The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has updated their monthly graph set and it is becoming even more clear that we are past solar max, and that solar max has been a dud. “The slump” continues not only in sunspot activity, but also other metrics. And, tellingly, Dr. David Hathaway has now aligned his once way too high solar prediction with that of WUWT’s resident solar expert, Dr. Leif Svalgaard. Of course, at this point, I’m not sure “prediction” is the right word for Hathaway’s update.
The SSN count remains low:
Note the divergence between the model prediction in red, and the actual values.
The 10.7cm radio flux continues slumpy:
The Ap geomagnetic index remains low, unchanged, and indicates a tepid solar magnetic dynamo. We’ve had well over 6 years now (and about to be seven) of a lower than expected Ap index.
From the WUWT Solar reference page, Dr Leif Svalgaard has this plot comparing the current cycle 24 with recent solar cycles. The prediction is that solar max via sunspot count will peak in late 2013/early 2014:
But, another important indicator, Solar Polar Fields from Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present show that the fields have flipped (crossed the zero line) indicating solar max has indeed happened.
Image from Dr. Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at source.
In other news, Dr. David Hathaway has updated his prediction page on 9/5/13, and suggests solar max may have already occurred. He says:
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 in the Summer of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012) due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high. The smoothed sunspot number has been flat over the last four months. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.
![ssn_predict_l[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/ssn_predict_l1.gif)
You can watch this video that shows 5 years of cycle 24 predictions from Hathaway, as they shrink from 2005 to 2010. Solar cycle 24 predictions were higher then, and exceeded the SSN max for cycle 23.
Dr. Svalgaard’s prediction in 2005 (with Lund) was for a solar cycle 24 max SSN of 75, and was totally against the consensus for solar cycle 24 predictions of the time. It looks like that might not even be reached. From his briefing then:
Source: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Prediction%20Lund.pdf
We live in interesting times.
More at the WUWT Solar reference page.
We need to stock up on thermal underwear before the rush starts or emigrate to countries closer to the equator.
Do I recall correctly that back in early 2007 WUWT reported a stunning and unexpected downward step shift in one of these metrics? Didn’t see it any of the figures shown here. Wonder if it would have presaged what’s going on in this report.
Lief can get your goat now and again (until you get used to his style) but I’ve come to appreciate his steadying influence in the global warming debate. He makes a good prediction as an odd man out in the solar field but doesn’t jump on any bandwagons. He harpoons bad science in the warming literature and in the skeptical stuff. He resists being a Maunder Mininum/solar influence star that many skeptics would like to see him be, and he calmly focuses on the science wherever, in his view, it leads. I have to grudgingly admit he’s taken considerable heat out of my thinking in the debate.
Could end up as a ”climate refugee” as things get colder.
Most of us said it was the sun not CO2. We are right, of course.
difference in solar insolation…sunlight reaching the earth…from the low to the high of the sunspot cycle…is 0.5%…and there is no match of the 11 year sunspot cycle with observed earthly temp variations…if low solar activity persists for a long period …like the maunder minimum…it may make a difference…the cosmic ray theory…which depends on the solar cycle…has the same problem of not conforming to observations…just like the now flat hockey stick…the only one that works is my theory of a thirty year cycle…warming 1919-1950…cooling 1950-1980…warming 1980-2010…cooling since then….very simple…..but it works perfectly with observations….i think it has something to do with ocean circulation…which is very poorly understood
Like ‘the pause’ in surface temperatures, ‘the slump’ in solar activity continues
an amazing coincidence. who’d have thunk.
My prediction was actually made in September 2004, submitted to a journal in October 2004, and published in January 2005: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
I noted that “As we approach minimum and the new cycle gets underway, the solar polar field precursor method improves markedly … It is a strength of the polar field precursor method that the predictions improve in this manner” So with the polar fields measured after 2004 the prediction was lowered to 72 and then to 70 where it has stood since. The Livingston & Penn effect http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf if continued might mean that the sunspot number is becoming too small compared to other solar indices and that the SSN may not in future be a good measure of solar activity: Figure 13 and the discussion in http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf
I recall years ago (?) Leif made a prediction of a really low peak of 70-ish for SSN. How wrong he was! 🙂
A bit off-topic, but I was wondering the manner in which WUWT is paid for the video adverts between the posting and the comments. Does WUWT get paid only if we click on the adverts (which is the standard click-thru Internet model) or is there payment each time an advert appears?
gopal, that is a 60 year cycle, not 30.
OK…60 …30…take your pick…but you get the general idea
johnmarshall says: @ September 13, 2013 at 6:06 am
Could end up as a ”climate refugee” as things get colder. Most of us said it was the sun not CO2. We are right, of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dr. Leif Svalgaard and Pamela Gray should be here soon to tell you that the sun doesn’t influence the climate.
The other thing that I find strange is the recent lack of Earth directed solar flares and CMEs. Promising spots appear on the left limb as viewed from earth, but seem to become weaker and more disorganised as the move across the surface.
The Livingstone and Penn effect is also a puzzle and I wonder how this will effect sunspot complexity and subsequent flaring.
I disagree that we are past solar max, there will be more peaks, but the timing of solar max is somewhat arbitrary anyway. I think both 2013 and 2014 will have higher annualy averaged sunspot numbers than 2012.
Tenuc says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:26 am
The other thing that I find strange is the recent lack of Earth directed solar flares and CMEs.
The number of CMEs in this cycle [24] is actually a bit higher than in the previous cycle [23] even with the sunspot number being only half of what it was at the previous maximum.
Hey madman 2001. The way to be safe and make sure Anthony gets paid is to click on the ad as you scroll past it, but hit the volume button on the ad window to shut the sound off and let it run while you read through the comments.
> Of course, at this point, I’m not sure “prediction” is the right word for Hathaway’s update.
One term I’m not very fond of is “nowcasting.” In the northeast it’s frequently used when a nor’easter or tropical storm has arrived, and predictions are based on little more than current conditions – track, speed, radar, and current steering conditions.
We’re in an analogous phase of the solar cycle, we know we’re on the downslope, we know what it looks like, the only uncertainty is how long it will be before solar minimum, but it’s still worth tracking current conditions.
Gary Pearse says: September 13, 2013 at 6:06 am …
Yeah, totally agree, as I’m sure 97% of all WUWTers would.
Certainly you people do not understand the severity of the situation. It’s clear that the sun is burning out and only massive international action can save us. We must find environmentally-sensitive ways to store sunlight with a program that will be funded by a tax based on how much sunlight strikes you and your property – um, except for the property owned by the federal government, of course – and recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize… 😉
Svensmark: “Global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/
In Danish: »Vi anbefaler vores venner at nyde den globale opvarmning, mens den varer«.
For BobW in NC: The “step change”, as he called it, was noticed by Anthony as having occurred in mid-2005, as I recall. Although that particular graph/indice that he was discussing is not reproduced in this post, you can see the effects of what he noticed in the IES Solar Cycle AP Progression graph, above. Note especially what happens between 2005 and 2006 – in all the years since, that indice has never gotten close to pre-2005 levels.
Agust Bjarnason says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:45 am
Svensmark: “Global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning”
It has actually not cooled either.
I have a question for you Anthony and others. I’m a firm skeptic of the AGW scam and the evidence against it is just too overwhelming (MWP hotter globally than today, no tropospheric hotspot, CO2 lags 800 years behind Temperature rise, no sea level rise increase, no significant sea temperature increase, no warming in the past 17 years etc)
My question is can local concentrations of CO2 emissions in Urban areas for example create temperature differentials and change circulatory patterns?
My guess is very little as it could not be cumulative as gaseous equilibrium dispersion would make the bulk relatively homogenous over time with just the latest emissions localised.
It’s probably a silly question but the Alarmists have turned to extreme weather as global temps have stalled and the only two ways CO2 can have an impact are hidden heat(of which none has been found to account for the stall) and localised circulatory influences as global temps have not significantly increased in recent times.
EricH says:
September 13, 2013 at 5:44 am
“We need to stock up on thermal underwear before the rush starts or emigrate to countries closer to the equator.”
My prediction: When Mini-Ice-Age2 settles in, PETA raises money selling furs.
Chris Marrou says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:44 am
Quick! Send Cillian Murphy with a REALLY big bomb…..
Chris Marrou, I assume that if I place those black sunlight-catching panels on my roof, and convert sunlight to electriciy and send it down the wires to share with everyone else, that I won’t be taxed as much? Maybe even given a bit of a rebate?
BobW in NC says:September 13, 2013 at 5:44 am
Do I recall correctly that back in early 2007 WUWT reported a stunning and unexpected downward step shift in one of these metrics?
Bob, it is the step function at Oct. 2005 that I believe Anthony pointed out in the AP Progression chart.
Madman2001 said on September 13, 2013 at 6:18 am:
This is how I recall it, but I am not now nor have I ever been involved in the managing of this blog thus this shall not be considered authoritative.
As a bog-standard free WordPress-dot-com blog, the ads are the “price” of the free hosting. Thus originally WUWT got nothing. Ad clicking just showed your appreciation of said free hosting.
A few years back, being one of WordPress’ most highly-trafficked blogs earned Mr. Watts a small cut of the ad revenue. Figuring in time spent on running the blog versus revenue share, he would have made considerably more by wandering the streets of Chico looking for recyclables to turn in for the deposits.
Lately he had a good offer from WordPress to become an Enterprise site, which would come with some nice perks at the cost of paying hosting fees, and it was tried out, but didn’t quite work out. Maybe the site will go that way at a later date, maybe not.
The sun’s been in a bit of a funk for the last week. Unless it picks up quite a bit over the next two weeks, Sept’s numbers are going to be a lot lower than Aug’s.
I notice that the shape of the north-south polar field (micro telsa) plot changes between cycles with the peak being skewed right in cycle 21, roughly centered for cycle 22, then skewed left for cycles 23 and 24. Is this a fair observation and can anyone suggested an explanation? Perhaps something to do with speed of circulation and quantity of material cycled to the poles?
Hathaway saw the same things Svalgaard saw way back when, but in my opinion he hadn’t the courage of his convictions. The following was my observation at the time (and Svalgaard took issue with that comment):
Claude Harvey says:
January 18, 2011 at 3:15 pm
The following is pure supposition on my part and is supported by nothing more than a curious, 180 degree change in course I observed in Hathaway.
I don’t think Hathaway is the total idiot his series of prognostications might imply. I distinctly remember an article he either wrote or that featured him in which he expressed alarm that the great solar conveyor belt had essentially ground to a halt. That was long before cycle #24 punked out almost entirely. A couple months later he was being quoted as saying in effect, “There is nothing at all unusual about the current dearth of sunspots. Everything is perfectly normal.”
My reading at that time was that Hathaway had bucked to internal NASA political pressure. There was immense pressure to deny any development that might distract from the political mantra that “We’re all going to burn up and die soon if we don’t drown first, unless we drastically restrict fossil fuel use.”
How about a contest to guess the first month with a spotless day?
MJB says:
September 13, 2013 at 7:19 am
I notice that the shape of the north-south polar field (micro tesla) plot changes between cycles
The sun is just a messy place…
Claude Harvey says:
September 13, 2013 at 7:19 am
“My reading at that time was that Hathaway had bucked to internal NASA political pressure.”
As Leif has said numerous times, the insurers of satellites depend on the solar predictions to set rates. So perhaps erring on the high side wasn’t so agenda driven as it was precautionary.
The current way of counting sunspots is so ridiculous it makes it almost useless. I don’t use it as a metric for the strength or lack of strength of solar activity. Instead I rather use the daily solar flux reading and ap index to get a much more objective reading on what the sun is doing.
The predictions have been terrible by mainstream, and the month of Sep. just brings this fact out more and more.
Two shoes are going to fall this decade and have infact already started, the first being solar activity in general is turning out to be much weaker then what has been predicted by mainstream, and secondly the solar /climate connections will become much more established as this decade proceeds.
The temperature trend contiunes to show no increase despite increasing amounts of co2. If anything since this very quiet period of sub solar activity started post 2005,the temperature trend has been slightly down.
It will be acclerating going forward.
From wikipedia: Cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed.
What’s to say that #24 will not be 14 years, indicating 2016 as a peak year? [2009+7]
What happened to the TSI link from SORCE on the WUWT solar page ?
And why does the SORCE have a gap at the beginning of August for TSI, is the instrument having trouble?
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png
One of the things, and Lief may have pointed this out, the Sun TSI is still high even though it seems to have reached it’s peak. The low level activity on the Sun’s surface even though it is not very visible is spread over the entire solar disk and is a significant component of Solar maximum. As long as the TSI is at it’s maximum, we still have a Solar maximum. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
All of these organizations have stated that man made global warming is real and is caused by burning fossil fuels. Based on their unanimity we are therefore supposed to believe they are correct. By quoting the statements from these well known organizations we are supposed to believe that because they are large and well funded they are therefore exempt from making mistakes. Of course this is not true. As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years. The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years. They could not have been more wrong.
As one can see from this article from the web-site icecap; as recently as year 2006 NASA was predicting solar cycle 24 to be the strongest in 300 years!
The reality is it is one of the weakest.
This article is by Art Horn, on the web-site ICECAP.COM and can be viewed there.
CME’S have been almost non existent in this cycle.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 7:59 am
The current way of counting sunspots is so ridiculous it makes it almost useless.
The counting of sunspots has not changed since 1947. You know not whereof you speak.
LT says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:00 am
What happened to the TSI link from SORCE on the WUWT solar page ?
The instrument has failed.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:06 am
The reality is it is one of the weakest.
As predicted.
One of the most remarkable items of this cycle is the lack of earth directed CME’S,and this is verified by the ap index over the course of this cycle which is as a wholeis close to if not at record lows.
What counts as far as the climate is the CME’S effect on the AP index which will have an impact on the climate, if certain thresholds are attained.
TonyK says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:58 am
Quick! Send Cillian Murphy with a REALLY big bomb…..
____________________________
Hey, Sunshine was a great movie. Don’t mock it… (well it had some great CG shots of the sun anyway)
All of these organizations have stated that man made global warming is real and is caused by burning fossil fuels. Based on their unanimity we are therefore supposed to believe they are correct. By quoting the statements from these well known organizations we are supposed to believe that because they are large and well funded they are therefore exempt from making mistakes. Of course this is not true. As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years. The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years. They could not have been more wrong.
All of these organizations have stated that man made global warming is real and is caused by burning fossil fuels. Based on their unanimity we are therefore supposed to believe they are correct. By quoting the statements from these well known organizations we are supposed to believe that because they are large and well funded they are therefore exempt from making mistakes. Of course this is not true. As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years. The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years. They could not have been more wrong.
COUNTER TO WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED NASA WAS PREDICTING SUNSPOT CYCLE 24 TO BE ONE OF THE STRONGEST IN 300 YEARS, AS RECENTLY AS YEAR 2006.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:08 am
CME’S have been almost non existent in this cycle.
You know not whereof you speak. There have been more CMEs this cycle than in the previous cycle.
Re. solar slumps, is there any update on the “no sign at all of Cycle 25” story from a couple of years ago, as mentioned e.g. here?
I appreciate Dr. Svalgaard’s contributions to WUWT even if they are somewhat acerbic! 🙂 He keeps it real. Maybe this paper
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51188502/PLA22068.pdf
suggests the mechanism by which the Sun’s activity can affect the climate. We certainly have a real-life laboratory to study this and other hypotheses about the Earth’s climate.
Although some aspects of the “Layman’s Sunspot Site” do strain credulity, I like their way of counting sunspots. If a spot is too small to be seen in the old days, they simply don’t count it. Other sites count micro-specks and then put the total through some mumbo-jumbo formula, dividing the number of specks by 60%, or some such thing. That doesn’t make much sense to me, because if it couldn’t be seen then it couldn’t be seen. Zero is zero, and putting zero through mumbo-jumbo and getting a number like fifty just doesn’t seem right.
For example, the layman’s site just went through five straight “spotless” days, but Locarno was getting raw numbers like 70. I looked at the pictures of the sun from those days, and you can barely see the specks even with the sun so magnified that only a quarter of the golden orb fits on your video screen. To say such a sun would be called anything other than “spotless” during prior times is patently absurd.
I think our modern counts come out on the high side, especially when you are comparing with counts from SP5, back around 1795.
Of course, some will now say spots aren’t a good way to measure. We have better gizmos and gadgets to measure with, now. However, because they didn’t have those gizmos and gadgets back in 1795, we can’t compare. Unless, of course, we use a gizmo-and-gadget-proxy from 1795.
You’ll have to forgive me, but I seem to have developed an odd allergy. When I hear the word “proxy” I am hit by unconquerable spasms of squirming. So could we please stick with just “sunspots,” out of compassion for people with my handicap?
Every one should view the solar disc today and look at the modern sunspot count. They have the ridiculous number of 58 ,with a solar disc which is almost blank.
Area coverage sure will not jive with this susnpot count. Infact the sunspot count for the whole month of Sep, is a joke and does not jive with area coverage in the least.
LT says, September 13, 2013 at 8:00 am
Details here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/2013/08/19/sorce-spacecraft-status
Caleb you are exactly right , and area coverage which they do on Layman gives the true picture of sunspot activity.
This modern methold of sunspot counting is in a word USELESS.
Salvatore Del Prete, why do you keep posting the same thing again and again and again?
Even assuming that you think postings are going missing, you repeat the same thing again and again in the same message. Why?
Gary Pearse says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:06 am
… I have to grudgingly admit he’s taken considerable heat out of my thinking in the debate.
=========================================================================
Cerebral cooling eh? 🙂
I also echo that spotless is what the sun has been for much of the last 5 days.
Today for example I could perhaps see a sunspot count of 20, but 58 is ridiculous.
Zero is more representative then 58 for today.
steveta don’t read it.
Caleb says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:21 am
Although some aspects of the “Layman’s Sunspot Site” do strain credulity, I like their way of counting sunspots. If a spot is too small to be seen in the old days, they simply don’t count it.
The problem with the LSC is that it is uncalibrated. They say it is supposed to match Rudolf Wolf’s counts for sunspot cycle 5 but Wolf wasn’t even born during SC5. The modern counting method was introduced by Wolfer [counting everything] in 1877. During 17 years of overlap with Wolf, the two observers agreed that multiplying Wolfer’s count by 0.6 make them match Wolf’s [this holds for periods of a month or larger]. The LSC is just plain junk.
This paper by Coughlin and Tung 2004 employs nonlinear EMD (empirical mode decomposition) analysis to stratospheric temperatures, and finds a strong 11 year solar cycle.
This may be the right kind of analysis to look for nonlinear forcing of the climate system by solar and other astrophysical cycles. Check out figure 3.
Stephen Wilde might be interested in this.
The AP index is what matters Leif, I don’t care about CME’S per say although very few have had much of an effect on the goemagnetic index with this cycle in contrast to earlier cycles.
Just look at the ap index for previous recent cycles versu this one if you don’t believe it.
In 1877 the equipment was not able to pick up the specks that are counted today. In 1877 the sun would have been counted as spotless if the equipment used then was used today.
Good to know Dr S at el are improving their theories & methods.
Sunspot coverage is the way to go because it is objective, and sunspot coverage by sunspots for the month of Sep. will give you the true picture of just how low solar activity in regards to sunspots has been thus far for this month of Sept.
The modern way of counting sunspots is useless.
Salvatore Del Prete:
I read solar threads in hoping I can learn because I know very, very little about solar matters. And I am sure there are others who read solar threads for the same reason.
In response to steveta asking you to desist from iterating points in a post and in series of posts you have replied at September 13, 2013 at 8:28 am
No! That will not do!
Those of us who are trying to follow a thread need to read your posts if we are to determine if you have said something new.
Your iterations are wasting the the time and effort of all of us who are trying to follow threads. This is annoying to all of us, not only to steveta.
Please stop it.
Richard
predictions are irrelevant, but nature is nice to give us a way to test the solar hypothesis
Leif,
Your {and your associate(s)} prediction of cycle 24 is looking reasonably on target. Well done.
Questions: Leif, can you give an idea of when you will start your process of assessing the next cycle (#25)? Very roughly what date do you expect to make your cycle 25 prediction? Are you thinking of improving / changing your cycle 24 assessment processes for cycle 25 assessment? I am very very nosy : )
John
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:32 am
The AP index is what matters Leif
The Ap index this cycle is much at it was for cycle 14 and even back in the 1880s. There is no long-term trend in the Ap-index: http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:35 am
In 1877 the equipment was not able to pick up the specks that are counted today. In 1877 the sun would have been counted as spotless if the equipment used then was used today.
You know not whereof you speak [so shut up]. The very same equipment used in 1877 [and manufactured in 1822] is still used today: Figure 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf
Richard, I want to learn also, I will try to tone down.
John Whitman says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:43 am
<can you give an idea of when you will start your process of assessing the next cycle (#25)? Very roughly what date do you expect to make your cycle 25 prediction?
As soon as the polar fields have build up enough that they have become stable. This usually happens about 3 years after their reversal, so in 3-4 years time would be a good guess.
Are you thinking of improving / changing your cycle 24 assessment processes for cycle 25 assessment?
No, except that it is not clear what the L&P effect will do. Perhaps I’ll predict the microwave flux [as Ken Schatten does] or TSI instead of the SSN.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:50 am
Richard, I want to learn also, I will try to tone down.
As you bring nothing to the table, tone ALL THE WAY DOWN.
Leif, okay.
I made my points.Done for today.
When referring to Mr. Hathaway’s PREDICTIONS, you may want to disclose which revision number is represented on your graph. It has to be about revision #7, at least. I would like to see his original prediction graphed against actual!
Good thing we’re saving so much coal for the impending coal-ed spell.
With all the new discoveries going on about the near interstellar neighborhood (which should now increase now that we have at least some rudimentary sensing out there) I must wonder about interactions between Sol and the overarching plasma “sea” that we are sailing through, nice and comfy inside the bubble.
Sun spot activity is linked to Earth’s climate. Sun spot activity is not linked to Earth’s climate.
TSI does not vary enough to affect climate. TSI does vary enough to affect climate.
The AP index is linked to climate. The AP index is not linked to climate.
CME’s affect climate. CME’s do not affect climate.
(I need a long weekend drunk!)
Leif Svalgaard says:
It has actually not cooled either.
This is what I like about Lief’s reply’s … short .. simple, to the point.
BUT … depends on what you mean by “has actually not cooled”. Significantly?? .. yeah , I totally agree. But .. the trend line is negative trend since 2002 .. which, and yes, I know it is indistinquishable from “zero” without the statistics, .. but is “cooling” none the less. 🙂
Here is a compilation of predictions for SC24.
As you can see, there are 45 of them, more than enough to fill a roulette wheel, and they are “all over the map”, so somebody had to be close.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
SC25 is just around the corner.
Ladies and Gentlemen, faites vos jeux!
edit: SC25 NOT Sunspot 25
[Fixed. -w.]
I don’t understand this one …
Say what? In September (9/5/13) the prediction was for a maximum of 66 in the summer of 2013?
What am I missing here?
w.
Dr. Deanster says:
September 13, 2013 at 9:20 am
the trend line is negative trend since 2002 .
Judging from this http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2013_v5.6.png
There does not not seem to be a negative trend, but a insignificant positive trend: compare the red curve in 2002 and now.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 13, 2013 at 9:29 am
“The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 in the Summer of 2013.”
What am I missing here?
Predictions are usually made of the 1-yr smoothed sunspot number…
Leif Svalgaard says: “The sun is just a messy place…”
Well, yes, if you’re going to get all technical on us. 🙂
Seriously, Leif, thanks for participating at WUWT. I always enjoy your comments.
sean says: September 13, 2013 at 9:02 am
When referring to Mr. Hathaway’s PREDICTIONS, you may want to disclose which revision number is represented on your graph. It has to be about revision #7, at least. I would like to see his original prediction graphed against actual!
Not sure this was Hathaway’s ORIGINAL prediction Sean, but here goes:
_________________
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/22/wuwt-poll-what-should-we-call-the-current-solar-minimum/#comments
In December 2006, NASA predicted SC24 would be an active one.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
Dec. 21, 2006
Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.
Excerpt:
“Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.”
Then in April 2007, this position started to shift:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html
Excerpt:
“In the cycle forecast issued today, half of the panel predicts a moderately strong cycle of 140 sunspots, plus or minus 20, expected to peak in October of 2011. The other half predicts a moderately weak cycle of 90 sunspots, plus or minus 10, peaking in August of 2012. An average solar cycle ranges from 75 to 155 sunspots. The late decline of Cycle 23 has helped shift the panel away from its earlier leaning toward a strong Cycle 24. Now the group is evenly split between strong and weak.”
Not sure I’d give a lot of points to NASA/NOAA for being on the leading edge, but by 2007 they certainly had the bases covered.
Houston, we have a problem.
I am curious when NASA will make the public announcement that the sun has abruptly changed to a state that is not possible based on the current assumed electro-magnetic model for the sun.
Leif Svalgaard says:
It has actually not cooled either.
Svensmark is quoted as saying cooling is beginning, and so is really making a prediction. Some measures certainly indicate cooling has begun. So this response is not appropriate.
The low solar cycle seems to effecting the ACE count also. North Atlantic cyclone activity.
https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/378542401331011584/photo/1
http://policlimate.com/tropical/natl_ace_to_date.png
http://policlimate.com/tropical/
Gail Combs says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:24 am
Dr. Leif Svalgaard and Pamela Gray should be here soon to tell you that the sun doesn’t influence the climate.
Now that you have beaten us to it, we don’t need to repeat your assertion.
Keep posting the truth guys. Good questioning,and conclusions.
We will be proven correct soon.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 10:01 am
Keep posting the truth guys.
I’m doing it, I’m doing it. So pay attention.
Leif, I hope everyone is saying what they truely believe right or wrong. I enjoy reading your post believe it not, even though I just do not agree with much of it, but I still learn.
I keep what you say in mind,again believe it or not.
Time will tell, and I think it will be soon..
Stephen Fox says:
September 13, 2013 at 9:47 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
It has actually not cooled either.
Svensmark is quoted as saying cooling is beginning, and so is really making a prediction. Some measures certainly indicate cooling has begun. So this response is not appropriate.
##############
you actually dont want to look for cooling
You need to find more clouds.
Leif Svalgaard, What do you think of Carl Smith’s Rosetta Stone of Solar Science charts theory and Layman’s Sunspot Count process?
http://www.landscheidt.info/
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Thanks much Leif!
Your profound contributions are helping to en”light”en our world(including us/me) on the most important driving force of life on earth(this planet).
Maybe the “coolest” thing going on in science right now, is that we live in this unique time/solar cycle and have capabilities/tools to measure so many different fields/elements/processes related to the sun and use that information to understand the effects on our planet………….like a massive science experiment with a galactic sized laboratory!
Thanks for sharing your scientifically valued knowledge/insight generously.
Stephen Fox says: September 13, 2013 at 9:47 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
It has actually not cooled either.
Stephen:
Svensmark is quoted as saying cooling is beginning, and so is really making a prediction. Some measures certainly indicate cooling has begun. So this response is not appropriate.
Allan:
I suggest with respect that we do not know yet if cooling has begun and we will only know for certain in hindsight, and in due time.
Earth experienced sharp cooling in 2000 and again in 2008 such that the UAH LT temperature anomaly (“LT”) dropped to below -0.2C, temporarily erasing all global warming since the satellites were launched in 1979, but then LT bounced back to about + 0.2C where is oscillates today. The temperature data is variable and trends take time to become apparent.
So I am with Leif on this one…
… and I also wrote in 2002 that global cooling would commence by 2020-2030. Cooling may have started already – but we just do not know.
Just in case though, bundle up! 🙂
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 13, 2013 at 9:29 am
To calculate the smoothed sunspot number for July 2013 add half of the Jan 2013 value plus the sum of the Feb through Dec 2013 values plus half of the Jan 2014 value and by divide the sum by twelve.
We won’t know the actual July 2013 smoothed sunspot number until February 2014!
Low solar cycle seems to be making daily sea ice extent record at Antarctica possible?
43rd Daily Record for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent – 2013 would be 3rd Highest Maximum of All Time
September 11th (Day 254) saw the 43rd Daily Record of the Year for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. So far, 2013 would be the 3rd highest maximum of All Time behind 2012 and 2006.
2012′s maximum was 19.47713 million sq km
2006′s maximum was 19.35934 million sq km
2013′s maximum so far is 19.35119 million sq km
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/43rd-daily-record-for-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-2013-would-be-3rd-highest-maximum-of-all-time/
A hot sheet item for sure
This is a great time for a challenge to the theory that its the sun stupid.
Looks like we are close to max.
In the US we have 110 stations (CRN) that have records ( min, hour, day, month) going back to the last Max ( or very close to it)
These stations are the gold standard according to WUWT
They record temperature, clouds, sun, wind etc.
Anyone who has a working theory of how the sun effects the climate should be able to make TESTABLE predictions about the next 5 to 10 years.
edit +-.2C should be +0.2C – apologies
[Fixed. -w.]
Considering quantum effects, could there be entanglement between processes in the inner sun that could result in rapid surface changes?
I became a climate refugee this spring when we moved from central Oregon to the Palm Springs area. My thought at that time was a downsizing move from snow blowing and pine needle raking. Looks like I will need to wait a while to see if it was also a really smart early move from a “Little Ice Age”.
– – – – – – – –
ferd berple,
I suggest those thoughts will resonate more strongly within our culture. More money therefore will flow into research on non-AGW climate behavior.
As for scientific dialog on whether there will be significant climate cooling if we are going into a Maunder-like solar pattern, that kind of dialog is going to escalate. I do not support that connection . . . yet.
A few doubt assessment thoughts:
A) I have little doubt that the Sun is, by many orders of magnitude, the dominate net source of energy of the Earth-Atmosphere System (EAS). I have little doubt that we have not placed anywhere near enough priority on studying potential impacts on the EAS of the Sun’s subtle & not so subtle variations.
B) I have very little doubt that there will a glacial period at the end of the interglacial period we are in. I have little doubt that we do not know the timing. I have little doubt we do not know the variations in the rate of change on the decadal scale of its expected temperature patterns. I have little doubt it will be studied more than it previously has been.
C) I have little doubt there will be a wholesale and chaotic intellectual catharsis of the entrenched IPCC centric community as the cultural / science focus pendulum shifts away from their myopia. I have little doubt that it is unpredictable when a reasonable balance in the science on the EAS will be achieved. I have little doubt the pendulum has already started shifting away from them.
John
Where would one find the UV flux through all of this? It dropped off an amazing 7% at the end of cycle 23. I looked on the SORCE sight and could not find anything recent. I presume it did not recover from the cycle 23 minimum to cycle 23 max values. UV could very well be an important sub surface heating mechanism to the tropical oceans and a valid reason why global temperatures track sunspot activity nearly perfectly.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
<blolemiere jacques says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:43 am
… nature is nice to give us a way to test the solar hypothesis
FWIW: Major 100-year-record-breaking rains here in Colorado. It's been raining for four days, pretty much straight. Flash floods out of Boulder and St. Vrain Canyons, Clear Creek, Big Thompson… Can't wait for them to talk about the "ongoing drought", or predictable global warming effects. Predictions are nice, but reality always manages to throw a monkey wrench into them
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-colorado-flooding-nightfall-20130912,0,945098.story
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:49 am
……………………………
“It has actually not cooled either.”
For which we should be grateful. Cooling will cause some real problems as opposed to warming.
Maybe we need MORE CO2 in the atmosphere.
I’m not a scientist, but I have been lurking on these solar threads since about 2009, so perhaps I can answer this question, (Dr. Svalgaard, please correct me if my answer is not accurate):
_____________________________
Alberta Slim says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:00 am
From wikipedia: Cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed.
What’s to say that #24 will not be 14 years, indicating 2016 as a peak year? [2009+7]
______________________
Solar cycle activity is not symmetric around the peak of the cycle, but rather there is a relatively steep rise at the beginning of the cycle rising out of the previous minimum, and after the cycle peak a longer, less steep fall with a “tail” to the next minimum. See the above “Active Region Count” figure in the body of the main post. Note the (relative to the rise to maximum) long “tail” of the slope down to the minimum at the end of each cycle.
So, based upon the above, a cycle that ran an extremely long and rare 14 years would probably not see solar max at year 7 of the cycle, but more likely the peak would be 5 or 6 years into the cycle. We are now 4 years or so into cycle 24, and by at least one standard we have reached solar max. That does not mean that this cycle will be just 8 or 9 years long. We are (I think) more probably going to have a longer than average cycle in the 11+ years range. I believe that I have seen some posts that link longer cycles with lower solar activity, and higher solar activity with shorter cycles.
And for all of you out there wondering about the issue raised earlier about the counting of smaller sunspots, and sun “freckles”, Dr. Svalgaard has explained on these pages many times that OF COURSE solar scientists are aware that to have a valid comparison to the sunspots counted in previous centuries you cannot count spots that could not be seen with the technology used then. As he alluded to above, a standard was set in the 1940s to use an identical small telescope to one used in 1880 or so, to establish a current sunspot count that can be validly compared to sunspot counts done as early as the 1790 s.
Dr. Svalgaard , have you made any predictions as to the length of Solar Cycle 24?
“Rare solar cycle has cold implications for UK climate”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Rare-solar-cycle-has-cold-implications-for-UK-climate
Paul Hudsons BBC blog
“My guest on this weekends weather show is former BBC weather forecaster John Kettley, who offers interesting opinions on climate past, present and future. It will be available on the BBC iplayer later on sunday, click HERE”
@njsnowfan says:
September 13, 2013 at 10:15 am
Leif Svalgaard, What do you think of Carl Smith’s Rosetta Stone of Solar Science charts theory and Layman’s Sunspot Count process?
Not much. There are lots of comments on that here at WUWT. Just search through earlier articles [all the many thousands of them 🙂 ]
Caleb says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:21 am
I agree, our post-modernist culture now accepts a sham as an honest attempt in much of public life.
Using statistics to correct data is about as blatant as fraud gets, but accepted nonetheless. The BLS, the BEA, etc., all pass the unjustified and incredible off as a fair account why should academics be any different?
Dan Murphy says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:04 am
Dr. Svalgaard , have you made any predictions as to the length of Solar Cycle 24?
Low cycles are usually longer, so I do expect the length of SC24 to be longer than average. Hard to say how much.
How can we tell whether the current spot counting method is commensurate with that in 1877 (say)? This question really bothers me. Others have mentioned the recent spotless days recorded by the Layman’s Sunspot Count, and one of those days I certainly would have called spotless from looking at the SDO image. But how can we compare?
Well, did they not use to make sunspot drawings? Can we not make drawings today and compare them with (say) 1910 which was a cycle slightly stronger than this one but not by so much. And then, can we ask, for a sunspot group of a particular area, how many spots/specks are we counting in that group? Then, if we do it a lot of times, can we use statistics to see whether the number of spots counted today for a similar area is about the same as it was in 1910? Such a confirmation would be very comforting to me, because without it I am very dubious of counts like today’s, and many other days.
Perhaps Dr. LS can tell us that this has already been done?
Rich.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:06 am
“in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years.”
Back when Hathaway made his original prediction for solar cycle 24 the BBC and other media outlets had lots of quotes from scientists claiming that such an increase in solar activity would double the warming effect that CO2 had on the earths climate.
I have never read a retraction of these statements and I have never seen an article by the BBC or any other media with a man made global warming bias, have any scientist explain; that because solar cycle 24 is very weak, the warming effect that CO2 had on the climate would be halved or reduced. Its strange that there always seems to be a one-way influence on earth climate.
I did point this out on a solar thread about 2-3 years ago and Leif said; “never believe what you read in the papers” or something to that effect.
EPA’s proposed new regulations could keep coal industry reeling
http://triblive.com/business/headlines/4696059-74/coal-industry-gas#axzz2ena6RDjV
http://wvmetronews.com/2013/09/13/clean-coal-official-says-possible-epa-limits-are-too-low/
Clean coal official says possible EPA limits are too low
Obama’s EPA Getting Ready To Destroy The Coal Industry
http://downtrend.com/jrc410/obamas-epa-getting-ready-to-destroy-the-coal-industry/
Steven Mosher says:
September 13, 2013 at 10:21 am
Anyone who has a working theory of how the sun effects the climate should be able to make TESTABLE predictions about the next 5 to 10 years.
… I think you meant to say projections. : )
No Warming Left To Deny…’Global Cooling Takes Over…CET Annual Mean Temperature Plunges 1°C Since 2000′
‘Global temperature data, such as HadCrut 4, show warming has disappeared altogether…Global temperatures have been showing many more signs of cooling than warming…warming is now in the history books, having died some 15 years ago’
Some so called VIP people think they are such mental giants that they can by force of their will, foist a belief in man’s culpability for worldwide climate and charge for it a global carbon dioxide tax. Of course the sole benefit is for the global world ruling elite. Little do they know, the Sun overrules them.
I don’t think people understand how devastating it’s going to be for the people who supported the Man-Made Global Warming movement. When they find out Man is not to blame, and It’s the Sun Doing it Stupid, they are going to freak the heck out.
Leif, could you address this again?I have to asked again.
How could a sunspot count of 5 specks giving a sunspot number of 50, contrasted to one large sunspot say three times the size of the earth with a sunspot count of 10, reconcile with area coverage?
I can not see how this holds up .
Leif, I’m disappointed in you, one could almost suggest that you are cherry picking, is not UAH the outlier?
Four other atmosphere and two sea surface data sets other than UAH ( http://tinyurl.com/k29l9ha ) suggests a more than decadal negative, if small, trend, with a fifth (Mosher’s toybox) in agreement through 9 years
If SC25 & 26 do emulate end up emulating SC5 & 6, we may have 20+ more years of cooling on the way
RIP “The Modern Winter”, aka CAGW.
I see that nobody is up to the challenge
REPLY: Mosh, you raised the issue, so rather than doing yet another drive by hit where all you do is complain, but do nothing beyond that, why not do it yourself? I look forward to you dealing with the lags. I would, but I simply don’t have the time at the moment as I’m working on a much more important project you also won’t like.
– Anthony
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:12 am
“Low cycles are usually longer, so I do expect the length of SC24 to be longer than average. Hard to say how much.”
RE:Dan Murphy
“Dr. Svalgaard , have you made any predictions as to the length of Solar Cycle 24?”
Looking at past solar cycles on the sunspot area record I think July 2017 will be the beginning of solar minimum for cycle 24 and it may last up to 3-4 years, weaker cycles have longer minimums between peaks of solar maximums which makes them longer than average.
What is different today is this is the first prolonged solar minimum since the Dalton. Let us see the climate implications going forward. I expect many.
Hello Bill,
Sorry about the Colorado flooding. The impact on families can be swift and devastating, and recovery is slow.
Earlier this summer, Southern Alberta experienced major flooding that peaked on 21June2013, also due to record or near-record rainfall.
Major floods in our region reportedly occurred in 1879, 1897, 1902, 1915, 1929, 1932 and now 2013.
The 1932 flood was reportedly mitigated by the Glenmore Dam, built in 1931.
We experienced minor flooding in 2005, but 2013 was a major deluge. The Glenmore Dam and Reservoir were apparently not much help this time.
In our region, warmer is typically dryer and cooler is typically wetter, according to river flow records.
Is this one more indicator of the beginning of global cooling? 🙂
Regards, Allan
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/07/29/calgary-harry-sanders-flood-history-historic-week.html
P.S.
On 27June2013, I was asked by my federal Member of Parliament (MP) to line up some houses for a volunteer flood cleanup crew the next day. At 8am sharp the cleanup crew arrived at my friends’ house and got to work. They worked diligently for hours, until all the mud was removed from the basement (and we all wore our fair share of it). Then we moved on to clean up several more flood-damaged houses. There were no reporters or TV cameras. The cleanup crew worked for days in Calgary and High River, and consisted of about fifteen volunteers, including four Conservative MP’s and the wife of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Tens of thousands of Albertans volunteered in this massive clean-up effort. Energy companies donated heavy oilfield vacuum trucks to remove water and sludge from basements, and the entire community pulled together. Calgary Stampede, the site of which was fully inundated, started on schedule on 5July2013. Love this city.
– – – – – – – –
Steven Mosher,
Great idea. But nothing is free, n’est ce pas?
Please offer some direct funding (in cash only please) to perform your challenge. I recommend you send a draft agreement / contract to all WUWT bloggers. That might stimulate interest in your challenge. Isn’t capitalism wonderful?
: )
John
Allan MacRae says:
“Major floods in our region reportedly occurred in 1879, 1897, 1902, 1915, 1929, 1932 and now 2013.”
That is a very clear signal on CET, a late summer warm blast then a sudden cool down:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
No cooling ? it depends on whose data you use.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:120/plot/hadcrut3gl/last:120/trend.
See – owe to Rich says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:14 am
How can we tell whether the current spot counting method is commensurate with that in 1877
Because the very instruments that were used in 1877 [actually since 1849] still exist and are used every day to count sunspots and sunspot groups using the same method. And have been in continuous use since back then. You can see more here: http://www.rwg.ch/joomla/ and here http://www.rwg.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102&Itemid=109
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:40 am
How could a sunspot count of 5 specks giving a sunspot number of 50, contrasted to one large sunspot say three times the size of the earth with a sunspot count of 10, reconcile with area coverage?
Assuming the 5 specks form five groups, the sunspot number would be 55 and when multiplied by 0.6 to bring the count onto Wolf’s original scale would be 33. If the 5 specks are all together in one group, the sunspot number would be 15 or, when multiplied by 0.6 to bring it onto Wolf’s original scale, 9.
I can not see how this holds up
That you cannot see something does not mean much.
But let me explain: Wolf realized that what is important is not just the raw count, but that groups [we now call them active regions] are actually more important, hence the sunspot number is calculated as 10 times the number of groups plus the number of spots. Even if a group contains only one tiny spot its magnetic field [and the f10.7 flux] is still there and has effect. So the area of the spot is not so important. Statistically there is a VERY good correspondence between Wolf’s sunspot number and the area of the all the groups on the disk: Area [in millionths of the disk] = 16.7 * sunspot number. Simply because a group with many [including some large ones] spots tends to cover a larger area the more spots it has.
Gras Albert says:
September 13, 2013 at 11:43 am
is not UAH the outlier?
What does that matter? UAH is what WUWT ordinarily shows. The differences are so tiny that they are not significant.
herkimer says:
September 13, 2013 at 12:40 pm
No cooling ? it depends on whose data you use.
And from when you start. Try year 2000.
Leif Svalgaard says:
It has actually not cooled either.
===============
ROTFL….how would anyone know
Lief
When you say no cooling you also have to say over what period and using what data set. Also see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/are-we-in-a-pause-or-a-decline-now-includes-at-least-april-data/
herkimer says:
September 13, 2013 at 1:16 pm
When you say no cooling you also have to say over what period and using what data set.
So should everybody, but nobody does. The point is that with real, significant cooling or warming those details are not important. If they are, the effect is no significant.
John Whitman says:
September 13, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Steven Mosher on September 13, 2013 at 12:00 pm
I see that nobody is up to the challenge
– – – – – – – –
Steven Mosher,
Great idea. But nothing is free, n’est ce pas?
Please offer some direct funding (in cash only please) to perform your challenge. I recommend you send a draft agreement / contract to all WUWT bloggers. That might stimulate interest in your challenge. Isn’t capitalism wonderful?
: )
########################
Funding?
For what? the data is free, I’ll write the code for Free.
All people need to do is take a stand
IF you think the sun controls the ups and downs of the climate, then make a prediction
what will happen to temperature ?
what will happen to cloud cover?
How much funding do these guys need to explain right here what their prediction is?
Leif, using the met-office historical Temperature record and Sunspot data from Greenwich Observatory, I have graphed both for three different locations, looking at the trends I can clearly see a relationship between solar activity and temperature, am I doing something wrong?
Sunspot data from Greenwich Observatory. Temperature record from Oxford
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/oxford-average-november-sunspot-number-and-march-minimum-temperature-1865-2012.gif
Sunspot data from Greenwich Observatory. Temperature record from Stornoway airport
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/stornoway-nov-ssn-v-mar-tmin-1875-2012.gif
Average November Sunspot Number and February Minimum Temperature 1875-2012
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/nov-ssn-v-feb-tmin-1875-20121.gif
Sparks says:
September 13, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Leif, using the met-office historical Temperature record and Sunspot data from Greenwich Observatory, I have graphed both for three different locations, looking at the trends
If you are looking for trends, you will find them. As Yogi Berra said: “if I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it”.
– – – – – – –
Steven Mosher,
If you want somebody to do something (your challenge) then pay them for it.
To your thinking your funding offer may be too small. But OK. Send us your funding offer.
A future patron of fine skeptical challenges. It does kind of fit with your blog personage.
John
herkimer says:
September 13, 2013 at 12:40 pm
No cooling ? it depends on whose data you use.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 1:01 pmAnd from when you start. Try year 2000.
All in the name of friendly banter …. let’s try 10,000 bp. :-0
I only chose 2002 because of the often cited “warmest decade” comment made by some in the media. So, while indeed, the last decade may have been the warmest on record, at least according to the wildly adjusted land based metrics …. the trend within that decade is slightly, though not significantly down. 🙂 (UAH excepted)
Dr. Deanster says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:12 pm
according to the wildly adjusted land based metrics …. the trend within that decade is slightly, though not significantly down. 🙂 (UAH excepted)
Perhaps you trust the wildly adjusted land based metrics more than the satellite based data? Fair enough, everybody has his own bias.
Steve, please set the record straight. Were you an English major of some kind? Just checking to make sure it’s you here and that no-one hijacked your handle.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 1:43 pm
If you are looking for trends, you will find them. As Yogi Berra said: “if I hadn’t believed it, I wouldn’t have seen it”.
All the same, the trend is there in three different temperature records, from three different locations, over a lengthy time period.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:35 am
“…The number of CMEs in this cycle [24] is actually a bit higher than in the previous cycle [23] even with the sunspot number being only half of what it was at the previous maximum.”
So if the number of Earth directed flares is higher than 23 why is the AP index so low? Could it be the weaker solar magnetic field and the L&P effect are reducing the strength of flares and CME’s or were Earth facing flares during SC23 also anomalously low and or weaker?
Sparks says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:21 pm
All the same, the trend is there in three different temperature records, from three different locations, over a lengthy time period.
First: eye-balling is a poor way to determine trends, second: extend the time period back in time and the ‘trend’ is different.
Tenuc says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:21 pm
So if the number of Earth directed flares is higher than 23 why is the AP index so low?
First: the data on CMEs count them all. I have not seen a specific study of ‘halo’ CMEs [Earth directed] so perhaps it is just you impression. If you have hard data, I would like to see them.
Could it be the weaker solar magnetic field
The solar magnetic field [and the part of it dragged into interplanetary space] is indeed a bit lower:
http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-B-1963-now.png
Finding the footprint of solar forcing will be as difficult as finding the footprint of GHG forcing. We’re in the cool phase of the PDO for 10 or 15 more years which most everyone agrees forces some amount of cooling. CO2 emissions and levels are increasing which most everyone agrees forces some amount of warming. Solar forcing? Are these the big two or the big three or are there other forcings that are significant? I hate to get stereotyped as a merchant of doubt, but how do you ever isolate the forcing variables in climate change? Maybe over several PDO cycles and solar cycles we’ll be able to infer and agree on the power of individual forcings, but it won’t be easy. Right now I’d guess that the cooling from PDO and warming from CO2 are a wash. If we had significant cooling during the positive phase of the PDO, then I’d be inclined to attribute most of that to solar or unknowns. If we had significant warming during the positive phase of the PDO, I’d be inclined to attribute that to CO2 and PDO and unknowns. If we had neither warming nor cooling, I’d leap from my grave and curse the perversity of it all, and the climate wars would continue with knowers knowing nothing, but claiming clarity and confidence levels of 99% (yes- hyperbole and alliteration)!
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm
extend the time period back in time and the ‘trend’ is different
yep, look out below…….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm
First: eye-balling is a poor way to determine trends, second: extend the time period back in time and the ‘trend’ is different.
Leif, it is simple, there are two trend lines, one for solar and one for temperature and they closely match, I’m aware of the issues you have mentioned, as a visual aide for the purpose of showing you the data, graphs are what people use.
If you have temperature data of the same latitude as the UK I’ll be happy to produce a graph and supply you the data for further analysis.
C. de Jager, Solar Forcing of Climate :
“The role of the open solar flux has so far been grossly underestimated in discussions of Sun-climate relations.“
See abstract in the above link.
It was prof. de Jager who triggered my interest in the topic of whether or not there was a direct relation between the sun’s activity and the climate. Don’t ask me for specifics, I am an amateur here, but he presented data showing such a relation. It was in the news in Holland several years ago. I guess it is still somewhere on his site (see link above).
I don’t read WUWT every day, so I miss a lot, but anyhow, I don’t remember having read about or from De Jager on WUWT and also not about “open solar flux”.
So I thought I give him a citation here.
The link in my post should direct to here:
http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2012-deJager-solar-forcing2.pdf
So I read Leifs PDF on the telescopes used and I wonder, does the moon actually have a blocking effect? What effect does solar eclipses have during maximum activity as opposed to minimum activity?
Idakno, just typing out loud.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 9:38 am
Ah, that makes perfect sense. Many thanks.
w.
Steven Mosher says:
September 13, 2013 at 10:21 am
Actual science? How daring. Now you’ll get lots of folks claiming a thousand reasons that they can’t do it or its not worth doing or the results will be nullified by the atmospheric pressure or the humidity and the like …
Me, I think “it’s the thermometer, stupid”, so I have no prediction at all about which way the frog will jump … except that it won’t jump far.
w.
Just wait until the solar activity increases again, proving that warming is driven by increasing carbon!
Blade says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:20 pm
===========
Care to bore us with your educational/work experience ?
Steven Mosher says:
September 13, 2013 at 10:21 am
Anyone who has a working theory of how the sun effects the climate should be able to make TESTABLE predictions about the next 5 to 10 years.
================
That doesn’t follow. For example, I propose the hypothesis that the sun’s influence on climate is a chaotic fractal at all time scales. The TEST of this is that no one will be able to accurately predict the effect of the sun on climate using existing mathematical theory.
Well, I’ve been saying the globe is cooling for six or seven years, now, haven’t got sick once.
=====================
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Could it be the weaker solar magnetic field
The solar magnetic field [and the part of it dragged into interplanetary space] is indeed a bit lower:
http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-B-1963-now.png
—
Yes good link Dr. S.
You know how you say the sun is a messy place, well that image tells me, the local neighborhood interstellar background, is a messy, wavy, turbulent place. Head on with our messy, wavy, turbulent solar system. Always varying and never quite the same. Gee, that sounds like the background too.. Thanks for the image..
Leif is a strong advocate of mechanism. If one chooses ENSO variation as a mechanism then the PDO is a good index of its variability. The PDO was positive from around 1975-2005. The global temperature trend over that period was warming. Since the PDO moved into negative territory the global temperature trend has been cooling as measured by almost all the global data sets.
How does solar fit into this variability? One way would be to impact the formation of ENSO events. That is, it would have to create the environment where more El Niño or La Niña events occurred. I haven’t seen anything very convincing to make this happen. In any event, using the past as the best indicator of future events, we should see the negative PDO until somewhere around 2035. If the sunspot count does make a difference the cooling should be even stronger. We will see …
Alberta Slim says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:00 am
From wikipedia: Cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed.
What’s to say that #24 will not be 14 years, indicating 2016 as a peak year? [2009+7]
++++++++++++
If cycle 24 is longer as it seems to be predicted, it will be skewed… there will be a longer dragged out decline, I believe.
“And, tellingly, Dr. David Hathaway has now aligned his once way too high solar prediction with that of WUWT’s resident solar expert, Dr. Leif Svalgaard. Of course, at this point, I’m not sure “prediction” is the right word for Hathaway’s update.”
What I would like to see are each of the predictions David Hathaway made. It seems to me, and has for some time, his predictions are adjusted for the real data and are thus not really a prediction. If we could compare all his predictions and the rationale for each, then we might learn something about how he predicts things. That he has come down several times means whatever his basis was for those predictions was faulty. Unless he can explain why each of his failed predictions were wrong, he’s not going to have much credibility. How has what he knows changed to warrant the new “prediction”? Anyone can predict with hindsight.
Tenuc says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:21 pm
So if the number of Earth directed flares is higher than 23 why is the AP index so low?
Leif Svalgaard replies:
September 13, 2013 at 2:34 pm
First: the data on CMEs count them all. I have not seen a specific study of ‘halo’ CMEs [Earth directed] so perhaps it is just you impression. If you have hard data, I would like to see them.
and Leif Svalgaard says:
September 13, 2013 at 6:35 am
The number of CMEs in this cycle [24] is actually a bit higher than in the previous cycle [23] even with the sunspot number being only half of what it was at the previous maximum.
Assuming that the numbers are correct (and I see no reason not to), there is obviously a very poor or no correlation between the total number of CMEs and the Ap.
It is, however, possible to reconcile the facts. We can use the number of M and X flares as a proxy for the number of CMEs likely to impact the magnetosphere.
Using the monthly data, see http://www.solen.info/solar/old_reports/ , as a comparison I select the 6 first months of 2003 and 2013. During those months in 2003 there were 86 M flares and 9 X class flares. In 2013 there were 30 M and 4 X flares during the same time interval. I would say we can assume there have been fewer large Earth directed CMEs just by taking into account the number of flares normally associated with the strongest geomagnetic disturbances.
We should also take into account that a large number of CMEs originate from filament eruptions. Those CMEs are generally smaller and slower than those associated with M and X flares. Assuming there has been no major change in the frequency of filament eruptions we could see almost the same number of CMEs in a small cycle (the current cycle) as in a medium cycle (cycle 23). So, at least in my view, the apparent discrepancy between the number of CMEs and the Ap index can have a reasonable explanation.
The thing about the flat trend in global temperature is it allows any kind of speculation to explain the “pause”.
The problem is that’s just not good enough.
There is absolutely no chance that the Earth’s climate is in some kind of equilibrium.
That means competing forces are at work to simultaneously warm and cool the earth , currently cancelling each other out.
Assuming the sun had no effect on climate, then I would expect the cold PDO ( to be followed shortly by cold AMO) to cancel out the effect of (still) rising greenhouse gas warming (though of course non of the water vapour positive feedback nonsense). In fact almost exactly the same as 1945 to 1975. i.e flat.
So, in conclusion, I think the next 10 to 20 years will define whether the sun (and more likely secondary magnetic/GCR/ Cloud feedback) is the primary driver of climate or not.
My guess, Svensmark is right. The severity of cooling will depend on the higher GCR count caused by the impaired solar magnetic field.
(apologies for the excessive use of brackets)
It’s worse than we thought!!
Solar activity is ‘slumping’ as the use of solar panels and other means of capturing solar energy is increasing. If we carry on like this, the sun will be completely drained by … oh, about 2099. We must put an end to this madness, NOW!
I suppose I’d better add (/sarc) just in case.
Me: How can we tell whether the current spot counting method is commensurate with that in 1877
Leif: Because the very instruments that were used in 1877 [actually since 1849] still exist and are used every day to count sunspots and sunspot groups using the same method. And have been in continuous use since back then. You can see more here: http://www.rwg.ch/joomla/ and here http://www.rwg.ch/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102&Itemid=109
Me, now: Leif, you did not reply to my main point, which is not about the technology used, but about the records (drawings) of the observations and the inference of whether a speck is counted as a spot. In order to be satisfied that more specks are not being counted nowadays, I ask (perhaps some budding Ph.D. student) for a statistical analysis of sunspot counts within groups of similar area, for comparable periods within Cycle 24 (last few years) and Cycle 14 which you say evolved similarly. This could, of course, be a lot of work, and like Mosher I am not offering any money for it 🙂
But thanks for the links, and I hope next week to have time to follow them.
Rich.
No. But way to miss the point.
If someone is an English major those two words “Effect” and Affect” are as different as night and day. If someone is a Scientist then those two words are as much or even more clearly defined. Steve Mosher is IIRC both ( or one with a strong interest in the other ) and has written a book on Science. This makes it twice as strange.
Now back to your question. What would it matter if I was a computer programmer, farmer or garbage man when discussing specific facts? You could spend all day here at WUWT asking the same question to every one of the numerous commenters pontificating about climate, correct? So then why did you ask me that question? What was the point? Are you implying that only English majors should be pointing out what I cited? Or, do you feel that such things should not be cited at all? I sure hope it’s not the latter because then why do we bother going after every little climate error.
Blade says:
September 13, 2013 at 2:20 pm
and
From the dictionary, let me introduce you to what appears to be a foreign concept on your planet:
Steven, like many of us, often posts in a hurry … and as a result, he, like many others including myself, occasionally has typographical errors in his work.
If you’ve never made a typo, blade, then you are qualified to bitch about those of others … and since that’s not the case, could we get back to real issues?
w.
Steven Mosher says:
“Anyone who has a working theory of how the sun effects the climate should be able to make TESTABLE predictions about the next 5 to 10 years.”
We are going to need them, it’s not looking too clever. There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years, due to big cold shots in the growing seasons.
Ulric Lyons:
Your post at September 14, 2013 at 3:31 am concludes saying
Well, there are “big cold shots in the growing seasons” somewhere in each year. There always have been and always will be.
So I suppose you are right about what “could easily be”.
Richard
Leif,
1. According to the graphs http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png, one can have the impression that a part of the distribution of sunspots is being cut off. The absence of sunspots above the pink colored line (intensity = 1.0) and beneath the 1500 Gauss line of the graph ‘umbral magnetic field’, is obvious. If the trend anticipated by Livingston and Penn will persist, a growing portion of the sunspot distribution will no longer be visible.
This implies also that more and more sunspots should be seen with lower intensity and umbral magnetic field. According to me, this must be obvious at first glance, if both pictures are taken in the same conditions (e.g. a picture of the sun with sunspots in 2003 compared to a picture taken this year). Do you have examples of such photographs?
2. Can one use the term ‘invisible sunspots’ in the sense that the same structure of a sunspot will persist, visible or not visible? I mean: When the field strength in a filament reaches a certain value, above 1500 Gauss, the filament becomes buoyant, rises to the surface and becomes visible. If the field does not reach this value – what Livingston and Penn are expecting – the filament rises still to the surface but the contrast with the outer regions is minimal and a sunspot is no longer visible.
3. A team of researchers led by Northwest Research Associates (NWRA) are using data from the Global Oscillations Network Group (GONG) and the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI). The team revealed subtle surface signs “when and where sunspots will emerge on the Sun, at least a day in advance.” (SCIENTISTS DISCOVER SOLAR PRECURSORS OF WHEN, WHERE SUNSPOTS WILL EMERGE”, 9 July 2013, http://www.nwra.com/news/sunspots/). How do you interpret these findings in the light of the findings of Livingston and Penn? Can the cause of the Livingston and Penn effect be explained by this finding?
4. David Hathaway made the power point presentation “Solar Cycle update” (See http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations.shtml). On page 40, he shows an interesting picture based on the Wilcox Solar Observatory Polar Fields. He deduces the strength the solar cycle from the rate of change in the polar fields. He concludes: Cycle 24 has far fewer (and smaller) sunspots than Cycles 22 and 23. Although the faster Meridional flow should help overcome this deficit, the slow rate of change in the polar fields strongly suggests that polar fields that will build up over the rest of Cycle 24 will still be very weak. Do you agree with his view?
richardscourtney says:
“Well, there are “big cold shots in the growing seasons” somewhere in each year. There always have been and always will be.”
Perhaps you can provide some proof of that.
The Agra famine years is a good example of the type of events coming up. The cold reached most regions around the temperate zone, with crop failures in many countries.
March to August 1837: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/historical/north_atlantic/nao_mon.txt
Ulric Lyons:
re your post addressed to me at September 14, 2013 at 4:53 am.
Please don’t be silly. A year with no “big cold shots in the growing seasons” anywhere would be extremely rare because weather varies everywhere.
You are the one who has made a claim; viz.
Therefore, it is your responsibility to define what would be unusual “big cold shots in the growing seasons”. And I guarantee there will be famines somewhere in some future years as there always have been.
Five years from now few will remember your undefined assertion about 2016/17 and “some following years”. I assume that in 2018 you will remind people about your assertion if it can be claimed to be wrong, and you will not mention it if it claimed to be right: or am I mistaken about that?
Richard
richardscourtney says:
“Therefore, it is your responsibility to define what would be unusual “big cold shots in the growing seasons”. And I guarantee there will be famines somewhere in some future years as there always have been.”
I gave a good example in my previous comment, I would not take your definition seriously as it is false. Your “A year with no “big cold shots in the growing seasons” anywhere would be extremely rare because weather varies everywhere.” is a shaggy dog tale whizzed up merely to distort the issue. I can guarantee when the famine years will occur, because I can forecast down to monthly and less scales.
” I assume that in 2018 you will remind people about your assertion if it can be claimed to be wrong, and you will not mention it if it claimed to be right: or am I mistaken about that?”
Nothing is left unmentioned, that would be cheating.
Ulric Lyons:
You conclude your post to me at September 14, 2013 at 6:01 am saying
Everything is left undefined, and that is cheating.
In your statement
the phrases which are not clearly defined are
1. could easily be (probabilty ?)
2. famine conditions (where and how severe ?)
3. some following years (proportion of years ?)
4. big cold shots (big ? cold ? shots?)
5. growing seasons (of what and where ?)
I anticipate post hoc specifications of these terms.
Richard
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 6:01 am
Ulric, it appears you misunderstand the import of Richard’s question. If you are going to be making a prediction, it is WORTHLESS unless it is specific.
In your case you claim that there “could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17”. That is not a prediction at all, unless you believe Piers Corbyn makes predictions … to be a prediction, you need to define your terms in a very precise manner.
For example, what is a “big cold shot”? Does “big” refer to the geographical area? If so, how much is “big”? Or does it refer to the temperature, and if so, how much of a drop in temperature is “big”.
In other words, you are not making a prediction at all.
Perhaps it would help if you thought of a prediction as a bet. If I say “I’ll bet you that there will be a big temperature increase tomorrow”, you’d be a fool to take the bet (as would I) because we haven’t decided what is “big” and what is “not big”.
So I fear that all you are doing is waving your hands and trying to sound impressive by making a forecast which is nothing of the sort, just a vague claim that there “could easily be famine conditions”, which is meaningless in the scientific world (or the world of bets) … color me unimpressed. If you want to play that game, you’ll have to do much, much better than that.
w.
@richardscourtney
As I have posted several times on this blog, extremely low temperatures for the time of year, in April, May and June of 2016 with 100% certainty, with few regions escaping the effects. Certain regions do come up on suitable analogues, such as Asia, Japan, Canada, and parts of Europe, particularly Sweden and Ireland. Conditions the following year while not as severe, will be poor through May, June and July. Farmers can work out what crops that will effect, and I’ll describe what follows these years when I choose to.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“For example, what is a “big cold shot”? Does “big” refer to the geographical area? If so, how much is “big”? Or does it refer to the temperature, and if so, how much of a drop in temperature is “big”.”
Both, that’s what happens when the jet is 1000 miles south of normal. As I keep reminding all, we have been hitting Maunder type temperatures already on some of the cold shots since 2010. I can be fully specific about the timing, intensity, and duration of the solar forecast, and the analogue I use shows this period colder than any such season through Maunder, so it’s very severe.
Ulric Lyons:
You conclude your post at September 14, 2013 at 6:57 am saying
I don’t doubt it.
Indeed, I predicted that in my post at September 14, 2013 at 5:20 am.
I also predict that you’ll describe what follows these years how you choose to.
For example, “extremely low temperatures for the time of year” is ambiguous, and “few regions escaping the effects” is a ‘get out clause’.
And that is why I want a clear specification of your prediction now.
Please note that the post from Willis Eschenbach at September 14, 2013 at 6:37 am shows that at least one person understands what I am trying to say to you.
Richard
Willis Eschenbach says:
“So I fear that all you are doing is waving your hands and trying to sound impressive by making a forecast which is nothing of the sort, just a vague claim..”
Actually Willis, if you saw how I am doing it you see how rational it is.
richardscourtney says:
“For example, “extremely low temperatures for the time of year” is ambiguous, and “few regions escaping the effects” is a ‘get out clause’.
And that is why I want a clear specification of your prediction now.”
I gave the same type of forecast for March 2013 and it was correct, so what you call a get out clause is in reality a success. That’s number two straw man from you here. You’ve just got some weird jumbie in you that cannot help attempt to discredit the only person who can give a deterministic forecast, how sad for you.
And you had the clear specification already:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416861
Ulric Lyons:
I am writing to object to your offensive twaddle at September 14, 2013 at 7:29 am.
You have pretended to make a prediction. It may be that you have fooled yourself into thinking you have made a prediction, BUT YOU HAVE NOT. You have only made a vague assertion comprised of unspecified terms which I listed in my post at September 14, 2013 at 6:15 am.
I have NOT raised any “red herrings” and you have NOT stated any I made because I made none. I have only asked you to define the terms which YOU are using.
I do not know what a “weird jumbie” is so I cannot say if there is one in me or not.
I am NOT making an “attempt to discredit the only person who can give a deterministic forecast”. I am asking the only person who claims he can give a deterministic forecast to demonstrate his claim. Volumes are spoken by your resort to unsubstantiated insults as an excuse for your unwillingness to demonstrate that you can do what you claim you can do.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
September 14, 2013 at 7:43 am
pearls before swine.
Carla says:
September 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm
the local neighborhood interstellar background, is a messy, wavy, turbulent place.
Luckily, the solar wind keeps all that far away from us.
See – owe to Rich says:
September 14, 2013 at 2:22 am
about the records (drawings) of the observations and the inference of whether a speck is counted as a spot.
We have drawings going back to Galileo. More importantly, there is a very simple way of checking if the sunspot number is correct: From modern observations we know that more sunspots means more UV from the Sun. The UV creates our ionosphere and winds there [caused by solar heating] form a dynamo that creates a [small] magnetic field which we can detect on the ground. This was discovered by Graham in 1722 and Wolf discovered that the magnetic effects was related to the number of sunspots. Because we have observed the magnetic effect since the 18th century we know that the sunspot number since then is correct, in the sense that the number we count now giving rise to a certain magnetic effect is the same number as they counted back then for the same magnetic effect. See e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf In fact, the ancient sunspot counts can be calibrated using their magnetic effect.
rikgheysens says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:28 am
Do you have examples of such photographs?
Yes, thousands, but it is hard to see in those photographs as the sunspots themselves vary.
Can one use the term ‘invisible sunspots’
A better description is that the magnetic field is still there but did not contrate enough to form a spot.
How do you interpret these findings in the light of the findings of Livingston and Penn? Can the cause of the Livingston and Penn effect be explained by this finding?
I don’t think so.
that polar fields that will build up over the rest of Cycle 24 will still be very weak. Do you agree with his view?
Yes, as it is also my view.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 7:14 am
What part of “how much” do you not understand. RICHARD AND I ARE ASKING FOR SPECIFICS, not more of your vague blather. Waving your hands and saying that there will be a “big cold shot” is not science.
Why?
Because it is NOT FALSIFIABLE. You have not given anywhere near enough details to falsify it. As a result, you can claim success for anything from a 1° drop in one county to a 10° drop in all of the USA.
So your unfalsifiable claim is meaningless. If you want to play, get a clue—we don’t accept that kind of nonsensical handwaving around here. And every time you try it again, you lose credibility. Get specific, or get out of here, so far your so-called “predictions” are just a waste of electrons.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 7:18 am
Whether or not your methods are rational, your forecasts to date are junk. Useless. Meaningless. It’s like me giving a forecast that you won’t make “big money” off of your ideas … without a precise definition of “big money”, that’s as useless as your prediction of a big cold snap. HOW BIG, AND WHERE?
w.
Ulric, for example, here’s my “prediction”.
Are you willing to bet against that prediction? I wouldn’t … it’s not falsifiable, so I’m bound to win.
Can you connect the dots to your “predictions”?
w.
@Ulric lyons
There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years, due to big cold shots in the growing seasons.
the phrases which are not clearly defined are
1. could easily be (probability ?)
2. famine conditions (where and how severe ?)
3. some following years (proportion of years ?)
4. big cold shots (big ? cold ? shots?)
5. growing seasons (of what and where ?)
to answer the questions
(I am not on speaking terms with richardscourtney)
1) high probability, greater than 99%
2) 2021-2028, @greater than [40] latitude, due to the cooling from the top
similar to 1932-1939
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
3) answered
4) 2029-2039 similar to 1940-1950: very cold
5) more rain/precipitation @ -30<x<30 latitude from 1995 to 2039 due to the cooling from the top
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
clearly
@ a number of folks here
there is no “pause”
it is either cooling or it is warming
since at least 2002 most data sets show it is cooling
(except UAH who have acknowledged calibration issues)
here is my own
(cooling from 2000)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
clealry,rather trust (your/my) own data sets as it seems there is already some “hiding the decline” going on again….
HenryP:
At September 14, 2013 at 8:25 am your post says
For the benefit of others I write to explain that you not speaking to me is because of a similar disagreement to that I am having with the equally evasive Ulric lyons.
You are either unable or unwilling to explain the method you used to create your so-called model. Hence, your model s unfalsifiable so it is worthless.
Also, I have no intention of considering the definitions you want to apply to the terms used by Ulric Lyons. He claims to be making his prediction – not you – so your interpretation of his words is worth no more than mine; i.e. it is worthless.
He needs to define the terms he is using in his prediction or he has not made a prediction.
Richard
Willis Eschenbach says:
” As a result, you can claim success for anything from a 1° drop in one county to a 10° drop in all of the USA.”
No I cannot because of what I have already stated, that would by definition not be a big drop in temperature, so you are up to the same kind of tricks as Richard.
“Whether or not your methods are rational, your forecasts to date are junk. Useless. Meaningless. It’s like me giving a forecast that you won’t make “big money” off of your ideas … without a precise definition of “big money”, that’s as useless as your prediction of a big cold snap.”
How do you know what have forecast and how well I have forecast?
and I have indicated that:
“..the analogue I use shows this period colder than any such season through Maunder, so it’s very severe.”
Or did you want it to the nearest °C in Manhattan for every day?
for the sake of clarity to others here:
Richard called me a fool for which he did not apologize unconditionally
as he know he should
(if indeed he is a preacher at a church)
HenryP:
Try to stop being a fool and wasting space on threads with your nonsense.
Richard
HenryP and Richard! Go sit on the naughty chair! ROTFLMAO!
Super Nanny where are you?
richardscourtney says:
“You have pretended to make a prediction. It may be that you have fooled yourself into thinking you have made a prediction, BUT YOU HAVE NOT.”
I have been making very good predictions for 5+yrs. It’s not the only prediction in case you were thinking that.
“I have NOT raised any “red herrings” and you have NOT stated any I made because I made none.”
I picked up on two, your claim that there is always a big cold shot somewhere every year, and your:
“extremely low temperatures for the time of year” is ambiguous, and “few regions escaping the effects” is a ‘get out clause”,
Which is just nonsense, there is nothing ambiguous about “extremely low temperatures for the time of year”, and when the AO goes very negative, few regions escape the effects.
“..your unwillingness to demonstrate that you can do what you claim you can do.”
I regularly demonstrate deterministic forecasts.
Ulric Lyons:
In your post at September 14, 2013 at 8:58 am you say
I have not noticed Willis using any “tricks” and I certainly have not.
The only action in this thread which could be thought a “trick” is your purporting to have made a prediction but refusing to define the terms used in that so-called prediction so you are able to define its success after the event.
Richard
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:10 am
I have been making very good predictions for 5+yrs. It’s not the only prediction in case you were thinking that.
How many bad ones? Exactly how many good ones? How do you determine if a prediction is ‘very good’, ‘good’, ‘bad’, or ‘very bad’? What are the percentages of predictions in each of those four categories?
Ulric Lyons:
In your post at September 14, 2013 at 9:10 am you egregiously assert I provided ‘red herrings’ in this thread when you know I have not.
You assert I made a ‘red herring’ when I said;
That is simply true and is NOT a ‘red herring’. For example, last year we had snow which lasted for days here in Cornwall. This year we had snow in Saudi Arabia. Both are unusual, and similar unusual and “extremely low temperatures” will happen somewhere next year.
I listed the terms which are undefined in your so-called prediction and you have still not defined them.
And you also say I provided a ‘red herring’ when I said
That, too, is simply a truth and not a ‘red herring’. You are unwilling to make a prediction, and you are trying to justify an arm-waving and ambiguous assertion.
Ulric, I am willing to hold your shovel if you want to take a rest from digging.
Richard
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 14, 2013 at 8:16 am
Ulric, for example, here’s my “prediction”.
Next year, there will be a drought.
Are you willing to bet against that prediction? I wouldn’t … it’s not falsifiable, so I’m bound to win.
Can you connect the dots to your “predictions?
___________________________________________________
That’s a really non-specific forecast, I’m used to giving down to daily detail for approx temperature deviations from normals and likelihood of rainfall for the UK region months and even years in advance. Something you could bet on, or rely on. Can I connect the dots to my predictions? what did you imagine I was up to, casting bones across my yard?
richardscourtney says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:24 am
“Both are unusual, and similar unusual and “extremely low temperatures” will happen somewhere next year.”
There’s your straw man again, hard cold shots in winter are largely simultaneous around the hemisphere.
“You are unwilling to make a prediction, and you are trying to justify an arm-waving and ambiguous assertion.”
I have made a prediction despite your claims to the contrary, and will now cease to reply to your vacuous complaints.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 14, 2013 at 9:37 am you say to me
OK. Everybody will understand that. You have not been able and/or willing to define the terms in your so-called “prediction” prior to its outcome, so having been pressed to make a specific prediction you have ‘taken your ball home’.
