Leif Svalgaard says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:57 am and now you changed it back [having been found out].
WRONG AGAIN!
You need a rest !
here is record of your viewing:
Host Name c-24-5-150-53.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
IP Address 24.5.150.53 [Label IP Address]
Country United States
Region California
City Petaluma
Date Time Type WebPage
10th May 2011 22:42:36 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
11th May 2011 00:13:00 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
11th May 2011 12:46:53 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
11th May 2011 12:51:00 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
11th May 2011 12:54:10 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
11th May 2011 14:55:02 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:37 am Nothing is changed except newest data for sunspots (orange line). http://www.leif.org/researchVuk-Failing-9.png
The formulae changed, the red and blue curves changed.
When you make snide comments like “No adjustments here, as frequently practiced by some renown solar scientists”, you better be squeaky clean and honest yourself.
Since this layman could not get an anwer, Google supplied the Mcgraw-Hill Science and Technology definition as follows “A measure of sunspot activity, computed from the formula R = k(10g + f), where R is the relative sunspot number, f the number of individual spots, g the number of groups of spots, and k a factor that varies with the observer (his or her personal equation), the seeing, and the observatory (location and instrumentation). Also known as sunspot number; sunspot relative number; Wolf number; Wolf-Wolfer number; Zurich number. ”
If this is what is being touted as the SSN, it looks pretty subjective to me and allows for significant interpretation by the observer.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/relative-sunspot-number#ixzz1M3ZeCvLe
Steve Keohane
May 11, 2011 8:46 am
There is something fishy about the latest prediction, all it is is a truncation of the Sept 2010 prediction, exactly. See here: http://i55.tinypic.com/iyontj.jpg
I changed the latest red prediction line to orange, and one can plainly see it is exactly the same line as published last nine months ago.
Jim G says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:11 am If this is what is being touted as the SSN, it looks pretty subjective to me and allows for significant interpretation by the observer.
The SSN is computed as an average over dozens of observers and in any case matches closely much more objective measures of solar activity, such as the microwave radiation, so has turned out to be not too bad.
Steve Keohane says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:46 am There is something fishy about the latest prediction, all it is is a truncation of the Sept 2010 prediction, exactly.
Be careful not to confuse the various [independent] predictions. The SWPC prediction was made by a panel of ‘experts’ [I was one] some time ago. The Hathaway prediction [you find on a NASA website – but not funded or supported by NASA] is his own that he makes at his pleasure.
Steve Keohane
May 11, 2011 9:31 am
Leif Svalgaard says: May 11, 2011 at 9:13 am
Steve Keohane says: May 11, 2011 at 8:46 am
So you’re saying the Hathaway’s graphs should be ignored and not worth discussion.
Steve Keohane says:
May 11, 2011 at 9:31 am So you’re saying the Hathaway’s graphs should be ignored and not worth discussion.
No, Hathaway’s are better because they are updated every month, just like a weather forecast based on yesterday’s observations is better than one based on data a month ago. I’m at a loss why people criticize Hathaway for making predictions based on current data rather than using stale data of years ago.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:00 am Only wrong label pasted.
Look again: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png
You changed the formula for the blue curve to match the old one from 2003, but forgot to recalculate the curve. The formula for the red curve also changes [as does the curve] and is in places even invalid. It is better just to be honest and stick to the truth instead of trying to plaster over the problems by continually changing history. Living under communist regime should have told you that.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:25 am I did say it was wrong label pasted. You are getting paranoid.
No, I suggest that you are being dishonest by pasting in formulae from your 2003 paper that you have since changed. On the three curves here: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png which is the ‘current’ state of Vuk-art?
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:25 am On the three curves here: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png which is the ‘current’ state of Vuk-art? Four curves, as you just revised history again.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:25 am On the three curves here: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png which is the ‘current’ state of Vuk-art?
Four curves, as you just revised history again.
Not to speak about the original Figure from your paper [at the bottom].
You were obviously grabbing plot while I was online getting the label corrected. Since you are so proficient I am surprised that you didn’t notice that the first and the last are identical. Since you have nothing better to do why not as your birthday treat now plot everything yourself , to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Blue line:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/4+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/23.724))
Red line:
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/287.646))
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Blue line:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/4+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/23.724))
And your 2003 paper has:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/23.724)).
As I said sticking to the truth is the better policy [however hard it may seem].
