Go ahead and bash Microsoft all you want, but you’re off on this one.

Thank you I will. But I’m not “off”. I said it was “user hostile” and it is. There are trivial ways it could be made user friendly and they are not done. The Microsoft pattern of behaviour would predict they will leave it hostile for a long time to come. That is just poor human factors design.

Peter simply picked the wrong type of graph. No harm no foul. Blaming Microsoft for Peter’s mistake is just poor analysis –

IFF I had asserted that Microsoft drew the wrong graph, you would be right, but my complaint is about the ease with which MS lets you step on land mines. I’ve spent far too much of my life supporting software (from MANY makers) to accept a bad user interface as “no problem”. It is a problem. It is harm and it is foul. In physical products you get sued if someone chops of fingers because your product snapped shut unexpectedly and there was no warning. In MS land it’s called normal.

something we’re all tired of seeing from the “other side,” so let’s not do it ourselves.

I am a software professional. I’ve written production code for over 20 years. I’ve supported software from most major makers on everything from PC class to supercomputers. I’ve managed software development groups including a compiler tool chain and a user oriented product that got 4 software patents (and that was both the groups writing the software and the software QA group). I think I’m qualified to render a professional opinion of the quality of a user interface.

Now maybe I’m spoiled, since I spend most of my time on one of the best platforms in the business from a UI point of view, but then again, maybe measuring against the best available is exactly how it ought to be done… So no, this is not a ‘poor analysis’ it is a straight forward observation of the limitations of a product and it’s failure to “measure up” to what the competition provides in a specific aspect: It is not user friendly. (And I stated exactly what MS could have done to make it friendly. – a simple “are you sure you want this bahaviour?” prompt. Basically, built in prompting documentation of the often unexpected behaviour.)

So yes, Peter is responsible for picking the wrong graph, but no, Microsoft is not free of blame. They made this user interface such that at least one other poster stated that it is the usual error folks made. “That happens a lot” is one of the key hallmarks of a design fault and it ought to be fixed as quickly as possible. I know, I’ve managed groups that did exactly that kind of repair work. When folks regularly put the car in reverse instead of forward, we add a reverse lockout… for a reason. And product liability law (for everything other than software, it would seem) has clearly stated that the bad UI design is the fault of the manufacturer.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf

It connects AMO PDO, SOLAR cycles and the length of day variations.

Not much causality shown, but interesting correlations.

Jim Hughes (07:24:03) :
I don’t know how long beforehand you made that forecast. If it more than 6 months I would either be impressed or dismiss it as a fluke. If less, that might be possible in rare cases [with not too much other activity - imagine there were 2 new spots every day] as there are precursors to spots: recurrence [spots occur in the same place], intensification of magnetic field, etc. As an example look at the first Figure in http://leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf showing the interplanetary magnetic field [blue line marked B]. Note that in the rotation prior to all major flares there was a spike in B. I actually predicted ][a month ahead] the famous Halloween storm in 2003, and the big flares in 2005 and 2006.
Forecasting with too many false positives is useless. If I predict the “Big One” in San Francisco every week for years on end, the population soon tires of the weekly wholesale evacuation of the City.

And only one Cycle 24 SH group had been seen prior to this as you might know. And a Cycle 24 group did emerge in the SH on December 11th. I could also give you other similar examples like for late 2006 which was made well out in advance.

And I’ve also been talking about a June increase for the past several weeks with some people within the meteorological community because some of them believe in the space weather forcing connection to the ENSO. And I have said that this will be the largest level of activity since March 2008.

So I want to know is a forecast like this good enough to some extent or do you want to hear specifics like flare strength, sunspot location, and total etc….

And please keep the criteria for my own forecasts on the same playing field level as someone like yourself. When it comes to specific forecast details. But I am also unaware if you make these types. Thanks in advance.

I don’t have a cultist’s certainty here.

Resorting to ad hominem will not help your cause. If you don’t know…. you don’t know.

There are quite a few recent cycles that happened quite comfortably on there own in the brief history of our sunspot knowledge, SC12, SC14, SC16 and the infamous SC20. Your logic of SC25 being a low one is scant of any real understanding of what drives the Sun, and is a probability case at best. This is not good enough.

There are lots of cases of more than 2 low cycles in a row in the last 400 years, would you like to predict SC26?, not a chance I suspect….

There are two kinds of forecasts:
1) general, statistical forecast. E.g. I’ll predict that next summer will be warmer than last winter outside of the tropics. I’ll predict that space weather at the next solar maximum will be stormier than at this solar minimum.
2) specific, particular forecasts. E.g. that solar cycle 24 maximum will 75, or that a solar flare will occur on May 11, 21:34 UT, 2012.

Some orthogonal to this distinction is the forecast based on physical theory or on statistical correlation.
1) The prediction of SC24 max at Rmax=75 is based on physical theory coupled with the observation that the polar fields are as weak as they are. This is a specific prediction based on current data supported by sound theory.
2) Since statistically weak cycles occur in groups, one can make a statistical prediction that SC25 will be weak too.

Statistical prediction could turn out wrong without invalidating the correlation [it was only statistical, after all]. Physical predictions cannot afford to be wrong, as that will invalidate the theory [or at least show it is incomplete and needs amendment].

On time scales:
Solar cycle predictions can be made on the time scale of one cycle for physical forecasting, but no longer. Since solar activity often has a lifetime exceeding solar rotation period, predicting that activity will recur in 27 days is pretty, but not after 10×27 days. Since the same active region often gives rise to several flares, predicting a heightened flare probability for a few days after the first flare is also a reasonable forecast.

