…it is with great sadness that I report that Jack Eddy passed away yesterday.
– Dr. Leif Svalgaard in comments today
“My reasons for taking this less-traveled road were many. One is the inevitable thrill of discovery when you wander into new areas. More importantly, you also avoid the danger of being too comfortable in too narrow a niche. I truly believe the sayings that there is no hope for the satisfied man and that without fear there is no learning. Entering a new field with a degree in another is not unlike Lewis and Clark walking into the camp of the Mandans. You are not one of them. They distrust you. Your degree means nothing and your name is not recognized. You have to learn it all from scratch, earn their respect, and learn a lot on your own. But I also think that many of the most significant disc
overies in science will be found not in but between the rigid boundaries of the disciplines: the terra incognita where much remains to be learned. It’s not a place that’s hidebound by practice and ritual. I have always tried to keep moving between fields of study.” — Jack Eddy, 1999. Click here to view full text of Eddy interview
I didn’t know Jack Eddy personally, I knew of his work (the Maunder Minimum ) in 1978 before I knew he was the man behind it.
I think I speak for the entire WUWT community when I say that we have lost a man whom was true to his craft, careful in his outlook, and courageous in his challenge of the solar consensus of the 1970’s. The WUWT community, offers our sincerest condolences to the Eddy family and to his friend, Dr. Leif Svalgaard. – Anthony
Tributes can be left in comments.
UPDATE:
An online petition has been started to name the next solar minimum per Leif’s suggestion in comments:
Nearly 200 signatures so far.
Eddy, J.A., “The Maunder Minimum” Science, Vol 192 1976
Eddy, J.A., “Historical and Arboreal Evidence for a Changing sun” AAAS Selected Symposia 17; The New Solar Physics, 1978 pp 10-33
Eddy, J.A., Climate and the Role of the Sun” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol X, No 4, spring 1980
Just a few Jack Eddy Reference works from “The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection” By Willie Wei-Hock Soon and Steven H. Yaskell.
So another name sails off into the sunset. We all stand on the shoulders of such men and women who have gone before.
RIP Jack A. Eddy.
George
Dr. Svalgaard,
I read the interview of Jack Eddy that Anthony linked to.
He was so richly human. The best that our species can reach for. He was quoted as saying:
“When I die, I’ll think that’s one thing that I did that I’ll feel absolutely certain about. That the Sun really does go through prolonged period of anomalous behavior, and will again some day.”
Yes, when that period arrives, it would very appropriately be named The Eddy Minimum.
My sympathy at the loss of your friend.
My condolences to the Eddy family and to Leif.
I quite agree that the minimum needs to be historically significant to deserve his name being attached to it. Let us hope that this requirement is not met for a long time yet…
Eddy Minimum, I agree would be a good way to remember Jack. Another is to cite him in publications, which I did years ago (1977). I always enjoyed his manner where he appeared in science programs, very easy going. I’ll miss him.
Arthur Glass (08:19:16)
The Spender poem is beautiful.
How appropriate.
I had the pleasure of having had associations with Jack during his graduate studies and during the time afterward during which he was looking at medicine wheels and had just completed his work on the Maunder Minimum. During a visit with him he patiently explained to me what he had done regarding the Maunder Minimum, which at the time I little appreciated, not understanding the significance of the changes of wine crops, etc., that he used to verify the temperature variation. When the AGW hypothesis reached its peak, I was surprised to read in Weart’s interview that he did not regard his work on the Maunder Minimum as potential evidence against it. In retrospect, I think that it was perhaps a manifestation of a humble attitude, a feeling that he should not regard his personal special achievement to be a “hammer” that can be used to solve all problems.
It was unlikely that I would ever have had an opportunity to visit with him again, but his passing leaves me with a feeling of personal loss.
Leif !!! EDDY Minimum it is !!!
I didn’t know him that well but I did get the opportunity to talk to Jack on a couple of occasions many years back when I first started researching both the weather – climate and the solar cycle. And he respectfully gave me some of his time when I had contacted him in regards to the possible planetary influence upon the solar cycle. So I’ll always remember this as well as the other things previously mentioned.
Thanks for the WUWT obituary post, and the link to the exceptionally good interview transcript. It is for individuals such as he that research funding should concentrate, instead of the ‘overwhelming consensus’ departments concerned only with political paradigms. One good brain eclipses them. His name should certainly be immortalised somehow.
I really like the proposal to name this minimum the “Eddy Minimum.” If that doesn’t fly, then it should be “the Gore Debacle.”
