+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-61.html)
+--- Forum: Alternative Theories (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-130.html)
+--- Thread: Inactive sun leads to prediction of colder winters (/thread-9896.html)
Pages:
1
2
Inactive sun leads to prediction of colder winters - C C - Mar 4, 2021
https://foundersbroadsheet.com/inactive-sun-leads-to-prediction-of-colder-winters/
EXCERPTS: A new theory relating the sun’s changing activity levels to climate undercuts global warming alarmism and the Biden green programs. The theory’s prediction of colder winters over the next three decades takes on especial importance given the mid-February near-collapse of the Texan and German energy grids. When faced with an unexpectedly severe cold spell, they lacked the surge-demand reliability that an adequate reserve of coal and nuclear power plants affords.
[...] Will the next few solar cycles bring on the very cold winters of the 1645-1710 Maunder minimum? ... The anticipated cold spell could prove embarrassing to the flacks in the major media and Democratic Party talking up the inevitability of a global-warming climate catastrophe if fossil fuel production and consumption aren’t halted, whatever the costs to the economy and standards of living.
Astonishing as it may seem, the physics of two primary determinants of earth’s climate — sun and clouds — is poorly incorporated into the climate models upon which the Biden administration’s trillion-dollar green-energy spending blowout is based. This is the greatest scandal in the history of science — an even greater scandal than Stalin’s promotion of the false genetic theories of Trofim Lysenko, which devastated agriculture and the study of biology in the USSR.
The green program of the Biden administration is based on a misguided attempt to explain the modest natural warming of the earth since the second half of the 19th century as being driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels. It is furthermore claimed, especially by Democratic politicians and their media supporters (as opposed to most climate scientists), that unless fossil fuel use is reduced to zero within a few decades, runaway warming will destroy the planet and its species.
Like Lysenkoism, this is a false, politically-driven theory that is easily debunked, so easily in fact that its journalistic proponents must endlessly tell their gullible listeners that “the science is settled.” But to even utter that phrase is to identify oneself as an enemy of science, for the flourishing of the sciences have always depended upon evidence-based skepticism.
Far from the science being settled, a surprising number of scientific papers – over 400 in 2020 by one count – “support a skeptical position on climate alarm.”
[...] If Professor Zharkova and colleagues prove correct, this could be an important breakthrough for the so-called climate skeptics — the scientists and others who believe there is no scientific justification for alarmism over CO2 levels now and for the coming decades. This is because Zharkova’s theory of the physics and timing of solar cycles integrates well with the cosmic ray / solar activity / cloud formation theory of Professor Henrik Svensen and his collaborators... (MORE - details)
RE: Inactive sun leads to prediction of colder winters - Syne - Mar 4, 2021
Solar activity being a crucially missing factor in climate alarmism is by no means new. Many scientists have been aware of this for many years now.
RE: Inactive sun leads to prediction of colder winters - Zinjanthropos - Mar 4, 2021
Toss in magnetic field reversal affecting climate change and where does one go from here?
https://theconversation.com/earths-magnetic-field-broke-down-42-000-years-ago-and-caused-massive-sudden-climate-change-155580
Appears the Earth may change quickly at times but I guess most scientists think things move much slower.
RE: Inactive sun leads to prediction of colder winters - confused2 - Mar 5, 2021
"the reduction of solar magnetic field will cause a decrease of solar irradiance by about 0.22% for a duration of three solar cycles (25–27) for the first modern grand minimum (2020–2053)"
Retraction Note: Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale V. V. Zharkova, S. J. Shepherd, S. I. Zharkov & E. Popova
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61020-3
Quote:Retraction of: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45584-3, published online 24 June 2019
The Editors have retracted this Article.
After publication, concerns were raised regarding the interpretation of how the Earth-Sun distance changes over time and that some of the assumptions on which analyses presented in the Article are based are incorrect.
The analyses presented in the section entitled “Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres” are based on the assumption that the orbits of the Earth and the Sun about the Solar System barycenter are uncorrelated, so that the Earth-Sun distance changes by an amount comparable to the Sun-barycenter distance. Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because the motions of the Earth and the Sun are primarily due to Jupiter and the other giant planets, which accelerate the Earth and the Sun in nearly the same direction, and thereby generate highly-correlated motions in the Earth and Sun. Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result the Editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented.
