Comments on: Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.

By: Melvin Goldstein

Melvin Goldstein — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:00:17 +0000

Available energy is mandatory. Wealth may equate to available energy. If you want to live in a nation that is prospering make sure that its available energy supply is abundant.
Solve Energy to mitigate all other issues

By: Global Cooling Due to Decreased Sunspot Activity? « tobefree

Global Cooling Due to Decreased Sunspot Activity? « tobefree — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:45:55 +0000

[...] global warming advocates NASA assure us that significant sunspot activity will return in 2012, but a recent a paper on recent solar trends by William Livingston and Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, predicts that [...]

By: evanjones

evanjones — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:32:01 +0000

Well, we are much better able to cope in this day and age. So I am not as pessimistic as some.

But, no, not good. and it would likely result in badness, moral and otherwise.

By: James A. Donald

James A. Donald — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:21:05 +0000

Dodgy Geezer asks why will a little ice age be morally bad?

Because in past little ice ages, governments and people have done bad things.

By: 2014-2015 - These years are a repeating theme in solar forecasts « Watts Up With That?

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:01:30 +0000

[...] Livingston and Penn – Sunspots may vanish by 2015 [...]

By: Oddziaływanie plam słonecznych na Ziemię « Dziwny jest ten świat

Oddziaływanie plam słonecznych na Ziemię « Dziwny jest ten świat — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:31:55 +0000

[...] nie wszyscy wiedzą, że obecny cykl słoneczny jest anomalny? Brak plam słonecznych. William Livingston i Matthew Penn z National Solar Observatory in Tucson ostrzegają, że plamy słoneczne m…. Co to może oznaczać? Może to oznaczać, że weszliśmy już w mały wiek lodowcowy. Podobnie [...]

By: Scientist Predicts Ice Age Within 10 Years « noworldsystem.com

Scientist Predicts Ice Age Within 10 Years « noworldsystem.com — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:28:42 +0000

By: Tom Klein

Tom Klein — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:52:21 +0000

I think it is excellent that this blogs opens up the discussion about the Sun and the effect of changing behavior of the Sun on the climate and it does it in its usual high quality manner. However, this is primarily a climate blog. Historical evidence indicates that the activity of the Sun as observed through sunspots affects the climate. We have a rare historical opportunity to observe this effect in real time – as long as the Sun continues to behave like it has for the recent past – and see if the low sunspot activity translates into an observable climatic effect. The AGW proponents by predicting rising temperatures as a consequence of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration created an ideal condition for the effect to be observed and be highly publicised if it indeed happens. However, trying to predict climatic changes is hard enough. Coupling it to trying to predict the behaviour of the Sun which is even less well understood than the climate, makes prediction more of a guess than science.
If the Sun continues its low sunspot activity and we have solid evidence that it influences the climate, that would be a major accomplishment. It would give a major impetus to understanding of the sunspot -climate link. It would also lead to trying to get a better understanding of the behavior of the Sun, which I do not believe that we currently have.

By: Trevor Pugh

Trevor Pugh — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:43:20 +0000

ERROR BARS: I keep meaning to post about error bars. I am concerned when I see charts like the one Figure 2 as it tells you nothing about the errors present in the measurements (maybe else where in their document but not in the post)

I could envisage a situation where the early measuring equipment was of poor quality and had large errors compared to the more recent data. If that were the case there might be no quotable trend at all.

Since this blog generally complains about the quality and repeatability of data, I think everyone should keep in mind that knowledge of errors of observation is critical when interpreting any data.

By: Spotless days: 400 and counting « Watts Up With That?

Spotless days: 400 and counting « Watts Up With That? — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:39:11 +0000

[...] Though, Livingston and Penn seem to think we are entering into a grand minima via their recent paper. [...]

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:47:30 +0000

Anthony, I would like to see an updated graph of the Observed Geomagnetic Averaged Planetary Index. I think the last one you published was in mid-June. Now that July is almost over, and the sun has been really quiet this past month, it would be interesting to see if there are any signs of change in this index. Thanks.

