Australian Space Weather Agency Revises Solar Cycle 24 Start, Adding 6 Months

Solar Cycle 24 just can’t seem to get rolling. IPS announced today (IPS is the Australian Space Weather Agency) ,  that it has changed its forecast for Solar Cycle 24, pushing it’s start into the future by six months. They write:

Due to the proximity of the IPS predicted rise of solar cycle 24

to observed solar cycle 23 solar minimum values, and the apparent lack

of new Cycle 24 sunspots, IPS has again moved the predicted solar cycle

away by 6 months.

The announcement came on the IPS web page, today, on the day that two small cycle 23 sunspots have started to appear near the solar equator. Many had expected more cycle 24 spots to be visible by now, but the sun remains quiet, and has been producing more cycle 23 spots than cycle 24 spots so far since the first cycle 24 spot was seen on January 4th, 2008

August 21st, 2008 spots – Photo: Pavol Rapavy

NASA’s David Hathaway is still expecting a start of cycle 24 this year, with an upturn soon, late in 2008 or early 2009.

Above: The solar cycle, 1995-2015. The “noisy” curve traces measured sunspot numbers; the smoothed curves are predictions. Credit: D. Hathaway/NASA/MSFC.

As many of you know, the sun has been very quiet, especially in the last month. In a July 11th 2008 NASA news release article titled What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing) solar physicist David Hathaway goes on record as saying:

“It does seem like it’s taking a long time,” allows Hathaway, “but I think we’re just forgetting how long a solar minimum can last.”

The new IPS prediction puts the sunspot upturn to begin around April to July 2009. It will be interesting to see if Hathaway follows with a new prediction in the wake of the IPS announcement. There already has been one change in Hathaway’s prediction this year, so it would not be surprising to see another.

The IPS announcment is shown below.

big hat tip to John-X

IPS OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SOLAR INDICES FOR CYCLE 24

CYCLE 24 PREDICTION MOVED AWAY BY 6 MONTHS

Due to the proximity of the IPS predicted rise of solar cycle 24

to observed solar cycle 23 solar minimum values, and the apparent lack

of new Cycle 24 sunspots, IPS has again moved the predicted solar cycle

away by 6 months.

