Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+RES\:\s+Modern\s+Grand\s+Solar\s+Minimum\s+\(GSM\)\s+from\s+2020\s+to\s+2055\?\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] RES: Modern Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) from 2020 to 2055? (score: 1)
Author: "py5eg" <py5eg@iesa.com.br>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 14:39:57 -0300
Hi Frank I have the same feeling about those predictions 73 Oms PY5EG ATILANO DE OMS PP5EG - PY5EG - PY2OMS ZW5B, PS2T, PT5T ARAUCARIA DX GROUP --Mensagem original-- De: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-06/msg00117.html (9,253 bytes)

2. Re: [CQ-Contest] RES: Modern Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) from 2020 to 2055? (score: 1)
Author: donovanf@starpower.net
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:52:49 -0400 (EDT)
Hello Oms! Can you imagine the lively discussions among the sixty solar cycle experts at the NOAA/NASA conference last April? I suspect few of them agree with the Nature article, but its a refereed a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-06/msg00118.html (9,394 bytes)

3. Re: [CQ-Contest] RES: Modern Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) from 2020 to 2055? (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Shohet, KQ2M" <kq2m@kq2m.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 17:21:53 -0400
Without have read the entire article (it was extremely long and extremely detailed), there are a few things that clearly should be taken into account before accepting their prediction as Gospel: 1) T
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-06/msg00119.html (12,804 bytes)

4. Re: [CQ-Contest] RES: Modern Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) from 2020 to 2055? (score: 1)
Author: Mark - N5OT <r-emails@n5ot.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:34:24 -0500
Hi Frank, My guess is Nature's review board is across a broader range of disciplines than NOAA/NASA. 73 - Mark N5OT Can you imagine the lively discussions among the sixty solar cycle experts at the N
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2019-06/msg00120.html (10,576 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu