The potential impact of volcanic overprinting of the Eddy Minimum

Guest post by David Archibald

There were five named solar minima in the last millennium – the Oort, Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton minima. At least the last four were all associated with cold climates. The astrophysics community has elected to name the current period of low solar activity the Eddy Minimum. John A. Eddy was an American astronomer who compiled data demonstrating the periods of low solar activity prior to the Dalton Minimum. The Eddy Minimum will include at least Solar Cycles 24 and 25, and could continue until late in the 21st Century.

Benjamin Franklin was the first to suggest that volcanic eruptions might affect climate, in a 1784 communication to the Literary and Philosophical Association of Manchester:

“During several of the summer months of 1783, when the effect of the sun’s rays to heat the earth in these northern regions should have been greatest, there existed a constant fog over all of Europe, and a great part of North America. This fog was of a permanent nature; it was dry, and the rays of the sun seemed to have little effect toward dissipating it, as they easily do to a moist fog, arising from water. They were indeed rendered so faint in passing through it, that when collected in the focus of a burning glass, they would scarce kindle brown paper. Of course, their summer effect in heating the earth was exceedingly diminished.

Hence the surface was early frozen.

Hence the first snows remained on it unmelted, and received continual additions.

Hence the air was more chilled, and the winds more severely cold.

Hence perhaps the winter of 1783-84 was more severe, than any that had happened for many years.

Benjamin Franklin was referring to the Laki eruption in Iceland of 1783. This was accompanied by an abnormally hot summer in Europe and then an exceptionally cold winter in Europe, the United States and Japan. In the United States, Charleston Harbour froze and the Mississippi River froze at New Orleans between 13th and 19th February, 1784. When this logjam of ice broke up, ships encountered ice flows in the Gulf of Mexico 100 km south of the delta. The famine in Iceland caused by the Laki eruption killed 24 percent of the population.

In the second half of the Modern Warm Period, when solar activity was at its highest for 8,000 years, there was one volcanic eruption large enough to affect climate. This was the eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines starting on 15th June, 1991. It ejected 10 cubic kilometres of magma and 20 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide. The aerosols it injected into the stratosphere lowered the global temperature by 0.5°C in 1992, with a peak effect of 0.7°C. The impact on agriculture though was not significant. Some wheat farmers in the northern part of the Canadian wheat belt found that the cool growing conditions didn’t allow their crops to mature in time before winter set in. They resorted to using Roundup to make hay from their standing wheat crops.

When major eruptions are overprinted on a period of cold climate, the effect is far more severe. As John A. Eddy said in reference to the Mount Tambora eruption of 10th April, 1815, “The unusual summer of 1816 is commonly attributed to the increase in atmospheric turbidity that followed the eruption of Mount Tambora. The awesome eruption occurred, in fact, during a span of several decades of colder climate that had interrupted the gradual global warming that followed seventeenth century extrema of the Little Ice Age. These background trends may well explain a particularly severe seasonal response in 1816 to a short-term injection of volcanic dust.”

The impact on climate and agriculture of the Mount Tambora eruption on the North-eastern United States is reasonably well documented. The current great grain producing area of the United States is 1,100 kilometres to the west. Nevertheless, what happened in the north-eastern states two hundred years ago is a good proxy for how the Corn Belt will respond to a major volcanic eruption during a climatic cool period. Visitors to the mid-western states in that period noted mid-summer frosts up to the mid-19th Century.

William R. Baron compiled the weather record of the north-eastern United States in his paper contained in the book “The Year Without a Summer? World Climate in 1816”:

“The year began, at least in Phillipstown, Massachusetts, with enough snow on the ground for sleighing. All over New England, January was a snowy, stormy month until the very end when a sudden thaw caused localised flooding such as the one reported by Isaiah Thomas at Worcester, Massachusetts on 23rd January where some mill dams were carried off and some items stored in a warehouse were destroyed. According to among others, Leonard Hill of East Bridgewater, Massachusetts, February was a mild and pleasant month with only three snows reported. By the beginning of March there was little deep snow anywhere with the exception of most of northern New England. Early March was clear and cold, and was followed by a series of three snow storms around mid-month that produced a few days of sleighing but soon melted. On 28th and 30th March, warm air returned producing thunder and lightning as reported by Elijah Kellogg at Portland, Maine and Thomas at Worcester.