And I notice that you have failed to answer the very reasonable request from Leif Svalgaard at
September 14, 2013 at 9:16 am for your to substantiate your claims of forecast skill.
Richard
interesting though….
Am I right that UAH only measures between [30] latitudes?
that would (also) explain to me why UAH does not yet see “the cooling”
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average.
More water vapour condensing there, releases more heat……
So, at this stage global cooling would only become more visible at >[40] latitudes
(excl. east USA and W-Europe due to weather related issues)
seeing as that temps. in Anchorage dropped by almost 2K since 2000
AND NOBODY NOTICED?
@Leif
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:10 am
I have been making very good predictions for 5+yrs. It’s not the only prediction in case you were thinking that.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
“How many bad ones? Exactly how many good ones? How do you determine if a prediction is ‘very good’, ‘good’, ‘bad’, or ‘very bad’? What are the percentages of predictions in each of those four categories?”
A sensible question at last, thanks. At a weekly scale, the number of weeks with the temperature forecast in the wrong direction relative to normals, at the worst in a year, is around 7 weeks failed. The best so far in a single year was 3 weeks failed. On a simple scale of three levels for temperature above and below normals, I would estimate performance has been around 80-90% for a call on intensity in the last couple of years, it has improved. There were some problems this winter in how it played out at ground level, e.g. I forecast a cold spell from 8/9th to 18/19th Jan, the westerly Atlantic flow picked up as expected from around the 18th, but didn’t manage to break the high pressure block for almost a week and we got loads of snow instead of a warm up. This repeated at the end of the February cold shots too, but I forecast all the onsets of the cold shots through the winter fine, and could readily see that the cold in March would be very deep. The only major winter cold shot I have missed since 2008 was the first two weeks of Jan 2010, I expected it to start mid Jan through well into Feb.
Leif,
I saw a presentation on television ,it showed an apparent change in the rate of radioactive decay that correlated with solar flares. They suggested that we could perhaps predict solar flares because the rate of decay changed before the flare was apparent.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:20 am
A sensible question at last, thanks. At a weekly scale, the number of weeks with the temperature forecast in the wrong direction relative to normals, at the worst in a year, is around 7 weeks failed. The best so far in a single year was 3 weeks failed.
Assuming you make one forecast per week that would put 47 of them in the good-very good category. But you skirted the important question: how do you measure the goodness? difference between actual and predicted? over which area? over New Delhi or Petaluma? Any independent determination of your forecasts?
cheapsmack says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:22 am
I saw a presentation on television ,it showed an apparent change in the rate of radioactive decay that correlated with solar flares.
This is VERY controversial and not ready for prime time predictions.
My question is does the solar flare interrupt the flow of neutrinos to slow the decay? In other words when the sun is not ” disrupted ” by flares, the flow of neutrinos ( or whatever particle ) is more steady and regular ?
cheapsmack says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:33 am
My question is does the solar flare interrupt the flow of neutrinos to slow the decay?
Neutrinos do not interact with matter enough to be influenced by flares [which only cover a very small fraction of the surface anyway] so I don’t think any effect would be observable.
science by news byte … they got me . Interesting about the 33 day cycle instead of the 28 day rotation duration.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“But you skirted the important question: how do you measure the goodness? difference between actual and predicted?”
Of course, the difference between actual and predicted yes, for timing and intensity. I could say it may be slightly above normal, or much above normal, or a heat wave, which is the best one could do at very long range. I am mostly experienced with forecasting for the UK, it does take studying local weather data to forecast well for a different region.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:43 am
Of course, the difference between actual and predicted yes, for timing and intensity. I could say it may be slightly above normal, or much above normal, or a heat wave, which is the best one could do at very long range.
Numbers, Ulric, numbers! how many degrees for how long, etc.
I am mostly experienced with forecasting for the UK
But solar activity and Ap effects should be global, no? Why do they only affect the UK?
Leif Svalgaard says:
“But solar activity and Ap effects should be global, no? Why do they only affect the UK?”
The global effects are not the same everywhere, they cannot be for many reasons. The Arctic warms when the temperate zone cools, at the same time as ENSO moves to Nino conditions, and there’s a range of maritime, continental and topographical circulation patterns all around the temperate zone which change through the seasons. It’s not exactly all moving together in unison, so while I forecast for very hot weather from the 6/7th July for the UK, I would not have done the same for the US, or the Arctic for that matter.
.
The verdict is not in everyone. You can all argue all you want about what climate prediction is or is not right, but to do it you need to put up specifics and stand by them.( Put up or shut up I think they say.) In addition, if the solar parameters I mention below are acheived and the temperatures remain flat or do not go down I will admit to being wrong.
I will say it again if these solar parameters are reached, I expect the temperature trend going forward is going to be down,down and down.
They are:
Solar flux sub 90 sustained.
Ap index 5.0 or lower 98+% of the time sustained.
Solar wind 350 km./sec or lower sustained .
Solar irradaince off.015% or more sustained
Euv light intensity in the range 0-105nm as measured by the E 10.7 flux , sub 100 sustained.
Cosmic ray count per minute 6500or greater sustained.
Those conditions following several years of sub solar activity in general which we have had since late 2005.
You can all say what I say is nonsence, but that will be meaningless unless the solar parameters I mention are achieved and the temperatures do not respond down. Time will tell, if this prolonged solar minimum lives up to expectations .
In addition thresholds have to be considered ,becasuue they are out there , but I don’t know what it may or may not take to have them be approached. Maybe a solar wind less then 300 sustained , or a solar flux sub 72 sustained.
The ap index and solar activity will be global but that does not mean the whole globe wlil be affected in the same way . For example a more meridional atmospheric circulation would cause those places under a ridge to be warm while places under a trough would be very cold.
Next example:
Volcanic eruptions while they would cool the globe as a whole not all places at all times on the globe would cool as a result. Some would warm depending on where the volcanic eruption took place during certain seasons.
If what we have had thus far turns out to be the maximum for solar cycle 24 I would say the prolonged solar minimum which started in late 2005 is alive and well.
Will it ,time will tell.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:06 am
The global effects are not the same everywhere, they cannot be for many reasons.
So for some places, temps go up with Ap, for others they go down, for others yet, they stay the same.
And you forgot about the Numbers, the numbers, the numbers. In weather forecasting there is the concept of a ‘skill score’. Are you familiar with that? What is the skill score of your forecasts, using the standard concepts?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:07 am
They are:
Solar flux sub 90 sustained.
Ap index 5.0 or lower 98+% of the time sustained.
Solar wind 350 km./sec or lower sustained .
Solar irradaince off.015% or more sustained
Euv light intensity in the range 0-105nm as measured by the E 10.7 flux , sub 100 sustained.
Cosmic ray count per minute 6500 or greater sustained.
Are ALL of those supposed to apply and ALL of the time, or only some of them some of the time? And from which date, exactly? Yesterday? What does ‘sustained’ mean? That not a single value is off? and if not, how many?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:17 am
If what we have had thus far turns out to be the maximum for solar cycle 24 I would say the prolonged solar minimum which started in late 2005 is alive and well.
As predicted.
Here are my numbers Leif for my global temperature forecast if, and only IF those solar parameters are reached. My forecast is global temperautres will be .8c colder by 2020 for the globe as a whole.
Greatest cooling will occur in the N.H. between 30 n and 70 n, while the smallest amount of cooling will be in the equatorial regions (next too nothing) and the S.H as a whole. Avg. for the globe -.8c, but contingent upon those solar parameters I mentioned being realized. If not cooling will be less.
Also possible thresholds are not being taken into consideration, and the big wild card is future volcanic activity, or lack of it.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:28 am
Here are my numbers
You are not responsive to my questions at
September 14, 2013 at 11:23 am
Your prediction places you in a precarious position. If indeed we do have a cold spell, your solar-related predictions are still meaningless. I wonder if either of you know why?
Pamela Gray says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:33 am
Your prediction places you in a precarious position.
Pamela, always refer to exactly whom/what you are commenting on.
They are supposed to be the average solar parameters going forward from once this maximum of solar cycle 24 ends until at least the beginning of solar cycle 26.
For my 2020 forecast to be realized I would need those solar parameters to be realized no later then year 2015.
Another words the average of all the solar parameters I mentioned would have to be those solar parameter values I mentioned or lower going forward through time.
It does not happen very often as we know.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:36 am
They are supposed to be the average solar parameters going forward from once this maximum of solar cycle 24 ends until at least the beginning of solar cycle 26.
You are still not responsive to my questions at September 14, 2013 at 11:23 am
Just to make it very clear take solar flux for an example.. I am saying the averge solar flux once the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends would have to average 90 or lower at least from mid 2015 -2020 to make my 2020 climatic forecast turn out correct or not correct.
Will it , I don’t know but if it does then it would meet my criteria. The same theme for the other solar parameters.
Wait and see, I think there is a chance these values can be attaned and sustained,once the maximum of solar cycle 24 passes by.Y…
Pam you would then be in denial under those circumstances.Time will tell.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:43 am
Until you define EXACTLY what you mean by “slightly above normal”, “much above normal”, and a “heat wave”, that’s just more of your useless handwaving.
In addition, you’ve not answered Leif’s questions, viz:
The problem, which you seem determined to ignore, is that “slightly” and “much” mean nothing without NUMBERS attached to them. Until you define what you are predicting by giving us NUMBERS, you’re just spouting nonsense.
Or as Leif said,
Until you give us those numbers, you’re just indulging in ludicrous grade-school theatrics. Even if all you want to do is make a prediction about the DIRECTION (e.g. warmer or colder), you need to give us the NUMBER that you claim it will be warmer or colder than. You claim above that your predictions about the direction have been right 47 times out of 52 … sorry, not impressed. Give us the numbers and the predictions, and we’ll talk.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Three of the more knowledgeable posters on this blog are telling you the same thing in different words, and you are just continuing with your useless twaddle about “heat waves” … what is a “heat wave” to you, Ulrich? In other words, how much hotter IN DEGREES than what temperature (monthly average? seasonal average? the average for that week? the annual average?) does it have to be for how many DAYS in order for you to say it’s a heat wave?
Until you give us those numbers, anything you say about your mythical and totally undefined “heat wave” is garbage. Get that straight. Instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.
w.
Friends:
Ulric Lyons says he will not engage with me because I asked him to make a specific – and not vague – forecast. I repeatedly asked him – with no success – to define the terms he was using in this so-called “prediction”
The following words of his demonstrate the problem with what he claims is a “prediction”.
At September 14, 2013 at 6:57 am Ulric Lyons wrote concerning his so-called “prediction”
At September 14, 2013 at 11:06 am Ulric Lyons wrote concerning all his claimed “predictions”
So, in his so-called prediction which are the “few regions escaping the effects” (where, how large, and how many?) when “The global effects are not the same everywhere, they cannot be for many reasons.”? And somewhere is unusually cold – and somewhere is unusually warm – to some degree at almost any moment.
Simply, whatever eventually happens “in April, May and June of 2016”, it could be argued to agree with the so-called prediction.
Richard
Salvatore, you appear to be taking lessons from Ulrich in wasting electrons. Leif asked very specific questions, viz:
You’ve come back, acting like you’ve answered his questions with the following:
Sorry, unresponsive. I know it’s boring, but you need to take each and every one of Leif’s questions, and ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED. For example, you say it’s supposed to start “once this maximum of solar cycle 24 ends” … but what are you defining as the “end” of the solar max? And are all of them supposed to be in effect by then?
Answer the questions as asked, one by one, Salvatore, because at present you’re just channelling Ulrich in uselessness. And very soon, everyone is just going to start ignoring both of you, for good reason. A non-specific forecast without numbers and exact details is a waste of everyones’ time.
w.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 11:41 am
Just to make it very clear take solar flux for an example.. I am saying the averge solar flux once the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends would have to average 90 or lower at least from mid 2015 -2020 to make my 2020 climatic forecast turn out
You are still not responsive to my questions at September 14, 2013 at 11:23 am
Let me repeat: “Are ALL of those supposed to apply and ALL of the time, or only some of them some of the time? ”
Your example is silly. Since from the time the maximum ends until the next cycle we will be in or approaching minimum conditions the solar flux will by definition be low. The average will be about 90 even according to the prediction in this very post. That is not particularly low or unusual for a cycle like SC24. For cycle 14 [see slide 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20and%20the%20Sunspot%20Number.pdf ] that average was about 75.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“And you forgot about the Numbers, the numbers, the numbers. In weather forecasting there is the concept of a ‘skill score’. Are you familiar with that? What is the skill score of your forecasts, using the standard concepts?”
Numbers come into it for a particular region for particular days, I was not addressing that here. And to compare like with like, the standard Met Office long range forecast has a fraction of the detail or levels (7) of temperature that I have described, and all manner of uncertainties, so if anyone is setting the standards on this kind of range, it would naturally be the superior product.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Numbers come into it for a particular region for particular days, I was not addressing that here.
But if you are not, then your claim has no value.
ferd berple September 13, 2013 at 5:32 pm
…” I propose the hypothesis that the sun’s influence on climate is a chaotic fractal at all time scales. The TEST of this is that no one will be able to accurately predict the effect of the sun on climate using existing mathematical theory.”
———————
Bingo! Gold star for ferd.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Until you define EXACTLY what you mean by “slightly above normal”, “much above normal”, and a “heat wave”, that’s just more of your useless handwaving.
The problem, which you seem determined to ignore, is that “slightly” and “much” mean nothing without NUMBERS attached to them. Until you define what you are predicting by giving us NUMBERS, you’re just spouting nonsense.
Until you give us those numbers, you’re just indulging in ludicrous grade-school theatrics. Even if all you want to do is make a prediction about the DIRECTION (e.g. warmer or colder), you need to give us the NUMBER that you claim it will be warmer or colder than. You claim above that your predictions about the direction have been right 47 times out of 52 … sorry, not impressed. Give us the numbers and the predictions, and we’ll talk.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Three of the more knowledgeable posters on this blog are telling you the same thing in different words, and you are just continuing with your useless twaddle about “heat waves” … what is a “heat wave” to you, Ulrich? In other words, how much hotter IN DEGREES than what temperature (monthly average? seasonal average? the average for that week? the annual average?) does it have to be for how many DAYS in order for you to say it’s a heat wave?
Until you give us those numbers, anything you say about your mythical and totally undefined “heat wave” is garbage. Get that straight. Instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.”
There is a standard for a heat wave, and I would not call a heat wave unless I expected that to be exceeded, I do know what that is, and of course it is relative to normals, so it doesn’t even need to be mentioned. A forecast for a particular month or months for say the north hemisphere is relevant, because a big change in the AO/NAO will effect most regions, but no hard numbers can be put to it until looking at a particular location, which I do regularly do, but is not what I am addressing here.
Yes those solar parameters are suppose to apply all of the time.
Let us say the maximum of solar cycle 24 is behind us enough that all of my solar parameters start to be acheived. Let us take a start date of Jan.01 ,2015.
I am saying yes all those solar parameters from Jan.01 ,2015 will have to be acheived all of the time through year 2020 , to meet my climatic forecast I made of global temperatures -.8c by year 2020.
I am further saying if ALL of those solar parameters are reached between 2015-2020, ALL of the time and the temperatures stay flat or rise I am wrong. I want to know one way or the other.
I also realize these kind of sustained solar parameters are quite unusual over such a long length of time, the five year period I refer to.
I say if they should be attained , they would follow 10 years of sub-solar activity in general and that combined with the extreme quiet condtins should be enough to make the temperature trend drop significantly between those years 2015-2020.
I hope I answered the questions. I appreciate your previous post Willis.
Leif and Willis are correct to ask for specifics.
My question to Leif is do you think these kind of solar parameters have been acheived by the sun in the past like I have just mentoined, or is it not really possible to know for certain?
I value your answer.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“But if you are not, then your claim has no value.”
I do deterministic forecasts for extreme temperatures at months and years in advance and you say it has no value because I do not put an exact figure to it? hilarious !
This is such a complex subject to attack ,but something has caused wild flucuations to the earth’s climate from time to time ,(just take the last 20000 years) and I don’t think it is terrestrial in origin with out the aid of an external source, to help terrestrial climatic factors to phase into either a warm or cold phase. Could it be random?yes but I think that is asking much considering how many times this has occurred. .
I RATHER BE WRONG THEN NOT KNOW.
Ulric they are correct you have to be as specific as possible.
Like AGW theory says the temperatures will go up by x amount due to an increae in co2.
The only problem with them is they keep trying to say they are correct even when the forecast is wrong. I will not do that. NO spin.
Leif has shown me solar cycle 24 is closer to solar cycle 14 then I thought thus far, he has pointed out the instrumental adjustments for keeping the way of evaluating the sun the same, he has shown me how this modern sunspot count is not as bad as I once thought.
and yes Leif’s prediction was the best from the mainstream as to what solar cycle 24 would look like, and yes his way of forcasting future solar activity is as valid as anything else that is out there.
So I do listen to what you have to say, but I push it, I admit.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:33 pm
I am further saying if ALL of those solar parameters are reached between 2015-2020, ALL of the time and the temperatures stay flat or rise I am wrong.
That leaves out the much more likely case where some of those are not reached all the time. What are you then? Right or wrong? Not to speak about what ‘stay flat’ means.
Salvatore Del Prete:
At September 14, 2013 at 12:53 pm you say to Ulric Lyons
The problem with that is his so-called prediction is so undefined that it could be claimed to be right whatever eventuates. Hence, it is meaningless.
Richard
Let us see what happens to solar cycle 24 going forward and if solar/climate connections start to become more apparent.
This decade offers a great opportunity to gleam info. on this subject in my opinion.
Done for today.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
I do deterministic forecasts for extreme temperatures at months and years in advance and you say it has no value because I do not put an exact figure to it?
No, what you should put a figure to is your skill score otherwise you cannot claim your forecasts are ‘superior’.
In that case I want to say the avg. of all the solar parameters all of the time has to be below the solar parametersf
Lions and Tigers and Bears . . . Oh my!
Predictions and Projections and WAGs . . . Oh my!
It would seem just reasonable scientific interest to put more focus on and effort into currently unknown consequences of potentially starting now into a reoccurance of a Maunder-like solar pattern. By ‘currently unknown consequences’ I mean whether it would contribute to multi-decadal periods of significantly cooler climate or not.
I think it is not really known at this time. And I think that where there are unknowns of that magnitude there is always intense scientific interest.
It looks like there is intense interest . . . based on this thread’s commentary.
John
Another meaningless prediction, with obviously no value whatsoever, in fact trash, crap, and useless twaddle: http://linkd.in/1332cvp
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 1:10 pm
In that case I want to say the avg. of all the solar parameters all of the time has to be below the solar parameters
Doesn’t make sense to me.Try again.
Anotherwords the average of all the solar parameters, all of the time between 2015-2020, I mentioned must at a minimum be below the parameters I said in the earlier post , and even if the average is just below the parameters I mentioned rather then the values being below the parameters I mentioned all of the time, and the temperatures stay flat or rise ,I will still consider myself wrong,. Even with a little less extreme solar quiet in that case.
I have to run. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Another meaningless prediction, with obviously no value whatsoever, in fact trash, crap, and useless twaddle: http://linkd.in/1332cvp
Self-knowledge is the first step to enlightenment.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:37 pm
My question to Leif is do you think these kind of solar parameters have been acheived by the sun in the past like I have just mentoined, or is it not really possible to know for certain?
They have, but not necessarily at the same time. The values in your list are not exceptional.
I take predictions with caution. Many people are suckered in by predictions that come true. Our history is replete with it. And unfortunately many have been harmed by it.
1. Predictions that come true are meaningless unless a plausible, testable mechanism is proposed. Neither Salvatore or Ulric (as well as others who comment on this blog) have defined mechanisms, which would be quite complicated. Even if they do propose a calculation or model, there are fudge factors and “missing” mechanisms they say are yet to be discovered.
2. In many cases, a variable is added that is the “pet” variable, along with calculations or models of mechanisms that truly do have plausibility. When the predictions come true, it is often heard from the authors that their pet variable is the leading cause. But if you remove that variable and recalculate, or run the model again, the result is hardly changed.
So I reiterate, hopefully more clearly now, that Ulric and Salvatore’s theories will still be meaningless should it get colder. They rest on their laurels at their own peril.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“No, what you should put a figure to is your skill score otherwise you cannot claim your forecasts are ‘superior’.”
I gave you the breakdown up-thread, the specification is more stringent and detailed than used on any other long range forecasts. No one else is using the only possible method to produce deterministic long range forecasts at these scales, so I can safely claim them to be superior.
“Self-knowledge is the first step to enlightenment.”
And it’s all too easy to tell who has not taken that step, by the subtle and not so subtle ways that they project their stuff at others, always on the innocent of course.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 1:53 pm
I gave you the breakdown up-thread
So you claim that in a typical year you forecast extreme temperatures to occurs every week [as you did not object to the 47 correct forecasts I deduced]. But I’ll represent to you that extreme temperatures do not happen week, so we are still missing how many forecasts of extreme temperatures were actually correct. I can predict that no rain will fall every week from May to October where I live and be VERY accurate, yet that is a skill score of 0 as it never [well, hardly ever] rains during that time. Bottom line: you have not demonstrated any skill.
Pamela Gray says:
” Predictions that come true are meaningless unless a plausible, testable mechanism is proposed. Neither Salvatore or Ulric (as well as others who comment on this blog) have defined mechanisms, which would be quite complicated. Even if they do propose a calculation or model, there are fudge factors and “missing” mechanisms they say are yet to be discovered.”
My performance rates for the UK are well meaningful on results alone. What I do have is a set of highly defined, repeatable and consistent heliocentric positional relationships of the bodies mapped out that are already usefully applied, they are also highly suggestive of what the mechanisms are. I definitely do not have any fudge factors or pet variables.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“So you claim that in a typical year you forecast extreme temperatures to occurs every week [as you did not object to the 47 correct forecasts I deduced]. But I’ll represent to you that extreme temperatures do not happen week, so we are still missing how many forecasts of extreme temperatures were actually correct. I can predict that no rain will fall every week from May to October where I live and be VERY accurate, yet that is a skill score of 0 as it never [well, hardly ever] rains during that time. Bottom line: you have not demonstrated any skill.”
The bottom line is you that have not demonstrated any skill in making sense here. I have very high skill levels for predicting temperature deviations from average for the UK, simply because I have a method that provides deterministic forecasts. My forecast for July 2013 didn’t change for 4 years. And as for your barely understandable babble about extreme temperatures above, it’s a shaggy dog tale, I obviously do not forecast extreme temperatures for EVERY WEEK!
Ulric, please. Mapping bodies is not mechanism. What is the mechanism and is it plausible as well as powerful? Please do not tell us that some of it has yet to be discovered. You should have the mechanism down, at least theoretically detailed. Otherwise again I say that if it gets colder, your predictions are meaningless.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 2:39 pm
My forecast for July 2013 didn’t change for 4 years.
If based on the planets it will not have changed for a thousand years. Very impressive.
I obviously do not forecast extreme temperatures for EVERY WEEK!
You said that you have 3-7 failed forecasts of extreme temperatures every year. How many good ones? And how many weeks with extreme temperatures are there in a year? Five or six?
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:32 pm
No, there isn’t “a” standard, there are many … so yes, it does need to be mentioned. Here are some options. Note that despite your ignorant claim, not all of them are “relative to normals”.
Is that the one you are using? Or are you talking about this one:
Or are you using Burrow’s definition, viz:
However, that’s a “hot wave”, not a “heat wave”. But maybe you’re not using one of those, maybe you’re using this one
Is that the one you are promoting as THE standard, despite the fact that it says nothing about “normals”? … or is it this one?
So that’s a heat wave, and a “warmth wave” … are you using one of those, the other, or neither? Or you might be using this one:
So we have a heat wave and a heat storm … but then you might be talking about the Australian standard, viz:
Or the English standard …
In other words, Ulrich, when you claim there is one standard that is so well-known you don’t need to mention it, that just reveals your profound ignorance of the field.
So I will ask again: what are YOU defining as a heat wave? And please, stop with the arrogant bullshit and claims of knowledge. It is increasingly obvious that you don’t have much of a clue.
w.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“If based on the planets it will not have changed for a thousand years. Very impressive.”
Thanks.
“You said that you have 3-7 failed forecasts of extreme temperatures every year.”
No I did not, I said they failed for direction of deviation from normals, I made that clear.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“..despite your ignorant claim… that just reveals your profound ignorance of the field…. stop with the arrogant bullshit and claims of knowledge..”
WMO definition Willis, same as the MetO, that’s what we use in the UK stupid.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:33 pm
We’re getting there. All of them have to be met all of the time for your prediction to be valid.
Again, that’s very good. You’ve given a bright-line definition. If all of those parameters are achieved continuously from 2015 to 2020, then if the temperature goes down at all you win, and if the temperatures go up or stay flat you lose.
And if they do not achieve the values you stated continuously from 2015 to 2020, then the forecast is inoperative. Fair enough.
Sure ‘nuf … odds seem kinda small, but who knows?
Dang, and you were doing so well before. What is “sub-solar activity”? What is the temperature dropping “significantly”? One degree? Five degrees? For what period of time? One month? One year?
Thanks for clarifying that, Salvatore. As I said, if you think of it as making a bet, it will help. You need a very bright-line definition of all of the terms, so it is crystal clear whether the forecast is correct or not.
I ran into this same nonsense with Piers Corbyn. He predicted something like “heavy rain” for the opening of the Olympics. I said I’d bet with him that it wouldn’t happen, and all I wanted a definition of “heavy” in inches or inches per hour or whatever he wanted, and a time period, and a chosen station where the rainfall would be recorded.
Faced with that, he did what Ulrich does, and retreated into bluster and double-talk … which was lucky for him, because hardly any rain fell on the opening.
But of course, because his forecast was so vague, again like Ulrich he claimed total success.
Heck, Piers once predicted a 50% chance of a typhoon forming … and then claimed it as a successful prediction when a typhoon didn’t form. I’m sure you can see the problem with such vague claims, although I’m doubtful if Ulrich can.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 3:03 pm
No I did not, I said they failed for direction of deviation from normals, I made that clear.
Sounds like bait-and-switch to me. Anyway, what you said was: “At a weekly scale, the number of weeks with the temperature forecast in the wrong direction relative to normals” was 3-7. So in all the other weeks, the forecast was just as the normals [or in the right direction relative to normals – whatever that means].
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
If your forecasts do not provide numbers, then they are in no sense deterministic, and as Leif says, they have no value.
Look, Ulrich, suppose I forecast that tomorrow will be “hot” … is that a “deterministic forecast”?
No, it’s not, not in any sense, because since you haven’t provided any numbers, we can’t say if a given temperature qualifies as being “hot”
If it’s 75°F, is that “hot”? There’s no way to know. So that is not a “deterministic” forecast. The same is true if I say it will be “extremely hot”, since as you say above your forecasts are for “extreme temperatures”. Is 80°F an “extreme temperature”? Is 90°F “extreme”? How on earth would we know if your “deterministic forecast” for an “extreme temperature” is right or wrong?
If you don’t provide exact specifics, which means NUMBERS, then as Leif says, your claim has no value. None. It’s useless and meaningless, garbage, trash, of no interest, junk, of no value.
w.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Sounds like bait-and-switch to me”
The problem was that you confused this comment:
I do deterministic forecasts for extreme temperatures at months and years in advance and you say it has no value because I do not put an exact figure to it? hilarious !
with this one:
At a weekly scale, the number of weeks with the temperature forecast in the wrong direction relative to normals, at the worst in a year, is around 7 weeks failed.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 1:15 pm
Indeed it is useless, just as you say. Here’s your meaningless prediction:
It’s meaningless because inter alia, you haven’t defined what a “long, intense cold shot” might be. How long a “cold shot” are you predicting? And how intense does the cold have to be? If it’s 3°C colder than average, does that qualify? What about 5°? Or 7°? And how long is “long”? Does a “cold shot” lasting 3 days qualify? Next, what are the bounds on your start date? If it starts on the 3rd of January, does that qualify as being “around the 7th”? How about the 1st of January? And what about if it doesn’t start until the 10th? If the 10th qualifies, then how about the 12th? And what area are you referring to? Russia? Australia?
A real forecast would be something like this:
The key is that we have to be able to say yes or no regarding whether your prediction was a success. Another way to say that is that that your prediction must be falsifiable. Mine is a falsifiable prediction—it will be clear in the event whether my prediction has succeed or failed. If it’s only 4° colder than usual, my prediction is wrong. If the “cold shot” is 5° below normal but for only two days, then my prediction is wrong.
Yours, on the other hand, is nothing but vague handwaving. It cannot be falsified, and therefore, it’s useless. There is no way to say whether your prediction has come to pass or not. You’ve just given us vague important-sounding claims, but sadly, they are not falsifiable,
So I have to agree that you are right, that as you say, your forecast is indeed “another meaningless prediction, with obviously no value whatsoever, in fact trash, crap, and useless twaddle”. In fact, I’d say your opinion of that forecast is the first thing you’ve said in a while that I can whole-heartedly agree with.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 2:39 pm
And what, exactly (not generally but exactly) WAS your forecast for July 2013, Ulric? Did you post it up on the web somewhere, so we can be sure that you didn’t just write it yesterday?
Give us a link to it so we an see the details of the forecast, and we can check and see if it is a “high skill” forecast. My prediction for the UK for July 2013, for example, would have been “rain, heavy at times, interspersed with periods of sunshine”. What would my skill score be for that prediction? I’d put it at zero …
But don’t get sidetracked here … start by giving us the link to the prediction you made four years ago, so we can see just how skillful you are …
w.
PS—Please don’t insult our intelligence by simply telling us what your so-called forecast was. At this point, your credibility is zero. To be believable, we need a link to a four-year-old dated forecast.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 3:28 pm
At a weekly scale, the number of weeks with the temperature forecast in the wrong direction relative to normals, at the worst in a year, is around 7 weeks failed.
You should not compare with the normals but with the actually observed temperatures.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 2:39 pm
My forecast for July 2013 didn’t change for 4 years.
If it is based on the planets it cannot change so the fact [?] that it didn’t is not a credit to you. Perhaps even a negative because if you had improved your method the forecast might have changed, but apparently you didn’t improve your methods enough to change the ‘forecast’.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 3:11 pm
If you re-read my post, you’ll se that the WMO definition is NOT the same as the UK Met Office’s definition, in fact they are quite different … stupid indeed.
The UK standard, for example, has four “levels” … the WMO definition has none. And even given that you are using the UK definition … which level of heat wave are you referring to?
And since I don’t have a clue where you are posting from, why on earth would I assume that you are using either the UK Met Office definition, or the WMO definition? I actually thought you were in Europe, in which case I suppose you’d call me “stupid” because I should have known you were using one of the European standards.
The main point is, you claimed that there was only one standard, and it was so clear that you didn’t need to mention it … which revealed a profound ignorance of the subject. There are lots of standards, and we had no way of knowing which one you were claiming was “the” standard that we obviously should all be aware of.
And since you STILL haven’t specified which level of the UK standards you are using in your own idiosyncratic definition of a “heat wave”, you still haven’t made your prediction falsifiable. I could say “it wasn’t hot enough”, and you could reply “well, it’s warmer than a level 1” …
w.
PS—Note also that the UK definition not only refers to the temperature and duration … it also includes the odds of another day of hot weather. Please explain how that relates to your forecasts.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“If your forecasts do not provide numbers, then they are in no sense deterministic, and as Leif says, they have no value.”
Numbers yes, we start with the number of the day of the month (that has a number too) that the temperature change takes place from, that is one deterministic element. Then there would be further numbers that would indicate the number of days that the cold or warm spell would last, that’s another deterministic element. And finally, some numbers to represent 3 levels of temperature deviations from normals at any given time in the year, above and below the average, another deterministic element. Giving a value of the latter in °C within reasonable bounds is done with my UK forecasts, set by how much I expect it to be below or above normal. More numbers.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“..since as you say above your forecasts are for “extreme temperatures..”
No that was Leif misquoting what I had originally said.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“If it is based on the planets it cannot change so the fact [?] that it didn’t is not a credit to you. Perhaps even a negative because if you had improved your method the forecast might have changed, but apparently you didn’t improve your methods enough to change the ‘forecast’.”
Boy that’s a weird one! The forecast was fine from 4 years ago, there was nothing to be improved on this event forecast.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:04 pm
No that was Leif misquoting what I had originally said.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
“I do deterministic forecasts for extreme temperatures at months and years in advance”
No misquoting there. So, when you do bot forecast extreme temperatures, you forecast normal temperatures, right?
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:08 pm
The forecast was fine from 4 years ago
But to take that as a positive is then irrelevant. It will be of interest to see what the forecast was and what the observed weather was.
And it would also be of interest to see the forecasts you yourself characterize as failures.
Ulric Lyons:
I concluded my post addressed to you at September 14, 2013 at 9:24 am saying
You and HenryP are each refusing to speak to me because I ask you to justify your claims.
Despite that, my offer (quoted here) still stands.
Richard
Willis Eschenbach says:
“If you re-read my post, you’ll se that the WMO definition is NOT the same as the UK Met Office’s definition, in fact they are quite different … stupid indeed.
The UK standard, for example, has four “levels” … the WMO definition has none. And even given that you are using the UK definition … which level of heat wave are you referring to?”
No that’s the Heat-health watch system:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/heatwave
“Although in the UK there is no official definition of a heatwave the World Meteorological Organization definition is “when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 °C, the normal period being 1961-1990”.
So we adopt the WMO standard by practice.
“And since I don’t have a clue where you are posting from,”
You mean you don’t read my comments properly?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416991
“The main point is, you claimed that there was only one standard, and it was so clear that you didn’t need to mention it …”
“a” not “one”, subtle difference. Maybe I was being presumptive in assuming you knew that we use the WMO standard here, but then again you were not paying attention to which region that I had told you that I forecast for.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“No misquoting there.”
Yes fully, you said that I forecast extreme temperatures every week, you are down to a trolling type of behavior on this issue now.
“But to take that as a positive is then irrelevant.”
Garbage.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“So, when you do bot forecast extreme temperatures, you forecast normal temperatures, right?”
I’ll leave that one just hanging there without reply (it doesn’t deserve one) and to be looked upon as a fine example of the towering height of your sense of humour.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Here’s what you said, your own words:
I call that a forecast for “extreme temperatures”, because that’s what it is. Your claim that you were misquoted is not true.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:04 pm
I just quoted a forecast of yours that you seemed very proud of. In it there were no specific numbers at all, and the only numbers were vague dates. Here it is again:
A claim of “around the 7th January” is not deterministic at all. Please point out “further numbers that would indicate the number of days that the cold or warm spell would last”. Then point out the “numbers to represent 3 levels of temperature deviations from normals at any given time in the year”. Finally, where is the “value of the latter in °C within reasonable bounds”?
Goodness, Ulric, your claims grow more bizarre by the moment.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:08 pm
So where is the link to the forecast, so we have more than your blanket assertions of the genius of your method?
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:21 pm
You are right, that is the “Heat-Watch” system … but you’re not right about the rest.
Who is “we” that has adopted the WMO standard? Your citation clearly says that “in the UK there is no official definition of a heatwave”, and while it mentions the WMO standard, it says nothing about adopting it. This means that they haven’t adopted the WMO standard, or in the UK there would be an official definition.
w.
Can it be that the cream of WUWT are still doing battle with Ulrich Lyons? Here is a bit of wisdom passed on to me by my grandfather: “In a battle of wits, I never challenge an unarmed man.” Ulrich, with no meat OR potatoes has engaged you guys for days and this whole thread has essentially become Ulrich’s show. How does he do it?
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Willis Eschenbach says:
Are you kidding? I try to avoid reading your claptrap at all, but somehow I get sucked in.
No difference at all. The clear implication of your claim was that there was only one standard, and that you were using it, and that because that one was so well known, there was no reason to even discuss it. No good trying to wriggle out of it.
Your citation above clearly says there is no definition of “heat wave” in the UK, so there’s no reason to assume you’d use that one. You are free to use whichever one you wish, and I’m damned if I can guess what you might do.
But there’s a bigger problem, Here’s what I can tell you about “the region you forecast for”:
Since you are forecasting right there for the UK, Europe, and the US, how on earth would I be expected to know which definition of “heatwave” you might have chosen? Since you claim your choice is based on the region for which you are predicting, do you use different definitions for different regions? You must think we’re all mind-readers, to be able to figure out your weird preferences without any clues.
Finally, I’m still waiting for your link to your whizbang prediction for July 2013, along with some other predictions so we can be sure you’re not just cherrypicking one that happened to work.
So are you going to break out your predictions for the last 12 months, predictions you made four years ago, or is this just more of your empty claims? Time to put up or shut up here, Ulrich. Give us the link to your predictions for the last year, the predictions you made four years ago, or stop claiming they are accurate.
w.