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am I am surprised that you didn’t notice that the first and the last are identical.
The formulae you doctored to be identical, but you didn’t notice that the curves are not, and furthermore do not agree with your 2003 paper. Time to stop your charade.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Red line:
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/287.646))
And your 2003 paper has
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Ax-
1941)/289.5))
Perhaps if you are quick you can still manage to revise your graph.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Red line:
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/287.646))
And your 2003 paper has
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Ax-
1941)/289.5))
Perhaps if you are quick you can still manage to revise your graph, yet again.
Jim G
May 11, 2011 12:00 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
“May 11, 2011 at 9:13 am
Jim G says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:11 am
If this is what is being touted as the SSN, it looks pretty subjective to me and allows for significant interpretation by the observer.
The SSN is computed as an average over dozens of observers and in any case matches closely much more objective measures of solar activity, such as the microwave radiation, so has turned out to be not too bad.
Steve Keohane says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:46 am
There is something fishy about the latest prediction, all it is is a truncation of the Sept 2010 prediction, exactly.
Be careful not to confuse the various [independent] predictions. The SWPC prediction was made by a panel of ‘experts’ [I was one] some time ago. The Hathaway prediction [you find on a NASA website – but not funded or supported by NASA] is his own that he makes at his pleasure.”
Leif and Steve,
Thank you both.
Jim
I just gave you Excel entries, plot it and then abandon your nonsense. 2003 printed version could not be corrected some time after it was accepted. Phase difference is only minor 2pi/3 to 2pi/4.
All your effort is pathetic waste of time, since formula works and it is far better that anything you or anyone else has come up with, up to date.
One thing you can accept is that polar formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
has made your prediction method obsolete.
I shall ignore your abusive innuendo (you have used number of times before), which is designed to provoke a response which might get me banned.
Very sad to come from someone whose contribution science is undoubtedly great.
Well enjoy rest of your birthday, my formula must be causing you headache considering number of hits from you today on my website, on the special day when you should enjoy life with family and friends.
Clear case of paranoia.
Number of Entries: 117
Entry Page Date: 11th May 2011
Visit Length: 7 hours 8 mins 14 secs
Browser: Chrome 11.0
OS: Win7
Location: Petaluma, California, United States
IP Address: Comcast Cable (24.5.150.53) [Label IP Address]
Entry Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Exit Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
Referring URL: wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 12:21 pm I just gave you Excel entries, plot it
Will do. 2003 printed version could not be corrected some time after it was accepted.
Ah, but you claim not to ‘adjust’ at all. And you adjust in a dishonest way by trying to paste the old formulae on the new graph. One thing you can accept is that polar formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
has made your prediction method obsolete.
Polar formula is plainly wrong at it predicts a constant solar cycle length [from max to max] of 10.8 years, except once every 100 years when the formula breaks down completely. which is designed to provoke a response which might get me banned.
If you behave decently, I’m sure you’ll not be banned. Clear case of paranoia.
Number of Entries: 117
A little script and/or just leaning on the keyboard takes care of many entries with no effort [except on your part to worry about them and count them].
GW says:
May 11, 2011 at 12:29 pm It just seems ridiculous that in this picture of the sun, http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.html
that the official Sunspot number is 80
There are five groups [one near them limb]. If they just had one spot each the sunspot number would be R = 10*5+5 = 55. And they have many more [some tiny] spots, so you actually get 25 more spots for R = 80.
Ralph
May 11, 2011 12:50 pm
>>>CET
>>>Remember that these temperatures reflect the “airport/urban heat
>>>island” analysis of the modern times.
Yes. Remember that the CET is composed from four monitoring stations. Two of those are still quite rural, while the other two are at Blackpool airport and Manchester International airport.
The Manchester station is a bit of a worry, as it is right next to the aircraft test bay, where they run up engines to test them. As I understand these temperature guages, any maximum temperature becomes the day’s maximum, so it you get a nice waft of hot exhaust for five minutes, that becomes the day’s max temperature.
.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:57 am
and now you changed it back [having been found out].
WRONG AGAIN!
