Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/paper-that-claimed-t...
Choice excerpt:
"When contacted by Retraction Watch for their post on this, Zharkova told them, “We consider this retraction by the Editor of Scientific Reports as a shameful step to cover up the truthful facts about the solar and Earth orbital motion reported by the retracted paper, in our replies to the reviewer comments, and in the further papers.”"
As far as I can see from this, Valentina Zharkova's paper is basically a joke, technically.
Notice that Zharkova made headlines previously by claiming that Earth is headed for a mini ice age: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
Some comments from the linked article: "other solar scientists have criticized the model as being too simple, created based on just 35 years of data, and failing to accurately reproduce past solar activity."
"the model fails in reproducing past known solar activity because Zharkova’s team treats the sun as a simple, predictable system like a pendulum."
"Zharkova disagrees – I contacted her, and she told me that she believes a grand solar minimum would have a much bigger cooling effect. However, she also referenced long-debunked myths about global warming on Mars and Jupiter, and made a comment about “the preachers of global warming.”"
"But Zharkova’s climate science beliefs are irrelevant. While she has created a model predicting an imminent period of quiet solar activity, other scientists have identified serious flaws in the model, and in any case, research has shown that another solar minimum would only have a small and temporary impact on Earth’s climate."
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/243867.pdf
"On a number of mornings in September, 1958, April, 1959, and September, 1959, attempts were made at Stanford University to obtain radar echoes from the sun. The data have been intensively analyzed with the aid of an electronic digital computer. Results indicate that solar echoes were obtained on three mornings in April of 1959 and on two mornings in September of 1959."
I had no idea this was even possible; the sun is very RF-noisy.
- Author does PCA to build a model however there is no data on fitness of the model. Specifically, what is the variance? Without this information it is irresponsible to make prediction to the year.
- According to Wikipedia, it is highly controversial to associate Maunder Minimum to "little ice age". Author provides no details/limitations on this.
Overall, it looks like more investogation needed. It would be hard to take this paper at its face value.
This is quite a conclusion. Who is the author?
Are the affiliated with a university?
Did they get funding for this research?
Is the journal credible?
They call this an editorial and use the first person so I guess this isn't a research paper
IFL has pop-sci piece that explains some criticisms of this paper https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-hoopla-g... .
Some days I'm very glad I chose not to have kids.
You have a much higher opinion of the world's governments than I do. They seem very eager to establish extra-national governance, and climate change has provided the perfect vehicle for exactly that - a justification for global economic management. I seriously doubt that truth would ever get in the way of that, so buck up - you'll get what you think you want :)
We're made for it, with cosy stone cottages, fireplaces and pubs, all built in colder times. Hot summers just feel wrong to me here.
Apparantly, during the Maunder minimum mentioned in this paper, they used to have winter markets on the Thames in London - frozen solid.
"The first known frost fair on the River Thames was in AD 695..."
" The frost fair of 1814 began on 1 February, and lasted four days... As the ice broke up starting on 5 February, several people drowned."
But apparently, a milder climate was not the only reason "Frost Fairs" were no longer possible:
"This was the last frost fair. The climate was growing milder; old London Bridge was demolished in 1831 and replaced with a new bridge with wider arches, allowing the tide to flow more freely; and the river was embanked in stages during the 19th century, all of which made the river less likely to freeze. There was nearly a frost fair in 1881. Andrews (1887) noted the severe winter of 1881, saying, "it was expected by many that a Frost Fair would once more be held on the Thames".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs#The_f...
> Although, it is not clear yet if this trend in the terrestrial temperature and solar irradiance is caused directly by the increased solar activity itself or by some other factors of the solar-terrestrial interaction in the whole solar system and human activities.
> It welcomes research papers broadly related to interactions between living matter and temperature. The journal's logo is "Temperature is life." While the primary focus is on the medical physiology of body temperature regulation, research in all scientific disciplines and at all levels of organization - from submolecular to biospheric - is of interest to the journal. If your paper deals with both temperature and life, it belongs in Temperature!
Also, it’s two papers: a model for solar activity, plus predictions for what that will mean for temperatures on earth.
Both fit within the very broad scope of this journal. https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=a...: “The journal's logo is "Temperature is life." While the primary focus is on the medical physiology of body temperature regulation, research in all scientific disciplines and at all levels of organization - from submolecular to biospheric - is of interest to the journal. If your paper deals with both temperature and life, it belongs in Temperature!”
But yes, I think the first part would be more believable if it appeared in a journal more focused on the sun.
An amateur has however absolutely no way of assessing claims like these, and until there is a fair number of papers pointing to the same conclusion, I won't attach too much importance to a single paper, by a researcher that already has had another paper in the same realm retracted. [0]
"This does not mean that I advocate inaction. For example, in the absence of understanding, it would be irresponsible to continue injecting large and rising amounts of greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the atmosphere. They should be reduced, of course, or at least not increased until we are reasonably sure that we know what we are doing." (Donald W. Braben, Scientific Freedom)
I wish everyone would consider that changing the fundamental makeup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere without any idea how we might reverse it is a pretty rash thing to do.
This effect might at best delay climate effects and we are going to see more extreme climate effects after that period due to the inaction allowed by this pause.
On the other hand, it may give us some space to develop the needed technologies and get our act together.
But is there more to this than just temperatures? Is solar radiance important for other factors as well (besides the obvious like crops and solar power)?
https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Valen...
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-hoopla-g... gives some other criticisms of the paper.
TL;DR: Author draws parallels to historic episode with similar initial conditions and concludes we will see the same cooling effects. However in whether that historic cooling effect was just because solar irradiation changes (rather than that there also was volcanic activity) is disputed.