I believe that you are correct. As I recall, the problem was that the minimum was so prolonged that there was a period of many months where there was discussion back and forth because through those months there were appearances of both polarities with roughly similar numbers bouncing back and forth as to which was predominant. Many proclaimed the start of 24 the very first time there were different polarity spots. Others proclaimed it the first time the new polarity outnumbered the old, but then the balance swung back again. So it all is somewhat relative in this case as there really didn't seem to be a clear cut switchover.
The chart you referenced does seem to bear that out. But since I'm on a roll here, the other factor is that Cycle 23 was anything but normal length, and so one could suggest that there is now less cause to expect that 24 will suddenly revert to the norm. If for instance 24 were also elongated, the peak *might* be delayed. Russ Edmunds 15 mi NNW of Philadelphia Grid FN20id <[email protected]> FM: Yamaha T-80 & Onkyo T-450RDS w/ APS9B @15'; Grundig G8 AM: Modified Sony ICF 2010's barefoot --- On Thu, 5/3/12, Nick Hall-Patch <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Nick Hall-Patch <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [IRCA] latest solar cycle prediction > To: "Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America" > <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012, 6:42 PM > There is no question that we won't > know until after it's happened, Russ, and that their > previous predictions have failed to warn us of the slow > take-off of this cycle, if I recall > correctly. But as far as the date of the > minimum, doesn't that have something to do with the number > of sunspots of one cycle becoming outnumbered by the > sunspots of the next cycle? (they > have reversed magnetic polarity). > > http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png > with its blue and orange data points indicating the sunspots > from different cycles, seems to indicate that the minimum > occurred somewhere around three years ago. > > best wishes, > > Nick > > > At 20:36 03-05-12, you wrote: > > That is all well and good, but since the experts took > nearly two years deciding whether or not we had entered > Cycle 24, and ultimately deciding we had done so a year or > so prior, IMHO this is either 1) a perception of the obvious > at present which is potentially pretty accurate or 2) a > prediction which will prove to be wrong in a year or so. > > > > I am reluctant to accept that we are 3 years into Cycle > 24, and that's the assumption the prediction is based on, > partially based on my comments above. If I am correct, then > the maximum may not be hit until a year or perhaps more > beyond what is predicted here., and as a result, the number > predicted is probably low. > > > > > > Russ Edmunds > > 15 mi NNW of Philadelphia > > Grid FN20id > > <[email protected]> > > FM: Yamaha T-80 & Onkyo T-450RDS w/ APS9B @15'; > Grundig G8 > > AM: Modified Sony ICF 2010's barefoot > > > > > > --- On Thu, 5/3/12, Nick Hall-Patch <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > From: Nick Hall-Patch <[email protected]> > > > Subject: [IRCA] latest solar cycle prediction > > > To: "Mailing list for the International Radio Club > of America" <[email protected]> > > > Date: Thursday, May 3, 2012, 2:48 PM > > > NASA's latest solar maximum > > > prediction: > > > > > > > > > http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml > > > > > > > > > N > > > _______________________________________________ > IRCA mailing list > [email protected] > http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca > > Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are > those of the original contributors and do not necessarily > reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing > staff, or officers > > For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org > > To Post a message: [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ IRCA mailing list [email protected] http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org To Post a message: [email protected]
