2 emissions. Believe what you will. It is still controversial as you have pointed out.
Whale beachings. I have pointed out the possibility that these are related to the solar cycle. You ask where is the proof that more have occurred. My proof is the number of papers that try to explain the increasing rash of beachings. One paper shows climate change as the most likely scenario. http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2664/whales-beachings-increase
Larger storms. If you believe in the theory that cosmic rays increase cloud cover, then you know that my point is that Earth's weakening magnetic field is making for larger storms. You can go ahead and attribute it to global warming. It is a minor point.
Other events:
I did not mention this as it was not relevant to the discussion, but upon further examination, I do believe these other events do have relevance.
The solar system is currently moving through an interstellar dust cloud. The results of which are possible global cooling even up to the point of another ice age. Side effects that may cause this include increased cosmic ray radiation. I have posted an article link in your doomsday object page.
I congratulate you for your persistence and perseverance. I do have a simple observation to make. Your website is asking people not to prepare for a natural disaster because everything is a hoax. If more people had prepared for a natural disaster, Hurricane Katrina would not have had so much of an impact. If this solar flare and CME event occurs, the loss of human life due to not preparing is immeasurable.
I think your website is doing a service and disservice to people who visit it. Debunk the obvious hoaxes, but don't ask people not to
prepare for a possibility that one day we may not have power. I reacted because I saw the words little to no possibility of it occurring. This is misinformation. Thank you for your participation. I was both frustrated and enlightened by our discussion as it should be.
Nothing against anyone, both of you obviously are able to debate. Why not have Dr. O'Neill weigh in on this one as he did in another threat. That may solve a few points.
Temps in the desert can easilly drop below freezing during 'winter' nights. Nomads will tell you snow in the desert, specially the Sahara and the Gobi, is actually very common. Some deserts are quite a way above sea level too, making them officially high ground, and all high ground is vaunrable to cold weather.
You visit any equatorial country that has mountains, all the mountains will be topped with snow.
Armadillo movements and migrating animals and insects all around the world are also signs showing something big is on the verge.Think for just a moment what happens to anything you put into a microwave without a top on it? OK here is your answer the water table in the material placed inside the microwave lowers drastically causing the surrounding materials to dramatically increase in temperature in a relatively short amount of time. what I'm getting at is the solar flares are weakening the core of our planet by super-heating our planetary water system and as the water table gets higher the the less heat gets through to the core! and our core begins to cool lowering the strength of the magnetic field that surrounds our planet. NO (one single solar flare want destroy our planet) BUT the longer the object stays in the microwave the stiffer it gets, the less water it has and the more it becomes solid. With enough solar flares of ANY SIZE a lot of small ones or just a hand full of really big ones the planet WILL begin to dry out and the magnetic field WILL begin to fail causing catastrophic occurrences on a global scale that NO ONE SCEINTIST will be able to deny once it happens. The lies will stop, the world will see, and no bull crap theorist will be able to say a single word on earth that can change the events once they have unfolded. Note that i do not specify a time or a date as to when this may occure but to anyone who wishes to disprove this fact grab you a piece of bread and stick it in the microwave for 2 minutes, wheather on high or low it WILL come out hard regardless and void of moisture. so to will our planet some day and no one is gonna change that. so live life while you have it be happy with what you got and know that the truth was, is, and will always be that tommorrow is not promissed to ANY ONE so eat drink and be marry for today is all we have dont get so rapped up in tommorow that you forget to live out today and dont look at the past to tell you your future because even though events do happen simmilar to our history they will never occure the exact same way on a different day!!!! Today is a gift thus why it is called the present never forget that.
Armadillo movements and migrating animals and insects all around the world are also signs showing something big is on the verge.
Can you be more specific? The only information I can find on "armadillo movements" concerns the 9-banded armadillo's expansion into the United States. This appears to have more to do with human activity (e.g., farming) than anything else.
See https://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/expansion.html
Think for just a moment what happens to anything you put into a microwave without a top on it? OK here is your answer the water table in the material placed inside the microwave lowers drastically causing the surrounding materials to dramatically increase in temperature in a relatively short amount of time.
Well, actually the microwaves excite the electrons in the water atoms (other atoms too, but primarily water) and they move into higher valence levels. When they drop down to 'normal' levels, this causes molecular motion, e.g., heat.
So, microwaves heat water.
what I'm getting at is the solar flares are weakening the core of our planet by super-heating our planetary water system and as the water table gets higher the the less heat gets through to the core!
Uh, what?
Ok, first problem… solar heating does not affect the internal temperature of the planet. Our planet radiates more heat than it receives from the sun. Solar radiation does not heat the core.
Second problem: Solar flares constitute a very minute fraction of the total irradiance of the sun. The difference between the sun at minimum and the sun at maximum (annualized average) is 0.1%. ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation )
By "planetary water system" do you mean the oceans? Yes, global ocean temperatures have been increasing. This phenomenon is called "global warming". The exact amount that solar forcing contributes to global warming is debated, but it appears that it is only a small fraction of the total.
and our core begins to cool lowering the strength of the magnetic field that surrounds our planet.
Can you cite a journal article that supports this? The idea that the core is cooling significantly seems odd to me. The idea that solar radiation penetrates the oceans and rock and somehow heats the core is, frankly, bizarre. The idea that the magnetic field of the earth is declining or could decline due to 'core cooling' is absurd!
The earth's core is estimated to be at 5,430 °C or 9,800 °F. How does the sun heat the core to this temperature but leave the surface temperature low enough to support life?
The magnetic field is generated in the liquid outer core by convection flows in the 'liquid dynamo' model. The inner core is solid only because of the immense pressure it is under. How much would the outer core have to cool in order to create the effect you claim?
NO (one single solar flare want destroy our planet) BUT the longer the object stays in the microwave the stiffer it gets, the less water it has and the more it becomes solid.
Yes. Your analogy is flawed, however. A bowl of food or piece of bread is not the earth, and is not much like the earth. A bowl of food does not have sufficient gravity to retain the water vapor driven off by heating. The earth does. Didn't you learn about the water cycle in school?
To support your idea, the solar radiation would somehow have to slip past the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and mantle, all the way to the core, and only then collide with the molecules of the core in order to heat it. And then somehow a solar flare would suddenly heat only the water in the hydrosphere, which would then somehow block radiation from getting to the core, causing it to cool.
You seem to want to have it both ways. Either the radiation can penetrate all the way down to the core, or just some hot water will disrupt it!
With enough solar flares of ANY SIZE a lot of small ones or just a hand full of really big ones the planet WILL begin to dry out and the magnetic field WILL begin to fail causing catastrophic occurrences on a global scale that NO ONE SCEINTIST will be able to deny once it happens.
Oh geez. Ok, solar flares have been happening ever since the earth was here. There is no long term trend that we know of, but our period of observation is fairly short (around 400 years for sunspots). Any long-term cycles have yet to gain observational evidence.
We have had "really big" solar events in the past. Search for the "Carrington Event" for example.
The lies will stop,
Who is lying?
the world will see, and no bull crap theorist
Who is the "bull crap theorist" that you are talking about?
will be able to say a single word on earth that can change the events once they have unfolded.
Well, typically that's how natural events unfold.
Note that i do not specify a time or a date as to when this may occure but to anyone who wishes to disprove this fact grab you a piece of bread and stick it in the microwave for 2 minutes, wheather on high or low it WILL come out hard regardless and void of moisture. so to will our planet some day and no one is gonna change that.
G R A V I T Y
Look it up.
so live life while you have it be happy with what you got and know that the truth was, is, and will always be that tommorrow is not promissed to ANY ONE so eat drink and be marry for today is all we have dont get so rapped up in tommorow that you forget to live out today and dont look at the past to tell you your future because even though events do happen simmilar to our history they will never occure the exact same way on a different day!!!! Today is a gift thus why it is called the present never forget that.
Yah yah yah.
Too bad your ideas are whacked.
By the way, I agree with you to this extent: At some point in the distant future, the aging sun will heat the earth to the point at which no liquid water will remain. This will occur within 1 or 2 billion years.
