-->Hi, Du schreibst:
>>>Sie stellt die Daten der zweiten Spalte"Observed RI" und den"Smoothed RI" dar. Warum SWO und RI so voneinander abweichen, weiß ich nicht. Womöglich unterschiedliche Zählweisen (die Flecken sind ja zum Teil schwer als einzeln zu erkennen).
Außerdem ist die Grafik nicht von der NASA, wie Du behauptet hast, sondern von der NOAA.
Und da gibt´s natürlich wenig zu widersprechen. Vorausgesetzt die Tabellenwerte stimmen!
Mir ist übrigens klar, dass diese Graphik von der NOAA stammt, wenn ich sie schon von der NOAA übernehme. Ändert nichts daran, dass ich vor allem die NASA meine: http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/sunspots.htm
Die Abweichung der beiden Tabellen-Spalten ist aber wirklich bemerkenswert, nicht wahr? Wir werden sehen, ob das prognostizierte Minimum kommt. Ich für meinen Teil wage das ernstlich zu bezweifeln.
Ich möchte jedenfalls UNBEDINGT noch auf diesen sehr ENGAGIERTEN Beitrag von Mitch Battros vom 16. JUNI 2003 hinweisen. Der ist noch viel mehr davon überzeugt, dass die NASA lügt. Wie auch andere, z.B. Prof. James McCanney.
Dafür gibt es sehr sehr VIELE Gründe, das fängt bei APOLLO an und hört bei COLUMBIA und Komet 2002/Neat-VI auf...
RK
What? Another X-Class Flare...
06/16/03
by Mitch Battros (ECTV)
Buckle down the hatches, the flares keep on coming. The current solar activity has scientist scratching their heads. There is no fundamental reason for us to be witness to such an active Sun. Or so say the experts.
Traditional thinking tells us the last solar cycle, named 'cycle 23', was to hit its apex or 'maximum' two and half years ago in January 2001. NASA's prediction was the solar maximum would hit sunspot counts of 150. After this period in maximum, the sunspot count would gradually go down. However, this could not be further from the truth. We have witnessed sunspot counts in the 400 range in 2001. From mid 2001 to current we have seen sunspot counts over 300 on numerous occasions. Back in 2001 when I confronted Nasa and their"prediction", they tried the bait and switch dis-information which has become all to familiar. They told me <font color=#FF0000>"Oh, did we say maximum, we meant"smoothed". This term 'smoothed' was to indicate an 'average' of sunspots over a one year period. Then when their"smoothed" explanation did not work out, they switched again. They said"Oh, did we say smoothed, we meant"double peak". This term"double peak" was given to explain why Nasa's"smoothed" hypothesis did not work. They said"it is an unusual, but periodic event when the sunspot 'maximum' has two peaks in the same solar cycle. Uh...I don't think so. But thanks anyway Nasa. Perhaps a little more rehearsal will help your"public relations" babel.</font>
This cat and mouse game reminded me of my first experience with Nasa in questioning them about El Nino. When I began my research into my published"equation", I had noticed our meteorologist and climatologist explaining why we were having such unusual weather. All they would tell us is"it is do to El Nino". Then they would give some quick overview of how the ocean currents sometimes shift. It is scientifically known as the"southern pacific oscillation".
I said,"okay, I think I understand. You are talking about shifting ocean currents.". So, as part of my research I asked what to me was the next logical question."What causes the ocean currents to shift". NOAA told me it was the shifting of the"jet stream". Wow, I said to myself. That makes sense. So I asked"what causes the jet stream to shift?". NOAA told me I would need to ask the space boys. So I did. I said to Nasa,"the boys over at Noaa told me you could explain what causes the jet stream to shift." Nasa told me"it is driven by Earth's magnetic field". Great. Now tell me"what causes Earth's magnetic field to shift?. Nasa told me,"good question. We are doing ongoing studies of this phenomena. It appears Earth's magnetic field responds to solar flux." Oh, I said. I get it. Now let me see. Solar flux causes Earth's magnetic field to shift or 'warp'. The shifting or warping of the magnetic field causes the jet stream to shift, which in turn causes the ocean currents to shift, which in turn causes extreme weather. Hmm, I am starting to see a picture here. But one thing is missing. What causes solar flux? So of course I went back to my sources. Hey Nasa boys, what causes solar flux? Nasa tells me"we think it is a direct response to solar flares and cme's." Great. Now what's a cme? Of course we now know it is CME (Coronal Mass Ejection).
I bet you can already guess what my next question to Nasa was!. That's right,"how do you determine solar flares and cme's?" The Nasa boys tell me"there appears to be a connection to the number of sunspots, and the size of the solar activity". Okay! now let see if I got this straight. <font color=#FF0000>The number of sunspots give notice to the size or activity of solar flares and cme's. Depending on the size of the solar flare, tells us of the intensity in which Earth's magnetic field is effected. Depending on how much Earth' magnetic field is effected, tells us how much Earth's jet stream will shift. Depending on the effect of the jet stream, tells us much the ocean currents will be influenced. And it is the influence on the ocean currents is what we now call El Nino or La Nina</font> or La Cucaracha. (just kidding about La Cucaracha. I made it up. It's a longer story related to how NOAA kept switching their reason for our unusual weather.) Okay. I think I got it. Hmm, I think I will publish a paper on this. And so I did. It was June 1998. And now we have Mitch's research all tied up into one simple 'equation' everyone can understand.
<font color=#FF0000>Equation: Sunspots => Solar Flares => Magnetic Field Shift => Shifting Ocean and Jet Stream Currents => Extreme Weather and Human Disruption (mitch battros) </font>
As a result of today's X-Class flare, I predict continued"freak weather" to occur in parts around the world. Watch for sudden"tornado-like" winds. This is the result of the jet stream which usually hoovers around 29,000 feet, to come down to the deck or surface. It is sometimes called 'wind shears', 'straight-line', or 'micro-burst'. Also watch for hail storms and floods. In some areas watch for more"record breaking" temperatures. Folks, there is no"Cycle 23". We are in a"Mega Cycle". This is why all of Nasa's traditional formulas simply do not work. It has become widely accepted, even within Nasa, that we simply do not have the history to construct charts which go back thousands of years. But we do have one source of reference. It is our ancestors. It has been written in ancient texts from many different disciplines. We are in a time of 'transition'. The Earth is changing, and so are we.
|
Thread-Ansicht
Board-Ansicht
Thread gesperrt
[img]" alt="[image]" style="margin: 5px 0px 5px 0px" /> 
![[img]" alt="[image]" style="margin: 5px 0px 5px 0px" />](http://www.markt-daten.de/images/forum/sunspot/sunspot_sinus.gif){kind=link}
![[img][/img]](http://www.markt-daten.de/images/forum/sunspot/djia_versatz.gif){kind=link}