5 Filters

For those willing to read and understand Zharkova nails AGW Co2 based global warming into a coffin here:

I posted on the subject of global cooling earlier - clearly Zharkova’s message on AGW did not come across to some. I dug further into her website and came across this word document which sets out in absolutely clear terms Z’s views on this subject:

https://solargsm.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/vz2_c_Solar-radiation-input-to-the-Earth-and-the-Earth-Sun-distance.docx

for those without Office Word the file can be read on the free programme Open Office .

Here’s a taste:

"

Solar radiation input to the Earth and the Earth-Sun distance

Summary by V. Zharkova

The temperature on Earth is determined by the radiation input (W/m2) from the Sun, the heat produced within the solid Earth, and the radiation emitted by the Earth. The radiation coming from the Sun may, in first approximation, be approximated by that of a 5800 K black-body; the radiation emitted by the Earth may be approximated by that of a 280 K black-body. Consequently, a large part of the solar radiation input to the Earth falls within the visible range of the spectrum, while the radiation emitted by the Earth falls primarily within the infrared part of the spectrum. As a direct result, the Earth’s atmosphere absorption characteristics for the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing Earth’s radiation are very different.

Various models, based on measurements, exist for the determination of the variation of these heat inputs over time. So, the history of the heat balance of the Earth can be modeled from the past to the future and the history of the resulting Earth’s temperature can be determined. However, it is important to realize that, even today, various aspects of the processes determining the heat balance are not completely understood and the models therefore only have a limited prediction accuracy.

Solar irradiance variations in the past can be determined by measuring the history of biomass radioisotopes (e.g., cosmogenic radioisotopes (14C and 10Be) in paleoclimate records) and by using the historical sunspot number records. By combining this information with actual solar activity measurements obtained during the last decades and physical laws about the processes within the Sun, the variation of the solar activity can be modeled to some extent.

The power density (W/m2) of that radiation is, of course, dependent on the intensity of various processes occurring in the Sun, usually identified by the term ‘solar activity, and the distance of the Earth from the Sun.

Modelling climate changes at Earth

For modeling future climate changes, the processes mentioned above must be modeled correctly. Still, one should realize that all these models only have limited accuracy and that some dynamical models exhibit so-called numerical instability, which means that unavoidable small errors in the numerical integration process yield ever-growing prediction errors.

Therefore, the question should be raised: how accurate can we predict climate variations over long periods:

  • How could one rely on these models if they do not consider the substantial solar forcing caused by the solar inertial motion?
  • Where do these terrestrial temperature models get the heating then?

Can CO2 be a source of heating?

The IPCC supporters declare that this heating is coming from very inert molecules of CO2 whose abundances in the Earth atmosphere have large optical thicknesses of a few hundred. But the large numbers of CO2 molecules make the radiative output of CO2 emission locked within the media with a large optical thickness (many molecules of CO2 on the line of sight), according to the radiative transfer models!

(see the slide below from the talk By C. Veyres, Portugal, 2018):

While the IPCC radiative models dump all their CO2 emission on the Earth by ignoring this optical thickness. Therefore, they obtain such huge and fluctuating numbers of temperature increases because the larger the number of CO2 molecules in their models then the larger is emission reflected to the Earth, which, they suggest, is the force causing its heating. While this CO2 emission will remain locked within the media with large optical thickness while emitting towards the Earth and the interplanetary space only some partial emission from the layers with the optical thickness of unity (!).

To explain this point better I present the Figure and the webpage for details

Computation of Radiative Transfer - Wolfram Demonstrations Project, which demonstrates the intensity of emission from the gray area on the left.

This means the whole hype about the increase of CO2 abundances, which would lead to the increase of the CO2 emission emitted back to the Earth and heat the surface and ocean (greenhouse effect) as IPCC says, has made up out of a very basic unprofessionalism in radiative transfer theory!!

