UPDATE:
SEE THE UPDATED SWPC FORECAST HERE
Leif Svalgaard writes:
NOAA/SWPC will be releasing an update to the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction
on Friday, May 8, 2009 at noon Eastern Daylight Time (1600 UT) at a
joint ESA/NASA/NOAA press conference.
Details below:
Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update on Friday, May 8 at noon EDT
NOAA/SWPC will be releasing an update to the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction on Friday, May 8, 2009 at noon Eastern Daylight Time (1600 UT). The prediction will be available here at that time.
The charts on this page depict the progression of the Solar Cycle. The charts and tables are updated by the Space Weather Prediction Center monthly using the latest ISES predictions. Observed values are initially the preliminary values which are replaced with the final values as they become available.
Recent Changes to Solar Cycle Values and Plots
March 2, 2009 — The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has not issued any updates to their prediction. However, the Space Weather Prediction Center, and the Chair of the Prediction Panel decided to implement what they believe to be an obvious change to the plotted data. The two predictions, of maximum being either a SSN of 90 or a SSN of 140 remain intact. Once the date of solar minimum is known, that is all the information needed to arrive at a prediction curve. The panel prediction of solar minimum in March, 2008 has been eclipsed. Minimum will now occur no earlier than August, 2008. For every month beyond March 2008 that minimum slips, it is necessary to shift the prediction curves by the same amount. SWPC commenced doing so in mid-February and will continue to do so, unless or until the prediction panel sets a new predicted date for the time of solar minimum.
Description of Solar Cycle Progression displays
Table of Recent Solar Indices (Preliminary) of Observed Monthly Mean Values
Table of Predicted Values With Expected Ranges — High Prediction Table — Low Prediction Table
Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Issued April 2007, updated May 2008
For additional information or comments, contact SWPC.CustomerSupport@noaa.gov
Interesting – just keep sliding the timing until it actually happens – what a great forecasting system…
Btw, for whats its worth, I HATE the ads right under the title. The ads at the bottom are fine and non-intrusive.
Will there be a live internet feed?
Has Dr. Hathaway changed the peek that he uses for his prediction method?
I think we all know that they will lower their call and rightly so. Maybe the collected forecast mishaps of the past two cycles will change the perception about certain relationships. Or who is an expert at what.
Forecasting an upcoming space weather pattern, or even the strength of an upcoming Cycle, is much like forecasting the weather or climate. There are plenty of college professors who teach certain aspects of meteorology, but this does not mean that they can consistently forecast fairly accurate weather patterns for an extended period well out in advance.
So these two issue should not be confused. Because they are completely different.
My heart is aflutter anticipating the latest prognostication from the guys who not only didn’t see the odd behavior of cycle # 24 coming, but regularly and over a protracted period told me I wasn’t seeing what I was clearly seeing with my own eyes. How many times over the past two years did we hear from NASA that there was nothing at all unusual about the sunspot behavior (or lack thereof) we were observing? Then, in a abrupt change of course long after NASA had lost all credibility on this subject, the agency called for proposals to study the sun’s aberrant behavior. What now?
“joint ESE/NASA/NOAA press conference”
My bad for the typo. ESA, not ESE.
this may seem a bit cranky, but really, do these “predictions” from them matter at all in any real sense? They’re going to say some stuff that’s wrong, and then whatever will happen will happen with no assistance from NASA, and then they’ll backdate their “predictions” after a few months (or years) have passed to reflect reality. (hopefully)
I suppose there’s a bit of schadenfreude in watching NASA have to say “okay, we’ve been wrong on this” but other than that, is there any point? At best, this is an attempt to convince the public that they understand what’s happening, when they clearly don’t. No one does.
We’re below any range that they previously had predicted would be possible, so even the range predictions are pretty worthless.
Here’s a prediction better than theirs, since I can guarantee it’s accuracy: some stuff will happen. or not. After it happens, then we can explain it. Maybe.
This is a gigantic good. Now will someone please tell Congress that the science is not well enough settled to hang huge policy changes upon?
===========================================
I know this is the wrong thread for this, but since I am here and so are the ads, I will put my two cents worth in. I HATE them right under the title, too. Can you move them to the bottom of the article, just above the comments? I don’t mind them, generally speaking, and I’m glad if they bring in some money. I’ll even click on them if that will bring in more money!
This is a great site, so informative, and entertaining.
It’s Hathaway’s job to predict sunspot cycles, his global warming stance is also driven by his employer’s position. If this is really the beginning of a significant minimum (which Hathaway now concedes is a possibility) it makes all his analyses of previous cycles worthless for the rest of his career. I feel sorry for him, it is similar to having a high position in the Pontiac division management at GM. It sucks.
Ad location is fine, it’s no sweat to scroll past them. When somewhat interesting I will click them
“The two predictions, of maximum being either a SSN of 90 or a SSN of 140 remain intact. ”
Does Leif’s prediction of a SSN maximum of ~74 (IIRC) remain intact?
(BTW Anthony, the ads on your blog don’t bother me a bit. If you derive revenue from them, more power to you.)
From the
Except that in the most recent update they didn’t even do that. They just shifted the bottom of the predicted curve to the right, while the peaks stayed at both the same level AND at the same point in time.
Put me in as another vote who dislike the ad positioning. I think between the article and the comments, or a horizontal bar just under the navigation bar would be better.
ESA = European Space Agency?
Unrelated Post:
Looks like they tried to shut up the guys that found the reason for the Great Lakes level drop. It seems they won’t be able to spin that on global warmnig… too bad!!!
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/44525417.html
A prediction of maximum SSN of 90 OR 140? How odd! I suppose this is what you get from a split committee.
For my part regarding the ads, Anthony, if the placement of the ads helps you out at all with financing the site and getting more hits through Google I will be happy to put up with it.
This is such a great site, I think we’re all getting a heck of a deal as it is.
OT. UAH is out for April http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Divergence from RSS, and low!
I will find them credible only if they admit that the sun has entered into a phase significantly different from recent cycles to render their current models inadequate.
In other words, “what we have been modeling has changed, so we have to develop new models based upon those changes.”
Quite clearly they have proved that their models can not predict.
If they try to predict timing or strength of, Cycle 24’s maximum, then they are in denial of their lack of understanding of the current sun.
> The panel prediction of solar minimum in March, 2008 has been eclipsed.
Is this a solar (or lunar) physicist’s way of saying a prediction has been falsified? 🙂
Meteorologists refer to predictions that did not verify. Perhaps that would be a “softer” way to refer to a failed prediction. I don’t like “eclipsed” – it suggests that if you wait a little while the prediction will be back. Perhaps “terminated” would be another possibility, though in that case “The panel prediction has been terminated” could morph into “The panel has been terminated.”
Ugly graphic ad this time in the top block about “How 2 build solar panels.” Like I would ever want to learn that from someone who can’t spell “two.” Anthony, can you force text only into that top block? Graphics there can really conflict with your graphics.
NASA catching up with the news from recent National Geo? Or perhaps on Watt’s Up with That?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/04/natgeo-sun-oddly-quiet-hints-at-next-little-ice-age/
I might be wrong, but I don’t think this is Hathaway’s shop doing this. He is NASA/Marshall (not NOAA/SWPC) and hasn’t changed his April prediction at:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
If May stays quiet, though, he may feel like updating again next month.
Joseph (09:39:07) :
Does Leif’s prediction of a SSN maximum of ~74 (IIRC) remain intact?
Yes, it stands at 70 for the moment, but that is not significantly different from 74 or 75 [our original estimate]
tallbloke (09:53:26) :
ESA = European Space Agency?
Yes.
I don’t mind the ads at all.
>Is this a solar (or lunar) physicist’s way of saying a prediction has been falsified?
They could just say that their predictions have been swamped by the stochastic considerations.
I agree that NASA’s predictions have been less than impressive and I think they might owe an acknowledgment those who did better, when we get to the point where we can see the whole thing through the retrospect-o-scope.
By the way, I’m guessing the ads don’t show in Firefox, ‘cuz I ain’t seein’ any.
I have a question. If the values bounce around the low point for an appreciable length of time (and I don’t know enough even to be able state what “appreciable” is but maybe a year or two) and then increase only slightly, what is the protocol for judging when the minimum has been reached?
Actually I have two questions. The other is, I recall a while ago seeing an article (linked from this site but I cannot recall where it is I’m afraid) which postulated that a low number Cycle (4 or 5 I think) effectively didn’t exist and the two Cycles either side were a) weak and b) far apart. Was that article credible and, if so, is there any possibility that that situation could recur (like now for example)?
Btw, for me, the ads are just fine as they are, I don’t find they get in the way.
Frederick Michael:- they show in my Firefox!
Superceded is the word you need; not eclipse which sounds too much like something to do with the sun; which as we know has nothing to do with Earth’s climate.