S. I. Zharkov agrees with the retraction. V. V. Zharkova, E. Popova, and S. J. Shepherd disagree with the retraction.
RE: Inactive sun leads to prediction of colder winters - Syne - Mar 5, 2021
(Mar 5, 2021 05:32 PM)confused2 Wrote: "the reduction of solar magnetic field will cause a decrease of solar irradiance by about 0.22% for a duration of three solar cycles (25–27) for the first modern grand minimum (2020–2053)"
Retraction Note: Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale V. V. Zharkova, S. J. Shepherd, S. I. Zharkov & E. Popova
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61020-3
Ahem. You're posting a retraction of a 2019 article in response to a different 2020 paper. A little more intellectual honesty or rigor would be nice.
RE: Inactive sun leads to prediction of colder winters - confused2 - Mar 5, 2021
Quote:Ahem. You're posting a retraction of a 2019 article in response to a different 2020 paper. A little more intellectual honesty or rigor would be nice.The line..
"the reduction of solar magnetic field will cause a decrease of solar irradiance by about 0.22% for a duration of three solar cycles (25–27) for the first modern grand minimum (2020–2053)"
is the same in both papers. [Edit] I had both (many) papers open at the time - that was the line I checked - mixing up which one was retracted by Nature and wherever the other one was published was unintentional.
More from V. V. Zharkova, S. J. Shepherd and S. I. Zharkov
Retracted: Paper claiming climate change caused by distance from Sun
See
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-retracted-paper-climate-distance-sun.html
RE: Inactive sun leads to prediction of colder winters - Zinjanthropos - Mar 5, 2021
Few days ago the magnetic field story was trending but I didn’t copy it then. Whether it’s the retracted article or not, I have no clue. Never saw it before the other day. My bad if it has been retracted (never saw that either).
RE: Inactive sun leads to prediction of colder winters - C C - Mar 5, 2021
(Mar 5, 2021 07:09 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Few days ago the magnetic field story was trending but I didn’t copy it then. Whether it’s the retracted article or not, I have no clue. Never saw it before the other day. My bad if it has been retracted (never saw that either).
Meh. This is "alt theories" where the whole point is "controversial to the establishment" stuff being hashed out and debated. Though it often doubles as an attention platform for proposals in general that institutional awareness is probably indifferent or oblivious to (especially when the philosophy forum is having a long spurt of religious-like "alt-theories" dominating it).
RE: Inactive sun leads to prediction of colder winters - confused2 - Mar 5, 2021
I think it likely that Professor Zharkova, V.V. Zharkova and Valentina Zharkova are all the same person - publishing either the same or very similar papers either solo or with others.
In fairness she may have tidied up the the little problem with the Earth going round the Sun and reached the same conclusion.
Writing here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243
as 'Editorial' (non-retractable?) we have
Valentina Zharkova Wrote:The reduction of a terrestrial temperature during the next 30 years can have important implications for different parts of the planet on growing vegetation, agriculture, food supplies, and heating needs in both Northern and Southern hemispheres. This global cooling during the upcoming grand solar minimum 1 (2020–2053) can offset for three decades any signs of global warming and would require inter-government efforts to tackle problems with heat and food supplies for the whole population of the Earth.
It would be a real pig if the third time she cries wolf she's actually right.
(Presumeably) the real Prof Valentina doesn't list her global cooling paper as one of her major publications. ?
https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/our-staff/z/professor-valentina-zharkova/
RE: Inactive sun leads to prediction of colder winters - Syne - Mar 5, 2021
(Mar 5, 2021 06:45 PM)confused2 Wrote:Quote:Ahem. You're posting a retraction of a 2019 article in response to a different 2020 paper. A little more intellectual honesty or rigor would be nice.The line..
"the reduction of solar magnetic field will cause a decrease of solar irradiance by about 0.22% for a duration of three solar cycles (25–27) for the first modern grand minimum (2020–2053)"
is the same in both papers. [Edit] I had both (many) papers open at the time - that was the line I checked - mixing up which one was retracted by Nature and wherever the other one was published was unintentional.
More from V. V. Zharkova, S. J. Shepherd and S. I. Zharkov
Retracted: Paper claiming climate change caused by distance from Sun
See
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-retracted-paper-climate-distance-sun.html
Again, that retraction is of another paper in March 2020, when the OP paper is August 2020.