True only when you have "fixed" numbers from which to calculate an
answer, but not quite true with the consensus when "predicting from, or
with, unknown variables", like the solar cycle. The solar cycle varies
from cycle to cycle and within a cycle, making a clear cut number for a
future cycle an unknown, leaving us with probabilities. The cycles have
been on a down hill slide for some time with lower peaks and lower,
lows. Single peaks, double peaks along with future magnitudes can only
be forecast based on a number of figures that are variable leaving the
actual numbers unknown. Statically we can be fairly sure within a
certain percentage of where those numbers will fall within a range, but
even that hinges on the predictability of the sun's behavior.
So the predictability of a future sunspot cycle(s) hinges on
probabilities, not solid numbers. It's still science based on our
incomplete knowledge at the time of the prediction
We can run those numbers through a computer (my profession and degree)
and still end up within a percentile, not a specific number. Unlike the
gravitational constant and acceleration with known numbers, we do not
have those numbers for solar cycles, or the sun's future activity. We
only have three things on which to base our prediction. The past cycles,
the sun's activity at those times, and the predicted activity of the sun
during future cycle(s). Even those are filled with unknowns.
The consensus come from scientists working with numbers within this
predicted range. IOW, It all depends on which numbers the individual,
or groups of scientists work with. Each comes up with a number that
"should" fall in the range of statistical minimums and maximums.
Therefor, they have to get together and form a consensus as to the
prediction.
There is one thing we should remember: There is no guarantee the real
result will fall within these predictions, just as we can only say that
some day the earth will be hit with a major CME. It's not a question of
"If, but of when". We've had "close calls with devastating results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm We took a
more direct hit before the electronic age that was a bit hard on the
telegraph systems of the day.
Science often comes up with predictions based on a consensus because
they are based based on a number of unknown variables and they are
"usually" within the statistical percentile, but sometimes miss the mark.
Without wanting to start another argument, pick a controversial subject
like "mankind's" prehistory which is subject to interpretation.
"Historical", or prehistorical climate change. We "know" the climate
has a long term, natural variability from warm to cold multiple times
over millions of years based on paleoclimatology
( https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data ) that has
been interrupted by a number of catastrophes. Based on a number of
variables the years these occurred are calculated within a range (that
gets wider the farther back we go) and the result used is based on a
consensus.
73
Roger (K8RI)
On 5/17/2016 Tuesday 7:30 PM, Jerry Gardner wrote:
On the website http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html
they said the following: "The first year after solar minimum, marking the
end of Cycle 23, will provide the information scientists need to arrive at
a
consensus".
In science you cannot have a consensus. Something either is or isn't. The
statement points to how politics has entered the world of Science whether
it
be forecasting a solar cycle or global warming.
My forecast for cycle 24 is for it to begin in June 2007 and peak at a
smoothed SSN of 105 in 2012. Recently there have been a number of
predictions calling for solar cycle 24 to be very large if not the largest
since solar cycle 19. Not only do I think that those hyped forecasts are
incorrect and have stated so on a number of propagation email reflectors,
my
forecast for cycle 24 is for it to be weaker than solar cycle 23. As a ham
radio operator I hope I'm wrong but we won't know either way for a number
of
years.
73,
Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
Lakeland, FL, USA
kn4lf@earthlink.net
I came across this old post from April 2007 in the archives and thought it
might be interesting to compare Thomas' predictions from 9 years ago to
what actually happened.
Thomas predicted cycle 24 would start in June 2007, the actual start was in
January 2008 -- not bad-- off by only 6 months.
He predicted a peak in 2012 -- the dual peaks occurred in 2011 and 2014.
He predicted the peak to reach a smoothed SSN of 105 -- the actual peaks
were 99 for the first peak and 101 for the second. Not bad at all. In fact,
he nearly nailed it.
73,
Jerry
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
--
73
Roger (K8RI)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|