Solar Cycle "explained'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11701699/

This is great news about the 11 year sunspot cycle. old vs. new sunspots
and everything in between.

Mike Thomas wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11701699/
This is great news about the 11 year sunspot cycle. old vs. new sunspots
and everything in between.

Further reading . . .

NCAR 3/6/2006 press release
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml

NASA Press release kit to go with the 3/6/2006 NCAR press release with
many cool pics and animations
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/..._graphics.html

A 2004 PowerPoint presentation by Mausumi Dikpati of the National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the author of the newly
announced study, on solar magnetic fields and predicting the solar
cycle:
http://www.hao.ucar.edu/summerschool/lectures/summer_dynamo.pdf#search='Mausumi%20Dikpati%20%20s olar%20cycle'

(3.5 megs)

- Canopus56

"canopus56" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mike Thomas wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11701699/
This is great news about the 11 year sunspot cycle. old vs. new sunspots
and everything in between.

Further reading . . .



why do you feel the need to post twice?

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
news:u09Pf.13690$dg.3593@clgrps13...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11701699/

This is great news about the 11 year sunspot cycle. old vs. new sunspots
and everything in between.

Although the solar cycle duration is actually around 22 years, not 11.

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 14:32:13 -0000, "adm" wrote:

Although the solar cycle duration is actually around 22 years, not 11.

Yes, but the sunspot cycle is 11 years. The underlying 22 year magnetic
cycle is less obvious to casual observation.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"adm" wrote in message
...

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
news:u09Pf.13690$dg.3593@clgrps13...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11701699/

This is great news about the 11 year sunspot cycle. old vs. new sunspots
and everything in between.

Although the solar cycle duration is actually around 22 years, not 11.

Go tell them ...not me. I am just reporting the article. And the vast
majority are quite happy
with the 11 year description because..IT'S WHAT WE SEE !!

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
news:YCiPf.15368$M52.2798@edtnps89...

"adm" wrote in message
...

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
news:u09Pf.13690$dg.3593@clgrps13...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11701699/

This is great news about the 11 year sunspot cycle. old vs. new
sunspots and everything in between.

Although the solar cycle duration is actually around 22 years, not 11.

Go tell them ...not me. I am just reporting the article. And the vast
majority are quite happy
with the 11 year description because..IT'S WHAT WE SEE !!

But we also SEE the sun move through the sky don't we ? And people were
happy with that for years, but it still didn't make it right.

I was just being pedantic.... I just got finished on an astronomy degree
assessment - part of which included a description of the solar cycle.....

Besides pedant hat ON just because we think we see (or don't see)
something, doesn't make it right pedant hat OFF this is a sci newsgroup
after all....

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 21:00:16 -0000, "adm" wrote:

Besides pedant hat ON just because we think we see (or don't see)
something, doesn't make it right pedant hat OFF this is a sci newsgroup
after all....

But if you're going to be pedantic, at least you should get the pedantry
right! g

Mike was correct (as was the article he was forwarding): the sunspot
cycle _is_ an 11 year cycle, not a 22 year cycle.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 21:00:16 -0000, "adm" wrote:

Besides pedant hat ON just because we think we see (or don't see)
something, doesn't make it right pedant hat OFF this is a sci newsgroup
after all....

But if you're going to be pedantic, at least you should get the pedantry
right! g

Mike was correct (as was the article he was forwarding): the sunspot
cycle _is_ an 11 year cycle, not a 22 year cycle.

Aha - BUT (and here's the pedantry) the thread title is "Solar Cycle" and
not "Sunspot Cycle". What's more, the article itself seems to use both terms
interchangeably.

Anyway....enough pedantry.



_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

But we also SEE the sun move through the sky don't we ? And people were
happy with that for years, but it still didn't make it right.

I was just being pedantic.... I just got finished on an astronomy degree
assessment - part of which included a description of the solar cycle.....

Besides pedant hat ON just because we think we see (or don't see)
something, doesn't make it right pedant hat OFF this is a sci newsgroup
after all....


get of the pot and stop splitting hairs.