April quickly turned cold again with frequent frosts and some snow. However, by 14th April, there was little snow left at Hallowell, Maine. By 19th April, Alexander Miller of Wallingford, Vermont had begun to plough his fields; Stephen Longfellow of Gorham, Maine was already planting wheat; and Theodore Lincoln of Dennysville (in far down-east Maine) was reporting ice-out on the local streams – a sure sign of coming spring. At the end of the month, Joshua Lane of Sanbornton, New Hampshire already was reporting the start of a drought that would later plague all of northern New England.

In early May, farmers throughout the region completed planting their major crop, corn. By mid-month, the weather had become “backward” with a “heavy black frost’ that froze the ground to at least one-half inch reported on 15th May as far south as Trenton, New Jersey. Miller, at Wallingford, Vermont, reported snow on 14, 17 and 29 May while Lane, over at Sanbornton, saw a large frost on 29th May, and ended the month with further complaints about the continuing drought. B.F. Robbins, visiting Concord, New Hampshire noted that May ended with two days of “remarkable cold” that froze the ground “to near an inch.”

June is the month most remembered for its outbreak of cold weather. On 4th June, there were frosts at Wallingford, Vermont and Norfolk, Connecticut. By 5th June, the cold front was reported over most of northern New England. On 6th June, snow was reported at Albany, New York and Dennysville, Maine, and there were killing frosts at Fairfield, Connecticut. 7th June brought reports of severe killing frosts from across the region, and as far south as Trenton, New Jersey.

Typical of comments by diarists concerning this day are those by George W. Featherstonehaugh of Albany, New York, who wrote that the frost killed most of the fruit, as many apple trees were then just finishing blossoming. Leaves on most of the trees were “blasted” by the cold. Corn and vegetable crops were injured. He also feared that many of the sheep that had just been sheared might die of cold.

Cold weather continued through the night of 10th June. By the end of the month most observers were reporting the return of warm weather, but by then most crops were either killed or “backward” and stunted in their growth. In northern New England, those crops that survived the frosts were hit by what was now a very serious drought, greatly reducing the production

of one of the area’s primary crops, hay.

In early July there was another outbreak of cold weather in northern New England. On 5th July, at Gorham, Maine, there was a very hard frost. Benjamin Kimball of Concord, New Hampshire and Thomas Robbins of Norfolk, Connecticut reported hard frost on 7th July. There was frost on 8th July at Portland, Maine and on the following day at Sanbornton, New Hampshire. Thereafter the cold held off for the remainder of the month. Dry conditions, generally reported earlier in northern areas, persisted throughout the entire month.

Frosts returned on the morning of 21st August, being reported at York and Portland, Maine and Wallingford, Vermont. By 22nd August hard frosts were noted all over the region and as far south as Trenton where buckwheat crops were killed. Thomas, at Worcester, Massachusetts, reported that these frosts “cut off Indian corn in many places”, while others such as Hill at East Bridgewater, Massachusetts observed that frosts did little or no damage.

The frosts continued into September. In northern New England there were frosts on 10th and 11th September and throughout New England during 25th to 27th September. On 28th September, there was a killing frost throughout the region extending as far south as Trenton. It killed any vegetation that had somehow survived to that date. The drought in northern New England was finally broken by rains in the last week of the month.

The remainder of autumn was very mild with very few snowfalls or storms. December was also mild, until the last 10 days or so, when it turned cold enough to freeze the harbour at Beverley, Massachusetts. The year ended as it began, with enough snow on the ground at Phillipstown, Massachusetts to use a sleigh.”

1816 had an extremely short growing season. In southern Maine, it had averaged 140 days up until then but plunged to 70 days in 1816. Consequently farmers experienced an almost total failure of major crops. There was a fair yield of winter grain, but other crops such as corn and hay failed leading to the loss of many sheep and cattle for lack of feed during the following winter. As a result, 1816 has come down to as the “cold year”, “the famine year” and ‘eighteen hundred and froze to death”. For eastern Massachusetts, 1816 is the only year in which young corn was killed in the spring after it had sprouted and in which corn that survived replanting was killed in the autumn, before it could reach maturity. Under these circumstances, it is safe to assume that in most places in New England corn crops were an almost total failure. The story for 1816 is the same for New Hampshire and Maine. There were a number of periods in which corn crops were hit by late spring or early autumn frosts. Particularly difficult periods include: 1793-96, 1812-17, and 1835-36.