By: News Briefs 14-07-2008 | Psychics Services|Psychics Members Site|Psychics City|Course

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:37:57 +0000

[...] Watts blogs about Livingston and Penn’s paper, Sunspots may vanish by 2015, and the ASA’s paper Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern [...]

By: Chandler

Chandler — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:37:41 +0000

Maybe the Sun is just dying.

By: third world county » Blog Archive » Here’s Some Spit in the Global Warmists’ Eyes

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:10:58 +0000

[...] “Sunspots May Vanish by 2015″ [...]

By: tallbloke

tallbloke — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:06:32 +0000

“And yet, it moves.”

{Exit stage left in search of science, pursued by a motley crew of zombies, ghosts and demons.}

By: poetSam

poetSam — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:44:03 +0000

““We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. ” Carl Sagan via Lief

For heavens sake, quit arranging things! Life is far too complicated for even the best brains to try to arrange. Some better brains than Carl Sagan decided liberty was the best solution.

By: Gary Gulrud

Gary Gulrud — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:02:41 +0000

Lights down.

Curtain.

By: tallbloke

tallbloke — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 08:01:21 +0000

Leif,
I note however that you are unable or unwilling to address the core of Landscheidt’s theory (see my previous post), which has falsifiable content. and remains unaffected whether the barycentric motion of the sun about the centre of mass of the solar system is caused by planetary motion or the hand of God.

I think your preference for accusing others of demonic possession over addressing their science puts you in the vatican of scientific orthodoxy.

“In 1633 Galileo was tried for heresy.

He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.

After a period with the friendly Ascanio Piccolomini (the Archbishop of Siena), Galileo was allowed to return to his villa at Arcetri near Florence, where he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest, and where he later became blind. ”
-wookipedia-

REPLY: Leif, I see what you mean now. Tallbloke. I suspect Leif looks at Landscheidt like I look at at 911 truthers. He’s probably just burned out on the falsification argument as I’ve seen happen in talking about 911 “derived facts” to truthers, once falsified and “killed”, the zombie returns again and again. I’m not saying Landscheidt is anything at all like a 911 Truther, so please don’t make the inference, only that it is one of those issues that becomes a circular argument due to it’s nature.

I’ll point out I’m neutral on Landscheidt, but I don’t want the argument to take over the thread.

So for that reason, everyone, let’s leave Landscheidt off the table for now. Feel free to discuss anything else about solar science. – Anthony

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:48:56 +0000

Oliver: When I see papers cited I always check if they pass my ‘crank filter’ and my ’sloppiness filter’ and my ’solid analysis filter’. These checks are usually quick [seconds]. Let me take the case of the South-African paper by Alexander.
Here is their Figure 10: http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA10.png

The authors are ‘barycenter people’ and calculate TSI received from the Sun which is supposedly wobbling around the center of mass [SSCM - the cross] of the Solar System. They calculate four values [perihelium, aphelium, two equinoxes - interesting enough these Southern Hemisphere people call the March equinox the ‘Spring’ equinox]. Here I show the actual observed TSI. I have plotted their values as the red dots: http://www.leif.org/research/DavidA11.png

Since they don’t match up and don’t make sense, I can now dismiss the paper, which I hereby do. It does not pass muster. The same argument applies to all the barycenter papers.

The above is a quote from a similar discussion at CA. Needless to say, it didn’t rock anybody’s faith in their erroneous belief.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:35:56 +0000

I’m overwhelmed by the scholarly research and deep insight being displayed. One prediction of mine has certainly come true: that eventually all public discussions of what causes solar activity ends like this one. Even on Anthony’s blog. I’ll end with a quotation by [what makes some people laugh] the dreaded Wikipedia of Carl Sagan’s book: “We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces… I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive.[...] The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.”