Largest Sun Spot EVER found Today 7/7/09 - 60 to 80 times size of Earth!

page: 37
66
<< 34  35  36    38  39 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR
This is the start of our next solar cycle and its one that scientists have been talking about.


The next solar cycle may or may not be beginning -- we don't have enough data to determine that yet. Scientists usually do not notice the end of the solar minimum until a few months after it actually happens, because everything is based on "trends".

Having said that, it is quite possible that you are correct in saying that a new solar cycle is beginning (and scientists have been saying this for a while now). However, if it IS later determined that the current solar cycle has in fact ended and we are headed into a new cycle, I don't think it will be this sunspot (sunspot #1024) that would be considered to have signaled the beginning of the cycle, but rather the sunspots that occurred last month (sunspot #1023 or sunspot #1022).

Therefore, when you say "this is the start of the next solar cycle", I don't want other people to be confused -- the sunspot seen on July 4th is probably NOT the start of the next cycle. If the statistical data later shows us that solar activity is increasing, that cycle will probably be determined to have started back in June, or perhaps late May.

But you are right -- by looking at the solar cycles for the last 200 years, we can predict that the current 11-year cycle should be ending this year.


[edit on 7/9/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]




posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Aelfrede
 


Interesting point. The solar effects on humans is well documented. Anxiety, stress, etc..

Anyways, world leaders don't hide in Faraday cages all day long, so they're just as susceptible to solar output as you or I, and I have a feeling that there is a correlation.

Also, the best way to spring a declining economy back into action? War...



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Sorry.... there have been much larger sunspots, easily triple that size. I have seen solar storms that contained multiples of sunspots that size. Here's the forecast as of today, 7-9-2009:

From the Space Weather Prediction Center

Updated 2009 Jul 08 2201 UTC

Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity

SDF Number 189 Issued at 2200Z on 08 Jul 2009

Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 07/2100Z to 08/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. Region 1024 (S25W52) produced four B-class flares during the past 24 hours. The region underwent minor changes and is currently an E type sunspot group with a simple beta magnetic configuration.

Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to remain very low with a slight chance for an isolated C-class flare.

Geophysical Activity Summary 07/2100Z to 08/2100Z: Geomagnetic activity was quiet during the past 24 hours.

Geophysical Activity Forecast: The geomagnetic field is expected to be quiet to unsettled for day one (9 July) due to possible coronal hole effects. Activity is expected to return to quiet levels on day two (10 July). Activity is expected to be quiet to unsettled on day three (11 July), also due to possible coronal hole effects.

Remember that it is the interaction of Solar activity and water vapor in Earths atmosphere that drives our climate..... not Co2. Co2 is one of the weakest atmospheric gases to react to the sun.... there's more Argon in our atmosphere than Co2.

Solar Cycle 24 is many months late, which may indicate Earth is heading towards another mini ice age, which is what was predicted during the first few years of Earth Day. Consider this: over that last one million years, Earth has been in a condition of Ice Age for 95% of the time. Periods of moderate temperatures like Earth has been experiencing for the past 300 years is an anomaly. The Earth stopped warming (average global temps) in 1998, and the Winter of 2007 wiped out 100 years of global warming.

At a time when we should be stockpiling wood, coal, and oil, we're doing just the opposite, to our own peril.

Edit to add web url: www.solarcycle24.com...


[edit on 9-7-2009 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 





Therefore, when you say "this is the start of the next solar cycle", I don't want other people to be confused -- the sunspot seen on July 4th is probably NOT the start of the next cycle. That cycle probably started back in June, or perhaps late May.




After one of the longest sunspot droughts in modern times, solar activity picked up quickly over the weekend.



A new group of sunspots developed, and while not dramatic by historic standards, the spots were the most significant in many months.



www.msnbc.msn.com...


Still, the event stood out a bit.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Uhh we're in SC24 folks..



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 





Therefore, when you say "this is the start of the next solar cycle", I don't want other people to be confused -- the sunspot seen on July 4th is probably NOT the start of the next cycle. That cycle probably started back in June, or perhaps late May.




After one of the longest sunspot droughts in modern times, solar activity picked up quickly over the weekend.



A new group of sunspots developed, and while not dramatic by historic standards, the spots were the most significant in many months.



www.msnbc.msn.com...


Still, the event stood out a bit.


Yes -- but most scientists are considering the sunspots seen last month (June) to be perhaps the beginning of the next solar cycle, not the July 4th sunspot.

