Below is a note forwarded to me by John Sumption from Jan Janssens. For those who do not know him, Jan runs a very comphrehensive solar tracking website here.
Jan included the caveat:
This topic’s sure to start another heated discussion on the solar blogs
So I’m happy to oblige by posting it here. Jansen makes some good points about the possible first month that cylce 24 spots exceed cycle 23 spots. But when you are in a deep minimum like this one, it is hard to pinpoint the transition, because next month may bring the reverse condition. He writes:
Prior to August 2008, only 3 SC24-sunspot groups appeared. This was in January, April and May. During these 3 months, SC23-activity was higher than SC24-activity. Based on the NOAA-numbering, there were respectively (SC23 to SC24) 2 to 1, 2 to 1, and 4 to 1 sunspotgroups visible.
In August, there were no sunspotgroups numbered by NOAA. However, on 21-22 August “something” was visible well enough to be seen by several observers and to prompt the SIDC to give a (preliminary) non-zero sunspotnumber for those days.
This group had a SC24-polarity but appeared on a moderate latitude of 15 degrees. Based on previous cycle transits, it is not unusual that some “early” new cycle groups appear this low. If one considers this as a sunspotgroup and belonging to SC24, then August was the month during which SC24-activity outnumbered SC23 activity.
However, if one adheres strictly to the NOAA-numbering, then September ***might*** be that month. I stress “might”, because -unless some group appears tomorrow or tuesday- the score will still be 1 to 1: On September 11th, NOAA did number an even tinier group than the August one, and it was a SC23 group (NOAA 1001). SC24-activity then wins on “points”, because the Wolfnumbers for 22-23 September produced by NOAA 1002 (SC24) were higher than the NOAA 1002 Wolfnumber.
Last but not least, I want to emphasize that SC24-activity will be considered higher than SC23’s when its smoothed group (or Wolf) number exceeds that of the old cycle. This might happen in the coming months (or whenever her Majesty the Sun feels up to it 😉
With virtually no sun spots to count one wonders if it makes much of a difference if we count the one sunspot to 23 or 24. The mini group 1002 appeared to belong to 24 but came and went so quickly. To repeat, the minimum continues until her majesty decides to proceed.
The new cycle sure needs to get going with a real bang, and fast,
what with “6 to 8 years” after 2000 being 2008.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
In September there was one SC23 spot lasting for one day, and one SC24 spot lasting for two days, so SC24 wins, but that does not mean that SC24 has begun in earnest. We are still waiting for the first big SC24 spot.
I think Jansen is bored & just rabblerousing. Of course, it’s a rabble easily roused. 🙂
“. . .because next month may bring the reverse condition.”
Qualifiy. CYA. I don’t see much substance here, and I don’t think he does either– a lot of wishful thinking, but that’s all. We’re all sitting on pins and needles and nobody knows when or what to expect next. So you have to qualify any statement like this with a back door.
The solar flux is at 67.3 today; the planetary A index is at 2; the three hour K indices is 00001121 (Planetary) and10001211 (Boulder); the background x ray flux is below class A1 level, and the sun remains spotless. The sun is in a deep minima. It’s tough to make a case that September is the month we might be transitioning out of cycle 23 with a score of 1-1or 1-2. If it continues to go 1-2 or 1-3 or 0-2, then I see a positive cycle 24 trend. We are not seeing that yet.
Ric Werme (13:38:43) :
” I think Jansen is bored & just rabblerousing. Of course, it’s a rabble easily roused. 🙂 ”
No, I bothered him on a Sunday afternoon specifically to ask for his opinion, which he graciously provided.
As to whether * I * am bored and rabble-rousing – I deny any conscious ulterior motive. I’m just here for the science.
doug janeway (13:56:21) :
The solar flux is at 67.3 today;
Always look at the ‘middle’ column, the ‘adjusted’ value. It is 67.6 today.
Jan’s website, which is excellent on a number fo topics, actually gives a range of scenarios for SC23/24 cutover, the sun cycle minimum etc, ranging from April 2008 to December 2009. He, if I read him right, makes the point that the SC23/24 transition is problematic because we are having an unusually long, low activity minimum. The options are
1. We will have a delayed SC24 which is like recent sun cycles only probably less active. This leads to early minimum dates with August 2008 as a possible
2. SC24 will look like SC11 to 15 and have a long rise time. This leads to a later minimum, probably in 2009
3. SC24 will be unlike any of the last 14 cycles and we just have to wait and see …. cue alarmist talk about Maunder minimum and a little ice age. Of course the alarmists could be right but I hope not – I dont want a cold Europe in my declining years!
The short answer is we don’t really understand the sun well enough to make reliable predictions. Up till now a prediction of same as last cycle adjusted for cycle length has served us wellbut this process fails with Sc23/24. For the moment we can watch, wait and sepculate!
After reading these speculative thoughts, I can see why we normally don’t know for certain that a minimum has been hit until about six months after the fact. We can speculate all we what with a series of what if’s but let’s just see what the smoothed Wolfnumber looks like over the course of the upcoming months.
Of course, if the predictions by Livingston and Penn come to pass, this whole issue my become a moot point.
And incidently the only certainty is that the SC23/24 minimum as conventionally measured cannot now be before March 2008 and is most unlikely to be before August 2008
Glenn (13:19:03) :
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
Although I’m pleased to see that Hathaway and NASA has adopted my corrected IHV geomagnetic index instead of the faulty aa-index, I’m not too happy with the result. Hathaway picks the ‘wrong’ peak [in 2003] while he should have picked peaks in either 2005 or 2008 that are only half as large [thus predicting a solar cycle only half as large]. His method relies on picking a peak on the approach to solar minimum, and 2003 is at least 5 years before the minimum and is not the one to pick. But he was also motivated [by NASA?] to pick cherry-pick a peak that would corroborate Dikpati et al.’s NASA-funded prediction. So apart from NASA giving my IHV-index an apparent ‘official’ stamp of approval, I think they screwed up big-time on this one. The way we normally deal with things like this is simply to ignore it and let it die, as it will.
I agree that we don’t know enough about the Sun to be making predictions,
but that doesn’t stop scientists like Hathaway, who has several papers published in reviewed journals on correlations he bases predictions on :
“Cross correlating sunspot number vs. IHV, they found that the IHV predicts the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance with a 94% correlation coefficient.
“We don’t know why this works,” says Hathaway. The underlying physics is a mystery. “But it does work.”
*Yawn* Dull Sun = Slow news day = Speculation.
Have you ever noticed how everybody gets all-a-twitter when the least sunspeck shows itself? And this happens, maybe, once or twice a month if that? Does that not illustrate how very desperate we are to see something? Anything?
I realize this is solar science, and the least thing could very well be important. But, really, this is just sad. This is like standing by a hospital bed hoping a dying man suddenly gets better and comes back to life – not that the Sun is literally dying, of course, or we’d all not be here. But you get what I mean.
There is little about the Sun today to offer any strong evidence of SC24 starting. Noise, background noise, is just about all there really is right now.
Minima 101: where the phenomenon meets the sensor.
In the last week alone, my pumpkin plant sprouted 2 dozen new pumpkins. The morning glories have flowers on them like spring. The robins are all over the lawn, like a 2nd spring.
It’s uncanny for late September, and the phenomena of this year is relentless.
Changes, oh yes. Right before my very eyes.
