Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 14-05-2016, 22:02   #4591
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
Here is the synopsis with a link to the complete PDF
https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.c...grand-minimum/
The paper was published in a predatory journal. The author is one of the sky dragon slayers at PSI who are dismissed by Spencer, Curry, Monkton, etc..

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app
__________________

__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 14-05-2016, 22:25   #4592
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 3,922
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
She said nothing about climate change. I will post her quote when get off the boat and get back home.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app
You are correct jack she didnt say climate change in her paper. However I do think that the predicted 60% reduction in solar activity during the 26th cycle. ( The 2030 to 2040 decade) will have a profound effect. ( JMO)
__________________

__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is online now  
Old 14-05-2016, 22:28   #4593
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
You are correct jack she didnt say climate change in her paper. However I do think that the predicted 60% reduction in solar activity during the 26th cycle. ( The 2030 to 2040 decade) will have a profound effect. ( JMO)
Solar scientists like Mike Lockwood beg to disagree.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 14-05-2016, 22:29   #4594
Registered User
 
adoxograph's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsnɐ 'ʇsɐoɔ ǝuıɥsuns
Boat: Landlocked right now.
Posts: 355
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
Does Zharkova's paper pertain to this discussion, which deals with cycle 26?

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-pres...-double-dynamo
Not at all. But for different reasons. Only big change in solar output would have a impact on temperature.

The reference you quoted is very accurate and a nice understandable sumary, except the last paragraph. I'll tell you why the last paragraph is making Valentina pulling her hair out.

I met Prof. Valentina Zharkova at a convention in Tenarife. At breakfast one of our group called her the "ice queen": because of the storm of misinformation her paper has caused. She was not amused.

Nowhere in her paper did she mention any form of cooling. Her paper was about a model for the sun’s magnetic field and sunspots, which predicts a 60% fall in sunspot numbers when extrapolated to the 2030s.

Btw. I work with Zharkova's model determining spots and magnetic activities on exoplanetary host stars.

The whole thing started when the PR guy of the Royal Society called her preparing a press release. As he did not understand "solar activities at a minimum" she said something along the line of "you know like the Maunder minimum" in the middle ages. The overly diligent PR guy made a mini-iceage out of that and released the whole thing without her knowledge.

She regrets having done this every time a Journalist calls asking for information about global cooling predicted by her.

Why does it not matter? Earth systems will always reach a state of radiative equilibrium that is

incoming radiative energy from the Sun = outgoing radiation of planet

That means that the planet is in energy balance. If a planet is not in radiative equilibrium the temperature of the planet will increase or decrease.

The amount of incoming radiation depends on the albedo of the planet or in other word the amount of incoming radiation which is not reflected back out in space. The amount of incoming radiation is determined by

P_in=(σT_⊙^4)(4πR_⊙^2)(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))

where (σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 ) represents the luminosity and a the albedo. Rp is the radius of the planet and D the distance to the star.

Considering the planet as a blackbody any radiation reaching the planet is radiated as heat (Stefan-Boltzman Law) as follows:

P=σAT^4

where T is temperature. A is the area (=4πR_p^2) as a planet most likely emits radiation spread over the whole surface which is close to a sphere. Therefore the outgoing radiation is

P_out=(σT_eq^4)(4πR_p^2)
where Teq is ((L_⊙ (1-a))/(16σπD^2 ))^(1/4)

Consequently the planet is in radiative equilibrium when

(σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 )(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))=(σT_eq^4 )(4πR_p^2 )

What does that mean for Earth? Assuming the surface of the earth without atmosphere would pretty barren I assume an albedo a=0.12 (similar to the Moon). R_⊙=6.96×108m, T_⊙=5778K, D=1.496×1011m. Rearanging the above equations we can determine T_eq by

T_eq=T_⊙ (1-a)^(1/4) (R_⊙/2D)^(1/2)=5778K(1- 0.12)^(1/4) ((6.96×10^8 m)/(2*1.496×10^11 m))^(1/2)=269.9K

If we consider Earth’s real albedo of a=0.3 we get an even lower T_eq of 254.9K. The difference to the real measured average temperature on the surface of the earth of ~287K is caused by greenhouse effect of earth’s relatively thick atmosphere. So first of all we should be grateful for the greenhouse gases, because without them Earth would be a frozen ball of ice and we would most likely not existat all.