Here is an article from June 23rd that states that scientists think that TWO sunspot (# 1022 and #1023) seen in June is the beginning of the next cycle. This article was written before the July 4th sunspot (sunspot #1024):
June 23 Spaceweather.com

And here's one from June 22 talking about the two sunspots that are probably mark the start of the new cycle:
June 22 Spaceweather.com

and here is an article from May 29th that discusses solar activity and the beginning of the next cycle:
May 29 Spaceweather.com

All of these articles were written before the July 4th sunspot. Clearly if we are entering solar cycle 24 (which all indications show that we are) it started back in late May or early June...the July sunspot is part of that cycle, but does not mark the beginning of it.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Yes, but why do they state it as fact there, if the debate is still open?

Just curious.



The magnetic polarity of sunspot 1023 identifies it as a member of new Solar Cycle 24.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Because spaceweather.com knows everything, duh!




posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
This entire premise is placed squarely on the interpetations of one guy, about what HE thought the CC meant. If his "translation" was incorrect, there is no correlation whatsoever. I think his wild guess as to what the crop circle meant is utter bunk. A sextant? Seriously? He thinks some higher power is communicating with us by drawing a picture of a sextant? Would an alien mind even *know* what that was? Or even SEEN one? There are "extra" planets... he conveniently ignored anything that didn't fit neatly into his sextant / orrey theory. They are guessing about lines, and guessing at the "relative heights" (hard science at its finest!) of the boxes to come up with a conclusion. It's laughable in the extreme.

So this entire farce was focused around a crop circle that may be man-made.. translated by someone who is making a lot of guesses.. and then the result is something not even predicted by this CC, yet people are insisting there is a correlation! I guess the "arcing line" showing the actual storm hitting earth doesn't matter now. OMG we got a SUNSPOT! That clearly makes it all kosher and real.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


How about more of this:

Adjective - succinct

1. brief and to the point; having characteristics of both brevity and clarity.
2. compressed into a tiny area.
3. (archaic) wrapped by, or as if by a girdle; closely fitting, wound or wrapped or drawn up tightly.


And less of this:

Adjective - redundant

1. Superfluous; exceeding what is necessary.
2. Repetitive or needlessly wordy.
3. (mainly UK and Australia) Dismissed from employment because no longer needed.
4. (mainly computing) Duplicating or able to duplicate the function of another component of a system, providing back-up in the event the other component fails.

?



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by questioningall
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 



Actually - I have NEVER put anyone on ignore. I read every single post. I am not that shallow to "ignore" people.

I also do not reply in "tit for tat" postings. When things are laid out before people in the OP - yet some people want to disregard the OP - then that is their problem not mine. Some people also just try to derail the threads - for their own fun, etc.



So I'm not on your ignore list, and you have read all my posts in this thread, but have not intelligently replied to a single one of them.
To be able to use the "I also do not reply in "tit for tat" postings" excuse, you would of had to at least replied to any one of my posts, and questions which I asked you.
I provided photographic evidence that this is not even the largest sunspot in the last 5 years in my original post on page 21. I have NOT disregarded the OP, and my only reason for posting in this thread is to try and show you that the "news article" (if you can call it that) which the OP and title of this thread is focussed on, is an outright lie, and has no peer-reviewed scientific data to back it up.



Originally posted by questioningall
My understanding is the person/organization who declared the biggest Ever sunspot has been watching the sun for a few decades. With that in mind - I DID NOT make up saying the "biggest ever" and I also don't believe NASA and govt. run space agencies.


I personally don't have a lot of faith in NASA either, but without any other peer-reviewed scientific facts, and with the available photographic evidence from the satellites as proof, I can come to the logical conclusion that this "person/organization" who has been watching the sun for a few decades is either very ignorant OR publishing lies for some reason unknown to us.

Since we as the ATS community have provided you with enough contradictory evidence to show you that what this bloke is stating is false, you really had the responsibility to correct yourself (and the title of the thread) OR provide us with more scientific evidence to support his claim. But you haven't, and even more so you stubbornly continue to try and defend this as legitimate without presenting any further scientific evidence.

It's ok that you haven't replied to me. It just goes to show that you are incapable of an intellectual debate based on FACTS, and are now just grasping at straws. I am sorry I even tried. I definitely won't waste my time trying to communicate with you in the future.

This thread obviously belongs in: 'ATS Skunk Works' along with your thread about 'vegetarians hearing voices in their head, and disappearing through interdimentional portals'
, until you provide more FACTS.


[edit on 9-7-2009 by Paroxysm]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
This entire premise is placed squarely on the interpetations of one guy, about what HE thought the CC meant.


Actually I just looked at the formations and the same ideas immediately came to my mind. If I had sat and looked at it, I'm absolutely sure I would've reached similar conclusions.

The problem with people like you, is you wouldn't get these hints anyway if they were dropped to you. Everything for you has to be obvious and explicit, or else you don't waste your time with it, or assume the message is beyond reliable interpretation. Just guessing here, and nothing personal, but I'd say you probably aren't that brilliant at picking up women, either, because you have to read a lot of the same kind of subtle stuff in them.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Yeah I saw it too.