So you got ads for us now Anthony? I must take a look and see what you have; I could probably use something if somebody advertises it; so where are these ads now?
I think there’s some typos in the story; they say the minimum now won’t occur till August 2008. I don’t know how to break the news to you, but we’ve already been there and done that; it’s now closer to August 2009, so I think some corrections are needed.
Is the aim of this exercise to keep on advancing the predictions, until the predictions and the date of the event are identical ? It think even I could handle that sort of assignment.
Leif Svalgaard
Leif, is this the panel upon which you sit or do you have any input to it?
I agree the advertising isn’t a big deal so long as I don’t have to scroll pages to get to the pertinent article.
Suggestion: Make comments about the ads in the “A note to WUWT readers; an experiment” article which is about the ads. Maybe the word “ad” should be in that headline so you could figure out that it was not about a scientific experiment.
The continued decline in the Ap is what really concerns me.
Ric,
About the ad: it’s not that they can’t spell “two” it’s that they can’t spell “to”.
Anthony,
If the ads are good for you then by all means keep them. I would prefer to see a border around them. It would also be nice if they weren’t so dang ugly. Who designs these anyway?
Mr Green Genes (10:46:14) :
what is the protocol for judging when the minimum has been reached?
There isn’t any set protocol.
a low number Cycle (4 or 5 I think) effectively didn’t exist and the two Cycles either side were a) weak and b) far apart.
The so-called ‘lost cycle’ does not seem to be validated by recent work, so IMO there was no cycle lost.
Ray (09:55:12) :
Unrelated Post:
Looks like they tried to shut up the guys that found the reason for the Great Lakes level drop. It seems they won’t be able to spin that on global warmnig… too bad!!!
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/44525417.html
If you read the post you’d find that the low levels are blamed on the enhanced draining via the St Claire. The report said that it was a natural cause not due to the Army Corps of Engineers dredging (guess who helps author the report?). You’d also find out that the authors are keeping quiet about the science so you appear to have your argument backwards.
Maybe they will be honest and admit that they have no clue.
With NoScript add-on for Firefox I don’t even see the adverts, even after Adblock Plus was told to allow ads on Wattsupwiththat.com . Don’t ask me to stop using NoScript, because it’s my best line of security against viruses/spyware!
Of course, if WUWT starts using adverts that don’t need Javascript, then I will see the ads – and in principle I don’t object to seeing adverts on sites that I like a lot.
Why did I immediately think of George Carlin’s forecast of “Continued mostly dark tonight turning to widely scattered light in the morning”?
[this troll has been permanently banned for violation of site policy, “anotherdouchebag@eib.net” is not a valid email. All future posts automatically deleted – Anthony]
Our Sun is giving us a natural experiment with the late starting solar cycle 24: Is there a correlation between a longer solar cycle and cooler global temperatures? Prior data indicates that this correlation is significant, so let us make our predictions then collect the data. Let us allow the valid data as the driver of science and leave the power, politics and money out of the equation.
I am a regular frequenter of this site since January and have learned a great deal, both directly from here and by googling items mentioned. One thing I have not got the hang of, despite diligent reading here, and looking up Wikipedia. Would it be possible for someone, (Leif) to do an idiot’s guide to this whole sunspot thing.
Shane
Leif Svalgaard (11:14:29) :
Thanks for your answers.
Rumor has it that a cycle 24 sunspot is about to come around the edge of the sun from the backside in the next day or so (STEREO – behind, has EUVI images)
— Pete
Leif Svalgaard (11:14:29) :
Mr Green Genes (10:46:14) :
what is the protocol for judging when the minimum has been reached?
There isn’t any set protocol.
a low number Cycle (4 or 5 I think) effectively didn’t exist and the two Cycles either side were a) weak and b) far apart.
The so-called ‘lost cycle’ does not seem to be validated by recent work, so IMO there was no cycle lost.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NASA should have realized way back in 1996 that Solar Cycle 23 is no ordinary solar cycle. The Prediction Panel dealt with the clear early signs in a typically bureaucratic manner, apparently showing no curiousity or rudimentary comprehension of what was happening! Everybody in charge of monitoring the sun was asleep at the switch!
Summary Report of the Second Meeting of the Solar Cycle Prediction Panel, National Solar Observatory/Sacramento Peak, Sunspot, New Mexico, September 8, 1997
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/info/SumSept.html
“The most problematic point discussed was the time of the cycle minimum. While the traditional numerical prescription as well as other measures of solar irradiance and activity agree that May, 1996, was the minimum smoothed month of the cycle, Karen Harvey noted that there are several factors that argue that this date is misleading as a fiducial for Cycle 23 onset. In particular, no new cycle spots were observed before this month – a situation never before recorded. The date of minimum is expected to represent that time when new cycle activity becomes dominant; that is, the new cycle should have been in progress as the old cycle declined, the minimum then marking the crossover. But for Cycle 23, new cycle regions did not outnumber old cycle regions until December, 1996. The resurgence of activity in the months following May is due to old cycle regions (low latitude spot groups with the appropriate magnetic polarity of old cycle regions). Another factor that indicates May is a misleading date is that the maximum number of spotless days occurred in September and October, 1996. Finally, the Panel noted that the epoch tables specifying cycle maxima and minima included in Waldmeier [1961] are not consistent with a strict determination based on smoothed sunspot number.”
“The Panel then reviewed the published definition of sunspot extrema [McKinnon 1987] which includes 5 criteria:
When observations permit, a date selected as either a cycle minimum or maximum is based in part on an average of the times when extremes are reached (1) in the monthly mean sunspot number, (2) in the smoothed monthly mean sunspot number, and (3) in the monthly mean number of spot groups alone. Two more measures are used at time of sunspot minimum: (4) the number of spotless days and (5) the frequency of occurrence of “old” and “new” cycle spot groups.
Because the smallest monthly mean sunspot numbers were achieved in September (1.6) and October (0.9), 1996, and the most spotless days occurred in October, the Panel agreed that October, 1996, was the effective onset of Cycle 23.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When Cycle 23 finally ends, presumably some time this year unless it turns out to have some puzzling characteristics of the Little Ice Age’s ultralong Maunder Minimum, the official end will probably not be declared until about a year afterwards.
Accepting October, 1996 as the official start of solar cycle 23, we are now 12.6 years into the long-spotless cycle. Accepting May, 1996 as the traditional definition of the start, it has been going on for 13 years. A “normal” solar cycle length is ~11 years.
GLEISSBERG CYCLE
W. Gleissberg In his letter (1945) – Evidence for a long solar cycle –
writes: ” One long cycle is equal to 7 eleven-year cycles or 77.7 years. ”
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1945Obs….66..123G/0000123.000.html
26 years later in his submission – The probable behaviour of sunspot Cycle 21 – Gleissberg states following: ” After an explanation of the method of forecasting based upon the 80-yr sunspot cycle, reasons are given for assuming that the maximum of the present 80-yr cycle now has passed. http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=r8888r6387217653&size=largest
Considering above conclusion is that Gleissberg believed that the cycle bearing his name is 80 (77.7) year long cycle.
If any of contributors to http://wattsupwiththat.com are aware of any articles or letters by W. Gleissberg quoting other values for ‘long solar cycle’ I would appreciate a quote or link if possible. Thanks and appreciation is expressed in advance.
vukcevic
To Shane (12:00:03) :
Idiot’s guide to sunspots:
The number of sunspots naturally varies with an 11.01 year cycle. A typical sun spot cycle is like a bell curve: first year with very few sunspots, year five is the maximum number then dropping back to very few sunspots in year eleven. Science has measured the last 23 sun spot cycles, and waiting for cycle 24 to begin soon. It is starting slower later than expected and recent measurements of solar wind by NASA show a 50 year low!
Sunspots are formed by the Sun’s magnetic field interacting with its surface. The peak energetic years see about 200 sunspots per year whereas the low troughs are less than 50 per year. It should be noted that the very lowest troughs are when the sunspot activity was close to zero for many years at a time and they had a corresponding global freeze that overlapped during the same time period.
Earth’s climate is linked to the Sun. Humans have known about the partnership between Earth’s climate cycles and solar activity for more than 400 years because of sunspot variations. Most dramatically, the Maunder Sunspot Minimum occurred from 1640 to 1710. There were virtually no sunspots at all for about 70 years. That marked the Sun’s weakest recent moment, and it also was globally the very coldest point in the Little Ice Age. In 2009, our Sun is currently in a 100 year low in sunspot activity.
Since 1975, satellite measurements of solar energy output vs. sunspot activity show a direct relationship: As the number of sunspots increase, so does the solar energy output. During 2008/09, the sunspot activity reached near record lows. The total number of zero sun spot days in 2008 numbered 266, which was the second least active year since 1900. Combining the total number of spotless days of this solar minimum is now + 600 days (as of 4/15/09). Generally speaking, long sun spot cycles are associated with colder global temperatures (like 1970’s) while shorter ones (like1980’s & 1990’s) are warm periods.
