Science : Unprecedented Breakthrough Forecast

In 2006, our top government experts issued an unprecedented, breakthrough forecast that the next solar cycle would be 30-50% stronger than the previous one.

Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast Of Next Sunspot Cycle — ScienceDaily

They had it exactly backwards. The current solar cycle is down nearly 50% from the previous one, and is the weakest in over a century.

Data

SWS – The Sun and Solar Activity – Graphs of Historical Solar Cycles

There was nothing unprecedented about this forecast. It was the opposite of reality, like essentially all other government long-term forecasts.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Science : Unprecedented Breakthrough Forecast

  1. rah says:

    Back to the drawing board. We just finished a spotless 9 days and though EISN says there are a couple spots, they must be so tiny that I can’t see them on their image.

  2. Gator says:

    I stopped paying attention to their solar forecasts about ten years ago, as they were consistently wrong. It became obvious they were forecasting what they desired to see, and that they were not even trying to get it right. But this is “climate science” in a nutshell.

    On a related note, Mosher has written a piece over at WUWT in which he attempts to dismiss UHI. It is an amazing piece of fiction, too bad he doesn’t see it that way.

    • Anon says:

      It seems they paid no attention to Willie Soon, who seems to have completely nailed the Solar Cycles here by plotting the Barycenter of the Solar System:

      https://youtu.be/XxiQoanjvLE?t=2377

      He has the current minimum predicted as well as the Maunder and Dalton Minimums.

    • Robert Austin says:

      Gator,
      I don’t think Mosher actually dismissed UHI issues in that he admitted that micrositing issues where probably still there. This kind of fits in with what Antony’s surface station project showed up. Berkely Earth still uses satellite methods to determine urban vs rural and Mosher acknowledges that their method will not detect microsite issues. Whether you agree with his presentation or not, for those of us used to his short and cryptic drive-byes his article was refreshing and rational.

      • rah says:

        In general the alarmists have been dragged kicking and screaming into admitting there are UHI and station siting issues.

      • Gator says:

        Mosher has created a model that underestimates the effect of UHI. This is a bald faced attempt to validate the fraudulent adjustments to our data, and to continue ignoring the massive effect that UHI has on the numbers. Mosher is an apologist for and an enabler of the alarmists. How skeptics get taken in by this charlatan is beyond me.

    • neal s says:

      If Mosher dismisses UHI, then he should have no problem with relocating many weather stations which are currently in heavily populated areas, to the nearest least developed or populated locations. (For example, smack dab in the center of the largest nearby park area)

  3. Martin says:

    Rename National Science Foundation to National Scam Foundation that would make sense.

  4. arn says:

    I still do not understand why we need all these climate related scientists.

    One would be more than enough to provide us with all the failed predictions and apocalyptic BS scenarios.

    That thousands of them are doing this does not make it more accurate at all.

    The only good thing about this worthless failed prediction is
    that such a predicted increase may have resulted in a bit warmer weather-
    and then they would have blamed co2 for it
    and we would have to suffer even more AGW is real BS.

    PS
    I am pretty sure that there is a strong correllation between
    bold predictions and getting money from the government.
    The closer the predictions to the normal standard
    the more likely to lose a job or get get a low wage.

  5. Al Shelton says:

    Those frauds at NSF and NCAR have no shame.
    They are blatant liars and, like Gator says, only forecast their desires.
    And.. they have the audacity to call themselves scientists.

  6. Kurt in Switzerland says:

    Here’s the “meat” from the Science Daily article:

    “Forecasting the solar cycle will help society anticipate solar storms,” says Paul Bellaire, program director in NSF’s division of atmospheric sciences, which funded the research. “Important discoveries are being made using helioseismology. Through this technique, we can image even the far side of the Sun.”

    The scientists gained additional confidence in the forecast by showing that the newly developed model could simulate the strength of the past eight solar cycles with more than 98 percent accuracy.

    “The model has demonstrated the necessary skill to be used as a forecasting tool,” says NCAR scientist Mausumi Dikpati, the leader of the forecast team at NCAR’s High Altitude Observatory. The team also includes NCAR scientists Peter Gilman and Guiliana de Toma.

