Jerry is "spot" (pun intended) on. I'm a meteorologist and we deal in
probabilities all the time because we must communicate uncertainty. The
same thing's need to be done with SS cycles, as well. provide a
confidence interval for peaks and SSNs, etc. A forecast of X SSN and Y
date does not communicate uncertainty, which must surely exist. We even
have all manner of statistical scores for uncertainty to check the
reliability of our probabilities, skill of forecasts against
climatology, etc. It really is a pretty big deal.
Kim N5OP
On 5/18/2016 9:29 PM, Roger (K8RI) on TT wrote:
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
--
Kim Elmore, Ph.D. (Adj. Assoc. Prof., OU School of Meteorology, CCM, PP
SEL/MEL/Glider, N5OP, 2nd Class Radiotelegraph, GROL)
/"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
practice, there is." //– Attributed to many people; it’s so true that it
doesn’t matter who said it./
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|