Since the sun spot activity significantly dropped in 2008, which also extended this solar cycle, was there a corresponding global cooling? Yes, 2008 was an exceptional year for our planet with a significant global cooling. All four major indicators had an average drop of -0.6405˚C during 2008. A decrease of 0.6405˚C degrees globally is the largest January-to-January drop since 1875, and the biggest drop for any 12-month interval since – 0.681 ˚C in February 1974. During 2008: a) the summer ice minimum over the Arctic Ocean grow 9.4% larger than previous summer, b) Anchorage, AK had it’s coldest summer on record c) the entire nation of Canada had it’s first all white Christmas since the 1970’s, d) Britain and Europe had their coldest start to winter in 30 years and e) Chicago, IL had December of 2008 as one of coldest and snowy ever recorded. During 2008, CO2 levels continued to climb to it’s modern highest point to 387 parts per million.
“For every month beyond March 2008 that minimum slips, it is necessary to shift the prediction curves by the same amount.”
OR
“Our prediction will eventually be perfect.”
I certainly wouldn’t want them for a stock broker.
Looks like the sun has stopped turning!!!
It looks like that coronal hole has stayed in the same position for the last 3 days or more…
Thanks for keeping us up to date on NASA’s great solar modeling, predicting, and reporting, Anthony. Leif might be too busy, but perhaps he could recommend someone who could do a combination of basic sunspot-TSI-F10.7-etc info and a more advanced discussion of the latest solar cycles compared to those from the 17th Century to the present. Maybe parts 1, 2, and 3 — I know I am not asking for much. Another way is to collect Leif’s explanations and the questions for the last year or so and work up an article. Then we could also could have a rebuttal! Solar physicists please.
I also vote against the ads between your headline and the scientific-reporting content. They grate on my soul, even if not on others’. Google does not deserve this prominent placement. The company shilled in many ways for the current occupant of the White House and for “global warming”. If you desire this income, put them in a banner at the top or at the side — and add a reminder for us to click on them. I think you get something if the ads draw hits?
Will it be issued “EX-CATHEDRA ” ?
Yes the ads below the title are not pleasant.
Gotta love another update. Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa. To borrow from Python, fetchez le chemise des cheveux.
This repetitive and predictible NOAA “forecast revision” routine now resembles a kid wiggling a loose tooth with his finger. It’s mildly entertaining, but quickly gets very annoying. Just yank the damned thing out by the roots already.
At least if we get an SC24 spot out of that CME (say, by the weekend?), then the professional Heliopeople can get their hopes up that we have passed the SC23/SC24 minimum. It would good to see them perk up a little, even if I am convinced that Livingston et al are closer to the truth than anyone else, and any hopes for a near-term minimum will be dashed.
Re: Google adverts
I for one actually like the google ads, as I’m fascinated by the algorithms that gin-up the ads that I see. Which is to say that I am a simpleton.
(BTW are the ads tuned to the site content INCLUDING the Comments? By which I mean if we mounted a campaign to mention say Halle Berry in every post, would we see Halle Berry links?
Alternately, are they tuned to an individual’s browser record, and WUWT is just the “way in”? I ask because (a) I don’t see any Halle Berry links, but (b) I did get one for Solar Power Panels in Dallas.
Don’t blame Dr. Hathaway for SC 24 not behaving as it should. Good Doc has been busy man. His latest artistic contributions can be found here:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20090207Astrofest_SunspotCycle.ppt#16
He quotes Gleissberg as 8 cycles (Gleissberg himself said 7 cycles se my previous post)
Finally he invites everybody to have a go at SC24 prediction.
As the oceans cool and the sun dims, Obama races towards the great CO2 Cap and Tax on mankind to pay for his agenda of spreading the wealth and punishing big companies. In the end the poor will be hurt the most as always.
Someone STILL thinks its going to be a 140 peak?
Laughable…
In Washington it is customary to dump “bad news” on Fridays.
Wyatt A (11:02:15) :
> Ric,
> About the ad: it’s not that they can’t spell “two” it’s that they can’t spell “to”.
Oops. That “too.”
O/T
Pictures of climate change, courtesy of Gavin Schmidt and photographer Joshua Wolfe, now 100% polar bear free:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2009/05/capturing_climate_change.html?ps=bb2
The article asks:
“How do you explain the big-picture risks of subtle changes like rising sea levels, fluctuating crop yields and shifts in ocean currents — and, more important, how do you make people care? One solution: with photographs…”
…of extreme weather events, forest fires, coastal erosion, our old freind Mendehall, kudzu, tiny Costa Rican frogs and Chicago (because it was really hot there for a few days in 1995).
The article also takes a moment for deep thought:
“It’s hard to believe that for a subject as trendy as climate change, there are so few photographers who specialize in it.”
I particularly resent the greenpeace ad!
I guess that The NASA of the 1969 created a myth of scientific excellence that some of those now working there believe themselves a kind of Gurus uttering mantras or Popes issuing ex-cathedra bulls directly dictated from above (in this case by the ALmighty Lord of the Netherworld).
The news conference will probably not even mention the sun, NASA knows that the sun is just a benign orb with barely enough power to run the shuttles submlimator. The conference will be a fiasco where it degenerates into arguments about the position of the placement of adds on this blog.
Interesting post!
http://politicsdecoded.com/2009/05/08/swineflu/
Down you got me going,
going round you got me going,
going down,
dow-dow-down,
dow-dow-down…
So the sun is a fan of early rock and roll?… who knew…
Why not to send JH et Al. in a shuttle to orbit to take a bath of reality?. Tell them it is a bonus before retirement!! 🙂
Lief states the lack of sunspots has little impact on global temperatures, that being the case WHY all the interest.
This common body,
Like to a vagabond flag upon the stream,
Goes to and back, lackeying the varying tide,
To rot itself with motion.
-William Shakespeare
ANTHONY AND CLEOPATRA, I, iv
AKD (13:26:02) :
Pictures don’t say anything about the science. Those are just used as emotional triggers. Just like Gore’s movie (which must contain about 30,000 pictures… i.e. 30 frames/min for 100 minutes) is full of lies and deception. Like the film, the pictures don’t show the link between CO2 and global warming.
Perhaps NOAA Space Weather should start using the word “forecast” not “prediction”. We all realize forecasts are not exact and can be amended but are less tolerant of the same for predictions. It may seem like symatics but isn’t that what the gripping is all about, the constantly moving “prediction”?
As for the ads, I do not believe Anthony has any control over which ads show or when they show. He does have the ability to have Google Ads omit any URL he chooses but must type each and every one he wants omit into the system. I “predict” he will not even attempt to do this. So take them as they appear and hope it helps to keep this site as great as it is.
Thanks for the ad.
Tom in Florida (14:19:16) :
Perhaps NOAA Space Weather should start using the word “forecast” not “prediction”.
It would be better PROPHESY, because THEY are NEW AGE PROPHETS, and, as all prophets they will prove WRONG.
This is the first article that the ads have not automatically been bypassed when I clicked to see the “rest of the story” (H/T to a great newsman). And, for these ads, I actually found that solar ad useful.
Maybe if we each hit the donation box a little more often to PAY for the great product we are receiving Anthony wouldn’t need ad revenue. But think of it this way… money seeks out those who fill a demand, how much do you think RC could get for their viewership?
Thank you for the idiot’s guide to sunspots. Now, can someone explain what the A-Index and K-Index are on the box in the right column? They seem to be a measure of sun activity, but I don’t know how.
Thank you all for your smarts here!
Pity the poor folk at NOAA/SWPC.
They make changes without an announcement and they’re figuratively tarred and feathered.
They announce something in advance and it’s looked at as a lot about nothing.
They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Let’s see what they say; we might actually be surprised…maybe.
I may have been asleep if this has been mentioned before but since everyone keeps speaking of ads, how about an ad for a little book from Heartland:
http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf
It appears to be written by an Anthony Watts. Wonder if anyone’s ever heard of this guy.
WUWT would not need advertisements if more people donated a few dollars. I do not mind the advertisements, I love free markets. This is a wonderful web site, I just wish more politicians would read it before they vote to pass a carbon tax that will have zero affect on the climate.
Dr. Svalgaard’s own research ( http://www.leif.org/research/ ) still appears to remain consistent, as can be seen in this graph, in particular: ( http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png ), e.g., the cycle appeared to have bottomed out late 2008, and he tracks data, when normed, showing an equally low increase in activity in said graph.
One thing I’ve always appreciated about Dr. Svalgaard’s work, which I encountered doing research on Cosmic Rays, is his apparent integrity, refusing to draw conclusions beyond where the data takes us.
