You already started one on solar cycles in Astronomy, Andre, and I came here from there to start a separate one on "SSRC". I was concerned about a poor New England skier getting his hopes up for colder winters.

If Casey is going to propose a whole new theory and give it a scientific-sounding name, I think it appropriate that he be a scientist. And I think that if his website claims he has a staff of top experts, it would be appropriate to say who they are. It sounds like he is looking for grant money for telling people what they want to hear - that is, those fortunate people not victims of groupthink.

LOL!!! SSRC has added the following words to its home page: "It has activated with a virtual office site and will transition from its current location to permanent facilities >with its next round of funding<. This start is but the very first though important step as the SSRC begins the normal process of growth toward establishing long term capability and resources to perform its mission."

Coming clean, you might say, perhaps in response to those who found out its address is a mail drop. Sounds a little different from their earlier claim to be an international leader in climate research!

I moved the post to your existing solar cycle thread, which is where it belongs.

If you can't trust the messenger you can't trust his copy of the message.
The message may still be true, but he can't be counted in the "for" column.

Similarly, you can't prove the messenger trustworthy by showing his message to be true, if you only look at his message you can only prove him untrustworthy by showing his message to be false).

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

If you interpreted anyone on here as saying (1) Casey is a crook, or (2) Casey is wrong because he is a crook, then you are not reading the posts. Instead, you will find us saying that Casey is not a qualified source, therefore his opinion is irrelevant and worth no further thought as reference material for discussion. That is all that was said, and all that was meant-- the rest you made up yourself so you could object to it. There's a name for that: strawman.

On several forums on this site I have seen comments and concerns about Solar Cycle 24 related to a news release from The Space and Science Research Center (or SSRC). The news release implied a connection to NASA and their prediction for Solar Cycle 25. The SSRC which is made up of one person, John Casey is predicting cycle 24 will have a very low sunspot count (less than 50).

I found an interview on earthfiles.com with Dr. David Hathaway, a NASA solar expert whose studies were referenced by Casey. He talks about solar cycle 24 and solar cycle 25 and the predictions made by Casey. I was going to copy and paste parts of the interview on this post but the earthfiles site makes it clear that it would be a copyright violation, so here’s the link:
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?I...tegory=Science

I was surprised that Dr. Hathaway talked about the cycles’ potential impact on the weather, but given that he did I wasn’t surprised by what he said.

Also there was a 12 person panel of solar experts from around the world who were given the job to predict the strength of solar cycle 24. See:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24

The report from this panel estimated the sunspot numbers to be between 90 and 140. There were two groups the low group was from NASA (including Dr. Hathaway) and predicted numbers around 90, the other group predicted numbers around 140. I’m sure Mausumi Dikpati from NCAR was in this group as she has been predicting a very active cycle 24. In either case the numbers are to the high side meaning they predict cycle 24 will be very active.

John Casey was not part of the group and his prediction of less than fifty not even mentioned.

In an earlier post I included a link to a junkscience site that had information on Casey, see:
http://junkscience.com/blog/wp-conte...john_casey.pdf

The editor of Junk Science got an e-mail from Casey that sheds light on why he started SSRC, see:
http://www.junkscience.com/blog/2008...ve-brass-ones/

Jim

__________________

Thanks for the research, that clears up a lot. My question is, when cycle 24 is over and Casey is wrong, does he give the money back? Do we ever hear about him again, or does he go on to used cars, while someone else takes up the torch with a whole new "angle"?

Thanks Ken!

One thing I didn’t mention is of the 12 people on the panel one was Leif Svalgaard from ETK (a Huston-based consulting firm) who is predicting the lowest of the panel at 75. What does he think of John L. Casey?
Here is a quote from ClimateAudit.org:

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
222 (Richard): The ‘Space and Science Research Center’ and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate. He has tried to recruit even me into his band of ‘experts’. I would not place any value on the ramblings of the press release.

You can find this on climateaudit.org see #223:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2534

Jim

__________________