Valentina Zharkova is very well known for publishing bogus science on the connection between solar activity and climate. Her last paper in SciRep was retracted one week after publication https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61020-3
The one article linked is an editorial in a journal whose scientific scope is “ medical physiology of body temperature regulation,” Further, there is plenty of discussion of the relationship between the Maunder Minimum and the little ice age (which was also most likely a local, NH phenomena), as the onset of the MM happened in the middle of the ice age. See for instance this study discussing the causes of the LIA. https://news.agu.org/press-release/unusual-volcanic-episode-rapidly-triggered-little-ice-age-researchers-find/ So no, the Sun is very, very unlikely to be able to save us from our own mess. > On 14 Mar 2021, at 08:11, SALTER Stephen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi All > > I got this from Wikipedia > > <image001.jpg> > > > > > Stephen Salter > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design > School of Engineering > Mayfield Road EH9 3 DW > University of Edinburgh > Scotland. > Tel 0131 662 1180 > > From: NORTHCOTT Michael <[email protected]> > Sent: 14 March 2021 12:02 > To: SALTER Stephen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > geoengineering <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > Cc: Alan Gadian <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [geo] Grand Solar Minimum 2020-2050 ends case for geo engineering > > Hi all > > Seeing that sunspots are down 77% 2019-20 and a paper has already been > published in the journal Temperature indicating that a new Grand Solar > Minimum has begun and will cause cooling of 1 degree C until 2050 the case > for geoengineering is surely over. The last GSM ended in 1821 after causing > glaciers to advance and giving rise to famines because of significantly > reduced crop production. See Valentina Zharkova, ‘Modern Grand Solar Minimum > will lead to > terrestrial cooling’ Temperature 7.3 2020. > > https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243 > > Michael Northcott > Emeritus Professor of Ethics > University of Edinburgh > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on > behalf of SALTER Stephen <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:20 > To: [email protected]; geoengineering; > [email protected] <[email protected]> > Cc: Alan Gadian > Subject: RE: [geo] The response of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling under > different aerosol-based radiation management geoengineering > > Hi All > > Like several previous workers the authors of the paper, use the > accumulation-mode spread of aerosol size between latitudes 45 N and 45 S all > the time at a rate to offset RCP 8.5. > > The effort or cost needed for marine cloud brightening is in proportion the > volume of water that we have to filter and spray. The value of what the > spray does depends on the number of successful nucleations. > > We think that the right size of aerosol salt particle has a mass of 10^ -14 > grams. If it was a completely dry sphere its diameter would be about 200 > nanometres but it is more likely to be a brick shape in strong brine. > > The graph below from Wikipedia shows that 200 nanometres is at the bottom of > the slope of the accumulation mode. The top of the accumulation mode is at > about 1.2 microns. The cube of the ratio of diameters is 216. This means > that using the full spread of the accumulation mode will involve making some > condensation nuclei far bigger, and so more expensive, than we actually need. > > <image003.jpg> > > As second reason is that the Stokes drag tending to accelerate a drop in > turbulent flow on depends on diameter not projected area while the inertia > opposing acceleration depends on the cube. If drops of spray in a turbulent > air stream have a wide spread of inertias they will also have a wide spread > of relative velocities and so more chance of coalescence. > > A third reason in favour of a monodisperse spray is that heavier condensation > nuclei will nucleate at a lower relative humidity than lighter ones. This > will suck water vapour from the surrounding air and so reduce its relative > humidity and make it harder for the small ones to nucleate. The transfer > rate of water vapour depends of vapour pressure difference and surface area. > Being big earlier than rival nuclei gives a further advantage. This is the > same with wolves and hyenas. > > It might be convenient for climate modellers to use the wide spread of > standard, naturally-occurring aerosol built into modelling software but > please, please, please could somebody try monodisperse spray to avoid errors > of 200. > Please also give us an opinion about whether 10 ^ -14 grams is the right > choice. Can we reduce coalescence even further with electrostatic charge? > > > Stephen Salter > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design > School of Engineering > Mayfield Road EH9 3 DW > University of Edinburgh > Scotland. > Tel 0131 662 1180 > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Andrew Lockley > Sent: 11 March 2021 21:14 > To: geoengineering <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > Subject: [geo] The response of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling under > different aerosol-based radiation management geoengineering > > This email was sent to you by someone outside the University. > You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the > email is genuine and the content is safe. > > https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/12/313/2021/ > > Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 313–326, 2021 > https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-313-2021 > © Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons > Attribution 4.0 License. > > Research article | 11 Mar 2021 > > The response of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling under different > aerosol-based radiation management geoengineering > Hanna Lee et al. > Show author details > Received: 20 Jul 2020 – Discussion started: 31 Jul 2020 – Revised: 09 Feb > 2021 – Accepted: 10 Feb 2021 – Published: 11 Mar 2021 > Abstract > Geoengineering has been discussed as a potential option to offset the global > impacts of anthropogenic climate change and at the same time reach the global > temperature targets of the Paris Agreement. Before any implementation of > geoengineering, however, the complex natural responses and consequences of > such methods should be fully understood to avoid any unexpected and > potentially degrading impacts. Here we assess the changes in ecosystem carbon > exchange and storage among different terrestrial biomes under three > aerosol-based radiation management methods with the baseline of RCP8.5 using > an Earth system model (NorESM1-ME). All three methods used in this study > (stratospheric aerosol injection, marine sky brightening, cirrus cloud > thinning) target the global mean radiation balance at the top of the > atmosphere to reach that of the RCP4.5 scenario. The three radiation > management (RM) methods investigated in this study show vastly different > precipitation patterns, especially in the tropical forest biome. > Precipitation differences from the three RM methods result in large > variability in global vegetation carbon uptake and storage. Our findings show > that there are unforeseen regional consequences under geoengineering, and > these consequences should be taken into account in future climate policies as > they have a substantial impact on terrestrial ecosystems. Although changes in > temperature and precipitation play a large role in vegetation carbon uptake > and storage, our results show that CO2 fertilization also plays a > considerable role. We find that the effects of geoengineering on vegetation > carbon storage are much smaller than the effects of mitigation under the > RCP4.5 scenario (e.g., afforestation in the tropics). Our results emphasize > the importance of considering multiple combined effects and responses of land > biomes while achieving the global temperature targets of the Paris Agreement > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07gVYiq11aZCWkMM-A5259cQiQvxcez0BCPqhhJYix7kA%40mail.gmail.com. > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, > with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an > Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/PR3PR05MB735411D4E40D5FE6C679C775A76F9%40PR3PR05MB7354.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/PR3PR05MB73547E3F2CD88754A795879CA76D9%40PR3PR05MB7354.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/3514CECB-981A-4C39-BD75-80A5299D2A38%40gmail.com.
