Talk:Solar cycle 24

A mess
This article is a mess.

Most of the article is about "the big breach in the Magnetic field", which doesn't even really belong in this article. The hole was found near the beginning of this solar cycle, but otherwise it has nothing to do with the solar cycle.

Unless there is a good argument connecting the two, I plan to remove the breach stuff from this article. Crumley (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The information is relevant to the article because NASA asserts that Solar Cycle 24 will be qualitatively different due to the breach. I rewrote the material a bit so that it better relates to the context presented here. —  C M B J   08:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"NASA asserts that Solar Cycle 24 will be qualitatively different due to the breach." I'm afraid that is your assertion, not NASA's. The mechanism for solar wind plasma entering the magnetosphere during northward IMF is not new just because it wasn't discovered until recently - it's been at work all the time and will be no different for cycle 24. I removed the part about the breach (again?) because, as Crumley pointed out, it doesn't relate to solar activity or cycle 24. Furthermore a couple of the associated links were full of misinterpretation (giving the impression that severe solar activity is expected in 2013). Flyvholm (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In the cited NASA article, a space physicist from the University of New Hampshire is quoted as saying: "'We're entering Solar Cycle 24. For reasons not fully understood, CMEs in even-numbered solar cycles (like 24) tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such a CME should open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma just before the storm gets underway. It's the perfect sequence for a really big event.'"
 * I'm not an expert in physics or anything, but in this statement it appears he is indeed "asserting that solar cycle 24 will be qualitatively different due to the breach."


 * That being said, the Telegraph article looks like it was written to provoke emotional response about a "huge space storm" rather than rational thinking, and it has nothing to do with the breach. Likewise with the Slashdot article, which I don't consider to be a reliable source anyway. The Kaku article points out that "The report, however, is careful to say that this may in fact not happen." It is certainly safe to say that "a couple of the associated links were full of misinterpretation," and they should be removed.


 * Finally, most of this information is relatively old and contradicts some new information that is related to the magnetosphere. It ought to be updated, instead of inciting edit wars. -- Sweet Nightmares  (awaken)  20:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Solar minimum
This needs to be integrated. —  C M B J  11:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sunspot disagreement
I recently made a change to this article in accordance with WP:BOLD. In it, I removed obsolete information and a citation from 2008. NASA (which is where the MPR article got its information) has since updated its findings, and I have changed the article accordingly. I also see no need for expansion on the section entitled "predictions," because frankly there isn't much to say about it. SweetNightmares (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Potential material for "predictions" section
A CBC article explained that scientists think the sun may be going into a sort of hibernation, since sunspots have been so far below the predictions. Is this information pertinent to this Wikipedia page? -- Sweet Nightmares  (awaken)  02:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically their predictions are about solar cycle 25, so not as relevant to these predictions. However, relevant to this cycle as it advances and implications for #25. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Identifying Imaging Techniques and Recreations
This article has a couple of examples of a problem which is becoming increasing common: the use of wonderous images to inform scientific understanding fail to inform or create false understandings because the technique or technology used to create the image is not identified.

The image labled "The 2008 breach of Earth's magnetic shield" is framed and labled as a graph, but it is also an enticing image without explanation for the various colors and other details that appear. It is not clear if this is perhaps a thermal image imprinted directly from the actual energy impulses of the event or a recharacterization of the data gathered by some other means.

The image labled "NASA sunspot number predictions for Solar cycle 23 and 24" seems to be a combination of two things: a graph correlating the predicted numbers of sunspots with a set of years and an image which is probably the corona of the sun. The graph is easy, but the red/yellow/orange ball is not explained: it is probably an example of sunspot activity, but is not labled as such nor is there an indication of whether this is an actual photograph, enhanced or composite.

