The calm before the solar storm? NASA warns 'something unexpected is happening to the Sun'

Last i heard they predicted the solar maximum to be 2010-2011. 2013 and still nothing. I know this has happened before but in 2006 NASA did predict "Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011."

science.nasa.gov... -Actually 7 years ago today funnily enough

So if anyone knows why they would be 3 years and counting OFF any sort of maximum then let me know! And i know 11 years is only a predicted time span for the solar cycles... but still, when NASA make a prediction in 2006, the everyday man wouldn't expect them to be off by 3+ years.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by siliconpsychosis

 

I'd rather have a quiet sun than a spotty sun..

Would you? Would you really? I see you got lots of stars fro your comment but obviously this was from people who, like you, have little knowledge of the sun and it's behaviour. No sun spots is NEVER good.

If, as is very likely, we go into a Maunder type minimum and are in for the next 30 years or so, then it will get very cold my friend. There will not be any 'global warming' and the fact that it has got colder will not have been caused by global warming either.

You could do worse than read the Layman's Sunspot Count and the various links off that with regard to solar maxima and minima.

We passed the peak of the solar cycle in Feb 2012 as far as I can see and I do not believe there will be a 'double peak'. NASA got it wrong and they just don't want to admit that. 2014 it starts to get colder and colder. Not long to wait to see if the theory is wrong then.

There is a very slim chance that it could tip to the next stage, another ice age, but we won't worry about that just yet. 2060 it will be ramping up again and a new batch of warmists will be out there wringing their hands and extracting their taxes.

Well said. A Maunder type minimum would be very dangerous at this point in history. With the number of mouths to feed on this planet and the crop reductions it could make for an interesting lesson.

As you say, not long to wait and see if that is the way the cookie crumbles.

P

reply to post by Destinyone


Oh really?
www.centennialbulb.org...

But then again, the light bulb monopoly, with it´s relation to the forced consumer society,
is a completely different conspiracy theory.

Text RedText
BEFORE YOU READ THIS I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGISE FOR MY TERRIBLE SPELLING AND OR GRIMMER IM NOT THE SHARPEST KNIFE IN THE KITCHEN DRAWER SO TO SPEAK WHEN IT COMES TO WRITING.

THIS IS MY FIRST TIME I'VE SENT A REPLY ON ABOVE TOP SECRET I LOVE THE FORUM AND I JUST WANT TO SAY EVERYONE IS DOING A GRATE JOB ON HERE,I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS WEBSITE FOR A FEW YEARS NOW AND I LOVE IT, SO I'M GONNA CUT TO THE CHASE TO DO WITH THIS THREAD , MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION ON THE MATTER IS I BELIEVE ASTRONOMERS DON'T KNOW THE SUN 100% OR MAYBE THEY DO AND THEY JUST DON'T WANNA TELL US EVERYTHING BUT I'M TOO GETTING THIS WEIRD FEELING SINCE THE BEGINNING OF 2012 THAT SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT , A DUNNO IF I'M THE ONLY ONE BUT IS ANYONE ELSE GETTING THIS WEIRD VIBE ? IN A WAY WHERE YOU LOOK OUT AT THE NIGHT SKY AND YOUR'E INSTINCTS TELL YOU SOMETHING BAD IS GONNA HAPPEN WELL I THINK ITS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE SUN AND ITS GIVING ME A CONSTANT FEEL OF ANXIETY MAYBE THE MAIN STREAM SCIENTIST ARE LYING TO US ALL AND THE SUN IS BURNING OUT AND IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN SOME 5 BILLION YEARS TIME OR SO , BUT IN FACT COULD BE SLOWLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW , THINK ABOUT IT , ALL THE WEIRD ANOMALIES IN THE SUN IF THE SUN WAS GONNA BURN OUT AND THEY NEW ABOUT IT LOGIC DICTATES THAT NASA AIN'T GONNA TELL YOU SO YOU COULD SAY ITS A POSSIBILITY I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A FACT REMEMBER AND SORRY ABOUT THE CAPITAL LETTERS LAUGH OUT LOUD IT'S A BAD HABIT THANKS FOR READING AND PLESE EVERYONE TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK.