I have heard about how you have jumped somewhat to the forefront within the solar field but I had no idea about your attiude toward certain things. Like the planetary effects upon space weather. And I use the latter since it describes their influence better.

So am I to assume that you think it is impossible to forecast certain specific events from well out in time ? As in a forecasted time period of days to a week and from months out or even further ?

And I have done the latter and gone on record within the science communty. I look forward to hearing your response.

First, what has AGW to do with the Sun? Second, I have the best ‘credentials’ in the anti-AGW realm as I have been permanently banned from tamino’s site because of my opposition to AGW.

The planetary theories can be what they are and people can believe what they want. I do not object to that. Only when a specific physical mechanism is brought forward that is wrong [in the sense that it either violates physical laws or is not energetically viable] do I point out the failing of that mechanism. An example is the Angular Momentum idea. Another is electric currents from the planets, or neutron stars at the center of the Sun. My objection is not censorship in any form, to wit the endless postings on these ideas.

My world view in this regard is simply physical science. And all I present [and represent] is just my own view on the viability of the ideas promoted. Typically, a posting sequence goes like this: poster A presents some ‘perfect’ correlation and claims that mechanism B perfect explains what goes on and if just everybody would accept it, the face of physics would be changed forever. I point out why, in my opinion, the mechanism does not work, or the correlation is not so perfect. A gets upset and rebuts. I patiently explains in more detail why I think the mechanism cannot work. A gets more and more upset, and so it goes, until the moderator decides that this has gone on for long enough.

And the ‘secrets’ of planetary influences that ‘you have been shown’ are not science unless they are discussed openly.

This load of manure was taken apart at CA a couple of years back, more unabashed duplicity.

What did your last slave die of, TW??
He does have a career and a salary to justify, who do you think Lief is? Jim Hansen?

Terry Ward (12:26:31) :
At last, someone points out the obvious and it gets past moderation.

I was not trolling about TEF.

I was trolling about your seeming AGW apologism and your overt derision and covert censorship. The closer I approach retirement the more I rail against blinkered dismissal of opposing views based solely on an unwillingness to break the chains of habit and think outside of self constructed boxes.

Given the power to do so, you always get any reply that disturbs your world view snipped. For someone who is all over Internet, on forums and discussion groups, and unhesitatingly and frequently offers third party rebuttal of a point of view that you refuse to put any effort into other than to offer scorn and to poke fun at, your energy and omnipresence is nothing short of remarkable for someone presumably busy at work. Your focus on the sun is commendable purely because you are a good solar scientist but your quoting from, and using as a shield, 100 year old papers that “prove” cyclomaniacs are mad if they attempt to present a system based on what you deem to be Astrology is as bad as the CO2 crowd claiming that 100 year old science works for them and we should all just fade away.

I have been shown something that you have not considered, that, with readily available tools (which you, no doubt, can access superior versions of and have staff, or interns, to delegate to the task) can be seen by this layman and you, and anyone, could repeat. There are definite alignments of the planets that, somehow (I am not claiming to know how) have cyclical effects upon the sun and, subsequently, upon weather/climate here. The solar system is exactly that, a system. Taking one element apart from that whole is inelegant and smacks of agenda.

Your treatment of “cyclomaniacs” (on CA for instance) appears rude, dogmatic, recidivist and haughty. It does not become you to dismiss without further investigation, by yourself, with a software orrery (The Sky from Software Bisque for example), those planets that cannot have gravitic, tidal or barycentric (or any other “alchemical”) effect on sol yet do, most emphatically, have repeating, cyclical, strong and predictable force of some kind with regard to this planet’s variables.

Just because someone had not the wit, skill or equipment to discern those relationships over a century ago, yet had the ear of their peers and the establishment sufficient to publish findings and just because currently “eminent” scientists are too lazy, too frightened or too arrogant to re-investigate a phenomena does not mean that those relationships are not present.

You could have taken a fresh look when the opportunity arose. Many people were saying similar things yet you chose the paths of ridicule and of asking for remarks to be snipped. Yet it is as plain as day that, viewed from the sun, planetary configurations that repeat in a cycle and can be utilised for prediction, are anathema to you. This does not mean that those theories are wrong. In fact, several people make a very good living from long range weather forecasting based upon those very principles and the farmers, market speculators, supermarket managers and holiday firms (to name a few) who rely upon those private forecasts are no fools and observe high success rates or they would drop them like a hot potato. The astroclimatologists may hold proprietary knowledge close to their chests (the withholding of which from society I do not agree with for many more reasons than the rather obvious and delightful one that would put egg on many faces) because of the arduous extraction of signal from noise that they all had to perform, but let us not demean their investigations without commensurate application.

We all appreciate the time you spend educating us in the ways of the solar sleuth. Your reciprocation would be equally well received if you were to investigate, for example, extreme weather events and then plot the orbital bodies’ (all of them) positions and vectors at those times to see the similarities. I do, however, expect you to skirt this issue as you have previously. Probably with snide remarks such as “rev up your orrery” and “angel wings beating”. Prove me wrong.

Go ahead and bash Microsoft all you want, but you’re off on this one. Peter simply picked the wrong type of graph. No harm no foul. Blaming Microsoft for Peter’s mistake is just poor analysis – something we’re all tired of seeing from the “other side,” so let’s not do it ourselves.