If the Sun and the sensors won’t talk, the Earth surely will.
Look out your window, not up, but what’s going on at ground level. What do you observe?
Robert Bateman (15:59:32) :
“The morning glories have flowers on them like spring. The robins are all over the lawn, like a 2nd spring.
It’s uncanny for late September, and the phenomena of this year is relentless. ”
Yeah, the UK finally had some fair weather, after their “Awful August.”
It’s over.
Rain and gales again by Tuesday.
We seem to be still debating whether SC24 has even started. I agree with Leif that until we see some ” earnest ” activity, there is no clear picture. I feel that it will be next summer[2009] before we begin to see sunspot number readings of 25.
Leif Svalgaard (14:22:46) :
doug janeway (13:56:21) :
The solar flux is at 67.3 today;
Always look at the ‘middle’ column, the ‘adjusted’ value. It is 67.6 today.
Thanks, Leif. I took too quick a glance trying to post my response in between other duties.
A big cycle 24 spot would obviously be a signal that a transition is underway, but if we continue to see these speks for a while and 23 spots cease, could we safely say that 24 has started, or what do we make of that scenario if it happens?
Leif Svalgaard (15:11:46) :
Note that the story is dated Dec. 21, 2006 or 21.12.2006 or whatever it is in Danish. So the 2008 peak is out and possibly the 2005 one wasn’t documented yet, at lest it doesn’t show up in the graph.
So, old news. Toss the prediction on Janssen’s scrappile and look for a new one. Hmm, alreday there, item 7 at http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
Tpred of March 2006.
Item 14 is a Hathaway aa prediction made in December 2006.
This may be a dumb question and referring back to the Morlet Wavelet Transform of Monthly Smoothed Sunspot Numbers graph shown on September 22, is there any info before 1750 which can be graphed?
There is lots of graphs using c14 records as a proxy for actual sunspot counts that go back centuries or a lot more if you want them.
I have a c14 graph that goes back 2000 yrs here where i also plotted the alignment of the gas giants that line up with each minimum and TODAY.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/gasgiants.pdf
nobwainer,
By what mechanism does C-14 become a proxy for sunspots?
There is an interesting interview with Dr. Hathaway at SolarCycle24.com. It seems Boulder believes that 24 will start late this year and be extra big.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=13
Here’s what I wonder: What is the use in talking about this, other than idle conversation, if the Sun has little to no effect on our weather or climate? Leif has said the Sun acts on the Earth in terms of hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of years. If that is true, exactly why should we care about a solar minimum? They apparently don’t correlate perfectly with global temperature dips. If the Sun has any role in the frequency of cloud formation, that might be something. But so far the only thing I have heard myself that is significant about the minima is about the solar wind.
A new study suggests its lessening may allow more cosmic rays to hit the Earth, which is causing a big hole in the ozone layer according to the study. Either this month or next we are supposed to see a very large ozone hole.
Anybody hear more about that lately? September is almost over.
For the story see here: http://www.icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
It’s the second article, titled “Study: Solar Wind Influenced Cosmic Rays Not CFCs Produce Ozone Hole.”
The original article is here: http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2008/week38/Thursday/091811.html
Robert Bateman,
“Look out your window, not up, but what’s going on at ground level. What do you observe?”
Green lawns, my bell peppers are coming along nicely, and there are a couple of fresh bunches of finger-bananas growing in the mini-platinera in the corner of my yard. There are frogs hopping around after particular heavy rains this afternoon, and judging by the racket my neighbor’s dogs are making, the resident raccoon is taking its evening tour of back-porch cat-food dishes.
In Ft. Lauderdale this is unsurprising. What is surprising is that temps have been maxing out in the 84-87F range, about 4-6 degrees cooler than normal for this time of year.
Personally, I’m loving it. Cool is good down here, but I feel for those to the north of me, I fear this winter.
Glenn (15:28:50) :
“We don’t know why this works,” says Hathaway. The underlying physics is a mystery. “But it does work.”
Since correlation is not causation, the Sun is very likely to prove him wrong this time. It didn’t work last time either; only by creatively widening the error bar could he get it to fit.
Anthony,
As you suggested, I have struck out on my own to try and find this site an ‘official oceanographer’ in similar capacity to Leif Svalgaard. Not knowing precisely where to start, I contacted Drs. Gray and Klotzbach of Colorado State to see if they could suggest anyone of said expertise that could donate their time and knowledge to help better our understanding and the quality of our debate. They may be able to help themselves, I suppose, but I think their expertise lays more in atmospheric sciences than in oceanic currents; although of course their work does necessarily touch on that since the two are connected. I just sent it tonight, and being that they are busy men I do not expect an answer for some time. But I will let you know if/when they contact me back and what they might say or suggest.
Here’s keeping my fingers crossed.
Neilo:
“nobwainer,
By what mechanism does C-14 become a proxy for sunspots?”
be10 and c14 are the most accepted forms of proxy measurements in regard to sunspot counts, more can be read here http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1076
The actual mechanism is derived from the chemical reaction occurring in the atmosphere that produces c14 as a product of cosmic rays. Cosmic rays constantly bombard Earth’s atmosphere. Chemical interactions create a fairly constant source of stuff called carbon-14, which falls to Earth and is absorbed and retained by trees. But charged particles hurled at Earth by active sunspots deflect cosmic rays. So when the Sun gets wild, trees record less carbon-14.
In his book;’The Great Famine’, Prof. William Chester Jordan (Prof. of History at Princeton) has collected writings from the early 14th Cent. that tell of cold wet summers that overwhelmed the agricultural practices of the day and caused severe food shortages. The bad summer weather started in Great Britain in 1314. The next seven years so devastated food production in Western Europe that the period was called “The Great Famine’ by writers of the day, who were used to localized famines. By the third or fourth year, most of the draft animals took sick and died. Not a problem now but when the fields are too wet to support the harvesting machines it might produce the same results. Time will tell.
Two items: First, a surprisingly quick response from Dr. Klotzbach declining to speak here because he does not feel he is qualified as an ‘oceanographer.’ I thanked him and asked if he could suggest anyone. A reply to that is pending. No response from Dr. Gray yet, but I expect a similar one. I have sent a similar request to Joe D’Aleo at Icecap via the comment form. Speaking of that site, look what I found here:
A fascinating (if not suprising) paper (h/t: Icecap) calling out supposed non-profit environmentalist groups as basically nothing more than political action committees (PACs) for the Democratic party. The paper is authored by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and his staff. I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but I expect it to be good.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=142d595f-411a-4057-b495-029a095fe25f
nobwainer (21:01:01) :
“Chemical interactions create a fairly constant source of stuff called carbon-14, which falls to Earth and is absorbed and retained by trees.”
Actually, C-14 is produced when N-14 absorbs a neutron then emits a proton (hydrogen ion). The new isotope has a half life of 5,730 years. Hate to be a nit picker, but this is a nuclear interaction, not chemical. Love the site, Anthony. I work with a bunch of engineers at a nuke plant and it gives us good coffee conversation in the morning.
Recycle: I request that updated versions of this article be produced monthly. Only a few months until we can ask the same of 2009.