Gary Pearse says:
September 14, 2013 at 5:33 pm
Gary, if we don’t puncture his balloon, there’s heaps of folks out there who will believe his bullshit. I’m not willing to let WUWT be a site where he can spread his nonsense unopposed. If that takes a while, so be it. I’m on holiday, what do I care?
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“I call that a forecast for “extreme temperatures”, because that’s what it is. Your claim that you were misquoted is not true.”
Yes it was because Leif claimed that I was forecasting extreme temperatures for every week.
Willis Eschenbach says
“The clear implication of your claim was that there was only one standard, and that you were using it, and that because that one was so well known, there was no reason to even discuss it. No good trying to wriggle out of it.”
We only use the WMO standard in the UK, we don’t have anything else.
“Are you kidding? I try to avoid reading your claptrap at all, but somehow I get sucked in.”
You didn’t read it, else you would known where I forecast for, and avoided needlessly fitting me up with your baseless charges. I’ve never seen you fire off so many blanks Willis, it’s a hoot.
“Gary, if we don’t puncture his balloon, there’s heaps of folks out there who will believe his bullshit. I’m not willing to let WUWT be a site where he can spread his nonsense unopposed. If that takes a while, so be it. I’m on holiday, what do I care.”
It is here to stay, vent off as much as you like, I don’t give fig. You can have all the information you have asked for, when you have apologized sincerely for your outrageously rude manner, till then, you can go jump in the lake.
Speaking of meat and potatoes….Dr. Svalgaard, the body of this post uses a slide from your presentation of your sunspot number prediction for SC24. If I understand the polar field precursor hypothesis correctly, the newly formed polar axial dipoles will be seeds for the sunspots of the following cycle, and there is a relationship between the field strength of the dipoles prior to the minimum and the number of sunspots in the following cycle. That implies that the new polar dipoles are formed well prior to the minimum, is that right? Is there any method to predict or project the strength of the new polar dipole fields ahead of time? The slide mentions the axial dipole field strength is relatively constant during the time preceding the minimum-does it start to vary in strength later in the cycle?
Dan Murphy says:
September 14, 2013 at 6:32 pm
Is there any method to predict or project the strength of the new polar dipole fields ahead of time?
Yes, we can see the magnetic flux moving to the poles in real time and slowly eating away at the old polar fields, eventually reversing them and then building the new polar fields about 3-4 years after maximum. Ar that time we can predict the next cycle. You can see the process in action in Figure 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
The slide mentions the axial dipole field strength is relatively constant during the time preceding the minimum-does it start to vary in strength later in the cycle?
The minimum is the end of the cycle. After the minimum the field is eaten away by new flux as described above.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 4:40 pm
I’ll leave that one just hanging there without reply
Regardless, you have been unresponsive all along [for good reason, it seems], so no wonder we are unimpressed.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“..you have been unresponsive all along [for good reason, it seems],”
Drivel, accompanied by a Leif style snide innuendo, what’s new. It’s a lie again too, I responded in detail here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417042
You’re a mud fight junkie.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 8:40 pm
Drivel, accompanied by a Leif style snide innuendo, what’s new. It’s a lie again too, I responded in detail here
No, you didn’t. You responded with an assemblage of words, but not the simple table I asked for: for each year, the number of forecasts [not against normals, but against actual observed temperatures] in each category: VG, G, B, VB and a description of how the categorization was performed.
About mud fights: it is like fighting with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it.
@Leif
You said that I was unresponsive all along, that is simply not true. And if you at all interested in taking a sincere look at what I do, I’ll take you though a few centuries worth of hind-casts, in a manner that suits me. End of conversation.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:15 pm
You said that I was unresponsive all along, that is simply not true. And if you at all interested in taking a sincere look at what I do, I’ll take you though a few centuries worth of hind-casts, in a manner that suits me. End of conversation.
I’m always interested in what people do and take pains to be sincere, but in a manner that suits me. All I ask for is that little table. If you can take that back a few centuries all the power to you, but the table and the description of how it is constructed are what I would need to evaluate what you do. Your verbiage just don’t cut it for me. Numbers are what I need.
Yes thank you Willis, I know what a typo is, and yes we all make them. I don’t appreciate the smartass comment though ( my planet? ). So do me a favor and let Mosher answer for himself, ‘kay?
You see, you just went and assumed facts that are not in evidence, that it was indeed a typo, and that is about the last thing I would expect from you. So I’ll assume you are tired from your trip and all the battling in this thread.
Carry on.
It should not be too difficult to make a prediction of the change in temp. anamolies going by the most recognised data sets:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
If these were the figures that were given to me as being totally true and correct, I would say that the downtrend 2002-2022 will mirror the uptrend 1980-2002.
Gary Pearse:
Your post at September 14, 2013 at 5:33 pm asks
Wills gave you his answer, and I write to provide mine.
Solar threads are swamped by people promoting their pet hypotheses as working theories.
Recently these solar advocates have started to swamp other threads and two ‘ocean’ threads were destroyed by them.
Some have serious points to make, and some are selling rubbish. Ulrich Lyons and HenryP are the most blatant of those who are selling rubbish: when pressed neither can justify what he says. And they have each refused to answer posts from me because I pressed them to explain what they asserted.
It is time to stop them snowing threads with rubbish. They are being pressed to show if they have something to say other than untrue or – at best – unjustifiable – assertions. Failing that, they are being shown to be what they so their snowing of threads can be stopped and/or ridiculed.
Richard
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:20 am
“”
@Leif
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:10 am
I have been making very good predictions for 5+yrs. It’s not the only prediction in case you were thinking that.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
“How many bad ones? Exactly how many good ones? How do you determine if a prediction is ‘very good’, ‘good’, ‘bad’, or ‘very bad’? What are the percentages of predictions in each of those four categories?”
A sensible question at last, thanks. At a weekly scale, the number of weeks with the temperature forecast in the wrong direction relative to normals, at the worst in a year, is around 7 weeks failed. The best so far in a single year was 3 weeks failed. On a simple scale of three levels for temperature above and below normals, I would estimate performance has been around 80-90% for a call on intensity in the last couple of years, it has improved. There were some problems this winter in how it played out at ground level, e.g. I forecast a cold spell from 8/9th to 18/19th Jan, the westerly Atlantic flow picked up as expected from around the 18th, but didn’t manage to break the high pressure block for almost a week and we got loads of snow instead of a warm up. This repeated at the end of the February cold shots too, but I forecast all the onsets of the cold shots through the winter fine, and could readily see that the cold in March would be very deep. The only major winter cold shot I have missed since 2008 was the first two weeks of Jan 2010, I expected it to start mid Jan through well into Feb.
“”
Looks like numbers there.
And the actualities? Ulric was exactly, to the day, spot on with the onset of weather events for the UK. Repeatedly. The UK being a maritime climate ANY degree of accuracy from more than a month out is astonishing. If you are unaware of the mechanics of his system the results appear miraculous. I do not believe in miracles.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 6:26 pm
Who is “we”? And since you don’t have anything else, you can use any standard.
I know where you forecast for, you told me. And despite your repeated claims, it’s not the UK:
You forecast for the UK, Europe and the US … so there was absolutely no reason for me to assume you use the UK standard. Oh, right, there is no standard for a heat wave in the UK …
w.
Blade says:
September 14, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Naw, I just used Occams razor plus the fact that I know Mosh personally.
You are accusing him (assuming facts not in evidence) of being too stupid to know the difference between “affect” and “effect”. Since that seems highly unlikely given my knowledge of the man, he’s knowledgeable, well-educated, and well-spoken. So I’ve taken the more obvious explanation.
If you’re waiting for Mosh to answer as you say, though … I’d strongly suggest not holding your breath while you wait.
w.
Ulrich, I’m still waiting for the link to your four-year-old predictions for 2013.
w.
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:02 am
Henry, those are not numbers in any sense of the word. They are unsubstantiated claims of how brilliant his method is. He has not defined what a “cold shot” is, he hasn’t defined what the “normals” are, he hasn’t said how he measures “intensity” … it’s just handwaving.
I don’t give a fig for his boasting of success. We want to see the actual forecasts, week by week, not a few that might have been sort of kind of true plus his claims about how stupendously he’s done overall.
I mean truly … do you usually believe a man’s claims about his own predictions without actually seeing the predictions?
Here’s an example that might help to clarify the issues:
If a man were to come up to you and say “I can predict which way the stock market is going to go each week, up or down, and last year only 3 weeks failed”, would you say “looks like numbers there” and hand him your money to invest? I doubt greatly you would believe him … and despite that, here you are making that exact foolish mistake regarding Ulrich.
Me, I’d say “If you’re so good at predictions, why aren’t you rich?” I’ve asked that question of Ulric, with no answer. So let me ask it of you. If you could forecast the weather a hundred years in advance, as Ulric implicitly claims (since his forecast depends only on unchanging planetary alignment cycles) … wouldn’t you be rich? Because I know that if I could forecast the weather even three months in advance, I’d be a very wealthy man.
We need the forecasts and the numbers, Henry, not unsubstantiated claims of fantastic success. You’re being taken in by his smooth talk, my friend. As this is a skeptical website … let me advise a large dose of the same regarding Ulric. He’s playing you.
w.
HenryP says:
September 14, 2013 at 10:39 pm
As my very wise brother used to say, “It’s easy to predict the future … as long as it’s just like the past”. The problem with predicting the climate is … it isn’t.
w.
Leif spoke above about an issue that seems to have escaped Ulric and HenryP entirely, which is the assessment of the skill of a forecast.
You see, it’s not enough to claim that your forecast is right. If I predict no rain for Los Angeles on the 3rd of August, for example, I’ll be right perhaps 97% of the time. Does that make my forecast skillful?
Not in the slightest. Why? Because it rarely rains in LA in August.
Similarly, Ulric above makes much noise about successfully predicting a “cold shot” (whatever that means to him) in the UK in January … again, is that a skillful forecast? Well, it depends on how often a “cold shot” (whatever that means) occurs in January, doesn’t it.
Which is why Leif and I and Richard want to see the exact forecasts Ulric made four years ago for 2013—so we can get past the “ZOMG, I SUCCESSFULLY PREDICTED NO RAIN IN LA ON AUGUST 13!!!” syndrome that has so affected Ulrich and HenryP.
Wikipedia has a good definition for forecast skill, viz:
The important point is that skill is not measured the way the Ulric and HenryP are measuring it, against the actual outcome.
Instead, it is measured against some “reference model”. The most common reference model is to measure it against the “climatology”, the average outcome. This is the implicit measure of the prediction of rain in LA that I discussed above—we need to compare my prediction to how often it usually rains in LA in August. However, there are a number of other more sophisticated ways to measure it. There’s a good discussion of some of the issues here, it’s not a simple subject.
But forecast skill can’t be measured at all without having the actual forecasts in hand … speaking of which, Ulric, where’s the link to your four-year-old “successful” predictions for 2013?
The world wonders …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2013 at 2:23 am
“We need the forecasts and the numbers, Henry, not unsubstantiated claims of fantastic success. You’re being taken in by his smooth talk, my friend. As this is a skeptical website … let me advise a large dose of the same regarding Ulric. He’s playing you.”
Ulric is my father-in-law.
Since he first began I have followed the method. I agree that numbers are important but…
We know full well what the ‘normals’ are for our own locations. e.g. If we know that Feb is usually 1c to 3c and anyone shows a ‘cold shot’ or ‘hot period’ upcoming then a forecast that ‘merely’ gives a start date and length of effect is of great worth.
Making local forecasts of small fluctuations with this method is far easier than researching the outcome of those small fluctuations elsewhere (or globally) – leave that up to those locals themselves (This work will be released so that people everywhere will be able to do so) a person only has so much time. The really large anomalies stand out and are easily described. Some of those are strong enough to be stated as global (or at least hemispheric).
It’s all relative.
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:03 am
My condolences. Tell him to get off his dead ass and post the link to his four-year-old predictions for 2013.
And no, I don’t care if you “know full well what the ‘normals’ are for our own locations”. WE don’t know what they are, and I’m damn sure not going to take Ulric’s or your word for it.
w.
Willis, thanks. But don’t confuse me with Ulric. I am not in the weather forecasting business. However, my results (for maxima) suggest that earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
which was drafted from here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
Indeed, I hope that this is the best fit for my data, because any of the other best fits that I could think of, would have us end up in much more global cooling. The results of my plot also suggest that this global cooling already started in 1995 and will last until ca. 2038. Also, from the look at my tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…
By showing the ” data sets” (teach me how you shortened that lengthy link of mine?) I think I was merely showing that we are on a way down. It is not much. My wife still laughs at me when I talk about a few tenths of a degree C. So it getting cooler does not worry me. Obviously, looking at energy coming in, (never mind energy out) , there is no “pause”. Either we are getting warmer or we are getting cooler.
Note with me that if you look at the polar strengths charts (‘the scissors”) of this post, that you can draw a hyperbolic curve (and a parabolic curve from the bottom) and I can guess with my eyes that the best fit for these two curves will show its lowest/highest point around 2016.
2016 is an important date as it corresponds with 1927 on my 88 year curve. From that date we have 5 years until the droughts on the great plains will start. In this respect I think you might help me a bit. I am looking for a chart that you published some time ago (I don’t remember which post?) showing air pressure (was it over the pacific?) going back to the beginning of the last century.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:18 am
“”
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:03 am
And no, I don’t care if you “know full well what the ‘normals’ are for our own locations”. WE don’t know what they are, and I’m damn sure not going to take Ulric’s or your word for it.
w.
“”
Sorry I didn’t make myself sufficiently clear.
Where I live, work and suffer the weather I know what the normals are. I know when they deviate.
I expect most people do.
I expect anyone who chances their arm against The Sea to do so also.
YOU don’t need to know what OUR normals are. YOU need to know what they are for YOUR location. YOU don’t need to take anyone’s word for it. YOU are THERE. Location, location, location – albeit progressively more work is needed as one moves out from local to national to continental.
I am driving over to see Ulric now and will refer him to your kind request.
http://tornado.sfsu.edu/geosciences/classes/m698/Determinism/determinism.html
“Entrenched preconceived notion held by forecasters is that a forecaster is not doing his or her job unless he or she can make a spot forecast…an actual temperature or precipitation amount, deterministically. Thus, unless one can say that on Saturday at 8AM the temperature WILL be 51F (say), the forecaster is not doing his or her job.”
” It turns out that the further out from present time one attempts to make a forecast, the less such a deterministic forecast is possible. The further out from present time one goes, the more important it is that a forecaster integrates “probabilistic” language either into his actual forecast wording, or at least into the intellectual underpinning for his forecast. Not to do so is to not produce a state of the art forecast.”
The second paragraph is the paradigm that Ulric’s discovery explodes (in the absence of volcanic activity, pollution, meteor strike or other climatic interventions).
————————————————-
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:48 am
Ulrich, I’m still waiting for the link to your four-year-old predictions for 2013.
w.
______________________________________________________
Without an apology? and when you have made it clear that you have an agenda to puncture my balloon because you regard it as bullshit and nonsense (your words)?
In these circumstances I am fully justified in sending you to Coventry.
[I figured you’d come up with some bogus reason not to show your work … color me totally unsurprised. Ulric, I ask no more of you than is asked of any scientist—reveal your work. Since you are unwilling to do that, you’re beneath my notice. Come back when you want to act like a scientist, and we’ll talk. -w.]
I agree with Ulric that we must try and develop an ethos @WUWT of mutual respect for each other’s opinions no matter how much we differ. It is not acceptable that we call each other fools or idiots or trashing each other’s work as BS.
My idea is that we must always see WUWT as the classroom where we are teachers and students to each other. Just like normal at school, one is not allowed to call each other names. If, in a heated argument, such a thing has happened, one must be big enough to apologize at the right time, for that behavior. Apologizing does not make you smaller; in fact it gains respect, and you will find in the end usually that the relationship deepens, after.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“I’m always interested in what people do and take pains to be sincere, but in a manner that suits me. All I ask for is that little table. If you can take that back a few centuries all the power to you, but the table and the description of how it is constructed are what I would need to evaluate what you do. Your verbiage just don’t cut it for me. Numbers are what I need.”
The manner that suits you is not the correct way to asses it. My controls would be more stringent than yours, and it needs to be factorized into it’s elements rather than the simple grading that you demanded. Without being able to go back through centuries, I would have little effective forecast power, it would be riddled with uncertainties. It is these hindcasts that you would need to look at first so I can fully demonstrate all the principles at play, including the 110.7yr solar cycle phase catastrophe. I would not dream of giving you the final word on it with merely recent forecast assessment. Besides, with all your manipulation of what was said on this thread, I don’t think you are suitable to do a review. It would be nice at some point though to prove to you why you were so wrong back around 2007, when you insisted several times that I must “abandon my theories”.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:40 am
I don’t think you are suitable to do a review.
So far there is nothing to review…
– – – – – – –
HenryP,
Thank you (&Ulric) for your well done appeal for civility.
I have somewhat similar sentiments of concern about any commenters being impolite to each when it is intended as pejorative; whether direct or backhanded.
I have much less concern if it is done with the intention of good natured humor. : )
John
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:39 am
Sorry, not gonna happen. Scientists don’t respect people who don’t show their work. It’s part of the basic fundamentals of science—if you don’t show your work, it can’t be replicated, and thus it’s not science.
You need to show your work to get respect on this site, or any scientific site, regardless of how you’ve been treated. And yes, if you are unwilling to show your work, then it’s nothing but BS.
w.
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:11 am
So your claim is that Ulric can make predictions about whether the temperature will be higher or lower than some vague, unspecified “normals” … but we don’t get to know what the normals are??? How does that work?
My friend, if that is truly your meaning, you’ve lost the plot entirely. If we don’t know what Ulric means by “normals”, how on earth can we determine if his predictions are a success or a failure? He says “See, my forecast is that it would be higher than the normals, and it was, hooray” … and you won’t tell us what the normals are? That’s not science, that’s a sick joke.
And it doesn’t matter WHERE we are, that doesn’t define what the “normals” are—are you talking about the 1951-1980 “normals”, or the 1961-1990 “normals”, or the 1971-2000 “normals”?
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:05 am
I figured you’d come up with some bogus reason not to show your work … color me totally unsurprised. Ulric, I ask no more of you than is asked of any scientist—reveal your work. Since you are unwilling to do that, you’re beneath my notice. Come back when you want to act like an actual scientist, and we’ll talk.
w.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:39 am
I agree with Ulric that we must try and develop an ethos @WUWT of mutual respect for each other’s opinions no matter how much we differ.
Henry, opinions are not science. The problems arise when opinions are peddled as science.
Willis:
re your post at September 15, 2013 at 8:12 am to Ulric Lyons.
Up thread Ulric Lyons says he refuses to speak to me for exactly the same bogus reason.
And HenryP says he refuses to speak to me for exactly the same bogus reason.
There seems to be a pattern here.
Richard
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 4:12 am
To date, Ulric has not revealed either his “discovery”, nor his forecasts based on his “discovery”. As a result, your claim that it “explodes” anything is wildly premature.
If Ulric ever gets up the nerve to reveal his forecasts, we could actually determine if they “explode” anything, or whether his claims themselves explode … but since he has refused to do that, to date he’s just another crackpot who claims success but won’t show his work.
Henry, Ulric seems to think that by saying what amounts to “Willis was mean and krool to me, so I won’t reveal my forecasts” that he is gaining something. But what?
Because if he actually wanted to gain some traction, he’d say “I’ll show that jerkwagon Willis, I’ll reveal my forecasts and prove him wrong, wrong, wrong”.
You might reflect on the difference between those two options. Refusing to reveal his forecasts will earn him the well-deserved contempt of every real scientist reading this blog.
But if you believe his forecasts are good, then revealing them would put me in my place, showing that all of my contempt for him was totally undeserved, and I’ll be forced to apologize to him.
So … given those two outcomes, what is your explanation for why he is not revealing the forecasts?
I understand that he’s your father-in-law … but THINK FOR YOURSELF, Henry—if his forecasts are indeed accurate as he claims, what is he gaining by his actions other than well-deserved contempt for lack of transparency? He could put me in my place, and instead he chooses contempt? Why?
To me, the only explanation is that he won’t reveal his forecasts because he is unwilling to have them scrutinized by someone who isn’t his son-in-law … but that’s just me, YMMV.
w.
Willis says
Scientists don’t respect people who don’t show their work. It’s part of the basic fundamentals of science—if you don’t show your work, it can’t be replicated, and thus it’s not science.
You need to show your work to get respect on this site, or any scientific site, regardless of how you’ve been treated. And yes, if you are unwilling to show your work, then it’s nothing but BS.
Henry says
Willis, I do agree with you with what you say. There maybe some people who come here to learn how to make (more) money in their respective jobs and they are unwilling to share information so that others may gain from it. Even that does not give us a ticket for being rude. We remain polite. Were you allowed to scream: BS, at any time, during a lecture, when at college?
Please let us remain civil, at all times, even, and perhaps even more particularly, with those that we most disagree.
I note that you have not replied me on my post here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417605
even when I was open to you and I did show you my results.
This is (was) just a hobby of mine, I have no financial interest. I am just worried about the period 2021-2028
which I think will be much similar to 1932-1939
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 9:00 am
HenryP, while normally I agree with you, in some cases my aim is to force people to get up off their dead asses and show their work, or else go away and stop bothering people.
Now, I could rub their tummies and blow in their ears and be all nice and polite as you recommend, but that’s not going to impel them to move. Some people, to get them to move, you need to light a fire under them, not be nice to them. For example, in this post, Ulric has finally declared himself as not being a scientist—he has flat-out refused to show his work.
I hold that he would never had done that if I’d followed your advice and been polite to him. He did it because Leif and Richard and I held his feet to the fire. If we hadn’t, he’d still be waffling and handwaving and deceiving the unwary.
Sorry for that. Given my response to your work, I figured you didn’t really want to hear my reply, but since you insist here’s the answer.
The first of the two results you cite is a trivial fit of a sine wave to the climate, which is of no interest to me at all. The second one, called “Pool Tables About Global Warming”, is both illegible and unintelligible. I have no idea what it means.
I have little time, Henry, and I certainly don’t have the time to try to puzzle out some strange, unintelligible and illegible post that I can’t make heads or tails of. And I don’t care at all if someone has fitted a sine wave to some part of some climate record.
Like I said … I thought that you might not like to hear that, so I just let it pass.
Oh, I see. Not only can you predict the future, specifically (and curiously) the period from 2021-2028, but you are worried about it, and you want me to be concerned about it as well?
Pass … sorry, I know nothing about what will happen from 2021 to 2028, and neither does anyone else, including you. Nor do I have the slightest interest in your theories about it. Like I said to Ulric, if you’re so smart that you can predict the climate from 2021-2028, why aren’t you rich?
All the best,
w.
richardscourtney says:
September 15, 2013 at 8:23 am
Thanks, Richard. The term “Cutting off your nose to spite your face” comes to mind.
The part that neither of them seem to understand is that whether they like you, or get along with me, or are friends with Leif, is immaterial. I don’t care if Ulric thinks I’m the devil incarnate—he still needs to show his work to be considered a scientist.
As I said to Henry Galt, people need to consider Ulric’s decision in light of the three possible outcomes.
1) He’s refused to reveal his forecasts. The outcome of that is very bad for him, since no honest scientist would do that.
2) On the other hand, the outcome of revealing his forecasts depends on the forecasts. If the forecasts are good, then you and I get shown up, Ulrich gets to crow, and you and I are forced to apologize.
3) But if the forecasts are bad, well, that’s the worst possibility, because then Ulric is shown to be self-deluded, and his work without value.
So … given those three outcomes, Ulrich has picked door #1, and refused to show his work.
What does that say about the other two possible outcomes? In particular, which one of those two outcomes does Ulric think will occur if he reveals his forecasts?
I’d say Ulric doesn’t think that the outcome will be #2 … but that’s just me.
Regards,
w.
Steven Mosher says:
September 13, 2013 at 10:21 am
“This is a great time for a challenge to the theory that its the sun stupid.”
A flat 30-year (no significant warming) linear trend by 2020. Solar cycle frequency is the knob.
Willis says
I know nothing about what will happen from 2021 to 2028, and neither does a nyone else, including you.
Henrysays
I would be very much interested to hear the comments of others on this.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 9:42 am
Why would you care about other peoples’ opinions? If you can predict the future climate, you can … and if you can’t, you can’t.
If you want real feedback, on the other hand, then publish your previous predictions that have convinced you that you can predict the future, so we can all see them, and you’ll get likely more feedback than you might desire …
w.
Henry@Willis
according to my predictions, (all fits), global cooling began in 1995,
looking at energy coming in.
Teacher, tell me please, was I right or was I wrong?
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:07 am
according to my predictions, (all fits), global cooling began in 1995
Did you predict before 1995 that cooling would begin?
I don’t think so, so what you have is a fit to an assumed sine curve. Such a fit has no predictive power [unless you have a plausible physical mechanism that explains the fit].
Leif says
Did you predict before 1995 that cooling would begin?
Henry says
Did anyone but me say that global cooling began in 1995 (looking at energy coming in)?
Anyway, what were your results on those binomial fits from 1972-present for the polar magnetic field strengths, and did you find the 2016 date as the lowest amount of energy coming in
(“lowest” activity of the sun)
as predicted by me?
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:22 am
Unresponsive. Answer the dang question, Henry. When you dodge and weave like that your credibility plummets.
What is it with you and Ulric refusing to answer simple questions? Don’t you understand what that does to your reputation?
w.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:22 am
Did anyone but me say that global cooling began in 1995 (looking at energy coming in)?
You claimed that you predicted the cooling. Did you say at some time BEFORE 1995 that cooling was coming?
Anyway, what were your results on those binomial fits from 1972-present for the polar magnetic field strengths, and did you find the 2016 date as the lowest amount of energy coming in
(“lowest” activity of the sun) as predicted by me?
I did not make any such fits and don’t know of any valid predictions made by you. It is highly unlikely that 2016 would be the time of lowest solar activity.
Henry, you backslide to the same, unsupported, unscientific claims.
Leif says
Henry, you backslide to the same, unsupported, unscientific claims.
Henry says
Please keep with me. I am saying that the polar strengths will be weakest sometime in 2016.
You can see this from your graph.. I am not saying that at this time the energy from the sun is the weakest. I have different theories about that. If you don’t want to do those best (binomial) fits just direct me again to the source of those data (I remember it gives a result every ten days)
I suggested to Willis that he should have dropped by when he was in the West Country and take a look at my work, he was not in the slightest bit interested, he has an agenda to keep up. I suggested to Leif that he take a look at my recent findings on weak solar cycles, again no interest whatsoever. I ask Anthony on facebook if he would like to see, and show him key examples of my forecast methods, he calls it “just another cyclomania example” and said he was not interested.
As none of you will take me seriously, none of you deserve to be taken seriously either. You either get to see the whole thing, or you get to see nothing. No two ways about it.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:42 am
Please keep with me. I am saying that the polar strengths will be weakest sometime in 2016.
The polar fields disappear at solar maximum, that is right now. The field is effectively zero now and can’t get lower than zero.
You can see this from your graph..
No, I can’t see that.
I am not saying that at this time the energy from the sun is the weakest. I have different theories about that.
so what?
If you don’t want to do those best (binomial) fits just direct me again to the source of those data (I remember it gives a result every ten days)
http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html
“That is not a prediction at all, unless you believe Piers Corbyn makes predictions”
I know he does, I worked with him from 2007 to 2012. He uses predictable solar factors to forecast weather events days, like rain, wind storms, cyclones etc. I apply such techniques too, though we do have different approaches to applying it. He does not though have an empirical method for predicting temperatures like I do, his method relies upon theoretical solar-lunar analogue years.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 9:42 am
Henrysays
I would be very much interested to hear the comments of others on this.
Ok- you want other’s “comments” here goes.
I’m no scientist (I have children who are – and we do have a family saying of “one must be precise”.), though I have read this site somewhat regularly for the last five years. So, here’s my 2 cents.
define “cold shot”. define “heat wave”. how do they relate to the norm? and what is the norm? give all the data sets you are claiming are accurate forecasts because how else can anyone else give an informed opinion on their accuracy? give proof of their dates of forecasting. (because if the forecast didn’t come before the event – it wasn’t a forecast. and I must ask for proof, because sadly in this day and age – people make changes after the fact. I’m a cynic that way.) and the actual results of what happened when all is said and done.
why should I, or anyone else, follow unsubstantiated claims? please. enquiring minds want to know.
Willis, thankyou for your reply to me at September 15, 2013 at 9:40 am.
Yes. Exactly so.
And I notice that since you wrote your reply to me HenryP has been giving you the same ‘run-around’ that he gave me, except all I wanted was
(a) a proper description of his sample procedure
and
(b) a justification of his fit to “Saturn and Uranus” but not Jupiter.
He refused to provide either.
I said that if his sample procedure could not be explained he was not doing science. And I said he was data mining by finding anything which agreed with what he wanted when he could not justify the choice: hence, he had no justifiable reason to think his model was valid. Instead of answering my questions he persistently claimed he had answered (a) although he had not, and refused to answer (b) but set me homework of reading a paper by someone I had never heard of.
I said he was a “fool” if he thought those were proper responses to my questions, and he then pretended to be offended, demanded I apologise, and refused to talk to me until I did.
It seems that Ulric may have copied HenryP with his behaviour in this thread.
Richard
Leif says
The polar fields disappear at solar maximum, that is right now. The field is effectively zero now and can’t get lower than zero.
Henry says
that is bad news, to me. I was hoping we had more time.
thanks for the link
give me some time to analyse those data
I just wish I had more time…..
Ulric Lyons says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:45 am
You either get to see the whole thing, or you get to see nothing. No two ways about it.
That would be fine, as long as you refrain from polluting WUWT with opinion based on what you will not tell. Back it up or shut up. The standard way of doing this is to write it up in a coherent manner and presenting your theory or method in clear terms that can be evaluated in a standard scientific manner. Showing ‘some examples’ doesn’t cut it.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 15, 2013 at 10:45 am
Yes, that’s the ticket, Ulric, no two ways about it. Everyone knows that the very best way to get people to take you seriously is to refuse to show them the very forecasts that would force them to take you seriously …
Seriously?
w.
Henry, widespread major drought 2021 – 2028 is not going to be likely with a solar cycle minimum to jump start it. Droughts are more pegged toward solar max of a cycle and wet years are solar minimum between cycles.
The droughts in 2011-2012 are more like the leading edge of the 1932 – 1939 time period. In 2011, 401 million trees croaked in Texas and easily that many croaked on the Ozark plateau in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas in 2012. I travel this country! The only reasons we didn’t have dust clouds like the ’30s is all that virgin topsoil lost in the 1930’s is gone and what soils are left or built back are not lying exposed and unanchored.
So I would thinkolator 2021 – 2028 should more resemble 1939 – 1946 or so by your criteria. Like you a lot Henry, but my thinkolator just doesn’t quite match up with yours. See the drought graph here…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_States
Leif says
The field is effectively zero now and can’t get lower than zero.
Henry says
How long could it carry on at around zero before it moves up?
Leif, I have a question could you tell me how many m and x flairs solar cycle 14 had up to this date in contrast to solar cycle 24 ? Thanks
For Willis and Leif I will state my stance once again and try to be as clear as possible.
If ALL if the solar parameters ALL of the time between Jan.01,2015-Dec.31 ,2020, stay below the values I mentioned or even if they AVERAGE below the solar parameter values I have mentioned I will be wrong if the temperature trend rises or is flat. The only way I am correct is if the temperature trend is clearly down.
I will not spin or say maybe this maybe that. This is my stance right or wrong. Thanks
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 11:55 am
How long could it carry on at around zero before it moves up?
A few months.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:00 pm
how many m and x flares solar cycle 14 had up to this date in contrast to solar cycle 24 ?
Nobody knows exactly as we didn’t [couldn’t] measure X-rays fluxes directly back in SC14. We do know how many geomagnetic storms there were and how strong, but geomagnetic storms are not all causes by M and X flares.
Ed Mertin says
In 2011, 401 million trees croaked in Texas and easily that many croaked on the Ozark plateau in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas in 2012. I travel this country! The only reasons we didn’t have dust clouds like the ’30s is all that virgin topsoil lost in the 1930′s is gone and what soils are left or built back are not lying exposed and unanchored.
henry says
as stated before:
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.
What you, Ed, and others are reporting, namely a reduced inflow of water into the Hoover dam since 2000, is what I expected. What most people are not yet realizing is that it will get lot worse still.
I am still trying to finalize my dates but 2021-2028 stands for the time being. I need time to analyse those data from Leif.
I note that Willis is not revealing his source / graph on the standstill of pressure difference, over the oceans, 1932-1939
….politics….personal animosities…?
…get a life…
[Hold on there with your accusations, cowboy. This is the first I recall ever hearing about this issue, and one thing that I never do is refuse to reveal my sources.
So … where and when did I talk about a “standstill of pressure difference” over the oceans?
w.]
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:07 pm
For Willis and Leif I will state my stance once again and try to be as clear as possible.
If ALL if the solar parameters ALL of the time between Jan.01,2015-Dec.31 ,2020, stay below the values I mentioned or even if they AVERAGE below the solar parameter values I have mentioned I will be wrong if the temperature trend rises or is flat.
This is not at all clear. It is absolutely certain [from the known natural variability of those things] that ALL of the solar parameters you mention at SOME time will exceed the limits you mentioned, so you setting yourself up for a claim that cannot be falsified, because the conditions you set for be proven wrong will never occur. So you are not doing science.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Hold on there with your accusations, cowboy. This is the first I recall ever hearing about this issue, and one thing that I never do is refuse to reveal my sources.
So … where and when did I talk about a “standstill of pressure difference” over the oceans?
w.
Kristen says
why should I, or anyone else, follow unsubstantiated claims? please. enquiring minds want to know.
Henry says
science only happens when we decide to investigate
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
please prove me wrong, if you can,
with your own results
please
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Thanks, Salvatore, that’s quite clear and falsifiable. Now we just have to all live long enough to see how the forecast does. As Leif says, it’s doubtful that all the variables will line up, so my guess is that we won’t get any result.
w.
@Willis
perhaps you should read the post again?
please
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417605
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:23 pm
please prove me wrong, if you can,
There are things that are not even wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Leif says
There are things that are not even wrong:
Henry says
That falls in the category of faith?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
= not verifiable
previous information given to Kristen is verifiable.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:28 pm
I have no idea what your comment is referring to, Henry. You’ll have be be clearer.
But before you do that, how about you point to where I said something about the “standstill in pressure difference”? You’ve made an ugly accusation that I’m concealing data, but you haven’t said where or how.
w.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:39 pm
“There are things that are not even wrong”
That falls in the category of faith?
No, in the category of bad science
I think the conditions I called for will occur. I also think these conditions have occurred in the past such as the Maunder Minimum.
The upshot of what I am saying Leif, is if the sun is less quiet then I call for (but still quiet) and the temperature trend is still down, I will be even more correct because the extreme values I called for were not neccessary for the sun to have a climatic effect ,just sub -solar values in general over a long duration of time.
@ Willis
I simply said
“2016 is an important date as it corresponds with 1927 on my 88 year curve. From that date we have 5 years until the droughts on the great plains will start. In this respect I think you might help me a bit. I am looking for a chart that you published some time ago (I don’t remember which post?) showing air pressure (was it over the pacific?) going back to the beginning of the last century”
which question you have continually avoided….
I am merely puzzled as to why you avoided answering this question?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:45 pm
I think the conditions I called for will occur.
That is the point. What if they don’t occur? Then your guess cannot be verified or falsified. Or are you trying to say that if they don’t occur, that proof of your guess is even stronger?
Thank you Dr. Svalgaard. I am afraid that I am still not entirely clear on what is happening with the axial dipole fields through the solar cycle. Can I infer from your comment that at solar max the polar fields are not particularly coherent or stable, and when they do start to stabilize several years after solar max that the field strength at the time it stabilizes is the precursor for the magnitude of the following cycle? After the minimum in the new cycle, do the axial dipoles quickly reform, or does in take many months? Once formed, are the fields stable for a time before solar max? If so, is there any relationship to the field strength during that stable period to the magnitude of the cycle?
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:39 pm
I followed your link and found a couple of vague predictions that you made in April of this year. Here’s one:
If it falls by -0.3° over the next four years, and then warms back up to where it is now, is that a win or a loss? We can’t tell from that claim, not specific enough. And in any case, even if it were not vague it couldn’t be verified until 2021.
Then there’s
So that one cant be verifiable until 2035 … and it has the same problem as the previous one. Suppose it comes back in 2025, and then starts dropping again. Is your forecast correct? No way to tell, it’s too vague.
Other than those, I don’t find any predictions, verifiable or otherwise, in your link.
w.
PS—Where is the information about your nasty and false accusation that I’m hiding data?
On the other hand if the sun has normal activity or higher and the temperatures go down I would be wrong once again in that case.
My bottomline is this , if solar activity is below normal for an extended period of time I say the temperature trend will be down. The more below normal the solar activty is for an extended period of time the lower the temperature trend will be.
From years 2015-2020 solar parameter averages
solar flux averge less then 90 very attainable.
solar wind average sub 350 km/sec very attainable.
ap index average 5.0 or lower I say has a fair chance of taken place.
solar irradiance avg. off .015% or more fair chace of occuring.
cosimic ray count average north of 6500, can happen may be hard to attain however.
euv 10.7 flux average sub 100 is attainable.
Now if the solar parameter values are a little north of what I said and the temperature trend is still down that would only serve to STRENGTHEN my case.
Wllis says
PS—Where is the information about your nasty and false accusation that I’m hiding data?
@ Willis, AGAIN
I simply said
“2016 is an important date as it corresponds with 1927 on my 88 year curve. From that date we have 5 years until the droughts on the great plains will start. In this respect I think you might help me a bit. I am looking for a chart that you published some time ago (I don’t remember which post?) showing air pressure (was it over the pacific?) going back to the beginning of the last century”
which question you have continually avoided….
I am merely puzzled as to why you avoided answering this question?
Henry@ willis
Unless you show that graph, it is clear for all to see that you do not want to “help” me…
…what was that about the pot calling the kettle black?
OK, HenryP has answered my question about his false accusation, viz:
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:45 pm
And on that basis, you have accused me of the following:
HenryP, as with Ulric, I try to avoid reading the nonsense you pump out at a rate of knots. I didn’t even see the question. And now you’ve coupled it with a false accusation that I’m “avoiding” the question … HenryP, what I’m avoiding is your puerile nonsense, I never saw your question until now.
But whether or not I saw it, to accuse me of “not revealing my source” of something so vague you don’t even remember when it was, what post it was in, what it was, or where it was?
That’s just slimy, Henry.
You ask me to do your homework for you to find something you can’t even describe in any detail. You claim in one place that it shows “air pressure” and in the other you say it is a graph of “pressure difference” (between what and what?) from 1932 to 1939 … and then you accuse me of not revealing data?
Since I wouldn’t even be able to recognize it from that vague description if I happened across it, HenryP … I fear you’ll have to do your own homework. I don’t have a clue which graph you’re referring to.
w
PS—Accusing people of hiding data or avoiding questions, without a scrap of evidence that they’ve ever seen your stupid vague question, is not a good way to go through life …
LEIF , I will try to make it crystal clear the only way I am right is if solar activity is very quiet between the years 2015-2020 and the temperature trend is down.
All other combinations will prove that I am wrong. Is that CLEAR enough?
Willis I think you have treated me fair. Thanks.
Dan Murphy says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Can I infer from your comment that at solar max the polar fields are not particularly coherent or stable,
Yes, the reversal process is messy. It can even reverse the reversal a couple of times before finally settling in with the new polarities.
and when they do start to stabilize several years after solar max that the field strength at the time it stabilizes is the precursor for the magnitude of the following cycle?
Yes, that is what it very much looks like.
After the minimum in the new cycle, do the axial dipoles quickly reform, or does in take many months?
It takes all the time until the next maximum for the new polarities to slowly eat away the old field.
Once formed, are the fields stable for a time before solar max?
No, see above
If so, is there any relationship to the field strength during that stable period to the magnitude of the cycle?
N/A, see above
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:06 pm
All other combinations will prove that I am wrong. Is that CLEAR enough?
No, because you have not stated what ‘very quiet’ means.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:06 pm
the only way I am right is if solar activity is very quiet between the years 2015-2020 and the temperature trend is down.
Even if that should happen, it does not show you are right. It could be pure coincidence, for example.
Willis says
read:
I am not not going to answer your question
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Gosh, you mean the graph that might show “air pressure” … or not? The graph that might be about “air pressure difference from 1932 to 1939” … or not? You mean the graph having something to do with air pressure, in some area which might be the Pacific … or not? The graph in a post whose subject you can’t recall, that I posted, well, sometime or other? That graph?
Riiiight … I’ll get on that one right away, Henry.
One thing that you’re right about, though.
When you accuse someone in a nasty way of not doing something you’ve asked them to do, when they’ve never even seen the request, it’s very likely that they will end up not wanting to help you at all. So you are correct about one thing.
At this point, I do not want to help you in the slightest. I have only vague clues which graph you’re talking about, but if I did know which one it was, I wouldn’t say a word to you. That’s what happens when you make ugly false accusations, Henry—people don’t want to help you
There’s a lesson in there for you. Had you simply said “Hey, Willis, did you see my request above”? I’d have said, “No”, taken a look at your question, and then seen if I could find such a graph.
But when you start out by accusing me of bad faith, hiding data, and avoiding your question?
No chance any sane human would want to help you after that kind of an approach, Henry. And I wouldn’t either …
w.
Leif , yes it could be coincidence but don’t say that to AGW theory if the temperature trend goes up.
They would claim they are 100% correct. What is good for one side is good for the other.
I believe because you are a scientist that you would take a much deeper look into solar climatic relationships if solar actiivty should become very quiet between the years 2015-2020 and the temperature trend is down. i would at least hope so.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:56 pm
From years 2015-2020 solar parameter averages
1. solar flux averge less then 90 very attainable.
2. solar wind average sub 350 km/sec very attainable.
3. ap index average 5.0 or lower I say has a fair chance of taken place.
4. solar irradiance avg. off .015% or more fair chace of occuring.
5. cosmic ray count average north of 6500, can happen may be hard to attain however.
6. euv 10.7 flux average sub 100 is attainable.
So, you are considering the average over 2015-2020.
1. The solar flux will trivially be 90 or below as we are going towards minimum, so nothing unusual there.
2. solar wind speed will not be below 350, as the speed is always highest on the declining branch of the cycle.
3. ap will not be below 5 as ap varies with the square of the solar wind speed.
4. TSI off 0.015% is nonsense as the normal solar cycle variation is then times larger
5: cosmic ray count [at Oulu] might be above 6500 in 2020 but certainly not the average 2015-2020.
So some of your conditions will not be met. Does that make you wrong already?
LEIF, I stated what very quiet was when I gave the averages for the various solar parameters. I also stated if the averages are slightly higher then what I had stated, the sun would still be considered quiet and that would strengthen my case, IF the temp. trend was down..
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:13 pm
Actually, what I said was that a) I don’t know the answer to your question, and b) your description is far too vague to guide any search, and c) your nasty accusations have turned my stomach, so I have no interest in researching the answer.
Hope that clarifies things.
w.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:26 pm
LEIF, I stated what very quiet was when I gave the averages for the various solar parameters. I also stated if the averages are slightly higher then what I had stated, the sun would still be considered quiet
Wrong way of dealing with that. If you think the averages could be a little higher, then they should be adjusted to reflect that.
Leif ,that is what you assume. To prove my point as recently as solar cycle 5 you say we don’t really know what happened. Well if we don’t really know what happened with solar cycle 5 ,how do we NOT know the conditions I called for did not occur in the past such as the Maunder Minimum.
Can you prove to me that these conditoins I called for did not happen during the Maunder Minimum much less the past 20,000 years?
Further from what I read many think the solar parameters I laid out for years 2015-2020 on average were exceeded in degree of magnitide during the Maunder, on average. Greatly so I might add.
Good point point Leif , what I will do is give the maximum less degree of quietness I think the solar parameters have to acheive on average between the years 2015-2020 to acheive a solar /temperature decline relationship.
This will only strengthen my case if correct. I will work on that over he coming days.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Leif , yes it could be coincidence but don’t say that to AGW theory if the temperature trend goes up. They would claim they are 100% correct. What is good for one side is good for the other.
_______________________
Salvatore, with respect, this is just wrong. If you want to be a scientist, act like a scientist-the one side/other side crap is politics, not science. Do it right or don’t claim you’re being scientific.
And another thing-you say you’ve been making forecasts and predictions, but you don’t have many here believing you. If you’d like some rules about making a legitimate forecast that people might respect (right or wrong), follow the SMART system, and keep detailed records of your methods and data and be prepared to share them with others:
Specific
Measurable
Appropriate
Realistic
Time-bound
Specific: saying that it’s going to be significantly colder in the coming years is not specific enough.
Measurable: exactly how much, state a specific number of degrees, F or C please. Specifically state what other measurement or standard you will be comparing against.
Appropriate: e.g. a forecast for just the UK may not be an appropriate forecast in context of the AGW discussion. Comparing surface temps for the UK against Pacific Sea Surface temps may not be appropriate.
Realistic: make a serious forecast please, not a fantasy.
Time-bound: State a specific time point for your forecast, otherwise, as Willis pointed out, you could claim any colder weather during the interim to validate your prediction. Even in a warming world we would be likely to have at least one year with lower than normal temperatures.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Leif ,that is what you assume. To prove my point as recently as solar cycle 5 you say we don’t really know what happened. Well if we don’t really know what happened with solar cycle 5 ,how do we NOT know the conditions I called for did not occur in the past such as the Maunder Minimum.
We are not totally in the dark. We know, for example that the solar cycle modulation of cosmic rays was greater during the Maunder Minimum than it has been the past 60 years, so we can constrain the solar parameters. We know that at the deepest point of the MM [at the end of it], the sun must have have a substantial magnetic field [from observations of the chromosphere]. We have good evidence that TSI was not significantly lower, etc. see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf
Thanks for that explanation, Leif, which is corroborated by my own analysis (not that it needs to be). In any case, here’s the Be10 flux, showing the solar modulation of the cosmic rays.
DATA SOURCE
The red lines show the Sporer Minimum, the blue lines show the Maunder Minimum, and the orange lines show the Dalton Minimum.
More Be10 means more cosmic rays … and we can clearly see that your statement that
is verified by the Be10 cosmic ray data.
w.
@Coventry
September 15, 2013 at 3:16 pm
The red lines show the Spörer Minimum
[Thanks, Ulric, fixed. I wrote that and it looked wrong, but it’s late. My error. -w.]
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2013 at 8:10 am
“”
So your claim is that Ulric can make predictions about whether the temperature will be higher or lower than some vague, unspecified “normals” … but we don’t get to know what the normals are??? How does that work?
My friend, if that is truly your meaning, you’ve lost the plot entirely. If we don’t know what Ulric means by “normals”, how on earth can we determine if his predictions are a success or a failure? He says “See, my forecast is that it would be higher than the normals, and it was, hooray” … and you won’t tell us what the normals are? That’s not science, that’s a sick joke.
And it doesn’t matter WHERE we are, that doesn’t define what the “normals” are—are you talking about the 1951-1980 “normals”, or the 1961-1990 “normals”, or the 1971-2000 “normals”?
w.””
Where to begin?
I will work backwards as that is what your ‘assumptions’ lead me to want.
Willis: “” … you won’t tell us what the normals are? That’s not science, that’s a sick joke. “”
The normals. WMO standard:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS2955.1
“Basing climate normals on 30-yr averages has been standard practice for almost a century now, since the IMO first mandated that member countries provide climate normals for their respective countries.”
Please note: “… member countries provide climate normals for their respective countries.”
Next up:
Tell you what, I am going to bed. This semantics game is not my cup of tea when it’s late. I may address your other failures later.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Thanks for that explanation, Leif, which is corroborated by my own analysis (not that it needs to be). In any case, here’s the Be10 concentration, showing the solar modulation of the cosmic rays.
This is a tricky subject. The solar magnetic field acts to decrease the flux of galactic cosmic rays, so: weaker solar field = more cosmic rays = more 10Be. Sort of the opposite of what I said. However, the situation is more complicated than that. What you show is the concentration of 10Be atoms, which is not a simple function of the influx of cosmic rays. If it snows more in a year more 10Be atoms will be found in the ice layer for that year, so the concentration has to be modified by the precipitation to get the flux. So, the climate actually is also a modulator of the concentration, plus that most of the 10Be is created at lower latitudes and the strength of the circulation of the atmosphere also plays a role. It is estimated that the influence from climate and local conditions amounts to at least half of the changes seen in 10Be. To get at how large the solar cycle modulation of the GCRs actually is, it is customary to filter the data and see how much variation in the flux is in the 8-16 year pass band. The result can be seen in Slide 30 of http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard14.pdf where you can compare the red curve in the bottom panel [sunspots] with the black curve [GCRs].
sorry for the bold. miss that preview.
Thanks for that explanation, Leif, much appreciated. I’ve corrected (I think) the bold.
w.
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:33 pm
This semantics game is not my cup of tea when it’s late.
Agree, so quit the semantics game and produce the table I asked for. A table with numbers and a description of how the numbers were derived.
Henry Galt says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Unfortunately, you still haven’t told us which normals Ulric is using. For example, for predictions in the northeast US, does he use the normals for just that Northeaster area of the US, or for the whole US? And if he’s using the normals for just that area, which states is he including/excluding?
Next, is he using the 1961-1990 WMO normals, or the more recent WMO normals (1981-2010) that are used by say the satellite datasets?
And when Ulric makes a prediction (see above) for the “UK/Europe”, which normals is he using? Those for the UK or those for Europe, or both?
So no, Henry, as should be obvious, although you seem to think the job is done and you can move on, in fact you haven’t come anywhere near answering just this one simple question about normals.
Next, this is not a “sematics game”. It is the only way that we can understand and evaluate Ulric’s forecasts … if he ever deigns to stop hiding them. If Ulric’s prediction for the UK/Europe is that it will be colder than normal … what does that mean? Despite your explanation we still have no clue.
Finally, you haven’t shown that I’ve made a single “failure”, so your accusing me of that is totally unclear, not to mention unpleasant. Don’t accuse a man of “failures” without saying exactly what they are, that just pisses people off.
w.
Or in other words, Henry (Galt) … what Leif said: produce the table that we need in order to evaluate Ulric’s invisible predictions … in case you’ve forgotten, it goes like this:
In addition, the table needs to contain the actual forecast, along with where we can find a record of it being made before rather than after the fact.
I won’t be surprised, however, if the data never appears … both you and Ulric seem determined to obfuscate, refuse, and delay. No surprise, I suppose … if the forecasts were any good, he’d be shouting them to the world, but instead he’s stuffed them up his fundamental orifice and refused to let anyone see them because … well, most likely because he knows in his heart of hearts that they’re no good.
But heck … prove us wrong, Henry, and break out the forecasts and the normals (AS NUMBERS) and the definitions of a “cold shot” and a “heat wave” and the like for each forecast, and we can see for ourselves if Ulric is, as he maintains, a misunderstood unsung genius …
w.
Leif, per your most excellent research and information, I’ve updated the graphic above to show flux rather than concentrations, and to include the names of the minima.
w.
HenryP says:
September 15, 2013 at 12:23 pm
Kristen says
why should I, or anyone else, follow unsubstantiated claims? please. enquiring minds want to know.
Henry says
science only happens when we decide to investigate
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
please prove me wrong, if you can,
with your own results
please
Oh, for pete’s sake. you still don’t provide NUMBERS (or exact definitions) – science is not religion, you need hard data.
@ Willis, I Have been following Ulric’s ideas quite a long time and I will tell you that you really need to take that back. His forecasts are the best long range forecasts that I have witnessed to date. So accurate in fact, that I’m thinking of taking up on his line of expertise.You can check out my website @ http://realityweather.eu/
Ray Ennis says:
September 15, 2013 at 5:17 pm
I “really need to take that back”? Take what back?
As to the accuracy of his forecasts, it won’t be known unitl he reveals them. We’ll all see how accurate they are when he extracts his digit and deigns to show his work to us plebeians. Until then, we don’t have a clue if he’s a genius or a charlatan …
However, his refusal to show his work greatly favors the latter.
w..
I didn’t mention anything about water flow to Hoover dam… but since you brought up the subject… low water flow sure has reversed this month. I was in Denver and Fort Collins the 3rd and 4th watching the impressive storms coming out of the mountains and out over the pached dry land toward Southeastern Colorado. That was the start of something big. BIG Like the flooding of the Mississippi in 2011, then 2012 was so dry they were dredging and dislodging rock to move barges. 2013 the mighty Mississippi was flooding again. This weird weather is like the ’30s in many respects to me, out in it. Bone dry, snow melt on freshly planted cornfields, flooding and in the same year for some. What a challenging time for a farmer. I do respect you a lot, Henry, for thinking of the farmer in advance of what appears to be a tough time. 1945 freshly planted crops got nailed with snow too, years afterwards.
http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2013/09/15/colorado-braces-for-more-heavy-rain-deadly-floods/
http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/under-threat-of-more-rain-nm-cleans-up-after-flooding-damages-neighborhoods-claims-1-victim/2013/09/15/1f9c99fc-1e78-11e3-9ad0-96244100e647_story.html
Peculiar weather… heh, in Peculiar, Missouri I’m grabbing for blankets and comforter.
Record-breaking $17.3 billion in crop losses last year
http://www.wisfarmer.com/editorial/recordbreaking-173-billion-in-crop-losses-last-year-significant-portion-potentially-avoidable—–jcpg-334555-221653091.html
Extreme weather forced the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) to pay out a record-breaking $17.3 billion in crop losses last year, much of which could have been prevented using water-smart strategies, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Payments made to farmers during the 2012 growing season to cover losses from drought, heat and hot wind alone accounted for 80 percent of all farm losses, with many Upper Midwest and Great Plains states hit hardest.
With extreme weather conditions such as drought expected to become more common, record-breaking insurance payouts will likely continue to increase.
However, widespread adoption of crop-loss prevention methods that build soil health and improve water management on farms can limit these losses.
From 2001-10, crop losses averaged just $4.1 billion a year, making the 2012 record-breaking FCIP payouts even more staggering….
Ed Mertin:
re your post at September 16, 2013 at 12:48 am.
Higher insurance claims for extreme weather events mostly indicate effects of inflation. Higher insurance premiums mostly indicate higher insurance claims, and the premiums are also boosted by assertions of more extreme weather in future.
Your talk of insurance says nothing about a possible increase or possible decrease of extreme weather events.
Richard
Willis (in Coventry) writes:
“As to the accuracy of his forecasts, it won’t be known unitl he reveals them. We’ll all see how accurate they are when he extracts his digit and deigns to show his work to us plebeians. Until then, we don’t have a clue if he’s a genius or a charlatan … However, his refusal to show his work greatly favors the latter. ”
Willis, you cannot speak on behalf of those that have seen the results, and you have refused my offer for you to examine the complete forecast method. You have also exhibited extreme prejudice before you have even seen the figures, with your lynch mob prognosis:
“Gary, if we don’t puncture his balloon, there’s heaps of folks out there who will believe his bullshit. I’m not willing to let WUWT be a site where he can spread his nonsense unopposed. If that takes a while, so be it. I’m on holiday, what do I care?”
And on top of that, you behave as it is below your dignity to even read my comments:
“as with Ulric, I try to avoid reading the nonsense you pump out at a rate of knots.”
“Are you kidding? I try to avoid reading your claptrap at all, but somehow I get sucked in.”
etc.
And you really think after all that, that you are worthy of being the scientific arbiter of the standards of my work?
Friends:
Ulric Lyons writing to Willis concludes his post at September 16, 2013 at 5:25 am saying
But nobody can be an arbiter of his work until he provides the report of his success/failure rate which has been repeatedly requested and demanded by both Leif and Willis.
Ulric’s arm-waving about Willis refusing “to examine the complete forecast method” is pure puffery. Nobody wants to do that. Willis, Leif and I want to assess the success rate of Ulric’s method.
Similarly, anybody who wants to assess the “work” of the famous astrologer Madam Zsaa Zsa wants to examine her success rate and not her “complete forecast method “.
So long as Ulric refuses to present information on his success rate there is no more reason to expend time and effort on examining his “complete forecast method” than there is to expend time and effort examining the “complete forecast method” of Madam Zsa Zsa.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
“But nobody can be an arbiter of his work until he provides the report of his success/failure rate which has been repeatedly requested and demanded by both Leif and Willis.”
Yes they can, he wants to get trained up with my forecast method:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1418156
“Ulric’s arm-waving about Willis refusing “to examine the complete forecast method” is pure puffery. Nobody wants to do that.”
While you all would happily squeal that Piers Corbyn should not be taken seriously until he reveals the recipe to his secret sauce, what astounding duplicity. The pure puffery is yours, an emotional projection. To fully convince that I forecast e.g. a very cold March 2013, I need to show how I forecast it, and show that the heliocentric configuration responsible produces the same kind of result consistently where it reoccurs. The same with the Farmers Almanac, there is no reason to believe that there is any science in it until you can inspect what correlations they are making to the planets with the weather.
If I forecast a winter cold shot, I will grade it cooler than norm, much colder than norm, or extremely cold, which is what I rated March 2013 at, correctly. It is a simple task to translate into an approx local deviation from normals in °C. Now if someone is not interested in even accepting on face value that I did forecast that cold shot very well, purely on the basis that I have not presented “a number in °C”, that is like not letting me sit at your dinner table without a smart shirt and tie. Well stuff your dinner and you of all too, I’ll get plenty of weather forecasters to sit around my table.
Thank you for the great comments! Willis and Leif, your patience is astounding. This thread is a free lesson in how to spot BS.
Kristen says
Oh, for pete’s sake. you still don’t provide NUMBERS (or exact definitions) – science is not religion, you need hard data.
Henry says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1411264
Ed Mertin says
I do respect you a lot, Henry, for thinking of the farmer in advance of what appears to be a tough time. 1945 freshly planted crops got nailed with snow too, years afterwards.
Henry says
Thanks for the respect. I wish the others here would also notice that I am not doing this research “for myself”.
I think you got the jest of what I am saying. In a cooling period there will be some more rainfall (& flash flooding) in -30>x[40] latitudes
I personally checked this in Wellington, NZ. They had on average 14% less rainfall 1930-1940 compared to 1940-2000.
so yes, you can bet (your insurance) on that.
I think in the end they will just stop insuring….(the farmers living beyond [40])
What I am worried about that as far as yet, I think nobody is warning the farmers at >40 latitudes that things are not going to change there for at least the next 2 to 3 decades. Things, i.e. cooling and drought conditions, will only become worse there as times move on.
Henry@Willis
clearly
you never even read my post(s) properly
so I think that is also a form of disrespect?
never mind,
for what it is worth, I am sorry if I antagonized you in any way. It seems to me this was a misunderstanding.
It was not my intention to show you in a bad light.
I just thought you ignored my questions deliberately.
In a cooling period there will be some more rainfall (& flash flooding) in -30>x[40] latitudes
That should read
In a cooling period there will be some more rainfall (& flash flooding) @ [40] latitudes
Leif,
– Regarding your graph “WSO Dipole, Phase within year”, do the blue squares show the axial dipole strength D = (N-S) from 2003.5 to 2005.7? The dipole appears stable.
– What’s the meaning of grading of the horizontal abscissa (phase within year: 0, 0.2, 0.4, …)?
– May I assume that these data are based on the data of the rightmost column of http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html?
– However, when I consult the data during the mentioned period I see an evolution from -56 Avgf (2003:06), growing to -65 Avgf (2004:02) and ending at -52 Avgf (2005:08). How can it be explained that I don’t see this increase (to – 65 Avgf)?
I appreciate your instructive explanations!
it seems the system is confused with my descriptions and symbolics
I try again:
In a cooling period there will be some more rainfall (& flash flooding) at lower than [30] latitudes and less rainfall and more cooling at higher than [40] latitudes
The climate cools for the globe as a whole by -.8c if these average solar paramenters are realized between Jan.01,2015-Dec.31 2019.
Now if these solar averages are realized and the temperature trend is flat or up I am wrong, very easy to falsify. I would say this is clear,specific and gives a specific outcome as a result.Very black and white and straight forward.
AVERAGE SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED. Did not change a thing.
solar flux average 90 or lower.
solar wind average 350 km/sec or lower.
ap index average 5.0 or lower, 98+% of the time.
solar irradinace average off .015% or lower.
e 10.7 flux average sub 100.
cosmic ray count 6500 per minute or greater.
These values were likely attained or exceeded during the Maunder Minimum according to many studies. MOST of which for example show solar irradiance to be off by .3 to .6% during the Maunder Minimum.
.
Some will argue the sun is not as variable as that, as well as the sun does not control the climate through solar changes and the associated secondary effects, but this is what makes a ball game two sides in opposition.
Time will tell.
I welcome agreement and disagreement but all it is at best is speculationas to if I am wrong or correct,and does nothing to prove if I amwrong or correct.
Only time will show that result,which is right around the corner,2015-end of 2019.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 15, 2013 at 3:52 pm
“”””
I put it down to a game of semantics to give you the benefit of some doubt as to your insulting me based on my support of a system I have seen and had explained to me in detail, over a long period and that you have zero knowledge of outside of a forecast that you continue to claim has not been made to your liking.
You don’t know me from a hole in the ground so where you get off telling me “… you’ve lost the plot entirely …” and “… both you and Ulric seem determined to obfuscate, refuse, and delay …” and other such insults, baffles and riles me in equal measure. The following may be more a result of the riled than the bafflement.
For someone clever, if not possessing superior intellect, why should this….
“Basing climate normals on 30-yr averages has been standard practice for almost a century now, since the IMO first mandated that member countries provide climate normals for their respective countries.”
need ANY explanation beyond what I said earlier:
YOU don’t need to know what OUR normals are. YOU need to know what they are for YOUR location. YOU don’t need to take anyone’s word for it. YOU are THERE.
Yet you continue with: “”And it doesn’t matter WHERE we are, that doesn’t define what the “normals” are—are you talking about the 1951-1980 “normals”, or the 1961-1990 “normals”, or the 1971-2000 “normals”?””
and YOU claim that WE “”… seem determined to obfuscate, refuse, and delay …””. ??? Thinking further; your snipe at Ulric – “In other words, Ulrich, when you claim there is one standard that is so well-known you don’t need to mention it, that just reveals your profound ignorance of the field.” comes across as severe projection and is not becoming.
Fail #1. It so very DOES matter WHERE you are. The WMO insist upon it. The WMO insist on the climatology also. Currently this is stated as ‘The latest global standard normals period is 1961-1990’. These actualities, quite rightly, remain unsaid and unquestioned in any usual conversation between knowledgeable parties in a conversation about weather and climate. You are playing a game of semantics, for whatever reason.
Why do you persist in digging yourself this hole?
Next:
You were offered twice to meet up with Ulric and he would have shown you everything. So your continued wailing in this vein ….
“”We want to see the actual forecasts, week by week, not a few that might have been sort of kind of true plus his claims about how stupendously he’s done overall.””
and
“”… He’s refused to reveal his forecasts …””
and
“… he has flat-out refused to show his work …”
is utterly off target and becomes Fail #2. Not just for you. Leif and A have also been offered full, relevant disclosure and refused the offers.
Next, your:
“”… meaningless prediction …”
pertaining to this forecast, made in brevity elsewhere, but referenced by Ulric on this thread:
“”I am forecasting a long intense cold shot starting from around the 7th January 2014. The first signs of any warmer bursts are in the last 10 days of February, which for the UK/Euro will likely result in heavy snow falls, and the Atlantic flow finally breaking through early March. The (north east?) U.S. could see the cold continue further into March.
This is a solar based forecast, produced entirely from heliocentric planetary angular analysis.””
Again with the semantics. Long. Intense. Cold. From 7th Jan until @18th Feb by my reading. Then- Warmer. What’s not to like about the precision of this forecast versus one by any meteorological organization? Made months ahead?
I note the only real caveat (could) is with regard to a speculative (hence the ?) global extrapolation from a local forecast. The “… will likely result in heavy snow falls …” is mentioning a possible additional effect of the deterministic, precise dates mentioned. Months ahead.
It’s not long to wait until Jan 2014.
Fail #3 for you for this because the prediction is far from meaningless.
I now believe you may have other issues with all this. I could speculate that these may be related to your previous (not on this thread) statement that you had spent a long time looking for the mechanisms that Ulric has discovered and you failed to so do. This would not be uncharitable in light of your continued belligerence in this matter and is no different from your specious and unfounded speculations about me.
Maybe, when this system, eventually, is known to you, you personally may be able to interpret its results with such finesse that you will be able to forecast the exact number of degrees above and below normals on individual dates for the localities you choose. I certainly wouldn’t count it out after the process has been absorbed, investigated and discussed by a larger number of brains. That is truly NOT the nub of this thing. If it is possible to warn individuals, nations and mankind in general of upcoming, possibly disastrous weather events we don’t NEED fine numerical precision. If a farmer in Chile is informed that 2 years from now his entire spring and summer will be severely below normals there will be no need for specific numbers. He will have been warned that his spring and summer will be worse than lousy for the crops his family usually relies on. He will need to change tack, not complain because the deterministic forecast doesn’t tell him whether his local area will be -7C, -9C or -11C below his normals.
I feel some of your irritability Willis. Really. I have been pestering Ulric to publish for a couple of years now. It’s not up to us when he goes public. It is, however, very much our responsibility to look, prejudice free, when asked and report truthfully if the BS meter flickered at any time during evaluation. The finished product will need to be defended against considerably more than the 3 or 4 individuals here demanding evidence and throwing tantrums when it is not forthcoming. Allowing someone to line up their ducks before the big guns get pointed is common civility. It may well be that only constant successful forecasting will open people’s eyes to the efficacy of this system but I believe that the prejudgement offered, in haste by a minority here, recorded for posterity, portends a better reception from Joe Public who has no axe to grind.
HENRY AND ULRIC – what matters is to make a climate forecast for a specific time frame and give the reasons why and then see if it is or is not correct.
If people doubt you in the meantime I would not let it bother you, just be sure in what you are saying and go with it and see if you are correct or not and then act accordingly.
That is what I am going to do, wait and see if I am or not correct and then take it from there.
I am not going to waste to much of my time arguing with speculators as to if I may or may not be correct. The ones that do not agree with you are NOT going to change their minds unless it is in their face, and even then some probably will still insist that you are wrong.
Again go with what you think based on studies and past history and projections, and stand by it and if wrong admit it, if right fight for it.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 16, 2013 at 10:16 am
The climate cools for the globe as a whole by -.8c if these average solar parameters are realized between Jan.01,2015-Dec.31 2019.
Now if these solar parameter averages are realized and the temperature trend is flat or up I am wrong, very easy to falsify. I would say this is clear,specific and gives a specific outcome as a result.Very black and white and straight forward.
AVERAGE SOLAR PARAMETERS NEEDED. Did not change a thing.
solar flux average 90 or lower.
solar wind average 350 km/sec or lower.
ap index average 5.0 or lower, 98+% of the time.
solar irradiance average off .015% or lower.
e 10.7 flux average sub 100.
cosmic ray count 6500 per minute or greater.
These values were likely attained or exceeded during the Maunder Minimum according to many studies. MOST of which for example show solar irradiance to be off by .3 to .6% during the Maunder Minimum.
.
Some will argue the sun is not as variable as that, as well as the sun does not control the climate through solar changes and the associated secondary effects, but this is what makes a ball game two sides in opposition.
Time will tell.
Leif and Willis make me think more if anything. I rather talk to those who do not agree with me then those that do.
They know their stuff and I am glad they question everything.
Questions out of the arguments topic: Are there charts, depicting the area and position of coronal holes like they do sunspot counts? Is there a filament count? I know we keep track of solar wind, but is there something similar to a butterfly chart for them? Secondly.. if you know that the suns activity level has an effect on our magnetosphere, which we are just now beginning to observe in depth, how wouldn’t that also impact on the heliosphere increasing or decreasing susceptibility to that messy universe’s chaos?
/ramble on … I agree with Lief, the sun has been blasting right along as usual. Slight variations added to our wobble might explain some of the climate variation here on Earth locally but I still challenge that we can measure to a hundredth of a degree across the Entire globe. Best article this year for me was when the scientists figured out we didn’t need a CH or sunspot to get beaned by the sun, the second was the discovery of an energy transfer through our atmosphere caused by a solar storm…. baby steps ya know.
sometimes when I read you folks arguing.. I think you are so focused on one thing as causality you forget that a lot of what we experience are the so called “perfect storms” or combinations of events like solar, volcano, meteor strikes to get extremes. We know very little about the forces outside our little solar bubble and less about our own planet. . But Voyager finally made it out..YAY! It is frustrating that can still only observe our Earth for the most part, a satellite strip at a time. Energy transfers, atmosphere disturbance are.. mostly lost to our observations. Apparently the folks who believe we have any control over our climate don’t realize we are essentially a rock rolling around a star in a very chaotic universe that could extinct us in a heart beat.. I guess feeling that small and insignificant bothers them:)
Things that fall out of the bell curve are thrown out. Average and homogenized doesn’t mean a damn thing to the folks in the extremes. I’m not a scientist, Im a farmer. I bet you could tell. I don’t care if its .08c hotter, I want to know when first and last frost will be and when it will rain:P ( I watch the ocean for that info btw) But in my short life I’ve noticed the roughly 30-40 year cycles.. and then mostly because it was chicken littled as a tragedy for humanity, and caused by humanity.. too hot.. too cold .. too hot.. I guess the goldy locks zone isn’t always just right, add a wobble and a wiggle and a tilt.. and were off:) Best thing we could do for ‘the greater good’ is get some of us off this vulnerable rock before we become the dinosaurs:) After all, your either evolving.. or you are extinct:) /ramble off
Ulric Lyons:
I see that at September 16, 2013 at 6:34 am you have decided to talk to me again. Well done. Unfortunately, having stopped running, you have started digging again.
And your digging is an attempt to evade answer to my post at September 16, 2013 at 5:46 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1418435
Firstly, let me get out of the way some of your irrelevant drivel.
You say
All? You accuse me of duplicity! That is pure psychological projection.
I challenge you to find any example of my demanding Corbyn’s method should be revealed. You will find several examples of my saying he has a perfect right to keep secret the method he uses for his commercial forecasting activities. And if you doubt that then ask Piers Corbyn.
My post you have answered stressed that nobody is interested in your methods.
I AND OTHERS WANT TO KNOW YOUR SUCCESS AND FAILURE RATES.
Then you say to me
No, your brass neck at making such an assertion is laughable. You ran away because my comments were too pointed for you to face them.
Then you make the absolutely ridiculous assertion
NO! To fully convince that you forecast e.g. a very cold March 2013, you need to show what you forecast verbatim together with evidence of when and where you did forecast it.
But ‘one swallow does not make a Spring’. It is your record of success andfailure which is wanted. As I said in the conclusion of my post which you pretend to answer
Richard
Leif gave his wonderful predictions for solar flux values and ap index values on Aug 06,2013 for the rest of ths year ,next year and year 2015.
They are 120,120,115 for solar flux and 10,9,12 for ap.
Again time will tell,I can’t argue wrong or right because it would be speculation. The same goes for him when he tries to tear my argument apart.
But he made the prediction and I expect he will stand by it ,as I will with my prediction. Right or wrong. No spin.No changes.
The sun has been in an extreme unusual pattern since late 2005, and it is going to become more so not less so going forward. Enough said.
Leif , give us your prediction for the number of class m flairs and x flairs for the rest of this year?
Simple and for the very near future.
richardscourtney says:
“So long as Ulric refuses to present information on his success rate…”
I did here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417042
richardscourtney says:
“All? You accuse me of duplicity! That is pure psychological projection.
I challenge you to find any example of my demanding Corbyn’s method should be revealed.”
Well I do apologise for including you in with at least Leif on that matter.
Ulric Lyons:
I see your post at September 16, 2013 at 11:32 am adopts the HenryP method of evasion; i.e.
pretend you have answered a question when you have not.
I refer you to the immediate response of Leif Svalgaard to the evasion you have linked. It is at September 14, 2013 at 10:27 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417051
The request for your information on your success rate has been pursued since then. Your proper response is still awaited.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
“To fully convince that you forecast e.g. a very cold March 2013, you need to show what you forecast verbatim together with evidence of when and where you did forecast it.”
Apart from hundreds of people in my community and extended family, it was only recorded in writing as a private message to Ray Ennis. It went like this… bbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, which is code for totally freeze your butt off, he said how long, and I replied at least 3 weeks, coming in harder from the 2nd week. It had to be private as an ex associate was plagiarising my forecasts.
Ulric Lyons:
re your post at September 16, 2013 at 11:47 am.
A casual statement to friends or relatives is not an official forecast that can be verified.
I merely queried the evidence for existence of a forecast which you claimed to have made. If a coded message to a friend is the “forecast” you chose to cite then I suspect I would not be impressed by your other “forecasts”.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
“If a coded message to a friend is the “forecast” you chose to cite then I suspect I would not be impressed by your other “forecasts”.”
So it’s all about the table manners then in your book, I’m glad I didn’t stay for dinner.
Ulric Lyons:
Your post at September 16, 2013 at 12:09 pm says in total
That answer is surreal.
Post your success and failure rate and do TRY to stop making a fool of yourself.
Richard
henry@ulric
let us give it up here?
it is no use arguing with people who are only interested in extracting, not adding information
I suppose it is their business
as is adding comments by creating multiple personalities “to comment”:
Anyway, what is your thinking on the function of the planets in weather patterns?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
sorry
it seems
bloggs.24.com
is dead for some time
I don’t know until when
rikgheysens says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:23 am
– Regarding your graph “WSO Dipole, Phase within year”, do the blue squares show the axial dipole strength D = (N-S) from 2003.5 to 2005.7? The dipole appears stable.
