4 ms·

That was a fun article, starbeast, but the most interesting part was buried at the end: "So it seems Zharkova’s justification is based on media extrapolation o

That was a fun article, starbeast, but the most interesting part was buried at the end: "So it seems Zharkova’s justification is based on media extrapolation of her own press release and Wikipedia, not the extensive peer-reviewed literature on the Maunder minimum itself. I emailed Zharkova and she sent me two studies that support her views, but they aren’t representative of the literature and I don’t believe she has critically evaluated their content." - Michael J. I. Brown, author of The Conversation article So the author of the article is upset that the astronomer in question never thought about the correlation between reduced solar activity and a mini-ice age until hearing the connection from the media. After she decides that, yes, "We didn’t mention anything about the weather change, but I would have to agree that possibly you can expect it [a mini ice age]." He determines that a) Zharkova doesn't know what she believes and b) even if she did, her peer-reviewed literature is inferior to his own and she obviously doesn't what she's talking about. Mr. Brown then concludes by declaring there will be no mini-ice age, without any proof, drawing from the weasly "More recent studies, including those by Lean, find the solar irradiance varies less than was thought in 1997."

starbeast 8y ago
>So the author of the article is upset that the astronomer in question never thought about the correlation between reduced solar activity and a mini-ice age until hearing the connection from the media. After she decides that, yes, "We didn’t mention anything about the weather change, but I would have to agree that possibly you can expect it [a mini ice age]." He determines that a) Zharkova doesn't know what she believes and b) even if she did, her peer-reviewed literature is inferior to his own and she obviously doesn't what she's talking about. If a mathematician and astrophysicist pushing their theory about the inner working of the sun has only just thought about potential impacts on climatology due to sudden media excitement, then they have probably just skimmed it compared to actual climatologists. There is already existing research into the effects of a grand minimum on climate change, is not as though climatologists aren't going to think to look into that. Here's a paper from 2010; "On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth" http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Journals/fe... Here's the summary - "In summary, global mean temperatures in the year 2100 would most likely be diminished by about 0.1°C. Even taking into account all uncertainties in the temperature re-construction, the forcings, and the model physics, the overall uncertainty is estimated to be at most a factor of 3, so the offset should not be larger than 0.3°C. Comparing this to the 3.7°C and 4.5°C temperature rise relative to 1961 1990 until the end of the century under the IPCC A1B and A2 emission scenarios, respectively, a new Maunder type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect, since the distinct solar minima during the last millennium typically lasted for only several decades or a century at most." Also, the scientist in question says that at best, "the Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions", so she is still worrying about the climate getting hotter.
Retric 8y ago
Look anyone that thinks their is a linear relationship between steady state temperate and heating has no idea what they are talking about. “A 2015 study looked at a 2 watts per square meter decrease causing a 0.13-degree celsius effect. A four times larger effect would be 0.5-degree celsius.” Black body radiation for example is t^4 on the Kelvin scale. Which is why Mars sees temperatures as high as 20C even though it gets 590 watts per square metre vs 1,361 watts per square metre for Earth. Note our moons are a better direct comparison as they don’t have any atmosphere.

starbeast 8y ago

>So the author of the article is upset that the astronomer in question never thought about the correlation between reduced solar activity and a mini-ice age until hearing the connection from the media. After she decides that, yes, "We didn’t mention anything about the weather change, but I would have to agree that possibly you can expect it [a mini ice age]." He determines that a) Zharkova doesn't know what she believes and b) even if she did, her peer-reviewed literature is inferior to his own and she obviously doesn't what she's talking about. If a mathematician and astrophysicist pushing their theory about the inner working of the sun has only just thought about potential impacts on climatology due to sudden media excitement, then they have probably just skimmed it compared to actual climatologists. There is already existing research into the effects of a grand minimum on climate change, is not as though climatologists aren't going to think to look into that. Here's a paper from 2010; "On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth" http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf http://www.pik-potsdam.de/%7Estefan/Publications/Journals/fe... Here's the summary - "In summary, global mean temperatures in the year 2100 would most likely be diminished by about 0.1°C. Even taking into account all uncertainties in the temperature re-construction, the forcings, and the model physics, the overall uncertainty is estimated to be at most a factor of 3, so the offset should not be larger than 0.3°C. Comparing this to the 3.7°C and 4.5°C temperature rise relative to 1961 1990 until the end of the century under the IPCC A1B and A2 emission scenarios, respectively, a new Maunder type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect, since the distinct solar minima during the last millennium typically lasted for only several decades or a century at most." Also, the scientist in question says that at best, "the Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions", so she is still worrying about the climate getting hotter.

Retric 8y ago

Look anyone that thinks their is a linear relationship between steady state temperate and heating has no idea what they are talking about. “A 2015 study looked at a 2 watts per square meter decrease causing a 0.13-degree celsius effect. A four times larger effect would be 0.5-degree celsius.” Black body radiation for example is t^4 on the Kelvin scale. Which is why Mars sees temperatures as high as 20C even though it gets 590 watts per square metre vs 1,361 watts per square metre for Earth. Note our moons are a better direct comparison as they don’t have any atmosphere.