Wednesday, July 16, 2008


The Problem With Predictions Redux

Here is the first prediction for Cycle 24 sunspot numbers on top of the most recent adjustment (which adjustment was made necessary by, well, the lack of predicted sunspots). As you can tell, the angle of the predicted rise in numbers in Cycle 24 is the same, or nearly the same, in both predictions. The absolute numbers is also exactly, almost, the same. This, I believe, is counter to good science. If a cycle is lengthier than the last, there usually is a difference in the next cycle. Why are the predictors betting against the house and good science?

Why are the predictions in this paper from 2006 appearing to be the more likely?

Here is the apologia pro graphia sua from David Hathaway and what a Denier, William Briggs, says about that talking point. You make the call on who makes more sense.


Check out this link over at Hot Air.

The American Physics Society seems to be bailing on the anthropogenic global warming nonsense, and they vindicate your posts on sunspot activity.
'Seems to be' being the key words. I still don't know were they stand.
Still, I guess it's better than saying we believe everything Al Gore says about anthropogenic CO2 caused warming. I read Viscount Moncton's latest piece on the subject. I have to admit that I know so little science I can't tell if his formulae are worth a dime. I may try again with my son's help. The Canadians reported the lowest flux density number ever this past week--less than 64. I hope the sun doesn't go spotless for decades. Lots of suffering to follow that.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?