Robert Bateman: I don’t suppose you might happen to be the world-reknowned wildlife painter? This, of course, is somewhat unlikely, given the medium and the commonality of your first name. If so, however, you’re a true genius and I would hesitate to challenge your astute attention to detail as you observe the natural world. However, it is important to point out that local observations in a single year are of little relevance. Where I live, the forecast is also for near record-breaking warmth over the next few days. However, the globe has noticeably cooled over the past few years during a time of increasing CO2 concentrations, with especially cool temperatures in the southern hemisphere. Some of this may be related to oceanic sea surface temperature oscillations, but why discount solar effects when there are correlations between sunspot cycles and climate over the ages. With the reduction in the solar wind of late, we are stuck in the midst of a solar system-scale science experiment that may reveal the answer to whether greenhouse gas-induced global warming is the key driver, or merely a variable that can push the baseline upward a bit. I for one, actually hope for a small SC24, so that we can actually gather some data on whether the increase from the 1940’s onward was really due to greenhouse gases and not due to solar warming. Overall, my personal opinion is that there is indisputable proof that all measures of solar cycle strength affect the Earth’s climate. There is also indisputable proof that greenhouse gases have a small, positive radiative forcing effect on the Earth’s climate. There is also virtually no doubt that sea surface temperature oscillations (see 1998 compared to 1999) and volcanic eruptions (see 1992-1993) add noise to the picture that is almost as large as the overall trend in any given year. In the face of all this, we can argue one way or the other wrt AGW and back it up with a lot of data. Ultimately, I would like to see GCMs that include all of the above. Politics may prevent this from happening, I’m afraid.
Another Update: I never expected this to move so fast, but then again this is my first time doing something like this too. Anyway, Dr. Klotzbach has responded yet again, this time to my request for suggestion on a qualified ‘official oceanographer.’
He says: “Dr. Gray would certainly be qualified. I’m not sure if he has the time to contribute, though. If you don’t hear from him via email in the next couple of days, I would suggest contacting him at [phone number deleted here for privacy]. He can probably point you in the direction of another oceanographer or two.
For my point of view, oceanographers like Wallace Broecker (Columbia University), John Marshall (MIT) or Josh Willis (Jet Propulsion Lab) would be very interesting to have as contributors to your website if Dr. Gray isn’t available.”
I kindly thanked him for the time and advice and congratulated him on his promotion to leading contributor on the Tropical Storms Forecast reports CSU puts out. So I guess we shall await Dr. Gray’s reply to see what else develops and who he would recommend if he is not available for comments or contributions himself. Josh Willis of JPL would be most interesting considering it’s a part of NASA. John Marshall might, however, know Richard Lindzen too – both are from MIT. I don’t know enough about Dr. Broecker to comment. Again, I guess we’ll see what Dr. Gray thinks.
More on C-14 cycle –
When the C-14 decays, basically what happens is that it returns to N-14 when the neutron decays into proton changing the atom back to N-14. The emitted particles are an electron and anti-neutrino.
C-14 is also created in ice by fast neutrinos reacting with oxygen atoms.
Recalling my college physics from the recesses of my brain dredged up this from back in 1982 before Mann disposed of the Little Ice Age.
Banded Corals: Changes in Oceanic Carbon-14 During the Little Ice Age
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/218/4567/13
I remember reading the entire paper in college, but have long lost that issue.
C-14 production is correlated to cosmic ray influx. Cosmic rays increase during solar minimums. LIA was during a solar minimum. C-14 increased during LIA as measured in coral. QED.
Anyone have access to the paper?
Dee,
I can’t find that exact paper, but here is one from Dr. Ellen Druffel from 2002. She does cite some of her older work in there. I’m guessing that Geophysical Research Letters would probably charge you for a copy. But who knows. Anyway, here is what I found.
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_druffel.pdf
As to my quest for an official oceanographer, Josh Willis makes me uncomfortable due to his close associations with Dr. Hansen. He might still be interesting, but I don’t think he is the one we would want. Dr. Broecker on the other hand says this on a page I found via Google.
“As I sometimes tell my students, the folks in the back room who designed our planet were pretty clever. We have clear evidence that different parts of the earth’s climate system are linked in very subtle yet dramatic ways. The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change.
My research is directed toward the role of the oceans in climate change. Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation. We place strong emphasis on using isotopes as a means to understand physical mixing and chemical cycling in the ocean, and the climate history as recorded in marine sediments.”
And that is very encouraging!
http://webcenter.ldeo.columbia.edu:81/people.nsf/571fc08d39383f1185256efc004fcb7e/85190ba5e1cfe7c685256ef300647df4?OpenDocument
a lot about the influence of the sun on the next
EMS Annual Meeting
European Conference on Applied Climatology (ECAC)
29 September – 03 October 2008
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
http://meetings.copernicus.org/ems2008/index.html
http://www.cosis.net/members/meetings/sessions/oral_programme.php?p_id=330&s_id=5722
This topic’s sure to start another heated discussion on the solar blogs So I’m happy to oblige by posting it here. Jansen makes some good points about the possible first month that cylce 24 spots exceed cycle 23 spots. But when you are in a deep minimum like this one, it is hard to pinpoint the transition, because next month may bring the reverse condition. He writes: Prior to August 2008, only 3 SC24-sunspot groups appeared.
————–
Nikimathew
Buzz marketing
From this site
http://dxlc.com/solar/
“Cycle 6 began in December 1810 with a smoothed sunspot number of 0 and ended in May 1823.”
Could someone enlighten me in regard to how a cycle can be declared to have begun with a sunspot number of 0? ‘Nothing can come of nothing’, as King Lear observed.
Cycle 6 was, of course, the depth of the Dalton Minimum.
Josh knows from his Argos buoys and thermal contraction of the oceans that there is no ‘extra heat’ in the pipeline. Why these mavens work so hard to ignore the great cooling, is a mystery to me.
==========================
‘look outside , what do you see’
Well, in Northern Europe we are enjoying a faboulous Indian summer thanks to the high pressure system, but it’s cold in the morning and evenings. it’s definately Autumn here, the Autumnal colours start to show.
O/T
A few days back on this site
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/22/new-cycle-24-sunspot/)
we saw a wonderful graph, could we see this graph with ice core data in it from hundreds of thousands of years ago? (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/fig3a.jpg) That would be interesting to see. then perhaps we could see the link between ice ages /eruptions/and sunspots.
Dee,
Sorry the paper you refer to never existed.
Ministry of Truth
Reply – Keep it up and off to Room 101 you go! – Dee
@Kim
If you keep track of RPS blog, he’s had much correspondence with Josh Willis on the OHC data being publicly available. It’s like pulling teeth from a wounded bear. You are correct; Josh Willis and others are avoiding the subject of cooling. Keep in mind these “mavens” have put all their eggs in the AGW basket. To admit error will have the consequence of ruining the reputations of many.
Note both OHC and sea level data which Josh Willis is involved in are not being updated in near real time. The sea level data is on hold until end 2008 when it will be updated. It is not cooperating with model predictions, so maybe is due for a “correction” 🙂
In any event it will be interesting when the 2008/2009 data comes in.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Arthur Glass (03:11:04) :
“Cycle 6 began in December 1810 with a smoothed sunspot number of 0 and ended in May 1823.”
Could someone enlighten me in regard to how a cycle can be declared to have begun with a sunspot number of 0? ”
The word “smoothed” is key. From Jan Janssens note above:
“…SC24-activity will be considered higher than SC23’s when its smoothed group (or Wolf) number exceeds that of the old cycle. ”
Have a look at the latest SIDC graph
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfjmms.html
and you’ll see the current smoothed sunspot number (red line) is now very close to zero.
