Re: Deep Solar Minimum
- --- In GRARA@yahoogroups.com, Hank Greeb <n8xx@...> wrote:
>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.
> 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:
> 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: