Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Paper blaming Sun for climate change has been retracted--it goofed up

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,913

    Unhappy Paper blaming Sun for climate change has been retracted--it goofed up

    The paper said the Sun comes closer to the Earth at times, sparking climate change, when of course the Earth stays the same distance from the Sun because it's in orbit. Duh.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...al/ar-BB10OaJy
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    The paper said the Sun comes closer to the Earth at times, sparking climate change, when of course the Earth stays the same distance from the Sun because it's in orbit. Duh.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...al/ar-BB10OaJy
    That's not a fair description really. The paper was talking about the movement around the barycentre of the solar system and overestimated the change in distance between the earth and the sun. The distance does change, but not by millions of km.

    The analyses presented in the section entitled “Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres” are based on the assumption that the orbits of the Earth and the Sun about the Solar System barycenter are uncorrelated, so that the Earth-Sun distance changes by an amount comparable to the Sun-barycenter distance. 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.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61020-3

    Edit: added bold for clarity
    Last edited by headrush; 2020-Mar-06 at 05:43 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,913
    Ah. I stand corrected. Thank you!
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Ah. I stand corrected. Thank you!
    No problem
    I noticed the earlier reports on this were fairly honest but the later ones have tended to exagerate.
    That may be because the early report was from Science who actually own Nature.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    9,016
    Yikes! They must have been relying on bad popular media writing about barycentric orbital motion rather than proper celestial mechanics exercises dealing with multibody problems.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,215
    Quote Originally Posted by headrush View Post
    That may be because the early report was from Science who actually own Nature.
    Science does not own Nature...
    As above, so below

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,215
    It’s interesting also that the paper was retracted by the editors of SR, without the agreement of three of the authors. Usually editors prefer to have the authors retract.
    As above, so below

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Science does not own Nature...
    That would sound very philosophical out of context.
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Science does not own Nature...
    You are correct. The perils of posting from memory....

    Scientific Reports was the journal that published the paper. Scientific Reports is published by Nature Research who also publish Nature.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...n-the-sun/amp/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Science does not own Nature...
    A great puntification and wonderful truism.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,162
    I see a problem in both those illustrations from the OP...color aside.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    9,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Yikes! They must have been relying on bad popular media writing about barycentric orbital motion rather than proper celestial mechanics exercises dealing with multibody problems.
    Let me elaborate a bit. It is easy for a novice to jump to the conclusion that each planet orbits in a Kepler ellipse with its focus at the overall barycenter. That would be a good approximation for a comet or other body far outside the orbits of all the major planets, where the resultant gravitation from them and the Sun is nearly like having all of the mass at the barycenter. At the other extreme is Mercury, where I would expect the best-fit reference ellipse to be focused at or very near the Mercury-Sun barycenter, just a few miles from the Sun's center. The giant planets move the Sun and Mercury nearly in unison, because they are at distances that are large relative to the radius of Mercury' orbit. In the case of an intermediate object such as a main belt asteroid, I don't know where the best-fit reference ellipse would be focused. I will leave that for celestial mechanics experts. A good analogy to Mercury would be a satellite in low Earth orbit. Its orbit is centered virtually at the Earth's center rather than the Earth-Moon barycenter 3,000 miles away, and the Moon perturbs it only slightly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •