http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/
The graph below shows Hathaway’s prediction in red, and the counted sunspot numbers in blue.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… saveenergy on What’s At Stake? willys36 on “The world began to end… Morgan Wright on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Climate Homicide saveenergy on Homophobic Gas Walter on Protecting Endangered Species Morgan Wright on Artificial Stupidity
NASA and the IPCC have one thing in common. A divergence problem.
You need to make outrageous projections to assure additional funding for future research.
Based on past performance NASA should be defunded.
@Mike: The problem with the funding is as you say. If it doesnt have an extinction level event ‘worst case scenario’ to excite the funding committees then it doesnt get a look in.
The ‘scenarios’ of NASA’s solar cycle 24 predictions
Date prediction made…..date of min…….forecast pk….. pk date
01/2004- min 1/07, 160 pk
01/2005- min 1/07, 145 pk 2010
01/2006- min 1/07, 145 pk, 2010
01/2007- min 6/07, 145 pk, 2010
03/2008- min 6/08, 130 pk, 2011.5
01/2009- min 1/09, 105 pk, 2012
04/2009- min 4/09, 104 pk, 2013
05/2009- min 5/09, 90 pk, 2013.5
11/2009- min 5/09, <50 pk, 20??
04/2010- min 12/08, 70 pk, 2013.5
06/2010- min 12/08, 65 pk, 2013.5
10/2010- min 12/08, 64 pk, 2013.5
12/2010- min 12/08, 64 pk, 2013.5
04/2011- min 12/08, 62 pk, 2013.5
NASA forecasters 'nailed' the 12/2008 minimum by April, 2010…
Any further word on the NASA whistle blower who claims that NASA over-reported sun spots on pupose to prevent the public from having concerns about a possible deep solar minimum?