Originally posted by MrConspiracy
Last i heard they predicted the solar maximum to be 2010-2011. 2013 and still nothing. I know this has happened before but in 2006 NASA did predict "Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011."

science.nasa.gov... -Actually 7 years ago today funnily enough

So if anyone knows why they would be 3 years and counting OFF any sort of maximum then let me know! And i know 11 years is only a predicted time span for the solar cycles... but still, when NASA make a prediction in 2006, the everyday man wouldn't expect them to be off by 3+ years.

edit on 9-3-2013 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2013 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2013 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)

Maybe because their guess was bad this time. No scientist can predict the time of a solar max. It can vary by two or three years. The Weather Service has got pretty good at predicting the weather now but up until seven or so years ago around here they sucked at it. People put these agencies too high on a pedestal and when they guess wrong they thrash them. Give NASA and the other agencies a couple more solar maxes and they may get things better.

reply to post by siliconpsychosis

So, what would your definition of the "normal" activity of the sun be?

What it is doing now.

reply to post by rickymouse


I understand that, and thanks for your response. But it does seem FOREVER ago since i first heard that a solar max is on it's way and still nothing...

like i said in my post, i know it's just a prediction, but we'll see!

Originally posted by MrConspiracy
reply to post by rickymouse

 

I understand that, and thanks for your response. But it does seem FOREVER ago since i first head a solar max is on it's way and still nothing...

like i said in my post, i know it's just a prediction, but we'll see!

Thing is, even in the Maunder Minimum the observers were still able to extrapolate a solar maximum by Sunspot count, but that the number of observable Sunspots were extremely low, that the rotation of the Sun was slower, that the Sunspots that did occur were mostly observed in lower latitudes of the Suns observable hemisphere. Those were not predictions, they were observations, so nothing is so simple. Nowadays scientists have the ability to make predictions in both real time, coupled by hindsight from the actual numbers of Sunspots over a period of Sunspot cycles, not just a cycle.

reply to post by Sk8ergrl


oh trust me i have been noticing that to especially the SOHO images, its quite bizzar but are they fueling up? using it as a dimentional portal? or something more sinister?

reply to post by FCKmainSTREAM



I can’t say that I share your impending feeling of doom when I look to the sky as you do. I think things will keep chugging along just fine well after I am dead and forgotten. Someday things will fall apart that is the natural order of the universe but it doesn’t do any good to dwell on it. Trusting our feelings on such matters is completely unreliable.

If you need to worry about something check this out.

BRAIN SLUGS
That could be where our feelings of doom are coming from. No worries though there is medication that can kill them off.

edit to add

BTW congrats on your first post. Star for ya.

Seems things only happen when people least expect it, so I imagin when we say the sun is swell, that's when she'll really have a spaz-moment.

reply to post by siliconpsychosis

Originally posted by siliconpsychosis
Its such a shame how the crazies and doom porners take over threads like this. Because of the sensationalist claims by doom sites and newspapers generating sensational article and thread titles. hmph.

Ironically, in reading all the comments made so far, the individuals who appear to have hijacked the thread are those who demonstrate a strong disdain for your so-called "doom porners," and not the "doom porners" themselves.

Going back a page or two, people posts claiming relevance of this minimal solar activity to the supposed underground bunkers for the "elites". Do you not realize the sun is a MASSIVE blob of gas undergoing constant nuclear fusion and fission, and that if something happened most of the solar system would be obliterated? bunkers would be useless....how can this logic possibly support your claims?

Based on that statement, it appears that you assume that any potentially adverse solar event, or trend, would rise to the level of planetary destruction. I don't think anyone credible is making that claim. For instance, if a Maunder Minimum class climate change event were to occur, there are a number of effects that could be expected, including an extended cold period. This would lead to crop failures, famine, etc. But it would not lead to planetary destruction. To some extent, tenants of an underground shelter could be shielded from both extreme cold and extreme heat. Even if the sun goes to sleep for so long that Earth's surface is sterilized by high levels of extra-solar ionizing radiation, subterranean facilities would still be protected.

The belief of some that NASA lie about everything is stupid, frankly. Its their space probes giving us this information, its they who launched these space probes and operate observatories, and its it they themselves putting this data in the public domain. how are they deceiving us exactly?

You will get no argument from me on this. If something is amiss with Sol, NASA is the first organization that everyone will look to for answers. The irony is that some of those who will look to NASA for those answers will be the same people who chastise the United States for wasteful spending on such "luxuries" as a space program.

The space forum used to be the one of the last places the doomers would come, but now they have all been disappointed by elenin, nibiru, 2012 etc etc they come here as its the only source of somewhat credible information they can twist and contort.

/rant

I frequently find the threads on the Above Top Secret website to be informative, interesting and provocative. However, if I were interested in simply discussing the science of the unexpectedly deep solar minimum anomaly, then I would probably stick to a science oriented website. Since ATS is a website dedicated to the exchange of ideas on "alternative topics," I would expect to see a variety of alternative theories and opinions posted throughout all of the forums. That's why I'm here.

Why are you here?

Dex

I didn't see where anyone linked to the original NASA article that the Daily Mail was using as its source:
Solar Cycle Update: Twin Peaks?

Here's another article of interest from NASA that discusses some of the links between Sol and the Earth's climate:
Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

Both of these articles are rather recent. One of the things that I've noticed since I started keeping track of all this great "doom porn" flavored science is the fact that theories are proposed, examined, debated, reformulated and refuted so quickly that it's difficult to keep up with the latest.

Enjoy the reading.

Dex

I've been always suggesting the worst scenarios and that people should be open for them as they can happen any time. Right now, I think this is good. firstly because less activity means less flares going in some direction in space, 2ndly because - No it does not mean calm before storm. It means small activity until it gets back to the usual activity, but not 'chaos'

So there is no room for trouble, all is fine.

OMG...Solar Cooling!!!! Only Obama can save us now...time for a new government program!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Phage

 

Phage.... It turns out I may have been confusing memory with another space event last year for the one I mentioned, but as for it not being uncommon when this happened?

C'mon.... You're debunking of everything lately is getting a little extreme. Links to the points you make might even help understand and learn about what your saying is debunking a point. The storm and aurora I was thinking about were seen in Arkansas. Although I missed seeing it..as usual it seems.

"When these charged particles [from the ejection] go by our own magnetic field, it's like dumping gasoline on a fire," Joe Kunches, a space scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in an interview with The Times. "Everything gets a lot hotter."


And that translates into a gorgeous aurora display that drips over the Canadian border and down into the continental United States.

Still, Kunches said, it is highly unusual for the northern lights to venture as far south as Arkansas.

Source

Again, I was confusing this with another thing, my bad on that, but the coverage of this at the time was interesting. I'd say unusual would be a fitting term, actually. Not unique, but most definitely not usual.

I believe your confusion may have been with a far side event, which was a solar flare on the far side of the sun, almost directly opposite of earth, which still caused a substantial increase on the proton monitor here on earth, which surprised the solar community. Far side events do not normally cause this, at least in the short time we have been measuring it. I am looking for info about this event, and will post a link if I find it.

reply to post by wlf15y

Thank you for the clarification. You may well be right and that sounds closer. Probably shouldn't have mentioned it in hindsight and with shaky memory to go by but it's at least added more interesting info to the thread, right?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yep, no problem. And everyone here should take Puterman's advice and visit the link he posted, as he is spot on. (as he usually is )

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by siliconpsychosis

 

I'd rather have a quiet sun than a spotty sun..

Would you? Would you really? I see you got lots of stars fro your comment but obviously this was from people who, like you, have little knowledge of the sun and it's behaviour. No sun spots is NEVER good.

If, as is very likely, we go into a Maunder type minimum and are in for the next 30 years or so, then it will get very cold my friend. There will not be any 'global warming' and the fact that it has got colder will not have been caused by global warming either.