OT.
The WSJ ran an editorial this AM (Sept. 29) titled Gore’s Rebellion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122264832997183967.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
They address Gore’s urging young people to resort to civil disobedience to stop new coal plants that don’t use carbon sequestration.
A new plant in North Carolina would actually replace older boilers and cut emissions of sulfur dioxide by 80% and nitrogen oxide by a half.
The CEO’s home has been vandalized.
They finish their piece with this:
“Meanwhile, China is set to build 800,000 megawatts of new coal generation over the next eight years. That’s 1,000 Cliffsides — or more than two-and-a-half times the size of America’s total installed coal capacity, with none of our environmental guardrails. Even if every U.S. coal plant were razed to the ground tomorrow, it wouldn’t make any difference for global CO2 while China expands.
We look forward to seeing Mr. Gore take his “civil disobedience” against coal to, say, Shanxi province. He’d better bring a lot to read.’
Bobby Lane (23:42:26) :
I’m not sure what Lindzen is up to – his recent paper on the corruption of climate science ought to cut off funding and he may find himself out of work. OTOH, I just noticed in his bio that he got his Phd in 1964, so maybe it’s an experiment with either outcome being acceptable.
He will be the keynote speaker at the 2008 Southern New England Weather Conference on October 25. See http://www.sneweatherconf.org/index.shtml . He’s mostly an atmospheric guy. Joe D’Aleo will be there too, reviewing last winter here and looking at the next.
BTW, you may not get a reply from Joe. Icecap keeps him pretty busy, and while the various circulation patterns are one of his specialties, I don’t think he’d call himself an oceanographer. You might look for students of Henry Stommel, who was a pioneer in the field. A lot of my http://wermenh.com/1816.html came from his book “Volcano Weather.” Dang, my main link to him is broken, perhaps it should be http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5859&page=331 .
@Cathy:
I wouldn’t be surprised to read that Mr. Gore got sued over the actions of some disobedient youth who took his call to action too far.
I suspect the Nobel Committee is cringing about now.
In this post, as a rebuttal to claims I unfairly compared AGW indoctrination to Hitler, I review the history of the Hitler Youth.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/08/an-inconvenient-youth/#comment-38050
Here is the gist of my comment:
The Hitler Youth was founded in 1922, only one year after Hitler took control of the NAZI party and founded the Sturmabteilung (aka the SA or stormtroopers). It was created to prepare boys 14 or older for future enrollment in the SA and indoctrinated them in the NAZI rhetoric that Jews and other degenerates were a threat to the Fatherland. It taught them that they were the future ‘Aryan supermen’ needed by the German nation. This was a year before Hitler attempted the Beer Hall Putsch (1923) and was imprisoned at Landsberg am Lech where he (and Rudoph Hess) wrote the first draft of Mein Kampf. In 1930, the German Youth for boys from 10 to 14 was created as a subdivison of the Hitler Youth. Three years later, the Reichstag (1933) burned and Hitler was able to seize total power in Germany. By December 1936, Hitler Youth membership (which now stood at 5 million boys) was made mandatory for all boys. And I think we should all know how it ends from there. (Source: Wikipedia Hitler Youth)
From the example of Hitler and NAZI Germany, it would seem that childhood indoctrination precedes the rise of the totalitarian state. So perhaps you are correct and my hind-brain was indeed equating the rise of Hitler with the practice of seemingly innocent indoctrination of children to emotionally believe that AGW, Big Oil and skeptics pose a threat to our homeland.
Once again, that is absolutely disgusting, Dee. Your rhetoric comparing education about AGW to Nazi brainwashing is morally wrong and absolutely absurd.
Of course, telling kids that recycling isn’t hard is just about the same thing as telling them that they belong to a race of genetically superior beings.
Of course, it is mandatory that all youth in America embrace the golden philosophy of the religion of AGW and that they spread it to everyone whenever they can.
Of course, there is no refuge from the AGW-horde; there are no websites or forums where people congregate and discuss opinions counter to the doctrine-of-society-that-is-so-official-that-if-you-question-it-you-are-burned-at-the-stake.
I am offended by your remarks on a personal level. If anyone else had posted similar remarks, Mr. Watts would have deleted them without hesitation. There is no indoctrination of AGW going on; even at the University level, in gatherings of the High Council of AGW Priests, we crack remarks about the shortcomings of AGW all the time. Perhaps you should go back to grade school and see this for yourself. That you can jump from some sort of imaginary happening to a full-blown invocation of Godwin’s Law is quite extraordinary.
Dee Norris (06:35:03) :
I wouldn’t be surprised to read that Mr. Gore got sued over the actions of some disobedient youth who took his call to action too far.
I suspect the Nobel Committee is cringing about now.
I suspect the Nobel Committee is unaware, see them at
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/
@Counters:
I was wondering where you have been. Good to see you are still with us. How is school going?
As you well know, I didn’t originally make a connection between the two but when I was accused of making it and after a review the history of the Hitler Youth, I posted what I learned. BTW, as I pointed out, membership in the Hitler Youth was not mandatory until after Hitler took power.
I leave it to the reader to decide if there is a pattern. If you don’t see it, or feel there is a pattern, why all the fuss?
counters (06:49:59) :
“…There is no indoctrination of AGW going on; even at the University level…”
“…I thought it would be helpful to end by providing a ‘Brief Guide’ to just some of the Green Churches and Sects that one might think of joining:
(a) The General, or Pragmatic, Greens [believe that there may be many different pathways to heaven, to that Green Utopia. Often share buildings with the Church of England];
(b)The Particular Greens [reject nuclear power as a path option – often converts from The Old Church of CND, which was strong in the 1960s and 1970s];
(c)The Particular and Strict Greens [reject nuclear power absolutely, and hold to a closed communion table of locally-produced ‘organic’ produce];
(d)The Peculiar and Pure Greens [reject nuclear power absolutely, and hold to a closed communion table of vegan, or even fruitarian, food];
(e)The Primitive Greens [reject all economic growth, and hold to a strict communion table of living in, and with, Nature. Use earth closets and grey water];
(f)The Trustafarian Greens [wealthy churches which view being Green as a Sunday life-style choice. Key Biblical text: “It is easier for a Prius to go through the streets of Kensington, than for a poor man to enter into the Green Utopia.” (The Gospel According To Charles: 19:24)];
(g) The Church of Malthus, sometimes called the ‘Creationologists’: [commune with animals and trees, and wish to reduce sinful humans to small relict, subsistence populations living with Nature. Key Biblical text: “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation.” (The Other Gospel According To Thomas: 19:14)]; and finally,
(h) The Greens of The Latterday World [It is too late! We are all doomed, and we will burn with the Earth at Armageddon].
“Phew!” What a relief to be a non-believer! Lunch in a sunny, cant-free garden. ”
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/9/28_Green_Churches%3A_Casting_Out_Demons_.html
John the Tenth
Thank you so much. Now if I had a better grasp of statistical ‘smoothing’….
Sorry, but that doesn’t sound very scientific.
Dee if your analysis is correct about the indoctrination of the Hitler youth and the AGW indoctrination our society today might we say that Gore is the modern day equivalent of Joseph Goebbels?
