Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Search Tips

Comment Search Results

Search for zharkova

Comments matching the search zharkova:

  • How not to solve the climate change problem

    Bob Loblaw at 02:45 AM on 25 August, 2022

    For what it is worth, RealClimate also has an older post (March 2020) on bad papers in the "Climate change is caused by solar radiation" subject area. Triggered by the retracted Zharkova paper, but a broader discussion.

  • How not to solve the climate change problem

    Eclectic at 10:20 AM on 24 August, 2022

    Scvblwxq1 , may I offer a couple of points to save you time (and you may wish to check them against the record of published scientific papers & expert views).


    A /  The length of interglacials varies considerably.  You are correct in saying that an interglacial length does average somewhere around 10,000 years.  Yet the present Milankovitch cycle has an unusually low level of ellipticity ~ which likely results in a long interglacial . . . thought to extend for 20-30,000 years (as best as can be judged from prior effects of the Milankovitch cycles during the past million years).   In other words, the deep glaciation will next occur in something around 15,000 years from now.


    So there is no need to hurry to warm our planet.  And it has been estimated that the current (420ppm) level of atmospheric CO2 has already exceeded the level required to make a major postponement in the next glaciation that you were worried about.  A postponement of some tens of thousands of years.   And so the present-day concern is the adverse effects of the current rapid global warming.


    B /  Will the proposed Grand Solar Minimum have a (beneficial) cooling effect on planetary temperatures?   Evidently not ~ for a GSM typically will produce a global warming of 0.5 degrees or less : and that effect will be insufficient to counter our ongoing AGW of approx 0.18 degrees per decade.  Sorry, but there is more warming ahead (even if Prof. Zharkova's very uncertain predictions of GSM turn out to be mostly correct).

  • How not to solve the climate change problem

    Bob Loblaw at 04:42 AM on 24 August, 2022

    scvblwxq1:


    That particular paper by Zharkova was previously mentioned in the weekly Skeptical Science New Research post back when it appeared in 2020. Quoting from that post:



    The Taylor and Francis journal Temperature has squeezed in a paper by Valentina Zharkova claiming (yet again) upcoming global cooling, as an "editorial." Zharkova's work is a redo of a previous publication that was retracted due to a basic misunderstanding on the behavior of the barycenter of the solar system.



    You can read about the previous paper in this thread at PubPeer:


    https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24#


    and the retraction was noted at Retraction Watch. The blogger And Then There's Physics was involved in noting some of the many issues with the earlier paper, and wrote several blog posts on the subject:


    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/nature-scientific-reports/


    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/07/25/retract/


    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/01/13/zharkova-et-al-an-update/


    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/03/04/zharkova-et-al-retracted/


    Zharkova makes a habit of beating this drum, and the results are rarely worth reading. To coin a phrase, this is nothing new under the sun.

  • How not to solve the climate change problem

    scvblwxq1 at 04:13 AM on 24 August, 2022

    I forgot to include the link to an article explaining the calculations and forecast.


    'Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling
    Valentina Zharkova'


    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243

  • Models are unreliable

    JoeThePimpernel at 07:43 AM on 27 November, 2018

    The most reliable climate model of all is the solar cycle.

    It is 93% accurate when past climate data is used to predict present-day climate.

    https://nextgrandminimum.com/2018/11/22/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/

    No computer model comes close to that.

    Why do climate scientists refuse to acknowledge the solar cycle as a model for climate change?

    Is it because the solar cydle doesn't yield the desired answer?

  • Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes

    Tom Dayton at 01:49 AM on 25 September, 2017

    Rbrooks502: The 0.3 degrees cooling is in the first graph of the article that a moderator comment told you to find by searching for Zharkova. So either you can't read a graph, or you did not bother to actually read the article.

  • Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes

    Eclectic at 00:28 AM on 25 September, 2017

    Rbrooks @40 . . . very droll of you.  No, I definitely didn't mean Encapsulated Phsychosis [sic].

    As to "educating the novice" (unquote) : the novice has to have a wish to learn (and not start out by declaiming that all the climate experts are wrong).   SkS website is an excellent website for learning : indeed, SkS has recently received an award from the National Center for Science Education.   You can learn much here, Rbrooks — if you truly wish to.

    Back to the science itself, Rbrooks.   Please read a little more deeply about Professor Zharkova and the 0.3 degreeC of trivial cooling — a matter which entirely fails to support any of the denialists' hype & "bad science".

