ve1dx
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by ve1dx on Feb 21, 2012 1:42:55 GMT
NASA has changed its prediction for this solar cycle peak: solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml They are now saying it will peak in about a year, early in 2013. The article says this will be the smallest cycle in 100 years. Are they on to something or is this just another guess? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 21, 2012 2:38:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by janjanssens on Feb 21, 2012 17:37:42 GMT
Me thinks the lower range of this prediction (37-63) is not very realistic. Assuming a very low monthly sunspotnumber of 45 for the next 6 months, the smoothed SSN-value for November 2011 will already be at 66. I'd suggest they'd take 89+/-26 as a prediction. This would still justify their claim of possibly the smallest SC in almost a century, but would also be much more in line with the SC24 panel prediction (90+/-20 www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html ), which is supported by other statistical extrapolations from SC24 sunspotnumbers so far (e.g. Bendel-Staps: 83+/-18) More on this and the timing of the SC24-maximum at my webpages: Headlines 01 August 2011 - users.telenet.be/j.janssens/index.html , and users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24web/SC24.html |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 22, 2012 1:55:18 GMT
Me thinks the lower range of this prediction (37-63) is not very realistic. Assuming a very low monthly sunspotnumber of 45 for the next 6 months, the smoothed SSN-value for November 2011 will already be at 66. I'd suggest they'd take 89+/-26 as a prediction. This would still justify their claim of possibly the smallest SC in almost a century, but would also be much more in line with the SC24 panel prediction (90+/-20 www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html ), which is supported by other statistical extrapolations from SC24 sunspotnumbers so far (e.g. Bendel-Staps: 83+/-18) More on this and the timing of the SC24-maximum at my webpages: Headlines 01 August 2011 - users.telenet.be/j.janssens/index.html , and users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24web/SC24.htmlI'll stand by my 75+/-8 I see no reason to change that. |
|
|
|
Post by janjanssens on Feb 22, 2012 6:30:48 GMT
Me thinks the lower range of this prediction (37-63) is not very realistic. Assuming a very low monthly sunspotnumber of 45 for the next 6 months, the smoothed SSN-value for November 2011 will already be at 66. I'd suggest they'd take 89+/-26 as a prediction. This would still justify their claim of possibly the smallest SC in almost a century, but would also be much more in line with the SC24 panel prediction (90+/-20 www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html ), which is supported by other statistical extrapolations from SC24 sunspotnumbers so far (e.g. Bendel-Staps: 83+/-18) More on this and the timing of the SC24-maximum at my webpages: Headlines 01 August 2011 - users.telenet.be/j.janssens/index.html , and users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24web/SC24.htmlI'll stand by my 75+/-8 I see no reason to change that. Leif, I was talking about the NASA-prediction, and in particular the lower end of it (37!!). Your prediction is very fine  |
|
ve1dx
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by ve1dx on Feb 25, 2012 19:17:31 GMT
While as an active Ham radio operator I would like both NASA and Leif to be wrong, it appears they are in general agreement, and most likely to be correct. I was reading a forecast by another prognosticator who essentially said if you ignored the "statistically insignificant" prolonged inter-cycle trough between 23 and 24, then 24's rise mirrored 23 quite well. He went on to say he felt that 24 would be equal to 23 in magnitude. I suspect that was more wishful thinking than anything based on true scientific evidence. And so we shall see in 12-24 months how this unfolds. My guess is that both Leif and NASA have nailed it fairly well.
|
|
timb
New Member
Posts: 45 
|
Post by timb on Feb 26, 2012 4:05:37 GMT
While as an active Ham radio operator I would like both NASA and Leif to be wrong, it appears they are in general agreement, and most likely to be correct. I was reading a forecast by another prognosticator who essentially said if you ignored the "statistically insignificant" prolonged inter-cycle trough between 23 and 24, then 24's rise mirrored 23 quite well. He went on to say he felt that 24 would be equal to 23 in magnitude. I suspect that was more wishful thinking than anything based on true scientific evidence. And so we shall see in 12-24 months how this unfolds. My guess is that both Leif and NASA have nailed it fairly well. Not to blow anybody's horn, IIRC there were two distinct camps in the waning years of 23 (with each camp having there own variants). One camp including NASA predicted a SC24 would be very strong and larger than 23. The other camp predicted a weaker than SC23 scenario. I believe the "official" sunspot forecast out of those sessions was much larger than what we see today. NASA now adopting Dr. Svaalgard number from those SC23 days is pretty impressive considering how weak the prediction was - I don't recall anyone predicting a weaker cycle than that. I'm sure Dr. Hathaway will now be sending Dr. Svaalgard a bottle of wine wrapped in a copy of that paper every year for the rest of the cycle. I am also anxiously awaiting the addition of polar magnetic strength differential as a sunspot number predictor on the NASA page.  |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Feb 26, 2012 11:24:09 GMT
Dr Svalgaard
Doesn't the polar magnetic field currently predict a stronger SC25 than most measures?
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Feb 26, 2012 15:28:12 GMT
Dr Svalgaard Doesn't the polar magnetic field currently predict a stronger SC25 than most measures? The polar field at minimum predicts the next cycle. We are not currently at minimum [rather at maximum], so the current polar fields are not yet a predictor for SC25. |
|