Reply – I will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions on this hot potato. But a word of caution, avoid drawing specifics where only vague generalities exist. The NAZIs were a terrible thing and America answered their aggressions with the greatest generation. I hope that another great generation would stand up to meet a similar threat if called upon. Lets all hope that never happens again. – Dee Norris
Jeff Alberts (08:41:35) :
edcon (09:08:47) :
I was snipped for using the JGM (Joseph Goebbels Media) analogy in an earlier post.
BBC investigated after peer says climate change programme was biased ‘one-sided polemic’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063110/BBC-investigated-peer-says-climate-change-programme-biased-sided-polemic.html
The BBC is being investigated by television watchdogs after a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views were deliberately misrepresented.
Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, says he was made to look like a ‘potty peer’ on a TV programme that ‘was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming’.
NEWS
Crude oil is ‘tanking’ again on the NY markets. Down over $8 per barrel.
Do you use oil to heat your home?
Get some bargains while you can.
Remember this story
Sep 26, 2008
Massachusetts Governor: “People Could Freeze to Death”
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/2-0&fp=48e18028f0dcfbb6&ei=uALhSJiZOY34lQT79bWQAQ&url=http%3A//www.whynam560.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html%3Ffeed%3D189062%26article%3D4304667&cid=1250714450&usg=AFQjCNEzf_WowikJwOlSVyOfsnxi_Pc-qg
@Dee Norris
Global warming indoctrination in ‘publik skools’ is certainly not involuntary; yeah ok. I will assume Counters thinks it is perfectly legitimate to teach children we are destroying the planet and must reduce our carbon footprint to save it. See, it isn’t indoctrination because to AGW proponents it is factual, so how can it be indoctrination?
My neighbor’s kids go to a public school, mine do not. The difference in views on global warming are profound. Their kids are like scared little rabbits thinking everything they do could be harming the planet. They’ve watched AIT without parent’s permission and no alternative viewpoints. If that isn’t indoctrination, what is?
Being required to view AIT is not indoctrination either is it Counters?
counters,
It’s not the topic of the brainwashing, it’s the fact that the powers that be feel the need to be brainwashing little children in the first place.
I’ve had discussions with children who have been convinced by their teachers that the world is going to end if we don’t do something drastic, and soon.
There is no science behind such beliefs. Heck, there is no science behind the belief that future CO2 increases will cause any temperature rise beyond a few tenths of a degree.
After viewing the first pro-global warming ad by Pelosi-Gingrich, I emailed the Gingrich website questioning his buying-in to the scam and hoax. Interns at the website responded with a form letter saying that Newt was not sure about global warming, but that he wanted to be a part of the debate. The form letter conveyed concern about the best way to determine the reduction of atmospheric carbon. I responded by email saying that he had bought-in to the hoax and scam by accepting the premise that global warminng was anthopogenic and that he had lost any debate about the subject. There was no further form email.
Here is proof that Newt is a bonafide Algoracolyte.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/22/lunch-losing-video-gingrich-and-pelosi-tag-team-for-al-gore/
Of course, telling kids that recycling isn’t hard…
So, that’s what your AGW cohorts who vandalised the Kingsnorth power station, and whom your friend the-ends-justify-the-means Hansen flew to rescue were protesting about? Recycling? Give us a break, counters.
Dee,
Propaganda is propaganda and the problem with the greatest generation is that a spin off of that generation created a counter culture that has evolved politically to control most of the news media and academia today.
“Will September be the month?”
No, but anxiety and impatience are understandable.
“There is lots of graphs using c14 records as a proxy for actual sunspot counts that go back centuries or a lot more if you want them.”
Because Carbon is chemically promiscuous, somewhat hydrophilic, heavier than air, etc., its use as a proxy of anything is dubious and fraught with imprecisions.
10Be is better as a cosmogenic proxy. It rapidly preciptates out forming oxides with Mg, Al, etc., which are relatively inert.
Gosh.
I guess I stirred up a hornet’s nest with the Al Gore WSJ link.
I’m afraid ‘edcon’ has it right.
Interesting times we live in.
Yep.
That’s my mantra.
It’s got to get me through the next months/years.
Interesting times . . . . .
NEWS
FWIW, DOW down over – 600 – points, as US House rejects the Bailout bill
Anthony
I haven’t read the post yet, but, once again, you have provided another great bit of desktop wallpaper!!!
Hey Anthony. Us Brits were ‘answering the NAZI’s aggressions’ too, you know? We do understand that the war ‘might’ have had a different outcome if the US hadn’t got involved, but together with Canadians, Australians, Polish, Indians, and too many to mention here, we were ‘answering their aggressions’ for two years before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Just wanted to make that point. : )
Reply – Blame me, not Anthony. My grandparents lived in London during the blitz. The entire free world answered the NAZI aggressions with equal valor (well, there were a couple of minor exceptions). – Dee Norris
edcon (09:08:47) :
I agree with your analogy. Last week Channel 12, Chico, CA, had a segment on a teacher who visited the Brown Penquins in their natural habitat supposedly damaged by AGW. The end of the segment showed the teacher (indoctrinette) asking the 10 year old pupils in her class, in Fresno, CA, what they would be willing to give up to save the Brown Penquins.
The “useful idiots” strike again.
Dee Noris, the Algore-UN campaign is not like the Nazi regime, but they are using the same propaganda technique the Nazi regime utilized. Using the technque on the vulnerable school children, who are in the learning mode, by the authority of the teacher is repulsive.
Here are two quotes by the leader of the infamous Nazi regime: “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.” “As soon as by one’s own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one’s own right is laid.”
A quote from the propaganda minister of the Nazi regime: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
The success of the AGW campaign and the present bail-out of the mortage industry does not bode well for a free society.
Robert Bateman: “Look out your window, not up, but what’s going on at ground level. What do you observe?”
I think I’d be more impressed by the “just look around you” argument if I hadn’t done a bit of reading about the dreadful winters (and appalling springs, summers and autumns too) that Europe endured during the Little Ice Age. A particularly horrendous example is the winter of 1694-95, which went on well into April and during which in Britain apparently it snowed, at one point, for five weeks on end. I think this puts the recent gentle winters and mild early springs into sharp perspective.
So, looking out of my window, what do I observe? Generally, I notice a reassuring lack of deep snowdrifts, dead livestock, frozen wildlife and starving peasants foraging for nettles.
Cathy (10:31:21) :
” Interesting times we live in.
Yep.
That’s my mantra.
It’s got to get me through the next months/years.
Interesting times . . . . . ”
It’s hard to think of a better one.
I’m sitting here a little gobsmacked.
The bally-hooed bailout just went down.
Crude oil price has now crashed by more than $11 (traders betting on economic slowdown).
(Plus, the US drilling bans expire tomorrow – an “interesting times” event by itself)
The Dow was down at one point by about 705 points – if it closed there it would exceed the one-day point drop record set the first trading day after 9/11.
If it gets any more interesting, I think I might start drinking moderately again.
As reported above, here in the UK we are getting warm weather during the day, but cold mornings and evenings. However, we are also getting lovely sunrises and sunsets – dark oranges etc. Is there still sulpher dioxide in the air over the UK from that earlier emission – anyone know? Would that be the reason for the colours? [Microsoft writers, please note that it is indeed ‘colours’. You can change text for the French etc. but expect us Brits to put up with ‘colors’!]