    Even more on topic (for this thread) is the psychology of Warren Meyer.   Meyer is an intelligent guy : but as Rob Honeycutt's article has shown in much detail, Meyer gets it very wrong.   From your experience, Rbrooks — why do you think that Meyer has allowed himself to be hijacked by his own Motivated Reasoning?   Aye, there's the rub!  Over to you, Rbrooks — how & why do you think Meyer chooses to purvey his nonsense?!   I am definitely interested to hear your opinion on that. 

  • Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes

    Eclectic at 20:11 PM on 24 September, 2017

    Rbrooks @38 & prior ,

    : several points for you to consider :-

    (A) You say in #35 that you "have research in Psychology ..." (unquote).    Yet there is no internal evidence of that to be seen in your posts.   Permit me to recommend you read more deeply into several important psychological topics : Motivated Reasoning ; and Dunning-Kruger Effect ; and Encapsulated Paranoia .

    For greatest benefit with those, you need to read with personal insight.  As the colloquial cliche goes . . . "And good luck with that!"

    (B) In #37 you imply you believe "that forced taxation is theft" (unquote).   It is (psychologically) interesting that you seem to favor only the voluntary payment of taxation.

    Once again . . . "And good luck with that!"   But this is well off-topic for the SkS website, so let's move on.

    (C) Rbrooks @38 , you have also failed to do sufficient reading of very basic concepts in climate science.

    Please note that Professor Zharkova's work showed little more than a "possibility" of a Grand Solar Minimum occuring in the mid part of this Century.

    Read somewhat more deeply, and you will see that [proposed] Grand Solar Minimum would produce a transient global cooling effect in the region of 0.3 degreesC.   In other words, quite trivial (and not cooler than today's hot climate, bearing in mind the ongoing global warming which is occurring currently & in the next few decades.

    __________________________________________________

    ( Rbrooks, you have a lot of reading to do, to catch up with the current circumstances! )

  • Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes

    Rbrooks502 at 15:30 PM on 24 September, 2017

    In the meantime, this prediction is out saying that in 2030 we should start seeing more global cooling. I quote the article. "However, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.

    From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen."

    Seems to me that even if Warren was completly wrong about any of his assertions, the science community has some bugs to work out. My skepticism will continue, as well as my anger regarding how my taxxes are spent. Enough said?

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates

  • CO2 lags temperature

    MA Rodger at 01:06 AM on 24 February, 2017

    Adri Norse Fire @558.

    You will appreciate that I am only able to interpret your written words. @532 you appear quite definite sayingThe question is whether we have the highest concentration of atmospheric CO2 in 800,000 years, without going further, why the current temperature is 1.5 ° lower than the medieval warm period?“ I did point out that the value “1.5 ° lower” was not properly defined as the units of degree were absent. But if you have modified your position to be now arguing that “500 to 1000 years ago, temperatures were warmer than today,” that is fine. However do note you are wrong to say that such a statement is “valid for (your) initial question.” It is not.

    Also it is wrong to cite Broecker (2001) in the manner that you do. Broecker do reference Huang et al (1997) in the manner you quote and Huang et al do set out that data supporting their findings. Indeed, Huang et al do provide a significant portion of the evidence for a global MWP presented by Broecker. However Broecker (2001) concludes “The case for a global Medieval Warm Period admittedly remains inconclusive.  And the graphic you provided @532 which attempts to use Broecker (2001) to support itself is, as explained @543, utter garbage.

    Your defence of the second graphic you presented @532 doesn't explain why the Dye 3 temperature profile developed by Dahl-Jensen et al (2009) is omitted. Nor does it explain the second trace on the graphic you presented. Nor does it provide any resolution to the case for a global MWP. As set out @543, that graphic is also utter garbage.

    The data presented in the third graphic @532 ends at 1935. I thought mention of the global warming 1935-to-date establshed by the global thermometer record would prevent your use of the 1935 end-point of that graphic to support your unsupported assertions. I can but repeat that you are wrong to do so.

    And the fourth you now agree is garbage.

    Your final point in this particular list @558 seems to be saying that someone can misuse data if it comes from a legitimate source. That is very wrong. You do require to show use of legitimate data by “those who did it,” with “it” being the proper use of NASA data to predict "a new short cold period ... between 2030 and 2050." The best of luck with that fool's errand!!