Thanks Jack
I must confess that I’m not a scientist, that I view these climatology blogs from the view point of an historian and journalist and that I never heard of Jack Eddy until today. That said, after reading the links provided above, I can say that with his passing that the world is greatly diminished and that I’ve found a kindred spirit whose work I can now study and appreciate for a long time to come.
Dear Friends,
I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your beautiful thoughts and words about my precious, beloved husband of 17 years, Jack. I wish he were here to read them, for he was so humble and sweet, and did not know how truly loved and respected he was in your community. He was and is my whole life, and I miss him more than anyone could ever imagine.
With love,
Barbara (Mrs. John A. Eddy)
REPLY: Dear Barbara, thank you so much for your visit here during this difficult time. Know this, Jack is held in high esteem and will be rewarded for his contributions to science. My sincerest condolences. If Jack had a cause or affiliation that he would have liked to see tributes sent to, don’t hesitate to mention it and I’ll make sure it is prominently posted here. Kindest regards, Anthony Watts
Dear Friends,
Could you kindly correct the birth date for this sight? Jack was born on March 25, 1931 (not 1932).
With kind regards,
Barbara (Mrs. John A. Eddy)
REPLY: Done, and thank you. – Anthony
Thank you very much for your kind words.
Yes, he was and is loved and respected by our community; he will be missed.
An online petition has been started to name the next solar minimum per Leif’s suggestion in comments:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/online-petition-the-next-solar-minimum-should-be-called-the-eddy-minimum/
Nearly 200 signatures so far.
– Anthony
My first reading of Jack Eddy’s work in Science in 1976 has always remained vivid, just like other dramatic events, eg the assassination of President Kennedy, the first Moon walk and the first Challenger explosion. By way of background, I live in Canberra, Australia.
At the time in 1976 I had since 1974 been a member of the Priorities Review Staff, a small group of analysts set up to advise the newly elected Prime Minister Whitlam about the goals and strategies of his Government. By 1976 the Whitlam Government was no longer in power, the PRS had been abolished and I was advising Prime Minister Fraser about foreign policy and intelligence and security matters. But those of us that had worked for Gough Whitlam kept in touch.
Eddy’s paper ran counter to our entire outlook. We were of the view that governments could and should change anything for the better (or worse). My focus had been social and education policy. The idea that agricultural productivity and therefore the supply of essential foods might be largly regulated by the Sun and beyond government’s capacity to influence seemed absurd from within this outlook. Our general view was that Eddy’s idea was just another crazy idea. And yet the thought hit me vividly that just as the tides are outside our control so might ultimately agricultural productivty. I didn’t think much beyond that – I had no understanding of the Sun or the climate. The thing that struck me, and perhaps why my memory is so vivid, was the idea that forces external to the planet might have such power and governments might be so puny. But I was still in the camp of government can – and should – do anything. Improvements to agricultural productivity was one. Over the next decades I thought no more about the Sun and Jack Eddy and all of that until I stumbled upon the work of Rhodes Fairbridge about six years ago. By that time I had a better sense of the limits of government and about the proper role of government. Broadly speaking, I find myself in broad agreement with Douglass North and the institutional economists.
I now deeply admire Jack Eddy for being so persistent and successful in getting his research published and helping to break and unfortunate paradigm that I once held dear.
I can understand those who find repugnant and absurd the idea that our planet’s climate dynamics might be entirely out of the influence of governments whether because the dynamics arise form internal oscillations of very complex systems or because of a determinative role of the Sun.
As with agricultural productivity, there is much that governments can do to improve things and manage our adaptive efficiency. But if the temperatures plummet, if the droughts come, if things warm up a lot, if the floods come, we can’t stop what’s happening; we can learn to predict better and adapt better, but that’s about it. I am eternally grateful to Jack Eddy for helping to break an old paradigm. In my case, I was a very slow learner – almost 30 yrs – before I really understood what he was saying back in 1976.
“When I die, I’ll think that’s one thing that I did that I’ll feel absolutely certain about. That the Sun really does go through prolonged period of anomalous behavior, and will again some day.”
The Sun’s Secret
A secret cloaked by history’s sweep
Submerged as if within the deep
In murky currents swirling slow,
An Eddy brought it from below.
He proved the sun a fickle friend
With tempers hard to comprehend.
Exuberance brings the Earth repair
And disregard a grim dispair.
Will a maunder bring the chill?
Will the storms begin to still?
Will Sol’s face with blotches fill,
Or Eddy’s words will Sol fulfill?
Sol may soon drift off to sleep
It will not help to pray or weep.
He’ll close his eyes in slumber deep.
Life’s promise, then, is our’s to keep.
