Visit our Popular Forums

jackdale · 14-05-2016, 21:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

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

**newhaul** · 14-05-2016, 21:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

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)

jackdale · 14-05-2016, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

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

adoxograph · 14-05-2016, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delfin

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.

**newhaul** · 14-05-2016, 21:38

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

jackdale · 14-05-2016, 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by adoxograph

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

Delfin · 14-05-2016, 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

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 · 14-05-2016, 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

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.

adoxograph · 14-05-2016, 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delfin

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 · 15-05-2016, 00:34

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:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2120566

and

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2120413

I hope that clears it up

stevensuf · 15-05-2016, 03:18

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.

adoxograph · 15-05-2016, 03:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevensuf

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.