    But I should make plain that this discussion of individual data sets (and the garbage) is not the proper way to develop a case for asserting that “500 to 1000 years ago, temperatures were warmer than today.” Always the first step should be to assess the present state of the science on the subject. Although it is a few years old now IPCC AR5 is surely the place to start, particularly Chapter 5 - Section 5.3.5 or perhaps more helpfully the Technical Summary Section TS.2.2.1. You will quickly see that you will have quite a job on your hands asserting that “500 to 1000 years ago, temperatures were warmer than today.”

    Your additional web-links @558 add nothing to this situation. They concern the future, not the past. And in this, Zharkova et al (2015) is solely talking about the sun not our climate. The garbage you link to in the English-speaking press is entirely wrong in suggesting there is a prediction of climate within this work. Indeed, does not your German link say “Kein Effekt auf globale Erwärmung “?
    And if you think Abdussamatov (2013) is worth quoting (as your Forbes link does), do note the scientific response since publication – he has gained the attentions of nothing but a tiny pile of denialists. And that is because Abdussamatov (2013) spouts garbage.

  • CO2 lags temperature

    Adri Norse Fire at 04:20 AM on 23 February, 2017

    Why do we have to converse in English? I'm tired of cutting and pasting into the google translator and then I have to interpret what you mean. I guess it's my fault because this is a web in English.

    Tom Curtis

    You have described very well the improved method that used PAGES 2000, but that does not imply that it is a truly impartial reconstruction because as I said to have more markers in some continents than in others, in doing the average the global reconstruction has a better representation of certain parts of the world than others and the final reconstruction is biased. When you have many more proxies in some areas than in others, the average of the continents is partial in not having a similar number of proxies in the different areas. In other words the final result will approximate more faithfully to some means than others and therefore will condition the global average. To have a really faithful chart, they should have many more proxies in Africa, for example. But as you say, the PAGES 2000 chart is more reliable than that of Loehle and McCulloch. But back to the beginning, what about my appreciation on the PAGES 2000 chart?

    MA Rodger

    It is true what you say about the first chart, but the paper it refers to also says: ''From an analysis of 6000 continental borehole thermal records to ammonia the world (14), Huang et al. Conclude that 500 to 1000 years ago, temperatures were warmer than today, '' Which is valid for my initial question.

    The second chart has probably been made by the man shown below, '' Nasif Nahle '' from the three sources he quotes. But the temperature of the chart is at least exactly the same as that of Dahl-Jensen's study and in that study it also says: '' The last 10 ky BP. The CO is 2.5 K warmer than the present temperature, and at 5 ka the temperature slowly cools toward the cold temperatures found around 2 ka. (C) The last 2000 years. The medieval warming (1000 A.D.) is 1 K warmer than the present temperature, and the LIA is seen to have two minimums at 1500 and 1850 A.D. The LIA is followed by a temperature rise culminating around 1930 A.D. Temperature cools between 1940 and 1995. ''

    If you have a good eye you will see that the third graph shows that the peak temperature is 0.7 no to 0.5 therefore there does not seem to be much difference between today and the Medieval Warm Period according to that chart.

    And as for the last chart, I agree with you that it is a slop. But it seems that you have missed one of the first graphics I put. The CO2 graph for 800,000 years. Maybe you should dissect it too, do not misunderstand me, I still like the dissections you do.

    It is true as you say that NASA has not made these findings public, but those who did it, have been using the data provided by NASA, as you can see here: https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

    Rob Honeycutt

    Very good. You really are right, but I'm not starting from scratch. Obviously I am not an expert and I recognize that I do not defend very well in the details, but I think I know something more than the average about science.

    You already have your answer, but you must admit that it is good for you as a scientist (if you are) to have someone come forward to rebut your arguments. If something is really scientific it must be susceptible of being falsified or refuted, right? Science advances through essay and error. I'm doing you a favor, then.

    scaddenp

    So no statement of any documentary on science is true? First of all, I did not say that this is how "science works", of course not, I mean that is how science is taught to the public. And Jane Goddall teaches science through the media, as much as David Attenborough. I have no reason to distrust more of one man whose base is in Antarctica, than what you tell me.

    <Hmm, so it would appear you have again unskeptically accepted a comment from what source ??> You can see that Tom Curtis himself confirms it (That there are a lot of non-scientific staff).

    You build on this subject in a supposed consensus that does not exist, perhaps in public and political opinion itself. But I have seen that in the scientific community the subject is far from being consensual, although the majority supports the anthropogenic global warming. It's not like I said before, like the law of gravity.

    <You claim climate science is based on untested assumptions. Which would these be?> That the share of CO2 produced by human emissions causes current global warming, for example.

    <You? Or are your biases too powerful?> Haha, well I am not angry and as you have been able to check now, the graphics I put are not very good, but neither are the rubbish to which Mr. MA Rodgers alluded.

    Tom Curtis

    Again, thank you for the information. And yes, I immediately noticed that appreciation.

    -------------------------------------------

    And I want to add something, you do not seem very convinced about the solar theory to which I alluded and is normal if you are not familiar with it. I just want to say that I do not know your age, I will be alive between 2030 and 2050 but I guess those who live with me will be able to see it firsthand.

    And for MA Rodgers, I have just remembered the names of leading Russian scientists who have come to similar conclusions on this subject, Mr. Abdusamatov and Mrs. Zharkova.

    http://www.wetter.at/wetter/welt-wetter/Sonne-extrem-ruhig-Kommt-Mini-Eiszeit/241375001

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/723481/Earth-ICE-AGE-big-freeze-solar-activity

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/01/21/miss-global-warming-yet-if-not-just-wait-and-you-might/#c2e266161996

    https://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/grand-minimum-of-the-total-solar-irradiance-leads-to-the-little-ice-age-2329-6755.1000113.pdf

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sh_nlz43Pc

    I do not know why but it seems that there is an error in the server of Nature about the article of the Mrs. Zharkova, perhaps a ray? Just write it on google and try to have it if you can. Best regards.

  • It's the sun

    NORCALGUY101 at 06:48 AM on 26 October, 2015

    I find this article intresting since it pre-dates post NASA's prediction in May of 2006 that the sun was about to go into a state of lower solar sunspot activity.

    Now just in July at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales, Professor Valentina Zharkova presented an argument that due to the sinusodal period of the dynomo effects within two layers of the sun thgat have been quited accurately observed and predicted, will essentially cancel oneanother out by 2030 placing the sun in a lower state of inactivity than present and could very well spell another "mini ice age" Maunder Minimum event.   We shall soon see.

  • 2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

    Tom Curtis at 21:33 PM on 14 July, 2015

    Michael Fitzgerald @38, you are discussing this topic here because all topics are on topic on the weekly digest posts.  Therefore it is hardly possible that Philippe Chantreau's post is off topic.  It may be non-responsive, but that it a different matter entirely (and I am far from convinced that it is).  There may also be a more appropriate thread for his comments, in which case courtesy (and the comments policy) dictate that he should use it apart for brief responses, but I am not aware of that more appropriate thread and neither you nor the moderator have pointed to it.

    With regard to the "next, inevitable ice age", I do not know whether or not you are referring to recent reports on Zharkova's conference paper (ably discussed by Sou at Hot Whopper); or to the next glacial (shown to be unlikely with more than 220 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere at any time in the next 50 thousand years by Berger and Loutre, 2002; and ably discussed by Sou again).  If you would like to clarrify, please at the same time indicate (and post on) the appropriate thread, and attempt a rebutal of the relevant points raised by Sou and/or Berger and Loutre.  I will only note that there does indeed appear to be a next, inevitable glacial some 50 thousand years from now; and it would be a great shame if the fossil fuel reserves that it could usefully be used to mitigate that eventuality are used up in the coming century when they harm the human condition rather than in 50 thousand years when they could concievably help.

  • 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup: End of the Series

    Tom Dayton at 00:00 AM on 14 July, 2015

    Bob, Hot Topic pointed out that Valentina Zharkova in an interview revealed she is a climate change denier.  See the transcript near the bottom of Sou's post at HotWhopper.  Good explanation of the reality is at And Then There's Physics, especially in the comments. See also Barton Paul Levinson's comments in the comment stream on the Rabbett Run post (but ignore that original post, because as its author says in the comments, it turns out that Zharkova's mention of "activity" means sunspots, not TSI).

  • 2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup: End of the Series

    bwilson4web at 23:46 PM on 13 July, 2015

    I fully understand the need to manage one's time but I probably won't be following via Facebook because it is so 'needy' of my attention. It is a Facebook issue that drives me nuts. Still, I appreciate the other three links.

    Like mushrooms after a rain, another denialist-lite paper came up on July 9 by Valentina Zharkova on Sun spots. An unfortunate choice of words has been picked up by the usual suspect news sites to claim we're headed towards a 'mini-Ice age.' Sad because the paper probably has merit but poor word-smithing means the misleaders will ride it for all it is worth. <SIGH>

    GOOD LUCK!

    Bob Wilson



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2022 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us