Lv 4
Dirac asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 month ago

In her editorial "Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling", why does Zharkova neglect the albedo and greenhouse gases?

In August 2020 Taylor and Francis Online, Valentina Zharkova predicts that "...the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere can be reduced by up to 1.0°C from the current temperature", but in her analysis, she completely ignores the competing effect of increased radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.  Zharkova claims that the Maunder Minimum had about 3 watts per square meter TSI less than today, but other groups that reconstruct TSI find less than half that. Zharkova also neglects to average the TSI over the Earth's spherical, and she neglects to take into account the albedo of the Earth. If you consider both of those things, then the drop in TSI with the GSM would be less than the increased forcing from greenhouse gases.  If Zharkova's reconstructed TSI is wrong and the other group's correct, then greenhouse gas forcing would completely swamp any negative forcing from TSI decrease.  Why does she attempt to predict temperature while completely ignoring these effects?


Anonymous troll: I still have no "sock puppets", I have this single account.  You should put aside your preconceptions and consider the possibility for once, because it's still true and it's been true all along. To be honest, I don't think anyone else writes like me (or has my attitude).

Update 2:

Wacky Walrus, I apologize for the typo in an answer from yesterday. It was meant to say "atmospheric scientist"--surprised that was so hard for you to figure out. Not sure if it was autocorrect on my phone or just bad typing.

Update 3:

Solar Wind, nothing in Feynman’s Chapter 40 (or any other chapter) is in conflict with the greenhouse effect.

Update 4:

Al P, thank you for your well-informed answer (as usual).  I might add that it's not just the albedo trend that matters, but the magnitude of the albedo itself.  The larger the albedo is, the less the effect of any changes to TSI

Update 5:

JimZ--No climate scientists ignore the solar output.  That you think so is an indication that you have chosen to ignore science and give an answer based on your politics.

Update 6:

Oh, sorry Gloobal..., did the question go over your head? I thought you would appreciate that I am asking a question promoting an opinion from a "skeptic" (or whatever Zharkova is). If you'd like to share proof that I'm "paid" for posting, please do, otherwise you are just a lying imbecile. I have two jobs that I'm paid for, neither of which encourages me to post here. 

Update 7:

The troll's "Gloobal" sock puppet got owned, so he got rid of that answer.  What a loser.

Update 8:

Hot Weather..., you haven't come up with documentation of ANYTHING.  I keep asking you for it, but all you do is point to a website that doesn't have it either. If you could actually document your claims it should be a relatively easy thing to do and you wouldn't have to block.

9 Answers

  • Al P
    Lv 7
    1 month ago
    Favorite Answer

    Her  model, using principle component analysis, does not use terrestrial data by her own admission, so any reduction in solar flux (TSI)  and therefore the Earth's net orbital temperature must be correctly superimposed using terrestrial data and the laws of physics.  Again, her model does not consider CO2 emissions, albedo trend, or many other critical terrestrial things. One critical thing which must be used to predict Earth's average surface temperature in the future is the atmosphere's interaction with  feedback terrestrial flux which is mainly high entropy solar flux.

  • Doesn't matter.  I have repeatedly documented that there are little to no negative warming effects.  If anything, the effects are positive.

    Attachment image
  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Alarmists ignore everything except CO2 so criticizing this study for focusing on the solar minimum lacks credibility IMO.  

  • 1 month ago

    There is no greenhouse forcing, The back radiation of greenhouse gases to further heat the surface of the Earth is junk science and does not occur. TSI, xrays, uvrays, galactic cosmic ray flux, high energy protons, clouds and orbital variances are not included in the alarmist junk science models.

    The back radiation feature of the greenhouse effect is an example of a perpetual motion engine of the 1st and 2nd kind violating both the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. Read Feynman's lectures chapter 40 or is that science above your comprehension.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    I have one account.

  • 1 month ago

    Because she wouldn't get copied and forwarded by the legion of trolls if she had done that.

  • 1 month ago

    Anything is possible.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Peer review shows that polar bears are increasing

    Attachment image
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    ===These websites can help with your question. 

    Attachment image
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.