The effect of the Mount Tambora eruption is also well documented in Europe. From 1813 to 1815, harvests were generally lower than expected. However, 1816 was a year of calamity for most of the continent. Spring saw heavy rains which were followed by snow in June and July that caused widespread harvest failures. Wheat yields in France, England and Ireland were at least 75 percent lower than at the beginning of that decade. Wholesale wheat and rye prices responded by roughly doubling in 1817 across the continent. The area affected the most was southern Germany where prices increased by three hundred percent by the period May to June of 1817. In Germany and Switzerland, people resorted to eating rats, cats, grass and straw as well as their own horses and watchdogs. This was the last great subsistence crisis of western civilisation.

The climate of Switzerland in 1816 inspired Mary Shelley to write the novel Frankenstein and her host, Lord Byron, to write his poem Darkness in July of that year. The first nine lines of the poem give a sense of what the days were like:

I had a dream, which was not all a dream.
The bright sun was extinguish’d, and the stars
Did wander darkling in the eternal space,
Rayless, and pathless, and the icy earth
Swung blind and blackening in the moonless air;
Morn came and went–and came, and brought no day,
And men forgot their passions in the dread
Of this their desolation; and all hearts
Were chill’d into a selfish prayer for light

With a solar activity now falling away and return to cold climate conditions imminent, it would be a useful exercise to calculate what would happen to American crop yields using the year-by-year climate conditions of the first half of the 19th Century. This would give an indication of the size of the problem. It could be that grain production might fall 60 percent from what it is now in the event of a major volcanic eruption during the Eddy Minimum. No American need starve if they were happy to live on a diet that was mostly corn and soybeans. The price of meat would skyrocket and a large portion of the national herd of lot-fed cattle and pigs would be slaughtered to avoid the cost of feeding them. Grain production in Canada in an 1816-type year would be wiped out completely. An indication of what would happen to food pricing and availability is the price response of oats in the north-eastern United States in 1816, which rose from 12 cents a bushel to 92 cents a bushel.

A repeat of the climate experience of 1816 in the world’s temperate region grain belts would most likely result in almost all of the grain exporting countries ceasing exports in order to conserve grain for domestic consumption. The effect on countries currently importing grain would go beyond calamity to catastrophe. The resultant mass starvation event would become the largest event in human history.

Current grain stocks carried by countries around the world assume that tomorrow will be much the same as today. As at year-end 2012, total world grain stocks were estimated to have been 328 million tonnes, which equates to 21% of annual demand. The days of the continuous benign climate of the second half of the 20th Century, due to the highest solar activity for the last 8,000 years, are now past. Perhaps continuing cooling over the rest of this decade will suggest to some that it would be prudent to plan on the basis that the climate for grain growing will continue to get worse, before there is another major volcanic eruption. Absence of planning could be considered as a suicidal tendency. Major volcanic eruptions occur about every 45 years on average. At the present, in the year 2013, with the oceans warmer than they have been for 800 years, the chance of a Mount Tambora-like eruption causing another mass famine is very slight. The world will be much cooler by 2020 though, and with an average period between eruptions of 45 years the chance of any individual year witnessing a mass famine event after 2020 will be about two percent. The cumulative chance rises to near 40 percent for the period 2020 to 2040. The world may dodge that bullet. Or it may not. Cold-driven reductions in grain supply will be quite distressing even to those who are fully prepared. The unprepared will become quite dead.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

105 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 9, 2013 9:33 am

David Archibald says:
January 8, 2013 at 9:17 pm
“The Ap index so far for the month of January, 2013 is 2. Quite remarkable. A big sleep is coming.”
Coronal hole activity has weakened: http://www.solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html
They’ll pick back up again soon, it’s temporary. Lower cycles see more short term drop outs with low activity levels.

