Solar Cycle 24.....The Maximum that never was ?, page 1

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 28-12-2012 @ 05:19 PM by solargeddon

Solar cycle 24, has been somewhat unpredictable, and this looks set to continue if today's update on spaceweather.com is anything to go by.

2013 is only days away, and according to most forecasters, Solar Max should be approaching as well. But is it? Barely-increasing sunspot counts and anemic solar activity suggest an interesting possibility: Perhaps Solar Max is already here. This plot of measured vs. predicted sunspot numbers illustrates the idea:

So the lastest update really is anyone's guess, as to whether there will be an uptick in activity coming in 2013.

Should the maximum not become clearly forthcoming, does this mean solar cycle 24 will go down on record as a minimum anomally such as the Dalton, or Maunder minimum?

I certainly think it will go down as one of the more interesting on record, if not for anything other than being the "Solar cycle that kept us guessing."

So don't be too sure about seeing that "Kill Shot" or killer flare this coming year, it isn't necessarilly on the cards...Or is it ?!

So is the our sun about to get spottier ?

Only time will tell.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 05:26 PM by alfa1

Originally posted by solargeddon
Should the maximum not become clearly forthcoming, does this mean solar cycle 24 will go down on record as a minimum anomally such as the Dalton, or Maunder minimum?

The numbers arent so low as to be that dramatic as to compare it with the "Maunder Minimum", but its certainly a lot lower than everyone expected.

I do recall towards the end of the last cycle that a lot of people were saying this next one would be HUGE and all the killer solar flare wouldnt take out all the satellites, wreck the electricity grids, Carrington event...so forth...

Here is one such doomsday article from the end of the previous cycle.

Since then its been a run of "maybe a bit lower than that."
Maybe a bit lower than that.
Maybe a bit lower than that.

edit on 28-12-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 05:42 PM by solargeddon

reply to post by alfa1

No-one has said there would be a kill shot per se, but it has been inferred at some point by doom mongers somewhere along the line.

To put it all in context, this certainly is an interesting cycle in terms of the last 100 years (unless you can find a more interesting one).

I agree it won't be on the scale of the other famous minimums, but it is interesting how little of an exact science sun monitoring can be, given the revisions to their predictions.

Be interesting going forward to see what the next solar cycle is like ?

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 05:52 PM by alfa1

Originally posted by solargeddon
To put it all in context, this certainly is an interesting cycle in terms of the last 100 years (unless you can find a more interesting one).
Be interesting going forward to see what the next solar cycle is like ?

Looking through the numbvers for previous cycles, it certainly looks as if it peaks where it is now (about 65 - 70), then it will be the lowest for the last hundred years.

Low peaks dont seem to come singular by themselves, so maybe we're entering another Dalton Minimum.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 06:07 PM by solargeddon

reply to post by alfa1

I guess that is the suck it and see part of this whole thing, and right on point to what I am trying to say.

Presently going forward I can see three scenario's.

1) An uptick in activity in 2013, resulting in reaching solar maximum.

2) Activity remains at its current level, and/or deteriorates.

3) From the source:

There is still a strong chance that Cycle 24 will rebound and peak in 2013 as expected. It might even be a double-peaked cycle like the cycle before it.

Of course there may be more scenario's than this, but one of these looks most likely.

Although it's to early to tell, I certainly think we have to keep in mind this could be the beginnings of a build toward a future Dalton minimum solar cycle.

edit on 28-12-2012 by solargeddon because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 06:58 PM by xxdaniel21

Well the average temp this week over christmas (western australia) was 40-42 degrees c. so it bloody well felt like it

haha i'll leave it up to the experts though.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 07:07 PM by smurfy

2013 is the surmised peak for sunspot activity, the numbers within a cycle are just that, with most expected at the end of the cycle, and that is the maximum. After that it is expected to decrease. Sunspots have been observed for a long time although not understood until, (at least as we know it) from the 1600's which is a relatively short time span, and understood as the 11/14 year solar cycle itself.
That makes the idea a bit singular or routine, and over much longer periods that we have no clue of, doesn't amount to much thus far.

reply posted on 29-12-2012 @ 11:19 AM by Phage

The progression of Solar cycle 24 is falling within the predicted levels, with solar max to occur in mid-late 2013.

Spaceweather.com tends to lean a bit to the sensationalistic side.

reply posted on 29-12-2012 @ 11:38 AM by rickymouse

We still have a while for this cycle to peak. Nobody knows for sure what it will do. This is the fourty four year cycle but isn't acting like it. Maybe it will be a wimp and maybe it is just starting. I'm waiting to find out.

You don't need a big solar cycle to throw out a flare that ruins electronics. You need a big flare or multiple midsize flares and a weak magnetic field. I think that the Northern Lights are going to be around for a while myself. That's good, I haven't gotten to see a great show yet.

reply posted on 29-12-2012 @ 11:43 AM by Phage

reply to post by rickymouse

You don't need a big solar cycle to throw out a flare that ruins electronics. You need a big flare or multiple midsize flares and a weak magnetic field.

Solar flares don't affect electronics and they are unaffected by magnetic fields. Perhaps you are talking about CMEs? CMEs don't affect electronics either.

Since geomagnetic storms are caused by the effects of a CME on the Earth's magnetic field, a "weak" magnetic field would result in a "weak" geomagnetic storm.

What "forty four year cycle"?

edit on 12/29/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-12-2012 @ 02:37 PM by rickymouse

reply to post by Phage

Something I ran into before about some cycle. My computer won't open internet PDF files for some reason, I have to buy a newer computer one of these days. This may be one of the sites I looked at but without opening it I don't know if it is. I'll keep searching, I spent a whole day investigating the 44 yr cycle a while back to see how it was related to storms in my local area.digital.library.okstate.edu... Not sure if this is it or not, Windows 2000 is not supported by some things anymore

If I remember right, a cycle of something else lines up with a cycle of the sun every four cycles.

edit on 29-12-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-12-2012 @ 03:02 PM by Phage

reply to post by rickymouse

Oh. An idea about planetary "alignments" causing solar activity. There seem to be an awful lot of such alignments.
digital.library.okstate.edu...

reply posted on 29-12-2012 @ 03:29 PM by rickymouse

reply to post by Phage

I researched our weather here in the Upper Peninsula and noticed our worst winters were right after the solar max. I only went back about a hundred twenty years. I also noticed every four cycles we had more bad storms. This is why I was researching that. I was following a pattern that emerged trying to find out why. This pattern only seems to follow around the great lakes for some strange reason. To most of the country it has no value, but I live here. The solar minimum this last time was longer also, pushing us farther away from lining up the beginning of the solar minimum this time with the alignment. I don't think we are going to get hit so hard this time as in around 62

edit on 29-12-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

Pages: ^^TOP^^