Therefore, the extra heating of the Earth at a medium timescale of two thousand years is happening in much the way that every thousand years the Sun comes closer to planets because of its revolution about the barycentre of the solar system, thus, depositing more energy into the planetary atmospheres and their oceans and the next thousand years the Sun returns to the barycentre that leads to planetary cooling for another thousand plus years. Since all other planets experience similar extra-heating processes as the Earth does in the past three centuries, it confirms that the Sun is the only source of energy for the Earth and all other planets. This medium-term solar heating is modulated by the variations of solar activity on the Sun itself caused by solar dynamo action, e.g., by 11-year cycles and by 350–400-year grand cycles. This is confirmed by the modern grand solar minimum started in 2020 which will last to 2053…

This means the whole hype about the increase of CO2 abundances, which would lead to the increase of the CO2 emission emitted back to the Earth and heat the surface and ocean (greenhouse effect) as IPCC says, has made up out of a very basic unprofessionalism in radiative transfer theory!!

Therefore, the extra heating of the Earth at a medium timescale of two thousand years is happening in much the way that every thousand years the Sun comes closer to planets because of its revolution about the barycentre of the solar system, thus, depositing more energy into the planetary atmospheres and their oceans and the next thousand years the Sun returns to the barycentre that leads to planetary cooling for another thousand plus years. Since all other planets experience similar extra-heating processes as the Earth does in the past three centuries, it confirms that the Sun is the only source of energy for the Earth and all other planets. This medium-term solar heating is modulated by the variations of solar activity on the Sun itself caused by solar dynamo action, e.g., by 11-year cycles and by 350–400-year grand cycles. This is confirmed by the modern grand solar minimum started in 2020 which will last to 2053…"

cheers

1 Like

And the merry go round continues eh?

  • Monckton
  • McIntyre
  • Rancourt
  • Curry
  • Corbett

And now

  • Zharkova

I cant wait to see who will be next to bat in the denialist lineup…

Have you actually read any of the serious people studying this stuff yet? Let me guess…

Cheers
PP

1 Like

Zharkova isn’t ‘serious’, P? And the IPCC bandwaggon is? Bro, are you ever going to face the fact that you really don’t know, with any justifiable certainty, what’s going to happen, despite your apparently firm conviction that you do? None of us do; or can. Hammering away on the ‘I know for sure!’ button, with lots of techno-talk to ‘prove’ it, isn’t going to convert the sceptics. We think that this is a complex and fundamentally unpredictable (in detail) issue. We also see that Chicken Little panics are a regular phenomenon of human discourse. Can you wonder that we stay open-minded about it? For all I know, Zharkova may have it right.

I know that I don’t know with any certainty what’s going to happen. So I’m not going to stop listening to all viewpoints. Nor am I going to live constantly in a Thunbergian-certainty panic. (Greer has a fascinating story about a similar young woman from decades ago, who had a similar passionate meteoric blaze across public consciousness, proclaiming some earlier global panic, who then fell out of the spotlight, and went on to have a very ordinary life, with none of her youthful terrors realised.)

Who knows, it might even be possible to extract at least a smidgeon of credibility from Monckton! (Though I wouldn’t put much money on that. :slight_smile: )

Ah the denialist argument - always trumps engagement with technical analysis of NEW INFORMATION.
Give me a break and read the stuff before going off half cocked!

Hi PP

What’s a denialist - surely everyone is denying something? Is this harnessing the covid-tested power of guilt by association, perhaps :stuck_out_tongue:

image

It seems to me that in this post @CJ1 (like Rancourt in his physics paper) is questioning CO2 as the culprit.
Is this (CO2) fundamental to the explanation of man-made climate change in your view, or could it be methane perhaps.

Cheers

2 Likes

PS: Regarding the reliability of IPCC statements, readers here might like to clock UKColumn News’ output today at 55.30 minutes: quoting physicist Prof. Richard Lindzen - a member of the bandwaggon himself - on the politicisation of the panel’s conclusions “…to create panic…”

1 Like

Err, what?? Was anyone measuring the temperature on, say, Neptune in the 1850s? Seems made up to me.

What’s pretty clear from looking at the planets is that an atmosphere makes a massive difference in the temepratures. eg Compare Venus (hot all over) and Mercury (where temperatures of -180C occur on the night side).

1 Like

How the planets react to the insolation varies according to local conditions, Willem. And of course, the amount of energy received varies as the inverse square of the distance from the Sun.

But they’re all getting the same variations, at the same time (also involving that same inverse-square law, which causes large changes in energy received, even with modest changes of distance; the square, in fact), because of this complex dance of Sun and planets around their common centre of gravity.

