In my best Seinfeld voice: "No....I don't think you do."
Neither this paper...or the 1/2 dozen other papers I have read about this subject over the last 2 days are talking about cycle 24. They are talking about cycle 25.
I AM a meteorologist...have done a lot of space wx forecasting (forcibly and reluctantly at first...starting in 2002)...and a solar cycle is NOT generally how long it takes as if it is some random number. It is usually 11 years. But again...that is not the point of the article. They are speaking of the NEXT cycle...which would peak in 2024.
There are certain things that start NOW in order for the next cycle to appear 13 years from now. They aren't there. There has been MUCH speculation for a while now that we could be headed into another Maunder min. There has been a tremendous drop in solar flux...magnetism...etc. Low sunspot counts are just part of the reason we think we are headed into a min and this research seems to back it up.
No man understands how the sun works? Well...just because you don't doesn't mean there aren't those scientists that have a real good understanding. Are there some mysteries left? Sure...but you make it sound as if all of mankind is back in the dark ages about the workings of the sun...alongside with you.
You may be a fossil...but there are others that aren't. And yes...we are coming into SolarMAX. However...our drought in Texas has more to do with La Nina than it does with the Solar cycle.
Do you work for a TV station, a research institute or the government?
My wife was a fan of Dan True. (an Amarillo weather forecaster) He wrote a book once that described his years predicting the weather. In his description he marveled about how his employer could spend millions of dollars on equipment and still the best he could do was be right a bit more than 50% of the time. But when you come right down to it, weather forecasting at TV stations is not about public service (there is an element of that) but about making money. The more they get the public excited about the weather the more viewers they have the more ad money they make. That is why they spend so much on equipment.
The Maunder Minimum was from roughly 1650 to 1700. Correct? What method other than tree rings gives scientist the data to support that? I am not saying it is impossible, but I am skeptical about those who use scientific data covering a period that far back.
I remember how far off the "brightest and best" scientist were when they used remote measurements to analyze the Saturn Rings. Then when they actually used a satellite up close it was radically different.