Leif Svalgaard has been saying for sometime now that Solar Cycle 24 seems to be getting underway. Seeing sunspot group 1024 today, I’m tending to agree.
The magnetic polarity (seen on the SOHO magnetogram) of the spot group combined with the middle latitude indicates it is a cycle 24 spot.
From Spaceweather.com
The most active sunspot of the year so far is emerging in the sun’s southern hemisphere: movie. Sunspot 1024 has at least a dozen individual dark cores and it is crackling with B-class solar flares. This morning, amateur astronomer David Tyler caught one of the flares in action from his backyard solar observatory in England:
The magnetic polarity of sunspot 1024 identifies it as a member of new Solar Cycle 24. Its rapid emergence on July 3rd and 4th continues the recent (few-month) trend of intensifying new-cycle activity. This sunspot is the best offering yet from the young solar cycle.
I agree. This one looks like a “normal” sunspot. The question now is: how long will it last? Many promising cycle 24 sunspots have fizzed just as quickly as they arrived. Cycle 24 has not yet shown any indications of spot stamina.
In other news, the SOHO satellite has developed a problem with its pointing motor for the high gain antenna.
This is a serious concern, and data outages are already happening due to limited pointing ability. There is a backup spacecraft for SOHO in the pipeline, the Solar Dynamics Observatory, set for a November 2009 launch date. It has recently been shipped to Cape Canaveral. Lets hope the didn’t use the US postal service or DHL.
In other solar satellite news…
Goodbye Ulysses (July 3, 2009)
Hi-res TIF image (4.6M)
Upon receipt of the last command from Earth, the transmitter on Ulysses switched off on June 30, 2009, bringing one of the most successful and longest missions in spaceflight and solar study history to an end. After 18.6 years in space and defying several earlier expectations of its demise, the joint ESA/NASA solar orbiter Ulysses achieved ‘end of mission’. The craft is nearly out of hydrazine fuel for its stabilizing thrusters, and there’s not enough money to continue the mission for another year. A final communication pass with a ground station enabled the final command to be issued to switch the satellite’s radio communications into ‘monitor only’ mode. No further contact with Ulysses is planned.
Ulysses is the first spacecraft to survey the environment in space over the poles of the Sun in the four dimensions of space and time. Among many other ground-breaking results, the hugely successful mission showed that the Sun’s magnetic field is carried into the solar system in a more complicated manner than previously believed. Particles expelled by the Sun from low latitudes can climb up to high latitudes and vice versa, even unexpectedly finding their way down to planets. Regions of the Sun not previously considered as possible sources of hazardous particles for astronauts and satellites must now be carefully monitored. “Ulysses has taught us far more than we ever expected about the Sun and the way it interacts with the space surrounding it,” said Richard Marsden, ESA’s Ulysses Project Scientist and Mission Manager.
So farewell, and congratulations on a job exceedingly well done.
Perhaps the load is provide by a difference in charge between the incoming charged particles carried by the ‘magnetic pipe’ and the earths ionosphere. Thus the pipe only connects when this imbalance exists and disconnects when the ionosphere is at the same higher potential?
The ionosphere then discharges the extra energy by formation of storms, as per NASA observations, and the ‘pipe’ then connects again and starts the cycle off again?
It is a well known paradox seen during laboratory experiments with neutral black body plasmas that a probe placed in certain positions inside the plasma apparently breaks the laws of thermodynamics and shows a voltage potential.
It would seem we still have much to learn.
vukcevic (05:55:39) :
Tenuc (06:06:45) :
You are both oh so confused that it almost hurts to read your posts. This in spite of so many explanations. My 35-year old paper http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf describes so well how and where electric currents are created in space. In the rest frame of the plasma there is no electric field and thus no current. When seen from an object not moving with the plasma [i.e. have a relative velocity V], there is an electric field E = -VxB, and thus currents can and do flow if there are particles to carry it. Examples are all the currents flowing in and around the magnetospheres of planets, comets, and even spacecraft. You are also confused about the difference between solar wind particles and [the rarer] solar energetic particles, the latter having following the magnetic field lines, the former not. The important fact to realize is that all these currents are created ‘on the spot’ in a conductor moving with respect to a magnetic field.
vukcevic (05:55:39) :
ENA is one of many examples one can think of
Here is what happens: a neutral atom, e.g. of helium, has two electrons. It is collides with a solar wind proton, that proton can steal an electron from the helium atom, and now the helium atom becomes an ion and is immediately picked up by the solar wind and carrying out of the solar system. The charge situation has not changed: a positive charge [the original solar wind proton] was moving away from the Sun [‘its’ electron also being there somewhere because the plasma is neutral, but is unaffected by the collision because the plasma is so dilute]. After the collision, the positive charge, now on the helium ion, is still moving away from the Sun, as is the now neutral hydrogen atom and its ‘former’ electron. No large-scale currents arise from this.
