nanog mailing list archives
Re: Solar Flux
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs () seastrom com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:41:02 -0400
"George Bonser" <gbonser () seven com> writes:
-----Original Message----- From: Pete Carah [mailto:pete () altadena net] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 8:41 PM To: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: Solar Flux And to top it all off, how many picojoules are stored in a modern ram cell compared to the same during the last sunspot peak. There is a hidden cost to memory density growth here... -- PeteThis cycle is currently predicted to be quite tame by recent standards. So far NASA is predicting cycle 24 to be much weaker than 23 was: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/f107_predict.gif http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
That said, nobody got it right in terms of the depth or length of the current valley, and we are in the bear skins and flint knives era of predicting Sol's activity. Also, a weak cycle (integration over a period of 11 years) does not mean there won't be brief periods of utter insanity. -r
Current thread:
- Re: Solar Flux (was: Re: China prefix hijack) Warren Bailey (Apr 11)
- Re: Solar Flux Paul Vixie (Apr 11)
- Re: Solar Flux Pete Carah (Apr 11)
- RE: Solar Flux George Bonser (Apr 11)
- Re: Solar Flux Robert E. Seastrom (Apr 12)
- Re: Solar Flux Pete Carah (Apr 11)
- Re: Solar Flux Paul Vixie (Apr 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Solar Flux (was: Re: China prefix hijack) Leigh Porter (Apr 11)
- Re: Solar Flux (was: Re: China prefix hijack) Warren Bailey (Apr 11)