You see solar activity plays a rather minor role. Most of the temperature control happens in the atmosphere. Maybe I'll show you how that works when I have time to prepare something.
__________________
adoxograph is offline  
Old 14-05-2016, 22:38   #4595
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 3,922
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Sorry all a few posts ago I posted the wrong PDF here is the one I meant to link with
http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/g...55.1000113.pdf
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is online now  
Old 14-05-2016, 22:40   #4596
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by adoxograph View Post
Not at all. But for different reasons. Only big change in solar output would have a impact on temperature.

The reference you quoted is very accurate and a nice understandable sumary, except the last paragraph. I'll tell you why the last paragraph is making Valentina pulling her hair out.

I met Prof. Valentina Zharkova at a convention in Tenarife. At breakfast one of our group called her the "ice queen": because of the storm of misinformation her paper has caused. She was not amused.

Nowhere in her paper did she mention any form of cooling. Her paper was about a model for the sun’s magnetic field and sunspots, which predicts a 60% fall in sunspot numbers when extrapolated to the 2030s.

Btw. I work with Zharkova's model determining spots and magnetic activities on exoplanetary host stars.

The whole thing started when the PR guy of the Royal Society called her preparing a press release. As he did not understand "solar activities at a minimum" she said something along the line of "you know like the Maunder minimum" in the middle ages. The overly diligent PR guy made a mini-iceage out of that and released the whole thing without her knowledge.

She regrets having done this every time a Journalist calls asking for information about global cooling predicted by her.

Why does it not matter? Earth systems will always reach a state of radiative equilibrium that is

incoming radiative energy from the Sun = outgoing radiation of planet

That means that the planet is in energy balance. If a planet is not in radiative equilibrium the temperature of the planet will increase or decrease.

The amount of incoming radiation depends on the albedo of the planet or in other word the amount of incoming radiation which is not reflected back out in space. The amount of incoming radiation is determined by

P_in=(σT_⊙^4)(4πR_⊙^2)(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))

where (σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 ) represents the luminosity and a the albedo. Rp is the radius of the planet and D the distance to the star.

Considering the planet as a blackbody any radiation reaching the planet is radiated as heat (Stefan-Boltzman Law) as follows:

P=σAT^4

where T is temperature. A is the area (=4πR_p^2) as a planet most likely emits radiation spread over the whole surface which is close to a sphere. Therefore the outgoing radiation is

P_out=(σT_eq^4)(4πR_p^2)
where Teq is ((L_⊙ (1-a))/(16σπD^2 ))^(1/4)

Consequently the planet is in radiative equilibrium when

(σT_⊙^4 )(4πR_⊙^2 )(1-a)((πR_p^2)/(4πD^2 ))=(σT_eq^4 )(4πR_p^2 )

What does that mean for Earth? Assuming the surface of the earth without atmosphere would pretty barren I assume an albedo a=0.12 (similar to the Moon). R_⊙=6.96×108m, T_⊙=5778K, D=1.496×1011m. Rearanging the above equations we can determine T_eq by

T_eq=T_⊙ (1-a)^(1/4) (R_⊙/2D)^(1/2)=5778K(1- 0.12)^(1/4) ((6.96×10^8 m)/(2*1.496×10^11 m))^(1/2)=269.9K

If we consider Earth’s real albedo of a=0.3 we get an even lower T_eq of 254.9K. The difference to the real measured average temperature on the surface of the earth of ~287K is caused by greenhouse effect of earth’s relatively thick atmosphere. So first of all we should be grateful for the greenhouse gases, because without them Earth would be a frozen ball of ice and we would most likely not existat all.

