• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paper that claimed the Sun caused global warming gets retracted

Jack Hays said:
The matter remains in dispute.

[h=2]Heavily criticized paper blaming the sun for global warming is retracted[/h][FONT="][IMG]https://i2.wp.com/retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/sun.jpg?w=660&ssl=1[/IMG]via [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sun_by_the_Atmospheric_Imaging_Assembly_of_NASA%27s_Solar_Dynamics_Observatory_-_20100819.jpg"]NASA[/URL]A controversial paper claiming that fluctuations in the sun’s magnetic field could be driving global warming has been retracted — prompting protests from most of the authors, who called the move
a shameful step to cover up the truthful facts about the solar and Earth orbital motion reported by the retracted paper, in our replies to the reviewer comments and in the further papers.
​
The 2019 article, “Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale,” appeared in Scientific Reports and was written by a group of authors from the UK, Russia and Azerbaijan. The first author was Valentina Zharkova, a mathematician/astrophysicist at Northumbria University, whose group reported having received funding for the work from the U.S. Air Force and the Russian Science Foundation.
The paper purported to find that fluctuations in the sun’s magnetic field are making the earth hotter:
Continue reading Heavily criticized paper blaming the sun for global warming is retracted[/FONT]
Click to expand...

The paper was retracted because it is horrible science.


That is not in dispute
 
vegas giants said:
The paper was retracted because it is horrible science.


That is not in dispute
Click to expand...

It's awesome watching people double-down on something debunked.
 
Jack Hays said:
Meanwhile, the advance of the solar climate paradigm continues.

[h=2]New Study Asserts Cloud Cover Changes Drove The Post-1980s Solar Radiation Increase Important To Recent Warming[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 2. March 2020
[h=4]Using NASA’s MERRA-2 radiation data, scientists find shortwave radiation (SW) has been rising since the 1980s. The SW increase has been larger and faster than longwave radiation (LW) changes during this same timespan. Cloud variability has been the “main driver” of these trends.[/h]
Cloud-cover-changes-drive-shortwave-radiation-and-current-climate-change-Delgado-Bonal-2020.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020[/h]In a new Nature journal paper (Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020) published in Scientific Reports, scientists use radiation records from NASA to conclude shortwave (SW) changes are “mainly determined” by cloud modulation.
Clouds are “showing a declining trend” from 1984-2014. Fewer clouds means less SW radiation is reflected to space and more is absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
Figures 1 (SW) and 2 (LW) suggest post-1980 radiative forcing trend lines reach ~3.5 W/m² (rising from approximately 103.5 to 107 W/m²) and slightly less than 1 W/m² (approximately 237.5 to 238.3 W/m²) for SW and LW, respectively.
SW-vs-LW-forcing-since-1980-Delgado-Bonal-2020.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020[/h]Therefore, because (a) the SW radiation trend has been more pronounced than the LW radiation changes, and (b) the cloud variability is the main driver of SW radiation (that is of “great importance to recent climate change”), the recent positive energy imbalance – and warming – can mainly be attributed to cloud modulation.
The “argued” dominance of a human and/or LW (greenhouse effect) domination in recent climate change therefore becomes a question that is “still open”.
[h=3]Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020[/h][h=6]“When reaching the Earth, part of the incoming solar radiation is reflected off clouds and the surface as shortwave radiation (SW). Changes in cloud distribution or the surface albedo affect this flux and change the energy balance. In the last four decades, changes in cloud distribution in low-level clouds such as subtropical stratocumulus have been of great importance since they have the ability to reflect large amounts of radiation back to space but do not reduce significantly the outgoing terrestrial radiation.”[/h][h=6]“hortwave radiation is the main driver in the dynamics and plays a major role in the energy balance by affecting the longwave radiation field”[/h][h=6]“[C]hanges in cloud fraction for example would be rapidly manifested in the shortwave field and would influence the longwave radiation field since the available energy for being absorbed would be different.”[/h][h=6]“The existence of reflective surfaces such as clouds or the ground determines directly the amount of SW radiation and, thus, the available energy for being absorbed and reemitted as LW.”[/h][h=6]“Our research supports the idea that clouds and albedo, which ultimately determine the SW radiation, are variables of the utmost importance for current climate change, in agreement with previous research about the changes in stratocumulus or energy imbalance in the last four decades for example. An increase in cloud coverage of 0.1 would, on average, lead to a 7% increase in spectrally integrated global average reflectance of shortwave radiation.”[/h]
Click to expand...




Spam, spam and more spam from a discredited poster.
 
Jack Hays said:
Meanwhile, the advance of the solar climate paradigm continues.