January 9, 2013 11:39 am

Stephen Walters says:
January 9, 2013 at 7:33 am
It seems all you have is Ad Hom. It also seems that you have no credentials to criticize.
no need to, let T.L. have the final say:
“Thus, it becomes apparent that the length of the magnetic Hale cycle and of the 11-year sunspot cycle is connected with fivefold symmetry in the Sun’s oscillations about the invisible center of mass of the solar system and the constellations of Sun and planets that generate it. We could also say that the length of these important cycles of solar activity can be explained in astrological terms. Yet this aspect becomes accessible only when we follow Kepler, Galileo and Newton, who integrated astrological or alchemical imagination with methods and insights of modern science. Astrologers should acknowledge as well as scientists that we need a genuine interdisciplinary approach that combines the all-embracing astrological world-view with recent results in progressive science.”

January 9, 2013 11:44 am

SandyInLimousin says:
January 9, 2013 at 7:37 am
I wonder if his change of view was 18 years before the prediction was proved incorrect or some time afterwards when he’d had time to work out a modification to the original theory?
He saw the light around 2010 when it was clear that cycle 24 was not increasing as fast as he thought. This is how science works: when your prediction turns out wrong, you acknowledge that your reasons for making the prediction were not correct, and you admit it.

January 9, 2013 12:13 pm

Leif Svalgaard said January 9, 2013 at 5:58 am

The Pompous Git says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:58 am
Personally, I would not have been so ready to attribute hypocrisy to Galileo [having read most of his writings], but opinions differ. Do you think that is what caused him to be so venerated by the Enlightenment?
‘Hypocrisy’ is too strong a word. In his time, astrology was an accepted practice and Galileo was often required to perform such service for his benefactors [because they believed in it]. Galileo was one of the founders of the Scientific Method [cause of his venerated status].

Leif, it was you who attributed scepticism of astrology to Galileo, not I. The evidence you gave for this was: “having read most of his writings” which is hardly sufficient. Galileo did in his Dialogues ridicule those astrologers who made “predictions” in retrospect, but this is hardly a general scepticism. Had he been merely toeing the line, he would hardly have managed to get into trouble with the Inquisition in 1604 for forecasting the time of his clients’ deaths. This is well beyond the scope of medical astrology (which he was hired to teach) and well beyond what the church sanctioned because it contradicted the doctrine of free will. None of the contributors to Galileo’s Astrology edited by Nicholas Campion share your belief. Scepticism of astrology did arise in the 17thC, but in England, not Italy.

January 9, 2013 1:13 pm

The Pompous Git says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Leif, it was you who attributed scepticism of astrology to Galileo, not I.
So what? Galileo was just benefiting [funding-wise] from the usual practice of his day. He write almost nothing about astrology, and in his main writings stressed the importance of observations and empirical evidence [astrology does not have much support from those quarters]. I objected to him being characterized as an ‘astrologer’, while T.L. certainly qualifies as one “We could also say that the length of these important cycles of solar activity can be explained in astrological terms. Yet this aspect becomes accessible only when we follow Kepler, Galileo and Newton, who integrated astrological or alchemical imagination with methods and insights of modern science. Astrologers should acknowledge as well as scientists that we need a genuine interdisciplinary approach that combines the all-embracing astrological world-view with recent results in progressive science.” [T.L. 2005]

January 9, 2013 2:43 pm

Leif Svalgaard said January 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm

The Pompous Git says:
January 9, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Leif, it was you who attributed scepticism of astrology to Galileo, not I.
So what? Galileo was just benefiting [funding-wise] from the usual practice of his day. He write almost nothing about astrology, and in his main writings stressed the importance of observations and empirical evidence [astrology does not have much support from those quarters]. I objected to him being characterized as an ‘astrologer’…

It seems odd that you should object to an astrologer being characterised as an astrologer. While Galileo never wrote a book about astrology, we do have a considerable amount of correspondence (mostly not Galileo’s own, but responses to Galileo), a couple of dozen charts he made, a copy of Porphyry’s Introductio in Ptolemaei opus de effectibus astrorum annotated in Galileo’s hand, the 1604 Inquisition into Galileo overstepping the limits on astrology imposed by the church, and consider the following from Sidereus Nuncius, (The Message of the Stars):

