Sunspot #24 Largest Sunspot Maximum For 400 Years!!

reply to post by Stormdancer777

sunspot cycle 23 was supposed to be a doosey that never materialized.

Actually, even the early predictions for cycle 23 were not too bad.

In 1996 it was predicted that the peak of the cycle would occur in March 2000. The peak was a bit "rounded", it actually ran from February 2000 to January of 2002.

It was predicted that the smoothed monthly sunspot number would have a low end of 130 and a high end of 190. The actual number was 130.

So the peak was sort of later and the number was at the bottom of the prediction.

Prediction of 1996:

www.swpc.noaa.gov...

Observed sunspots:

www.nwra.com...


[edit on 9/4/2009 by Phage]

The Sun in 2012 is going to be more active than in the last 400 years,


WHY??????????


I don't know but it is....


Fact.

Once MSFC/HATHAWAY were pulled from the project and only NASA were "in-charge" you can imagine the 'dumbing-down' of the 2012 doomsday Sun event.

See Gary McKinnon for information.

reply to post by Phage


Isnt it so that the planets barycentres is involved with creating the sunpots ?
Like there was a huge one on the side of the sun where there were no huge planets at the time, but some unkown thing made a huge spot just north of the suns equator ?

If it is true that the bary-centres creat the sunspots, hence their size fitting the planet size, some thing huge is sucking the sun from where we do not know ? That is why we see no sunspots, something on the other side or a huge gravity pull is affecting our sun, keeping the spots away.....

This is just some wierd rant from my Part !!!

reply to post by BLUE ARMS


Pretty sure NASA had quite a few budget cuts and unfortunately hathaway project got canned (along with some other cool #, like sending a robot to Europa)

reply to post by BLUE ARMS


MSFC /Hathaway was far from a predict all failsafe method.

errortheory.blogspot.com...

Brings upa few points regarding Hathaway's methodology, and following poor science by simply ignoring contrary evidence that doesn't fit the scheme.

Gravity-pulling PLANETS (Nibiru?) make the Sun do all sorts of radical stuff.

Any Hams will recall that 1999, was the "Year" for DX on the HF Bands, not before, not after, except a HUGE spike in 2001.

Infact September 2001 was huge for Stateside DX from Europe,

I remember listening to the 10 meter (29Mhz FM) repeater on the WTC aerial tower, as it went down,

Recorded and unforgettable.

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils
reply to post by BLUE ARMS

 

Pretty sure NASA had quite a few budget cuts and unfortunately hathaway project got canned (along with some other cool #, like sending a robot to Europa)

The project cost "peanuts"...

Why cull it?????

Originally posted by BLUE ARMS

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils
reply to post by BLUE ARMS

 

Pretty sure NASA had quite a few budget cuts and unfortunately hathaway project got canned (along with some other cool #, like sending a robot to Europa)

The project cost "peanuts"...

Why cull it?????

perhaps because it wasn't working as it was supposed to?

Dunno but when science tends to ignore anomolies (like the Maunder Minimum) and pretend its a one time fluke in the 14,000,000,000 year lifespan of our solar system, they tend to lose credibility.

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils
reply to post by BLUE ARMS

 

MSFC /Hathaway was far from a predict all failsafe method.

errortheory.blogspot.com...

Brings upa few points regarding Hathaway's methodology, and following poor science by simply ignoring contrary evidence that doesn't fit the scheme.

The worlds most expensive and powerful computers "CRAY" Cell-Processors don't lie,

Unlike Humans.

(not implying your a liar at all Sir)

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils

Originally posted by BLUE ARMS

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils
reply to post by BLUE ARMS

 

Pretty sure NASA had quite a few budget cuts and unfortunately hathaway project got canned (along with some other cool #, like sending a robot to Europa)

The project cost "peanuts"...

Why cull it?????

perhaps because it wasn't working as it was supposed to?

Dunno but when science tends to ignore anomolies (like the Maunder Minimum) and pretend its a one time fluke in the 14,000,000,000 year lifespan of our solar system, they tend to lose credibility.

Perhaps to the contrary,

Perhaps when it works, too well...

reply to post by BLUE ARMS

But the models they use have to be accurate. Humans create the models. Models have to fit observations.


[edit on 9/4/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by BLUE ARMS
The worlds most expensive and powerful computers "CRAY" Cell-Processors don't lie,

Unlike Humans.

(not implying your a liar at all Sir)

The world's most expensive and powerful computers still don't drive down the autobon on their own, giving us numbers from nowhere.

Humans still give the computers algorithms and data.