Prepared by IPS Radio and Space Services

Issued on Aug 21 2008

———————— SMOOTHED SUNSPOT NUMBER —————————

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

—————————————————————————-

2000 113.0 116.9 120.0 120.9 119.0 118.8 119.8 118.7 116.3 114.5 112.7 112.1

2001 108.7 104.0 104.8 107.5 108.6 109.8 111.7 113.6 114.1 114.0 115.5 114.6

2002 113.5 114.6 113.3 110.5 108.8 106.2 102.7 98.7 94.6 90.5 85.3 82.1

2003 81.0 78.6 74.2 70.4 67.9 65.3 62.1 60.3 59.8 58.4 57.0 55.0

2004 52.1 49.4 47.2 45.6 43.9 41.7 40.2 39.3 37.6 35.9 35.4 35.2

2005 34.6 34.0 33.6 31.7 28.9 28.8 29.1 27.5 25.9 25.6 25.0 23.0

2006 20.8 18.7 17.4 17.1 17.4 16.4 15.3 15.6 15.6 14.2 12.7 12.1

2007 12.0 11.6 10.8 9.9 8.7 7.7 7.0 6.1 5.9 6.1 5.7 5.0

2008 4.2 3.7e 3.7e 4.0e 4.2e 4.1e 3.9e 4.0e 3.9e 3.9e 4.4e 4.9e

2009 5.6e 6.4 4.4 8.3 8.9 9.6 10.7 11.9 13.4 14.7 16.3 18.1

2010 20.2 22.6 25.2 29.6 34.5 39.8 44.2 48.8 53.8 59.4 64.5 68.8

2011 72.8 79.0 85.5 91.3 94.7 98.0 101.4 105.2 109.1 112.6 116.6 120.2

2012 122.4 125.4 127.1 127.9 129.2 130.9 131.8 133.9 134.7 134.7 133.9 131.8

2013 131.3 130.0 130.0 129.6 129.6 130.0 130.0 129.2 129.2 127.9 125.0 122.0

2014 119.3 116.6 113.5 110.0 107.7 105.7 104.1 102.2 100.1 97.4 94.3 89.3

2015 84.2 79.4 76.3 73.5 70.9 68.5 66.0 63.2 60.1 57.7 56.0 55.2

2016 54.3 53.1 51.4 49.1 46.4 43.6 41.3 39.4 37.5 35.3 33.0 30.9

2017 29.2 27.9 26.6 25.3 23.9 22.8 21.8 21.1 20.6 20.0 19.3 18.2

2018 17.3 16.8 16.5 15.9 14.9 14.2 14.1 14.3 14.3 14.0 14.0 14.2

============================================================================

—————– EQUIVALENT 10.7 CM SOLAR RADIO FLUX ———————

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

—————————————————————————-

2000 162.2 166.2 169.4 170.3 168.3 168.1 169.2 168.0 165.6 163.7 161.9 161.2

2001 157.8 153.0 153.7 156.6 157.7 158.9 160.8 162.8 163.3 163.2 164.8 163.9

2002 162.7 163.9 162.5 159.6 157.9 155.2 151.6 147.6 143.4 139.3 134.1 131.0

2003 129.9 127.6 123.4 119.7 117.4 114.9 112.0 110.4 109.9 108.7 107.4 105.6

2004 103.2 100.8 98.9 97.6 96.2 94.4 93.3 92.5 91.2 89.9 89.5 89.4

2005 88.9 88.4 88.1 86.7 84.7 84.6 84.8 83.6 82.5 82.3 81.9 80.5

2006 79.0 77.6 76.8 76.7 76.8 76.2 75.5 75.7 75.7 74.8 73.9 73.6

2007 73.5 73.3 72.8 72.3 71.6 71.0 70.6 70.1 70.1 70.1 69.9 69.5

2008 69.1 68.9e 68.9e 69.0e 69.1e 69.1e 69.0e 69.0e 69.0e 69.0e 69.2e 69.5e

2009 69.9e 70.3 69.2 71.4 71.7 72.1 72.7 73.4 74.3 75.1 76.1 77.3

2010 78.6 80.2 82.0 85.2 88.8 92.9 96.5 100.3 104.6 109.6 114.2 118.2

2011 122.0 128.0 134.3 140.1 143.5 146.9 150.3 154.2 158.2 161.8 165.9 169.6

2012 171.8 174.9 176.6 177.4 178.8 180.5 181.4 183.5 184.3 184.3 183.5 181.4

2013 180.9 179.6 179.6 179.2 179.2 179.6 179.6 178.8 178.8 177.4 174.5 171.4

2014 168.6 165.9 162.7 159.1 156.8 154.7 153.1 151.1 149.0 146.3 143.1 138.1

2015 133.1 128.4 125.3 122.7 120.2 117.9 115.6 113.0 110.2 108.1 106.5 105.8

2016 105.1 104.0 102.5 100.6 98.3 96.0 94.1 92.6 91.1 89.4 87.7 86.1

2017 84.9 83.9 83.0 82.1 81.1 80.4 79.7 79.2 78.9 78.5 78.0 77.3

2018 76.8 76.4 76.2 75.9 75.2 74.8 74.8 74.9 74.9 74.7 74.7 74.8

============================================================================

This page is updated monthly using observed monthly sunspot numbers from

the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (http://sidc.oma.be). Monthly

values are smoothed using a 13 monthly running filter (first and last half weighting)

and, where needed, combined with a predicted sunspot number curve for Cycle 24.

Values which have an “e” next to them are based partly on observed and partly on

predicted values. Values earlier in time to these are based entirely on

observed valued; values later in time are entirely predicted. Observed

data are adjusted slightly at times to use the SIDC final monthly values

which are available several months later – SIDC preliminary monthly values

are used up to this time.

All Solar Radio Flux values, including the “observed” values, are

obtained from sunspot numbers using a statistical conversion. They are

best described as equivalent solar flux values.

Prepared on behalf of the International Space Environment Service by

the Australian Space Forecast Centre, IPS Radio and Space Services. This

product is issued in the first few days of each month and is available

on the IPS Mailing List Server – http://www.ips.gov.au/mailman/listinfo/

For more information please contact the centre at asfc@ips.gov.au

PLEASE NOTE: The technique used to make these predictions was changed

for the predictions issued from early November 2003. The revised technique

is more appropriate to the situation of a declining solar cycle.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
ad

Shouldn’t that be “push… BACK six months”?

