Thursday, August 11, 2016

Climate Scientists Try To Suppress Solar Scientists' Computer Model

Scientist Predicts ‘Little Ice Age,’ Gets Icy Reception From Colleagues

"Professor Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University is being attacked by climate change proponents for publishing research suggesting there could be a 35-year period of low solar activity that could usher in an “ice age.”

Zharkova and her team of researchers released a study on sunspot modeling, finding that solar activity could fall to levels not seen since the so-called “Little Ice Age” of the 1600s. Zharkova’s conclusions may have huge implications for global temperature modeling, but her analysis is not accepted by some climate scientists.

“Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy,” she told The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) in an interview on her solar study.

In fact, Zharkova said some scientists even tried to have her research suppressed.

“They were trying to actually silence us,” she said. “Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release.”

Zharkova found that solar activity is driven by two magnetic waves from within the sun that can either dampen or amplify solar activity. Solar activity is believed to play a role in warming and cooling average global temperature.

Zharkova’s team incorporated solar data into predictive models and found that the sun is heading into a period of low solar activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the late 1600s. During this time, scientists believe low solar activity contributed to cooler average global temperature.

“Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum,” she said. “At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well protocoled.”

“The rivers are frozen,” she added. “There are winters and no summers, and so on.”

The so-called “Little Ice Age” is a controversial topic among scientists. Some argue low solar activity contributed to cooler temperatures over Europe and North America, but others argue volcanic activity drove temperatures lower since the trend began before solar activity fell.

Climate scientists were quick to ask the U.K.’s Royal Astronomical Society to suppress Zharkova’s findings."

[Emphasis added]
And it's not like she's the only, or even first, to suggest cooling:
"Zharkova isn’t the first to suggest a period of low solar activity is on the way that could cause a cooling trend. Solar activity was reportedly at a 200-year low in February.

A July 2015 study by Jorge Sanchez-Sesma at the Mexican Institute of Water Technology found the oscillations in the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth could have a much bigger cooling impact on the climate than previous estimates by climate scientists.

Sanchez-Sesma examined solar cycle data going back 100,000 years and compared them to about 25,000 years of surface air temperature data in the Congo River Basin and found that “information from reconstructions and models indicates a potential continental tropical temperature cooling of around 0.5oC for the rest of the 21st century.”

Shrinivas Aundhkar, director of India’s Mahatma Gandhi Mission at the Centre for Astronomy and Space Technology, said in 2015 that declining solar activity could mean a “mini ice age-like situation” is on the way.

In 2013, Professor Cliff Ollier t the University of Western Australia posited low solar activity could bring cool the planet.

“There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate,” Ollier wrote. “Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction.”

“Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling. Many think that political decisions about climate are based on scientific predictions but what politicians get are projections based on computer models,” he wrote.

Russian scientists argued in 2012 the world could expect the start of the another Little Ice Age starting in 2014.

“After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055,” wrote Habibullo Abdussamatov of the Russian Academy of Science."


CJ said...

Off-topic, but I ran across this:

The takeaway quote for me was:

"But Hogshead-Makar also rejected USA Gymnastics’ policy — and that of any governing body — not to report allegations of abuse to authorities unless filed by the victim or parent."

In other words, any third-party allegation must, in Hogshead-Makar's world, be treated as credibly as eye-witness accounts, and legal proceedings initiated on the basis of hearsay. In light of the plethora of false rape reports of late, one marvels that Hogshead-Makar doesn't see the potential for abuse here.

Or maybe she just doesn't care.

CJ said...

Well, well. The US didn't so much slip down the slope as plunge off the cliff:

"Mother Fights for Her 'Right' to Have Sex with Her Son"

Hugo Pelland said...

Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.

More on that Michael Bastasch, the author of the article:
Why is this relevant? Because he is a political science major who graduated in 2011; i.e. he knows nothing about what he is writing about and graduated only 5 years ago... Plus, he interned at the Koch Institute and is thus obviously suspect in terms of bias.