Our capability to produce photographic images of real world phenomena is expanding tremendously so that it is possible more than ever before to show a photograph of something microscopic or extremely far away and say "this is what it actually looks like". At the same time, our ability to create virtual images is better than ever and separating the two kinds of images is becoming more difficult. The expert in a given field may recognize every image and know the limits of capturing real world impressions but the content on wikipedia should be informative to the amateur as well. Eemstewart (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

WTF?
If I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:May_2011_Solar_Cycle_24_Prediction.gif correctly, the observed sunspot number *already* exceeds the maximum predicted. Whats up? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, its teh difference between the *smoothed* number and the actual number William M. Connolley (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Continues to...
I removed


 * The cycle continues to fall below predictions and is currently exhibiting 70% lower sunspot activity than originally predicted in May 2009. 

because I'm doubtful that its true, and it certainly isn't supported by the ref (the 2009 prediction quoted only predicts the max, for 2013, which of course we currently don't know) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I partially disagree with this removal. The statement may be badly referenced, but the cycle is certainly not meeting the expectations of sunspot activity. --Zarateman (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if you can find a better ref... William M. Connolley (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The 2009 prediction was 90 sunspots. The current prediction is 63. 63/90=70%. Though it may not be stated explicitly, it is supported by the reference. - Sweet Nightmares  20:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that is the current prediction of the max. Its not "currently exhibiting 70% lower sunspot activity than originally predicted in May 2009" which is something entirely different William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90." The ISES prediction from 2009 was also about the maximum sunspot number. However, we should use ISES numbers for the calculation, as they have different methodology, but I haven't bothered to look for their current predictions, as NASA's seem to be the most solid. - Sweet Nightmares  23:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe prior to intercycle minimum, SC24 was expected to be larger than SC23 by a substantial amount. Predicting prior to minimum is tricky. Predicting 3 years after minimum is much more accurate. I would put a lot of weight on predictions for SC24 maximums today. The interesting thing is that there were models in 2004 that predicted SC24 would be the smallest cycle in 100 years and they seem to be playing out. NASA I believe was predicting 20% larger than SC23 at the time. There used to be an animated gif of the NASA prediction out there. Haven't seen it in a while though. --DHeyward (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L01104, doi:10.1029/2004GL021664, 2005 if anyone has access. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

illustrates two camps. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

an oldie but a goodie. :) --DHeyward (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the graph --DHeyward (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "According to their analysis, the next Solar Maximum should peak around 2010 with a sunspot number of 160 plus or minus 25." Hahaha! Just goes to show that we're still in relatively uncharted territory here. :) - Sweet Nightmares  00:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh yes. there are thos predicting spots will disappear in the next cycle now.  It seems a bit of a stretch.  But compare this prediction  in 2005 to NASA's 160 around the same time frame.  Now copmare it to NASA's current statement here .  Yet no avknowledgement of method used in 2005.  Consensus was split 50/50 by the the time the minimum had extended beyond NASA prediction (2007) but before that, the heavy hitter all predicted big.

2005 prediction using magnetic pole difference at minimum: "Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years?"

2006 update by NASA: "Solar cycle 24, looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,"

2012 NASA update: "We are currently over three years into Cycle 24.   The current predicted size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle in about 100 years." --DHeyward (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

NASA owned consensus until about 2007 when the delayed onset of SC24 made a few scientists balk. The minority opinion became more mainstream and the two camps were about evenly split on the panel. Long memory camps such as NASA were "big" number. short memor camp was small numbers. I thought it was interesting that the latest NASA prediction used the same "smallest in 100 years" as a paper they disagreed with in 2005. --DHeyward (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment
Im surprised with the apparently limited activity in the edition of this article. Im afraid it could be the most important article in Wikipedia's history. Time to time.--Zarateman (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? - Sweet Nightmares  20:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what Zarateman means by "the most important article in Wikipedia's history. Time to time" but I would agree that the limited activity here is surprising, given how this seems to be shaping up to be quite a notable solar cycle. The BBC seem to have picked up on this: Is our Sun falling silent? and taking the line that we might go into a new period like the Maunder minimum. I have done my bit by updating the sunspot data to December.--NHSavage (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ends on a cliffhanger
May 2013 and the X-Flares then ... nothing. What happened next? I gots to know! :-D 78.149.18.53 (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. Needs updating. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
Is this statement in the opening paragraph still true?

