(02-08-2017, 12:37 PM)Cirocco Wrote: Small to medium solar flares help keep our atmosphere expanded, so a lack of these is significant for more severe weather; floods, drought, hotter summers, colder winters and so on.  There has been severe snowstorms in Iran and Pakistan and even snow in the Sahara recently.  The times, they are a-changing.  

My intent isn't to alarm or unduly panic anyone.  It's simply a heads-up to prepare for what's to come.  

Peace, love and joy to you this day, brothers and sisters.

(02-08-2017, 01:01 PM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 12:37 PM)Cirocco Wrote: Small to medium solar flares help keep our atmosphere expanded, so a lack of these is significant for more severe weather; floods, drought, hotter summers, colder winters and so on.  There has been severe snowstorms in Iran and Pakistan and even snow in the Sahara recently.  The times, they are a-changing.  

My intent isn't to alarm or unduly panic anyone.  It's simply a heads-up to prepare for what's to come.  

Peace, love and joy to you this day, brothers and sisters.

Eh, this one goes both ways though.  It's also been a long time since we had a massive solar flare's ejecta directly strike the Earth either, not since before the electronic age.  Which is good, because a sufficiently massive solar flare and hit would act as a worldwide EMP.  Increased weather irregularities are bad, but instantaneous global shutdown of most/all electronics would be far worse.  

We even had a near miss in 2012 which would have caused global disruption and a timeline of years to even begin to pick up the pieces.  Assuming society didn't collapse or anything like that, which would be a possibility depending on when it happened and how much damage was caused.

So on the whole, I think I'm OK with the prospect of fewer solar storms.

(02-08-2017, 01:06 PM)Cirocco Wrote: My apologies for being unclear.  If the loss of planetary magnetism is due to a loss of cohesion in the Earth's core and the atmospheric shields are weakening any solar activity striking the surface here would be potentially poisonous to all life forms due to radiation.

(02-08-2017, 01:25 PM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 01:06 PM)Cirocco Wrote: My apologies for being unclear.  If the loss of planetary magnetism is due to a loss of cohesion in the Earth's core and the atmospheric shields are weakening any solar activity striking the surface here would be potentially poisonous to all life forms due to radiation.

Those are all some pretty big IFs, though.  And on top of that, there's IF the magnetic shield effect is substantial, which is something that's still being debated.  After all, we have evidence of polar reversals happening every few hundred thousand years, but no evidence of Earth ever having been left completely defenseless or of massive die-offs due to solar activity.  So you're talking about IF something happened that, as far as we can tell, has never before happened in the history of life on Earth.

I'm just saying, it's not necessarily something worth worrying too much about.  Even if the polar reversal happens in our lifetime, it's likely to be more of a large-scale inconvenience than a true disaster.

(02-08-2017, 01:30 PM)Cirocco Wrote: It's true that pole shifts have occurred in the past, but it's also true that our sun has never been as old as it is now.  

Like my Bubbe used to say, "It's better to have and not need than to need and not have." and "The whole world is shaped like a chicken."  

(02-08-2017, 01:53 PM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 01:30 PM)Cirocco Wrote: It's true that pole shifts have occurred in the past, but it's also true that our sun has never been as old as it is now.  

Like my Bubbe used to say, "It's better to have and not need than to need and not have." and "The whole world is shaped like a chicken."  

OK, but you indicated that due to the sun's age, it's entering a period of lessened solar flare activity.  If that's true, then the sun being older now would just further reduce the chances of a catastrophe.  

Besides, there's not really any "having" to be done here.  If it were in the cards that a sufficiently massive solar flare could cause an extinction event, there would be even less we could do to prevent it than if we spotted a planet-killer asteroid headed our way.  At least we have theoretical plans for maybe dealing with that.  A stellar extinction event might as well be the finger of god smiting us, for all we could do about it.

So there's really little point in worrying about it at all, particularly since such a disaster seems pretty low-probability to begin with.  

(02-08-2017, 02:08 PM)Cirocco Wrote: A lack of mid-level (C class) solar flares diminishes the thickness of the lithosphere and causes a sort of atmospheric compression effect that condenses and magnifies any weather on the surface.  You're talking about a solar 'kill-shot', which is possible, but it's more likely that people will succumb to overexposure and/or other weather-related causes.  Monsanto is already capitalizing on this global event by developing GMO's since outdoor gardening will become extremely difficult if not impossible and I'd be willing to bet that utility rates will rise dramatically since we, the people, will have no choice but to either pay or die.  

(02-08-2017, 02:28 PM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 02:08 PM)Cirocco Wrote: A lack of mid-level (C class) solar flares diminishes the thickness of the lithosphere and causes a sort of atmospheric compression effect that condenses and magnifies any weather on the surface.  You're talking about a solar 'kill-shot', which is possible, but it's more likely that people will succumb to overexposure and/or other weather-related causes.  Monsanto is already capitalizing on this global event by developing GMO's since outdoor gardening will become extremely difficult if not impossible and I'd be willing to bet that utility rates will rise dramatically since we, the people, will have no choice but to either pay or die.  

