Saturn rocking back and forth?? What if CW Leonis were really Nibiru? Link inside.

Very strange things in magnetic fields starting today, I'll keep watch

lpc2e.cnrs-orleans.fr...

Here you can see the divergence between expected and actual irradiance beginning about the beginning of June

www.swpc.noaa.gov...
And this shows the large increase in solar flares starting Jul 27th

hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov...
A solar flare is when magnetic energy that has been built up is suddenly released.

Originally posted by KSprepared
lpc2e.cnrs-orleans.fr...

Here you can see the divergence between expected and actual irradiance beginning about the beginning of June

Please explain what we're looking at here, and why you consider it important.

www.swpc.noaa.gov...
And this shows the large increase in solar flares starting Jul 27th

Have you never heard of the 22 year sunspot cycle?

hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov...
A solar flare is when magnetic energy that has been built up is suddenly released.

edit on 3-8-2011 by KSprepared because: (no reason given)

Yes, when the Sun's massive magnetic field gives way. It is so massive, it scarcely notices anything else.

reply to post by DJW001


You are looking at a chart of solar irradiance( amount of light given off by the sun) through all the different wavelengths of light. Modeling is normally very accurate, but lately the actual data is proving very different from the model. I believe is important because as we see that solar flares are caused by the release of magnetic energy in the sun, I think that the light we see is partly caused by the magnetic interaction of the sunspots and the retained. building magnetic energy. So if something were causing fluctuations in the magnetic intereactions of the sun, we might notice it by increased fluctuations in the solar irradiance, which we have, and also in an uptick of solar flares, which we also have. This is why I feel it is important to watch this

reply to post by KSprepared


These look rather typical. You need to read real reports instead of watching bad info on youtube.

reply to post by stereologist


Prove it, where is your observational data?

And I do watch real reports, not just youtube, but I am only one person, and youtube has many eyes all looking.

reply to post by KSprepared

Modeling is normally very accurate, but lately the actual data is proving very different from the model.

Can you explain why you think solar modeling is accurate? And can you point out where it is not accurate now?

reply to post by stereologist


You have a years worth of data on the link, with 5 months of accurate modeling and 2 months of inaccurate modeling. Look at the link provided, I have already posted it.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by KSprepared

 

Sounds like you are grasping at straws here or just making up the claims of magnetic anomalies.

A solar flare IS a magnetic anomoly, otherwise they wouldn't be so rare.

And just now another M7 or so flare and got into the M class on both GOES satellites this time.

Originally posted by KSprepared

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by KSprepared

 

Sounds like you are grasping at straws here or just making up the claims of magnetic anomalies.

A solar flare IS a magnetic anomoly, otherwise they wouldn't be so rare.

And just now another M7 or so flare and got into the M class on both GOES satellites this time.

edit on 3-8-2011 by KSprepared because: (no reason given)

www.spaceweather.com...

That list is only major solar flares since 1976.

Quoted from Wikipedia

The Sun will spend a total of approximately 10 billion years as a main sequence star.

The Sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago when a hydrogen molecular cloud collapsed.

4.57 billion years seems to dwarf our limited time on this planet.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think we have been collecting the relative data for long enough to say that solar flares are suddenly very common or rare.

Maybe in a few million years we will have sufficient data to say one way or the other.

reply to post by OccamAssassin


I am not claiming they are common, I am claiming they are rare, and that we are having a common occurrance of rare events lately.

Originally posted by KSprepared
reply to post by stereologist

 

You have a years worth of data on the link, with 5 months of accurate modeling and 2 months of inaccurate modeling. Look at the link provided, I have already posted it.

It's not surprising their model becomes somewhat divergent in some of the dozens of wavelengths they monitor as solar activity begins to increase in the current solar cycel. But the errors tend to average themselves out, as we can see in their chart of Total Solar Irradiance (the sum of all monitored wavelengths):



Overall, their models seem to produce an excellent fit for the total solar irradiance.

Originally posted by KSprepared
I am not claiming they are common, I am claiming they are rare, and that we are having a common occurrance of rare events lately.

I don't think they're as rare as you think they are, especially when in a solar maximum. As we've entered the upward trend into a solar maximum, the number of flares will continue increase until the peak some time in 2013. Take a look at this chart that covers through the last solar maximum. There were over 55 M-class flares in some of the peak months:

sidstation.loudet.org...

Originally posted by KSprepared
reply to post by OccamAssassin

 

I am not claiming they are common, I am claiming they are rare, and that we are having a common occurrance of rare events lately.

I can't see how you could come to the conclusion that solar flares are common or rare.

Given the (very limited) data set I gave in my previous post, it would seem that we have had a less occurrence of major solar flares in the last 10 years relative to the twenty years prior to 2001.

As stated, I don't think it is wise to say one way or the other.....We simply don't have accurate records that go back far enough to confirm or deny it.

Best not to assume as the saying goes....when you "assume" you make an "ass" of "u" and "me".

reply to post by nataylor


Thank you for your historical data, I try to find all sides of the argument, and you have presented good links for me to look into.

reply to post by KSprepared


I guess you don't understand what I am getting at.

You are simply guessing without knowing anything other than a visual inspection of the plots.

Instead of making what is likely a very bad guess maybe you could find something where someone who can interpret the material writes about it.

All you've done is a guess about material you have no idea what it is other than reading the title.

reply to post by KSprepared

A solar flare IS a magnetic anomoly, otherwise they wouldn't be so rare.

Hmmm. Ok. So you don't understand the word anomaly.

Anomaly does not refer to a regularly happening event. By regularly I mean with respect to the Sun's lifetime.

reply to post by nataylor


After looking through the data, I'm still inclined to believe that much what you have shown here was due to the approach of Comet Neat:
astrosa.com...

Just as I am inclined to believe this solar activity has to do with Elenin

Also, a lot of the handling of both comets just feels similar to me on both events(and by handling, I mean ignoring).

Just use your imagination for a minute and pretend that this had been Elenin - directly between the sun and earth.




I'm gonna add - We're up to 4 M and 6 C flares just today, let's see if they keep increasing

reply to post by KSprepared


Are you are now caught up in the falsehood that the Sun reacted to the presence of a comet?