Posted on 04/26/2026 12:08:23 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Both eruptions came from a sunspot region on the sun's western limb, AR4419. The first solar flare peaked at 9:07 p.m. EDT on April 23 (0107 GMT April 24), followed by the second at 4:14 a.m. EDT (0814 GMT) on April 24. These are the strongest solar flares we've seen in 78 days, according to solar physicist Ryan French.
The bursts of radiation from the flares triggered strong radio blackouts on the sunlit side of Earth — the first affecting parts of the Pacific Ocean and Australia and the second impacting East Asia.
The active sunspot region is putting on quite the show before it rotates out of view. The X-flares were preceded by a flurry of M-class solar flares on April 23, along with a rare "sympathetic flare" where eruptions occurred in two separate sunspot regions on opposite sides of the sun.
The X-flares appear to have been accompanied by coronal mass ejections (CMEs) — large expulsions of plasma and magnetic field from the sun. However, because the sunspot is positioned on the sun's western edge, it's unlikely these CMEs are heading directly toward Earth. That said, forecasters are still modelling their paths and a glancing blow remains possible. If that happens, it could trigger geomagnetic storm conditions and spark vivid aurora displays.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
Lights are NOT STRUCTURES. My point is humans build such puny structures, those are invisible just 100 miles above sea level.
Inconstant Moon. Good story.
Thanks for the reminder about Inconstant Moon.
Much more relevant:
Genesis 6:5
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
Yes, I made a typo when I posted. 😖
I thought maybe autocorrect got you.
Oil and gas are green, organic, solar power.
Oil comes from organic material and the energy in that material came from the “sun.”
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/8uRQKTcHQyy7DFu4QKuGgm.jpg
In fact, (((ALL))) sources of energy we have comes from the sun or some ancient star if you really want to get down to it: wind, solar, gas, hydro, oil, uranium.
They are all just various energy carriers which we either glorify or villainize.
Is an electric car really all that clean? No.
Are solar panels really all that clean? No.
Are wind turbines really all that clean? No.
But today we slap labels on things, turn the brain off, and jump on a bandwagon of collective stupidity pretending that a coal and gas charged car, with a huge and heavy battery (mass you carry around) that don’t last that long and using rare earth minerals in part, which came from surface (strip) mining for a car which is essentially disposable and has about a 20% loss of power when charging is somehow “green and clean.”
It’s all just about how arguments are framed, but much of this modern green babble is total nonsense.
Older tech that is far more evolved such as a higher efficiency diesel are likely more “environmental” than a so-called “green” EV.
A VW Golf from 2015 was already getting 45MPG combined, realistically! https://www.kbb.com/car-news/vw-golf-tdi-sets-fuel-economy-record/. Is a Nissan Leaf really greener? Highly unlikely when you look at the big picture and not just at the tail pipe.
These are all “energy carriers.”
The real question is which one is more suited for the application.
Is a massive high cost chemical battery which has a low power density by weight and volume, takes a long time to charge (or you degrade the battery more rapidly), has a finite cycle life, often a memory aspect to a charge and discharge characteristics, is high and low temperature sensitive, really best suited in transportation? The answer is obvious.
Most of these “green” schemes would collapse were it not for a continual government spending through subsidies to manufacturers and tax breaks to consumers.
Basically you have an entire market that is propped up artificially since it would be cost prohibitive otherwise.
This has been going of for 50 years. Ever since Carter the federal government has been hemorrhaging money on these dreams, yet the conspiracy myths against green power persist.
Green (as we define it) is simply to expensive, not reliable, geographically dependent, and lacks power density.
Instead of “economy of scale,” as with a coal or a nuclear plant, you have diminishing returns.
Think about if you were to install wind or solar on your home, maybe you already did? You install the wind and solar panels in those locations best suited and as you expand you go to ever less suited locations that are further and further away - diminishing returns instead of economy of scale.
It’s no different with hydroelectric power on rivers. As you expand, you use ever less suited locations.
The advocates for these dreams rely of the exceptions to create a rule. They will point to Norway where they really can produce a lot of power with hydro, BUT few places on earth have those conditions. Or they will outright lie, where as with Germany they make these grand claims about green power but you better not read the small print, i.e. that their green power doesn’t apply to transportation on roads, air or water, that when they run into shortages they fill the delta with nuclear power from France which has in the meantime expanded their nuclear grid to accommodate the Germans, much of their industry is still powered by fossil fuels because the costs would be prohibitive (running a smelter for example):
Basically, the average German family gets to pay for really frigging expensive electrical power (very family friendly social thinking / sarc): ~36-41 cents per Kw/hr vs. the US and 12-17, but no worries, their jets still use jet fuel, their ships still run on HFO, and their big factories still get cheaper fossil power.
I could not agree more.
What blows me away is the absurd claims made by the environmentalist extremists; EVERYTHING causes global warming, and the shrill screaming to guilt us all into giving up our cars, ride bikes, live in pods and eat bugs, is nothing less than a power grab to steal our freedoms and destroy the constitution. And the “useful idiots” buy it.
Global warming is watermelon politics, green on the outside and red on the inside. It is not science as they claim, but political science, and is further proof that we are still fighting the existential ideological battle against nothing less than communism IMHO.
And here is why CO2 and climate change is so awesome (for the left)!!!
All human activity produces CO2.
Want to move by car, train, ship, airplane? CO2.
Want to stay cool on hot days? CO2.
Want to stay warm in the winter? CO2.
Want to cook food? CO2.
Want to keep food refrigerated? CO2.
Want to watch TV, listen to the radio, play on a computer? CO2.
You like to have light at night time? CO2.
Anything which moves, everything that is manufactured produces CO2.
All human activity, including breathing, produces CO2.
When you inhale the air has .04% CO2, when you exhale it has ~4.0 -5.0%.
When we declared CO2 a threat, and gave government the power to tax and regulate it, guess what that really implies?
Amen brother.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