Some people just "can't" see one of those magic 3D images, either - doesn't mean they don't exist.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   


Why the personal attacks? I was under the impression that was something discouraged here. I guess not.

Perhaps I wouldn't need to repeat if others didn't ignore the obvious.

And just because you assume you would have come to the same conclusions, doesn't mean they would be the right ones.


It's still bad logic, assumptions and guesswork to attempt to arrive to a conclusion that fit someone's predetermined theories. That's hardly science.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


I wasn't trying to say any of this was scientifically rigorous. I was just responding to the statement, 'this was just one guy's interpretation', which I found very misleading. I think the formations make extremely obvious references, and anyone familiar and able to read these instruments would think to do so.

Have you ever heard of "flatlanders"? Creatures that live in a 2D environment and are extremely disturbed by the implications of the existence of a 3D world all around them. Basically a metaphor for us in the 3D, where other dimensions exist all around us that we have great trouble accessing or measuring in any way. Carl Sagan even used this example for a television presentation he did, that you can find on YouTube.

Anyway, I think a lot of these formations are some kind of consciousness not bound by 3 dimensions expressing ideas mainly in the form of geometry, which is a natural and universal language. Not ALL formations, but the ones that have EM radiation characteristics, etc., and seemed to have been formed by different mechanisms, like I mentioned in the earlier post here.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by brokenheadphonez
When I look at the Sun now, I know that is not a lifeless static ball of energy, I see the sun for what it is. What else did I just assume or take for granted?


amen! (Ra)


we ARE the earth.. the Earth IS the Star SOL.. the Star SOL IS the milky way the Milky Way IS the universe.

there is a higher design implemented.

if my civilization reached an ultra high standard..
and we desired more company...
then I'd definitely put forth the suggestion to implement a perfectly designed model for star/planetary systems that allow for intelligent species to evolve as most efficiently as possible.
and as we look around ourselves at our current civilization's corrupt status.. i tend to see it all in a brighter light of destiny.. where all this evil and corruption is merely a pedestal for us to overcome and grow through.. something to challenge us to elevate our own standards...
without which we wouldn't have the impetus to grow spiritually..
and if the Sun triggers changes within us.. and our planet that we're made of.. then how magnificent is that?

-



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Julie Washington
 

Qualifying an interpretation with "may" is sort of like having your cake and eating it too. If it happens, you're golden. If it doesn't, you've got wiggle room.

Two options here. Either the "interpretation" was wrong or the "prediction" was wrong. They weren't talking about solar flares, they weren't talking about sunspots. The "jellyfish" was supposed to represent the magnetosphere, specifically, remember? The "sextant" one was talking about coronal mass ejections, specifically, remember? There were no geomagnetic storms on the 7th, there were no coronal mass ejections on the 7th, there was no impact on the Earth on the 7th. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Three strikes enough or are do you want to waffle some more?


[edit on 7/8/2009 by Phage]




Hey Phage, just thought I would throw this out there to you.. this post of yours was post # 6660000 according to the single post ID tags thingie on ATS here



I knew it.. I just knew it. Phage really IS the Anti-Christ.

That explains everything



//runs away from possible demonic retorts from Phage's fingertips\\



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Jomina
 


That's nothing. My birthday this year is on 9/9/9. Don't need any fancy math, just turn it upside down.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Paroxysm
 


I simply posted the BBC story to show what some scientists have been saying for years. People can read the story and make whatever they want of it. It's simply information to consider for what it is. Judge it for what you will. That's what it's for.

The cause of this mass extinction 250 million years ago had a variety of different causes. There was no one singular cause. But there was probably one factor that sent it over the edge. We now know this because of how suddenly everything died, and we know that because of the fossil record. The main cause could just as likely be a nearby supernova as it could anything else.

We now know there was an extreme amount of volcanic activity in this timeframe. That also played a part. Hence, the boogieman term "Global Warming" was probably one factor in the equation. It may have not been enough to cause a mass extinction.. But it did play a part. And it could definately be one of the primary causes of the extinction. For some reason people just fail to realize how fragile the earth's climate really is.

I was never in a debate with Phage. Yes, we've had our knockdown dragouts before. But I probably know him better than most others here on ATS..

Just because something isn't served to you on a scientific silver platter with evidence and data doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed or considered. Especially when it comes to things like this mass extinction since all the scientists are still scratching their heads trying to figure it out. "Science" only involves what we think we know about the universe around us at any given time. It isn't a crime to consider the possibilities about things we don't understand.

I also never claimed to know something anyone else can't find in 5 seconds on the internet..

-ChriS



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Anyone want to dispute this:

www.youtube.com...

It shows the sun's activity on Jul 6 - Jul 7, 2009.





new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 34  35  36    38  39 >>

log in

join