OK, but we're back to "you're talking about things that haven't happened before."  As I understand it, the sun goes through these periods of high and low solar flare activity all the time.  There's very little evidence of them causing truly catastrophic weather, even during the proverbial low tides.  And even if such terrible weather conditions happened, it would be hard to predict what the overall economic effects would be in the modern age, since it would be a very complicated combination of forces.  Not all utilities are privatized, just for starters.  And even those which are private couldn't squeeze people TOO hard, or they'd risk violence, governmental regulations, and\or nationalization, depending on local political leanings.

Brother, the solar activity is only half the story. The fact that the Earth's magnetic shield is weakening also needs to be taken into consideration in addition to the pole shift, which is going to allow much more radiation into our immediate vicinity.

Complicated economics? Absolutely. Complicated for us to figure out how to make ends meet and still live in a reasonably comfortable fashion.

I no longer trust the government, friend. Do you?

When it comes down to it, modern society really has never had to deal with a truly serious weather event on the scale of the Little Ice Age or something like that.  There's really no telling how it would play out.  Sure, there would undoubtedly be SOME opportunists trying to take advantage of the chaos,  but there would still also be plenty of forces for order trying to keep damage and instability to a minimum.

After all, those utility companies also don't get paid if society grinds to a halt.

(02-08-2017, 12:37 PM)Cirocco Wrote: This is a daily space weather report on solar activity and other space pertinent information.  It also covers related science topics including Earth changes and new discoveries/theories for the cosmos in general.  Occasionally there are political topics and comments regarding science and technology such as GMO's, climate change, etc.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsmEOvxuZMA

For those who don't know -

Our little sun has entered middle age and we're possibly at the beginning of a solar cycle called a Maunder Minimum, an interval where there is little to no solar flaring.  Maunder Minimums occur every 600,000-700,000 years and can last from one week to 10,000 years.  The effects of this type of interval are predicted to be exacerbated by the lessening strength of our magnetic shield, which has been diminishing for the last 400 years and continues to decline as evidenced by the speed of the magnetic pole shift currently taking place.  The cause of this loss of magnetism may be deep within the planet's core, but it also affecting atmospheric fields as well.  Such a scenario begs the question of what happens to magnetized liquid when it loses cohesion.  The answer is potentially very, very bad stuff.  

The changes to our planet are not limited locally.  Every body in the solar system has been impacted to some degree.  The orbit of Venus has actually slowed down and storms on Saturn are less intense and occurring two years early.  The Great Red Spot on Jupiter has been replaced by Red Jr., a smaller spot in the Southern Hemisphere.  I was going to post a link here for a video clip that provided reference sources, but the PTB has seen fit to have it removed from YouTube.  That in itself should give you a clue.  

Small to medium solar flares help keep our atmosphere expanded, so a lack of these is significant for more severe weather; floods, drought, hotter summers, colder winters and so on.  There has been severe snowstorms in Iran and Pakistan and even snow in the Sahara recently.  The times, they are a-changing.  

My intent isn't to alarm or unduly panic anyone.  It's simply a heads-up to prepare for what's to come.  

Peace, love and joy to you this day, brothers and sisters.

(02-08-2017, 02:35 PM)Cirocco Wrote: Brother, the solar activity is only half the story.  The fact that the Earth's magnetic shield is weakening also needs to be taken into consideration in addition to the pole shift, which is going to allow much more radiation into our immediate vicinity.  

Quote:Complicated economics?  Absolutely.  Complicated for us to figure out how to make ends meet and still live in a reasonably comfortable fashion.  

I no longer trust the government, friend.  Do you?  

(02-08-2017, 02:53 PM)Cirocco Wrote: The speed of the magnetic pole shift is also a cause for concern since there's a possibility of a phenomenon called a Chandler Wobble, similar to when you fill a balloon with water and roll it around, causing the water to slosh.  Earth's core is a liquid.  The last time this occurred fish/whale fossils and corals were deposited in the Sahara Desert.

(02-08-2017, 02:56 PM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 02:35 PM)Cirocco Wrote: Brother, the solar activity is only half the story.  The fact that the Earth's magnetic shield is weakening also needs to be taken into consideration in addition to the pole shift, which is going to allow much more radiation into our immediate vicinity.  

But then we're back to the entire theory of the magnetic field being vital as a shield being highly disputed, since the planet has gone through many pole shifts without evidence of catastrophic activity happening because of it.

These things you're worried about are ifs piled upon ifs piled upon ifs, all quite speculative and not really backed up by the historical record.

Quote:Complicated economics?  Absolutely.  Complicated for us to figure out how to make ends meet and still live in a reasonably comfortable fashion.  

I no longer trust the government, friend.  Do you?  

