Verifying Another NASA Forecast

5 Responses to Verifying Another NASA Forecast

1. Jimbo says:

   June 21, 2011 at 8:38 am

   NASA and the IPCC have one thing in common. A divergence problem.

   Reply
2. Mike Davis says:

   June 21, 2011 at 11:24 am

   You need to make outrageous projections to assure additional funding for future research.
   Based on past performance NASA should be defunded.

   Reply
3. RichyRoo says:

   June 21, 2011 at 1:00 pm

   @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.

   Reply
4. chris y says:

   June 21, 2011 at 3:16 pm

   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…

   Reply
5. Sundance says:

   June 21, 2011 at 4:20 pm

   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?

   Reply