Addendum to Gary from Chicagoland (12:32:21) :
A decrease of 0.6405˚C degrees globally is the largest January-to-January drop since 1875, and the biggest drop for any 12-month interval since – 0.681 ˚C in February 1974.
Lord Monckton described the temp decrease in a more dramatic tone during interview with Mr Micheal Savage. You do not have to like Mr Savage’s rants but Mr Monckton’s words are worth to listen to (for the 10 min. in all).
Hear Christopher Monckton on “The Savage Nation”
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5614
Lord Christopher Monckton, who served as science adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was invited to appear with Al Gore at a House panel hearing Friday. But House Democrats, led by Rep. Henry Waxman, canceled the appearance. Shortly after the hearing, Monckton gave his account to “The Savage Nation” and explained why Al Gore and other “alarmists” are wrong about “global warming.”
Regards
Ads? Its your web site, do what you want/need. That having been said, I am reminded of the early days of FM radio. Better signal quality, better programming and it was commercial free! After a few years we were treated to all the ads we could stand and programming went down the quality toilet. Parallels? Oh well, some times an analogy is just a story.
If asked, and we were, I’d kill/move the top one down to the comments lead area.
SL
Use all the ads you can, wherever you can, to maximize revenue. Don’t listen to the whiners unless the visit count drops.
The return on investment from sites like CA, WUWT and others is incalculably large when one considers the nasty and brutish poverty that would result from Hansen/Gore’s unchecked policy prescriptions.
“The two predictions, of maximum being either a SSN of 90 or a SSN of 140 remain intact.”
Reminds me of “Dark tonight, light tomorrow.”
Couldn’t anyone could do as well with a Ouija Board?
Joel Raupe (15:15:46) :
One thing I’ve always appreciated about Dr. Svalgaard’s work, which I encountered doing research on Cosmic Rays, is his apparent integrity, refusing to draw conclusions beyond where the data takes us.
Thanks for the kind words [contrasting some other comments]. Although I do speculate and extrapolate when feeling lucky. The trick is to label such as such.
There’s a new story in SCIENCE vol 324 for May 1 2009 about a papert o appear in Geophysical Research Letters by two climate modelers Jeffrey Pierce and Peter Adams; both of Carnegie Mellon University.
They examined the Svensmark/Christensen theory of cosmic ray modulation of cloud cover leading to a negative feedback temperature effect.
Pierce and Adams, claim that their computer model says that cosmic rays are short by two orders of magnitude from being able to cause the cooling effect that the Svensmark/Christensen thesis proposes.
It’s hard to tell from the SCIENCE article what is what; so we will have to weait for the GRL paper to come out.
Once again computer modeling will be used to show that experimental observations are all wrong.
Other modelers have joined in the fray; anxious to have their computer nix the CRs, while still others say Pierce and Adams are the ones who are all wet.
Well the planet knows who is correct.
I don’t mind the adds. Its easy enough to ignore. But I love all the good comments.
I know Lief says that sunspot numbers don’t correlate with climate, but are there other solar indicators that do correlate better with climate? It just seems impossible to me that climate not be driven by the sun more than any other thing.
Lloyd
Ads? What Ads?
My visual cortex developed an ad filtering algorithm about a year after I started browsing the WWW. I can’t see them.
A stupid question, I’m sorry.
Is the Sun dimmer because of outside layers are “cooler” in full EM spectrum or its diameter is smaller as the Sun collapsed a little under its gravitational forces having no enough inside “steam pressure” to counter the G forces (the Sun is in lull period)?
Thanks in advance.
Regards
rzemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2) (16:24:14) :
A stupid question, I’m sorry.
Is the Sun dimmer because of outside layers are “cooler” …
Not stupid. The dimmer Sun is the ‘normal’ Sun. At solar maximum there are lots of magnetic fields. Those tend to sit on little ‘hills’ [‘corrugations’] that are hotter than the valleys around them, so we get more radiation [although only a little, 0.1%] than when there are no such hills.
LloydH (16:00:10) :
sunspot numbers don’t correlate with climate, but are there other solar indicators that do correlate better with climate?
All solar indicators correlate in the end with the sunspot number, which is why this somewhat subjective and arbitrary measure is so popular [and is still being produced].
Re: Leif Svalgaard (10:31:31) :
Thanks for your response, Leif.
This gets me to thinking, do you have a prediction for the cycle 23/24 minimum, or the 24 maximum, or do you even think it is predictable? I don’t recall if you have said in the past (too many old posts to search through).
I thought I was unique in this ability! “My visual cortex developed an ad filtering algorithm about a year after I started browsing the WWW. I can’t see them.” LOL! I think the ads are fine—can’t remember seeing any of them……
I would be interested to see an opposing viewpoint graph. Their shoving the valley over a few months is amusing but I’d like to see more. Is there anyone out there with the ‘other’ side? My formal sciences were a long time ago and it seems there are always gaps in my current reading. (actually feel like everything aside from math and reading was wrong in school—no wonder the masses vote personality)
So far, the only predictions that seem to be holding true are from David Archibald.
Maybe they are going to discuss this news from The Onion (May 7):
Sun Goes Out For A Few Seconds
TUCSON, AZ—Officials at the Kitt Peak National Observatory are saying that, while the short period of utter darkness and intense cold was distressing, there is “no immediate cause for alarm” over the sun’s six-second outage Monday. “We’re not sure what caused our sun, which is in essence a self-sustaining fusion reaction, to defy science and just go out for a moment like that, but I wouldn’t worry too much,” astronomer Stephen Pompea said. “There is a slight chance it could repeat, like sunspot activity, a more common—whup! There it goes again. You seeing this? Kind of weird how it—okay, back on.” Observatory personnel said they would give their full attention to investigating the phenomenon as soon as they figure out why last night’s moon was blood red and took up half the sky.
Joseph (17:25:14) :
This gets me to thinking, do you have a prediction for the cycle 23/24 minimum, or the 24 maximum, or do you even think it is predictable?
Based on the pink curve [the 10.7 cm radio flux] in:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
I would guess November 2008 would be a good candidate.
As for the ads, when they’re just below the title, I scroll past w/o registering so I can read the article. A negative annoyance. If they were at the bottom, I might look at them while I was thinking about the article I read.
Will they be more accurate than Piers Corbyn?
Leif Svalgaard (11:14:29) :
Leif Svalgaard (16:50:40) :
Leif Svalgaard (16:53:06) :
Leif Svalgaard (19:30:33) :
I am learning from you Lief. I like the little tidbits you post. After working all day and feeling punchy it is really nice to see these little, interesting notes about the sun. I get lost in the longer posts. I have never studied the sun and I don’t know if I can find the time to. So the factoids are great to me! (Maybe that makes me sound lazy. 😉 ) It’s just like the factoids that the History Channel always has when they are going to a commercial break. Eventually, from reading all your comments I may feel like I’ve graduated from a 101 to a 201 level.
Off topic but what happened to icecap.us? Can’t seem to access the site.
Off topic but you people might be the ones to explain. What has happened to ICECAP? I went away for a week and now the only message I get is ‘links are broken’ which applied from WUWT too!
Leif 16:53:06
That’s kind of intriguing that all solar indicators correlate with the sunspot numbers. The periods during the Grand Minima, when sunspots go away or are very sparse, while the other known manifestations of the solar dynamo continue unchanged must be those few times when the correlation does not hold. Now, if the sunspots go away soon, and if the globe cools without other interfering phenomena like volcanoes, and if the other manifestations of the dynamo continue unchanged, then it should be the sunspots themselves that effect the climate. Of course that is not for certain; we may find another manifestation of the solar dynamo that also does not continue unchanged, and then that will be a suspect in the climate regulation.
=====================================
kim (22:21:09) :
if the sunspots go away soon, and if the globe cools without other interfering phenomena like volcanoes, and if the other manifestations of the dynamo continue unchanged, then it should be the sunspots themselves that effect the climate.
The climate is not influenced by the sunspots themselves but by the attendant phenomena [some people claim: magnetic field, cosmic rays, TSI, etc], and if they stay much the same, but the climate cools significantly, then we have a strong indication that the Sun is not the driver of climate.
The only effect I can see [if I had to find an effect] of an invisible sunspot is a higher TSI. TSI is supposed to be a constant background + 2 x brightening from magnetic field – 1 x dimming from dark spots. No dark spots … you get it: no dimming…
But I don’t think visible/invisible spots make any difference.
So, strong ‘proof’ that the Sun is not the culprit, if the climate cools…
@Leif
Please don’t consider this as a critique, It is a matter of lay-man curiosity.
When looking at your graph for TSI and F10.7, you have what appears to be a smoothed curve for TSI. Is that a model (possibly a polynomial?), or a representation of the measured data?