So who does not know that clemency, kindness of heart, gentleness of manners, splendour of royal blood, nobleness in public functions, wide extent of influence and power over others, all of which have fixed their common abode and seat in your highness – who, I say, does not know that these qualities, according to the providence of God, from whom all good things do come, emanate from the most benign star of Jupiter?
Jupiter, Jupiter I say, at the instant of Your highness’s birth had already passed the slow, dull vapours of the horizon and was occupying the Midheaven, from which point it was illuminating the eastern angle, from that sublime throne saw the most happy delivery and all the splendour and magnificence of the newly-born diffused in the most pure air…
etc

And yes, Galileo did stress the importance of empirical evidence. When questioned by Piero Dini on the astrological import of his discovery of Jupiter’s moons, he responded that he did not know in an 11 page letter written on 21 May 1611. It would not seem right to assert that “these Medician Planets lack all influence, wherein the other stars abound”. Galileo drew a comparison with different plant species which have their “qualities, virtues and effects” yet to be explored.
On the other hand, scientists regularly dismiss Galileo’s empiricism. How many times have we heard the falsehood that Galileo dropped a wooden and an iron cannonball from the tower at Pisa and to the consternation of the Aristotelians they both arrived at the ground simultaneously? Galileo wrote that his assistant dropped the cannonballs from a height some 300 feet greater than the height of Pisa’s tower and that the iron ball arrived at the ground a considerable distance ahead of the iron ball.
The American astrophysicist, George Smoot wrote that he knew the historians were wrong in this after seeing the tower at Pisa in the moonlight. Now how empirical is that? Ya hafta laugh 🙂
[Would the “wood ball” or would the “iron ball” arrive first? Thought he used a sloping, wooden tray, and rolled the two down. Mod]

SandyInLimousin
January 9, 2013 3:35 pm

Leif Svalgaard
Many thanks for the information, I’ve taken on board what you say regarding admitting mistakes and incorrect theories, seems that Dr Hathaway is in the minority in the topics discussed here.
Regards
Sandy

January 9, 2013 3:58 pm

The Pompous Git says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:43 pm
It seems odd that you should object to an astrologer being characterised as an astrologer.
You are on the wrong track. All the details that the Internet can serve up on Galileo are irrelevant. What matters is that T.L. used astrology as a basis for his ‘science’, and Galileo never did [to my knowledge]. If you can produce evidence that any of G’s findings were based on astrology, please let me know.

richardscourtney
January 9, 2013 4:32 pm

Leif Svalgaard:
At January 9, 2013 at 3:58 pm you assert

What matters is that T.L. used astrology as a basis for his ‘science’,

With respect, I have read a paper where T.L. calculated the barycenter of the Sun and correlated that to climate parameters on the Earth. On that basis he predicted future climate behaviour.
That is ‘science’ of the same kind as Newton’s ‘Principia Mathematica’ which indicated how bodies interact and but did not indicate the mechanism by which gravity operates.
Whether or not T.L. is right can only be determined by the success or failure of his predictions. And if (n.b. IF) those predictions are right then his work indicates that the variations in the Sun’s barycenter affect solar behaviour to affect the Earth’s climate. However, if the predictions of L.T. are wrong then that indicates variations in the Sun’s barycenter do not affect solar behaviour to affect Earth’s climate.
Hence, the work of T.L. can be dismissed by failure of his predictions but cannot rationally be dismissed by calling it “astrology”.
Richard

Ninderthana
January 9, 2013 4:50 pm

“The solar community is not keen on naming things after pseudo-scientists or modern astrologers, but since Eddy was neither, he is a favorite candidate.”
[snip . . ad hom and unsupported . . mod]
Yet Leif Svalgaard can call anyone who disagrees with his views a pseudo-scientist and he does not get a moderator response. Why isn’t he asked to support his smears and aspersions with some specific evidence?
We seem to have one rule for Leif and another for his opponents.
This particular moderator response shows the double standards that are applied to posts at this site.
[Yep. Live with it. Or post often enough with so many thousand replies that you earn such recognition. Mod]

Stephen Walters
January 9, 2013 4:56 pm

Interesting how those that don’t understand resort to the “Astrology” meme instead of actually looking at the actual science that Landsche*dt did put forward. Imagine if Einstein had some wacky ideas published, one of them being E=mc2 that no one took notice of because he was already pigeon holed. This is an accurate analogy.
For those that struggle or bother to read, Landsch*idt had a math’s based model that hindcast Grand Minima and predicted the future. But he had a problem, the model produced markers that occur usually EITHER side of a Grand Minimum. At present the mathematical model produces a marker at 1990 and 2030, hence his confusion (and those who are unread), but he had the bare bones of something special.
Without this very important (not quite accurate) discovery we would be miles behind today. He was truly a pioneer who will be applauded by all in the not too distant future.