[h=2]New Study Asserts Cloud Cover Changes Drove The Post-1980s Solar Radiation Increase Important To Recent Warming[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 2. March 2020
[h=4]Using NASA’s MERRA-2 radiation data, scientists find shortwave radiation (SW) has been rising since the 1980s. The SW increase has been larger and faster than longwave radiation (LW) changes during this same timespan. Cloud variability has been the “main driver” of these trends.[/h]
Cloud-cover-changes-drive-shortwave-radiation-and-current-climate-change-Delgado-Bonal-2020.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020[/h]In a new Nature journal paper (Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020) published in Scientific Reports, scientists use radiation records from NASA to conclude shortwave (SW) changes are “mainly determined” by cloud modulation.
Clouds are “showing a declining trend” from 1984-2014. Fewer clouds means less SW radiation is reflected to space and more is absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
Figures 1 (SW) and 2 (LW) suggest post-1980 radiative forcing trend lines reach ~3.5 W/m² (rising from approximately 103.5 to 107 W/m²) and slightly less than 1 W/m² (approximately 237.5 to 238.3 W/m²) for SW and LW, respectively.
SW-vs-LW-forcing-since-1980-Delgado-Bonal-2020.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020[/h]Therefore, because (a) the SW radiation trend has been more pronounced than the LW radiation changes, and (b) the cloud variability is the main driver of SW radiation (that is of “great importance to recent climate change”), the recent positive energy imbalance – and warming – can mainly be attributed to cloud modulation.
The “argued” dominance of a human and/or LW (greenhouse effect) domination in recent climate change therefore becomes a question that is “still open”.
[h=3]Delgado-Bonal et al, 2020[/h][h=6]“When reaching the Earth, part of the incoming solar radiation is reflected off clouds and the surface as shortwave radiation (SW). Changes in cloud distribution or the surface albedo affect this flux and change the energy balance. In the last four decades, changes in cloud distribution in low-level clouds such as subtropical stratocumulus have been of great importance since they have the ability to reflect large amounts of radiation back to space but do not reduce significantly the outgoing terrestrial radiation.”[/h][h=6]“hortwave radiation is the main driver in the dynamics and plays a major role in the energy balance by affecting the longwave radiation field”[/h][h=6]“[C]hanges in cloud fraction for example would be rapidly manifested in the shortwave field and would influence the longwave radiation field since the available energy for being absorbed would be different.”[/h][h=6]“The existence of reflective surfaces such as clouds or the ground determines directly the amount of SW radiation and, thus, the available energy for being absorbed and reemitted as LW.”[/h][h=6]“Our research supports the idea that clouds and albedo, which ultimately determine the SW radiation, are variables of the utmost importance for current climate change, in agreement with previous research about the changes in stratocumulus or energy imbalance in the last four decades for example. An increase in cloud coverage of 0.1 would, on average, lead to a 7% increase in spectrally integrated global average reflectance of shortwave radiation.”[/h]
Click to expand...


An interesting paper, but unfortunately totally misunderstood by the blogger who posted it.

There is absolutely nothing in that paper which is at odds with AGW. It is no surprise that cloud distributions change as climate changes, and that this affects the ratios of SW and LW radiation reaching the Earth. Indeed, this is one of the many feedback effects associated with AGW, and it is good to see it more accurately quantified.
 
Quaestio said:
Did you not read the retraction notice? I even copied and pasted a screenshot for you so you didn't even have to click on a link.

Have you not read the IPCC reports or any of the hundreds of thousands of research papers they are based on? Any of the statements from every single major science institution on the planet?

Rhetorical question. Of course you haven't.

You have no interest in facts or science. Your rejection of science, facts and evidence is all based on your irrational feelies, nothing more than feelies...
Click to expand...
LOL it says in your own links that 3 out of the 4 authors are objecting to the retraction, and all it says in the retraction note is that there are claims that the assumptions in the paper are incorrect, nowhere does it say that it has been disproven.

If anyone hasnt read anything on this, its you--and no one is surprised-- because you dont know how science works.
 
PoS said:
LOL it says in your own links that 3 out of the 4 authors are objecting to the retraction, and all it says in the retraction note is that there are claims that the assumptions in the paper are incorrect, nowhere does it say that it has been disproven.

If anyone hasnt read anything on this, its you--and no one is surprised-- because you dont know how science works.
Click to expand...
"It's incorrect but that does not mean it has been disproven."
:lol:


:2rofll:
 
PoS said:
Nice try, but it wasnt the authors who retracted the paper, but rather the publisher due to pressure from the eco nuts- if this proves anything, its that censorship is alive and well in climate science.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Their text on the article says:

The Editors have retracted this Article.