What’s key here is the fact - apparently - of cyclic variations of insolation, on several different frequencies, all interacting with each other. That’s quite enough complexity in itself to make precise long term prophecies just pie in the sky.

And of course it doesn’t stop just with the whole-system variations. There is then the extra - huge - layer of complexity which the individual planet’s system lays onto its own particular level of incoming insolation.

The precise effects of all this are simply not predictable in any reliable detail. Anyone who insists that they are - to Thunberg levels of dogmatism - is deluding him/herself. It just isn’t adequate ground for wild panic.

Yes Evvy. I’m denying the validity of ANY certainty about this matter. Not necessarily denying global warming itself, though. It’s within the scope of possibility that that will happen. How much, and with what effects isn’t predictable; nor how long it lasts before things cool again. But both - heating and cooling, cyclically - seem pretty likely.

1 Like

The bit of text I quoted came directly after:

In other words, according to this, the planets cool as the Sun returns to the barycentre. But then we have the line: Since all other planets experience similar extra-heating processes as the Earth does in the past three centuries. This “fact” is then used to confirm something. How does one deduce this “fact”? From measurements, from some theory? If from some theory, why only three centuries?

Quite separate from this, what happens on other planets is certainly interesting, but of limited relevance to deciding more precisely what’s happening on Earth. The point about atmospheres was to say that its make up plays a crucial role in global temperatures. So the make up of the Earth’s atmosphere is crucial.

That the make up changes naturally over many years stands to reason. But what is undeniable is that humanity is disturbing this state of affairs over a – geologically speaking – incredibly short time interval. Much of nature is delicately balanced. To make such a major upset (50% increase in the amount of CO2 since 1900 while pretty much constant* over a million+ years prior), I’d be very surprised if it didn’t lead to extraordinary changes to all sorts of things. It’s also no wonder we’re living in the third great extinction.

*More importantly, very gradual increases and decreases; changes occur over thousands of years, and nature can remain in harmony.

1 Like

Hi @Willem , She is talking about heating processes over the last 300 years since the end of the Maunder Minimum and pointing out that her argument that the 1.4 degree increase since 1715 was a result of a regular grand solar cycle - a “heating process” - where there is a period of no sunspot activity producing a fall in temperature followed by the later period of increase in sun spot activity giving rise to increased temperature - this same external heating process was witnessed for other planets in the solar system. She covers this in the jermwarfare interview I posted :

@ around 40 minutes in, saying Mars was exposed to the same solar events and suffered unusual ice melting in the same period and similarly on Jupiter unusual typhoons around the same time , she asks is it possible for our “CO2 AGW”on Earth to effect these events on other planets as opposed to changes in Solar activity. Clearly not!

The very fact that known solar activities causing known temperature changes in the past have been ignored and replaced with a narrative built on only correlation of CO2 increases to temperature increases proves the CO2 story of AGW laid out in the 90’s is just another Rockerfeller eugenics con argued by James Corbett in his Oiligarch videos and others.

cheers

My understanding is that solar activity often operates in varying regular cycles - the Grand Solar Cycles cover around 300 years commencing with cooling followed by heating spread over that period as with the period from the Maunder Minimum 1645 to 1715 up to the 2000’s.

The 2000 year cycle relates to the Solar wobble generated by the pull of the large planets as they revolve around the sun, the wobble producing changes to the distance between the Earth and the Sun and hence temperature changes. She is focussing on 600 to 2600 here.

I covered the reference to the same solar events on other planets in the solar system showing the inability of AGW CO2 to effect the changes across other planets so why on Earth.

.

Kharkova’s commentary on radiative transfer theory is quite scathing of the IPCC , why should I not follow her lead on this given that she has put forward a provable theory of warming over the last 300 years which does not involve CO2 , man-made or otherwise?

There are a lot of people out there who , unlike Zharkova, do have personal interests in continuing the AGW CO2 narrative maybe our 5 filters can be used to discern the facts so far.

cheers

1 Like

I quite agree, W, that humanity’s sudden big interference with conditions on Earth is bound to have some effect; and yes, on the geological timescale it’s very sudden. I agree too that in such a complex system, small changes can have big - and unexpected - effects.