[…] Pick up the story on Watts Up With That? ____________________________________ […]

Pamela Gray

And check out the ozone thinning over the western half of the US!
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/rt/viewdata.php?product=o3_us

What are negative sunspots?
The bottom curve, if fully plotted, goes below the axis.
REPLY: There are no negative sunspots. That is just a graphing issue you see.

Larry Sheldon

“Shouldn’t that be “push… BACK six months”?”
You are forgetting they are “down under”….
REPLY: I suppose its all in how you look at the time line. I view the future as ahead of the present, hence the use of “ahead” in the title of this posting.

Larry Sheldon (20:51:20) “You are forgetting they are “down under”
We are now “down under”. You are looking at the map upside down…

At least the ‘left’ spot has a cycle 24 polarity change. Because of its low latitude it might be a cycle 23 spot with reversed polarity [happens one out of 30 times]. The spots may be too small to be assigned an ‘active region’ number; we shall see tomorrow.

Leon Brozyna

This is almost in the category of anecdotal weather. From looking at the magnetogram image of the sun at the SOHO website, the newest disturbance shows up at the eastern edge of the solar disk; however, it’s not yet showing in the visible image. The longer this minimum holds, the clearer should be any signature as to possible effects on the weather.
I’m just wondering if there’s any change in the power of any of the components of the solar spectrum between an active sun versus a quiet sun. In other words, would the values of visible light, IR, & UV remain the same in relation to each other or would there be changes (up or down) in relation to each other depending on the amount of solar activity (or inactivity)?
Just a thought.

REPLY:
The SOHO MDI image hasn’t been updated in awhile, so you can’t really use that as a gauge for development of the sunspot. Thats why I chose the photo from the amatuer solar astronomer. It appeared to be more recent than the SOHO MDI.

AnyMouse

It’s “Push forward, pull back, every eleven years.”

Michael Hauber

Last solar minimum in 1996. Average GISS temperature for 1996 was 0.3.
Bigger solar minimum this time around. And a La Nina (although a quick look at 1996 Nino 3.4 shows coolish). And a switch to cool PDO.
Average GISS temperature for 2008 so far: 0.37.
Although I would be happy to agree that the difference is not necessarily significant and could just as easily be weather noise as CO2 warming. And the year isn’t ended yet either, so the 2008 number will most likely change.

Mike McMillan

Leif –
Dumb question – both spots are black on the right with white on the left. How do we tell polarity changes, which with latitude I gather is the difference between two cycles?

Mike McMillan (22:10:06) :
both spots are black on the right with white on the left
This was not clear on the [outdated?] image I have, but if so, they are both reversed. That may signal cycle 24 rather that cycle 23.
How do we tell polarity changes, which with latitude I gather is the difference between two cycles?
SC23: Nothern Hemisphere: left black, right white
SC23 Southern Hemisphere: left white, right white
SC24: Northern Hemisphere: left white, right black
SC24: Southern Hemisphere: left black, right while

oops:
SC23: Nothern Hemisphere: left black, right white
SC23 Southern Hemisphere: left white, right black
SC24: Northern Hemisphere: left white, right black
SC24: Southern Hemisphere: left black, right while

F Rasmin

Larry Sheldon (20:51:20) . The ‘Wizard of New Zealand ‘ made lots of money selling upside down maps of the world to tourists from the northern hemisphere.

Vincent Guerrini Jr.
jmrSudbury

The IPS is predicting cycle 24 to go higher than 23. The peak for sun spots is 134 instead of 120. The 10.7cm flux prediction is similarly higher: 184 instead of 170. Interesting. — John M Reynolds

Gary Gulrud

Anyone have a link to the running 13-month smoothed minima for sunspots, 10.7 cm flux, and geomagnetic indicies?
Obviously, all hope for the March 2008 minimum is past and August 2008 may well be the next spun minimum. Watch for transequatorial CMEs to tighten and the IMF to exhibit the ‘holding her dress down’ flip to the south.

Leif Svalgaard (21:34:42) :

At least the ‘left’ spot has a cycle 24 polarity change. Because of its low latitude it might be a cycle 23 spot with reversed polarity [happens one out of 30 times].

