The data from SWPC is in, and it is lethargic at best. Sunspot numbers took a hit, down to about 42, a delta of ~50 lower compared to the red prediction line.
10.7 cm solar radio flux took a similar hit:
View original post 700 more words
Advertisements
Russ, the NASA video doesn’t portray that there is too much ‘solar science’ required for these predictions. Mostly the deliberations are based on past data on sun spots, thereby making the entire effort easily accessible to literally anyone with rudimentary pattern recognition abilities. And if someone were to bring Bayes into the process, they’d also be counted as ‘solar experts’. Is that all there is to solar cycle prediction?
This NASA prediction comes uncomfortably close to astrology.
Their guess is as good as anyones.
Some have been saying that for years, But, in reality it’s worse than astrology, any solar prediction by NASA comes via committee, It’s pure statistical guess work with an authoritative assertion. When they get it wrong as they did with this cycle (cycle 24) they blame it on nature being unusual and continue to peddle the statistical guess work via committee.
During solar cycle 23, it was claimed that cycle 24 would be one of the most active cycles and it will raise planetary temperatures due to rising CO2 and cause major damage to our communication and electrical grids world wide, but now they dismiss that the suns weak activity has a role in declining temperatures.