Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Deep Solar Minimum

Expand Messages
  • Hank Greeb
    Note, even though this one is dated April 1, 2009, it isn t an April Fool joke - unless NASA is forging data. Anyone have data to contradict these findings?
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Note, even though this one is dated April 1, 2009, it isn't an April
      Fool joke - unless NASA is forging data. Anyone have data to contradict
      these findings?

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

      April 1, 2009: The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock
      market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.

      2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's
      366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all
      the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days.. See:
      http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/deepsolarminimum/centuryplot_gif2.gif
      Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle
      had hit bottom in 2008.

      Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March
      31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87%).

      It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very
      deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard
      Space Flight Center.

      "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees
      sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

      more at:
      http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm?list195060
    • W8GL
      ... Glad I don t have to depend on solar activity to QSO on CQ100! I d have a long gray beard before I ever got WAS if I waited for the elusive: Cycle 24 all
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In GRARA@yahoogroups.com, Hank Greeb <n8xx@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Note, even though this one is dated April 1, 2009, it isn't an April
        > Fool joke - unless NASA is forging data. Anyone have data to contradict
        > these findings?
        >
        > =========================
        >
        > April 1, 2009: The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock
        > market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.
        >
        > 2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's
        > 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all
        > the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days.. See:
        > http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/deepsolarminimum/centuryplot_gif2.gif
        > Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle
        > had hit bottom in 2008.
        >
        > Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March
        > 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87%).
        >
        > It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very
        > deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard
        > Space Flight Center.
        >
        > "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees
        > sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
        >
        > more at:
        > http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm?list195060
        >

        Glad I don't have to depend on solar activity to QSO on CQ100! I'd have a long gray beard before I ever got WAS if I waited for the elusive: "Cycle 24" all you nay-sayers keep fantacising about.
        W8GLguitarGARY
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.