The current problems on the money markets etc. can only be good news for sanity in matters ‘green’. Ask people if they want to be green, or burn whatever when they’re cold. You know what, they won’t want you to ask them – they’ll just expect you to go get it for them. [With apologies to the writer of Three Days of the Condor]
Steve Berry (11:50:44) :
” As reported above, here in the UK we are getting warm weather during the day…”
It’s already over. Rain and wind starting tonight.
The charts for the next several days look an awful lot like awful August.
Steve Berry,
You are right, of course. Before the U.S. entered WWII [as a result of Hitler declaring war on America on 12/11/41], Great Britain had pretty much stopped the Germans from launching a cross channel invasion.
But you must admit that if it weren’t for the dogged persistence and constant cheerleading of one man — Winston Churchill — England may well have made a separate peace with Germany.
In that case, the war definitely would have had a different outcome: Germany would have ruled the entire European continent, including Russia.
He’s always got a big audience
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aIBZNp8Znlc
indoctrination??????
Dee……
Interesting times we live in. …….(John-X)
ICECAP:
Outsiders familiar with the proper workings of science have long known that modern Climate Science is dysfunctional. Now a prominent insider, MIT Meteorology Professor Richard S. Lindzen, confirms how Al Gore and his minions used Stalinist tactics to subvert, suborn and corrupt a whole branch of science, citing chapter and verse in his report entitled “Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?” His answer: A resounding “NO!”
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
Neilo:
The mechanism for production of Be-10 is a nuclear collision between a high energy cosmic ray (actually almost always a proton but sometimes other heavier atomic nuclei, ray is an old misnomer) and an atmospheric nitrogen or oxygen nucleus. The nuclear reaction is called spallation. It literally knock the “you know what” out of the atmospheric atom and can result in Be-10 (with a half-life over 1 million years). Other shorter half-life products of spallation can occur but they usually are not usable as a proxy for solar activity because of their short half-lives.
The amount of Be-10 production is inversly proportional to the solar activity. That is because the sun is not the source of the cosmic rays. The cosmic rays come from outside the soalr system. When the sun is more active, the solar wind is stronger and “inflates” the Heliosphere and Heliosheath, reducing the amount of cosmic rays that reach the planets including Earth.
But isn’t the issue that the volume of GCRs varies over time depending on where we are in the galaxy (more GCR in the leading edge s of the spiral arms – of which there are 4 or 2 depending on who you listen too), where we are in the galactic plane (the solar system ‘dolphins’ through the galactic plane and GCR are concentrated in the center of the plane (we are entering the middle of the plane in 2012 as I understand it).
Given that and the variability of the strength of the heliosphere, doesn’t that make it a tad tricky to figure out what the level of BE10/C14 actually means?
Sorry…
I’m obsessing over the news today…
US stock markets closed at the top of the hour (16:00 EDT), but there was HUGE selling at the close, and the final prices are still not settled – can’t remember this happening for this long before.
Since the official close, the Dow is down another 130+ points, down to the lows of the day, new one-day point-drop record.
interesting times, interesting times, interesting times
John-X (12:10:27) :
I had the occasion to visit St. David, Wales, UK, for 15 days during the late 1970s. It rained, sleeted and snowed, after a beautiful sunrise, on the day we departed.
Fernando (12:44:16) :
Climate Science is not dysfunctional, only a few, but influencial, climate scientists have been proven to be purchaseable.
Bill Marsh (13:04:06) :
“But isn’t the issue that the volume of GCRs varies over time depending on where we are in the galaxy …”
Bill, the effects you are talking about operate on time scales (10’s of millions of years) that dwarf human evolution. There is no GCR event scheduled for 2012. The sun moves through interstellar space at a rate of about 4.2 AU per year relative to the stars in our suns neighborhood (20,000 m/s).
. The sun (and local neighborhood of stars) rotate about the galactic center at orbital speed of about 45 AU per year (220,000 m/s).
To put that in perspective, the distance to the nearest star (Proxima-Centauri) is 4.22 light-years or 270,000 AU.
Dead pixels or new sunspecks (pore-ettes) ?
At first I was pretty sure I was looking at nothing, then I saw the official NOAA bulletin
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/forecast.html
and the usual phrase, “The visible disk was spotless,” was omitted – typical practice when there’s something there, but too small to be “officially noticed.”
Anybody else see anything?
REPLY: Yes, see my latest post. Thanks for the tip. -Anthony
Hello Anthony. Is this the awaited paper from the AIRS TEAM? ‘Satellite remote sounding of mid-tropospheric CO2’, published 9 September 2008 at
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0817/2008GL035022/
REPLY: Yes it is. This was on my list of things to check this week, thanks for the tip! I’ll write it up sas soon as I can read it. In the meantime, feel free to post more comments on it in this thread.
First sentence:
” Human activity has increased the concentration of the earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide, which plays a direct role in contributing to global warming.”
REPLY: See the new post I’ve made on this for discussion on the main page – Anthony
Nobwainer
Pretty interesting. With Saturn in opposition, move ahead or behind in time a few days or weeks and see what the inner planets look like along with Pluto. The Maunder seems to have a good line up of most of them. And there may be a tightening in the others when considering all of them. Maybe you have already tried that, I don’t know. But the outer seem the most important, with the inner helping out. 1789, even though Neptune is out, Pluto is in. 1970 just not quite there, but maybe just enough to cause trouble.
Bed-time reading.
Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/PMichaels_Jun98.pdf
Ed Scott,
That was a great read! Thanks for posting it.
Today we tend to forget the Senate’s 95 – 0 vote against Kyoto [from the link]:
Also, a very interesting chart was the one comparing land surface station temperatures with satellite and radiosonde balloon data. The last two show cooling, while the [UHI-corrupted] surface station data shows warming [this paper was submitted a decade ago, in 1998].
You’re right, Ed, it was good bed-time reading!
Brian D (16:21:59) :
Nobwainer
“Pretty interesting. With Saturn in opposition, move ahead or behind in time a few days or weeks and see what the inner planets look like along with Pluto……”
Hi Brian, agree with your perception. To my mind the crucial players seem to be Neptune & Uranus, they taking 174 yrs to catch up to each other then the quicker moving Jupiter and Saturn do their thing to slow things down as regards the Sun.
Its certainly a pattern that is worth a look and has meant a solar minimum everytime this happens for the last 700+ yrs…and we are in the exact same spot right now.
Harthaway and Lief are watching the dynamo and the polar fields for short term predictions that agree with this pattern….i wonder what their theories “on what causes” the change in dynamo output over the centuries is?
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/gasgiants.pdf
Bill Marsh (13:04:06) :
“But isn’t the issue that the volume of GCRs varies over time depending on where we are in the galaxy (more GCR in the leading edge s of the spiral arms – of which there are 4 or 2 depending on who you listen too), where we are in the galactic plane (the solar system ‘dolphins’ through the galactic plane and GCR are concentrated in the center of the plane (we are entering the middle of the plane in 2012 as I understand it).”
Bill…was wondering if you have any links on this one, it looks a very interesting area to research.
Smokey. It was bizarre of Hitler to actually declare war on the USA – a mistake in magnitude to his turn to the Russians when the blitz on Britain came to an end. Had he not declared war (and had he persuaded Japan to hold off) then it’s debatable whether or not the US would have entered WWII ever at all! Public opinion in the US was firmly against it.