After publication, concerns were raised regarding the interpretation of how the Earth-Sun distance changes over time and that some of the assumptions on which analyses presented in the Article are based are incorrect."
​

Seems to me is they are going to retract a paper for "if we assume" scenarios, then almost every single AGW paper should be retracted as well.

How do they know the assumptions are incorrect?

Why not retract past papers where assumptions are now known as incorrect?

What an Orwellian society....
 
calamity said:
"It's incorrect but that does not mean it has been disproven."
:lol:


:2rofll:
Click to expand...

Yeah "claims that theyre incorrect." I guess your mind failed to read over that part.

In your world, any "claims" are always confirmed, no matter how ludicrous. :doh
 
Surface Detail said:
An interesting paper, but unfortunately totally misunderstood by the blogger who posted it.

There is absolutely nothing in that paper which is at odds with AGW. It is no surprise that cloud distributions change as climate changes, and that this affects the ratios of SW and LW radiation reaching the Earth. Indeed, this is one of the many feedback effects associated with AGW, and it is good to see it more accurately quantified.
Click to expand...

Keep whistling past the graveyard.

Analyzing changes in the complexity of climate in the ... - Nature

www.nature.com › scientific reports › articles
OBSPCngDnjVjOM4JEmCaZqUy2UAKpUKANVqlVKppF1fgbsc 0W6Bi4A2u029Xqd7XaL53lsNhu63S6O4xBFEZ7nEccxwC1wqbP9eZWz Ncxafz6nN8BSm6nE0arwKIAAAAASUVORK5CYII=




by A Delgado-Bonal - ‎2020
Jan 22, 2020 - Article; Open Access; Published: 22 January 2020 ... Delgado-Bonal, A.
 
Lord of Planar said:
No.

It was retracted because there are those who believe the science is settled.

That's bad science.
Click to expand...

Prove that. We have already seen the quote from the journal
 
Jack Hays said:
You attack the messenger because you are defeated by the science.

[h=3]Analyzing changes in the complexity of climate in the ... - Nature[/h]www.nature.com › scientific reports › articles
OBSPCngDnjVjOM4JEmCaZqUy2UAKpUKANVqlVKppF1fgbsc 0W6Bi4A2u029Xqd7XaL53lsNhu63S6O4xBFEZ7nEccxwC1wqbP9eZWz Ncxafz6nN8BSm6nE0arwKIAAAAASUVORK5CYII=




by A Delgado-Bonal - ‎2020
Jan 22, 2020 - Article; Open Access; Published: 22 January 2020 ... Delgado-Bonal, A.
Click to expand...



Science not accepted by science as having any significant scientific fact that changes an iota of the AGW conclusion of the science community. And, as usual, all you do is spam w/o saying anything. No attendant synopsis. Lazy. Spam, spam and more spam.
 
I hope a bunch of regular Joes on Internet message boards are right about man not causing this issue. If they're wrong all of our kids and grand kids are gonna pay the price.
 
CaughtInThe said:
I hope a bunch of regular Joes on Internet message boards are right about man not causing this issue. If they're wrong all of our kids and grand kids are gonna pay the price.
Click to expand...
It is not that man is not causing this issue.
Scientific skepticism is about the modeled sensitivity from added CO2 vs the observed sensitivity of added CO2.
In ether case, some of the added CO2 is coming from Human activity.
The question is how much warming can we expect from the amount of CO2 that Human activity can add?
The upper limit of how much CO2 can Human activity add, is ~1000ppm.
This is based on a quote from Jim Hansen in Discover.
Burning All Fossil Fuels Would Push CO2 to Levels Last Seen Before Forests | Discover Magazine
“There’s enough (fossil fuels) in the ground to take you to 1,000 ppm or more, but I don’t think that’s going to happen,”
former NASA scientist James Hansen told me earlier this year.
Click to expand...
Modeled outputs of CO2 sensitivity are really all over the place, depending on input assumptions.
Most agree that 2XCO2 instantaneous radiative forcing is ~3.71 W/m2, or about 1.1C.
Empirical analysis of earlier warming, like the per 1950 warming, show that the net feedbacks to warming perturbations are near zero,
so the upper limit of warming we could expect would be expressed by the equation,
(5.35 X ln(1000/410) X.3)=1.43C above the current average temperatures.
Of course this assumes that we will burn every last hydrocarbon we can extract!
I think supply and demand will price hydrocarbons from the market long before then.
It will start with coal, but oil will follow, last will be natural gas, as the economic viability point of natural
gas is quite a bit higher than coal or liquid fuels.
 