My only caveat concerns exactly that complexity: its precise behaviour simply can’t be predicted with any detailed accuracy. We just don’t - and can’t - know what’s going to happen!

I didn’t find her article an easy read but the thrust of it was long-term (very) patterns, mostly inferred, versus shorter-term hard data. If I keep playing craps and insist on betting on 2 eventually I could win big. But I could run out of cash in the short-term. Our lifespans and those of our descendants are, somehow, rather more salient, even if the Rockefellers are having a good chuckle at our expense.

One is climate. The other is power. It’s possible, desirable, to push back against the latter.

1 Like

I doubt we’re going to run out of humans any time soon, K. These Interesting Times seem to promise a reduction of numbers, now in the medium-term pipeline, along the curve suggested by ‘The Limits…’; but total extinction? Lower probability, I suspect.

Mam Gaia “the tough bitch” will absorb all her species extinctions, as usual, and set about re-filling all the recently-emptied niches. Life will continue, including humans for a while yet… :slight_smile:

Hi CJ1,

ok so the temperature increase is, according to Zharkova, due to solar activity. My point was really that this is not based on any actual measurements in the case of the other planets. So to state all other planets experience similar extra-heating processes as the Earth does in the past three centuries is theoretical – we don’t know this from measurements. To use this to “confirm” the theory seems rather circular.

1 Like

Hi @KarenEliot , Zharkova herself points to various uncertainties in the science but she seems to go a lot further than inference in testing her solar activity theories. The carbon 14 data established by others apparently supports the 2000 year cycle proposed by Z as does the ephemeris some of which goes back to Babylonians- these are supporting proofs of her planetary calculations in relation to solar activity and its overwhelming determination of our planetary temperature changes.
Her comments about CO2 and AGW she supports with radiative transfer theories accepted by others to which she links. Her conclusions do not seem that different from Hermann Harde see :

http://hharde.de/index_htm_files/Opinion-Draft-Law%20-%20Reduction%20GHG%20Emissions.pdf

I have to ask myself do I intuitively have greater trust in her findings than those of IPCC scientists. I see no obvious personal conflicting interest for her position unlike IPCC scientists, commerce, finance and eugenicists!

cheers

2 Likes

Hi @Willem , all I think she was saying here is that impacts have been observed on other planets in the solar system, at the same time as Earth has been affected, that could never be influenced by man-made CO2 ( I think she makes this point whilst laughing in the jermwarfare video) but which are all influenced by the same solar changes.
Clearly there are no historical temperature measurements of other planets but you don’t need those if you have accepted observational data on impacts. We don’t even have agreements on Earth temperatures over the last few decades!

cheers

just an additional thought - I think it’s clear that Rockerfellers have been pushing eugenics through all their outlets- The club of rome, WWF, IPCC and the rest thus having a direct influence on many people’s lifespan or even birth!
there is of course the uncomfortable fact that we have witnessed more deaths from global cooling than warming so that any warning we get that there is a solar cycle that historically has repeatedly produced global cooling with massive temperature falls in places should demand preparatory action particularly when this precedes from 2030s to 2040s far in advance of any meaningful global warming is expected?

cheers

Harde’s description of the awkward complications of feeding electricity into the grid from ‘renewables’ corresponds with Gail Tverberg’s equally perceptive analysis: There isn’t enough; courtesy of the Long Descent, there will never be enough; the intermittency enforces unsustainably expensive back-up systems to be on constant tickover; and there are no economically and EROEIcally credible ways to alleviate these issues.

Also, Harde agrees with Dmitry Orlov: that next generation nuclear systems now in development in Russia resolve the waste-disposal problem, and can even dispose of already-accumulated waste.

I suspect that I may be sensing, also, a swing in the conventional wisdom about anthropogenic CO2 warming of the climate. Not sure about that; but I have to say these past couple+ of years of the covid swindle and the allegedly ‘essential’ - and certainly disastrous - responses to it have shaken a lot of highly encrusted conventional public beliefs loose.

I think I’m looking at a first instalment of the fall from widespread prestige of science, and particularly of technocracy and the technocrats, amongst the lay public, which JMGreer forecasts, out of his wide study of previous such Interesting Times. K. posted an essay by Renaud Beauchard on the ‘Striking re-conception…’ thread which sees something similar happening.