However, would the war have ended differently if the US had never entered? Ooh that’s difficult. Russia would have held out for a long time and depleted Germany’s capacity. Although we Brits would have held our own, it’s difficult to imagine that Germany would not have built up a bombing force to level the country. Then again, we had ingenuity on our side, and a dogged determination that Churchill exemplified. We are best when our backs are against the wall. Of course, the largest variable in all this is development of the nuclear bomb. If Germany had got it first then we would of had to surrender. But if we got it first then the war would have been over. But the war would have cost so much that it would of been a pyrrhic victory.
What if????
Cheers.
Steve B,
It’s always fun to speculate on “what if,” isn’t it? I guess we’ll never know. But you are right about Japan. And with Japan attacking us, the attitude here was that we had our hands full with that situation alone. Had Hitler not foolishly declared war on the U.S. just 4 days later, it is doubtful that we would have decided to take on a massive second front. What for? Dec. 11, 1941 was Hitler’s biggest mistake.
The U.S. entry into the European war gave the Russians [and the British] a tremendous morale boost. Churchill stated at the time that at that point that the war was won [although he acknowledged hard slogging ahead]. Without Hitler’s forcing the U.S. into the war, Russia probably would have eventually lost, Lend-Lease or not. But Germany just did not have the resources or manpower to prosecute a war against England, Russia – and the U.S., too.
It’s 2 a.m. here [couldn’t sleep], so I’ll end this idle speculation with a recommendation: The Winds of War, by Herman Wouk. He did 14 years of historical fact-checking, plus it’s a very interesting story in its own right. I’m on my fourth reading. Highly recommended, and you can probably find a paperback copy on Amazon for a dollar or less. People [here, at least, in 2008] just don’t generally understand the situation and attitudes immediately preceding Dec. 7, 1941. The Selective Service Act [the military draft] passed by exactly one vote; Americans were strongly isolationist, and had no interest in getting involved in European problems. Hitler changed that forever.
Regards,
~ Smokey
[PS: sorry about the O/T pixels, Anthony. I’ll have to make another donation to this site to atone.]
Ric Werme,
I was not soliciting Joe himself but ICECAP in general, and anyway my solicitation requested suggestions of the person of interest was not an expert in that field or just was too busy. This may be a fruitless search as the climate debate must keep researchers pretty busy. I did e-mail Dr. Broecker at Columbia as well. I have not heard back from either Dr. Gray or Dr. Broecker yet at all. Josh Marshall I have not contacted, but it was he that was suggested not Mr. Lindzen. I just thought it might be a good thing that he knew Mr. Lindzen and might be familiar with his latest treatise. Thus he would have a good approximation of how the people on this blog feel about how climate science is used.
Anyway, perhaps Dr. Klotzbach spoiled me. I may be waiting a while on these gentlemen to get back to me. And on the whole they may be too busy to bother with a site like this. No offense intended, but it really amazes me that Leif himself makes as many appearances around here as he does. Eh, it’s all a mystery right now.
I just have too say that I love this website.
Long may it prosper, and thanks to everyone for their comments both pro and anti AGW, etc…
I think that we just need to remember and celebrate that we actually have freedom to public discuss all the things that are discussed on this website.
Note that this freedom is core to nearly everyone’s values who posts on this website.
It’s a privledge to be a “fly on the wall” to witness and learn from you all – even and especially from those I disagree with.
Cheers G
Graeme –
I happily, whole-heartedly ‘second’ your sentiments about WUWT.
“Harthaway and Lief ”
Hearthaway and Leaf? No, that’s not it either, crum.
I like the fourmilab orrey for playing with the planets. I believe the best results in high global temp followed by solar somnolence involve the preceding (to apposition) run of Saturn up to the distal pair with Jove closing rapidly. If either of the great planets run ahead in passing the outer pair it’s a ho-hum outcome.
Look at the run up to the MWP, and the Maunder and compare with 1982 and 1992, 1998, 2003 and today.
nobwainer et al.:
There are two ‘planetary’ influences theories 1) the ‘barycenter’ and 2) the ‘tidal’ theories. The Sun [and the planets] is in free fall in their orbits and feels no forces [like the astronaut in orbit around the Earth or a man in an elevator with a snapped cable]. The barycenter is a fictive point whose position depends on what you consider to be part of the solar system. The Sun is not being ‘jerked around’ by the planets. The tidal forces are much too small to have any effect [Jupiter creates a tide 1/50 of an inch high, and Venus creates almost as high a tide, the other planets including Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune create way smaller tides].
Dynamo theory predicts stochastic variations in solar cycle sizes. One of the problems is to prevent such variations from ‘overwhelming’ the cycle. Unless there is a ‘relic’ magnetic field deep within the Sun [very little or no evidence for that – although many claims, just as with so much in this area] there is no clock that that can pace the cycle. And if there are longer period ‘cycles’ they have run about 100 years lately, not 176 or whatever that slippery number is.
We have discussed all this many times before, so search back though old postings, if you want to see some of that.
As an example of the pseudo-science the ‘planetary’ theories lead to, I offer this peer-reviewed one:
New Astronomy, Volume 14, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 25-30
doi:10.1016/j.newast.2008.04.005
Long-term predictive assessments of solar and geomagnetic activities made on the basis of the close similarity between the solar inertial motions in the intervals 1840–1905 and 1980–2045
I. Charvátová
Abstract
The solar inertial motions (orbits) (SIMs) in the years 1840–1905 and 1980–2045 are of a disordered type and they are nearly identical. This fact was used for assessing predictive capabilities for the sizes of three future sunspot cycles and for the time variation of the geomagnetic aa-index up to 2045. The author found that the variations in sunspot numbers in the interval 1840–1867 and in the interval 1980–2007 are similar, especially after 1850 (1990). The differences may be ascribed to the lower quality of the sunspot data before 1850. A similarity between the variations in geomagnetic aa-index in the intervals 1844–1867 and 1984–2007 is also found. Moreover, the aa-index in these intervals have the same best fit lines (the polynomials of the fourth order) with close positions of the extrema. The extrema of the best fit line for the aa-index in the interval 1906–1928 which corresponds to the first half of the ordered, trefoil interval of the SIM have the opposite positions to them. The correlation coefficient between the aa-indices in the interval 1844–1866 and in the interval 1984–2006 is 0.61. In contrast, the correlation coefficient between the aa-indices in the interval 1844–1866 and in the interval 1906–1928 is −0.43. Cautious predictions have been made: the author believes that the cycles 24–26 will be a repeat of cycles 11–13, i.e. they could have heights around 140 (100), 65 and 85, they will have lengths of 11.7, 10.7 and 12.1 years. The maxima of the cycles should occur in 2010, 2023 and 2033, the minima in 2007, 2018, 2029 and 2041. Up to 2045, the aa-index could repeat its values for the interval 1868–1905. The results indicate that solar and geomagnetic activities are non random processes. If these predictions may come true, then further evidence of the primary role of the SIM in solar variability is established.
——
If the Sun is the primary and dominant driver of climate, then one would also expect the climate during 1840–1905 and 1980–2045 to be similar as sunspots and geomagnetic activity repeat, unless AGW makes the difference 🙂 Of course, there are also the usual weasel words [‘could’, ‘may’, …] giving the author a way out, if needed.