January 9, 2013 5:52 pm

Leif Svalgaard said January 9, 2013 at 3:58 pm

The Pompous Git says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:43 pm
It seems odd that you should object to an astrologer being characterised as an astrologer.
You are on the wrong track. All the details that the Internet can serve up on Galileo are irrelevant. What matters is that T.L. used astrology as a basis for his ‘science’, and Galileo never did [to my knowledge]. If you can produce evidence that any of G’s findings were based on astrology, please let me know.

The Internet is far from capable of serving up all the information on Galileo. While it can give you most of what is printed in Dialogues concerning TWO NEW SCIENCES as published by Northwestern University Press 1968 (when the Internet didn’t exist), it does not contain the following text appearing on the opening endpaper:

I think with your friend, that it has been of late too much the mode to slight the learning of the ancients.
Benjamin Franklin to William Brownrigg, November 7, 1773.

I invite you to check this at your nearest academic history library. You are of course invited to peruse my own copy, but suspect that Tasmania is too far distant from where you are located.
If you have any evidence that G was not an astrologer, or that he didn’t incorporate his findings into his astrology, this scholar would like to know. It would be a blockbuster in the field.

January 9, 2013 6:03 pm

richardscourtney said January 9, 2013 at 4:32 pm

With respect, I have read a paper where T.L. calculated the barycenter of the Sun and correlated that to climate parameters on the Earth. On that basis he predicted future climate behaviour.
That is ‘science’ of the same kind as Newton’s ‘Principia Mathematica’ which indicated how bodies interact and but did not indicate the mechanism by which gravity operates.
Whether or not T.L. is right can only be determined by the success or failure of his predictions. And if (n.b. IF) those predictions are right then his work indicates that the variations in the Sun’s barycenter affect solar behaviour to affect the Earth’s climate. However, if the predictions of L.T. are wrong then that indicates variations in the Sun’s barycenter do not affect solar behaviour to affect Earth’s climate.
Hence, the work of T.L. can be dismissed by failure of his predictions but cannot rationally be dismissed by calling it “astrology”.

Precisely. It falls well inside Popper’s testability criterion.

January 9, 2013 7:53 pm

richardscourtney says:
January 9, 2013 at 4:32 pm
With respect, I have read a paper where T.L. calculated the barycenter of the Sun and correlated that to climate parameters on the Earth.
This is what T.L. wrote”
The Golden Section and the Length of Sunspot Cycles
At this point we are also in the position to answer the question asked at the beginning: Why has the 11-year sunspot cycle just this length? We know that the stability of the planetary system hinges on the Golden section, which is intimately connected with five-fold symmetry that emerges in the Sun’s dynamics, which again is related to the Sun’s activity. Thus, it seems plausible to assume that main features of solar activity like sun-spot cycles are closely connected with the Golden section. This is so indeed. The real cycle of sunspot activity is the magnetic Hale cycle of 22.1 years. The Sun’s global magnetic field varies over this period, during which the field reverses and is restored to its original polarity. One such Hale cycle comprises two successive 11 -year cycles with opposite magnetic polarities.
As we have seen, the mean interval covered by big fingers is 178.8 years + 5 = 35.76 years. The big finger cycle (BFC) of this length does not only show a high degree of correlation with the Gleissberg cycle that modulates the intensity of sunspot activity and climate on Earth, but also an exact relationship with the magnetic Hale cycle of 22.1 years and the sunspot cycle of 11.05 years. The golden number G = 0.618…—mathematically the most irrational of all irrational numbers—represents the golden mean. When multiplied by the length of the BFC, the exact Hale period emerges:
35.75 years [BFC] x 0.618 [G] = 22.1 years [Hale cycle]
[…]
The exact length of the 11-year sunspot cycle appears, when multiplication by the golden number is applied to a half big finger (HBF):
17.88 years [HBF] x 0.618 [G] = 11.05 years [Sunspot cycle]
Thus, it becomes apparent that the length of the magnetic Hale cycle and of the 11-year sunspot cycle is connected with fivefold symmetry in the Sun’s oscillations about the invisible center of mass of the solar system and the constellations of Sun and planets that generate it. We could also say that the length of these important cycles of solar activity can be explained in astrological terms. Yet this aspect becomes accessible only when we follow Kepler, Galileo and Newton, who integrated astrological or alchemical imagination with methods and insights of modern science. Astrologers should acknowledge as well as scientists that we need a genuine interdisciplinary approach that combines the all-embracing astrological world-view with recent results in progressive science.
—-
Whether or not T.L. is right can only be determined by the success or failure of his predictions.
They failed in 1990.
Hence, the work of T.L. can be dismissed by failure of his predictions but cannot rationally be dismissed by calling it “astrology”.
Tell that to T.L. himself…
The Pompous Git says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:52 pm
If you have any evidence that G was not an astrologer, or that he didn’t incorporate his findings into his astrology, this scholar would like to know.
You have this backwards. The question is whether he used his astrology [that the planets rule the fate and doings of humans] in his scientific work on motion, sunspots, heliocentric theory, etc. If you can show that, I would like to know, and that would be a true blockbuster. So make my day.