You need a rest !
here is record of your viewing:
Host Name c-24-5-150-53.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
IP Address 24.5.150.53 [Label IP Address]
Country United States
Region California
City Petaluma
Date Time Type WebPage
10th May 2011 22:42:36 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
11th May 2011 00:13:00 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
11th May 2011 12:46:53 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
11th May 2011 12:51:00 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
11th May 2011 12:54:10 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
11th May 2011 14:55:02 Page View wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
P.S. to above, UK time record (UTC+1)
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:37 am
Nothing is changed except newest data for sunspots (orange line).
http://www.leif.org/researchVuk-Failing-9.png
The formulae changed, the red and blue curves changed.
When you make snide comments like “No adjustments here, as frequently practiced by some renown solar scientists”, you better be squeaky clean and honest yourself.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:37 am
Nothing is changed except newest data for sunspots (orange line).
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png
Since this layman could not get an anwer, Google supplied the Mcgraw-Hill Science and Technology definition as follows “A measure of sunspot activity, computed from the formula R = k(10g + f), where R is the relative sunspot number, f the number of individual spots, g the number of groups of spots, and k a factor that varies with the observer (his or her personal equation), the seeing, and the observatory (location and instrumentation). Also known as sunspot number; sunspot relative number; Wolf number; Wolf-Wolfer number; Zurich number. ”
If this is what is being touted as the SSN, it looks pretty subjective to me and allows for significant interpretation by the observer.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/relative-sunspot-number#ixzz1M3ZeCvLe
There is something fishy about the latest prediction, all it is is a truncation of the Sept 2010 prediction, exactly. See here: http://i55.tinypic.com/iyontj.jpg
I changed the latest red prediction line to orange, and one can plainly see it is exactly the same line as published last nine months ago.
Jim G says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:11 am
If this is what is being touted as the SSN, it looks pretty subjective to me and allows for significant interpretation by the observer.
The SSN is computed as an average over dozens of observers and in any case matches closely much more objective measures of solar activity, such as the microwave radiation, so has turned out to be not too bad.
Steve Keohane says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:46 am
There is something fishy about the latest prediction, all it is is a truncation of the Sept 2010 prediction, exactly.
Be careful not to confuse the various [independent] predictions. The SWPC prediction was made by a panel of ‘experts’ [I was one] some time ago. The Hathaway prediction [you find on a NASA website – but not funded or supported by NASA] is his own that he makes at his pleasure.
Leif Svalgaard says: May 11, 2011 at 9:13 am
Steve Keohane says: May 11, 2011 at 8:46 am
So you’re saying the Hathaway’s graphs should be ignored and not worth discussion.
Steve Keohane says:
May 11, 2011 at 9:31 am
So you’re saying the Hathaway’s graphs should be ignored and not worth discussion.
No, Hathaway’s are better because they are updated every month, just like a weather forecast based on yesterday’s observations is better than one based on data a month ago. I’m at a loss why people criticize Hathaway for making predictions based on current data rather than using stale data of years ago.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 11, 2011 at 4:56 am
…………….
Only wrong label pasted.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:00 am
Only wrong label pasted.
Look again: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png
You changed the formula for the blue curve to match the old one from 2003, but forgot to recalculate the curve. The formula for the red curve also changes [as does the curve] and is in places even invalid. It is better just to be honest and stick to the truth instead of trying to plaster over the problems by continually changing history. Living under communist regime should have told you that.
I did say it was wrong label pasted. You are getting paranoid.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:25 am
I did say it was wrong label pasted. You are getting paranoid.
No, I suggest that you are being dishonest by pasting in formulae from your 2003 paper that you have since changed. On the three curves here: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png which is the ‘current’ state of Vuk-art?
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:25 am
On the three curves here: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png which is the ‘current’ state of Vuk-art?
Four curves, as you just revised history again.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 10:25 am
On the three curves here: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png which is the ‘current’ state of Vuk-art?
Four curves, as you just revised history again.
Not to speak about the original Figure from your paper [at the bottom].
You were obviously grabbing plot while I was online getting the label corrected. Since you are so proficient I am surprised that you didn’t notice that the first and the last are identical. Since you have nothing better to do why not as your birthday treat now plot everything yourself , to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Blue line:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/4+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/23.724))
Red line:
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/287.646))
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am
to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Blue line:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/4+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/23.724))
And your 2003 paper has:
=100*ABS(COS(2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/19.859)+COS(2*PI()/3+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/23.724)).
As I said sticking to the truth is the better policy [however hard it may seem].
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am
I am surprised that you didn’t notice that the first and the last are identical.
