[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Interesting discussion as to whether this is a “NEW” fact in the comments.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the comments :

***************************************EXCERPT****************************************

Paul Penrose says:

November 20, 2017 at 10:40 am

The article did not claim the Japanese results were “new” or “surprising”. Neither did I. So that part of your argument is a straw man. All I said is that this data is useful and worth reporting, even if it only adds to all the other data we have. Stop projecting your own biases onto me.

• lsvalgaard says:
  November 20, 2017 at 10:54 am

  The title of this post does claim that:
  Solar minimum surprisingly constant
  More than half a century of observation yields new discovery
• Paul Penrose says:
  November 20, 2017 at 10:43 am

  OK, I just noticed the article subheading which claimed the results are new. I didn’t read that before (I usually ignore the subheadings). From what I know, this is not really new, but I didn’t read the entire paper to see if there really was anything new in it.
• Mike Jonas says:
  November 20, 2017 at 1:54 pm

  Loomis observed a number of solar minima and saw that solar acitivity was the same at every minimum. I would be interested to know whether he also observed any swans and noted their colour. It can be an interesting journey from observation to knowledge.
• lsvalgaard says:
  November 20, 2017 at 2:01 pm

  As Yogi Berra said: “you can observe a lot by just looking”. Loomis did exactly that: looking at the daily variation of the geomagnetic field which had been observed at his time for more than a century [discovered in 1722] and that was known at the time to depend on the sunspot number.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Ernest.

---

join or quit view topics view or post blog bookmark post new topic subscribe

---