[CQ-Contest] Will the next solar cycles be weaker than current Solar Cycle 24?

[John Geiger]

Hi Bob,

It was never my intent to "bash" an entire field or even an individual
scientist.  I am sorry that it came out that way and will try to choose my
words better in the future.  I can't find the original article I read about
the cycle 24 prediction, but here is a link to a presentation showing that
in 2006 one of the predictions for Cycle 24 was that it would have a
sunspot number of 180 which would make it slightly below Cycle 19, but
higher than any other cycle.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Eparvier_SC24_Predictions.pdf

It mentions some of the solar dynamics that I remember the original article
I saw mentioning.  At that time, I do not remember any other predictions
out saying that Cycle 24 would be low or even smaller than Cycle 23.  They
might have been out and I missed them.  I might have only paid attention to
this one because it made Cycle 24 look very promising, and as a DXer with a
small setup, that sounded great!

Again, I was not trying to bash anyone, I was just trying to install a ray
or hope or optimism in what seems like a pessimistic forecast for Cycle 25
(unless you are a low band DXer) by mentioning that not all predictions
come to pass.

73 John AF5CC

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Bob Shohet, KQ2M <kq2m at kq2m.com> wrote:

> What AF5CC 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
>
>
> What the actual article cited by AF5CC said:
>
> “This would make it one of the strongest solar cycles of the past fifty
> years—which is to say, one of the strongest in recorded history.”
>
>
> Their prediction (while inaccurate) is a far cry from what you claimed
> they wrote.
>
> Next time it might be wise to READ the article before you misrepresent
> what it says.  Furthermore, in the future, before you decide to bash* an
> entire field *of highly educated academics and professionals who have
> devoted many years to their study, it would be appropriate to spend the
> time necessary to read and understand the literature in the field on the
> particular topic on which you are commenting, otherwise your opinion on
> that field is based on ignorance and personal bias.  Citing only ONE
> example of something out of dozens or hundreds, as the basis upon which you
> decide to bash the entirety, is both lazy and irresponsible.
>
>
> Bob  KQ2M
>
>
> *From:* John Geiger <af5cc2 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:19 AM
> *To:* David Gilbert <xdavid at cis-broadband.com>
> *Cc:* CQ-Contest Reflector <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] Will the next solar cycles be weaker than
> current Solar Cycle 24?
>
> 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 at 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
>