At some point after that, the solar winds will have stripped the earth of its atmosphere, and it will be somewhat like Mercury… only bigger.
About 4 or 5 billion years from now, the sun will go into its red giant phase, and whatever is left of the burnt cinder that was the earth will possibly wind up inside the surface of the sun, and the increased friction will deorbit the earth's remains into the sun's core.
None of these effects are worrisome to me. Why? Because the human race has been here for less than a million years, and our recorded history only goes back about 7,000 years. What is 7,000 compared to 1 or 2 billion? Nothing.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
I think the one who created us should be the judge of that since he created the earth , the sun, the moon, and the solar system and NASA mention on their website that it is not likely to happen in 2012 and that the piece was put out of context and there is no prediction of an event in 2012. here is my proof the website itself! http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=5283
2 weeks before "solar max" solar activity is calm lol
When this is all over, there going to be saying its going to end in 2013
+1
Cameron can't be more correct.
Very very nice post Cameron. :)
2012 - The year of the jackpot.
NASA report on "hole in magnetosphere"
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm
Based on government report for preparation in case of EMP pulse:
http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/ci_14293319
Solar minimums and solar maximums are not signalled by solar flares. However, as the definition of a solar flare is an extension of a sunspot, the sudden eminence of sunspots can signal the end of the solar minimum and
beginning of a solar max
Odds of a solar flare occurring:
Assuming solar storms that occur 5x per year, 1 in 5.
Odds of hole in magnetosphere forming due to interaction with solar flare on even-numbered cycle (solar
cycle 24)
100%
Odds that this event will occur sometime during the solar max:
Never mind… not worth it. Have fun during the solar max.
BTW, you're probably right. Odds are about equal in that other events might occur as well:
Yellowstone earthquake swarm starting Jan 19, 2010 - Yellowstone volcano eruption odds just increased
BTW, you're probably right. Odds are about equal in that other events might occur as well:
Yellowstone earthquake swarm starting Jan 19, 2010 - Yellowstone volcano eruption odds just increased
Please give is a real report on this dont just make up your bull shit please Truthseeker give us a weblink and not a shady web site a REAL web site with this true report. Unbelieveble
(edited for clarity; astrogeek)
quick question for you guys..
what problems could this hole in the magnetosphere cause?
when i read the report it seemed like it would cause more power outages, is there anything really threatening from that?
thanks again
"Official" Yellowstone report:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/activity/
Interesting thing: They kept the warning level at Normal. Depth is rather shallow though for
a tectonic earthquake: 1 mile
http://www.usgs.gov/
Look under US map and for a summary of earthquakes (especially the depth)
Case study of tectonic earthquakes caused by magmatic activity
Sorry. I couldn't find a free source. I guess someone IS making money.
Ok, I know basicly nothing about Yellowstone, did something happen to it on Jan 19'th 2010?
2012 - The year of the jackpot.
from what i read in the reports, things seem to be pretty normal, and earthquake swarms are a little higher now, but not as high as 1958 or 1985 i cant remmember…
im not too sure, i do not know much about this..
and i just wanted to say again how amazing it is that you guys decided out of the goodness of your hearts to do this..
but i still have aquestion that wasn't answered
__what are the effects from the big hole in the magnetosphere happening now? could it be dangerous?
I also wanted to make a recommendation for the hardworkers of this website…
book an all inclusive trip to the Mayan rivirra on december 21st 2012, and rub in to all the nut jobs…
Brian: You asked:
what are the effects from the big hole in the magnetosphere happening now?
The 'hole in the magnetosphere' has been there for as long as we have been able to measure it. It was discovered in 1958.
could it be dangerous?
Only if you are flying through space and are electronic.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
The THEMIS breach and the vulnerability in the magnetosphere are two different things. Yes, you could be affected by radiation flying in an airplane. Most believe that the radiation would not cause permanent damage as it is transient.
Do you bother to read the links you post?
Above you cited http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm regarding the 'hole in the magnetosphere'.
Right up at the top it indicates that the data for the report comes from the THEMIS satellites.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