Admittingly when eye-balling, I am a bit puzzeled by the apparent increase in the end, if based on the measured data.
If you have the time, I would appreciate a clarification.
Cheers
Cassanders
“The only effect I can see [if I had to find an effect] of an invisible sunspot is a higher TSI. TSI is supposed to be a constant background + 2 x brightening from magnetic field – 1 x dimming from dark spots. No dark spots … you get it: no dimming…”
I’m not sure I follow you. Isn’t TSI right now lower than it has been for decades:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig4.gif
No dark spots, lower TSI?
Leif
So, strong ‘proof’ that the Sun is not the culprit, if the climate cools…
Unless you are wrong about the degree to which various parts of the spectrum the sun emits to varying degrees affect the earth.
Bob Wood (19:12:12) :
So far, the only predictions that seem to be holding true are from David Archibald.
Didn’t David Archibald predict a May anomaly of -0.3C before christmas? I’ll be watching AMSU with interest this month.
I strongly dislike ads in general but I suppose they’re a necessary evil. But what I strongly object to is the message some of them are pushing. On this thread:
.
“Help Combat The Climate Crisis Assess, Reduce and Offset Your CO2”
“Make a real difference in the battle against climate change.”
.
I find it profoundly depressing to see WUWT promoting this kind of nonsense. If you must have ads, then fine. But would it be possible to filter these offensive ads out? There’s enough of it in the media without WUWT promoting this dangerous and wasteful delusion.
Chris
Leif Svalgaard (23:00:30) :
The climate is not influenced by the sunspots themselves but by the attendant phenomena [some people claim: magnetic field, cosmic rays, TSI, etc], and if they stay much the same, but the climate cools significantly, then we have a strong indication that the Sun is not the driver of climate.
The only effect I can see [if I had to find an effect] of an invisible sunspot is a higher TSI. TSI is supposed to be a constant background + 2 x brightening from magnetic field – 1 x dimming from dark spots. No dark spots … you get it: no dimming…
But I don’t think visible/invisible spots make any difference.
So, strong ‘proof’ that the Sun is not the culprit, if the climate cools…
Leif – The attendant phenomena should “normally” be what exactly?? Do we know all of the mechanisms by which Earth warms/cools due to seemingly minor changes in a particular phenomena?? You may very well be correct in your “if A=B and B=C, then A=C”, but I am not confident that we know enough about feedbacks to be so certain.
Tom
This is an ‘ultralight’ question for Dr Svalgaard. Why are Scandinavian names so seemingly prominent in solar physics? Could it be that growing up in, or at least having cultural roots in, societies ensconced at latitudes where the apparent yearly journey of the sun produces such dramatic differences in the length of days and nights tweaks an interest in things solar that would be more difficult to sustain in, say, Ecuador?
much criticism but wheres the alternative predictions from the armchair experts? if anyone has any links I would be interested in following
On the “SWPC Moves The Goalpost” discussion page at Solar Cycle 24, I just posted my latest SWPC animations. The last animation in the presentation was hand edited to show the original SWPC predictions before they stated playing games in February 2009. The current levels of Solar activity from the original 2007 SWPC have now become quite significant. I am looking forwards to today’s announcement.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=482&page=8#19008
Mike
Piers Corbyn has a wonderful record for accuracy. He uses the sun to make his forecasts.
http://www.weatheraction.com/
He does not reveal his methods and we should not expect him to. Weather forecasting is his means of income. Revealing his methods would be the same as if Colonel Sanders had revealed his 11 herbs and spices.
He does forecast that the earth will be in a cooling trend for ~ 30 years with the low ebb around 2040—if i am remembering the numbers correctly. I need to look up the reference. I’m rushing to work now.
Cassanders (01:27:02) :
When looking at your graph for TSI and F10.7, you have what appears to be a smoothed curve for TSI. Is that a model (possibly a polynomial?), or a representation of the measured data?
There are four smoothed curves. They don’t really mean much, but are just my interpretation of what the changes are. The dashed curves are just low-degree (2 or 3) polynomial fits to all the points, so no fiddling. The full drawn curves are polynomial fits to the ‘bottom’ three points in each solar rotation to capture the ‘slowly varying’ components. The only curves that are real and unbiased are the actual data curves with the little circles on them. The ‘strange’ plateau in TSI at 2008.8 coincides with the SORCE people upgrading the processing software. I don’t know if this means anything…
NastyWolf (01:36:13) :
I’m not sure I follow you. Isn’t TSI right now lower than it has been for decades:
No, I don’t think so. This misconception is usually based on the PMOD composite TSI series maintained by Claus Froehlich. It is very difficult to maintain the stability of absolute measurements and different spacecraft instruments give different results. The best data IMO comes from SORCE. If one plots the difference between PMOD and SORCE, one finds that the difference has been changing with time [consistent with PMOD being lower and lower compared with SORCE. Here is the difference since the launch of SORCE as a function of time: BEFORE The decrease in TSI from PMOD and parroted by NASA is an artifact if one assumes [as I do] that SORCE is correct [better calibration, newer instrument, etc, etc]. The decrease was 0.0177 W/m2 per year. When I brought this to the attention of Claus, they looked at their data and realized that it was drifting and therefore recalibrated the whole series. Here is the difference after the recalibration: AFTER Note that the data is up through mid-April of 2009, so very current. Now the decrease is much smaller: 0.0044 W/m2/yr.
This is what Claus Froehlich had to say about the matter: “Yes, you may have noticed that the VIRGO data are now Version 6.002 and I changed an internal correction – I did this already in SF. A few years ago I found a linear trend between the corrected PMO6V and DIARAD time series and allocated it to DIARAD. At SF I realized that this was probably wrong and remembered also that the re-analysis I started 2 years ago and never completed showed that the corrections of PMO6V-B the less exposed backup was with the early increase as determined for PMO6V-A too much changing – so I attributed the trend to PMO6V and obviously got a smaller change relativ to TIM, which was a kind of initiator of this whole action. But still it is completely internal to VIRGO and makes with all I know about VIRGO radiometry good sense.”
When I pointed out that there still was a drift and that PMOD was a bit ‘erratic’ lately [see: http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison%20SORCE%20PMOD%20since%202008.png ] his reply was: “From that time on we have a problem with DIARAD I have not yet solved, but need to look into in much more detail – for the moment I used a simple correction, which may not be correct.”
So, until they figure out what is wrong, I’ll not put much credence in the idea that “TSI is the lowest it has been in decades”. Of course, as always, most people will not admit to ‘inconvenient truths’, so NASA and others will ignore any problems and still show the old graph if it fits in their scheme.
tallbloke (02:38:41) :
“So, strong ‘proof’ that the Sun is not the culprit, if the climate cools…”
Unless you are wrong about the degree to which various parts of the spectrum the sun emits to varying degrees affect the earth.
The onus is on those that claim there are different degrees to show how that explains anything apart from what we already know. To my knowledge, there are no such explanations. Perhaps you could supply a link or two?
Tucker (03:55:42) :
Leif – The attendant phenomena should “normally” be what exactly??
The usual suspects [magnetic field, cosmic rays, TSI, UV, …]
Do we know all of the mechanisms by which Earth warms/cools due to seemingly minor changes in a particular phenomena??
See my response above.
Arthur Glass (05:48:50) :
This is an ‘ultralight’ question for Dr Svalgaard. Why are Scandinavian names so seemingly prominent in solar physics?
We are a smart lot 🙂 Well, seriously, it is not just solar physics, but what used to be called ‘solar-terrestrial relations’, namely the interplay of solar phenomena with geomagnetic disturbances and aurorae, which are much more noticeable at higher latitudes. So, we are disposed to study where all that comes from.
The tags are screwed up in my post above, I hope it makes sense anyway. And will not repeat it.
Just Want Truth… (07:28:00) :
Piers Corbyn has a wonderful record for accuracy. He uses the sun to make his forecasts.
He does not reveal his methods and we should not expect him to. Weather forecasting is his means of income…
I’ll argue that this is unethical [but also admit that it is too much to expect or even demand ethical behavior]. The argument goes like this:
1) we assume that accurate forecasts are beneficial and even saves lives
2) we assume that his forecasts are not used by everybody all over the world
3) we assume that the reason for this (2) is that there is reluctance to use undisclosed methods
4) we assume that lives are lost due to less accurate forecasts
5) it then follows that lives are lost due to somebody’s personal financial gain. Lives that could have saved by disclosure, validation, and adoption of the wonderful method
6) we maintain that this is unethical
The argument breaks down and ethics is restored if it turns out that the method is not any better than the other ones.
Leif Svalgaard (10:31:31) :
Joseph (09:39:07) :
Does Leif’s prediction of a SSN maximum of ~74 (IIRC) remain intact?