mpainter
January 9, 2013 9:22 pm

“Astrologers should acknowledge as well as scientists that we need a genuine interdisciplinary approach that combines the all-embracing astrological world-view with recent results in progressive science.” [T.L. 2005]
==========================
Speaking just for myself, I could not credit such a statement as coming from a serious scientist.

mpainter
January 9, 2013 10:24 pm

Rhys Jaggar says: January 8, 2013 at 9:12 am
===================================
Global cooling leads to less rainfall, so arable land shrinks, food production shrinks.

January 9, 2013 10:44 pm

mpainter says:
January 9, 2013 at 9:22 pm
“Astrologers should acknowledge as well as scientists that we need a genuine interdisciplinary approach that combines the all-embracing astrological world-view with recent results in progressive science.” [T.L. 2005]”
Speaking just for myself, I could not credit such a statement as coming from a serious scientist.

Neither can I, but some people have a much lower bar and will believe almost anything if it fits their agenda. Now, there is nothing wrong with being an advocate, but advocacy should not be touted as science or scholarship, and must be opposed when such masquerading occurs.

January 9, 2013 10:53 pm

Leif
It is you my friend who have this backward. G was employed, not as a Natural Philosopher (for that is what scientists were called in those days), but as a mathematicus. He taught mathematics, astronomy and astrology to medical students at Pisa and Padua before being appointed as mathematicus and philosopher (not natural philosopher) to the Medici court. G had a long and successful career antagonising as many natural philosophers as he could while coveting their appellation. Had he not been an amazingly successful astrologer it is somewhat doubtful we would ever have heard of him. That would have been a great loss to the world as his introduction of mathematics into physics certainly transformed the way we view the world.
I have never claimed that G “used his astrology… in his scientific work on motion, sunspots, heliocentric theory…” and it is quite improper of you to imply that I have. My original statement was: “Never to forget that Galileo, a man much venerated in scientific circles, was a teacher of astrology for many years and rather famous for his astrological predictions that he claimed were absolutely certain.” And nowhere can I find any claim that he was ever employed as anything other than a mathematicus.

January 9, 2013 11:42 pm

The Pompous Git says:
January 9, 2013 at 10:53 pm
I have never claimed that G “used his astrology… in his scientific work on motion, sunspots, heliocentric theory…” and it is quite improper of you to imply that I have.
The difference between Galileo and T.L. is that the latter did claim to use astrology and numerology and mysticism in his ‘work’ on solar cycle [and many other cycles – economic, menstrual, etc]. That is the issue, whether Galileo was a famous astrologer is not the issue.

January 10, 2013 1:45 am

Leif Svalgaard said January 9, 2013 at 11:42 pm

The Pompous Git says:
January 9, 2013 at 10:53 pm
I have never claimed that G “used his astrology… in his scientific work on motion, sunspots, heliocentric theory…” and it is quite improper of you to imply that I have.
The difference between Galileo and T.L. is that the latter did claim to use astrology and numerology and mysticism in his ‘work’ on solar cycle [and many other cycles – economic, menstrual, etc]. That is the issue, whether Galileo was a famous astrologer is not the issue.