No, they show the strength of the North and the South separately [there are two sets of blue squares].
– What’s the meaning of grading of the horizontal abscissa (phase within year: 0, 0.2, 0.4, …)?
0 means January 1st, 0.5 means July 1st, 1 means December 31st.
– May I assume that these data are based on the data of the rightmost column of http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html?
No, they are based on the columns marked N and S respectively, and are averages, so the squares for phase 0.5 [in the middle of the graph] are averages of 1st July 2003, July 2004, and July 2005.
Henry Galt says:
September 16, 2013 at 10:34 am
I have been pestering Ulric to publish for a couple of years now. It’s not up to us when he goes public.
If he doesn’t have the table and the explanation I requested his work is not publishable. Perhaps that is why he has not ‘gone public’.
pkatt says:
September 16, 2013 at 10:59 am
Are there charts, depicting the area and position of coronal holes like they do sunspot counts? Is there a filament count?
Yes, Google is your friend.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 16, 2013 at 11:25 am
Leif , give us your prediction for the number of class m flairs and x flairs for the rest of this year?
I have no idea. My guess would be close to zero for the X flares.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“If he doesn’t have the table and the explanation I requested his work is not publishable. Perhaps that is why he has not ‘gone public’.”
I have more than enough hindcasts to demonstrate my findings, I don’t need to discuss forecasts to publish my work.
I’m Len R. Holliday, the Lead Forecaster with firsthandweather.com. I can assure you that Ulric Lyons is everything he says he is and more. His long-term weather forecast have been beyond belief. I first got to know Mr. Lyons through my LinkedIn contacts. Some of my peers pointed out his very accurate forecast ability which caused me to take an interest in him. Ulric sent me back dated forecast and now I have known the man well over a year and have studied his work and so has my son, Matthew Holliday who lives in Norman, Oklahoma at the University of Oklahoma. A good friend of mine at MIT, Juda Cohen who has peer reviewed weather forecast has also been made aware of Ulric Lyons long-term forecast ability. I am in the process as we speak of doing a paper on his work. The bottom line is this. Whatever Mr. Lyons tells you, you can take it to the bank! Thank You For Your Time And Concern! Len R. Holliday(Retired Stockbroker and Lead Forecaster for Firsthand Weather) Mr. Holliday holds an advanced degree in the field of Mathematics as well as Meteorology.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 16, 2013 at 1:41 pm
I have more than enough hindcasts to demonstrate my findings, I don’t need to discuss forecasts to publish my work.
Hindcasts are merely curve fitting [unless you have a physical explanation and numerical model], so [as in all science] the validation lies in prediction and forecasts.
Ulric Lyons:
I know you won’t believe me, but I tell you that I am writing this post in a sincere attempt to help you.
In your post at September 16, 2013 at 1:41 pm you say
You certainly could publish that somewhere; e.g. on the web or in a local newspaper.
But if you want to publish a report of a forecasting method in a peer reviewed journal then you will be required to include an analysis of the forecasting skill possessed by the method.
Richard
Leif Svalgaard says:
“If he doesn’t have the table and the explanation I requested..”
But you already declared that; “Showing ‘some examples’ doesn’t cut it.”, so for all I know if I get as far as presenting you a proper assessment of say the last years worth of forecasts, you may turn around and say; “Showing ‘some examples’ doesn’t cut it.”, show us your secret sauce before we are convinced that it’s not just luck. You have such a prejudice against the whole thing that I don’t trust you an inch. And with the way you twisted what I had said, and made out that I had forecast extreme temperatures for EVERY WEEK, is inexcusable, as it caused Willis to accuse me of the same, which makes you a false witness, I don’t deal with people like that.
richardscourtney says:
“I know you won’t believe me..”
Correct, so I don’t why you even bothered.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 16, 2013 at 2:23 pm
richardscourtney says:
“I know you won’t believe me..”
Correct, so I don’t know why you even bothered.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 16, 2013 at 2:00 pm
But you already declared that; “Showing ‘some examples’ doesn’t cut it.”, so for all I know if I get as far as presenting you a proper assessment of say the last years worth of forecasts, you may turn around and say; “Showing ‘some examples’ doesn’t cut it.”,
If you make a forecast every week [do you?] then rate that forecast numerically [describe how rating is done]. That gives you 52 rating numbers per year. If you have been doing this for five years, you should have a list of 260 ratings. That would be the first step. Then you have to weed out the forecasts that are just climatology. For example, if I forecast that it would not rain in California where I live during the week of 15-21 July, 2013, that does not count as a successful forecast, because it never rains during 15-21 July. There are standard ways of doing the weeding.
Leif would you say that solar max is now over since both poles have now reversed polarity? It certainly seems as if it could very well be over as the xray flux has been on the floor for the past week. If not how much longer would you predict it will continue? If we are not on the downhill slope would you say we are tracking along with more of a resemblance to SC 5 or 14? What are your thoughts on the coming minimum of this cycle in terms of length?
Ulric Lyons:
In response to my providing you with helpful information, you have replied September 16, 2013 at 2:24 pm saying in total
Well, I can remove that very small part of your very great ignorance.
It was possible that what I thought I knew may have been wrong. This, too, I suspect you will not believe because the possibility of being wrong is an alien thought to you.
And if I were wrong then the information would have been helpful to you. I suspect you will also be unable to understand that as a reason for me offering the information because in this thread you have demonstrated you take great trouble to avoid being helpful.
Richard
project722 says:
September 16, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Leif would you say that solar max is now over since both poles have now reversed polarity?
Solar max for a low cycle is a drawn-out affair. See for example http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html When was maximum? and when was it over?
It certainly seems as if it could very well be over as the xray flux has been on the floor for the past week.
The sunspot number has also been small, but both of these indicators hide the fact that the Sun also has a backside, and the backside is rather active right now: http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/beacon/beacon_farside.shtml
If not how much longer would you predict it will continue?
At least two more years.
If we are not on the downhill slope would you say we are tracking along with more of a resemblance to SC 5 or 14?
SC14, obviously, if not for any other reason than our knowledge of SC5 is poor, so a comparison is difficult.
What are your thoughts on the coming minimum of this cycle in terms of length?
Small cycles last longer than strong cycles, so I would guess solar min in 2020-2021.
Thanks Leif, I appreciate the quick reply!
richardscourtney says:
“Well, I can remove that very small part of your very great ignorance..”
That’s not how people who actually know me see me:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1418673
Ulric Lyons:
re your post at September 16, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Yeeah, whatever.
Richard
Subject: stratospheric warming and solar activity
This graph shows observed temperatures in the 70 millibar region of the stratosphere from the latitudes of 65N to 90N. The red line illustrates the actual observed temperatures, while the green line shows average temperatures for that time of year. The light gray lines depict the minimum and maximum temperatures observed to this date for any certain time of year. Looking at this past summer, where the red line begins to arch up, we see the observed temperatures were consistently above the green line, meaning the stratosphere has been above normal for a while. It then tapered off for a little while, but as the zoomed-in portion on the bottom right shows, stratospheric temperatures have been on the rise for a bit, to the point where they are above normal.
The temperatures have been above normal for good chunks of the last few months, but the question now is: What is causing these above normal stratospheric temperatures?
An examination around the solar activity reveals daily sunspot trends may be at fault. This chart shows many things at once, but we want to focus on the red line, which shows daily sunspot values. Take a look at the red line after the big spike in the middle of the chart. After that spike, sunspot values take a dive, and stay in slightly below normal territory for a while.
To get full details google the weather centre and read story on web-site that came out today.
This is just another verification of the may secondary effects which will manifest itself in earth’s climatic sytem Willis and Leif ,and all the other non believers as the prolonged solar minimum continues.
Leif you are a speculator and an assumption man when it comes to variablity of the sun going forward and the climatic impacts it may or may not have. You have no detailed data on what the sun actually did during a prolonged solar minimum period and what impacts it might have had on the climate of the earth.
.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 16, 2013 at 3:29 pm
You have no detailed data on what the sun actually did during a prolonged solar minimum period and what impacts it might have had on the climate of the earth.
Neither do you, or anybody else for that matter.
I put myself out on the line right or wrong ,with my solar average parameters going forward, and my temperature estimate of -.8c by 2020 due to those average solar parameters taking place between 2015-2020
I am also speculating that the sun will be that quiet and that yes the climatic impacts will happen.
The difference is I have used past history to support this theme and have studied the latest solar/climatic relationships and interpret it differently then what Leif does ,if indeed he has done the same.
My point is we do not know who may or may not be correct here. So to say something just is not so, or for that matter is so without the data and observation is just premature.
But I think to suggest coincidence if it should go the way I say given the detailed approached I have taken is not a fair assessment of what I had to say ,especially if on the other hand if it were to go against what I said,and those of you that did not agree with me in that case, would say see we told you, you were dead wrong..
In other words I would loose no matter what outcome and that is not fair or the correct stance to take in my opinion and that does bother me some.
Secondary effects with my avg. low solar parameters are as follows:
Weak solar irradiance equates to less visible light lower ocean heat content.
Low solar wind will equate to a high cosmic ray count which will equate to more clouds,and more high latitude volcanic activity, a more meridional atmospheric circulation.
Low EUV light will equate to less UV light less ozone and or distribution, hence a more meridional atmospheric circulation . This would lead to more clouds,snow cover and precipitation.May slow down the thermohaline circulation. This applies mainly to N.H. where the biggest temp. declines will occur if I am correct.
Low ap index with occasional spikes will promote an increase in volcanic activity which will put more so2 into the stratosphere the result being it will aid in creating a more meridional atmospheric circulation and cause overall surface global cooling.
Increase in earth quakes due to prolonged solar activity will effect the spin of the earth which will favor a cold pdo, due to perturbation of the waters in the ocean basin. A cold PDO will promote more La Ninas, less El Ninos. This one I admit is highly speculative, and by far the most speculative out of all the others I have mentioned.
This is what is being speculated and or what I speculate might happen. Time will tell.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 16, 2013 at 5:25 am
Since you have refused to reveal your forecasts to the world, you are not a scientist, and we cannot possibly assess the value of your forecasts.
As to your claim that I “refused [your] offer for [me] to examine the complete forecast method”, I did nothing of the sort. You invited me to come by your place. I declined. What does that have to do with your lack of transparency and openness, the willingness to reveal every scrap of data and information and method that is the hallmark of a scientist?
Let me say it again, you don’t seem to be getting it. UNTIL YOU REVEAL YOUR FORECASTS IN DETAIL TO THE WORLD, WE CANNOT TELL IF YOU ARE A GENIUS OR A FOOL. However, there is one thing we can tell—since you’ve consistently refused to reveal them, we can certainly tell that you are not a scientist.
Your refusal to publish them in detail clearly marks you as a charlatan … which I have known for a while from observing your outlandishly vague claims coupled with your unwillingness to be transparent about your forecasts, and which is why I had no interest in visiting you.
I have no desire to deal with a charlatan, Ulric. Oh, I don’t mean that you are consciously trying to fool folks, Ulric. It’s clear that you truly believe your brand of BS … but because you won’t reveal your forecasts, color me totally uninterested.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 16, 2013 at 5:25 am
Say what? Whether you reveal your forecasts openly, clearly, and totally to the public so others can judge your work determines whether you are a scientist or a charlatan.
And that has nothing to do with my qualifications in the slightest, that’s entirely up to you.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 16, 2013 at 6:34 am
Bullshit. I’ve never said that about Piers. Far from it. I’ve stated right out front that Piers has every right to conceal his methods, he’s a businessman. Here’s my quote from 2012, showing that once again you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about (emphasis mine):
So once again, Ulric, your claim is 180° in opposition to the facts.
I’ve said the same thing to Piers as I’ve said to you—reveal all of your forecasts and we’ll see whether you’re a genius or a fool. Note that just as with Piers, I have not asked you to reveal how you do what you do. You could do it by examining your underpants for all I care.
What Leif and Richard and I have asked for is a complete record of your predictions so we can assess your success. It has nothing to do with your method, that’s just more of your attempts at misdirection.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 16, 2013 at 6:34 am
I’m interested not only in that forecast, but all of your forecasts, Ulric, as are Leif and Richard. Why do you think we keep asking for them? Because we’re interested in them, as any scientist would be.
So are you ever going to reveal all your forecasts? Or are you just going to continue whining and producing excuses?
w.
HenryP says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:16 am
Henry, you sound like one of those new age touchy-feely kind of folks who think everyone is worthy of respect.
Me, I’m not that politically correct. You want my respect for your science, you have to earn it by your actions, which in this case means making forecasts which are falsifiable. That means forecasts where we can tell, unequivocally and without dispute, whether your forecast is right or wrong. To date, I’ve seen nothing of the sort from you … so you are right, Henry—I have no respect for your scientific abilities at all.
Now you can change that … and I encourage you to do so.
w.
HenryP says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:20 am
This is a perfect example of what I discussed above, a forecast which is not falsifiable because there is an overwhelming lack of specificity. First, you don’t say what the “[40] latitudes” are. 40°-50° South? 40°-50° North? Both?
Next, you don’t say what would qualify as “some more rainfall”. One drop?
Next, you don’t define “flash flooding”, a very imprecise term for which there is no agreed upon definition.
Next, you don’t define what is a “cooling period”, a “warming period”, or (presumably) a “neutral period”. Cooling where? Globally? At 40°-50° North? Nor have you defined how much it would have to cool to qualify, or how long the cooling would have to last, or whether you are discussing minimum temperatures, average temperatures, or maximum temperatures …
Finally, although the band from 40° to 50° is huge, you look at one location and declare success, viz:
… yeah, that’s the ticket … compare ten years to sixty years, without any definition of what’s happening (cooling? warming? neutral? different at different times?), and then proclaim how good your method is
Do you see why I don’t respect someone who thinks that this vague piffle actually means something? That’s not a forecast, that’s a joke.
w.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 16, 2013 at 3:44 pm
My point is we do not know who may or may not be correct here
My point is that I base what I say on how the Sun has been observed to behave in the past. You base it on how you wish it to behave in the future.
HenryP says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:24 am
Just as bad, same objections apply, see above.
w.
Henry Galt says:
September 16, 2013 at 10:34 am
Come back when Ulric actually posts his forecasts, and we can talk. Until then, you’re defending a man who refuses to follow the basic rules of science by revealing his forecasts, all of them, in detail. His not doing that marks him as a charlatan. You defending his concealing of his forecasts marks you either as someone who doesn’t understand that science requires transparency, or as much of a charlatan as Ulric.
I don’t care in the slightest if Ulric has spent ten thousand hours explaining his system to you in detail and has revealed to you his every forecast. That’s meaningless.
The scientific method doesn’t say “Ulric has to reveal his forecasts to Henry”. It says Ulric has to reveal them to the world to be considered a scientist. He hasn’t done so. You do the math.
w.
HenryP says:
September 16, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Oh, please, please, yes, do that. Please go bother someone else.
Don’t go away mad.
Don’t go away mad.
Just go away … and take Henry Galt with you, there’s a good chap.
w.
Len Holliday says:
September 16, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Whoopee. Why should anyone place any weight on your opinion? Here’s a quarter, call someone who cares.
The motto of the Royal Society is “Nullius in verba”, meaning don’t take anyone’s word for anything. Including the word of Len Holliday, self-appointed expert.
Until Ulric posts his forecasts, all of them, he’s not ever going to get any traction here, nor should he. Real scientists reveal all of their forecasts, Len, every one of them including the ones that failed, so we can JUDGE FOR OURSELVES. Your pathetic attempt to substitute your judgement for ours marks you as someone who hasn’t a clue about the scientific method.
w.
Look, I have nothing to gain by getting into this mess of words. All I can tell you is simple, I have some of the man’s forecast and they have been very accurate. It is a free world. You can believe or not believe. I could care less, one way or the other. And I am not an self-appointed expert. I am what I am. My word is my word. Take it or leave it. You don’t even know me and I don’t know you. I really don’t care to know you. I choose to spend my time with the real experts, people like Joe Bastardi. Joe Bastardi I do know and if I was a betting man, I would have to say that Joe Bastardi has already forgot more than you will ever know about the subject at hand. And with regard to my knowing about scientific method, I do not have to prove anything about myself to anyone except to GOD himself at Judgement Day! And by the way, you will do likewise! Have a Great Day! Len Holliday
Len Holliday says:
September 16, 2013 at 6:41 pm
I have some of the man’s forecast and they have been very accurate.
Undoubtedly you have some of the good ones. How many of the bad ones do you have?
Mr. Svalgaard, I’ll ask you the same question. How many of the bad ones do you have? Please send them to lenholliday@yahoo.com. If I am wrong, I’ll come on here and tell you I was wrong and that I am sorry! I’ll be looking for them! Thanks! Len Holliday
Len Holliday says:
September 16, 2013 at 7:16 pm
I’ll ask you the same question.
Since Ulric has not produced a list or table with all his prediction, nobody here seem to have any. But you can show your scientific bent by posting your list here.
The latest New Scientist (14t September) has an article in which Lief features prominently. It is on the problem of how to count sun spots – the particular problem being that different standards have been used by different people over the centuries – and how a project is underway to re-analyse all the records going back over those centuries to use consistent definitions and get a more reliable index. Lief has mentioned bits of this in his comments, but it is interesting to see a more detailed version in print.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:52 pm
The latest New Scientist (14t September) has an article in which Leif features prominently. It is on the problem of how to count sun spots
http://www.leif.org/research/NS-Sept-2013-Sunspots.pdf
Len Holliday says:
September 16, 2013 at 6:41 pm
Len, you seem to be operating under a massive misconception about how science works. You see, science is not about belief. It is about facts. As such, whether you believe in Ulric is immaterial. Whether I believe in Ulric is immaterial.
The sole issue of importance is whether his forecasts are accurate. To determine that, we need to examine all of his forecasts, good and bad, and assess their skill.
Unfortunately, Ulric refuses to reveal them. So it’s all just anecdote, and his claims, and your claims, are worthless.
You also say:
What part of “Ulric refuses to reveal his forecasts” seems unclear to you? We have almost none of his forecasts, good or bad. We just have his big mouth (and now yours) telling us how wonderful his forecasts are … oh, his son-in-law also thinks that Ulric is wonderful.
But without the actual forecasts, all of them, good and bad, there’s nothing there but a lot of empty claims.
w.
Normals.
project722 says:
September 16, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Leif would you say that solar max is now over since both poles have now reversed polarity?
See http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html.
– Reversal of northern polar field (filtered): June 2012
– Reversal of average filtered polar field: April 2013
– Reversal of southern polar field (filtered): did not yet happen. “… the southern polar field as of July 2013 still remains weakly positive.” I just saw that the latest value is still + 2 (Sf).
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Since you have refused to reveal your forecasts to the world, you are not a scientist,”
You do not represent the World Willis.
“However, there is one thing we can tell—since you’ve consistently refused to reveal them, we can certainly tell that you are not a scientist.”
I have now refused to respond to your requests for very good reasons, I don’t care what you think anymore Willis.
“Whether you reveal your forecasts openly, clearly, and totally to the public so others can judge your work determines whether you are a scientist or a charlatan.”
There have been two most excellent weather forecasters come on here and say how good my forecasts are.
“Bullshit. I’ve never said that about Piers. Far from it.”
That was Leif
“So are you ever going to reveal all your forecasts? Or are you just going to continue whining and producing excuses?”
Not to you, you have not apologized for your rude insults, and you have not rescinded from your prejudiced agenda.
“Len, you seem to be operating under a massive misconception about how science works.”
This is apparently how you think science works:
“Gary, if we don’t puncture his balloon, there’s heaps of folks out there who will believe his bullshit. I’m not willing to let WUWT be a site where he can spread his nonsense unopposed. If that takes a while, so be it. I’m on holiday, what do I care?”
You are still in Coventry.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Your refusal to publish them in detail clearly marks you as a charlatan … which I have known for a while from observing your outlandishly vague claims coupled with your unwillingness to be transparent about your forecasts, and which is why I had no interest in visiting you.”
If you had visited you would have had your prejudice contradicted by what I would have shown you in forecasts, and in hindcasts.
You seem to be behaving as if your failed attempts to find any planetary-solar-weather connections, means that you can declare that there are none. If that is true, that would make you the charlatan, scientifically. Or maybe you don’t want anyone showing you up by finding all that you couldn’t find, so you are determined to keep the subject off the pitch. No doubt from your frequent rants you have acquired a strong prejudice publicly against all discussion of the subject. What makes you think that you have the right to set yourself up as such an arbiter? It’s not as if you are an expert on the subject.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 1:38 am you say to Willis in response to his clear and irrefutable complaints at your refusal to reveal your forecasting record of success and failure
Yes, earlier you also ran away from me like that when I demanded clear demonstration of your claimed forecasting skill.
Do you remember (up thread at September 14, 2013 at 7:29 am) your saying to me
and my replying at September 14, 2013 at 7:43 am
Days have passed, thousands of words have been written, and you are still making excuses for your unwillingness to demonstrate that you can do what you claim you can do.
You see, Uliric, your claim that Willis “is not the world” is merely another of your excuses. By refusing to “demonstrate that you can do what you claim you can do” to him then you are refusing to demonstrate it to all the world. As a scientist you don’t get to choose which PARTS of the world can have your demonstration: you reveal it to the world or you don’t get scientific recognition for your work.
Scientists who work in industrial, commercial or military research accept as part of their employment that they will not get scientific recognition for their work. When they take the job they agree that their work belongs to their employer and not to the world. But you are claiming you want scientific recognition for your work from people who are not employing you to provide that work. If you want that recognition then you must reveal the success and failure of your work to the world or
YOUR CLAIM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
” By refusing to “demonstrate that you can do what you claim you can do” to him then you are refusing to demonstrate it to all the world.”
Huff puffery, I released public forecasts for all of last winter, and for Jan+Feb for this winter.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 3:31 am you say
There is no “Huff puffery” from me, but there is more evasiveness from you.
Anybody can make a forecast but of interest is whether those forecasts show any skill, and you adamantly refuse to provide data which demonstrates you have any forecast skill.
I will demonstrate.
I now provide my prediction for each day of the weather in London, England, over the next 12 months.
My prediction is that the weather on each day will be similar to the weather on the previous day.
I offer you a bet of £100 payable on 17 September 2014. If by that date my forecasts have been wrong on more than 183 days then I will pay you, otherwise you will pay £100 to a charity of my choice.
Will you take that bet?
You would be a fool to take it because I am certain to win, but I have no weather forecasting skill.
There are two reasons why my forecast is certain to win.
Firstly, I have not now defined “similar” and will choose my definition on 17 September 2014. Secondly, I would still be almost certain to win if we now agree a definition of “similar” because weather has persistence so most days ARE similar to the previous days.
See, I have now made a set of forecasts for a year (i.e. 365 forecasts). And I am willing to bet on the set. But I have no weather forecasting skill and I do not claim to have any.
Richard
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Hindcasts are merely curve fitting..”
Not in this case, the correlations are so numerous and of such short and well defined time scales that a real connection can be safely assumed.
rikgheysens says:
September 17, 2013 at 1:09 am
Reversal of southern polar field (filtered): did not yet happen. “… the southern polar field as of July 2013 still remains weakly positive.” I just saw that the latest value is still + 2 (Sf).
The filtered values are somewhat artificial and smears out the timing.
Actual data is: http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html#latest
2013:08:25_21h:07m:13s 11N -13S 12Avg 20nhz filt: 13Nf 2Sf 6Avgf
The South pole [which is at this time a bit over the limb and not visible] looks reversed to me. When talking about ‘the polar fields’ we usually include all fields down to 55 degrees latitude.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 5:07 am
“Hindcasts are merely curve fitting..”
Not in this case, the correlations are so numerous and of such short and well defined time scales that a real connection can be safely assumed.
If they are so short, there should be thousands of them. Please prepare a list.
henry@ulric lyons
…sir….sir… can you please tell me,
(i have been holding my hand up for quite a while now, in this classroom,
even sitting up and standing up every now and then)
I just wanted to know from you, Ulric, whether or not you agree with William Arnolds theories
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
and is there perhaps an update to his theories,
indeed is William Arnold still alive?
richardscourtney says:
“..you adamantly refuse to provide data..”
To Willis yes I refuse, as he admitted that he does not bother to read what I write, very rudely too, evidenced by the fact that he jumped on board with Leif’s false account of what I had said, and that was after I had corrected Leif. Add that to all the venomous bile coming out of his mouth at me and at those here supporting my work as they have actually seen the results, and the fact the he has a self declared agenda to burst my balloon because His almighty self has decided it’s all bullshit, presumably because he found nothing there Himself. These are not suitable environs and conditions for an unbiased scientific evaluation of an important discovery. A tragicomedy for sure though, as those familiar with my work, know that it is the key to forecasting weather and climate at extreme range with precision. Why on Earth would Willis want to arrest such progress? 😉
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 5:50 am
with Leif’s false account of what I had said
just quoting you:
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
I do deterministic forecasts for extreme temperatures at months and years in advance
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 5:50 am you start your latest excuse for refusing to justify your claims saying
And you refuse to provide it to me, to Leif, and – it seems – anybody else who asks.
If your success is so good then please explain why you adamantly refuse to provide data which shows its success rate?
Oh, and do you accept my bet?
Richard
Leif Svalgaard says:
“If they are so short, there should be thousands of them. Please prepare a list.”
Many thousands and quit telling what me to do. I’ve had enough of you jumping the gun with your assumptions of how the data needs to be presented. There is no way I am going to start addressing all the hindcasts here on this thread, and I have no intention of responding to any more of your requests here either, for the reasons given earlier.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 17, 2013 at 5:55 am
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 5:50 am
with Leif’s false account of what I had said
just quoting you:
Ulric Lyons says:
September 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
I do deterministic forecasts for extreme temperatures at months and years in advance
____________________________________________________________
There, not a word about forecasting for “EXTREME TEMPERATURES EVERY WEEK”, as I told you here earlier:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417265
You are wasting my time.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 6:01 am you say to Leif Svalgaard:
Well, I fully accept that because the only “reasons given earlier” by you is – freely translated – you are not able to provide data which substantiates any of your claims. But you are able – as in this case – to provide facile excuses for that inability.
Richard
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 6:01 am
Many thousands and quit telling what me to do…. There is no way I am going to start addressing all the hindcasts here on this thread
If you want to taken seriously, you need to do what I tell you. Please don’t post the many thousand cases on WUWT, but make them available on your website or one of the many free sites.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 6:05 am
There, not a word about forecasting for “EXTREME TEMPERATURES EVERY WEEK”, as I told you here earlier:
You mean you don’t make a forecast every week? Well, since you haven’t shown us any and no table, how is one to know? One can only go with what you claim.
richardscourtney says:
“And you refuse to provide it to me, to Leif, and – it seems – anybody else who asks.”
Ray Ennis gets all my forecasts because I can trust him, and he’s on the whole a better long range forecaster than Piers for general weather types and temperatures, which is very impressive as he uses no solar factors. If you were a keen weather forecaster I would gladly share them with you too 😉
“Oh, and do you accept my bet?”
Only if you accept mine, I bet that there will always be weather.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“You mean you don’t make a forecast every week?”
You made an assumption that I forecast for each week:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417051
I forecast for all days in every month. I forecast for periods of above normal temperature, and I forecast for periods below normals, and of course I forecast for when I think it will be around normal, which is not much of the time. I couple that with what I have observed with temperature-precipitation relationships through the year to then estimate precipitation levels. I like to be within 2 days for temperature deviations, and would call a fail if it is more than 3 days out.
The weekly scale assessment I gave earlier is just a convenient and quick way to give an approximate performance level.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 6:41 am
The weekly scale assessment I gave earlier is just a convenient and quick way to give an approximate performance level.
So it will easy to produce a list going back many years with a skill-score every week.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“So it will easy to produce a list going back many years with a skill-score every week.”
If you are a smart lad I could easily train you up to forecast as well as I can. But you again don’t seem to be following my drift, fine evaluation requires comparing forecast deviation from normal periods with those observed, the weekly division is arbitrary and would not give the most accurate performance evaluation. Anyways, in such hostile, prejudiced and diversionary company as this, I will not be discussing the matter further, unless there is assured decorum.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 7:18 am
fine evaluation requires comparing forecast deviation from normal periods with those observed
One would assume that you do this as a matter of course to turn your method into science, but perhaps one is wrong about that.
Anyways, in such hostile, prejudiced and diversionary company as this, I will not be discussing the matter further, unless there is assured decorum.
We have given you a lot of attention [more than you deserve IMHO], but you have not put that to good use. If you would promise to go away [for good] that would also help to keep the pollution of WUWT down.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“If you would promise to go away [for good] that would also help to keep the pollution of WUWT down.”
I’ll promise to watch you every step, and Willis too, and point merrily out at every available opportunity, where each of your individual slanders and insults are pure projections.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 7:36 am
where each of your individual slanders and insults are pure projections.
so you are giving science short shrift and will concentrate on personal stuff. Perhaps that is what you do better.
“keep the pollution of WUWT down” ??
Tell Willis to leave then, he’s the rudest.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“so you are giving science short shrift and will concentrate on personal stuff. Perhaps that is what you do better.”
I am progressing science, you are the grand master of “personal stuff”, you readily and frequently insult certain folk on this blog, it’s full of it. Projection Number 1 on your new list Leif.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 7:44 am you assert
No! Absolutely not!
Your extreme rudeness in polluting WUWT with your unsubstantiated and pseudoscientific astrological claims is inexcusable. Willis’ responses to it are appropriate and proper.
Richard
@Leif
Yes I am concentrating on your personal stuff as I abhor it. Clean you act up and then we can discuss the science. End of.
richardscourtney says:
” Willis’ responses to it are appropriate and proper.”
E.g.;
“Gary, if we don’t puncture his balloon, there’s heaps of folks out there who will believe his bullshit. I’m not willing to let WUWT be a site where he can spread his nonsense unopposed. If that takes a while, so be it. I’m on holiday, what do I care?”
Are you a fascist Richard?
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 8:00 am you quote a good example of Willis making a clear and rational argument concerning why he is exposing your refusal to provide evidence to support your pseudoscientific claims.
You then ask me
No, I am at the other end of the political spectrum. I am a socialist of the old-fashioned British kind. And I don’t see what my politics have to do with anything under discussion.
On the other hand, I think it is very relevant that in this thread you have demonstrated you are a charlatan who is attempting to peddle unsubstantiated and pseudoscientific astrological claims.
Richard
well, this is festive season here.
I agree with Ulric that the rudeness by certain people here is intolerable
I am reminded of what I wrote a long time ago:
BASIC RULES FOR A HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP
You and me have a relationship that is very important to me! Yet we are also different persons with differing needs, interests and values. Let us always be open and honest with our communication so that we may know and understand each other’s values and needs. If you do something that prevents me from getting what I need or clashes with what I value dearly, I will always tell this you openly, not blaming you, but offering you the opportunity to change your behavior out of respect for me. Equally, I ask you to do exactly the same if you find my behavior unacceptable and to forgive me if I wittingly or unwittingly hurt you.
In any relationship, conflicts are unavoidable; it is how you handle them that will make or break a relationship. Let us therefore agree that we will always solve our conflicts without using my or your power to win at the expense of the other. Particularly money (presents), sex or the threat of the ending of this relationship, should never be used to try to gain influence. We must always look for a solution to our conflict that will satisfy both your and my needs. Nobody loses, we both win.
When you experience problems in life, I will always listen to you with empathy and understanding and I will try and help you find your own solutions – not forcing my solutions upon you. Please listen to me when I am looking for a solution to my problems.
In this way we will both develop and grow and we will continue to be together because of our interest in each other. The most important thing to remember is that we nurture our love and respect for each other only by expressing it to each other every day when we meet.
Henry
richardscourtney says:
“..a good example of Willis making a clear and rational argument..”
Like;
“if we don’t puncture his balloon, there’s heaps of folks out there who will believe his bullshit.”?
You are the one who is attempting to peddle unsubstantiated claims, it’s not clear or rational, neither are you, goodbye please.
Ulric Lyons:
re your silly post at September 17, 2013 at 8:40 am
I am making no claims. But you are making unsubstantiated pseudoscieentific claims and you refuse to provide any evidence to back them up.
As for your saying to me
No chance! I don’t run away like you.
I am staying to keep holding your feet to the fire until you provide data which demonstrates the success and failure rates of your claimed forecast method.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
“I am staying to keep holding your feet to the fire until you provide data…”
Fascist.
HenryP:
re your post at September 17, 2013 at 8:31 am
The “certain people” providing “rudeness” here are you and Ulric. It is very rude to enter somewhere and to pollute the floor with excrement as you are doing.
Richard
@richardscourtney
Why not do the whole witch hunt thing and submerse me, I was born in the Caul so I shouldn’t drown, so I guess you’ll end up burning me anyway.
@Ulric
please do provide an answer to me on my post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1419251
to confirm the results of my final report
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
…/
thanks
HenryP says:
September 17, 2013 at 8:31 am
Well, I’m reminded of something I’m writing just now.
I’ve never met you, you seem totally lacking in understanding of the scientific method, and our relationship is of absolutely no importance to me!
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 8:00 am
Ulric, you seem to think that falsifying your preposterous claims (aka “puncturing your balloon”) is some terrible thing. In fact, that’s how science works. One man makes a claim and provides all his data, logic, code, math, and forecasts to back it up.
Then other scientists try to tear his ideas to shreds, to falsify his claims, to poke holes in his logic, in other words, to puncture his balloon. That process of falsification is the way, and the only way, that science advances.
However, that can only happen with an honest scientist who is willing to expose his ideas to the world. Phil Jones famously said he wouldn’t give his data to Warwick Hughes because Warwick would try to find fault with it … duh, Phil, it’s called the “scientific method”.
Me, I advise giving your data and claims and etc to your worst enemy … because if they can’t puncture your balloon, you’re home free. That’s why I publish all of my data and code and logic and ideas on the web. There’s lots of folks out there like you who can’t stand me … so when you can’t find holes in my work, I know it’s been seriously vetted.
You, on the other hand, hide in the darkness. You are continually finding every possible excuse to keep people from ever seeing your forecasts. At the moment you’re all on about Waaa, boo hoo, Willis is being mean and krool, so I’m not showing my data.
And you stupidly only give your forecasts to your friends, when your best course is to give them to people who dislike you.
Here’s the crazy part. You could easily have the last laugh on all of us if your forecasts actually worked—just publish them and the world will be in awe of your abilities.
Or not, we may find that they are so vague as to be useless, or just plain wrong … which of course is why you are concealing them from the world.
Your continuing insistence on hiding your data marks you as a charlatan.
Your attempt to justify hiding your data, on the pathetic grounds that I’m a beast, a heartless unkind beast who has been mean and unkind and impolite to your highness, marks you as a charlatan of the lowest order.
And as a pathetic excuse for a man, but that’s another question.
w.
Ulric Lyons:
I am providing the only appropriate response to your post at September 17, 2013 at 8:47 am.
Oooh, Diddums, who has dropped his rattle, then? Give me a moment so I can find it and put it back in your cot.
Richard
Willis says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1419429
Henry says
…actually …..
you just proved my point
(by not subscribing to the set principles)
So, home alone,
are you?
It was not that difficult to figure that one out
(no science needed)
don’t forget
science and religion are just two different ways of finding truth
Jesus said: I am the Truth
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
Study Jesus and you will find the truth
Joe Bastardi@BigJoeBastardi3h
Scientists Predict Big Solar Cycle – NASA Science http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/ …
from Dec 2006 on sunspot cycle now
These are the kind of predictions that tel me they don’t know what they are talking about, in contrat to the scientist that subscribe to anular momentum theory, who al predicted solar cycle 24 would be weak.
Mainstream solar forecast are as good as AGW theory temperature forecast. They are both CLUELESS.
I may not agree with Willis and Leif, but I respect each of them and learn from each of them ,and do value their opinions.
At the same time I have been tough with Leif, but so has he with me, but I think for the most part we keep it civil.
I think the exchange on balance has been educational at least from by view point.
As I have said I rather be wrong then not know.
HenryP says:
September 17, 2013 at 9:49 am
Say what? Home alone? I’m in a friend’s house in England, and there are about fifteen people in the house at the moment.
Well, I did as you suggested. Here’s what I found:
Consider this a streetcorner, put down your trumpet, and please take your religion elsewhere. While it is clearly important to you, this is not the place for it.
w.
Salvatore, a true scientist should not have any emotional stake in being right or wrong. The hypothesis is either rejected or kept. So to rephrase your comment, “I would rather my hypothesis be wrong than not know” might demonstrate what I am commenting on here. I know those are not your words but said thusly you can see where your bias may be playing with your ability to see your work unemotionally, no bets on either side of the hypothesis, which is a must. A scientist states an hypothesis and then creates a controlled experiment to test whether or not the data supports or rejects the hypothesis. You seem to have placed yourself into your experiment. You should not be there. At its worst, emotional belief in the desired outcome leads to fudging the data, laundering it, and putting it through a spin cycle. At best it prevents the researcher from carrying out his/her all important due diligence to falsify his/her own hypothesis.