Yes, it stands at 70 for the moment, but that is not significantly different from 74 or 75 [our original estimate]
hmmm another prediction update…sounds a little like Hathaway and others….creeping creeping.
Stick to your guns…a prediction should not change.
I am sticking with mine…sub 50SSN
Geoff Sharp (08:19:32) :
Stick to your guns…a prediction should not change.
Of course it should as new data becomes available. I certainly expect the local weather prediction to reflect the latest data.
As we point out in our prediction paper http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
“Monitoring the polar fields in the next few years might allow a refinement of the estimate of Rmax. An important advantage of the polar field precursor method is the significant lead-time of the prediction (about seven years ahead of the maximum) and its potential for continual (real-time) update as the cycle gets underway.”
re: ads
I’m using Firefox on a Mac, and the ad for this page appears to be in 20-24 pt. type – very annoying and off-putting. On another page part of the ad appeared to be circled in bright red crayon, with big hand-drawn arrows pointing to it. It was absolutely huge.
That being said, I have no problem with WUWT getting ad revenue, more power to ya! But the size and placement of the ads today are a bit problematical.
Leif,
I don’t understand 10,7 cm radio flux progression (ISES NOAA SWPC plotted curb). It looks like a total fraud to me.
It started from 60 whereas, it can not be under 67 – even if it reached 64 in july last year.
Thanks a lot for your brillant contribution on this blog.
Leif Svalgaard (08:11:38) :
I’ll argue that this is unethical….
You got it a bit off mark on Mr. Corbyn
1. He uses UK’s two centauries old weather and sunspot record for ‘back correlation’.
Such detailed records are not available elsewhere.
2. He is a professional forecaster making living out of it. If he disclosed his methods than he would make himself unemployed.
3. He sells his forecasts to supermarkets (e.g. increase supply of ice-cream), department stores (light summer or heavier winter clothing supplies), outdoor events etc.
He sells his skills as a doctor or an accountant or any other professional would.
To be more precise : I do not understand why the predicted values of 10,7 cm flux progression starts so low.
Thanks a lot to anybody who have an idea about this bad curve.
Emmanuel ROBERT (13:37:35) :
To be more precise : I do not understand why the predicted values of 10,7 cm flux progression starts so low.
Because they are wrong. Check out the other NOAA threads
vukcevic (13:24:19) :
He sells his skills as a doctor or an accountant or any other professional would.
A doctor and most other professionals would not get a license to operate if their methods were unknown. They may operate because they use well-established and accepted and public methods and information and have [often] passed a test in them.
Even goes for an engineer:
‘Me engineer want to build bridge using my secret Subemu method that I will not tell you how works. It has worked many times, only 1 bridge out of 10 falls down, guaranteed. Full satisfaction or money lost.’
Julie L (09:53:20) :
re: ads
I’m using Firefox on a Mac, and the ad for this page appears to be in 20-24 pt. type – very annoying and off-putting. On another page part of the ad appeared to be circled in bright red crayon, with big hand-drawn arrows pointing to it. It was absolutely huge.
That being said, I have no problem with WUWT getting ad revenue, more power to ya! But the size and placement of the ads today are a bit problematical.”
Julie L,
I use a Mac with Firefox as well.
You simply configure it to reduce the adds to text only.
Problem solved
Leif Svalgaard (09:21:24) :
“Stick to your guns…a prediction should not change”
Its all a bit like trying to pick the winner of an F1 race after the practice and qualifying is over. Then after the reds lights go out and the first lap is over changing your mind again….kind of pointless really 🙂
No one is denying climate change. Climate changes everywhere and change is the constant. Climate has changed ever since the planet began having atmosphere 4.5? Billion years ago. Over that immense deep time, however, the planet has reached a stable equilibrium between glaciations and interglacial periods and the water vapour is part of the thermostat. Warm the planet and clouds form to cool the planet; it is just that simple. Cool the planet and humidity drops and glaciers waste away. The equilibrium position for the oceans is out at edge of the continental shelves. The last big thaw resulted in flood myths and global religions. Radical Environmentalism may be the latest, but it is built on the myths of all the rest.
I am objectively sceptical that any trace gas is anything but an effect. The inverse solubility of gasses in seawater is science the Goracle never knew. A slippery truth has circled around and bitten the true believers of the mass movement on the backside. CO2 trails warming and cannot be the cause.
The issue is now McCarthyism as a number of scientifically illiterate politicians have got onto a politically correct bandwagon and do not have an exit strategy whereby they can save face. While CO2 has risen, the global climate has cooled. The cause and effect has no correlation. It would be funny if it were not so serious. If they want to crater the economy, why don’t they say so instead of hiding behind Tipper Gore’s skirt?
Leif Svalgaard (08:11:38) :
You seem to be off on a tangent that was not part of what I was saying.
Piers Corbyn is highly accurate in his method of using the sun to make weather forecasts, short range and long range. This lends credence to his forecast of coming cooling.
That was my point. I’m not sure where you were driving at.
Leif Svalgaard (16:07:41) :
I think you are making unfair comparisons. And I can’t understand why.
“Leif Svalgaard (16:07:41) : ‘Me engineer want to build bridge using my secret Subemu method that I will not tell you how works. It has worked many times, only 1 bridge out of 10 falls down, guaranteed. Full satisfaction or money lost.’”
This seems to be below the belt.
If Piers Corbyn was not more accurate than others he would be out of business.
What is your opinion of those who are less accurate and are making a living from the less accurate forecasts? You respect them more? Again, I’m not sure what you’re driving at.
Leif Svalgaard (16:07:41) :
Are you also upset with the success of The Farmers Almanac?
Leif Svalgaard (16:07:41) :
“Colonel Sanders, your chicken tastes great and is selling wonderfully. You must give us your recipe or you are unethical.”
😉
Just Want Truth… (20:56:25) :
If Piers Corbyn was not more accurate than others he would be out of business.
There are lots of snake oil salesmen out there. P.T. Barnum is supposed to have said [he did not, but what’s the difference] “there is a sucker born every minute”. The better salesman gets the sale every time. Now, can I not believe something is unethical and other people think it is OK? Where is the problem? Especially if it brings in the dough.
Geoff Sharp (18:18:10) :
changing your mind again….kind of pointless really 🙂
No, if the prediction says that Rmax = 0.62 * polar fields, then if the polar fields change, Rmax will change, so is it pointless that the Sun has changed its mind [even if only slightly]? Formally we use the average value of the polar fields over the three years before minimum and back in 2004 when we made our prediction we only had about one year of polar field data with clear annual modulation [which is the criteria for stable enough polar fields], and now we have much more data, so no problem, and no change of mind. You assertion seems to be just a general attempt to sow doubt.
IMHO we really cannot depend on NASA for good predictions because it is evident that their agenda here is erring on the side of alarmism not for any AGW reason, but because NASA is responsible for space and space weather, which can have not only a massive impact on the safety of our astronauts, the ISS, Space Shuttle, as well as thousands of civil, military, and private satellite facilities. In addition, large solar storms can cause serious economic damage on Earth. If they are not sufficiently cautious and a big storm happens, they will get the blame for not predicting what they so obviously do not understand. Like any bureacracy that doesnt know what they are doing, they are taking worst case scenarios as the expected ones, and as a result, handing out the “worst case” solar cycle they can from the perspective of insurance adjustors and actuaries who need to set policy premiums for trillions of dollars in assets.
Dr. Svalgaard
“There are lots of snake oil salesmen out there..”
Do you ask for CocaCola’s formula before you buy one and drink it. If it tastes OK, you buy it again regardless of the formula.
Same with the Dr. Corbyn’s forecasts. People would not by them if they are not OK.
vukcevic (02:33:03) :
Same with the Dr. Corbyn’s forecasts. People would not by them if they are not OK.
But they do, as well as they buy many other things that don’t work .
You must come up with the mechanism. The physics. The science. The math. And it must be plausible. You can’t just say, well it must have been the sunspots. Buy some good coffee table books on the Sun and read them. Bonus: the pictures are pretty. Take the time to learn what is known. If you do that, you will discover that the snake oil prediction is nothing but a good stiff drink. Or else you are just bringing sacrifice to the correlation of the goddess getting up in the morning without her spots on.
“Leif Svalgaard (21:26:49) : There are lots of snake oil salesmen out there.”
This would simply be your opinion Lief.
What is your opinion of The Farmers Almanac?
“Leif Svalgaard (21:26:49) : ”
It must be that we are talking about two different people here.
But if we are talking about the same person here then it is better that the exchange between us about this ends here. I think you have a blind spot as to how your view of Piers Corbyn is making you look.
Just Want Truth… (09:06:46) :
What is your opinion of The Farmers Almanac?
I do not have an opinion on that rag, nor on the NYT or CNN or any such. I may have opinions on specific stories they report on.
“Leif Svalgaard (08:06:17) : as well as they buy many other things that don’t work .”
Really?
Leif Svalgaard (08:06:17) :
Were you aware of this also?
“Minerals Engineering Society – 17 Jan 2008, at Willesley Park Golf Club, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Leicestershire. Piers Corbyn was awarded the AMEME Hopley Lecture Shield for his Presentation – entitled “Is it the Sun or Is it you? – ‘Global warming’ debate and Long range weather forecasting’ This prestigious annual award was started by what was then the Association of Mining Electrical and Mechanical Engineers in 1975.”
Might not be a snake oil award, huh.
Just Want Truth… (09:17:52) :
Might not be a snake oil award, huh.
Al Gore got the Nobel Prize…
But if we are talking about the same person here then it is better that the exchange between us about this ends here.
One may have hoped you would have heeded your own words and spared the readership.
The Nobel Prize Al Gore got was not for science. It was the Peace Prize.
That was a kind of cheap shot Lief.
Leif Svalgaard (09:46:48) :
One thing that can’t be argued with is Piers Corbyn’s record of success.
I don’t think too many are reading this thread any more.
“Leif Svalgaard (09:16:21) : What is your opinion of The Farmers Almanac?… that rag”
Leif, it is good for your reputation that this is not the hot thread now and many won’t be seeing what you said here.
Leif Svalgaard (08:11:38) :
I’ll argue that this is unethical [but also admit that it is too much to expect or even demand ethical behavior]. The argument goes like this:
1) we assume that accurate forecasts are beneficial and even saves lives
2) we assume that his forecasts are not used by everybody all over the world
3) we assume that the reason for this (2) is that there is reluctance to use undisclosed methods
4) we assume that lives are lost due to less accurate forecasts
5) it then follows that lives are lost due to somebody’s personal financial gain. Lives that could have saved by disclosure, validation, and adoption of the wonderful method
6) we maintain that this is unethical
Leif,
I enjoy reading your posts, as they typically employ logical rigor. In this case you are arguing an ethical argument to question the scientific validity of a meteorologist. The premise of your argument appears to be rooted in Marxism, and perhaps this are valid. Here is a similar argument:
Suppose that-
1. I just spend 4 years and 12.5 million dollars developing and testing a new drug that can increase red cell count while facilitating plaque decomposition.
2. This drug is beneficial and can save lives.
3. This drug is not used by all people who are at-risk for circulatory problems.
4. Lives are lost because many people do not have access to this drug.
5. If someone needs this drug, they have the right to get it.
6. I am morally bound to give the drugs design, formula, and manufacturing method to posterity so that all who need it have access to it.
It is easy to see how this argument is not exactly parallel to yours. It is also easy to see how your argument is not exactly applicable to Just Want Truth’s.
Perhaps it was not your intent to use politicized ethics as an argument to invalidate Corbyn’s forecasts, but this is what it looks like. It is incongruent with the majority of your posts, and caught me completely by surprise. Normally you would debunk Corbyn’s methods with a very solid statistical analysis or physics, rather than an easily refutable ethics argument. Everyone can have an off day, I suppose. You didn’t have the anchovies for dinner, by chance?
Just Want Truth… (10:47:19) :
That was a kind of cheap shot Leif.
One thing that can’t be argued with is Piers Corbyn’s record of success.
The one thing that is missing is how much of the forecast is based on the Sun and how much on regular weather data.
The Nobel prize was for rising awareness of a ‘science’ related issue. The prize Corbyn got was not for the ‘science’ either [since nobody knows what his ‘science’ is], but for his service as a forecaster.
There are time honored ways of determining how good forecasts are. One computes a ‘skill score’, and not just for a few events, but day after day, decade after decade, and plots the skill score as a function of time. Show me his skill score plot. Then to judge how much of the skill is due to the Sun, one makes two forecasts, one using the Sun and one not using the Sun, computes day-by-day the skill scores of both and compares them, then one can say: “see, using the Sun, increases the skill score by x%”. All of this can be done without disclosing what the secret ‘method’ is, and will have no negative impact on his earnings. Will, probably, have a very large positive effect as his successes can be quantified and customers will migrate to methods with documented high skill scores.
Anything else is not science.
Fred Souder (11:07:47) :
Perhaps it was not your intent to use politicized ethics as an argument to invalidate Corbyn’s forecasts, but this is what it looks like.?
Then let me clarify: the argument was not intended to invalidate Corbyn’s forecasts. It goes deeper. See my post above about validation.
If Corbyn’s [undisclosed] method does not work, then there is nothing unethical about it. Lots of people are trying to get me to buy things that don’t work. They are not unethical or immoral, they are just tying to make a buck, and they might even be deluded into believing that their product works].
The unethical aspects comes in only if the product actually works. To elaborate on your medical argument, imagine that I see a man shot in the street [I live in the US, and have actually seen this happen] and he is bleeding heavily. I have material to make a tourniquet [may even be a medic and have the training] and stop the bleeding and save his life, but I want $1000 for it. The man pleads with me, but I tell him that I have to make a living, so sorry.
So, the logic is that if Corbyn has the magic bullet or secret knowledge to make all forecasts very successful and save lives and property, then not wanting to share that [and I’m sure he would be richly rewarded anyway if he did] with the world is unethical. But, again, only if it actually works.
Leif Svalgaard (11:27:00) :
Fred Souder (11:07:47) :
“So, the logic is that if Corbyn has the magic bullet or secret knowledge to make all forecasts very successful and save lives and property, then not wanting to share that [and I’m sure he would be richly rewarded anyway if he did] with the world is unethical. But, again, only if it actually works.”
So, I’m not trying to debunk it with the argument about ethics. Since I doubt that the method works [but don’t actually know] I’m, in fact, not accusing him of being unethical. However, the people that do believe the method works [including Corbyn if he falls in that category] should have doubt about the ethics.
Again: if it works => ethics problem,
if it doesn’t work => no ethics problem (my position)
Gentlemen,
I think we should let Mr. Corbyn get on with his business, while we should get on with ours. Only what he has and we do not is the patience to sift trough data and do correlations. I have at hand all the data I need, but I do not have a patience to do it. Here is a chart that shows selection of data for 10 years 1954-1964 for UK’s Midlands.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/OxfordRecords.gif
vukcevic (14:28:12) :
Here is a chart that shows selection of data for 10 years 1954-1964 for UK’s Midlands.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/OxfordRecords.gif
Assuming this is observations, perhaps you have a similar plot of Corbyn’s forecasted values?
Re: Leif Svalgaard (13:16:50)
Leif, if I have read your position correctly, it seems to be based on Corbyn’s technique being certainly (100%) successful or not. [100% successful =>ethics problem]. What if Corbyn’s technique was only 60% or 70% or 80% or 90% successful? Would still claim there was an ethics problem?
Joseph (15:48:39) :
What if Corbyn’s technique was only 60% or 70% or 80% or 90% successful? Would still claim there was an ethics problem?
Any significant [one can debate how much] improvement over ‘traditional’ methods would be a problem [although the problem would be bigger the better the method performs]. But since I don’t think there is any [don’t know actually, because we cannot determine how much of the success rate comes from using the Sun since he won’t tell us how it works] I don’t think there is a problem. Only people that claim that his record is stellar [how much that is] would have to consider that there is a problem.
Another example: if I could predict Earthquakes with a high degree of success and thereby save many lives, but I would demand payment for telling, then I would [or should, as some people wouldn’t judging from the reactions to my comment] feel bad if thousands die in an earthquake in India because the town was too poor to afford my fee.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (16:04:17)
[Any significant [one can debate how much] improvement over ‘traditional’ methods would be a problem [although the problem would be bigger the better the method performs].}
Leif, this is the problem I have with your position on this matter; the probabilistic nature of your argument. It is too personally subjective, and illogical.
Let’s face it, Corbyn (or anyone else) cannot be 100% correct all the time when forecasting the weather. His success (even if his techniques work) will always be something less than 100%. Are you saying that if his techniques achieve some threshold of success that you personally consider to be significant (say 80%, e.g.), you would consider Corbyn ethically culpable if he didn’t give the information away for free? That doesn’t make sense.
What if, being right only 80% of the time, Corbyn made his techniques public (doing the morally responsible thing, in your opinion), and 20% of the time (when he was wrong in some weather situations) thousands died? Are we to hold him responsible? That doesn’t make sense.
Meteorologists already have enough rocks thrown at them by people unhappy with the inherent uncertainty that is implicit within that field. On top of that, you wish to slather ethical culpability when the forecasts do not prove true? Leif, that really doesn’t make any sense at all.
Joseph (19:54:59) :
you wish to slather ethical culpability when the forecasts do not prove true? Leif, that really doesn’t make any sense at all.
