I am not a fan of massive modeling exercises to predict the future – as documented on this blog the output of disease models has been generally wrong, often by orders of magnitude.
These errant models were used to set pandemic policies – such as Oregon relying on a fraudulent UW IHME model projection to shut down all non-life threatening health care in Oregon for up to several months in the spring of 2020. Thus, these fraudulent models caused actual harm to real people.
The official prediction put out by NOAA and NASA in 2020 foresaw a weaker-than-average cycle, similar to Cycle 24. But not all the experts were in agreement.
In stark contrast to the consensus forecast, McIntosh and colleagues predicted that Solar Cycle 25 “could have a magnitude that rivals the top few since records began.”
A new study out of Russia also predicts that this cycle could be among the most active ever and also suggests that maximum activity could come as soon as late 2023.
The disagreement illustrates how much more there is to learn about the sun’s behavior.
In spite of the repeated failures of “Big Models” to predict the future, this is the basis for selecting climate change mitigations – mitigations that will likely be as effective as mitigations were for Covid-19. Which is to say, a failure.
The past two and half years have destroyed my trust and confidence in not only models but The Science itself.