Rest In Peace Jack Eddy
Please delete the apostrophe in our’s moderator… thank you
It was a joy to work with Jack on the book of Skylab’s solar observation results. He is sorely missed.
Leif, while it is noble of you to want honour your friend by naming the minimum for him, you are spitting on Ted Landschiedt’s memory in the process. Ted Landscheidt is the one who predicted the minimum, not Jack Eddy.
However well intentioned your proposed action might be, I find it despicable that you are trying to steal the fame from Ted. He, like Jack, was a good man, and you are proposing joining with a host of AGW supporters in trying to erase the memory of Ted and his work.
Finally, many people already call the upcoming (perhaps) minimum the “Landscheidt Minimum”. You’re swimming upstream. You might even succeed, but to me and many others, it will always be the “Landscheidt Minimum”.
As a result, you are dishonoring Jack Eddy’s name by falsely giving him credit in the naming. This does neither Jacks, nor your, reputation any good. Ted’s friends will certainly not thank you if you are successful, and I count myself among them. Your good intentions are leading you down a very ugly path.
It appears Anthony has tastefully deleted some ‘off topic’ comments on here including one of mine.
I think the last comment here may join their ranks.
I signed the petition and having a Grand Minimum named after you is not predicated simply by prescience like a stock market analyst. I think this man engaged most of the scientific community keeping its eyes open to how much they have to explore and therefore is an excellent candidate for this honor.
The less connected colorful mavericks that may have been able to see what most of us couldn’t until others corroborated the evidence sometimes aren’t the ones to coallesce knowledge into a nugget of truth. I defer to the century long fight over the nature of the Universe and the acceptance of the Big Bang Theory. Those of us that have the conviction that the Solar Barycentric Model for Solar Variation will triumph will get our ‘background radiation’ to sweep all other theories aside in due time.
Patience, we are about to observe what Jack Eddy was focused on first hand! Hopefully, for the most part, we can have fun with it … I mean the cold. Lemaitre eventually recieved his recognition. For me Jack Eddy is comparable to Hubble in that largely resolved debate. Those who pursue knowledge in the true spirit of observation, discovery … science … all deserve our thanks.
len, Anthony is of course free to delete my post if he wishes. However, Ted Landscheidt predicted this minimum twenty years ago. Not last month or last year. Twenty years ahead of time. If the minimum actually occurs, this surely must rank as one of the most significant predictions in solar history. Why should such a remarkable achievement bear anyone else’s name, no matter how good a scientist that other man might be?
To try to strip Ted of this honor just because Jack Eddy is a good man and Leif was his friend seems to me to be the kind of thing an AGW supporter might do, on a par with giving the Nobel Prize to Al Gormless … but I expect more of a scientist.
Willis Eschenbach (18:54:59) :
to want honour your friend by naming the minimum for him, you are spitting on Ted Landschiedt’s memory in the process. Ted Landscheidt is the one who predicted the minimum, not Jack Eddy.
Landscheidt’s prediction in 1981 was wrong, and we are not going into a Grand Minimum this time around. The former Grand Minima were not named after their discoverer, and neither should this one be. The true discoverer of the Grand Minima was Gustav Spoerer, not Maunder. Eddy has told me [and others] that he thought of honoring Spoerer, but decided on Maunder Minimum because it sounded better [the nice alliteration of the two ‘M’s], and nobody could spell Spörer correctly anyway. My proposal was not to name the coming minimum after Eddy no matter what, but as I said “if the coming minimum turns out to be significant [and I meant ‘Grand’], then to name it after Eddy” and not because of his discovery of it, but because of his contribution to solar science, which is considerable, while Landscheidt’s is precisely nil. Astronomers have long memories and it is very likely that the actually naming is many decades or centuries in the future, when a real Grand Minimum finally emerges. The so-called, ‘Dalton Minimum’ should not even be counted as a ‘Grand’ minimum. [And Dalton didn’t discover it – and IMHO did not make any significant contribution to solar science either, so I would not even use his name in this connection].
Lief. I bet to differ with you on the contribution issue. Many of us here only became interested in this topic because of that other guy if nothing else. My prediction is your work will ultimately be a piece of the barycenter solar cycle model. I kind of see you as the Hoyle in this debate and hopefully, in the end, you can happily stand with those that marry you to the ‘cycle nut’ metaphorically speaking 😀 (Sorry for having fun with the politics here).
Anyway, in summary, the total contribution is paramount and this Grand Minimum I’m living in would be well named after Jack. It kind of has a ring to it … ‘Eddy Minimum’.
Gravity, politically, scientifically, inertia, light … forget it … I need a few more neurons firing to carry on that thought …