The other way around. A wrong forecast and a wrong method are just facts of life, no ethics problem arise from them. Perhaps I was being too subtle. Some people are saying that Corbyn’s stuff has a fantastic track record. If so, it is, as I have argued, unethical not to disclose it. I’m sure any government would pay millions [if track record is good enough, billions] for the secret, and withholding it is unethical, if disclosing it [for an enormous amount of money] would save untold lives and trillions worth of property. If the forecast is only so-so, then only the gullible will pay money [and it helps in extracting money from them that you tell them that the method is proprietary – who would pay money for something that is not secret?].
So, withholding a wrong, worthless method is ethical. Withholding the holy grail is not.
In any event, that is my opinion. You are welcome to disagree any way you like.
Leif Svalgaard (21:32:18) :
So, withholding a wrong, worthless method is ethical. Withholding the holy grail is not.
If you disagree, then your position would seem to be:
‘withholding the holy grail is ethical, but withholding a wrong, worthless method is not’
I’m sure you can find people that will agree with you on that position. I’ll not be one of them.
Leif Svalgaard (14:42:37) :
(i)Assuming this is observations, perhaps you have a similar plot of Corbyn’s forecasted values?(i)
Yes indeed, they are observations. There are monthly averaged data unavailable from 1660 for Oxfordshire area, sunshine hours from 1929. I have an xls file I could email if you whish , but I doubt that could be of any use.
I have come across number of long-range Corbyn’s forecasts (at place of work, but that is in the past now), they appeared to be good, but I would not say they are excessively accurate (but still more precise than from UK’s met office, to which they were occasionally compared). Even so, I think there is too much obsession with Corbyn’s results from both sides of the argument.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (21:32:18)
No, no disagreement as long as you were talking about Corbyn withholding the holy grail. (Which I don’t think he is. His track record is pretty average.) I agree with you in that case.
His record speaks for itself.
“WeatherAction’s (Piers Corbyn’s) forecasts cite an 85 percent accuracy rate (British Meteorological Office 71%) and have been independently proved by peer-reviewed* academic published testing”
–QUAD Magazine, Queen Mary, University of London, issue 16, 2007, page 9, in this pdf :
http://www.qmul.ac.uk/alumni/publications/quad/quad16.pdf
* Dr Dennis Wheeler, University of Sunderland, in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 63 (2001) p29-34.
“vukcevic (04:50:26) : Even so, I think there is too much obsession with Corbyn’s results from both sides of the argument.”
I agree with you. It’s just that it struck me wrong that he was held a bad light.
But his record is better than “average”. If there is someone with more success I would like to read about it.
To be honest,just want truth,I saw what you wrote about Corbyn,and immediately thought it was an ad for him.You say his record is better than average,Leif says,prove it.Before I gave the man money,I would want proof too.Reminds me of people selling something,all those testimonials from users,but if I’m tempted,I remind myself that those people are probably paid for their testimonials.In a nutshell,is his predictions that much better than other weather forecasts that it is worth paying for?
Just Want Truth… (11:05:27) :
“–QUAD Magazine, Queen Mary, University of London, issue 16, 2007, page 9, in this pdf”
has this to say:
“WeatherAction proclaims to be the only weather forecasting company that can accurately forecast weather conditions up to a year in advance using the ‘Solar Weather Technique’ (SWT) which was developed by Piers and uses predictable aspects of solar activity – particle and magnetic effects from the sun.[…]”
I think this whole topic on this blog was about that there were precious few ‘predictable aspects of solar activity’, so not only does Piers have to forecast the weather on Earth, but also on the Sun [up to a year in advance to boot]. This is a sure sign of snake oil. Perhaps he uses the conjunctions of the planets to forecast solar activity. Since an accurate solar forecast seems to be a prerequisite for an accurate weather forecast, he may be missing out on selling his solar forecasts to ESA and NASA. Maybe he does have those as customers. Do you know? Does anybody know?
Leif,
I have a friend here in the USA who forecasts hurricane tracks for a private company. They sell their forecasts primarily to shipping companies and building contractors. They reason they make money is their forecasts are better than the NWS or the hurricane forecast center. Their forecasting methods are proprietary, of course.
Do you think this is ethical? Should they turn over their techniques to the NWS so that everyone has access to this technology?
Fred Souder (19:59:18) :
Do you think this is ethical? Should they turn over their techniques to the NWS so that everyone has access to this technology?
If indeed it is much better, and could save many lives, yes, then it is unethical. One can argue who is committing the unethical act, your friend or NWS? If, indeed, your friend’s method is so much better, then it is in the public’s interest to use their technique. One could even invoke ’eminent domain’. If, on the other hand, it is debatable which method is best, and your friend’s customers lean one way in that debate and NWS leans the other way, there is no problem. The problem comes when it is claimed that ‘the record speaks for itself’ and claims to be better than sliced bread, If that claim is false or not sufficiently substantiated, then there is no problem. If the claim is correct and that there therefore are great societal and human values at stake, then it is unethical to withhold the method for monetary gain [which would flow to the inventor anyway as just compensation in an ’eminent domain’ situation].
Fred Souder (19:59:18) :
Do you think this is ethical? Should they turn over their techniques to the NWS so that everyone has access to this technology?
If I have come by knowledge that a terrorist attack is imminent and I know where and when, is it ethical for me to demand money for that information?
P.S. The eavesdropping NSA might pick up this comment and who knows what will happen 🙂
” Leif Svalgaard (19:38:55) : snake oil. ”
This is just your opinion, just one man’s opinion Leif.
Have a nice day now.
” Noelene (12:48:43) : prove it.”
What more proof is needed? His forecasts and then what was observed on those forecasts can be looked up. In fact his % of accuracy is in one of my comments.
What Leif seems to be wanting is Corbyn’s methods not his record. Again, his record speaks for itself. And it seems more unethical to demand that Corbyn’s methods be made public than for them to be kept under wraps. In fact, I cannot see any problem at all that they aren’t disclosed—not one iota of a problem. It appears that those who find a problem in such may need to re-evaluate their view on it.
Leif’s opinion of Piers Corbyn reveals something about Leif and not about Piers Corbyn.
I have talked more on this topic than I had ever wanted to. I hope Leif can understand that I have enjoyed reading many of his comments on other things.
Leif Svalgaard (20:35:17) :
Obviously his methods are so good that he shouldn’t reveal them.
But if he is as dishonest and inaccurate as you assert then why don’t you do more accurate forecasting yourself. You are making it sound like you, and many others, are able to do it much better than him. Why not do that business yourself? You are in America—no one will try to stop you.
Truth is it must not be easy—or many would be doing it. Instead of being a critic do it better than him. If you can then I will consider listening to your ideas of him. But, I have a hunch that by time you are able to surpass his accuracy %, if you ever did, your view of him will have radically changed.
Leif Svalgaard (19:38:55) :
Perhaps he uses the conjunctions of the planets to forecast solar activity. Since an accurate solar forecast seems to be a prerequisite for an accurate weather forecast, he may be missing out on selling his solar forecasts to ESA and NASA. Maybe he does have those as customers. Do you know? Does anybody know?
This is your real fear and why you condemn Piers Corbyn. There are a few of us that dont need to try…we have the information so its easy, perhaps he has taken it to another level and is doing quite well out of it…good on him I say.
To get back on topic, the table that SWPC has for F10.7:
# —–Sunspot Number—— —-10.7 cm Radio Flux—-
# YR MO PREDICTED HIGH LOW PREDICTED HIGH LOW
#————————————————————–
2008 11 1.8 2.8 0.8 67.9 68.9 66.9
2008 12 1.8 3.8 0.0 67.5 68.5 66.5
2009 01 2.1 5.1 0.0 67.4 69.4 65.4
2009 02 2.7 7.7 0.0 67.3 70.3 64.3
2009 03 3.3 8.3 0.0 67.2 71.2 63.2
2009 04 3.9 9.9 0.0 67.2 71.2 63.2
2009 05 4.6 11.6 0.0 67.3 72.3 62.3
2009 06 5.5 12.5 0.0 67.5 73.5 61.5
is correct [if we go by their prediction]. It is just [as I point out] the Figure they provide http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/ that is wrong. Biesecker did not have to spin a long story about published formula for SSN conversion to F10.7 being wrong. It is just the graph that is wrong. In sum, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing…
Geoff Sharp (05:22:44) :
This is your real fear
Yes, I would be fearful if we come to a point where on my next flight we are flying into a storm because the weather forecast made a year ago and based on Venus and Jupiter being lined up promised clear weather.
Sun is up and is beginning to look like a Spring speckled Robin’s egg on the magnetogram! I predict a birth of baby spots! At the very least, we have started contractions!
“Geoff Sharp (05:22:44) : …good on him I say.”
So do I mate.