One doesn't have to trust government in the sense you mean to trust it to act in its own rational self-interest.  A country full of people who are freezing, roasting, and\or starving while their government does nothing to help is a country that's going to have a new government in short order.  Or maybe no government at all.  If there is one truism in all of human history, it's that when people get hungry enough, they get violent.  Keeping society orderly and minimizing the damage would be the logical thing to do, otherwise the resulting instability could threaten everyone.  Even the rich.  Especially the rich.

(02-08-2017, 03:05 PM)Cirocco Wrote: Respectfully,

The historical record is not an accurate representation of the current situation.  

Of course you're entitled to your own beliefs.  For my part, I'm storing a lot of shelf-stable food and preparing as I see fit.  If those precautions prove to be unfounded I can donate what I have to charity.

(02-08-2017, 03:27 PM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 03:05 PM)Cirocco Wrote: Respectfully,

The historical record is not an accurate representation of the current situation.  

Of course you're entitled to your own beliefs.  For my part, I'm storing a lot of shelf-stable food and preparing as I see fit.  If those precautions prove to be unfounded I can donate what I have to charity.

OK, but you're not giving me any reason to believe otherwise, either.  Why is it do you think that now is the time that humans all over the world would suddenly prefer to roll over and die -or watch their families die- instead of going after the government and\or oligarchs?  I mean, we're not talking about complicated social phenomenon here.  We're talking about the human animal in its most primal sense, fighting to live.  This basic impulse has shown itself over and over and over and over throughout history.

And moreover, why do you believe that the governments are aware of this shift in attitude to such an extent that they would knowingly and deliberately allow widespread misery to occur, without doing anything to try to prevent or alleviate it?  

Not to mention, it's not like the rich and elite could somehow maintain society all by themselves in the event of a collapse.  Power plants need workers.  Power plants need energy sources.  Energy sources need workers making them available.  Those workers need roads, and food, and clothing.  Roads and food and clothing which need the power sources to continue being made and maintained.  Etc.  This isn't even sociology, it's just the basic facts of how modern society functions.  Knock away even a few of those "legs" and the whole system would collapse quickly due to its interconnected/interdependent nature.  That would be as bad for the rich as everyone else.

So why in the world would a government NOT act to prevent such collapse from occurring by helping keep the public -and therefore society- relatively stable?

(And, again, I just want to point out that all of this is predicated on a very unlikely series of events happening in the first place that would make such questions relevant.)

(02-08-2017, 03:51 PM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote: I was legitimately trying to get more information about your beliefs.  I truly don't understand why you think that the governments of the world would act in such a self-destructive manner, at least as I see it.  You made a number of assertions about what you think may happen in the future, yet now you're insulting me rather than explaining your reasoning.  Even though I explained my reasoning at some length.

If you want to say "we should agree to disagree" and end the conversation there, fine.  We can do that.  But you have no cause to call me a troll just because I'm asking questions you apparently don't want to answer.  Just say you don't want to talk about it any more, without the insults, and we can move on.

(02-08-2017, 10:45 PM)SMC Wrote: Cirocco - is this you? - or has your account been hacked?

(02-08-2017, 11:21 PM)hounsic Wrote: I find it very interesting! I have listened to his daily report off and on for years and he seems very knowledgeable. Thank you for sharing!

(02-08-2017, 10:48 PM)Cirocco Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 10:45 PM)SMC Wrote: Cirocco - is this you? - or has your account been hacked?

It's me.  I'm just sick of trolls.

(02-09-2017, 01:27 AM)sjel Wrote: So that's why the apocalypse isn't gonna happen. We humans aren't looking for survival games any more. We've had thousands of years of that, we're bored now. We humans are gearing up for some higher chakra experiences now.

Quote:Tangent: I wonder what a higher chakra apocalypse would be like. If for example apocalypse-type events generally forces communities to utilize the lower three chakras (for survival and community), what sort of event would force communities to band together on the heart level, or throat level? I wonder if there are "apocalypses" in the higher densities, in the sense that they 'force' the social memory complexes to pay explicit attention to their lessons. There would be no fear involved, I assume, as there is in the third density apocalypse scenarios.

(02-09-2017, 02:07 AM)APeacefulWarrior Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 10:48 PM)Cirocco Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 10:45 PM)SMC Wrote: Cirocco - is this you? - or has your account been hacked?

It's me.  I'm just sick of trolls.

Man, if you are really going through life declaring anyone a "troll" for merely disagreeing with you, you're going to end up needlessly burning a lot of bridges.

And in the meantime, is it really so terrible and offensive that I would dare suggest that just maybe there isn't as much cause for fear as you think?  It appears you'd rather insult me than consider the possibility that things aren't that bad.  Are your worries and doomsday scenarios truly so precious to you that you'll attack anyone who tries to offer an alternative interpretation?

(02-09-2017, 03:50 AM)Cirocco Wrote: You've completely missed the point because you never looked at the source material to verify what I posted.