http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...larminimum.htm
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...larminimum.htm
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

It's still regarded as within the norm, but how much longer till it's not
normal?

A controversial and interesting paper on long term solar cycles can be found
at the below URL.

http://www.ann-geophys.net/18/399/20...8-399-2000.pdf

Author: I. Charvâtova

Geophysical Institute AS CR, Bocni II, 141 31 Praha 4, Czech Republic



Cheers


Peter VK6YSF

http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/main.htm

Peter,

Your reference is interesting, their story is changing from
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...cleupdate.htm?
list174385 (fix the wrapped URL).

I have been plotting the percentage of days in a calendar month that were
spotless during this transition.

Certainly, March 2009 isn't encouraging.

The graphs are at http://www.vk1od.net/propagation/solar/spotless.htm .

I wouldn't hazard a guess at when sunspot numbers climb significantly,
though signs are that the transition has already occured, just enduring a
very long sunspot drought... from Canberra where it doesn't rain any more
either!

Owen

"Owen Duffy" wrote in message
...
Peter,

Your reference is interesting, their story is changing from
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...cleupdate.htm?
list174385 (fix the wrapped URL).

I have been plotting the percentage of days in a calendar month that were
spotless during this transition.

Certainly, March 2009 isn't encouraging.

The graphs are at http://www.vk1od.net/propagation/solar/spotless.htm .

I wouldn't hazard a guess at when sunspot numbers climb significantly,
though signs are that the transition has already occured, just enduring a
very long sunspot drought... from Canberra where it doesn't rain any more
either!

Owen

"Owen Duffy" wrote in message
...
I have been plotting the percentage of days in a calendar month that were
spotless during this transition.

Certainly, March 2009 isn't encouraging.

The graphs are at http://www.vk1od.net/propagation/solar/spotless.htm .


Very interesting data, Owen. This is a new way to look at the transition but
to my eye a downward trend hasn't emerged yet and that certainly is bad news
for 2009.

Another idea I had recently, but haven't found any records of this method of
tracking solar cycles anywhere on the net... perhaps you might know. This
idea was prompted by the observation that so far in 2009, if I'm not
mistaken, the number of Cycle 23 sunspots outnumbers the Cycle 24 sunspots,
so the situation is even more dire when this is considered. So the questions
in my mind a

1/ Don't the Cycle 23 spots have to vanish completely before we can even
begin to say that we have entered the new cycle?

2/ If not, then how far into the new cycle are old spots allowed to occur
without casting doubt on the fact that the new cycle has begun yet?

I looked all over for a plot of old spots superimposed on a plot of new
spots, so that I could get an idea of how long the overlap period typically
is. But this is the data that I couldn't find anywhere. Any ideas?

I don't think we're past minimum yet. We might be in it right now, and
possibly for several more months. I say this despite the fact that there
have already been a number of Cycle 24 spots. This minimum is looking like a
double-minimum, ironically the inverse of the Cycle 23 double-maximum.

Al W6LX

"Al Lorona" wrote in
:


....
Another idea I had recently, but haven't found any records of this
method of tracking solar cycles anywhere on the net... perhaps you
might know. This idea was prompted by the observation that so far in
2009, if I'm not mistaken, the number of Cycle 23 sunspots outnumbers
the Cycle 24 sunspots, so the situation is even more dire when this is
considered. So the questions in my mind a

1/ Don't the Cycle 23 spots have to vanish completely before we can
even begin to say that we have entered the new cycle?

There are different criteria proposed by different people for the instant
that divides two cycles.


2/ If not, then how far into the new cycle are old spots allowed to
occur without casting doubt on the fact that the new cycle has begun
yet?

One criteria is the point in time (month?) when there are equal new
sunspots and old sunspots.


I looked all over for a plot of old spots superimposed on a plot of
new spots, so that I could get an idea of how long the overlap period
typically is. But this is the data that I couldn't find anywhere. Any
ideas?

The so-called butterfly diagram is of interest, see
http://sidc.oma.be/images/papi22c.png .

High latitude unspots are usually 'new cycle' sunspots.


I don't think we're past minimum yet. We might be in it right now, and
possibly for several more months. I say this despite the fact that
there have already been a number of Cycle 24 spots. This minimum is
looking like a double-minimum, ironically the inverse of the Cycle 23
double-maximum.

I think on many criteria, we are in cycle 24, fwiw.


Al W6LX

73
Owen

Owen Duffy wrote:
There are different criteria proposed by different people for the instant
that divides two cycles.

Which presupposes that an instant actually divides
two cycles. :-) My 130/85 blood pressure used to
be normal for my age. Now that exact same blood
pressure is pre-hypertensive even though I'm 20
years older. I've concluded that human concepts
create reality, not vice-versa. :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote:
I've concluded that human concepts
create reality, not vice-versa. :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

I know what you mean, Cecil. It used to be that marriage was between 1 man
and 1 woman...

Oops, that was off topic. Back to the subject at hand.

Owen, those butterfly patterns are neat. It's hard to tell, but it kind of
looks like old and new sunspots can overlap each other for maybe a year or
more! Wow. I didn't realize that. So maybe there still is hope. But I sure
wish Cycle 23 spots would go away.

Al W6LX

On Apr 2, 8:16*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...larminimum.htm
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com


I've been surprised at some of the openings on 15M to Europe and
Pacific the past few years, in the quietest part of a quiet cycle. And
the regularity of night-time 20M openings to Northern Europe/Russia
and even occasionally New Zealand/Australia too.

I mean, it's nothing at all compared to say 1979 when I was a new ham
10M was open around the world at almost every hour of the day. But it
still happens.

Certainly I've been enjoying 40M/80M/160M the past few years.

One thing that I don't see charted so clearly... is that in
2003/2004/2005/2006 I remember several solar storms that pretty much
wiped out all the HF bands (high and low, well 80M and 160M were not
so badly affected) for a few days at a time. I don't remember this
happening at all in 2008/2009.

Tim N3QE

Cecil Moore wrote:
Owen Duffy wrote:
There are different criteria proposed by different people for the
instant that divides two cycles.

Which presupposes that an instant actually divides
two cycles. :-) My 130/85 blood pressure used to
be normal for my age. Now that exact same blood
pressure is pre-hypertensive even though I'm 20
years older. I've concluded that human concepts
create reality, not vice-versa. :-)


And they have just the medicine that will help you lower that
"potential" high blood pressure.

Dosing guidelines are keep taking it until you get dizzy and fall down
when you stand up.

The good news is we'll all live 15 years longer. The bad news is it will
be in a Nursing home, with Alzheimer's.

It's a math thing.

8^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -