In many science fields, unfortunately only the flashiest and most unusual
results get reported to (and over hyped by) the popular press. Read for example
the consensus statement of the panel prediction at the time:
http://legacy-www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Statement_01.html
http://legacy-www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html
Tor
N4OGW
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 11/16/17, John Geiger <af5cc2@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Will the next solar cycles be weaker than current
Solar Cycle 24?
To: "David Gilbert" <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Cc: "CQ-Contest Reflector" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017, 9:19 AM
Here is one story on the
incorrect prediction:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/
73 John AF5CC
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:06
AM, David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
wrote:
>
> I don't remember that at all. I saw
a lot of different forecasts, and
> none
claimed that Cycle 24 was going to be a record.
>
> Here is a link to a
pdf file from 2008 that summarized fifty (50!)
> different forecasts for Cycle 24.
>
> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11207-008-9252-2.pdf
>
> * Roughly 80% of
those 50 forecasts predicted a maximum of 140 or less,
> compared to the maximum for Cycle 23 of
180.
>
> * The
highest of any the 50 predictions for Cycle 24 was about 185
...
> roughly even with Cycle 23 and well
below Cycle 19's record figure of 250.
>
> * The average for
all 50 predictions was a peak of 115, while the actual
> peak for Cycle 24 was 116.
>
> Bashing scientists
seems to be great sport in some circles, but I'll
take
> their word any day over that of
someone that didn't even bother to fact
> check their own comment. That seems to
be a common theme in general
>
nowadays.
>
> Dave
AB7E
>
>
>
> On 11/15/2017 4:35
PM, John Geiger wrote:
>
>> If you remember near the end of Cycle
23, scientists were predicting that
>>
Cycle 24 might be the largest one on record. Shows how
good their
>> predictions are.
>>
>> 73 John
AF5CC
>>
>> On
Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>
wrote:
>>
>>
Hopefully they are not the same so named scientists that
guessed the world
>>> was going to
heat up due to man made pollution.
>>>
>>>
Doug
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> Our
scientists, physicists and engineers may enjoy this recent
article:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.04117.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> It predicts that upcoming Solar
Cycle 25 will be weaker than current
>>> Solar Cycle 24. It also predicts
that Solar Cycle 26 in the 2030s will
>>> be about the same as Solar Cycle
25
>>>
>>>
>>> Those
of us that can hang on for another 30 years are forecast
to
>>> e njoy a stronger Solar
Cycle 27. Solar Cycles 28 (in the 2050s)
>>> and 29 (in the 2060s) are forecast
to be even stronger...
>>>
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Frank
>>>
W3LPL
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|