It is disconcerting that these things have to be explained again and again. Speaks volumes about the low state of science literacy among the general public, including electrical engineers, especially when the ignorance is used in support of pseudo-scientific notions.
Perhaps a word about the interplanetary magnetic field. There are very many irregularities and polarity reversals [atop the general large-scale sector structure]. some created by reconnection, some surviving all the way from the Sun. Every one of these generate small electric current sheets near and surrounding them by solar wind particle gyration, the same way as the heliospheric current sheet is generated, see this cartoon: http://www.leif.org/research/Current-Sheet-Cartoon.png The upper row shows four magnetic ‘field lines’ directed away from the viewer [the Xes]. The lower row shows four lines towards the viewer [the dots]. There is thus a field reversal between the upper and lower row. Charged particles gyrate around the field lines as shown by the circles with little arrows on them. At the neutral line dividing the upper and lower rows all these little arrows point the same way, thus constitutes a [force-free and not carrying any energy, because the current and the magnetic fields are at right angles] current. This current of drifting charges is a result of the field reversal and helps preserve the field reversal.
Leif Svaalgard (12:13:36)
If memory serves that would be June 2010, but in any case it would be of interest to see what the basis is.
—–
If he mentioned the planets you would roll your eyes so what would be the point?….Not that I know he uses it.
And I guess you forgot about my own forecast which you thought was a bust a week ago. And I hope we will not quibble over 3-4 days since many variables have exceeded the values not seen since the heightened level in March 2008.
And to the forum hosts. Leif has not been the only one talking about Cycle 24 being underway like your discussion tends to imply. And he was never on board with this time frame being a notable one. At least not to my knowledge.
And I’ll beat the dead horse. Knowledge is great but being able to use it is a whole different ballgame. And the name of this game is forecasting. And ones perception of knowledge is built upon the current scientific belief system. Which history has shown can be flawed.
Leif Svalgaard (08:03:29) :
vukcevic (00:51:52) :… is a danger to society at a time where we need the public’s appreciation of correct science …………
When a young person is indoctrinated with certain ideas, no amount of subsequent brain washing has any effect !
Thanks for trying.
vukcevic (09:46:26) :
When a young person is indoctrinated with certain ideas, no amount of subsequent brain washing has any effect !
You mean that no amount of subsequent washing will make you understand the correct science?
Jim Hughes (09:41:54) :
If he mentioned the planets you would roll your eyes so what would be the point?….Not that I know he uses it.
And I guess you forgot about my own forecast which you thought was a bust a week ago.
Also based on the planets, it seems. Perhaps I should check my newspaper’s astrology columns more often to get the latest.
And ones perception of knowledge is built upon the current scientific belief system. Which history has shown can be flawed.
It is due to the ‘current scientific belief system’ that you can even communicate those words. Our modern society operates critically on its science being correct. There is a great danger that we will lose that advantage if pseudo-science takes over.
Jim Hughes (09:41:54) :
And I guess you forgot about my own forecast.
To be credible, you must explain what the forecast was based upon, and why June and not February or September, for instance. In general, anybody could forecast an upturn after about a year of quiet, e.g. from this: http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
A forecast within foundation is worthless.
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard:
Thank you for providing your 1973 paper at your website. I have reviewed the initial part of the paper (it’s relatively long at 71 pages) and intend to review it in total.
Yes, I agree with you that the understanding stated in your 1973 paper is a good match with what has been further confirmed by the recent NASA THEMIS satellite probes.
Why I don’t consider THEMIS simply a matter of dotting the “i’s” and crossing the “t’s”, is the THEMIS ability to measure the specifics of the dynamics as related to the morphology of the Birkeland currents from the magnetotail in detailed measurements of the electrical energy involved, the time and regularity, and the detailed vortex structure. It would seem that what you presented in 1973 was forgotten by many in the interim possibly because Astronomy seemingly has an aversion to electromagnetism, or at least doesn’t want to hear about it from people outside the “community”.
