I find this to be an egregious and sneaky way to deny Ted his due. He was a good man who was roundly savaged by his opponents in the AGW camp during his life. As much as I respect Leif Svalgaard for his pioneering work, I, for one, find it despicable for him to try to deny Ted credit for his discovery (NOT EDDYS DISCOVERY) after his death.

w.

“Mum’s the Minimum”

Like in “Mum’s the word”, that is… keep quiet, say nothing

Very Inconvenient for Mr. Gore and those who buy into his “Truths”

OMGWAGTDHUWSOCCOTAOGAPC for short.

or we could just call it Nigel….

I don’t know what department you are challenged in, but I have explicitly stated that I worded this clumsily. It is not the change of distance that does the trick. That is: if you by some external force change the distance it will have absolutely no effect. Tidal [or magnetic] coupling internal to the system can slow the Sun or the Earth down and increase the AM of the orbiting body, and if you go back to a time when the Moon was closer to the Earth [because the friction has not yet slowed down the Earth's rotation], then the Earth was rotating faster.

It is a severe criticism to claim that I say things that I know are false, and I take great offense at that. The all important word in my statement was ‘back’ and the tidal transfer is one-way. The planetary theories require a two-way transfer for the cycles to work.

Perhaps this is where the “charlatan” tag comes from. You are very aware the tidal cause is not what is important here, it is the mechanism observed in the AM conservation that needs to be addressed. You have stated yourself:

“If you were to shrink the Moon’s orbit [moving the Earth closer to the Moon] the Earth would indeed speed up because of conversation of AM (angular momentum) similarly, if you were to shrink [make the semi-major axis smaller] the Jupiter’s orbit by 1.2 million km, the Sun would speed up.”

Its time to drop 2 of your standard defense mechanisms:

1. The “Carsten experiment” has no validity.

2. The Tidal effect is irrelevant.

1) wavelet analysis, cross-wavelet analysis, recurrence & cross-recurrence methods, …
2) wave theory, harmonics, acoustics, nonlinear dynamics, …
3) PDO, NAO, SOI, …
4) geomagnetic indices, sunspot areas, differential rotation, active longitudes, north-south asymmetry, …
5) de Vries cycle, Hale cycle, solar cycle, …
6) magnetosphere, heliosphere, ionosphere, HMF structure, cosmic ray flux, …
7) orbital dynamics, geodesics, …
8) Chandler wobble, terrestrial polar motion, variable earth rotation rate, …
9) atmospheric angular momentum, atmospheric tides, long-term ocean tide cycles, lunar nodal cycle, …
10) Dansgaard-Oeschger events, recent glacial-history reconstruction methods, …
11) homogenization of daily temperatures, spatially heterogeneous diurnal temperature range trends, …
12) Jack (John) Eddy

It’s not like I lacked education, but Landscheidt triggered voracious new learning (rate: ~1000 journal articles per year) about climate, geophysical, planetary, statistical, & solar science.

Landscheidt provided a less dull null model than the usual random one. The message transcends science and can be regarded as a bright light cast upon the limits of human willingness & ability to grapple with nonlinearity.

I propose that the next ‘grand’ minimum, whenever it occurs, be known as Landscheidt Minimum.

Furthermore:
I propose that we drop ‘grand’ in favor of ‘Eddy’, such that Oort, Spoerer, Maunder, Landscheidt, etc. will be known collectively as Eddy Minima.

- – -
Anecdote about what caused me to learn of Landscheidt’s works:

I saw projections showing that daily minimum temperatures are going to overtake daily maximum temperatures. These projections were made by an organization that calls itself an “Institute for Climate Studies”. This organization is funded by a government that has implemented a substantial carbon tax. (Note: I have verified that many other jurisdictions employ the same methodology.)

Here’s something to think about:

If modeled future nighttime temperatures are allowed to regularly exceed daytime temperatures, what effect does this have on forecasted mean temperatures if mean temperature is defined as the average of max & min?

Perhaps if these folks were more honest …

=
Mike Bryant
“How many climate scientists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?”
=

Couple thousand to write computer models, couple thousand more to write grant proposals, (multiply by 3 to factor in the cost of the support staff if you’re keeping notes…), etc…..

And ONE to announce the bulb burned out instantly upon installation, despite the all the calculation….

….Explanation:
They overlooked water – apparently no one figured it was a wet bulb.

This isn’t bad news. It probably means job security – and if there is no disaster, that is not a bad thing.

- – -
Neither climate science nor solar science can provide the answers we seek as long as only a fraction of the required financial investment is being made …so until there is adequate (& stable) research funding, we have astrology…

Bob

Leif knows that this statement is false, provided a coupling mechanism can be found between the Jovian planets and the Sun.
The Earth Moon sysytem is an irrefutable example of such a momentum
transfer that occurs because of the tidal coupling between the Moon and the Earth’s oceans. Hence, this a statement is really just a lead into his third comment and has little or no value in this arguement.

It is a severe criticism to claim that I say things that I know are false, and I take great offense at that. The all important word in my statement was ‘back’ and the tidal transfer is one-way. The planetary theories require a two-way transfer for the cycles to work.

Thank you for the penetrating analysis of my perverse character and fearful motives. Nobody is trying to stop anybody, to wit the persistent and sucessful hijacking of just about any [solar related] thread by the planetary cultists. I feel it is a scientists duty to point out bad ’science’ and such when encountered. The planetary theory was once the preferred explanation for solar cycles [or modulation] but has been found to be wanting by later research, simple as that. One can accept that no mechanism is known if the correlations are VERY good. This happened with the relation between sunspots and genomagnetic activity and aurorae, where we only really found the correct explanation sometime in the 1960s. But the correlations touted by the planetary folks are simply not good, they are lousy to b polite. There is no ‘fear’ involved. It would be great if we could incorporate planetary influence as an element in the theory, but scientific honesty does not permit me to join the bandwaggon.

So I believe the optimum, or solar maximum, and the pessimum, or solar minimum, should be named in a way that illustrates this societal derangement, that will be a lesson to future generations.

The Odious Optimum, which is ending, followed by The Paradise Pessimum, in which mankind need fear the warmth no more.

I’ll go get on with my life now. :0)

Nor should we name it after someone like Gore or Hansen as a form of mockery. That would be petty and spiteful, and the name would become meaningless as soon as the political conflicts of the present day are forgotten.

But if this minimum does cause a period of global cooling then the consequences for humanity are likely to be very unpleasant. It will be seen as something dreadful, and its name should reflect that. Even if the effects are not too bad it would still destroy the credibility of the AGW ideology, and would force everyone to consider just how tiny we are in comparison to the huge natural forces that surround us. It would be a huge blow against anthropocentric hubris.

Therefore it should be known as the Nemesis Minimum.

I would only say one more thing: While one’s psychology may be very clear to others, it can take time (if it happens at all) to see oneself. If one does face one’s knee-jerk-reaction blinders, it may be tough but it is infinitely rewarding.

Leif, I’m rooting for you.