Re: [IRCA] latest solar cycle prediction

[Russ Edmunds <wb2bjh@xxxxxxxxx>]

Historically, that has been the case more often than not, but by any reasonably recent historical measure, 23 was extreme. 

23 reached 'normal' minimum levels well before any reverse polarity sunspots actually occurred, and then that was followed by the period of back-and-forth I had mentioned which was also atypical.

A typical cycle is 11 years. True maximum and minimum levels generally cover less than a full 12-month period. So if for argument's sake we presume a full year of max and a full year of min, and then 4 to build up and 5 to decay, that would be a strawman for a typical cycle. 

And if indeed we count 24 as beginning 3 years ago, max would be sometime early-mid 2013 in a typical cycle as currently predicted. But since 23 was so far off from the norms in several ways, I am less confident that 24 will suddenly revert to form.

So no, I don't think we're necessarily nit-picking here, just seeking to analyze two somewhat different possibilities. 

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, 8:27 PM
> We may be getting into the angels
> dancing on the point of a pin territory Russ, but doesn't
> the sunspot cycle peak fewer years after the minimum than it
> takes to decay back to the minimum from the maximum? 
>   Much of the elongation of the last cycle was in its
> decay down to minimum, greatly appreciated by high latitude
> DXers everywhere.
> 
> best wishes,
> 
> Nick
> 
> 
> At 23:23 03-05-12, you wrote:
> > 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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