Solar Cycle 24 has ended according to NASA. Yes you read that right. Somebody at NASA can’t even figure out which solar cycle they are talking about. Or, as commenters to the thread have pointed out, perhaps they see that cycle 24 has been skipped. We’ll be watching this one to see the outcome. – Anthony
Michael Ronanye writes in comments:
NASA has just changed the name of the project from Solar Cycle 23 to Solar Cycle 24. I would love to have attended that meeting.
B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 24
Clarified March 10, 2009: All references to “Solar Cycle 23″ have been updated to “Solar Cycle 24.” Reference in Section 1 to “Solar Cycle 22″ has been updated to “Solar Cycle 23.”
See the changed text here:
Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 24
Talk about Freudian Slips, what Solar Cycle is it anyway? No wonder they can’t make predications!
But it gets even better. NASA has just declared that Solar Cycle 24 is over. Read the first paragraph in the above PDF:
1. Scope of Program
In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 24. As this cycle comes to an end we are recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in records of both solar activity and the response to it of the terrestrial space environment.
Obviously someone made an error when editing the text of the original document and did not catch their mistake. Quick, make your own backup copy of this “Great Moment in Science”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Cycle 23 (24?) correlates with the DOW pretty well. I’ve heard the Dark Ages were not that prosperous.
Richard Sharpe (13:19:18) :
“measured in parts per million and currently stands at around 380, so that would be measured in the 10,000s”
So CO2 should be measured in pptt?
When my car is MOTed I get a CO2 readout showing how many millionths, which usually says trace.
CO2 is currently 387 ppm.
I am sure the “m” stands for million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
But at the end of the day it just shows how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere.
Skeptic, you should have visited earlier as there were posts about the Australian fires that were very interesting indeed.
But if you are looking for gems such as this documented, precise, insightful prediction from David Karoly, Professor of Meteorology at U of Melbourne “An increase in fire danger in Australia is likely to be associated with a reduced interval between fires, increased fire intensity, a decrease in fire extinguishments and faster fire spread. In south-east Australia, the frequency of very high and extreme fire danger days is likely to rise 4-25% by 2020 and 15-70% by 2050.”, only realscientists can deliver them!
Mr./Ms. Skeptic,
I am very much a climate science laymen and in particular a solar science laymen, and I very much appreciate the discussions that take place in the various threads of this blog. You seem to be a very condescending type of individual, perhaps a bit narcissistic as well. I respect others that acknowledge their own ignorance and who show an interest in learning from others. You clearly are not one of these individuals. I find this blog extremely valuable for the development of my own knowledge and would respectfully ask that you refrain from blind attacks and instead contribute thoughtful discussion. Perhaps there is something that I can learn from you? Thus far your expressions are precisely those I work to avoid (a primary reason I read this blog as opposed to others), as they have nothing to contribute to intellectual conversation. Perhaps “discussion” is precisely the talent you lack?
Mr. Scharpe is not so sharp. You said the same thing two ways. 380 millionths is the same as 3.8 ten thousandths. Measure it any way you wish, it is the same thing. You seem to agree. “I think the first of these is measured in parts per million” So, what exactly is your point?
385 pp million = 0.385 pp thousand = 0.0385 pp hundred = 0.0385% by volume (not weight).
Water vapor varies between 0 and 4% – reducing vertically through the troposphere and laterally towards the poles.
Squidly (14:10:44) :
I second that.
Details, details, details…
This’ll probably get ’em a few million more $$ in funding. In business, you screw up you may find your department’s funding cut; only in government will screw ups result in additional funding.
Besides, we know what they really meant to say, even if they don’t…
As a human life measured in solar cycles looks very short, I suddenly feel old.
Is the solar cycle 24 still alive? or NASA deleted it
skeptic (11:18:35) :
Submitted under Categories : Science, fun_stuff, ridiculae, solar
Please don’t let us hold you up from attending your next protest meeting. The planet needs you.
Does a missed cycle mean the sun might be pregnant?
October 2008 temp data pathetically wrong, unacceptably wrong. Now this “typo”.
WTF! excuse my language.
But,
WHERE IS THE NASA THAT PUT MEN ON THE MOON???
who knows, maybe NASA did it on purpose to see what the reaction at WUWT would be.
Here’s one commenters reaction :
WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP EMBARRASSING AMERICA IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE WORLD!!
Please go back to the NASA that made the world stand still.
Anthony recheck source of this story apparently NOT at NASA page see/refer kevin at solar 24
“red432 (16:24:25) :
Does a missed cycle mean the sun might be pregnant?”
This caused the best laugh I’ve had in a long time. Thanks red!
To me, the content of your post seems to be like a scientific version of astrology. I’m not a friend of fortune-tellers but I liked it. Just thinking to publish that image in my own blog.
Best regards!
380 ppm is nothing to worry about. A working limit of 5000ppm for a 40 hour week, industry standard. Have worked in 1000-2000 ppm atmospheres and above.
Nothing to report, you can’t tell.
Someone posted on SolarCycle24 dot com that the report of a cancelled SC24 was a hoax site.
No need to needle NASA.
Just cancel AGW and Cap & Trade.
Create a new industry that manufactures particulate, S02 and Mercury emission add-on scrubbers for power plants.
Let the plants eat the C02. -burp-.
Skeptic’s participation could be incredibly valuable to the discussion here. Perhaps he/she could break with the usual AGW crowd and inform us of a metric that would disprove a connection between human emission of a portion of atmospheric CO2 and catastrophic warming. Or, perhaps he/she could point us to the research demonstrating why the Sahara Desert was a grassland during the Holocene Optimum instead of a desert (and, to the same end, why a warmer Earth would not be characterized by fewer droughts). Skeptic seems willing to converse, and if he/she would advance a position in either of these respects, it might incite considerable productive exchange throughout whatever Solar Cycle we find ourselves in.
Jerker Andersson (12:01:04) :
You can generate a chart at the botom of the page ranging from 1964 to present.
If you create an Oulu graph from 1964 to now, it looks to show that we have broken through the so called solar floor?
Nasa needs to redo the heading completely…it doesnt make sense. Perhaps it should read:
CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE GRAND MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 24
NASA duely deemed the revisions between solar cycles. This has no connection with reality, truth or science. NASA is now official spokesman for the Ministry of Truth.
In a word: A Global Mini-Ice Age is coming in the next decade.
As I choke down past words!!! LOL
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/non-refereed2/ESA_SP477_lostcycle.pdf
Standard numbering New numbering
# min max # min max
4 1784.3 1788.4 3’ 1784.3 1788.4
1793.1¤ 4′ 1795¤
5 1798.7 1802 5 1799.8¤ 1802.5¤
6 1810.8 1817.1 6 1810.8 1817.1
7 1823 1829.6 7 1823 1829.6
Leif?
You said ” short cycles = less TSI” and I said ” long cycles were cooler”
Cough, cough, choke, err uhm swallowing hard… LOL
I hate it when I am WRONG! bangs head on table…..
That then means this cycle 24 might be 3-5 years… getting VERY interesting indeed!
Thank You Leif
much humbled Tim
The F 10.7 flux was 71 recently, now 69. Is 68 possible? Or all the way back to 65?
The minimum is not necessarily in yet. The rise over the last six months may have been largely orbital.