Oh, that’s a relief – I thought it might mean that cycle 24 was ending before it began! Or that spot was one of the spots on the negative part of the projection. 🙂
Just kidding….
I guess there isn’t much science behind the new prediction as the IPS says that

Due to the proximity of the IPS predicted rise of solar cycle 24
to observed solar cycle 23 solar minimum values, and the apparent lack
of new Cycle 24 sunspots, IPS has again moved the predicted solar cycle
away by 6 months.

Gee, I could’ve written that! At least they said “away” instead of “ahead” or “back”.
(Schedulers, at least in the US, refer to pushing back a schedule to mean that there are delays and the project will be late. Same class of idiom as “near miss” meaning it missed or nearly hit.)
Yet another organization as lost as we are and just goin’ along for the ride. Ah well, I’m sure this period will provide plenty of fodder for solar physicists for a couple decades – until the spots fade away in 2015 or so per Livingston/Penn and that distracts everyone.

Jeff Alberts

Usually when one is moving a deadline further into the future it’s moving back. If it’s moving closer to the present it’s moving ahead. It’s odd, but I think of this every time Anthony posts one of these. The article actually says “away” which is less ambiguous, I suppose.

I see that the AUSTRALIAN SPACE WEATHER AGENCY has confirmed what I already projected in the previous track SPOTLESS DAYS -400 AND COUNTING.

Bill Marsh

Interesting that there now seems to be disagreement over whether these are ‘sunspots’ or ‘proto sunspots’ as SpaceWeather.com has the sunspot count at 11 and NOAA is reporting 0 as of 8/21 http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/sept/swcenter/sunspot.html

John-X

No mention from IPS of why they chose 6 months.
I infer that it’s a very crude estimate. I assume the thinking is – solar minimum HAS to be somewhere around now-ish; we don’t know WHY Solar Cycle 24 hasn’t behaved as predicted; our previous forecast clearly ain’t happening; let’s acknowledge that and kick this thing another 6 months down the road and see what happens.
NOAA/NASA so far has not done that. In conjunction with a Space Weather Workshop in May, the panel stood by their (split) forecast
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
The small sunspot group Anthony referenced above is very interesting. I too have been frustrated by the lack of updated MDI Continuum images on the SOHO website (I emailed the SOHO webmaster to ask if anything is wrong
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/contact/webmaster.html
The photo Anthony posted above from the observer in Slovakia shows a small sunspot group; the observer at Catania
http://web.ct.astro.it/sun/draw.jpg
saw it and drew it yesterday AND today. (other observers yesterday, including Mt Wilson
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/cur_drw.html
did not see it and did not draw it). The official NOAA reports yesterday listed sunspots as “None.”
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/SRS.txt
So from both Boulder and Brussels,
http://sidc.oma.be/products/meu/index.php
the OFFICIAL sunspot number is still ZERO, and the current spotless streak which began July 21 officially goes on, and is at 33 days and counting.

Fred Chabala

I would be interested in seeing an update to the Observed Geomagnetic Averaged Planetary Index (Ap) graph. I think the last one you posted was on 15-Jun-08:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/solar-ap-june08.png
Isn’t the geomagnetic index a predictor of sunspot activity?

Robert Wood

This is a good picture of the magnetogram: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/cur_mag_fe1.html
I’ve lost the 10.7MHz image link, can someone post it?

John-X

Fred Chabala (06:24:49) :
“I would be interested in seeing an update to the Observed Geomagnetic Averaged Planetary Index (Ap) graph…”
It’s the third chart on this page, updated during the first week of each month –
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
The “step change” to lower values (mostly below 10) Anthony pointed out in June still has not recovered.

Bobby Lane

I have to say all this business is quite absurd. Only in astronomy can I imagine you would get a second and third chance to ‘predict’ something happening when it doesn’t happen the first or second time you said it would. So now, if the Sun does start around that time into Cycle 24, they can all pat themselves on the back and issue a press release that confirms they were right. Only those of us who care about this sort of thing will know that they were not.
I agree with Rick Werme’s posting wholeheartedly. There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of science behind this except the science (or art) of guestimation.
But the main question I have is, supposing the Sun does not start up as “forecasted,” what then? Move it back yet another six months? I mean, how can one claim to be right on target (or schedule) when one has control of location of the target (or the timing of the schedule)? It’s an absurd notion!

Bill Marsh

John-X,
maybe the SOHO lack of posting had to do with the CCD Bakeoff they were running? I noted that the latest SOHO magnetogram is 8/21 and the bake appears to be over now so maybe they will be able to post more up to date images.

Jeff Alberts (05:54:41) :
Usually when one is moving a deadline further into the future it’s moving back. If it’s moving closer to the present it’s moving ahead. It’s odd, but I think of this every time Anthony posts one of these. The article actually says “away” which is less ambiguous, I suppose.
Being a non-english speaker, “moving back” used that way is very confusing if it means moving into the future. To me it sounds as if you are moving backwards into the future. I guess some are 🙂
If the estimates of solar minimum are really moved 6 months into the future, I guess it means we must interpret the “spot” as belonging to SC23 (I realise though the proper interpretation is the other way around).
More and more interesting.

Bobby Lane

This reminds me of a Star Trek (TNG) episode I saw where the Romulans and the Federation each have no clue why their posts near the Neutral Zone have been utterly destroyed (scooped off the face of the universe would be more accurate). They each know the other didn’t do it. But beyond that they have no clue. Except that the Romulans try to bluff as if they do so that the Federation, if they actually do know, will tell them and then the Romulans can act like they knew all along. But of course the Romulans don’t have a clue and that comes out in the episode. And this is pretty much what it looks like.
Like a bunch of solar scientists sitting around a campfire blinking stupidly and going round-robin asking each other with a casual shrug “Well, I dunno, Ed, when do you you think it’s going start?” “Beats me, Bill. When do you think, it’s going to start Rich?” “Hard to say. Say, Steve, when do you think it’s going to start?” Ad infintum. As I said, eye-rollingly absurd.

Bill P

RE: Headline. Your first commenter caught the same issue. “Push ahead” is ambiguous. How about “delays”? or “…Agency revises Dates…”
REPLY: I made a change, it seemed clear to me but apparently more than a few get flummoxed with the wording I chose, even though it seemed clear to me.

There should be no surprise that the sun is still in a minimum stage and is likely to continue well into 2009 . One of the criteria that I Iook at is the solar wind ram pressure levels and its trend .The latest 27 day average reading Is down to 1.57nPA. The 2008 average, 27 day average to date is only 1.77nPA which is lower than the yearly 27 day average for any year for at least 13 years. It was 2.41 for the last solar minimum year of 1996. On a daily average basis there have been no solar wind spikes 5 nPa or more to date in 2008. The average on a daily basis for the last 13 years is 11 spikes of 5 nPa or more and in 2005, the record temperature year, it was 20. IN 1996 AND 1997 ,around the last solar minimum period it was 3 and 6 major spikes respectively on a daily basis.

Bill P

Perhaps: “Cycle adjusted for Daylight Savings Time” (Sorry. It’s Friday.)

Steve in SC

It is almost like this cycle 24 deal is on some sort of a government contract.
“When are you guys going to start work on this?
We don’t know.
Well when?
Maybe we’ll know in about 6 more months.”

paselowriterscafe

Interesting data! Will have to watch what you’re doing here on this page. It fascinates me.
New here, and just stumbling around alot… like the blind rat in the maze that can smell the cheese on the other side of the wall… still trying to figure this place out!

Richard deSousa

It appears to me that the solar scientists and astrophysicists are venturing into the unknown. None of them knows why the sun is so quiet and none of them have a clue on how long this hiatus will continue. And most of them are cranking up their computer to attempt to guess the future. Their hubris is breath taking and some of them should honestly tell us they just don’t know what the hell is going on with the sun.

Kent

I find it some what interesting that the site below is attributing current spotless days to cycle 24 when they should be labeled cycle 23.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Period
It is also interesting that http://dxlc.com/solar/ keeps on changing their (predicted) number of smoothed sunspots. It seems they are making adjustments to make it look like they know what they are doing.