Surface Detail said:
An interesting paper, but unfortunately totally misunderstood by the blogger who posted it.

There is absolutely nothing in that paper which is at odds with AGW. It is no surprise that cloud distributions change as climate changes, and that this affects the ratios of SW and LW radiation reaching the Earth. Indeed, this is one of the many feedback effects associated with AGW, and it is good to see it more accurately quantified.
Click to expand...

Kenneth Richards (puppeteer/children's entertainer in real life) from the ironically named NoTrickZone junk-science conspiracy blog, has a long history of dishonestly misrepresenting papers.

It's obvious that the blog's lazy scientifically illiterate followers never bother to read the papers and probably wouldn't understand them if they did.

They just unquestioningly swallow what the crank bloggers tell them. That's what they call being a "sceptic". :roll:
 
PoS said:
LOL it says in your own links that 3 out of the 4 authors are objecting to the retraction, and all it says in the retraction note is that there are claims that the assumptions in the paper are incorrect, nowhere does it say that it has been disproven.

If anyone hasnt read anything on this, its you--and no one is surprised-- because you dont know how science works.
Click to expand...

You still haven't read the link?

It's also hilarious that you believe you "know how science works"
 
Quaestio said:
You still haven't read the link?

It's also hilarious that you believe you "know how science works"
Click to expand...

Oh, youre back-did the orderlies restore your internet privileges once again?

And you failed to refute what I said, and thats not a surprise- because you know youre wrong.
 
Quaestio said:
I'm surprised none of the regular climate science deniers in this subforum noticed this major retraction of Zharkova's paper considering they made such a fuss about it when it was published.

A paper published last June was catnip for those who are desperate to explain climate change with anything but human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. It was also apparently wrong enough to be retracted this week by the journal that published it, even though its authors objected.

The paper's headline conclusion was that it described a newly discovered cycle in the motion of the Sun, one that put us 300 years into what would be a thousand-year warming period for the Earth. Nevermind that we've been directly measuring the incoming radiation from the Sun and there has been no increase to explain the observed global warming or that there is no evidence of a 2,000 year temperature cycle in the paleoclimate record.

The lead author of the paper was Valentina Zharkova, a mathematician and astrophysicist at Northumbria University who has a bit of a track record. If you’ve ever read one of the dozens (hundreds?) of UK tabloid stories declaring that we're about to start an impending “mini ice age” driven by a declining solar cycle, it was probably supported by a quote from Professor Zharkova. A mini ice age can be difficult to fit into a 1,000 year warming trend, of course, but that didn't stop Zharkova from publishing her new claim.

​

Paper that claimed the Sun caused global warming gets retracted | Ars Technica

Retraction Note: Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale | Scientific Reports
Click to expand...

A free preprint of the paper, by the way, can be found here:

Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale

While the paper makes some interesting points there are too many assumptions being made. We have only been officially observing and tracking solar activity since 1755. Prior to 1755 solar observations were very spotty and erratic. All of the solar minimums used by this paper are all prior to 1755. The Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), Wolf Minimum (1300-1350), Oort Minimum (1000-1050), and Homer Minimum (800-900 BC) were all calculated centuries after they occurred and never actually observed. It should be noted that none of the mentioned solar minimums correspond with any of the warming periods. The only actual observed data included in this paper is the position of the sun since 1950. Everything else is calculated based upon prior assumptions and not actual observations.

Having said that, the best explanation of the Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and Modern warming periods is an orbital change. We just don't have enough actual observed information to make a definitive case and demonstrate those orbital changes.

There was no legitimate reason for retracting the paper. There are a multitude of peer-reviewed papers that make assumptions based upon other assumptions and not actual observations, just like this paper. While I don't necessarily agree with the practice, because it was singled out specifically for retraction and none of the other peer-reviewed papers based on assumptions were, I can only conclude a deliberate bias by the publisher.
 
PoS said:
Oh, youre back-did the orderlies restore your internet privileges once again?

And you failed to refute what I said, and thats not a surprise- because you know youre wrong.
Click to expand...
You STILL haven't read the link or attempted any further investigation? Do you need someone to read it out loud for you? Is your silly posturing supposed to be convincing?


"Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because the motions of the Earth and the Sun are primarily due to Jupiter and the other giant planets, which accelerate the Earth and the Sun in nearly the same direction, and thereby generate highly-correlated motions in the Earth and Sun. Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result the Editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented."

Retraction Note: Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale | Scientific Reports
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom