Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (23487)	12/21/2008 11:20:28 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

Third, note that several decades at a time, the sun-spot activity is higher or lower than the total average. This is where you start babbling. First, "several decades" means about two cycles. I see no pattern that seems linked to two cycles. In fact, I see no pattern linked to any N cycles (you pick N). That is the problem. There is absolutely no justification for claiming that the next cycle in particular must be an historic low one. Your argument boils down to claiming that since we have recently been above the average, the next cycle must make up for this and be really low. I'm sure you are smarter than that. Its like claiming the last 5 rolls of a pair of die have been significantly above the average, therefore I know the next roll is going to be two ones. Uh?? Lacking some science (you know something about the die being loaded) the next roll is a clean slate and has nothing to do with the sum of prior rolls. The cycle centered around 1790 is a bit odd looking, as it has one of the longer decays, and it is then followed by three very low cycles. But the decay of cycle 23 does not look as odd as that, and further there are other longish decay ones such as the cycle at 1970 which are followed by larger cycles. There just are not any patterns. As I pointed out, there was a paper cr 2004 or 5 claiming 94% (IIRC) accuracy for predicting the magnitude of the next cycle based on some solar dynamics when back tested against the last 8 cycles. They claimed cycle 24 would start in late 2007/early 2008 and be a larger cycle than the last few. Well, so far it does not seem to be working. Perhaps their theory will be salvaged yet, but AFAIK, there are no reasonable theories and models for predicting either the frequency or amplitude of solar cycles. Mq the Marv's eyeball included.