|
Post by blustnmtn on Sept 6, 2019 17:43:49 GMT
Leif Svalgaard disagrees. Somebody’s wrong but I doubt we’ll ever hear a “mea culpa”.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 6, 2019 20:14:01 GMT
I can almost hear the intra-agency management meetings that went on before that release. Bureaucratic hedging on a monumental scale. There was actually NASA a web page around a few years ago with a similar if less forceful forecast - but it got memory holed. I think that there is a rather nasty internecine battle in progress beneath the NASA/NOAA urbane exterior. Possibly with each side trying to out adjust each other. I do hope someone somewhere is archiving raw data away from the reach of the homogenizers and adjusters. There is a long history in climate 'science' of original data disappearing.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 6, 2019 21:37:24 GMT
I can almost hear the intra-agency management meetings that went on before that release. Bureaucratic hedging on a monumental scale. There was actually NASA a web page around a few years ago with a similar if less forceful forecast - but it got memory holed. I think that there is a rather nasty internecine battle in progress beneath the NASA/NOAA urbane exterior. Possibly with each side trying to out adjust each other. I do hope someone somewhere is archiving raw data away from the reach of the homogenizers and adjusters. There is a long history in climate 'science' of original data disappearing. With certain brave exceptions, the true career bureaucrat hates "wing walking". Better to cover the bases in case one set of radicals go down in flames. It's the old David Frye Richard Nixon line. "I, of course, take full responsibility ... but not the blame. Let me explain the difference. Those who are to blame loose their jobs. Those who are responsible do not."
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 8, 2019 15:00:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 10, 2019 21:44:02 GMT
At It's Trial the Settled Science Had Nothing New to Say
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 16, 2019 18:10:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 26, 2019 2:05:56 GMT
A Summer Without Sunspots spaceweather.com/They don't mention it, but the LAST Winter without sunspots was a doozy. Ten years ago this year. But according to Astro the next DOOZY will be 2021-22. This year may just be a MINI-DOOZY. And, if we take good notes, we can compare ... as 2009-10 inspires awe.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 28, 2019 19:30:05 GMT
Anatomy of a God Awful Winter and the Kick Start of a Solar CycleI was updating my solar indices spanning the solar cycle minimums between SC23-SC24 and the ongoing SC24-SC25 transition. I was intrigued by the dramatic 2-mth transition (11/09 to 12/09) from a spotless sun to non-spotless sun ... and how that time frame corresponded exactly to the onset of one of the more memorable winters in English history. Knowing how Acid likes Gav, I even found his video providing an anatomy of that winter. Winter 2009-10 in Britain as described by Gav began in November as a historic wet event and then progressed. In the charts below Nov, 2009 to Dec 2009 is the "cliff" in spotless days ... seemingly the point at which SC24 "switched on" with a large increase in flux ... although it does not look as dramatic as the precipitous drop in spotless days. Seems we may be missing something in our indicators and I wonder if it might have something to do with the solar-global electric circuit we have been reading about. Solar Cycle 23 was a long cycle. If SC24 lasts long enough, the equivalent time would be November, 2020. It is interesting how much lower the SC24 sunspot count is ... while flux is almost exactly the same. I have not forgotten that Astro has forecast winter 2021-22 to be the monster.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 28, 2019 22:15:41 GMT
I'd hazard a guess that you're a year behind on comparing 23 and 24?? This year equates to 2008 and is ahead in spotless days i think???
Unless ive massively mis-interpreted something?
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Oct 6, 2019 12:40:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 6, 2019 12:58:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Oct 6, 2019 15:27:10 GMT
Judith Curry’s “week in review” posts are always a good source for interesting articles. Many of them are based on models and are quite biased towards the CAGW line of “research”. I skim the ones with titles that interest me and try to digest the ones that intrigue me. Many are paywalled though. JC is extremely circumspect but I think she’s very skeptical and extremely disgusted with the state of “science” these days.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 6, 2019 22:42:32 GMT
Judith Curry’s “week in review” posts are always a good source for interesting articles. Many of them are based on models and are quite biased towards the CAGW line of “research”. I skim the ones with titles that interest me and try to digest the ones that intrigue me. Many are paywalled though. JC is extremely circumspect but I think she’s very skeptical and extremely disgusted with the state of “science” these days. I think that may be an understatement. I'm always impressed by her even-handed attitude and her calmness in discussion.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Oct 6, 2019 23:31:56 GMT
Judith Curry’s “week in review” posts are always a good source for interesting articles. Many of them are based on models and are quite biased towards the CAGW line of “research”. I skim the ones with titles that interest me and try to digest the ones that intrigue me. Many are paywalled though. JC is extremely circumspect but I think she’s very skeptical and extremely disgusted with the state of “science” these days. I think that may be an understatement. I'm always impressed by her even-handed attitude and her calmness in discussion. I’m working on my circumspection Ratty.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 7, 2019 0:07:48 GMT
I think that may be an understatement. I'm always impressed by her even-handed attitude and her calmness in discussion. I’m working on my circumspection Ratty. It will come eventually, Blue.
|
|