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
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.