It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA | The Next Solar Cycle May Have Started

page: 4
61
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by sty
2008, January - according to www.spaceweather.com - the solar cycle started ! the peak activity expected in 2011-2012 (hm.. why 2012 again?) with 50-80% increased activity in comparative with what we call "usual cycle"


Sty, you are correct. I found a link on spaceweather to the first sun spot with reverse polarity! Enjoy! I hope our satellites will be able to be protected, between work and play - I NEED MY GPS!


1st Sun Spot Cycle 24!

The name of the post should be Changed to "The Next Solar Cycle Has Started!"

[edit on 1/5/08 by mel1962]




posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sty
 


I don't think we've been studying this activity long enough to be able to make such predictions with the amount of accuracy that is being given here. That's pretty far into the future, and IMO we just don't understand the process enough to be so sure.

I could be wrong, but it seems that this is being played for it's sensational value to a certain degree.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


Yes, I would have to agree with you on this one. The standard model for solar activity just doesn't explain much in the area of sunspots and solar cycles. I believe that the cycle is not fixed on the 11 year model, which happens to be just an average. If we look back in history, we can find many cycles that were substantially shorter and longer. Besides, hasn't there been a recent flare up on the sun???

-Dev



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Exactly. We are now looking like there will be some major "changes" happening almost as we speak. And we're still a long ways from the projected max. So does this mean the max will just be that much worse, or is it more of a defusing of the power itself, which would mean a less eventful outburst later?

There's just so much that we don't know.


sty

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


yes, we only managed to measure several cycles of our Sun. However, the predicition is made by NASA on scientifical grounds (i hope
- please visit the NASA link here :

science.nasa.gov...

however the prediction was contradicted by several specialists , as they expect much more activity (200% increase of the solar activity) . I have to be onest - i do not even understand why the 11 years cycle is happening , but i hope the NASA ppl know what they talk about . Again , the link is here:

science.nasa.gov...



[edit on 6-1-2008 by sty]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by sty
 


While the graph looks great in that link, there's not a one-to-one connection for future activity. In hindsight you can say that peak "A" relates to peak "1" in activity six years down the road. But you could also say that peak "B" does it four years down the road. If you just pick out peaks and say their amplitude relates in this way, then all you're really saying is that there are cycles of highs and lows.

What I'm getting at is not that there are cycles, but I find that the evidence seems a bit thin for saying that the strength of one cycle determines the other to an exact degree. Even looking at the chart they show, there are variations in the cycling of one without corresponding changes as significant in the other.

As an example, the geomagnetic spiking effects for the 30 year period between 1907 and 1937 are very erratic, with only some of the spikes shown to relate to solar maxima of the period 1913 to 1945. This indicates a certain amount of arbitrary picking and choosing which spikes to count and which not to count.

Now the following years could be a matter of recording the spikes better through advancing technology, or it could be a matter of disregarding data to fit a preconceived notion of which spikes are to be given due and which are not.

It is because of the possibility that the data itself is not accurate and is being bent to conform to the idea of prediction, which should make a person just a little hesitant to cry doom just yet. (And I mean no disrespect to those researchers in this area. Seeing patterns is a human trait. But people who see patterns in faces on Mars are held to a high standard, so I see nothing wrong with questioning these patterns as well.)



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Time to head for the high deep caves systems.

This could be a solar nuclear event , what our plans are to survive this situation need to be considered very seriously.

Even Nasa has been discussing this for years. Well the time that they spoke of years ago has arrived and arrived early.

This is going to be an event that encompasses not only this immense catastrophic inevitability, but of its out come in terms of commerce and loss of communication, ultimately a great possibility of enough geomagnetic energy released to affect the over 3 million underwater volcanoes as well as the ring of fire and other critical areas, and create an ash block that will send us into a mini ice age.

I also believe that this is going to be a global consciousness attunement.

Will it be possible to survive? I believe it is with preparedness and a good plan.

This is where physics and metaphysics come together. And it explains how all of the prophecy, comes together.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
reply to post by sty
 


While the graph looks great in that link, there's not a one-to-one connection for future activity. In hindsight you can say that peak "A" relates to peak "1" in activity six years down the road. But you could also say that peak "B" does it four years down the road. If you just pick out peaks and say their amplitude relates in this way, then all you're really saying is that there are cycles of highs and lows.

What I'm getting at is not that there are cycles, but I find that the evidence seems a bit thin for saying that the strength of one cycle determines the other to an exact degree. Even looking at the chart they show, there are variations in the cycling of one without corresponding changes as significant in the other.

As an example, the geomagnetic spiking effects for the 30 year period between 1907 and 1937 are very erratic, with only some of the spikes shown to relate to solar maxima of the period 1913 to 1945. This indicates a certain amount of arbitrary picking and choosing which spikes to count and which not to count.

Now the following years could be a matter of recording the spikes better through advancing technology, or it could be a matter of disregarding data to fit a preconceived notion of which spikes are to be given due and which are not.

It is because of the possibility that the data itself is not accurate and is being bent to conform to the idea of prediction, which should make a person just a little hesitant to cry doom just yet. (And I mean no disrespect to those researchers in this area. Seeing patterns is a human trait. But people who see patterns in faces on Mars are held to a high standard, so I see nothing wrong with questioning these patterns as well.)



great post



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join