If there was one weakness of the 1973 paper or more accurately, the scientific understanding at the time (so far, I found the 1973 paper to be an excellent paper, both in terms of clarity of description and extent of knowledge), is the lack of understanding of discontinuities in the plasma, the physical relationships and dynamics of where one plasma with different physical properties (whether thermal, velocity, density, or magnetic field strength, etc.) comes into contact with another region of plasma. There are gaps in knowledge and detailed measurements in this regard. THEMIS is helping to fill in those gaps, although more detailed measurements could and should be carried out.
It is now known that “mechanical” terms such as “shock fronts” or “bow fronts” are insufficient to describe these interfaces in plasma. Formation of electrical double layers as a result of plasmas of different physical properties (discontinuities) coming into contact is an integral part of any plasma discussion. (See link below for discussion of double layers.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_%28plasma%29
I’m struck by the many references to “electric currents” and “electric fields” in the intial part of the 1973 paper, clearly this is all considered electromagnetism, yet in earlier discussions with you, here, it seemed like pulling hens teeth to get you to acknowledge this electrical dynamic, yet, if I understand the initial part of the 1973 paper, you have known of this electrical dynamic all along.
Why was it like “pulling hens teeth” to get you to acknowledge all the electrical dynamics?
Could it be that I was using these physical relationships and dynamics to arrive at a conclusion you disagree with?
Also, your 1973 paper references “magnetic reconnection” and “frozen in” magnetic field lines and I think this is a hinderence to correct understanding (I am referring your linked experiment to others who maybe able to cast light on its significance). Obviously, you disagree.
As regarding the true nature of the so-called “solar wind”, an unfortunate reference to fluid dynamics which misrepresents the actual physical characteristics in my opinion, I still maintain a better explanatory term would be solar electric current.
How so?
The “solar wind” is a diffused or tenuous radial electric current from the Sun out to the solar heliopause or heliosheath. One knows it is a radial electric current and not just “mechanical” wind because of the presence of a weak magnetic field and it’s acceleration (something is applying constant force) even past the Earth (thermal convection, fluid dynamics doesn’t explain the acceleration; electrical dynamics does).
Beyond the definition of electric current as being ordered electron movement (salt in solution is random electron and ion movement), is the idea of quasi-neutrality (a foundational idea behind double layers), and ability to do “work”.
The “solar wind” is tenuous, but upon coming into contact with a “load”, the Earth and its magnetosphere, the electrical current is concentrated or focussed in the Earth’s magnetotail in structures labelled as “plasmoids” which because of electromagnetism’s inherent non-linear instability periodically “collaspse” or in Alven’s framework, “explode”, releasing this electrical current in concentrated vortex structures (Birkeland currents) toward Earth and also into interplanetary space. This “release” of electrons and ions is not random and chaotic, but is a specific organized pattern and structure as NASA’s THEMIS has confirmed.
I would note that the NASA release that I earlier linked made specific mention to ultraviolet radiation aurora that can’t be detected even at night by the naked eye and this goes on 24/7, so no it wasn’t “something that could be seen all the time during the dark of winter at the poles”.
I want to note something from the 1973 paper: “The collapses [plasmoid releasing electrical energy from the magnetotail] also inject plasma into the radiation belts [Van Allen belts] and build up a ring current [electric current].”
We haven’t discussed this process at all, but increasingly there is scientific evidence that this “plasma” injected into the Van Allen belts and on into the ionosphere, then proceeds into the atmosphere via electrical thunderstorms and possibly even hurricanes. Admittedly, the scientific evidence is more tenuous for this proposition, therefore, I hesitated to mention it, but if so, that is another avenue for increased solar flux (due to solar maximum) to cause climate change.
Dr. Svalgaard, there are multiple pathways for increased solar electrical energy to enter the Earth’s atmosphere and thus add to the Earth’s total energy budget from the Sun.
I agree that while there is a “balance”, the Earth’s balance “mechanism” is remarkably “robust” (self correctling), still the small temperature increases and decreases noted as a result of solar maximum and minimum (and there has been, your disagreement noted, and not withstanding) would seem to suggest that while “robust” the balance is still effected by additions or decreases to the Earth’s total energy budget
To state that this energy can be “safely ignored” is to ignore energy additions you acknowledge exist, yet maintain are too small to worry about, is to put the “cart before the horse”.
To put the “horse before the cart” Science must carefully consider all avenues of investigation.
To rule something out at the beginning or even in the middle of investigation is not responsible scientific behavior.
Leif Svalgaard (10:30:28)
A forecast without foundation are worthless.
—–
As are foundations which are unable to accurately forecast things out in advance. Which for the most part has been true for your field.
And like I’ve previously said before. I’ve never revealed my ENSO forecasting methods but I know many respect them because of my prior track record. And they are members of the science community.
But all new followers were skeptical at one time or another but most have come around. Because they understand that results are really what matter. And this is because they have to pay the piper every season in regards to whether or not their own forecast ends up being right.
While many in your own field get a free ride about being the experts until “well” down the road. And I witnessed this first hand with the subpar Cycle 23 forecasts. And many indivduals I talked to years back sounded much like you do around here sometimes Leif.
So this is why I am not impressed by research papers which bear no fruit. Or at least not yet. And I’d be more than happy to go head to head with you for a charitable wager any time that you are willing to step up to the plate with a long range call /spikes. And I know plenty of news contacts that would be trustworthy to hold onto our cash while we wait for the results.
But I’m sure you’ll come up with some kind of excuse. Bad science, this proves nothing……. But the unwillingess to part with money always proves something…..It means your really not sure. So like they say on the street. If your going to talk the talk then walk the walk.
James F. Evans (12:39:01) :
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard:
It would seem that what you presented in 1973 was forgotten by many in the interim possibly
No, this has not been forgotten, it is part of mainstream science.
It is now known that “mechanical” terms such as “shock fronts” or “bow fronts” are insufficient to describe these interfaces in plasma. Formation of electrical double layers
There are no double layers at the nose of the magnetosphere
I’m struck by the many references to “electric currents” and “electric fields” in the intial part of the 1973 paper, clearly this is all considered electromagnetism, yet in earlier discussions with you, here, it seemed like pulling hens teeth to get you to acknowledge this electrical dynamic
Because you and Vuk and many others have it backwards as I have described in great detail. The magnetic field and the moving plasma create the current, not the other way around.
Also, your 1973 paper references “magnetic reconnection” […] is a hinderence to correct understanding […] Obviously, you disagree.
The THEMIS group disagrees: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/07/24_reconn.shtml
“The observations confirm for the first time that magnetic reconnection in the magnetotail triggers the onset of substorms”
Just as I said in my 1973 paper, and which every researcher in this field has subscribed to ever since.
The “solar wind” is tenuous, but upon coming into contact with a “load”, the Earth and its magnetosphere, the electrical current is concentrated or focussed in the Earth’s magnetotail
No, the currents are generated when the solar wind makes contact.
I would note that the NASA release that I earlier linked made specific mention to ultraviolet radiation aurora that can’t be detected even at night by the naked eye and this goes on 24/7, so no it wasn’t “something that could be seen all the time during the dark of winter at the poles”.
This is what allows the aurorae to be seen even during daylight. But most of the aurora is just visible light which you can see on every dark night. I have myself been an observer in Greenland…
To state that this energy can be “safely ignored” is to ignore energy additions you acknowledge exist, yet maintain are too small to worry about, is to put the “cart before the horse”.
Calculations and direct measurements show us how large this energy is and it is 10,000-100,000 times smaller than ordinary sunlight so play no significant role in the energy budget. See, e.g. here: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/index.html for direct measurements of the power input measured by satellites.
Jim Hughes (15:57:27) :
And I witnessed this first hand with the subpar Cycle 23 forecasts.
Which we forecast back in 2004 to be subpar.
you are willing to step up to the plate with a long range call /spikes.
I confidently predict that solar activity in any months of 2012 will be larger than in June 2009. I’ll wager you $1000 on that.
But the unwillingess to part with money always proves something…..It means your really not sure.
Beware of people that are sure.
And, again, name one or more of the people that were impressed by your forecasts of solar activity. If I were to hire a nanny, I’d ask for named references.
James F. Evans (12:39:01) :
Also, your 1973 paper references “magnetic reconnection” […] is a hinderence to correct understanding […] Obviously, you disagree.
The THEMIS group disagrees: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/07/24_reconn.shtml
“The observations confirm for the first time that magnetic reconnection in the magnetotail triggers the onset of substorms”
Just as I said in my 1973 paper, and which every researcher in this field has subscribed to ever since. It is good that we finally can get solid confirmation to bolster our basic understanding arrived at so long ago. In the 1960s and early 1970s is was hotly debated if the magnetosphere was ‘closed’ or ‘open’. The latter implying reconnection between the solar wind and the geomagnetic field. My very first paper in 1968 [and with more details in the 1973 and other papers] was a significant proof of the open magnetosphere, namely that the polarity and every small wiggle of the IMF could be directly observed on the ground [the Svalgaard-Mansorov effect].
But, since you said that the THEMIS release ‘explicitly’ says that currents are coming from the sun, perhaps you could provide a link and the exact text of the paragraph where it explicitly says so, so that I can correct your misunderstanding.
And it is good that you study that old paper. It describes an understanding that is still good. It was written not for solar/magnetospheric scientists but for climatologists / meteorologist attending a NASA conference in 1973: Svalgaard, L., Geomagnetic Responses to the Solar Wind and to Solar Activity,
in Possible Relationships between Solar Activity and Meteorological Phenomena, Proceedings of a symposium held 7-8 November, 1973 at Goddard Space Flight Center,
Greenbelt, MD. Edited by William R. Bandeen and Stephen P. Maran. NASA SP-366. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, p.119, 1975. (Invited talk).
Permit me to quote my concluding remarks:
“No mechanisms have been found yet by which the magnetosphere and the upper atmosphere can couple to the lower atmosphere, so as to establish a sound physical foundation for correlations between solar and geomagnetic activity on one side and weather and climate on the other side. The missing knowledge of a plausible mechanism does not exclude the reality of the correlations but is does suggest that this particular line of research will progress only slowly despite the potential great values of added insight into the processes controlling the environment of mankind”.
The predicted slow pace of progress has indeed come to pass. We are not much further in that regard than we were 35 years ago.
Leif Svalgaard (18:04:13) :
the Svalgaard-Mansorov effect
apologies to Sergei for misspelling his name: Svalgaard-Mansurov effect. Try to google this for more on how this effects proves reconnection.
Leif Svalgaard ( 17:30:28)
I confidently predict that solar activity in any months of 2012 will be larger than in June 2009. I’ll wager you $1000 on that.
———-
And this winter will be cooler than this summer. Nice call. And I said head to head. If you feel that it is impossible to do then you should have no problem going head to head with an extended call based upon all the knowledge that you have from what I have read on this board.
And you would have a 50% chance of winning since I am charlatan right ? Then throw in the use of planets and your chances of winning go up considerably. So this should be easy pickings for you.
Now I have no beef with you personally Leif. But I do find your demeanor with many around here to be much similar to what I encountered with numerous others that I have talked to over the years. Whether it be about weather, climate, or even solar. And the tone is always the same.
You have all the answers and you talk down to others. But yet your peers have to think differently because they are still trying to unravel the mystery behind the solar cycle. And we wouldn’t have the P&L call of a dead sun down the road, or even for a heightened level like others feel, if everyone thought your theory and forecast were a cinch. (Not that I disagree with it. But for different reasons.)
And as far as a 2004 call for Cycle 23…..I hope your not really serious about this but something tells me that you might be.
Leif Svalgaard (18:04:13) :
“No mechanisms have been found yet by which the magnetosphere and the upper atmosphere can couple to the lower atmosphere, so as to establish a sound physical foundation for correlations between solar and geomagnetic activity on one side and weather and climate on the other side. The missing knowledge of a plausible mechanism does not exclude the reality of the correlations but is does suggest that this particular line of research will progress only slowly despite the potential great values of added insight into the processes controlling the environment of mankind”.
The same logic was apparent before continental drift theory was proved by plate tectonics….and the same logic also applies to planetary theory and its great correlations.
Jim, that wager would be worth considering but only if you describe your methods, codes, indices, calculations, and data sources like any other researcher worth a wager would do. Otherwise, it would be a sucker bet. That kind of bet says way more about the wager’er than it does his audience’s unwillingness to bite the bait.
Jim Hughes (19:41:31) :
And as far as a 2004 call for Cycle 23…..I hope your not really serious about this but something tells me that you might be.
I mistook that for SC24 [thought you meant that]. For cycle 23, Ken Schatten, using the polar fields predicted 125 back in 1997. and I’m serious about SC24.
Geoff Sharp (19:54:15) :
The same logic was apparent before continental drift theory was proved by plate tectonics….and the same logic also applies to planetary theory and its great correlations.
Your theory is not in the same league as plate tectonics, and your correlations are lousy and unconvincing [I don’t see scientists flock to it as they did for PT], while the evidence for plate tectonics is overwhelming.
Jim Hughes (19:41:31) :
But I do find your demeanor with many around here to be much similar to what I encountered with numerous others that I have talked to over the years. Whether it be about weather, climate, or even solar. And the tone is always the same.
