Are these predictions on a par with Hurricane predictions? Since a CME event which would be damaging would depend on its intensity and direction (pointed at the earth) when it occurs, it would seem less likely to occur, yet I have seen predictions we are “due” such an event. I lost everything in Charlie, which was a very small, but intense storm which was a direct hit for me. Aside from “Hype”, what is the general thoughts on CMEs?
System there is not as chaotic as the system on earth.
Not that it is understood of course.
I am not a Solar or a Climate Scientist....but I have been heavily involved with installed Main Frames...
So I know that computer modeling on any computer is totally dependent on the skill and understanding of those building the software model.
All computers are just High Speed Idiots.
But they have magical qualities.
Are you connecting a CME on the Sun with a Hurricane event on our Global Weather Cyclonic events?
********************************EXCERPT********************************************
Leif Svalgaard says:
the predicted size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle in about 100 years
Was part of the title of our prediction paper: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
*******************************snip***************************************
Leif Svalgaard says:
LC Kirk, Perth says:
May 2, 2012 at 5:53 pm
If the monthly plots are smoothed International Sunspot Numbers, as for the predicted numbers, then the factor is ‘Daily Number’ x 0.65 = ‘Monthly Plotted Value’. Though I still don’t know if they are plotting the ISN number for the last day of the month, or an average value for the month.
It is much simpler than that. The International Sunspot Number for historical reasons [to be compatible with Rudolf Wolf's count for 1849 to 1865] is reported as 0.6 x the actual count, while the NOAA count is just the raw count [actually = 10 x number of groups + number of spots].
*******************************************snip****************************************
Leif Svalgaard says:
vicepapr says:
May 2, 2012 at 7:03 pm
what does explain the match in sunspot number but mismatch in maximun date?
We were not predicting the date [our method does not support a date prediction] so were only using the ‘nomimal’ date eleven years after the previous maximum in 2000.
**********************************************snip**************************************
AND
***********************************
Robert in Perth (soon to be back in South Africa) says:
Leif @5.10 am
You are being far too modest.
History will record that the seminal article on the length and strength of Solar Cycle 24 was published in Geophysical Research Letters on 11 January 2005 by Leif Svalgaard et al entitled SUNSPOT CYCLE 24: SMALLEST CYCLE IN 100 YEARS?
2005 was the hundredth anniversary of Einstein’s miracle year.
With what we are currently witnessing in 2012 with the trenchant behaviour of the Southern Polar Field on the Wilcox Solar Observatories website 7 years after the publication of your article, coupled with the brevity of the article itself, has convinced me that the Svalgaard et al article would no doubt have drawn the Great Man’s stamp approval as a fitting commemoration of his achievements.
1687, 1859 and 1905 mark the years of some of humanity’s greatest ever achievements.
Sadly, as the 2009 Climategate leaks (my absolute gratitude to the anonymous whistleblower forever) reveal we have now seen the depths of debasement that so-called scientists are prepared to stoop to.
My absolute gratitude goes out to Anthony and heroes like Leif, Bob Tisdale, Ryan Maue, Joe Bastardi, Robert Brown of recent vintage who share their insights and help to bring us to a proper understanding of our place in the universe.
Leif, the final death blow for the debasers and their claims of “settled science” should have come on 6 December 2011 at the Fall Meeting of the AGU, (who in fact published your article) with the Stevens Lecture on Clouds but the Anthropogenic Global Gravy Train with all its hangers on, has somehow managed to carry on.
Richard Black and his BBC monstrosities somehow never got round to covering Stevens’s lecture and its inescapable conclusion that current climate models are incapable of properly modelling for clouds!
Leif, it is one thing to arrive at a prediction that ultimately turns out to provide a the correct answer in PhD length dissertations that you need a PhD in solar physics to understand, but you arrived at the correct outcome that has been validated 7 years later in 4 pages of clear and easily understandable writing. .
It was Einstein who produced a theory of such complexity that he said that only 11 men alive understood it, who endorsed the policy of making things as simple as possible.
The factual evidence is now “in”, and the science is now “settled” as we are constantly being bombarded with and Lo and Behold, Svalgaard et al are proven right
FWIW I believe we are witnessing at least an analogue solar cycle similar to the one a century and a half ago that spawned the Carrington event with wild and unpredictable peaks and troughs in solar activity.
As I have reached exactly the opposite conclusion to the one espoused by you in the Forum section regarding the direct influence of the Sun’s Solar Cycles on the climate of the Earth on the Solarham.com website, (which tragically has gone missing in action in the past 2 days), I believe that a disastrous period of solar-induced global cooling and climate instability awaits mankind.
Now that is Climate change I can believe in!
Science is all about producing models and hypotheses that have predictive power.
Your model has been validated in an area of physics that is vitally important to mankind and the names of Svalgaard and Cliver and Kamide as potential candidates should be drawn to the attention of the judges who awarded the 1921 version of the prize to Albert Einstein.
Kind Regards.