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
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.