You see solar activity plays a rather minor role. Most of the temperature control happens in the atmosphere. Maybe I'll show you how that works when I have time to prepare something.
Merci mucho

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 14-05-2016, 22:52   #4597
Registered User
 
Delfin's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Anacortes, WA
Boat: 55' Romsdal
Posts: 1,390
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
She said nothing about climate change. I will post her quote when get off the boat and get back home.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app
You don't think her thoughts that we would enter into another Maunder minimum scenario represent thoughts on change in climate?

Odd perspective.

For Zharkova's thoughts on climate change, perhaps this will help:


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm
__________________
Delfin is offline  
Old 14-05-2016, 22:54   #4598
Registered User
 
Delfin's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Anacortes, WA
Boat: 55' Romsdal
Posts: 1,390
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
The paper was published in a predatory journal. The author is one of the sky dragon slayers at PSI who are dismissed by Spencer, Curry, Monkton, etc..

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app
"Predatory Journal"? Honestly, Jack, you are the vey eptitome of the warmist koolaid drinker.

P.s. Zharkova's paper was referenced by the Royal Astronical Society
Predatory, indeed.
__________________
Delfin is offline  
Old 14-05-2016, 23:09   #4599
Registered User
 
adoxograph's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsnɐ 'ʇsɐoɔ ǝuıɥsuns
Boat: Landlocked right now.
Posts: 355
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
You don't think her thoughts that we would enter into another Maunder minimum scenario represent thoughts on change in climate?

Odd perspective.

For Zharkova's thoughts on climate change, perhaps this will help:


https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0709092955.htm
This link is not based on the paper this is based on the press release of the Royal Astronomical Society the one which makes Valentina kind of angry.

To answer your question. That is what she told us. In regards to odd perspective? Not at all. She was working in a different field and did not even consider a potential impact on the radiative equilibrium of Earth. For astrophysicist like her (and me) Maunder is not equal to "Oh **** we are entering a mini ice age" it is equal to "wtf - no freaking solar activity? Let's find out why!"

And yes, she regrettably mentioned Maunder to the PR guy as an example, not knowing he would take it literally and publish it. He was overly excited as the PR-release also stated that "the drop in sunspots may resemble the Maunder minimum (remember this is not in the paper only in the press release!), a 17th century lull in solar activity", and even includes a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject. And then it notes that the Maunder minimum coincided with a mini ice age.

All it shows is a massive breakdown of the control systems of the Royal Astronomical Society. The press release should have never gone out without her approval! But honestly it is not the first failure of science communication. But I also blame the so called science reporter, a journalist who did not even bother to read her paper (most likely because he did not understand it) and published info sourced from Wikipedia without checking the facts.

I PM you her email, so you can ask herself.

Here is the link to the press release


And this here is for the Article

As I have access to all journals through my university account I would not know if the article is behind a paywall. PM me if it is.

Please bare in mind that science is not like religion. We admit when something is wrong and change it. Our knowledge grows every day and is not fixed in dogma.
__________________
adoxograph is offline  
Old 15-05-2016, 01:34   #4600
Registered User
 
adoxograph's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsnɐ 'ʇsɐoɔ ǝuıɥsuns
Boat: Landlocked right now.
Posts: 355
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Ok I received a couple of PM's and want to clarify some things:

1. Prof. Valentina Zharkova predicts in her paper a 60% reduction in solar activities, which I think she is spot on.

2. She does not predict a 60% reduction in solar output, which would be a catastrophic event. A 60% reduction of power output would mean that the Sun has reached nearly the end of the main sequence and has fused most of its H to He. As the sun is running out of conventional fusion fuel it is becoming a red giant and would swallow whatever is left of earth.

No worries all of that needs much more time than 25 years. It will (very roughly) start in about 3x10^9 years and last for ~2x10^9 years and I think by then the conditions will hardly allow for any life on Earth. In the end all the terrestrial planets will be gone and only whats left of the jovians will orbit a white dwarf.

