CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] At least four more years of solar minimum?

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] At least four more years of solar minimum?
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 12:29:37 -0700
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

Very interesting.  That prediction, if accurate, would give a cycle duration of at least 14 years instead of the nominal 11 years.  I can't find anything in the historical record that would indicate such a drastic deviation.  The only possible exception I could find is that the first cycle coming out of the Maunder Minimum looks like it may have been significantly longer than 11 years ... the data preceding the Maunder Minimum looks too sketchy to tell.  Hopefully that's not where we're headed.

It just seems that the NASA projection sounds more like a "we don't really know" proposition more than anything else.  That's certainly fair at this point, but I'm not going to take down my tribander based upon it.  ;)

73,
Dave   AB7E


On 12/7/2018 10:50 PM, donovanf@starpower.net wrote:

NOAA updated its predictions for smoothed sunspot numbers and solar flux 
through the end of 2022. As of last month, their predictions ended in 2019.
Their prediction shows a smoothed sunspot number of 10 for December 2018, 
declining to 2 in July 2020 through January 2021, then 1 during February 2021 
through January 2022, and 0 after that and through at least the end of 2022.
www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
I hate predictions, especially about the future...
73
Frank
W3LPL

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>