The mind boggles at the nonsense…
Charvátová gets it all wrong…very unimpressive. If he went back further before 1830 as well as 1650, 1470, 1290 he would have picked up the same planetary pattern …..which looks the same today.
NASA has a paper by Ching-Chey Hung “Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets” http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2007/TM-2007-214817.pdf
There has to be an external influence to the solar cycles, just a matter of finding it i think.
Leif Svalgaard (14:00:04)
The mind boggles at the nonsense…
Where’s an expert on barycenter monopoles when you need one?
Gary Gulrud (11:39:53) :
“Harthaway and Lief ”
Hearthaway and Leaf? No, that’s not it either, crum.
I will try harder in the future Gary 🙂
nobwainer (17:02:39) :
Charvátová gets it all wrong…very unimpressive. If she went back further before 1830 as well as 1650, 1470, 1290 she would have picked up the same planetary pattern …..which looks the same today.
So should the climate also be the same, then? since ‘everybody’ knows that there is such strong correlation…
There has to be an external influence to the solar cycles
Why does there have to be an external influence? This sounds like wishful thinking to me, or a priory constraining the science.
Leif Svalgaard (20:58:34) :
nobwainer (17:02:39) :
Charvátová gets it all wrong…very unimpressive. If she went back further before 1830 as well as 1650, 1470, 1290 she would have picked up the same planetary pattern …..which looks the same today.
“So should the climate also be the same, then? since ‘everybody’ knows that there is such strong correlation…”
So does that mean that you do agree that there is a correlation in low sunspot numbers and the positions of the planets in the years quoted?
nobwainer (21:32:23) :
“So should the climate also be the same, then? since ‘everybody’ knows that there is such strong correlation…”
So does that mean that you do agree that there is a correlation in low sunspot numbers and the positions of the planets in the years quoted?
No, of course not. >b>If there is such a strong correlation between solar activity and the climate as ‘everybody’ claims, and if solar activity is caused by the planets, then the climate should repeat every 178 years. Right? and does it?
Leif Svalgaard (22:14:30) :
So does that mean that you do agree that there is a correlation in low sunspot numbers and the positions of the planets in the years quoted?
“No, of course not. >b>If there is such a strong correlation between solar activity and the climate as ‘everybody’ claims, and if solar activity is caused by the planets, then the climate should repeat every 178 years. Right? and does it?”
Well Leif if the proxy records are correct, 178 yrs ago we had the Dalton minimum, 178 before that we had the Maunder, 178yrs before that the Spore, then another 178yrs we have the Wolf.
And guess what…on each occasion we have Neptune and Uranus coming together.
Check out my amateur report on it here.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/gasgiants.pdf
Leif…. I also think you are arguing the link between sunspot counts and climate.
I am purely arguing how the planets effect the sunspot count….which some say has an effect on climate.
nobwainer (22:45:06) :
So, if 2008 is the start of the new (Eddy?) minimum, 1830 would be the start of Dalton, 1652 the start of Maunder, 1474 the start of Sporer, and 1296 the start of Wolf.
From Wikipedia (sorry, but it was handy), 1790 was the start of Dalton, 1645 the start of Maunder, 1420 was the start of Sporer, 1280 was the start of Wolf.
Differences betwen the pairs are 40, 7, 54, and 16. While 7 is pretty good, note that the length of the Maunder minimum was so different from the rest it’s hard to describe it as similar to the others, let alone a repeat. 40 and 54 year offsets are horrid – several Schwabe cycles and a large percentage of 178.
nobwainer (23:06:29) :
I also think you are arguing the link between sunspot counts and climate.
No, I do not think there are any links, planets, sunspots, climate.
Just trying to establish that if there you believe in a planet-sunspot link and if you believe there is a sunspot-climate link, it follows that there should be a planet-climate link, and then asking if you subscribed to that last link.
Ric…the start and end times of the minimums can vary depending where you look, the important thing to realize is that each 178 cycle has Neptune and Uranus coming together at 174yrs and Jupiter and Saturn plus the others are coming around in a slightly diff configuration. So on some minimums the process starts early as Neptune and Uranus come together and others times middle or late(ish)….its not about start times down to the exact year. The fact of the matter is Neptune and Uranus have come together for every minimum except the Oort which goes out of sync along with the medieval warm period. Use this tool to follow the progress of the major 4 planets.
http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html
Leif Svalgaard (06:34:25) :
nobwainer (23:06:29) :
I also think you are arguing the link between sunspot counts and climate.
“No, I do not think there are any links, planets, sunspots, climate.”
So we will just sweep it away with a simple statement….forget about the climate link if that troubles you. There is no proof that the planets can effect the Sun and we also don’t know how plasma is effected by gravity. Perhaps we should look for the causes while accepting there is a correlation of Neptune and Uranus coming together during the past 4 minimums….and perhaps this might help us to predict the next minimum which is more than science can offer presently.
nobwainer (15:43:59) :
> Use this tool to follow the progress of the major 4 planets.
> http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html
No thanks, I’m a software engineer and I hate the user interface on it. There ought to be things to let you adjust the time forward or backward by a user-defined amount (like 178 years). Also buttons for jumping 10 steps at a time. (Maybe user selectable, 10, 12, 24, 30, 365.2422/12, etc all have their uses.
Have you checked its accuracy? I was hoping Jean Meeus would, but haven’t seen him report back. I figure something unpolished like that may need some polish in its orbital computation too.
Ric…some people are hard to please. Its not hard to use a calculator. The information is there and easy to see, but you can only lead a horse to water I guess.
I have spoken with Jean thru this blog, for some reason this tool doesn’t work on his pc, but i gave him a few dates that he checked and it all seemed to line up as i was seeing it.
Ric…you might also hate this one…the interface is even more difficult but does serve as a cross check http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
nobwainer (23:37:05) :
Yeah, that one certainly seems more designed to watch planetismals than planets.
Robert Vanderbei at Princeton has done a lot of neat stuff with N-body simulations. While he does have a solar system simulator, it’s more of an afterthought and instance of a highly configurable simulator than astronomical tool. Check out http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/astro/galaxy/nBody.html some day when you have time to play.
Only if you have a lot of time should you venture to his home page at http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb . Old fogeys like me who drooled over the Questar ads in Scientific American or Sky and Telescope and anyone who dismisses 3.5″ telescopes as inadequate for real observing will be amazed at http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/images/Questar/
It’s good to hear the math behind http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html is valid. Knowing the results are accurate makes it a lot more usable.
“Differences betwen the pairs are 40, 7, 54, and 16. While 7 is pretty good, … 40 and 54 year offsets are horrid”
While I’m not an apologist for them but the general idea of ‘cyclomainia’ is that the Jose cycle perturbs the electromagnahelic cycle via a teleconnection. Some versions include magnetic interactions with the planets possessing significant fields.
As Leif has ably argued, no physical cause has been identified and all the usual suspects eliminated.
Demanding that the Hale cycle and the Jose cycle march in lockstep, however, is a ‘strawman’ which is why Fourier analysis is used in their studies.
I don’t know where Leif finds the patience and energy to respond to all the questions, but I thank him for the info and the skepticism. Throughout history people have looked for causes from “outer space” when they should have been looking closer to home. Some of this sounds too much like astrology to me. Good thing there hasn’t been a comet recently. If it’s any consolation for the people who think it’s the sun, the Milankovitch cycles don’t provide enough insolation variation to explain ice ages either without some additional unknown factors.