Diatribical Idiot

I have a question. Based on a paper I was recently reading (Jose, 1965) there is a discussion on the assignment of polarity with regard to sunspot cycles. It is claimed that there are occasions where the polarity between cycles does not reverse.
How would such a situation present itself? Would we just start seeing an increase in sunspots of the same polarity as the previous cycle and realize that a new cycle of the same polarity has started? Or is this idea an outdated one that has since been disproven?
I’m just curious. I’m not suggesting this could be the case with Cycle 24, since we have seen spots of opposite polarity (unless, of course, those are just some of those 1 out of 30 aberrations…)

Michael Hauber: A few other things to consider: The number AND MAGNITUDE of El Ninos dominated ENSO since 1996. The AMO was increasing until a few years ago, as was the similarly calculated THC/MOC signal in the North Pacific.
http://i30.tinypic.com/11kv7r5.jpg
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/amo-versus-mid-latitude-north-pacific.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/common-misunderstanding-about-pdo.html

John-X

matt v. (07:52:23) :
“…On a daily average basis there have been no solar wind spikes 5 nPa or more to date in 2008. ”
Indeed, it seems only the recurrent coronal holes
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/coronal_holes.html
are providing any activity at all, and even then, only the occasional minor storm.
Space weather educational material for anyone interested
http://www.meted.ucar.edu/topics_spacewx.php
Registration required to take the modules, but it’s all free, high-quality material, intended primarily for government scientists & forecasters, and universities, but open to any and all.

Clark

I have to agree with a couple of the above comments. If there is no stated scientific reason to move their prediction date, why exactly did they do so? They should have just withdrawn their previous prediction and said:
“We don’t know why SC24 did not arrive on time. The coming cycle, whenever it appears, should provide us with valuable information on solar function.”

Updating a prediction of forecast in ‘real-time’ as new data becomes available is how all forecasts are done [and should be done]. The storm track of TS Fay [for example] is updated every three or six hours. Nothing wrong with that.
REPLY: I agree, NWS revises forecasts too, sometimes within an hour of first issuance. In the case of NASA and Hathaway, I don’t think its matter of “if” but “when”. – Anthony

Dan

We should give the solar guys a bit of a break here, we seem happy to taunt when someone’s estimate falls flat. I don’t get that. An analogy I read somewhere is that understanding the solar cycle is like a doctor trying to understand how the human heart works on the basis of 23 heartbeats, and only having a decent stethoscope for the last 4 or 5.
Making predictions based on what we know so far is how science grows. Its the only way to test your knowledge. Put it out there for all to see, along with your reasoning for it, and everybody learns something whether you’re right or wrong.
The apparent WAGs we seem to be getting from some agencies is just an indication that we still have a LOT to learn. Fascinating times.

DAV

Steve in SC (07:56:32) : It is almost like this cycle 24 deal is on some sort of a government contract. “When are you guys going to start work on this?
Almost got it right but it should have been: “When are you guys going to COMPLETE work on this?” A non-working contractor rarely gets paid. Cycle 23 is having an overrun.
Like that “push forward” vs. “push back” thing I guess.

[…] Adam . Excerpt: IPS announced today (IPS is the Australian Space Weather Agency) , that it has changed its forecast for Solar Cycle 24, pushing it’s start into the future by six months. They write:. Due to the proximity of the IPS predicted rise of … […]

Rod Smith

Anthony: This is clearly off-topic, but something you should know.
I’m using an Apple iMac w/OS 10.5.4 and Safari 3.1.2 to view this site. I have just noticed that if I hover the cursor over the name of your site in tabs, or of JunkScience.com, or Climate Audit, (and probably others), I get a small yellow pop up label containing the words “Conservative Propaganda.”
Surely, Al Gore, being a board member of Apple’s Board of Directors, wouldn’t stoop to this.
REPLY: Check your email – Anthony

interesting…

Dave Dodd

A WAG is fine as long as it is so identified. When ANY entity (government or otherwise, e.g. AGW wacko) produces a series of WAGs as only “they” have the proper KSAs (knowledge, skills, abilities), they quickly become pompous wags!
— Retired Government Peon

Ray

What is this sudden increase in their model? I guess they have to cheat their model in order to show a bigger activity than cycle 23. Where did they take this? In a box of cracker Jack?

Rod Smith

Apologies to all.
It is a bug in Safari. Sorry I didn’t check further before did a little research.
One would think that my age, one wouldn’t jump to conclusions — and one would be wrong.
This is the first mistake I’ve made in — maybe the past two hours!

Dan McCune

Back in January Hathaway stated that S24 had begun:
“On January 4, 2008, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared—and this signals the start of Solar Cycle 24,” says David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm
I’ve seen a revision of his earlier estimates but never a retraction. Maybe an apology is in order. Can you spell H-O-C-K-E-Y S-T-I-C-K?