"It is on track to be the Solar Cycle with the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750."

At the very least, I think there needs to be a citation to support that claim. Sunspot activity is certainly down from the preceding seven solar cycles, but it doesn't appear to be much lower than #16, #14 & #12, and from eyeballing it looks higher than #5 & #6 (during the Dalton Minimum). NCdave (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What do y'all think of changing that sentence to this?


 * "It is on track to be the solar cycle with the lowest recorded sunspot activity since at least Solar cycle 16 (which peaked in 1928), and perhaps since Solar cycle 6 (which peaked in 1816, during the Dalton Minimum)."


 * NCdave (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It ended up being the smallest maximum since cycle 14, which is over 100 years ago, so if someone wants to throw that into the article that would be fine. Jozsefs (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Revised start of Solar Cycle 24
It appears the date of January 2008 for the end of solar cycle 23 and the start of solar cycle 24, has been updated. I've encountered many more recent sources which state that the solar minimum occurred in December 2008, marking the end of Cycle 23 and the start of Cycle 24. Here is a link to a NOAA press release: http://www.spaceweather.com/headlines/y2009/08may_noaaprediction.htm Also note in the last paragraph of this NOAA page: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/sunspotssolar-cycle Here is a link to a peer reviewed paper:

This article along with several similar articles need to be edited to show the correct month. Bernie In Chicago (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Solar cycle 24. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120130050556/http://www.swpc.noaa.gov:80/SolarCycle/SC24/Statement_01.html to http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Statement_01.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120116190842/http://www.solarham.com:80/top10.txt to http://solarham.com/top10.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120513130357/http://solarham.com/averages.txt to http://www.solarham.com/averages.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131109012010/http://underthemountainbunker.com/2012/01/23/noaa-goes-satellite-image-of-largest-solar-radiation-storm-since-2005/ to http://underthemountainbunker.com/2012/01/23/noaa-goes-satellite-image-of-largest-solar-radiation-storm-since-2005/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

What's Happening?
On 3 June 2016, after a quiet period marked by few spots, though some were rather large. the sun's disc was completely clear of sunspots. Is this peculiar cycle heading for an early end? Are there any predictions or interpretations of what is happening? Stub Mandrel (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Solar cycle 24. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/archive/current_month.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Update Sunspot Graph
Newbie here wanting to update the sunspot graph (second picture from top, right hand side) Source: https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Cycle22Cycle23Cycle24big.gif Published: March 23rd, 2017 for public use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnoCaveman (talk • contribs) 12:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Would also like to add this quote from SpaceWeather.com. Still looking for a better NASA or UK reference. "This is the 31st day in 2017 that the sun has been without spots. Cumulatively, it adds up to an entire month of spotlessness--and it's only May. For comparison, the sun was blank on 32 days in the whole of 2016. The accelerating pace of spotless suns is a sign that Solar Minimum is approaching." Source: http://spaceweather.com/ at 12:53 PM,  Wednesday, May 10, 2017  Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnoCaveman (talk • contribs)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Solar cycle 24. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120701095458/http://hinode.nao.ac.jp/news/120419PressRelease/index_e.shtml to http://hinode.nao.ac.jp/news/120419PressRelease/index_e.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524101339/http://www.thetruthbehindthescenes.org/2011/10/03/spectacular-sun-diving-comet-and-m3-9-class-flare-oct-1-2011/ to http://www.thetruthbehindthescenes.org/2011/10/03/spectacular-sun-diving-comet-and-m3-9-class-flare-oct-1-2011/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615071943/http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/archive/archive_01Apr2013.html to http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/archive/archive_01Apr2013.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126151040/http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html to http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806142735/http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/index.html to http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)