3. What Zharkova means by writing that the suns activities will be reduced by 60% around 2030 is: less sunspots, solar flares and granulates on the surface of the sun. Also a slight reduction of solar wind. The energy output will be similar what you see right now but the difference is that this low surface activity of the sun will last the whole 11 year cycle #26.

Please see also my earlier posts in regards to this subject:

Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

and

Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

I hope that clears it up
__________________
adoxograph is offline  
Old 15-05-2016, 04:18   #4601
Registered User
 
stevensuf's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in Scotland!
Boat: Gib sea 43
Posts: 840
Images: 10
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

You didnt add the heat from the earths core, not much compaired to the suns input, Estimates of the total heat flow from Earth’s interior to surface span a range of 43 to 49 terawatt (TW), or 1012 watt.[8] The closest estimate is 47 TW,[1] an average crust heat flow of 91.6 mW/m2.
__________________
http://nicnsteve.blogspot.com/

If the pen is mightier than the sword, then my keyboard must be a nuclear missile!
stevensuf is offline  
Old 15-05-2016, 04:38   #4602
Registered User
 
adoxograph's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsnɐ 'ʇsɐoɔ ǝuıɥsuns
Boat: Landlocked right now.
Posts: 355
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevensuf View Post
You didnt add the heat from the earths core, not much compaired to the suns input, Estimates of the total heat flow from Earth’s interior to surface span a range of 43 to 49 terawatt (TW), or 1012 watt.[8] The closest estimate is 47 TW,[1] an average crust heat flow of 91.6 mW/m2.
No, I did not add this heat, mainly because I was looking at radiative equilibrium. I have not checked your figures I take them as they are but it is save to ignore the ~0.028% or so (if memory serves me well) heat flow to the surface from radioactive decay and leftover primordial cooling of Earth's interia. To put it in perspective, according your figure we are talking here about approximately 47TW internal heat flowing to the surface vs 173,000TW of solar radiation. The rounding error is larger than that!

Even the variation of the solar constant between perihelion on aphelion, which is magnitudes larger than that, can be ignored without significantly changing the results. The composition of the atmosphere is the main factor for determining the temperature on the surface.
__________________
adoxograph is offline  
Old 15-05-2016, 05:00   #4603
Registered User
 
Rustic Charm's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Boat: Bieroc 36 foot Ketch
Posts: 4,898
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

It's now breached 400

Confirmed: Southern hemisphere CO2 level rises above symbolic 400 ppm milestone

It's been millions of years since its been this high
__________________
Rustic Charm is offline  
Old 15-05-2016, 05:20   #4604
Registered User
 
adoxograph's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsnɐ 'ʇsɐoɔ ǝuıɥsuns
Boat: Landlocked right now.
Posts: 355
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustic Charm View Post
It's now breached 400

Confirmed: Southern hemisphere CO2 level rises above symbolic 400 ppm milestone

It's been millions of years since its been this high
Bugger.

Let me tell you, you ruined my evening. Now I go and watch the rest of the Eurovision Song Contest on SBS. Thats more fun
__________________
adoxograph is offline  
Old 15-05-2016, 05:23   #4605
Registered User
 
Rustic Charm's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Boat: Bieroc 36 foot Ketch
Posts: 4,898
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by adoxograph View Post
Bugger.

Let me tell you, you ruined my evening. Now I go and watch the rest of the Eurovision Song Contest on SBS. Thats more fun
Dami Dami Dami OI oi oi
__________________

__________________
Rustic Charm is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cruising and the Coming Storm ~ Recession, Depression, Climate Change, Peak Oil jtbsail Off Topic Forum 162 13-10-2015 13:17
Weather Patterns / Climate Change anjou Off Topic Forum 185 19-01-2010 15:08
Climate Change GordMay Off Topic Forum 445 02-09-2008 08:48
Healthiest coral reefs hardest hit by climate change GordMay Off Topic Forum 33 11-05-2007 03:07



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 14:59.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.