Humans are chock full of errors, and ignoring scientific data simply because we do not understand it.

Humans still programmed those computers.

The computers simply do what we cannot do, and proccess mind numbingly large calculations and data that we cannot grasp without its' help.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by BLUE ARMS

 

But the models they use have to be accurate. Humans create the models. Models have to fit observations.


[edit on 9/4/2009 by Phage]

The "models" were based on 'all previous sunspot data'

Does'nt get any better???

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils

Originally posted by BLUE ARMS
The worlds most expensive and powerful computers "CRAY" Cell-Processors don't lie,

Unlike Humans.

(not implying your a liar at all Sir)

The world's most expensive and powerful computers still don't drive down the autobon on their own, giving us numbers from nowhere.

Humans still give the computers algorithms and data.

Humans are chock full of errors, and ignoring scientific data simply because we do not understand it.

Humans still programmed those computers.

The computers simply do what we cannot do, and proccess mind numbingly large calculations and data that we cannot grasp without its' help.

QUOTE" The world's most expensive and powerful computers still don't drive down the autobon on their own, giving us numbers from nowhere."


They don't, but they could,

No?

reply to post by BLUE ARMS


If programmed to do so, sure. That still leaves humans to set the model. Computers simply cannot come up with that on their own, short of artificial intelligence.

And the thing is, even if you take Hathaway's prediction method and apply it to current data, it suggests that the solar maximum will be arriving later then previously predicted.

reply to post by Phage


But, all 'legal' science is based on man-made models that are assumptions !
So where do we stand ?
Do you really believe that if our scientists found out that the 'end is near' type of scenario was due, that they would tell us about it ?
Or would they 'terminate' the ones that find out and tries to tell the world ? (Earth must Be Warned) ....

i'm on a few beers here, and think we needs some Love ,listen to this !!!


We still dont mix our topics, we still treat the financial collopse as just that, when it in fact could be a precurser we should pay attention too...

[edit on 4/9/2009 by ChemBreather]

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils
reply to post by BLUE ARMS

 

If programmed to do so, sure. That still leaves humans to set the model. Computers simply cannot come up with that on their own, short of artificial intelligence.

And the thing is, even if you take Hathaway's prediction method and apply it to current data, it suggests that the solar maximum will be arriving later then previously predicted.

In a "Fractle" based universe, where Chaos theory reigns supreme, the computer can be wrong, look at weather forcasts for example, sometime 100% correct, sometimes complete BS, as we all know....BUT. f1m

Forget NASA, forget Hathaway, forget MSFC, for one moment..

I was discussing/talking about ""RADIO-HAMS""

The 'Tony-Hancocks' of this world ;o)

Possibly the last known Geniuses of this era.

????

[edit on 4-9-2009 by BLUE ARMS]

reply to post by BLUE ARMS


I agree, here in Norway they have stopped showing actual sattelite pictures on the weather forecast, why ? why is that ?

Too many chemtrails showing ? (Sorry, do NOT go into that here )
It is insane, I promise you all, here in Oslo, we cant have had more than 5 weeks total of sunny days , it is always cloudy/moist and rainy ... And there is no Change ! ???? Some one is talking lies !!!

I must add, WHEN have Chaos EVER created Anything ?????

[edit on 4/9/2009 by ChemBreather]

reply to post by BLUE ARMS


The solar cycles, and climate-- are both very good examples that humans still have no flipping idea about these systems. We cannot accurately predict anything because we have yet to come up with a model that can explain everything, including phenomena that we don't fully understand.

Fractal? Yes, I do believe everything is fractal in nature. Still we have no underlying models to predict jack squat.

My pops runs a ham radio as one of his many, many hobbies. Stupid 30 foot tower in his back yard was a BITCH to set up haha.

And yes, solar activity has a lot to do with your equipment and functionality. The sun does give off radio signals- which btw, is at a 50 some year low in activity also. HOWEVER, given the data, the trend by even our best models are drifting more and more toward a later, and lower than expected maximum for SC24.

reply to post by BLUE ARMS

And when the model does not fit the data it needs to be changed. It doesn't sound like Hathaway has done so.

Hathaway's 2006 95% confidence interval ranged about 23 sunspots per year above and below his maximum likelihood prediction. The actual sunspot rate is now about 75 sunspots/year below his March 2006 prediction. Thus we can have probably about 99.9% confidence at this point that Hathaway's prediction scheme is wrong.

errortheory.blogspot.com...

The problem is that Hathaway's model was using data from before the actual solar minimum. When it is applied to data obtained after the minimum it becomes more effective.

[edit on 9/4/2009 by Phage]