More Junk Science Out Of NASA. Top Russian Scientist Says There’s “No Scientific Basis” For 2013 Solar Devastation Prediction

NASA's 2013 solar activity projections based on junk science.

You’ll recall that WUWT reported here  a couple days ago on NASA’s warnings of “huge space storms” causing devastation in 2013 or so.  Well, one leading Russian scientist has something to say about it.

The German edition of the online Russian RIA Novosti has a report today called: World Catastrophe in 2013? Russian Solar Scientist Is Sceptical. Astrophysicist Sergei Bogatchov told RIA Novosti yesterday:

Today there exists no scientific basis that allows the condition of the earth and the sun to be predicted over such a time period.

Mr. Bogatchov researches at the Laboratory for Solar X-Ray Astronomy at the Lebedev Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Scientists indeed expect a peak in solar activity in 2013, but nobody can say how strong it’s going to be.

Moreover RIA Novosti reports,

The current solar slumber extending to 2013 also cannot be excluded.

 And adds background info for its readers:

In the past weeks the media quoted the Head of NASA’s Heliophysics Division, Richard Fisher, that unprecedented solar eruptions are to be expected. That could mean disruptions in satellites, shutdowns in navigation systems and power grids.

So there you have it. A leading Russian scientist is scratching his head wondering how NASA scientists could possibly come up with such a prognosis.
My guess is probably the same way they make their climate projections: Conjure up a catastrophe scenario, insist it withstands rigorous review, get the media and idiot politicians to believe it, and then get more funding!

Explore posts in the same categories: Russian Climate Science

4 Comments on “More Junk Science Out Of NASA. Top Russian Scientist Says There’s “No Scientific Basis” For 2013 Solar Devastation Prediction”

  1. Athelstan Says:

    Scientists in Russia have not been tainted (as yet) by the need to submit exaggeration and doomsday predictions to enhance and raise the profile of scientific institutions, the latest NOAA piece of science fiction, being a good example.
    Some Russians are mainly free thinking and individualistic, this was like western science and scientists once.
    Their raison d’etre – a drive for seeking the truth, no matter how unpopular and unpalatable…..if science told the REAL truth about AGW, how much money/kudos/government approval would they lose?

    More to the point, these scientists (think of Mann or Jones at CRU UAE) – they would lose all their big houses and media exposure and would have to go back to how it used to be, struggling on paltry University science budgets but it maybe that, (as it used to be) they then would be a little more honest…… Like their Russian counterparts?
    Poor is good, rich is lazy and usually dumb science.

  2. Gail Combs Says:

    NASA could not even get the strength of solar cycle 24 correct. Several other scientists were predicting a weak cycle 24 while Hathaway was predicting a very strong cycle >200 SSN peaking about now.

    Also the SORCE satellite shows the amount of energy at various wavelengths varies in different ways over a solar cycle and does not follow the “models.” Seem the sun may have more of an influence on earth’s weather than NASA first thought. See the new paper just out in April: “Temperature Responses to Spectral Solar Variability on Decadal Time Scales” by Robert F. Cahalan, Guoyong Wen, Jerald W. Harder, and Peter Pilewskie

  3. j ferguson Says:

    Mr. Gosselin,
    Is not what you’ve reported above more or less an appeal to an authority who disagrees (likely realistically) with the original assertion? I read 300 comments on WUWT expecting to see the original, assertion shot down – not with flames but well focussed references to why either this was not the threat portrayed or if it was, why it was unlikely to happen, or why it was unrealistic to suppose it might happen in 2013.

    I may have phased out from accumulator overload, but I thought the original assertion survived the objections -and was supported as a plausible threat by several of the usually skeptical heavy hitters there – Svensmark for example.

    I see that you frequent the same blogs I do.

    Have you concluded that the threat of major solar storm in 2013 is much exaggerated?

    It does appear that the interest in this particular threat has rapidly dwindled.

    Have you additional thoughts?

    Reply: The threat of a major storm exists of course. But, as the Russuan scientist says, there are no data to support an extreme event will happen with high probability. Indeed the current relatively quiet cycle seems to suggest the contrary. Yes, I think it’s exaggerated. -P Gosselin

  4. Brian H Says:

    NASA should be careful. Every once in a while some actual science may sneak through, and ruin lotsa previously sinecured careers!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: