Must be some kind of karma, I am sure there is much to be learned about the solar cycle and predicting the future of solar activity will always be problematic. Still seems the 11 year cycle driven by magnetic pole shifts is still a valid theory.
Adding more convection layers considerably complicates modeling the
process, more than you'd think.
I find it ironic that as soon as I buy a H-a telescope, we have the weakest solar max on record.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Bruce Hugo <bruce.hugo@yahoo.com> wrote:
Very cool! It doesn't seem too far off from what we originally thought. Just more layers of convection. Refining the theory.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".