Another article where he was mentioned:

In short, to use your expression Stan: you are a useful idiot for the climate deniers who try to muddy the water instead of giving clear information. You are blinded by your ideologies because you think that this is ONLY about politics. But it's not! The science behind Climate Change is constantly progressing and we know more and more. The research by Zharkova and others is actually good news. It gives us a break. That's the kind of things that we should be happy to hear. But no, idiots like Bastasch and his colleagues at the Daily Caller prefer to write click-bait articles that Right-Wing bloggers like you, Stan, re-post without thinking twice, just because it 'sounds' right, it 'sounds' like it's on your side.

And remember, I am not saying OMG WE NEED TO CUT CARBON EMISSIONS, not at all. I am just pointing out the lies that Bastasch and people like him are spreading. And you, because you hate the Left so much and think that everything they say is wrong, would rather share lies on your blog rather than investigate just a little bit. i.e. you did not even notice that the research was from 2015...

This reminds me of another science topic where you could use better critical thinking!

Stan said...

Are you saying that either the AGWs did not try to suppress contrary input, or that the contrary input "gives us a break", but has nothing to do with AGW because the sun's contribution means nothing to AGWers? All I did was to point to a scientific anarchy in progress. You responded with waaay over the top accusations. Koch = bias = conspiracy theory much?

Hugo Pelland said...

What I am saying is that the author, Bastasch, is purposely creating confusion by misreporting the information. It's not a conspiracy theory; they are very open and clear about it. People like Bastasch work for organizations that want to confuse the public as to what we know, or not, about AGW.

For instance, yes, the Sun is what has the biggest impact on the climate. Nobody is disputing that. But people like Bastasch raise inaccurate points about an upcoming low solar activity as if that was some sort of secret that is being hidden. He is the one brining up conspiracy theories! His "side" is the one pretending that it's all chaotic, that we know nothing and, clearly, you bought into it because you just repeated the mantra that it's some sort of 'scientific anarchy in progress'. The only reason why it seems that way is precisely because of people like Bastasch who cause that confusion in the first place.

They constantly misrepresent the scientific point of view by quote mining or flat out lying about the information being presented. This article is a great example because they make it sound as if the scientist, Zharkova, was presenting some sort of evidence that the climate is not influenced by humans and that she was being silenced for speaking up about that. Is it what happened? No, it's not even possible, because that's not what she is saying at all!

The problem seemed to be with the wording of the press release, which would give leverage to those who like to cherry pick data to make a false case against the impact of humans on the climate. And this is exactly what happened... 1 year later, we still have people using that research and pretending that this, somehow, contradict the concensus on whether human activity has an impact or not. They want to confuse the public by basically stating: ' See, see! The scientists are tyring to hide the fact that the Sun is more important! They even tried to silence that 1 team of scientists who tried to speak up!!'

Just Google the exact words "They were trying to actually silence us" and you will see what I mean. The articles that come up, at least the first page on my side, are all creating the same confusion by pointing out that she was apparently 'silenced' for standing up to the "alarmist". But by the definition of "alarmist", she should be included in that same group. They are basically trying to pretend that she is different, when in reality she agrees with the so-called "alarmist". Because they are not "alarmist" at all; they are the people who study the climate and show why it's clear that humans have an impact, but also why it's so hard to know what will happen. Her study on solar activity is yet another data point showing why that is the case: the Sun is the biggest driver of climate and we cannot fully know how it will behave.

In short, no, I don't believe for 1 minute that anyone tried to silence her the way the article you linked to makes it to be. It seems that she had lots of discussions, because of the wording of the press release, but I cannot even find the original source for the quote "They were trying to actually silence us". What we can find are quotes of an interview she gave, where she clearly states that she did not think that research was going to create any wave and that, if the Sun does slow down its activity, this only buys us some time to adapt to the climate change caused by humans.

Stan said...

Hugo says,
Just Google the exact words "They were trying to actually silence us" and you will see what I mean. The articles that come up, at least the first page on my side, are all creating the same confusion by pointing out that she was apparently 'silenced' for standing up to the "alarmist". But by the definition of "alarmist", she should be included in that same group."

Hugo, that's just pitiful. Should she be silenced? You don't care. She's an alarmist now. Until now they were all reputable scientists just doing reputable science according to you. But now there's competing science. So silence it.

Go get your MBA, Hugo. I recommend Marketing Research, because that's where story telling actually pays a good wage.