On several forums on this site I have seen comments and concerns about Solar Cycle 24 related to a news release from The Space and Science Research Center (or SSRC). The news release implied a connection to NASA and their prediction for Solar Cycle 25. The SSRC which is made up of one person, John Casey is predicting cycle 24 will have a very low sunspot count (less than 50).

I found an interview on earthfiles.com with Dr. David Hathaway, a NASA solar expert whose studies were referenced by Casey. He talks about solar cycle 24 and solar cycle 25 and the predictions made by Casey. I was going to copy and paste parts of the interview on this post but the earthfiles site makes it clear that it would be a copyright violation, so here’s the link:
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?I...tegory=Science

I was surprised that Dr. Hathaway talked about the cycles’ potential impact on the weather, but given that he did I wasn’t surprised by what he said.

Also there was a 12 person panel of solar experts from around the world who were given the job to predict the strength of solar cycle 24. See:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24

The report from this panel estimated the sunspot numbers to be between 90 and 140. There were two groups the low group was from NASA (including Dr. Hathaway) and predicted numbers around 90, the other group predicted numbers around 140. I’m sure Mausumi Dikpati from NCAR was in this group as she has been predicting a very active cycle 24. In either case the numbers are to the high side meaning they predict cycle 24 will be very active.

John Casey was not part of the group and his prediction of less than fifty not even mentioned.

In an earlier post I included a link to a junkscience site that had information on Casey, see:
http://junkscience.com/blog/wp-conte...john_casey.pdf

The editor of Junk Science got an e-mail from Casey that sheds light on why he started SSRC, see:
http://www.junkscience.com/blog/2008...ve-brass-ones/

Jim

__________________