I had no idea that TL made those claims; he certainly didn’t in the paper to which I believe Richard was referring. It appeared on John Daly’s website quite a few years ago and my recollection may be faulty. I just thought that the fact that he was an astrologer was as irrelevant to his science as Einstein’s being a patent clerk was to his, hence my original comment. Pace.

Stephen Walters
January 10, 2013 4:09 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Whether or not T.L. is right can only be determined by the success or failure of his predictions.
…..
They failed in 1990.

It did fail. But as stated previously there is good reason. Just to remind you or in case you didn’t read:
” For those that struggle or bother to read, Landsch*idt had a math’s based model that hindcast Grand Minima and predicted the future. But he had a problem, the model produced markers that occur usually EITHER side of a Grand Minimum. At present the mathematical model produces a marker at 1990 and 2030, hence his confusion (and those who are unread), but he had the bare bones of something special.”

Ninderthana
January 10, 2013 4:58 am

We seem to have one rule for Leif and another for his opponents.
This particular moderator response shows the double standards that are applied to posts at this site.
[Yep. Live with it. Or post often enough with so many thousand replies that you earn such recognition. Mod]
In English – This means that we will backing our home-grown intellectual thug no matter how much he puts down anyone who dares to disagree with him. This is no different to Tomino over at Real Climate.
This is why the real discussion of climate issues is now taking place on other blog sites.
One less climate scientist contributing to this echo chamber. Goodbye
(Reply: Not all mods agree with ‘live with it’. — a more senior mod.)

Stephen Walters
January 10, 2013 5:41 am

Ninderthana says:
January 10, 2013 at 4:58 am
This is why the real discussion of climate issues is now taking place on other blog sites.
One less climate scientist contributing to this echo chamber. Goodbye

I have to agree, there does seem to be a bias in this forum.

richardscourtney
January 10, 2013 5:47 am

The Pompous Git:
At January 9, 2013 at 10:53 pm you say:

I had no idea that TL made those claims; he certainly didn’t in the paper to which I believe Richard was referring. It appeared on John Daly’s website quite a few years ago and my recollection may be faulty. I just thought that the fact that he was an astrologer was as irrelevant to his science as Einstein’s being a patent clerk was to his, hence my original comment. Pace.

For reasons of openness, I provide the following explanation.
No, that was not the paper to which I was referring, although I see it is very similar.
I think L.T. probably was an astrologer, but I don’t know. Whether or not he was an astrologer is not relevant to whether his calculations are correct about the physical relationship between the solar barycentre and the Earth’s climate. The correctness – or otherwise – of that relationship alone is of importance.
L.T. wanted to get a paper published in the peer reviewed literature which would report his calculations. And he asked me to help him with the wording of a paper he wanted to submit. I was surprised by the language in that paper because much of it was pure gobbledygook of the kind that Lief has quoted in this thread.
Please note that I know little about solar effects so I was not – and I am not – competent to assess the validity of his work in that paper except in terms of assessing his calculations. My contribution was solely to alter the language he used to report that work so the paper could be submitted to journals for consideration. However, I am able to say that the paper did not contain astrology: it consisted of calculations and correlations which comprise a basic scientific study.
I explained to him that use of such language as his draft paper contained would prevent publication of the paper. And I suggested many amendments to his text which he adopted. The amended text contained descriptions such as ‘fingers’ which were clear in context (a graph had five peaks which did resemble digits on a human hand) and in retrospect, perhaps, I should have suggested that he not use that phrase. However, my suggested severe amendments were many and I did not want to alter the language so much that the paper was no longer his.
Eventually, the paper as amended was put to peer review then published in E&E. This was long before I was asked to join the Editorial Board of E&E.
Richard

Stephen Walters
January 10, 2013 6:46 am

richardscourtney says:
January 10, 2013 at 5:47 am
Eventually, the paper as amended was put to peer review then published in E&E. This was long before I was asked to join the Editorial Board of E&E.
Thanks Richard. You where in a very privileged position. I understand your predicament , and also agree with your recommendations. But the underlying facts surface over time, the Landsche*t torque extrema is very close to revealing the true nature of what influences our Sun.