Comments on: Place your bets for SC24

By: John A. Jauregui

John A. Jauregui — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 06:15:01 +0000

I like your 10 step program, two less than AA. But it apparently works for politicians, particularly Al (Baby) Gore.

By: Gary Gulrud

Gary Gulrud — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:19:35 +0000

Dave’s latest paper,

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

reveals on page 12 his use of Jan Janssen’s work as his secret ingredient for the prediction at the head of the list above.
He did lower his maximum SSN to 45 though so I’m maintaining confidence in my forecast, for now.

By: doug

doug — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:16:08 +0000

Although cycle 24 has “officially” started with sunspot #981 being high and polarity reversed, it was small and faded very quickly. We are now at blank again, and I expect it will be slow to climb to a weak peak. Has anyone noticed that the sun’s magnetic conveyor belt is all but moving compared to observable history? This is the belt that moves these sunspots to the surface of the sun. Think about it.

By: John A

John A — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:46:38 +0000

PM:

Why is this aspect no widely dispersed?

A: Because it cannot be blamed on ExxonMobil and there’s no money to be derived from it.

By: paul marchand

paul marchand — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:36:50 +0000

Any comments by yall on oceanic heat retention (due solar radiation absorption, and the heat capacity of seas)as being indicative of the solar effect, via seas, on polar ice melting, from “below”, versus “greenhouse” aspects?
Also, Dr. Judith Lean put forth an assessment that (if I recall correctly) solar variation is + .4% since Maunder. Being that this is direct effect, enhanced by reduced cosmic rays/reduced cloudcover
versus
CO2 augmentation in the past circa 150 yrs being only about .02%
Q: why is this aspect not widely dispersed?
Thanks
PM

By: John A

John A — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:24:50 +0000

I’ve started reading “The Chilling Stars” but I haven’t finished it yet.

By: Dr. Francis T. Manns

Dr. Francis T. Manns — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 03:51:46 +0000

John A. Please look at cycles 22 and 23, particularly the monthly averages and the raw data.

Pers. Comm. NASA told me that 22 was bimodal. I saw 23 for myself.

Having two cycles superimposed may not fit the model, so that’s the place to tease out the cause-effect. Moreover, a long broad bimodal peak is consistent with the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Centre for natural climate change due to fluctuating solar cyclicity. Check their excellent web site. Read “The Chilling Stars”.

By: ben

ben — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 03:35:57 +0000

Minimum in Jan, 2008, oh and big meteorite storm same month (from direction in sky roughly where Jupiter will appear) and, umm, just let me take another sip from Nostradamus’ skull… gulp …aaahhh, yes, current pope will die same month.
Then atomic bomb on June 4th ‘cos sunspot minimum makes people lazy and not paying attention.
Ah, well, what canyado?

By: John A

John A — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:02:34 +0000

Dr Francis:

The last two cycles have been bimodal so it looks like NASA can suck and blow with the next â€˜cycleâ€™

Yes, but not that much surely? Being that bi-modal would almost be like having two half cycles in 11-years. It may be allowed by Fourier but would be unprecedented.

(Damn, I’m using the U-word!)

By: Dr. Francis T. Manns

Dr. Francis T. Manns — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:03:32 +0000

The last two cycles have been bimodal so it looks like NASA can suck and blow with the next ‘cycle’.