Perhaps that should be telling you something…
A funny thing, but the Stereo Ahead to Behind show nothing going on the Sun but SSN 1024 and it’s active region. No wonder it keeps growing. It’s got the whole grid patched into it, so it would seem.
Another day, another chapter in SC24.
Leif Svalgaard (17:23:38) :
“Because you and Vuk(civic) and many others have it backwards..”
-On subatomic and sub molecular level, it is particles spin or bond currents that generate magnetic field.
– Steady (DC) current will generate magnetic field in a medium including vacuum.
– Fixed (steady) magnetic field to generate electric current requires a conductor intercepting variable flux, a moving charged particle, or the field itself has to be variable (time or space).
No magnetic field can generate electric current in a vacuum.
– If charged particle carries so called ‘frozen magnetic field’ there is nothing frozen there, the field it generates in its vicinity is due to the spin of its electric charge.
Whichever way you look at it, magnetic field is always linked to some kind of movement of electrical charges, commonly known as electrical currents.
I would be interested to know if anyone can name a source of a magnetic field, which in final analysis is not linked to an electric charge. For permanent magnets look up Ampère’s model and bond currents.
Leif Svalgaard (17:23:38) :
“The magnetic field and the moving plasma create the current, not the other way around.”
What generates ‘magnetic field’ (preferably trace it to its ultimate source) in the above sentence ?
On the separate matter of the climatic influences, I would go with Dr. Svalgaard’s views until such time as it is conclusively shown otherwise, beyond what we already know (W/m2).
“I would be interested to know if anyone can name a source of a magnetic field, which in final analysis is not linked to an electric charge.”
A neutron star has extreme magnetic fields and no apparent charge??
Sandy (02:40:11) :
A neutron star has extreme magnetic fields and no apparent charge??
Due to the effect of entrainment of superconducting protons by rotating superfluid neutrons, a nonuniform magnetic field, the average value of which is constant, is formed in the vortex zone of the neutron star, directed parallel to the star’s axis of rotation.
Note:superconducting protons
Pamela Gray (20:16:06)
Jim, that wager would be worth considering but only if you describe your methods, codes, indices, calculations, and data sources like any other researcher worth a wager would do. Otherwise, it would be a sucker bet. That kind of bet says way more about the wager’er than it does his audience’s unwillingness to bite the bait.
Pamela,
Why is it worth considering when I shell out my reasoning but not when I don’t when I am already telling him what I rely upon. Or consider an important factor ? (Which he said before that he does not believe in.)
So this type of goating can be seen as someone who wants something for free. Which I go through quite frequently on the weather side. Even most recently with an offer from a long range outlet. So the sucker would be me if I took your bait. But I’m not some naive kid who just got out of college.
And I’m not going to go down the road of all my prior interactions with some in the scientific community, for my reasoning of not wanting to divulge certain methods, whether they be for long term weather forecasting, or the sun’s behavior.
And I’ve already mentioned around here or even elsewhere that I do not claim to know why these planetary relationships have such an influence on the sun, as in A -Z cause an effect. But I obviously have good company and Leif is one of them.
Leif Svalgaard ( 19:41:31)
Perhaps that should be telling you something…
——-
It does. It shows their own insecurities. This is your playground as well as some other forums and you do not like it when an outsider comes around and challenges your expertise. At least in regards to forecasting. So you beat around the bush when it comes to answering forecast questions. Like what your Cycle 23 forecast was.
And this is why I can not understand how you mock others for not answering your questions when you have dodged this question three or four times over the past 1-2 months. With silly comments about post maximum research which showed what it “should” have been.
And for the sake of it, let’s consider that you did put one out, but it was wrong. Well this is also a red herring because you obviously wouldn’t have put out a Cycle 23 forecast if you did not have solid evidence to back you up. But your prior research had to have flaws if you redeveloped it again, (Or changed completely), for Cycle 24. So all of us could have easily been having all of these recent conversations thirteen years ago while entering Cycle 23. And you would have thought that you had all the answers back then also.
See a pattern? Which is par for the course for your community. You’ve been portrayed as experts by those who have no idea about the subject matter. But your community as a whole are not experts when it comes to “actually forecasting things”. And this is a myth for the most part and we both know it.
So let’s stop acting like the planetary use is a psuedoscience. Because some of you keep coming up with these supposedly solid statistical correlations time and time again, with scientific foundation, but they end up failing….pseudoscience…..pot meet kettle.