Cycle 23 peaked lower than Cycle 22, which peaked lower than Cycle 21. I say the trend continues. How about you? Think we ll see another double-peak cycle?Message 1 of 6 , Dec 20 6:35 PMView SourceCycle 23 peaked lower than Cycle 22, which peaked lower than Cycle 21.
I say the trend continues. How about you? Think we'll see another
... 21. ... I will officially be making a Cycle 24 forecast some time in late 2006 but I will have to rely on the memory of my extensive sunspot cycle researchMessage 1 of 6 , Dec 22 4:20 AMView Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "David" <b1blancer1@e...>
> Cycle 23 peaked lower than Cycle 22, which peaked lower than Cycle
> I say the trend continues. How about you? Think we'll see anotherI will officially be making a Cycle 24 forecast some time in late 2006
> double-peak cycle?
but I will have to rely on the memory of my extensive sunspot cycle
research in the mid 90's if you want one now.
I thought that Gleisberg Cycle's would bottom out with higher lows
between now and 2500 AD and this is why Cycle 23, while low, was not
all that low, compared to the prior cycle activity early last century.
So Cycle 24 should not be much lower than 23 and I think it has a very
good chance of exceeding 23. Let's watch how the magnetic strength of
the poles changes throughout 2006.
A double peak looks likely when you take into consideration the
current cycle length and the planets effect upon this. You would
probably need to see Cycle 23's length either reach or exceed the 13
year mark for this pattern to change.
... location ... the ... 3-6 ... up ... pushed ... from ... later. ... Well we would be seeing a fairly high smoothed monthly low then around solar minimum.Message 1 of 6 , Dec 22 4:33 AMView Source--- In email@example.com, "David" <b1blancer1@e...>
> > David,
> > Region 835 is not a reverse polarity group so it's latitude
> > is somewhat meaningless. Plus N18 is no big deal. There probablythe
> > have been about 7-10 this year already with a higher latitude.
> > Although I have not seen one in the past 2-3 months or more.
> > The new groups will eventually start showing up in the 25-35
> > latitude range or even higher. Now there have been a few reverse
> > polarity groups already in the past year or so but they were at
> > lower latitudes.3-6
> > I thought July 2007 could end up being solar minimum so we could
> > very well start to see some new cycle groups show up in the next
> > months. A few of the recent sunspot cycles had new groups showup
> > about 12-18 months before minimum. The time frame would bepushed
> > back of course if the next minimum was much later than Julyfrom
> > 2007.
> According to this, the minimum is supposed to come about a year
> now. Personally, and this is just a hunch with no hard evidence tolater.
> back it up, I think we're going to see it earlier rather than
around solar minimum. Cycle 19 had that and we saw the highest
sunspot activity level ever. I would hate to rely on this one
example as a forecasting parameter but OTOH I might give it some
weight since I think the overall long term cycle pattern points
towards an increase. We could end up seeing a good light show David
if your thoughts are correct.