I would rather not know, than want to be either right or wrong. Else I violate one of the basic tenants of good research.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Ulric, you seem to think that falsifying your preposterous claims (aka “puncturing your balloon”) is some terrible thing.”
Come off it, you declared that is was bullshit and nonsense on face value. You are just attempting to wriggle out of your hasty prejudgement.
“And you stupidly only give your forecasts to your friends”
I wisely give them to weather forecasters, they are my peers.
“You could easily have the last laugh on all of us if your forecasts actually worked—just publish them and the world will be in awe of your abilities.”
My winter 2013-14 forecast is public, as was last winters forecast, and it has gathered a fair amount of attention.
“Your attempt to justify hiding your data, on the pathetic grounds that I’m a beast, a heartless unkind beast who has been mean and unkind and impolite to your highness, marks you as a charlatan of the lowest order.”
You are the charlatan due to your prejudice, don’t bore me with your excuses any more.
“And as a pathetic excuse for a man, but that’s another question.”
Climbing on mirrors again.
Willis says
our relationship is of absolutely no importance to me
Henry says
Even among “friends”, you have no relationship with anyone.
You are pathetic.
.Normals.
I will just get this in, for posterity and … the children.
It’s quite funny seeing the demands for a quick fix/inquisition. But then, I have been on tenterhooks for many years and had to hang fire.
This discovery will lead to many new things. Chillax guys.
At one end;
A new celestial mechanics is being uncovered. Prizes await, in more than one field for those who figure out the why(s) from Ulric’s what(s).
At the other;
With a little effort anyone will be able to forecast temperatures for their family, county, state, country and, the world.
Who knows what between?
Scoff away. Time will tell. Mark my words.
Numen in Coventry says to Len:
“Your pathetic attempt to substitute your judgement for ours marks you as someone who hasn’t a clue about the scientific method.”
Mr. Holliday holds an advanced degree in the field of Mathematics as well as Meteorology. Of course remain sceptical until you have seen for yourself, but do not insult a superior who has given his professional opinion, it is far more than pathetic.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 7:56 am
then we can discuss the science.
As far as I can tell, you have no science to discuss. But produce your science and we shall see.
PAM, I am going to stick with what I said , no changes, no spin. Let the chips fall where they fall. Again my theory is very easy to falsify.
I would be interested on your take. I think you think earthly random events terrestrial in origin phase randomly into different patterns which gives a different climate. To summarize it very briefly.
Maybe ?
If that is not correct say so , and tell me where it is wrong.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 17, 2013 at 10:02 am
Mainstream solar forecast are as good as AGW theory temperature forecast. They are both CLUELESS.
I am mainstream solar science and my forecast is good because I have good clues.
You were good on your prediction. Many were not. Why is that?
What were they missing?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 17, 2013 at 4:12 pm
You were good on your prediction. Many were not. Why is that?
What were they missing?
My prediction was based on good physics. Many were based on extrapolations, curve fitting, and statistics, which, as we know, are not guaranteed to work.
thanks
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 11:12 am
It seems you do not understand this strange “scientific method” thingie, where a scientist shows the world his work, and people try to find fault with it.
I declared your work bullshit and nonsense because you refused to show it to the world. Scientists show their work to everyone. Bullshit artists don’t.
It is clear which category you fall in. And no, I’m not trying to “wriggle out” of anything—I said your claims were bullshit then, I say they are bullshit now, and I will continue to say that until you produce your forecasts to prove me wrong … which you seem curiously reluctant to do.
Why are you so reluctant to prove me wrong, Ulric? You could give me and Richard and Leif a big thumb in the eye by publishing your forecasts and proving us all to be fools … and yet you don’t.
Gosh … I wonder why that might be …
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 2:37 pm
It doesn’t matter if Mr. Holliday is God himself and sees every sparrow fall. Science progresses by exposing your ideas, claims and forecasts to your enemies for falsification …
Science is not even in the picture when you only expose your ideas to your friends for falsification, no matter if they have more degrees than a thermometer.
I can just see Einstein saying “I have this brilliant idea, but I’m damn sure not going to tell anyone who disagrees with me, especially that fool Willis who was mean to me”.
Einstein, like all true scientists, exposed all of his ideas, root and branch, to everyone including people who truly believed he was an idiotic upstart fool. I strongly encourage you to do the same, otherwise people will continue to point and laugh …
w.
Henry Galt says:
September 17, 2013 at 11:57 am
If I understand you correctly, I’m sorry Ulric has kept you on “tenterhooks” for years and you’ve had to “hang fire” … sounds like Ulric is stringing you along too, and you haven’t called him on it. Your choice …
I note that you neither cite nor quote your imaginary “demands for a quick fix/inquisition”. That’s because there haven’t been any.
All we’ve asked is what is asked of every single scientist the world around—show us your ideas root and branch, with all the details, so we can see if they contain flaws.
That is not a demand for a “quick fix”, nor is it an “inquisition”. It is the burden placed on everyone who wants to be a scientist—transparency.
The fact that you interpret a call for transparency as a call for a “quick fix/inquisition” is quite revealing, however. It shows you don’t really understand the scientific method, which requires the same thing from me as it does from Ulric, the same thing my high school chemistry teacher drilled into me a half century ago. This is not some new idea, it’s not a call for an inquisition. It’s the same old requirement that each and every scientist must meet, or be considered a charlatan.
SHOW YOUR WORK
That’s all we’re asking Ulric to do. Show his work. He and you seem to consider this an outrage, an extreme requirement, something special we’re asking Ulric to do. It’s none of those, just the simple basic rule of science:
SHOW YOUR WORK
Why is that so hard for you guys to grasp?
w.
Willis, Leif, Richard et.al.: Though I am cringing as I read through your comments, I’m learning something about the strict integrity that is required to pass muster in the science world. If only you folks could have been among the peers that review papers that are used by the IPCC to endorse their charter… The outcome would have been a whole lot different.
“I declared your work bullshit and nonsense because you refused to show it to the world.”
You called it “Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.” at first, because you jumped on Leif’s bandwagon demanding numbers, which was before refusing anything. Talk about bullshit:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417132
And here you say: “Whether or not your methods are rational, your forecasts to date are junk. Useless. Meaningless.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416900
What was junk, useless, and meaningless, were your criticisms, as the forecast cold shot for 2016 will affect most regions in the temperate north hemisphere.
But you have an agenda to keep up, so you jumped on board with Richards bullying for specifics, which is well stupid as it’s a non-specific forecast, it’s for the whole northern hemisphere. But you didn’t stop to think did you.
“If I understand you correctly, I’m sorry Ulric has kept you on “tenterhooks” for years and you’ve had to “hang fire” … sounds like Ulric is stringing you along too, and you haven’t called him on it. Your choice …”
Can we have some canned laughter please….
“Why are you so reluctant to prove me wrong, Ulric? You could give me and Richard and Leif a big thumb in the eye by publishing your forecasts and proving us all to be fools … and yet you don’t.
Gosh … I wonder why that might be …”
Simply because you’ll all get much worse than a thumb in the eye when I publish the whole thing.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Simply because you’ll all get much worse than a thumb in the eye when I publish the whole thing.
You seem to be afflicted with the same syndrome as some other [well-known] commenters on WUWT who compare themselves to Einstein and Newton. Consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Leif Svalgaard says:
The filtered values are somewhat artificial and smears out the timing.
Actual data is: http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html#latest
2013:08:25_21h:07m:13s 11N -13S 12Avg 20nhz filt: 13Nf 2Sf 6Avgf
The South pole [which is at this time a bit over the limb and not visible] looks reversed to me. When talking about ‘the polar fields’ we usually include all fields down to 55 degrees latitude.
I am not convinced.
The Northern polar field changed from sign (– to +) on 2011:01:08, 2011:04:28, 2012:01:23, 2012:10:09, due to the yearly and inherent fluctuations.
The Southern polar field changed from sign (+ to -) on 2013:05:27. It is expected it will still change from sign several times in the future.
Why should it be not correct to attach some importance to the filtered values? Instead of choosing between the four dates of reversal of the Northern magnetic fields, http://www.solen.info/solar/ has chosen to place the reversal in June 2012, based on some calculation. I agree that all depends on the used methods of calculation but the filtered value has the advantage of presenting a single value instead of four or more values.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“You seem to be afflicted with the same syndrome as some other [well-known] commenters on WUWT who compare themselves to Einstein and Newton.”
Another dose of Leif’s pollution of this blog. You just cannot help from keeping the personal stuff out can you, how pathetic. You are right down at Willis’ level of mindless insult, but instead of plain rude, it’s creepy slimy pretending to be clever, yuck.
To attempt to correct misconceptions and comprehension problems by serial offenders –
I have followed this work for 5 years. I have had complete disclosure and been invited for input at every step along the way and have no qualms with my claims about its revolutionary qualities. I have been asking for it’s (premature) publication for 2+ years because it will save lives. It will save livelihoods. It will reinvigorate some fields and, possibly create new ones.
Not because ‘I have been strung along too’ and ‘I haven’t called him on it’ or ‘I don’t really understand the scientific method’. Constant, unsubstantiated claims by gatekeepers who are not privvy to the facts do not alter anything. You had your chances. You blew them.
The work will be shown. Just not to a braying pack, barking up the wrong kettle of red herrings before it is published.
Why is that so hard for you guys to grasp?
Ulric Lyons:
At September 17, 2013 at 5:26 pm you write
My “bullying”!? Are you mad?
You made a meaningless statement which you claimed was a “forecast”, and I demanded that you specify what the statement is intended to mean. And you call that “bullying”! Clearly, you are delusional.
What on Earth do you mean by “a non-specific forecast”?
If it is not “specific” it is not a forecast. To be a forecast it needs to specify (i.e. be specific about) what it is predicting. And the fact that it is “for the whole northern hemisphere” either makes it
(a) very specific because it applies to every place in the northern hemisphere (NH)
or
(b) completely meaningless because it is almost certain that somewhere in the NH will fulfill the forecast.
You said it was NOT (a) so your so-called forecast was – and is – completely meaningless.
You got upset because people DID “think” about that and could see you were spouting bollocks.
Richard
richardscourtney says:.
“You got upset because people DID “think” about that and could see you were spouting bollocks.”
That’s you doing the spouting. I forecast a deep low AO for March 2013, I put that out as a non-specific forecast for the N.H., and it came to pass, many regions had very cold conditions. I did a specific forecast based on that for the UK, and it was sound. For my 2016 forecast, I started the process of using analogues to investigate where this could impact most:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416861
If you want a specific local forecast for that, you can pay me for it like anyone else would have to, until then, there is no reason for me to talk to you about anything under the Sun.
Ulric Lyons:
In attempt to excuse your inexcusable behaviour, at September 18, 2013 at 3:52 am you make yet another falsehood.
You say
Oh, no. You claimed much more than that in another thread. You claimed at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-5-no-ice-free-arctic-this-year-it-appears-that-arctic-sea-ice-has-turned-the-corner/#comment-1419649
When called on that you tried to bluster it out and failed. My response to your untrue bluster is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-5-no-ice-free-arctic-this-year-it-appears-that-arctic-sea-ice-has-turned-the-corner/#comment-1420122
Ulric, stop making stuff up or choose to leave WUWT alone.
Richard
Ulric Lyons:
I have answered your change of subject in my post at September 18, 2013 at 4:20 am.
Perhaps you will now return to my previous post at September 18, 2013 at 2:21 am which your change of subject attempted to evade.
Richard
rikgheysens says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:07 am
I am not convinced.
You don’t have to be convinced. Often people believe what they wish to believe.
the filtered value has the advantage of presenting a single value
A more physical and perhaps less dubious value is the ‘dipole moment’, i.e. the difference between the North and South polar fields. It is also just a single value and the annual variation is automatically removed: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
Ulric Lyons says:
September 17, 2013 at 6:10 pm
““Why are you so reluctant to prove me wrong, Ulric? You could give me and Richard and Leif a big thumb in the eye by publishing your forecasts and proving us all to be fools … and yet you don’t.
Gosh … I wonder why that might be …”
Simply because you’ll all get much worse than a thumb in the eye when I publish the whole thing.”
—————————————————————————————————————-
Then simply do it and be done with it, many of us wait with baited breath. (yes I purposely used baited because it smells a bit fishy to me)
From the creep slimy pretension department:
Henry Galt says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:11 am
I have followed this work for 5 years…about its revolutionary qualities. I have been asking for it’s (premature) publication for 2+ years because it will save lives.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:52 am
If you want a specific local forecast for that, you can pay me for it like anyone else would have to
What is the price of a saved life?
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:36 am
Another dose of Leif’s pollution of this blog. You just cannot help from keeping the personal stuff out can you, how pathetic. You are right down at Willis’ level of mindless insult, but instead of plain rude, it’s creepy slimy pretending to be clever, yuck.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Despite your claims of disgust you keep coming back for more. Based on this thread I would say your passion is being intellectually kicked around rather than forecasting.
There are many good contributors here on WUWT but, if someone were to ask who is the most willing to show their methods, work, data, and further to promote their mistakes so everyone can see? I would reply Willis and Leif. They have done so many times.
You, Ulric, on the other hand display none of those qualities. If you want to convince me of the low character of these two I will save you the argument and agree with you out of hand, because the truth of your argument is irrelevant. I can judge their contribution by the information they provide. For you, Ulric, I can do the same. You bring nothing to the table, and your worth is plain to see.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 18, 2013 at 5:54 am
Pretending to be clever but coming across as a quote mining conflation artist. That disgusted me.
Ulric doesn’t prompt me to say what I say. He probably wishes I would shut up – I don’t know because I don’t often discuss with him what is said in forums.
Ulric makes public any upcoming climate event he sees as a danger to individuals and nations. As he has done ^ in this thread ^.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416780
Isn’t that what started all this?
Ulric will still sell local forecasts after his work is published.
Where does that leave your sick question?
Henry Galt says:
September 18, 2013 at 7:04 am
Isn’t that what started all this?
“There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years”
Sounds like the text on the paper slip in a Chinese Fortune Cookie.
Where does that leave your sick question
Without an answer, it seems.
What is the price of a saved life?
To the Met Office, many many millions, and they cannot forecast at long range to save their lives.
“Sounds like the text on the paper slip in a Chinese Fortune Cookie.”
Sounds like some cheap disparaging humour, more canned laughter please….
(you’ll get that one back at you at the appropriate moment, after all it is yours)
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 8:07 am
they cannot forecast at long range to save their lives.
“There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years”
So, how many lives do you estimate that forecast will save?
Ulric Lyons:
It seems we have returned to where we started.
My post in this thread at September 14, 2013 at 3:59 am is the post immediately following your post which it addressed and which started this argument.
That post from me said in total
Please note that the post I have copied was 4 days and many, many posts ago.
You have still not converted your arm-waving point into a forecast and you are still whinging that Leif, Willis and I point out it is not a forecast.
Richard
Leif, I want your best honest estimate on what you think the chances are for all of the following solar parameters averaging at or below the values I mention below for a period of at least three years or longer.
I want to first say with a question ,I think we have a fair chance because this looks like this could be a true solar grand mimimum?
Let me ask it to you this way. Do you think we are in the process of having a grand solar minimum? If yes, or if you think one was to occur would you feel the solar parameters I have mentioned would then be attainable under that condition of a grand solar minimum for a period of at least three years? thanks
the values as follows:
solar flux sub 90
solarwind 350km
solar irradiance off .015%
ap index 5.0 or lower
cosmic ray count 6500 or more per minute
e10.7 flux sub 100
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 18, 2013 at 10:36 am
Leif, I want your best honest estimate on what you think the chances are for all of the following solar parameters averaging at or below the values I mention below for a period of at least three years or longer.
Everything I say is my honest estimate or opinion. Before you were using a period of five years, now it is three years. You have to be specific: which years exactly?
I think we have a fair chance because this looks like this could be a true solar grand minimum?
‘could be’? or ‘will be’?
Henry (the teacher now,
not to be confused with Henry Galt)
says
This is like watching a Stephen King serial…
Surely the fact that Ulric refuses to comment on anything I ask him should have given you all the clues?
1)
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations.
2)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
:: a clear pattern emerging from my own investigations, where the best fit must be a sine wave fit of 88 years wavelength, otherwise I don’t know where we are going to end up.
3)
seeing as that maxima were dropping off since 1995 but we don’t see average temps. dropping until 2002 means that there is a bit of delay from energy in to energy out..On average I think the total per half cycle is 5-7 year, assuming no major volcanic eruptions happen on earth…
That brings us exactly at a 100 year cycle which has been identified from the flooding of the Nile, by William Arnold
4)
Both William Arnold and myself find a a correlation with the planets, mainly Saturn and Uranus, he on his own and me on my own.
5)
Ulric has mentioned somewhere his 110 year cycle cycle. This is also consistent with the above, where arguments could be made that the actual weather cycle varies from 90-110 years, but on average it is still 100.
6)
So, all Ulric does, is look at the weather pattern 90-110 years ago (if he has those data), see if he notices the similar weather pattern emerging now, including the lunar settings, and make fairly accurate predictions on the weather now or later.
I am still trying to find out exactly where we are on that scale, i.e. 90 versus 110 year cycle
– I am sure Ulric could give me more clues on that –
(I am pretty sure he has that identified in fine details)
but in the meantime I will stick with my own prediction that the major catastrophic droughts will occur from 2021 until 2028 on the great plains of America. . I think that drier conditions will increase above 40 latitudes from now until then, culminating in that severe drought, while rain/clouds/ flash flooding will increase -30>x>30 from now until 2039.
Henry
Leif Svalgaard says:
“So, how many lives do you estimate that forecast will save?”
With a research budget projections could be made. There’s a lot of variables though, particularly whether precautions are taken or not.
HenryP says:
“So, all Ulric does, is look at the weather pattern 90-110 years ago..”
False, I use no such analogue for anything at the scale of weather.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 11:14 am
With a research budget projections could be made.
Not of a forecast, but of that particular one as it stands:
“There could easily be famine conditions in 2016/17, and also in some following years”
ric hard says:
“You have still not converted your arm-waving point into a forecast and you are still whinging that Leif, Willis and I point out it is not a forecast.”
You are still whinging that it is not a forecast, but here is that forecast:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416861
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Not of a forecast, but of that particular one as it stands”
Exactly:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1420456
Henry Galt says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:11 am
Henry, Ulric needs to show his work, not to me, not to a “braying pack”, not to Leif or Richard, but to the world. Do you think that we and the “braying pack” will somehow disappear if he publishes it in two years or five or ten years? Really?
Because I hate to disillusion you, but Ulric’s work will face the same identical hostile reception whether you publish today or in ten years.
This is not because people don’t like Ulric. It is because SCIENCE WORKS BY FALSIFICATION, and it’s a blood sport. Someone makes a claim, and then everyone who disagrees tries to rip the claim to shreds. You will face that no matter when Ulric finally decides to stop hiding his forecasts.
Your idea that you can avoid that blood sport by delay … sorry, not gonna happen. Science is not going to go away.
And while you may think that it is important that you approve of and agree with Ulric’s work, that means nothing. It’s not you that Ulric has to convince.
It is the world of scientists, including those here on WUWT, that you and Ulric need to convince. And the only way to do that is to publish all of your forecasts, the good and the bad, so that people who are not the claimant’s best friends and son-in-law can examine them. At present, your claim is equivalent to my saying “But my wife thinks I’m right about the science” … sorry but that doesn’t count. I could care less whether you think your father-in-law is a brilliant scientist. Yours is the total opposite of an unbiased opinion. I say again that the best place to give your work is to your worst enemies—if they can’t poke holes in it, no one can.
Instead Ulric has shown it to his family and good friends … and you think that swings any weight? Get real.
As to whether it is “hard for us guys to grasp” that “the work will be shown”, we grasp quite clearly that a) you and Ulric are refusing to show it, and b) you say you’ll show it somewhere somehow sometime. Gosh … how reassuring, I feel much better now.
Call me crazy, but that kind of vague promise don’t impress me much. That’s like Wimpy in Popeye saying “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today” … and near as I can recall, Wimpy never did pay Popeye.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 11:31 am
“Not of a forecast, but of that particular one as it stands”
Exactly
Non-responsive nonsense. But as in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w with a research budget you might do better…
Get real.
Henry Galt says:
September 18, 2013 at 7:04 am
Clicking on the link brings us this “forecast” from Ulric
Gosh, thanks, Henry. You mean that Ulric predicts that some people might actually go hungry in 2016/17, or perhaps 2017/18, or perhaps 2018/19, or perhaps 2019/20, or perhaps 2021/22, or perhaps 2022/23, or perhaps 2023/24, or perhaps 2024/25, or perhaps 2025/26?
And this will happen because at some time during those summers, there may actually be spells that are colder than usual? That’s shocking news! How could Ulric possibly make such a detailed prediction? He must have deep insight into the climate.
I can’t thank Ulric enough for that forecast, I’m sure that the nations will take heed, and that many lives will be saved due to Ulric’s wisdom …
Do I need to add the /sarc tag? Considering who I’m addressing, I suppose I do.
w.
Leif, could you please clarify a few things for me:
— Regarding the graph “http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png” – is this a measure of the polar fields we observe for reversals or is this showing the offset of the dipole moment?
— You mention from your observation that you may think that the south has reversed. What imagery are you looking at to arrive at this? Got a link? And what do you look for in this imagery to arrive at this conclusion? I assume that you are looking at some sort of magnetogram that shows polarity.
— When will we be updated with the latest figures from WSO for Solar Polar fields? Last line is from 8/25 and shows the SH at 2sf. “http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html”
— Regarding heliospheric cosmix ray transport (GCR’s) I came across this slide from one of your ppt’s “Solar Wind During the Maunder Minimum”. (http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Wind%20During%20the%20Maunder%20Minimum.ppt)
My question is about slide 26. If I am understanding this correctly it seems as if in a positive N polar cycle the heliospheric current sheet pushes GCR’s out. Is this out push amplified by the solar wind? It also looks as if they cycle back into the sun riding above the sheet.
In a negative N polar phase it seems as if GCR’s are pulled into the sun centrally then sent out. In both phases, just how close to the sun do these GCR’s get before being blasted away by the solar wind or do they actually penetrate the sun? If they do, do we have any solid data or just theories on if they influence sunspots, TSI, etc..? I know that very high energies GCR’s can penetrate earth irrespective of our magnetic fields, which stands to reason that these can also penetrate the IMF without deflection and go directly to the sun.
Last question – That slide also depicts the heliospheric current sheet shape at minimum and maximun. Flatter at minimum and more corrugated at max. If we could visualize it now, taking into account this very weak solar max, would it fall somewhere in between in shape?
Sorry for all the questions, just a lurker here trying to learn more. TIA..
Willis Eschenbach says:
“How could Ulric possibly make such a detailed prediction? He must have deep insight into the climate.”
Bulls eye. Watch my winter 2013/14 forecast roll out, it’s deterministic.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Get real.”
You should take your own medicine.
I have no idea to what degree different Nations can prepare for such an event, hence I cannot supply you with a figure.
“But as in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w with a research budget you might do better…”
Definitely need canned laughter for that one….
project722 says:
September 18, 2013 at 11:48 am
is this a measure of the polar fields we observe for reversals or is this showing the offset of the dipole moment?
It shows many things: red curve: polar fields in the south; blue curve: polar fields in the north; N-S green curve: difference between North and South [this is the overall dipole].
– You mention from your observation that you may think that the south has reversed.
At WSO we measure the average field in the black square shown in Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf from magnetograms as shown in Figure 2. The last three months that field in the South has been negative. We cannot at this time actually see the South pole as it is just over the limb but we can see what is close to the pole.
When will we be updated with the latest figures from WSO for Solar Polar fields?
It is up-to-date as of the latest data. There is one little subtlety: We average 30 days of observations [about one rotation] so the latest average is always about a month behind real time.
If I am understanding this correctly it seems as if in a positive N polar cycle the heliospheric current sheet pushes GCR’s out. Is this out push amplified by the solar wind? It also looks as if they cycle back into the sun riding above the sheet.
This is a very small effect. What happens is that for S-N polarity cosmic rays have [a little bit] easier access near the equator and for N-S polarity the access is [a little bit] easier near the poles. The arrows can be misleading as the solar wind always pushes the cosmic rays out.
If they do, do we have any solid data or just theories on if they influence sunspots, TSI, etc..?
The cosmic rays represent so little energy that they have no influence on solar activity.
If we could visualize it now, taking into account this very weak solar max, would it fall somewhere in between in shape?
Yes, take a look at Slides 15-16 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 11:59 am
I have no idea to what degree different Nations can prepare for such an event,
Nobody can [or will] prepare for anything based of such a vague non-specific ‘forecast’, which is thus totally useless.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“Nobody can [or will] prepare for anything based of such a vague non-specific ‘forecast’, which is thus totally useless.”
I do not agree with your description, and more detail can be readily included, such as regional impacts for the US and other continental areas.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416861
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 18, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 11:59 am
I have no idea to what degree different Nations can prepare for such an event,
Leif Svalgaard says
“Nobody can [or will] prepare for anything based of such a vague non-specific ‘forecast’, which is thus totally useless.”
————————————————————————————————————–
Conflation, I am making a forecast for weather conditions, not number of deaths.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 12:43 pm
I am making a forecast for weather conditions, not number of deaths.
In that case it should be easy to produce the list of forecasts for the past several years that we have been asking for. So, where is it?
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 18, 2013 at 12:20 pm
The cosmic rays represent so little energy that they have no influence on solar activity.
I know you say that the solar wind always pushes the cosmic rays out..but..
What’s the process that causes enough radioactive decay for the GCR’s to lose that much energy? Is it magnetic or electrical in nature due to interactions with the IMF/Heliospheric current sheet or something else? I am I even close? Just thinking for instance that a negative Bz in the IMF may “reconnect” with a positively charged cosmic particle, in which case their would be a sort of conduit back to the sun.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“In that case it should be easy to produce the list of forecasts for the past several years that we have been asking for. So, where is it?”
You have not cleaned up your act yet bully boy. And as before, in such hostile, prejudiced and diversionary company as this, I will not be discussing this further.
Nor shall I.
Normals
project722 says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:02 pm
What’s the process that causes enough radioactive decay for the GCR’s to lose that much energy?
The cosmic rays do not lose energy nor do they decay. The reason we have a solar modulation is that the path of the cosmics is changed such that the ‘bounce’ off the solar system and do not penetrate into the inner solar system. See Figure 16 of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
Am I even close?
no
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:05 pm
I will not be discussing this further
Without a list you have nothing to discuss, so your reaction is fully consistent and understandable, but then you also have no credibility. If you claim a scientific discovery anywhere, the reaction you get is always hostile, and that is what it should be.
Henry Galt says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Nor shall I.
Good riddance.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Do you think that we and the “braying pack” will somehow disappear if he publishes it in two years or five or ten years? Really?”
I certainly do hope not, you can carry on braying in the background while I let some Gentlemen try and find holes in it. People that actually read what is said, who are not prejudiced, and who do not waste time by quoting misquotes made by others.
project722 says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Am I even close?
when a cosmic ray meets the solar system is will see a tangled magnetic field in the solar wind. Because magnetic fields can bend the path of the charged cosmic ray particles a cosmic ray may change its direction and by change head back out of the solar system again, so we see less cosmic rays the more tangled the field is. The heliospheric current sheet as it wraps around the sun some 25 times represents a large source of tangled magnetic fields so a cosmic ray trying to penetrate through those 25 spiral ‘arms ‘ of the current sheet can be deflected out of the solar system [this happens to a few percent of them]. If the cosmic ray comes in ‘above’ the current sheet [e.g. over the poles] it does not run the gauntlet of deflecting tangles and will not be deflected back out. Since at solar minimum the current sheet is rather flat, most cosmic rays will not hit it and be deflected and we have a maximum of cosmic rays. At solar maximum the current sheet extends to high latitudes and it is almost impossible for a cosmic ray to avoid hitting the sheet and some will be deflected back out again, so we have a minimum of cosmic rays. The polarity of the solar poles modifies that picture a little bit, because the deflection also depends on the direction of the magnetic field, but this complication is small compared to the general variation that simply is due to the variation of the latitudinal extent of the current sheet with the solar cycle.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“If you claim a scientific discovery anywhere, the reaction you get is always hostile, and that is what it should be.”
As if you think that you represent the World! you’re as bad as Willis.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:33 pm
“If you claim a scientific discovery anywhere, the reaction you get is always hostile, and that is what it should be.”
As if you think that you represent the World! you’re as bad as Willis.
Welcome to the real world. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. If you don’t have that you will find a very hostile reception everywhere.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:33 pm
As if you think that you represent the World! you’re as bad as Willis.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence
” It is the heart of the scientific method, and a model for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere”
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:33 pm
As if you think that you represent the World! you’re as bad as Willis.
“Most people are probably unaware of the amount of extraordinary evidence required for most scientific claims. Not only must the experiments be written up in such a way that others can challenge the assumptions and be able to spot errors, but they must also be independently replicated. In addition, most scientific discoveries have provenance – that is, we know how and why we decided to test this claim in the first place. “
Salvatore, I can’t believe you asked Leif to tell you what he thinks the Sun might do. Because your premise depends on Solar parameters and mechanisms teleconnecting with Earth, you must already know a great deal about the parameters you list and therefore the Sun. So why then do you need to ask Leif? Because you did it seems to me you are not the expert on your thesis. That tells me a lot about the rest of your thesis. And should be a warning to all those who are your followers.
In fact most of our Solar/cosmic/climate thesis peddlers that comment on this blog and elsewhere are similar in that they are actually not the expert they need must be, yet they parade around as if they are. In reality they are naked and rather fun to watch being poked with a stick, probably as much fun as the young boy had when declaring the Emperor was walking around in such a state as you are.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“..but they must also be independently replicated.”
Independently applied, by weather forecasters.
Ulric Lyons:
At September 18, 2013 at 1:30 pm you write in full
You do not know what a gentleman is. I offered you advice on what would be needed to publish a scientific paper in a scientific journal (n.b. I am a member of an Editorial Board of a journal) and your response was to deny I was sincere in my offering the advice.
Be assured, if you ever do publish something then be assured some absolute bar-stewards will set upon it like a pack of wolves. You have been treated gently here.
We DID “read what is said” by you and we asked you to explain it. Four days later you still have not.
We are sceptical, not prejudiced, but I guarantee that some prejudiced people will respond to anything you claim. And they will walk all over you and trample you into the dust if you are as vague, evasive and secretive as you have been here.
And it is our time you have wasted because after all this time and effort we have still not obtained any evidence from you that any of your claims of your forecast skill have any validity. All we have learned is that you have impressed some friends and relatives of yours.
Furthermore, your problem has been that whenever you have tried to evade an issue then you have had your ‘feet held to the fire’ by quotes – NOT misquotes – of your own words.
Frankly, your post could not have been more wrong. You could learn from this, but your posts on WUWT imply that you won’t.
Richard
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:01 pm
“..but they must also be independently replicated.”
Independently applied, by weather forecasters.
so, show all your predictions and how they all have been independently replicated by weather forecasters using your method(s). We are waiting.
Ulric, let me type your response.
“I said ‘applied’ not replicated. They take my forecast and use it in their business. There is no need to replicate my methods to check if they work. They must be working fine because people continue to pay for my forecasts. That’s proof enough that they work.”
Have I got it about right?
Now, on to the next topic:
“Many people are gullible”
richardscourtney says:
September 18, 2013 at 4:20 am
Thanks for that, Richard. Here’s the hilarious part. Note that Ulric says he predicted that the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation “would be more positive through July-August [2013]”.
Why is that funny? Well, here’s the AO for that time period …
And here’s the NAO for the same time …
That Ulric, his forecasts of the AO and the NAO are stupendous … positive in July-August?
Not …
w.
I am very late to this Ulric-bashing party, and so I may well repeat this posting in a future solar thread. I feel rather sorry for Ulric, though he has brought some things on his own head. Still, it seemed as though some critics didn’t even bother to notice when he did give them specific information, such as that his predictions were for the UK.
There are, I think, two issues: first should he reveal his prediction methods/algorithms, and second how skilful are his methods? I would say that Pamela Gray is much too dismissive if the method isn’t revealed, and Willis Eschenbach has also followed that line in several comments. But personally, if I had a black box which predicted the exact temperature months or years in advance, I would be intrigued as to what was in it, but absent that I would use it anyway. And just because I didn’t know what was in it would not lead me to dismiss its correctness or validity.
So Ulric doesn’t need to show his workings, but if he doesn’t he needs to pass an assessment of skill. Whereas, if the Met Office are not completely accurate in their forecasts 3 days ahead, we do at least get a warm fuzzy feeling that they are doing their best to number-crunch known physics.
I didn’t think it was quite fair of Willis to get het up about Ulric’s definition of a heat wave, when Ulric was able to respond “it’s simply the WMO version which says at least 5 consecutive days of maxima at least 5K above the prevailing (30-year, climatological) mean”. Still, Ulric did make some rather vague statements such as “deep cold in spring 2016”. But in order to become more accepted, perhaps he would accept some challenges regarding the measurement of his skill?
I do not have any professional knowledge on the estimation of skill, but I do know about Bayes and Turing, so that is where I would start in order to frame something testable. Suppose Ulric were to forecast that there will be a heat wave in June 2014, and let us call that event E. We can estimate the prior probability of E by counting how many Junes from 1984 to 2013 had such an event. If the number is n, we might think of the probability p as being n/30, but we should probably flatten this number, say to p=(n+1)/31, because we would not want to set p to 0 for a rare event where n was 0. (Or, if n was 0 we should double the number of years under consideration, iteratively, until we get something non-zero.)
So now we have p, what are we going to do with it? Well, we need Ulric to choose some other number q as his probability that E will occur. Clearly, we expect q to exceed p, otherwise it isn’t a very interesting forecast. But Ulric must take care not to set q to 1, because if he does then E had better happen since otherwise, we shall see, he loses credibility for ever! Given p and q, work by Turing implies that Ulric should be given a reward of log(q/p) quatloos if E occurs, which is positive as q>p, and q/p is known as a Bayes factor. But if E does not occur then Ulric receives log((1-q)/(1-p)), or in other words he gives us the positive quantity log((1-p)/(1-q)) quatloos; if q were 1 then that would be infinity, or in other words Ulric could never recoup his losses from the occurrence (not E) of something that he said could not happen.
The reason for using log(q/p) as the “skill” reward is that if 2 independent events E1 and E2 are bet upon, then log(q1/p1)+log(q2/p2) = log((q1*q2)/(p1*p2)) correctly uses the probability of the joint event E1&E2, under the two hypotheses that either climatology is correct or Ulric is correct.
To take an example, suppose that recent climate said that the probability of a heat wave in June 2014 was 0.1 and Ulric said it was 0.8. Then if it occurred Ulric would get log(8) = 0.903 quatloos (assuming base 10 logs) and if it didn’t he would lose log(4.5) = 0.653 quatloos.
Neither of these outcomes on its own is going to give us much confidence in whether to trust Ulric or not, but after many such trials and Ulric has amassed x quatloos, we can assess the odds in favour of him being correct as 10^x. Ulric will try to make x as large as possible, but if he has no skill it will wander to ever more negative numbers.
Ulric, are you ready to play? What is the earliest temperature event that you predict? Can you provide one or two predictions from your “Watch my winter 2013/14 forecast roll out”? I hope you see that I am trying to help you out here, and I don’t require you to publish past forecasts, nor to publish all future forecasts, but to publish some specific forecasts from which we can line up some quatloos for you.
Regards,
Rich.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 11:50 am
Promises, promises … so far nothing has rolled out. Come back when it’s actually available, because until then, it’s just your big mouth and nothing else.
w.
Go with 5 years. What do you think the chances are?
See – owe to Rich says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:28 pm
first should he reveal his prediction methods/algorithms, and second how skilful are his methods?
For my part, I have not asked for his method [a black box is fine with me if it works], all I want is the skill table. Strangely enough Ulric has volunteered to demonstrate his method, but not to reveal [or even calculate] his skill-score. Just the opposite of what is required.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Oh, diddums, is that mean Mr. Svalgaard bullying you again? That cyberbullying, it’s a terrifying thing. You should file a complaint with the authorities, everyone is so krool to you …
In any case, I suspect that you are constitutionally incapable of shutting up about your refusal to post your forecasts as you have just said that you will do.
We’ll see. You’ve said you won’t discuss your forecasts again. If you post again about any of your forecasts, then your statement above is a lie. Keep in mind that answering this comment will be discussing your lack of forecasts, and will make you a liar …
w.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:30 pm
Go with 5 years. What do you think the chances are?
Next question: must the average for every one of those five years be ‘below’ the numbers in your table? or is it enough that the averages of all five years are? And must that hold for every single one of your parameters?