    There are several names mentioned. Perhaps come of them still work for NCAR in Boulder. Maybe someone nearby would be so kind to reach out and ask them how/why their model, which had 98% accuracy over the past eight solar cycles, failed completely on this one. Would that be 0% accuracy?

    • arn says:

      Well-we know how the 97% nonsensus of AGW turned out.
      Why should the 98% be more accurate?

      97-98% is the standard voting result the communist uni party usually get while in real life more than half of the population would rather kill then vote them.

      • Kurt in Switzerland says:

        arn:

        Well, no.
        This is a clear example of face-palm failure, demonstrably so.
        The prediction failed. Miserably.
        The premise of impending, dangerous and irreversible climate change requires decades to validate. Apparently, the alarmist community remains convinced it is right.
        So this failed prediction on sunspots is a powerful example of the orthodox scientists getting it patently wrong.
        That is why a 2019 follow-up with the principal researchers makes sense.

    • Robertv says:

      Just maybe they are completely wrong about how a star generates its energy. How can there be a 11 years cycle generated from the centre of a star

      https://sciencing.com/long-photons-emerge-suns-core-outside-10063.html

    • Gator says:

      At first I thought this was an off topic comment, and the I realized that you were pointing out the fact that none of their ice free predictions have come true either! Only government employees can keep their jobs after being wrong consistently for decades.

      Good post little man!

    • rah says:

      And I’ll just leave this here:
      https://www.iceagenow.info/many-more-months-of-a-spotless-sun-are-yet-upon-us/

      “Since mid-2016, the Sun has occasionally been devoid of sunspots. These spotless disks will gradually become a familiar feature as the solar cycle is heading for its next minimum, currently expected by the end of this decade.
      “…during the previous minimum (around 2008), no less than 817 spotless days were recorded, whereas the minimum period leading into solar cycle 23 (around 1996) counted only 309 such blemishless days.”

      • Mr Sir says:

        That’s the thing. There’s been a decrease in sunspot activity in the last few years, but global temperatures have, over the last few years, either remained constant or have increased.

        So you just confirmed that the rise in greenhouse gasses is the primary reason for the current global temperatures.

        • rah says:

          No, it confirms that the great modulators of the climate are the oceans. You do know that over 99% of the thermal retention capacity of this planet is in it’s water? No, I guess you didn’t know that basic fact. Your clueless about even the most fundamental drivers of the climate and that is why you believe all the stupid crap they pump out.
          It will take time, but the earths atmosphere is going to cool as the oceans cool. And when it does the atmospheric CO2 level will drop because colder waters retain more CO2. But there is no doubt that you’ll believe it when the liars tell you that CO2 mitigation by man has caused the drop.

  7. tom0mason says:

    “The next sunspot cycle will be 30 to 50 percent stronger than the last one, and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.”

    And that shows up how, even with the ‘best minds in the business’ working on the model, if any aspect, any assumption is not checked against against reality and goes unverified then the model output is nonsense.
    And although this is bad for those working on this model, it is very useful in science. For when a modeled output fails it tells you that this model’s paradigm is WRONG, and that is useful for future work in the field.
    Now apply that rational to the rest of the climate models.

  8. Nick Schroeder says:

    RGHE theory assumes/requires that near earth outer space be cold.
    Near earth outer space is hot, 394 K, 121 C, 250F.
    Just ask the HVAC engineer for the International Space Station.
    Anyone who suggests increasing the albedo to counter warming has just admitted that the atmosphere cools the earth.

    By reflecting away 30% of the incoming solar energy the atmosphere/albedo make the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.
    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6503085690262216704

    Greenhouse theory has it wrong.

    The non-radiative processes of a contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, render ideal black body LWIR from the surface impossible. The 396 W/m^2 upwelling from the surface is a “what if” theoretical calculation without physical reality. (And, no, it is not measured!) (TFK_bams09)
    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6507990128915464192
    https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/

    Greenhouse theory has it wrong.

    Without the 396 W/m^2 upwelling there is no 333 W/m^2 GHG energy up/down/”back” loop to “warm” the earth. (TFK_bams09)
    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6457980707988922368

    Greenhouse theory has it wrong.

    These three points are what matter, all the rest is irrelevant noise.

    No greenhouse effect, no CO2 warming, no man caused or cured climate change.

    Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ’78, CO PE 22774

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.