The formulae you doctored to be identical, but you didn’t notice that the curves are not, and furthermore do not agree with your 2003 paper. Time to stop your charade.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am
to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Red line:
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/287.646))
And your 2003 paper has
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Ax-
1941)/289.5))
Perhaps if you are quick you can still manage to revise your graph.
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 11:26 am
to make it simple here are the Excel entries:
Red line:
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Bx-1941)/287.646))
And your 2003 paper has
=60*(2+COS(3*PI()/2+2*PI()*(Ax-1941)/118)+0.5*COS(2*PI()*(Ax-
1941)/289.5))
Perhaps if you are quick you can still manage to revise your graph, yet again.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“May 11, 2011 at 9:13 am
Jim G says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:11 am
If this is what is being touted as the SSN, it looks pretty subjective to me and allows for significant interpretation by the observer.
The SSN is computed as an average over dozens of observers and in any case matches closely much more objective measures of solar activity, such as the microwave radiation, so has turned out to be not too bad.
Steve Keohane says:
May 11, 2011 at 8:46 am
There is something fishy about the latest prediction, all it is is a truncation of the Sept 2010 prediction, exactly.
Be careful not to confuse the various [independent] predictions. The SWPC prediction was made by a panel of ‘experts’ [I was one] some time ago. The Hathaway prediction [you find on a NASA website – but not funded or supported by NASA] is his own that he makes at his pleasure.”
Leif and Steve,
Thank you both.
Jim
I just gave you Excel entries, plot it and then abandon your nonsense. 2003 printed version could not be corrected some time after it was accepted. Phase difference is only minor 2pi/3 to 2pi/4.
All your effort is pathetic waste of time, since formula works and it is far better that anything you or anyone else has come up with, up to date.
One thing you can accept is that polar formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
has made your prediction method obsolete.
I shall ignore your abusive innuendo (you have used number of times before), which is designed to provoke a response which might get me banned.
Very sad to come from someone whose contribution science is undoubtedly great.
Well enjoy rest of your birthday, my formula must be causing you headache considering number of hits from you today on my website, on the special day when you should enjoy life with family and friends.
Clear case of paranoia.
Number of Entries: 117
Entry Page Date: 11th May 2011
Visit Length: 7 hours 8 mins 14 secs
Browser: Chrome 11.0
OS: Win7
Location: Petaluma, California, United States
IP Address: Comcast Cable (24.5.150.53) [Label IP Address]
Entry Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC11.htm
Exit Page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
Referring URL: wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/latest-solar-cycle-update-from-the-space-weather-prediction-center/
It just seems ridiculous that in this picture of the sun,
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.html
that the official Sunspot number is 80, as reported by
http://www.solarham.com/
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2011 at 12:21 pm
I just gave you Excel entries, plot it
Will do.
2003 printed version could not be corrected some time after it was accepted.
Ah, but you claim not to ‘adjust’ at all. And you adjust in a dishonest way by trying to paste the old formulae on the new graph.
One thing you can accept is that polar formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
has made your prediction method obsolete.
Polar formula is plainly wrong at it predicts a constant solar cycle length [from max to max] of 10.8 years, except once every 100 years when the formula breaks down completely.
which is designed to provoke a response which might get me banned.
If you behave decently, I’m sure you’ll not be banned.
Clear case of paranoia.
Number of Entries: 117
A little script and/or just leaning on the keyboard takes care of many entries with no effort [except on your part to worry about them and count them].
GW says:
May 11, 2011 at 12:29 pm
It just seems ridiculous that in this picture of the sun,
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.html
that the official Sunspot number is 80
There are five groups [one near them limb]. If they just had one spot each the sunspot number would be R = 10*5+5 = 55. And they have many more [some tiny] spots, so you actually get 25 more spots for R = 80.
>>>CET
>>>Remember that these temperatures reflect the “airport/urban heat
>>>island” analysis of the modern times.
Yes. Remember that the CET is composed from four monitoring stations. Two of those are still quite rural, while the other two are at Blackpool airport and Manchester International airport.
The Manchester station is a bit of a worry, as it is right next to the aircraft test bay, where they run up engines to test them. As I understand these temperature guages, any maximum temperature becomes the day’s maximum, so it you get a nice waft of hot exhaust for five minutes, that becomes the day’s max temperature.
.