You could do worse than read the Layman's Sunspot Count and the various links off that with regard to solar maxima and minima.

We passed the peak of the solar cycle in Feb 2012 as far as I can see and I do not believe there will be a 'double peak'. NASA got it wrong and they just don't want to admit that. 2014 it starts to get colder and colder. Not long to wait to see if the theory is wrong then.

There is a very slim chance that it could tip to the next stage, another ice age, but we won't worry about that just yet. 2060 it will be ramping up again and a new batch of warmists will be out there wringing their hands and extracting their taxes.

These guys have nailed the activity of the sun since 2003 I believe, could be wrong about that, but did a MUCH better job than NASA, who changed their predictions like 5 or 6 times since the beginning of the extreme cycle minimum in 2007. The Layman's sunspot count stuck to their original prediction. When you go to the site, look at the comparison they make with this cycle, cycle 24, to cycle 5, back in 1798. This was the beginning of the Dalton Minimum! If they are correct, and they have been so far, a double peak is unlikely, but a longer cycle (longer than 11 years) is virtually assured.

Also note how sunspots are counted/measured, and the inflation occurring in the spot counts because of the newer methods, especially since cycle 23. When activity is lower, you get more "specks" than spots, and those specks are much less magnetically active, or weaker, leading to a divergence in the accuracy of the current data, as compared to the older observations.

reply to post by eXia7


The sun goes through many cycles, cycles within cycles. We are only just starting to understand some of them. Nothing unusual or weird going on, they isn't dying.

In a nutshell, nothing to see here.

reply to post by siliconpsychosis


You are correct that we only have about 400 years of directly observed sunspots, however, we also the ability to measure past activity of the sun by radio carbon dating using 14C AND 10Be, giving us data on the ACTUAL amount of solar activity/energy actually affecting our planet. These studies have given us very good info of past solar activity over the Holocene. They show that the most recent Grand Maximum, (the last 80 years or so, ending about 2003) was about the same as activity levels that occurred during the MWP, or even as high as 8,000 years ago, at the Holocene Optimum. Depending on the study. Here's a couple to check out:

cc.oulu.fi...

From the conclusions of the above paper:

•
Solar activity is dominated by the 11-year Schwabe cycle on an interannual timescale. Some
additional longer characteristic times can be found, including the Gleissberg secular cycle,
de Vries/Suess cycle, and a quasi-cycle of 2000 – 2400 years. However, all these longer cycles
are intermittent and cannot be regarded as strict phase-locked periodicities.
•
One of the main features of long-term solar activity is that it contains an essential chaotic/
stochastic component, which leads to irregular variations and makes solar-activity predictions
impossible for a scale exceeding one solar cycle.
•
The sun spends about 70% of its time at moderate magnetic activity levels, about 15 – 20%
of its time in a grand minimum and about 10 – 15% in a grand maximum. Modern solar
activity corresponds to a grand maximum.
•
Grand minima are a typical but rare phenomena in solar behavior. Their occurrence appears
not periodically, but rather as the result of a chaotic process within clusters separated by
2000 – 2500 years. Grand minima tend to be of two distinct types: short (Maunder-like) and
longer (Sp ̈orer-like).
•
The modern level of solar activity (after the 1940s) is very high, corresponding to a grand
maximum. Grand maxima are also rare and irregularly occurring events, though the exact
rate of their occurrence is still a subject of debates.

www.leif.org...

4. Summary and Conclusion

This is the first observationally and physics-based record of TSI for the past 9300 years. Starting from 10Be
measurements in polar ice we used the basic physical mechanisms to calculate the open solar magnetic field, from which TSI was derived. As 10Be is the basis, the sunspot number record starting in 1610 is no longer a limitation on which all other TSI reconstructions are based. Moreover, it is interesting to note that our reconstruction shows a variation during the grand minima which indicates that the behaviour of solar activity during the grand minima is not just a lack of sunspots, but more complex.