Henry Galt says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:12 pm
You already said above that you were leaving. I said “Please do.”
That statement of yours seems to have been a complete fabrication. Now you say you won’t discuss Ulric’s cowardly refusal to post his forecasts.
We’ll see if that is a lie as well. If you answer this comment, of course, you’re once again discussing the lack of forecasts …
w.
PAM ,your last post surprises me, in that I am trying to find out what may or may not happen and I am using as many sources as I can. I happen to think Leif is a valuable source, hence the questions.
When one comes to the point where she/he thinks they know it all, they are but a fool. I don’t know it all, and yet I feel I know enough to come up with a solar/climate connection theory.
That is more then what you have done PAM, all you do is try to falsify everything that is said if it does not agree with the way you THINK.
Even worse you have yet to express your opinion as to why and how the climate changes. I feel until you express your thoughts you should hold off knocking others down. Further you are the type of person ,that should my theory prove correct you would still say it it wrong.
You must be a very closed minded individual.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:30 pm
Good lord, you said above you weren’t going to discuss this any further … and that lasted all of twenty-five minutes, from 1:05 PM to 1:30 PM.
Dang, I need popcorn and a beer, this is great entertainment …
w.
PS—The scientific method doesn’t mean that you let “some Gentlemen” try to poke holes in your claims. It requires that you let every fool, idiot, and jerkwagon like me poke holes in it. It’s not a Gentlemen’s game, Ulric, and you don’t get to decide who is qualified to judge your work. If you want to cease being a charlatan, you need to let any and everyone see your work and try to falsify it … and here’s the bad news:
If the janitor’s idiot nephew can falsify your work … it’s still falsified, even if he’s not a “Gentleman” …
I want to know the chances of all of the averages over the next 5 years to average at or below the values I said?
I want to know if you think we are in a solar grand minimum?
Lastly do you think past solar grand minimums featured solar parameters as extreme as I have suggested for periods of 5 years?
thanks
I should have said the chances of any 5 year consecutive period of having the average values I came up with during this time of solar quiet.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Leif didn’t say that he represents the World, Ulric.
He’s just describing the scientific method. You seem unacquainted with it. Here’s how it works.
One scientist makes a claim. To back it up he puts all of the information, ideas, logic, math, and forecasts out on the table. And then he calls in everyone, enemies and friends, hands around the hammers, and invites them to try to destroy his work.
If they can falsify his work, then it is discarded or modified … and he’s still a scientist. If they can’t, then his work is tentatively accepted as fact … and he’s still a scientist.
The other option is that someone makes a claim, and then refuses to provide the details, forecasts, etc. etc. Since no one can falsify that, it’s not science, and the man is a charlatan.
Look around you. When Einstein made his claim, the reaction was hostile. When the Australians announced that ulcers were caused by micro-organisms, the reaction was hostile. As Leif said, any new scientific discovery is met with hostility … AS IT SHOULD BE, because that’s the essence of the scientific method. You think we should greet your claims by rubbing your tummy and blowing in your ear and telling you how brilliant you are … that’s not the scientific method.
w.
Again all the solar parameters I mentioned all of the time having values at or below the average value I suggested over a 5 year consecutive period.
In addition do you think it has happened in past solar grand minimums?
I hope I made it clear.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:46 pm
I want to know the chances of all of the averages over the next 5 years to average at or below the values I said?
To be clear: for each of your parameters there are five averages: one for 2014, one for 2015, one for 2016, one for 2017, and one for 2018. You want all those five numbers to not exceed the limit you have set for that parameter?
I want to know if you think we are in a solar grand minimum?
Not yet, another 10 years.
Lastly do you think past solar grand minimums featured solar parameters as extreme as I have suggested for periods of 5 years?
No, because the cosmic ray modulation was not any less.
See – owe to Rich says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:28 pm
That’s a very, very bad start, RIch, given that Ulric said this:
See where it says the UK and Europe? See where it says the US? Still want to claim that his predictions were only for the UK? I thought not …
When you start out with such an egregious error, I fear that I read no further. Clearly, you’re not following the bouncing ball …
w.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:50 pm
I should have said the chances of any 5 year consecutive period of having the average values I came up with during this time of solar quiet.
Any or all?
PAM, why don’t you contribute an opinion as to why you think the climate changes or does not change very much? Since you want to falsify so many other opinions.
I wil give you some help. I think Pam thinks right or wrong that all climatic changes on the planet earth are random chaotic terrestrial events , with no external source needed. She also believes, I think that AGW theory is ridiculous.
Pam is this correct or not? If it is , I can see why you may think that way.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:50 pm
I should have said the chances of any 5 year consecutive period of having the average values I came up with during this time of solar quiet?
Which period? What years?
Allof them.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm
All of them.
You have a great talent for being obscure. For which years?
Any period but I think you answered my question when you said past solar grand minimums in your opinion did not feature solar parameters as extreme as I have suggested for any 5 year consecutive period, due to cosmic ray modulation.
You also say grand minimum 10 years out.
I hope this will all be verified one way or the other over the coming years.
I wish we really had clear hard fact data for the Maunder Minimum , but we don’t . I would love to have seen what those solar parameters were and for how long, during that period of time. I would like to see how close or far they may have been to what I suggested or even if they exceeded what I have suggested.
Salvatore
You are correct about me regarding your thesis. Without mechanism a thesis can still be wrong, even when correlation is there. Which is why I say that a solar/climate correlation is not enough to prove your thesis to be right. So yes, until you can come up with a plausible and falsifiable mechanism, I will consider your thesis, even if you show a future correlation, to be wrong against the hypothesis of natural intrinsic variation.
It is the same measuring stick I hold for AGW, though they have well-defined plausible mechanisms with several falsifiable entry points. How many mechanisms do you have and what are the objectively stated parameters you have published that allows for the all important falsifiable process?
To answer your other question, I cannot accept extrinsic or anthropogenic CO2 factors due to the fact that the intrinsic oceanic/atmospheric cloud teleconnection process is poorly sampled and poorly modeled (therefore poorly described let alone understood). However, two things are well-noted throughout the literature, 1) Oceans release and hold onto heat in a much more powerful way than the atmosphere, and 2) clouds serve as a very strong gatekeeper to a relatively stable solar input mechanism. As a result of that current state of understanding, as far as I am concerned any non-intrinsic or anthropogenic CO2 driver cannot be given precedence.
All of them for any 5 year consecutive period in the time frame 2015-2030.
PAM,I appreciate that. Nothing wrong with that way of thinking.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:12 pm
I wish we really had clear hard fact data for the Maunder Minimum , but we don’t .
We do for the cosmic ray modulation.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:14 pm
All of them for any 5 year consecutive period in the time frame 2015-2030.
I think the chance is NIL. Just to take one: ap depends on the magnetic field strength and the solar wind speed. The cosmic ray modulation does as well, so ap cannot have been so low as you post during the Maunder Minimum otherwise the cosmic ray modulation would have been much subdued.
Pam ,I think if a solar/climate correlation should come about (I say if) then I think given all the current research on solar/climate possible connections that a solar/climate mechanism or mechanisms will be verified instead of just remaining as theory.
LEIF, THANKS.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Thanks for that, Richard. Here’s the hilarious part. Note that Ulric says he predicted that the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation “would be more positive through July-August [2013]“.
Why is that funny? Well, here’s the AO for that time period …”
Here we go again! cheap laughs come ten a penny. The NAO was much more positive than it was in summer 2012.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
I also forecast a breakdown from 23/24th July, and recovering from around 7th August:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:59 pm
“See where it says the UK and Europe? See where it says the US? Still want to claim that his predictions were only for the UK? I thought not …”
It will be cold in the US too for sure, but I’m not forecasting for there, I left that up to Len.
I know the cold will hit Europe too, but unless I look at analogues I cannot safely do a forecast for there either because of regional differences. I’ll probably just stick to the UK for a specific forecast.
Ulric Lyons:
The climate may or may not be predictable, but you certainly are.
Having said you would leave everybody expected you would return and so you have at September 18, 2013 at 3:57 pm .
Importantly, your return post demonstrates the problem with your predictions: they are so vague that they can almost always be said to have been right after the predicted event.
In this case, you said
But Willis showed the AO and NAO were each negative through July-August. So, you now say
So, in your forecast “more positive” is now said to mean “less negative”.
Do you see the problem, Ulric?
There are many options of either or both being
1. more positive
2. positive
3. less negative.
And because either the AO or NAO could be “more positive” than 2012 to provide a partial success there are 9 ways you could be partially right.
But there is only one way for you to be wrong; i.e. both AO and NAO have to be more negative than in 2012.
That is a 9:1 probability of you claiming success. And you could stretch the claim to a 18:1 if you consider July and August separately. And …
You see the problem, Ulric? Do you understand why we want specific forecasts?
At present your vague forecasts would make Nostradmus blush.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
“So, in your forecast “more positive” is now said to mean “less negative”.
[…] You see the problem,”
You are the problem, the NAO was much more positive than it was in summer 2012, nothing to do with forecasts, purely the observations:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
“Importantly, your return post demonstrates the problem with your predictions: they are so vague that they can almost always be said to have been right after the predicted event.”
Liar:
I also forecast a breakdown from 23/24th July, and recovering from around 7th August:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif
“But Willis showed the AO and NAO were each negative through July-August. So, you now say..”
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
And while we are at it, lets all see how much of a fool you made of your self on that other thread that you needlessly dragged in here to attempt to defame me:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-5-no-ice-free-arctic-this-year-it-appears-that-arctic-sea-ice-has-turned-the-corner/#comment-1420437
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:25 pm
“That Ulric, his forecasts of the AO and the NAO are stupendous … positive in July-August?
Not …”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
AND YOU HAVE THE CHEEK TO TELL ME HOW TO DO SCIENCE.
YOUR CREDIBILITY IS SHOT TO PIECES.
Why is that funny?
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 5:03 pm
“That Ulric, his forecasts of the AO and the NAO are stupendous … positive in July-August?
The issue is not those hidden forecasts, but whether they were produced years ago [as you claim you can do] and exactly how the forecast was formulated: “more positive” than when and how much. The bottom line is the lack of openness, i.e. production of a complete list including when they were made and what the skill-score and how it was calculated. Without that you still got nothing worth writing home about.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 18, 2013 at 3:57 pm
A “breakdown” in the NAO? I have never, ever heard that term used in that manner. What on earth do you mean?
This is altogether typical of your pathetically vague “forecasts”, Ulric. You don’t define a “breakdown”. You don’t say what a “breakdown” might look like. You don’t give a single number, a scrap of an indication, or the slightest clue of what you mean by a “breakdown” in the NAO.
So whatever the NAO might do, you can claim success, and of course, you do … but since none of us have the slightest idea what your forecast means, I fear that we find your claims to be not just unfalsifiable, but ludicrous.
w.
Ulric Lyons:
Your post at September 18, 2013 at 4:33 pm provides yet another of your falsehoods saying to me in total
NO! Checking what you claim to have predicted against what you actually predicted is NOT an “attempt to defame”. How dare you make such a disgraceful accusation!?
This is what an impartial observed had to say about your ludicrous excuse in your link
Richard
Bloke in Coventry says he has never heard of a breakdown.
I will not have someone who is ignorant to very regular weather forecast nomenclature vet my work. Bloke in Coventry also cannot assess my work as he lied and said the was NAO was negative when it was positive.
richardscourtney says:
” Checking what you claim to have predicted against what you actually predicted is NOT an attempt to defame”
You are an idiot or a liar. You falsely stated that I had made the sea ice forecast last year, and you are an idiot for regarding my example links for the temperature differential between the zones as evidence for said forecasts. You have admitted to neither of these errors. Until you do, I will not engage with any other matter.
richardscourtney says:
“This is what an impartial observed had to say about your ludicrous excuse in your link
phlogiston says:
September 18, 2013 at 9:47 pm
Ulrich Lyons
To quote former French President Jacques Chirac, you have “missed a golden opportunity to keep quiet”.
“Predicting” the sea ice minimum in August is like predicting the Grand National winner when the horses are aready on the home strait.
Shhhh.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Nothing ridiculous or any excuses, that’s all projections from you. I made it clear that my mention of the forecast was a passing point and not the central issue that I was discussing, yet you continue to ignore that and attempt to ridicule the actually successful forecast.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“I fear that we find your claims to be not just unfalsifiable, but ludicrous.”
Patently, yours are, re NAO, as well as all the other crap from Richard and Leif that you jumped on board with.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“If the janitor’s idiot nephew can falsify your work … it’s still falsified, even if he’s not a “Gentleman” …”
You never know, the idiot may actually keep track of the real facts better than you do.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 18, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Henry Galt says:
September 18, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Nor shall I.
You already said above that you were leaving. I said “Please do.”
That statement of yours seems to have been a complete fabrication. Now you say you won’t discuss Ulric’s cowardly refusal to post his forecasts.
We’ll see if that is a lie as well. If you answer this comment, of course, you’re once again discussing the lack of forecasts …
w.
_______________________________________________________
Point to where you said “Please do.”
Ulric Lyons:
You seem to think that abuse is a reasonable alternative to veracity. It is not.
Your most recent example is your post at September 19, 2013 at 3:14 am which says in total.
Thankyou for promising – although I don’t believe it – that you “will not engage with any other matter”. Hopefully you will fulfil this promise by leaving WUWT alone and going elsewhere.
I did NOT falsely state that you “had made the sea ice forecast last year”.
YOU MADE THAT FALSE STATEMENT.
In the WUWT thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-5-no-ice-free-arctic-this-year-it-appears-that-arctic-sea-ice-has-turned-the-corner/
at September 17, 2013 at 1:21 pm in your post said in total
Pamela Gray asked WHEN you had made the forecast of “greater Arctic sea ice extent this for this summer” and you answered that at September 18, 2013 at 3:24 am where you wrote
So, you DID claim to have made the sea ice forecast last year.
Richard
@Ric hard
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-5-no-ice-free-arctic-this-year-it-appears-that-arctic-sea-ice-has-turned-the-corner/#comment-1421107
@Ric hard says:
“So, you DID claim to have made the sea ice forecast last year.”
Not once you filthy liar.
Ulric Lyons:
The only “filthy liar” is you.
I cited, quoted, referenced and linked your words which you now claim you did not write.
Perhaps you can suggest the identity of the imposter who wrote those words?
Richard
PS I forecast that you would continue to “engage” and you have without interruption. Clearly, my demonstrated forecast skill is better than yours.
@Ric hard says:
“I cited, quoted, referenced and linked your words which you now claim you did not write.”
Filthy liar, I quote only what I wrote, period.
Alright, that’s enough from Richard and from Ulric. Take a time-out, both of you for 24 hours.
I am disgusted with the cyber bullying and name calling going on here, when we all should be working together to prevent a major catastrophe due to global cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
I should perhaps remind everyone on this site that there will be a Judgement day.
So don’t think that your words don’t count.
(Matthew 25:41: Away from me, you that are under God’s curse)
So let us therefore rather try and agree to do what is righteous, which is to warn the world that it is globally cooling and that a natural consequence of that global cooling is that at the higher latitudes there will be less water/rain to come (naturally – just from the laws of physics)
We must also fine tune the date as to when the droughts http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
will start again in future.
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the speed of cooling, on the bottom of the wave, and therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: no wind and no weather (read: rain). According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 7:41 am
when we all should be working together to prevent a major catastrophe due to global cooling.
I don’t think we can avert any catastrophes. Burn more fossil fuel perhaps. And keep you god out of it.
Leif says
Burn more fossil fuel perhaps.
henry says
that won’t help
The idea that (natural) global cooling can be stopped by pumping more CO2 in the air is as ridiculous as the idea that more CO2 causes warming
when clearly it has been proved by many people, including myself
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
that more CO2 is a (natural) result of more (natural) warming
not the other way around.
Humans putting some CO2 in the air, is merely incidental.
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 7:58 am
The idea that (natural) global cooling can be stopped by pumping more CO2 in the air is as ridiculous as the idea that more CO2 causes warming
Pump a lot more. A hundred times more.
OK Willis. Way to go framing the conversation – if I defend myself against your calling me a liar or YOUR lies I become, somehow, a liar … again? Let us see ….
For the record, because people are watching, some in the future: I am not answering this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1420620
because “”… of course, you’re once again discussing the lack of forecasts …””
I am answering the comment because I cannot let your lies stand Willis. Congratulations, you have made me angry. The word cowboy has a specific meaning in the UK. You are living up to it.
You call me a liar using two lies as support?
This may seem like entertainment to you but it’s not fun to me to watch a person fall apart. Even if they have popcorn for comfort.
You have already proven your inability to apologize – your lengthy attempt to belittle me about something you obviously did not grasp – ‘normals’ according to the WMO global standard – and then talking around that failure with long-winded bluster and projection. You cannot admit your shortcomings and now you show yourself to be a lying liar in attempting to bait me into breaking some rule you made up based on a reading comprehension fail?
Show me I am wrong and not only will I apologize profusely, I will never darken your door again. You will not reciprocate that particular offer.
I would need to be shown where, on this thread – “”You already said above that you were leaving”” – before my comment, misconstrued by you, here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1420552
where I was in actual fact stating that I would no longer engage with Leif due to his behavior.
Then I would need too be shown where you said “”“Please do.””” in reply to that fictional offer.
You claim to have a rule where anyone replying to you needs to quote your exact words before you can answer further query. In light of your accusations against me, without the corroborating quotes, this is proven to be a double standard.
Why make things up Willis? I am worried about your mental health. You exhibit signs of early onset Alzheimers or narcissistic personality disorder.
Either that or you are just masquerading as reasonable but you are something other. Even in my fury I feel sorry for you.
While I am at it – your avoidance of the meat of See – owe to Rich’s post is very telling, especially in your casual use of semantics and deflection. Well done.
Creating rules for others.
Reading comprehension failure.
Double standards.
Inability to apologize.
Contortion.
Deflection.
Projection.
Lies.
Care to add any more to that list cowboy?
Leif says
Pump a lot more. A hundred times more.
Henry says
Get a life,Leif
We don’t even know for sure whether the net effect of more CO2 is that of cooling rather than warming,
or did you finally get so see that balance sheet which I have been asking about?
(deflected SW versus trapped LW, in the right dimensions)
but even so, the effect of CO2 on the weather is negligible,
we can say that with a fair amount of certainty,
so why bring it up in this discussion?
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 8:15 am
“Pump a lot more. A hundred times more.”
but even so, the effect of CO2 on the weather is negligible,
we can say that with a fair amount of certainty
CO2’s effect on climate is enormous if you have enough CO2. If doubling CO2 raises the temperature by 1 degree, doubling 8 times [to 256 times the concentration of today] raises the temperature 8 degrees, enough to avert the next glaciation in 50,000 years time.
leif says
If doubling CO2 raises the temperature by 1 degree,
henry says
we all know that is nonsense
you don’t even believe it yourself
because you say
if
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 8:33 am
we all know that is nonsense
“It is not what you know, but what you know that ain’t”
you don’t even believe it yourself because you say ‘if’
The if goes to the amount, is it 1C or 1.5C or 0.9C. The 1C is a good ball park figure.
Leif says
The if goes to the amount, is it 1C or 1.5C or 0.9C. The 1C is a good ball park figure.
Henry says
That amount would be wrong
You bring an old argument that has been proved wrong:
GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect.
It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2) or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.
I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima. Here you can see the results.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima
0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.
That is ca. 6:2:1.
So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 8:44 am
“The if goes to the amount, is it 1C or 1.5C or 0.9C. The 1C is a good ball park figure.”
Henry says That amount would be wrong
It ‘could’ be wrong. We don’t know what it actually is, but various estimates suggests that 1C is not too far off.
I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give much for your analysis of 47 weather stations.
Leif says
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give much for your analysis of 47 weather stations.
Henry says
that is because your are too lazy just to check the weather station nearest to you \
meaning you prefer to stay with the “majority” opinion,
mostly for financial reasons?
\which will be counted against you
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 8:56 am
meaning you prefer to stay with the “majority” opinion,
The majority opinion is 2-5C [depending on who you ask]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
which will be counted against you
On Judgement Day?
Look at Earth and then look at Mars. Is it colder on Earth than it is on Mars? No, Mars has extreme cold compared to Earth. Now, take a look at CO2 levels on both. You know, Mars has way more CO2 than Earth. So, why is it not hot as hell on Mars? The fact is, we just really do not know much about CO2 with regard to its over all effect on temperature profiles on Earth, Mars or any other planet for that matter! But, it seems likely that CO2 levels follow temperatures up or down and does not lead. If temps. here on Earth go up regardless of the cause, CO2 levels increase after the fact of that event and not the other way around. And I will state, my opinion is unbiased as I have no agenda. The amount of food I put on my table for me and my family will not go up or down either way. So, with regard to my economic status, having a biased opinion on Global Warming one way or the other is meaningless! Now, on the other hand, that would not be a true statement for Al Gore who does have an agenda and a bias due to greed. It’s called money, as his net worth has grown from $2 million dollars to $200 million dollars in about a two-year period! That is insane! As a stockbroker for 20 years, no matter how hard I worked; I could never seem to get this kind of growth. Ten times your money back in two years. That’s no bad even if you are an Ex-Vice President of the U.S. And I like Ulric Lyons believe we are going into an extremely cold period that will cause a massive hardship on the human race. The sun has already entered a hibernation stage and I believe with all my heart we are going to have challenging decades ahead! And like all else; TIME WILL TELL! Thanks For Letting Me Share! Len R. Holliday(Lead Forecaster with Firsthand Weather)
leif says
And keep you god out of it.
leif says
On Judgement Day?
henry says
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
LEIF, I need your opinion once again. Here we go.
In your expert opinion, for the solar parameter averages I had mentioned,what are the most extreme solar parameter averages you think could be attained in a grand minimum, and over what period of time might those extreme averages exist?
The extreme solar parameter averages for all of the solar parameters I had mentioned, does not have to happen at the same time. Thanks.
I am glad to see that Anthony sent Richard C and Ulric to the sin bin to cool down – it was really getting out of hand. I second HenryP’s call for moderation, even if I can’t yet agree with his suggestion that sensitivity to CO2 is close to zero or negative.
As for Willis, I enjoyed his travelogues from England and Scotland, but perhaps some Glaswegian brusqueness rubbed off on him up there. Or is he home in CA now and his writings are suffering from jet lag? Whatever, I was offended by his latching on to my minor criticism of him and not even considering whether my Turing-Bayes score might be a reasonable way to test Ulric’s skill in the future.
Of course, I can go ahead with that anyway if Ulric complies. But keen though Ulric is, I am not sure whether he is going to knuckle down to giving specific forecasts along with his probability (q) for them such that we can compare with climatological estimates (p).
As for Leif, well hey we have some different opinions but I don’t think we are too far apart in our understanding of the scientific method. Pamela, though, she needs a viable mechanism. I wonder how she would have fared on the sea shore in the middle ages before the theory of gravitation explained the tides? She probably wouldn’t have gone anywhere near the sea, just in case the tide suddenly rushed in and drowned her.
Rich.
svp says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1421347
henry ask
Salvetore,
why don’t you learn to spell your name correctly?
Del
it cannot be a Capital
because it means: from
Never mind
we all know it is Leif talking to himself again
The rise and fall of open solar flux during the current grand solar …
That is how it is spelled.
6. The Floor Value of B
[19] Svalgaard and Cliver [2007, hereafter SC07] postulated
that annual means of the near‐Earth heliospheric field B
could not fall below a floor value 4.6nT. Because observed
values have fallen below this level during the recent solar
minimum, SC10 have revised this estimate to 4 nT. One
aspect in which the reconstructions in Figure 1 do differ
relates to their implications for any floor in annual mean B
values. In this section, we use the terminology that the floor
value is the minimum of B below which it cannot fall even
on millennial timescales. We make the distinction b
This paper shows the IMF field strength during the Maunder Minimum was much weaker then 4.0 nT
Centennial changes in the heliospheric magnetic field and open
solar flux: The consensus view from geomagnetic data
and cosmogenic isotopes and its implications
M. Lockwood1,2 and M. J. Owens1
Received 17 October 2010; revised 12 January 2011; accepted 21 January 2011; published 21 April 2011.
[1] Svalgaard and Cliver (2010) recently reported a consensus between the various
reconstructions of the heliospheric field over recent centuries. This is a significant
development because, individually, each has uncertainties introduced by instrument
calibration drifts, limited numbers of observatories, and the strength of the correlations
employed. However, taken collectively, a consistent picture is emerging. We here show that
this consensus extends to more data sets and methods than reported by Svalgaard and
Cliver, including that used by Lockwood et al. (1999), when their algorithm is used to predict
the heliospheric field rather than the open solar flux. One area where there is still some debate
relates to the existence and meaning of a floor value to the heliospheric field. From
cosmogenic isotope abundances, Steinhilber et al. (2010) have recently deduced that
the near‐Earth IMF at the end of the Maunder minimum was 1.80 ± 0.59 nT which is
considerably lower than the revised floor of 4nT proposed by Svalgaard and Cliver. We here
combine cosmogenic and geomagnetic reconstructions and modern observations (with
allowance for the effect of solar wind speed and structure on the near‐Earth data) to derive
an estimate for the open solar flux of (0.48 ± 0.29) × 1014 Wb at the end of the Maunder
minimum. By way of comparison, the largest and smallest annual means recorded by
instruments in space between 1965 and 2010 are 5.75 × 1014 Wb and 1.37 × 1014 Wb,
respectively, set in 1982 and 2009, and the maximum of the 11 year running means was
4.38 × 1014 Wb in 1986. Hence the average open solar flux during the Maunder minimum
is found to have been 11% of its peak value during the recent grand solar maximum
looks like the issue is not settled.
My conclusion is I think Leif, may not appreciate just how [variable] the sun might be.
I think the [sun] may vary by more then what is thought between grand maximums and grand minimums which will lend more support to my theory that a solar/climate connection, is real.
[Variability] is key, and everyone ,even Pam would agree if the sun were to vary enough, at some point effects would be felt on earth. The question is how much variance is needed. I gave my opinion when I stated average solar parameters needed to cause a solar/climate connection to become apparent, over x years. I don’t think 5 years is needed. It could be less,if sub-solar activity took place in general for several years prior to those avg. solar parameters being met. Which has been the case since year 2005.
Len Holliday says:
September 19, 2013 at 10:13 am
You know, Mars has way more CO2 than Earth. So, why is it not hot as hell on Mars?
One reason is that Mars gets 2.32 times less solar radiation than Earth. That alone makes Mars 50C colder.
I believe with all my heart we are going to have challenging decades ahead!
This is where we differ. I prefer to go where the data goes, rather than where belief takes me.
HenryP says:
September 19, 2013 at 10:19 am
where-is-your-faith
If there is a god, I believe she is absolutely evil, but, again, keep religion out.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 19, 2013 at 10:24 am
The extreme solar parameter averages for all of the solar parameters I had mentioned, does not have to happen at the same time.
But you also said that ALL the 5-yr averages had to extreme together [that is what ALL means, I reckon].
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 19, 2013 at 11:24 am
“Hence the average open solar flux during the Maunder minimum is found to have been 11% of its peak value during the recent grand solar maximum”
looks like the issue is not settled.
Science is almost never settled.
Now, the Lockwood & Owens paper bases its conclusion on this graph:
http://www.leif.org/research/Open-Flux-Model-Error.png
The Y-axis is the ‘Open Flux’ calculated from their model. The triangle symbols are actual observations. The strange bend towards zero of the grey band is torturing the model to make the curve go through (0,0). The data fit the red curve without any torture. Our view is that the Sun actually never gets into the region of the black rectangle at the lower left [if it did we would not see any cosmic ray modulation], so the open flux and the IMF B never get close to zero. The whole issue has recently been the subject of a workshop that I [and Lockwood] conducted and the result is being written up as we speak. The issue is also bound up with the idea of the ‘recent grand solar maximum’ [which very likely didn’t happen], so there is an agenda issue too.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 19, 2013 at 12:06 pm
My conclusion is I think Leif, may not appreciate just how varibable the sun might be
As I say: I can only go as far as the data goes.
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 19, 2013 at 12:58 pm
dr svalgaard:
I read your posts with great anticipation, you are a kind and generous intellect..
so I say this as someone who attempts to teach statisics to the innumerate undergraduates in my classes…
you just cant have 2.32 times less of something…
one times less of something gets you to zero.
what you mean, I think, is that in this case mars receives about 40% of the solar radiation that the earth does…
BTW you are extraordinarily patient with posters, i hope you will be that patient with me.
david eisenstadt says:
September 19, 2013 at 1:11 pm
so I say this as someone who attempts to teach statisics to the innumerate undergraduates in my classes…you just cant have 2.32 times less of something…
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1253897118.shtml
“some people argue that ‘A times less than B’ is ‘mathematically incorrect,’ ‘simply wrong,’ and so on. The theory is that ‘times’ refers to multiplication, so ‘5 times less than B’ to mean ‘B/5’ is mistaken, though ‘5 times more than’ to mean ‘5xB’ (or possibly ‘6xB’) would be fine.
This prompted me to do some more searching, and discover not only a usage of this phrase by Jonathan Swift (via Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage), but also by Isaac Newton (‘If the Diameters of the Circles … be made three times less than before, the Mixture will be also three times less; if ten times less, the Mixture will be ten times less’), Sir William Herschel (‘remember that the sun on Saturn appears to be a hundred time less than on the earth’), Erasmus Darwin, Robert Boyle, John Locke, and more. Nor is this some archaic usage; it remains routine today.”
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2013 at 2:57 am
First, I call you “Ulric” because that is your name, Your constant playing with my name is pathetic. My name is Willis. People will respect you more if you cease the childish name games.
Next, it’s true that I’ve never heard of a “breakdown” in the Arctic Oscillation. You said:
I’ve looked at your graph, and looked at it … and I see nothing in there that I might call a “breakdown”. Since it’s not visible in the graph that you linked, perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what you are calling a “breakdown”, and how it is measured.
Bad news on that score … everyone gets to vet your work. Whatever you publish (which ain’t much to date) will get vetted by anyone who damn well pleases, and as I said before, if the janitors idiot son falsifies your work … it’s still falsified.
Your prediction was as follows:
The graph from the CPC looks like this:
I leave it to the readers to determine if your forecast was accurate or not.
w.
See – owe to Rich says:
September 19, 2013 at 10:29 am
Rich, you’d said:
All I did was point out that Ulric’s predictions were for the UK, Europe and the US. You want me to discuss your comment further? Sure. You also said:
That was a total fabrication. I specifically said that I don’t care about his methods … hang on, let me find it … OK, here it is:
Now, I’d say that’s quite clear, and if you didn’t understand it or didn’t read it, then more fool you. Ulric was attempting his usual false accusations when he claimed I wanted both him and Piers Corbyn to reveal their methods. That was a load of horse droppings from start to finish … then you come prancing into the discussion and falsely accuse me of the same thing.
That was bad enough, but now you’re back to whine that I’m treating you mean and I didn’t comment on your Turing-Bayes score? I never even got to the Turing-Bayes part of your accusatory comment, Rich. Once someone posts two total fabrications about me as the opening to their comment, I STOP READING IT.
What do you expect? I don’t tolerate that kind of nonsense, and you’ve been around here long enough to know that. I actually was being polite to you last time, I just pointed out that you were badly in error with your first fabrication. I figured I’d let your other fabrication slide, more fool me, sometimes I can’t be bothered to pick all the spitballs off the wall … but at this point you can be sure that if you try that nonsense again, next time I’ll just give you both barrels and be done with it.
Get your facts straight before posting, and if you disagree with something I’ve said, then QUOTE MY WORDS. It will save you a heap of trouble, because then we can all be clear about what you don’t like. I can defend my own words. I can’t defend your twisted claims about my words. QUOTE WHAT YOU DISAGREE WITH!!!
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“Next, it’s true that I’ve never heard of a “breakdown” in the Arctic Oscillation.”
The breakdown was specifically for the UK weather forecast (wetter cooler conditions with lower pressure systems) though if you zoom in the graph you will see the AO go negative for the period that forecast the breakdown for, (23/24th July to ~6th Aug) within a couple of days:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif
“Your prediction was as follows:
… the AO and NAO would be more positive through July-August.”
My prediction was for a more positive AO/NAO in July+Aug 2013 than in 2012. We do not eyeball graphs for this, we simply use the monthly average, as I linked to earlier.
NAO:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/norm.nao.monthly.b5001.current.ascii.table
Decisively more positive in July+Aug 2013.
And AO:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/monthly.ao.index.b50.current.ascii.table
Slightly more negative in July and more positive in Aug.
Which suggests that the difference in the UK summer weather and the Arctic summer sea ice extent between 2012 to 2013 may be more dependent on the NAO than the AO. That agrees with papers that I have read, but I do not have the links immediately available due to a hard drive crash.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2013 at 6:06 pm
“Which suggests that the difference in the UK summer weather and the Arctic summer sea ice extent between 2012 to 2013 may be more dependent on the NAO than the AO.”
My bad, the summer UK weather pattern through July-Aug 2013 tracked the AO better.
Henry Galt says that I was wrong when I claimed above that he’d said he was leaving, to which I’d replied “Please do.”
Actually, I find upon re-reading that it was actually HenryP who said he was leaving and to whom I replied “Please do”.
My sincere apologies to Henry Galt for that error, my claim was wrong, and he was quite correct to call me on it.
w.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2013 at 6:06 pm
I fear you missed the point, Ulric, likely my lack of clarity. Let me repeat my request again:
You still have not defined what it is you are calling a “breakdown”. Nor have you defined how it is measured. So I’m still totally unclear what you are claiming in your forecast, or how we would know if a breakdown has occurred.
Regards,
w.
It was probably a bit of both really for the UK. It got hot from the second week of July which relates more to what the NAO was doing then:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.sprd2.gif
But there was a breakdown from the 14th which follows the AO changes better:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.sprd2.gif
I think the sea ice extent variation may depend more on the NAO though, which is what papers have suggested.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“You still have not defined what it is you are calling a “breakdown”.”
Above if you missed it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1421573
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2013 at 6:20 pm
“But there was a breakdown from the 14th which follows the AO changes better:”
14th August, not July. Sorry I missed that.
Ulric Lyons says:
September 19, 2013 at 6:23 pm
Thanks, Ulric. I had read that. Nowhere in it do you define a “breakdown”, nor do you tell us how to measure it. The only mention is where you say:
Is a “breakdown” defined as “wetter cooler conditions with lower pressure systems”? And if how … how much wetter? How much cooler? How much lower pressure? And for how long?
This is the difficulty with all of your forecasts—a profound, overwhelming lack of numbers and specificity. For example:
Suppose it rains a tenth of an inch averaged over all of the UK, it’s 3°F cooler than the historical average for 1981-2010, it’s 5 millibars below average pressure for that day, and it lasts for one day … is that a “breakdown”?
Or suppose it only rains in the southern UK, but not the northern UK, the pressure is 10mb below average for that day, it lasts two days … but it’s not colder than average.
Is that a “breakdown”?
And if not … then what does define a “breakdown”?
At this point, I would normally say “I’m sure you can see the problem” … but let me spell it out. Unless you make your “forecasts” a whole lot more specific, NOBODY CAN TELL IF THEY CAME TRUE!!! This means that they are not falsifiable.
And sadly … I’ve not seen one actual, verifiable, falsifiable, specific forecast come from you yet. The problem is not that you haven’t given us a couple of what you call forecasts, including the one about a “breakdown”.
The problem is that they are far too vague, too unspecific, and too lacking in numbers to qualify as an actual forecast. Without a bright-line, clear, specific, numeric definition of what you are calling a “breakdown”, I fear that a forecast calling for a “breakdown” is meaningless.
Best regards,
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
September 19, 2013 at 8:40 pm
The problem is that they are far too vague, too unspecific, and too lacking in numbers to qualify as an actual forecast.
And, in addition, there should be information about WHEN the forecast was made. How many years in advance. After all, you claim to be able to forecast decades or centuries in advance.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“And if how … how much wetter? How much cooler? How much lower pressure? And for how long?
This is the difficulty with all of your forecasts—a profound, overwhelming lack of numbers and specificity.”
A breakdown is a sudden change in the weather:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/break+down
You asked for the definition and I gave you the definition, It is a general term, you cannot put numbers to it. The figures given for a particular forecast is a different matter, so you are wasting time with conflation.
The biggest problem is actually that you haven’t given an apology for claiming that the NAO was not positive in July+August 2013. Making that mistake was bad enough, but to carry on as if nothing had happened is inexcusable.
I am honestly up for a fair scrutiny of my work, but you are not fair, and were incorrect in your challenges, as you were with your challenges to Piers Corbyn’:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/15/willis-on-why-piers-corbyn-claims-such-a-high-success-rate/#comment-1034176
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/05/putting-piers-corbyn-to-the-test/#comment-1028201
All I see is a serial time waster who is highly abusive, I’m not playing in your sand pit anymore.
REPLY: Great, we’ll put you in the permanent troll bin then so you can make good on your promise – Anthony