I believe that you are correct. As I recall, the problem was that
the minimum was so prolonged that there was a period of many months
where there was discussion back and forth because through those
months there were appearances of both polarities with roughly
similar numbers bouncing back and forth as to which was predominant.
Many proclaimed the start of 24 the very first time there were
different polarity spots. Others proclaimed it the first time the
new polarity outnumbered the old, but then the balance swung back
again. So it all is somewhat relative in this case as there really
didn't seem to be a clear cut switchover.
The chart you referenced does seem to bear that out.
But since I'm on a roll here, the other factor is that Cycle 23 was
anything but normal length, and so one could suggest that there is
now less cause to expect that 24 will suddenly revert to the norm.
If for instance 24 were also elongated, the peak *might* be delayed.
Russ Edmunds
15 mi NNW of Philadelphia
Grid FN20id
<wb2bjh@xxxxxxxxx>
FM: Yamaha T-80 & Onkyo T-450RDS w/ APS9B @15'; Grundig G8
AM: Modified Sony ICF 2010's barefoot
--- On Thu, 5/3/12, Nick Hall-Patch <nhp@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Nick Hall-Patch <nhp@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [IRCA] latest solar cycle prediction
> To: "Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America"
<irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012, 6:42 PM
> There is no question that we won't
> know until after it's happened, Russ, and that their
> previous predictions have failed to warn us of the slow
> take-off of this cycle, if I recall
> correctly. But as far as the date of the
> minimum, doesn't that have something to do with the number
> of sunspots of one cycle becoming outnumbered by the
> sunspots of the next cycle? (they
> have reversed magnetic polarity).
>
> http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
> with its blue and orange data points indicating the sunspots
> from different cycles, seems to indicate that the minimum
> occurred somewhere around three years ago.
>
> best wishes,
>
> Nick
>
>
> At 20:36 03-05-12, you wrote:
> > That is all well and good, but since the experts took
> nearly two years deciding whether or not we had entered
> Cycle 24, and ultimately deciding we had done so a year or
> so prior, IMHO this is either 1) a perception of the obvious
> at present which is potentially pretty accurate or 2) a
> prediction which will prove to be wrong in a year or so.
> >
> > I am reluctant to accept that we are 3 years into Cycle
> 24, and that's the assumption the prediction is based on,
> partially based on my comments above. If I am correct, then
> the maximum may not be hit until a year or perhaps more
> beyond what is predicted here., and as a result, the number
> predicted is probably low.
> >
> >
> > Russ Edmunds
> > 15 mi NNW of Philadelphia
> > Grid FN20id
> > <wb2bjh@xxxxxxxxx>
> > FM: Yamaha T-80 & Onkyo T-450RDS w/ APS9B @15';
> Grundig G8
> > AM: Modified Sony ICF 2010's barefoot
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 5/3/12, Nick Hall-Patch <nhp@xxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Nick Hall-Patch <nhp@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: [IRCA] latest solar cycle prediction
> > > To: "Mailing list for the International Radio Club
> of America" <irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012, 2:48 PM
> > > NASA's latest solar maximum
> > > prediction:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
> > >
> > >
> > > N
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRCA mailing list
> IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
>
> Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are
> those of the original contributors and do not necessarily
> reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing
> staff, or officers
>
> For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
>
> To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of
the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx