Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
After publication, concerns were raised regarding the interpretation of how the Earth-Sun distance changes over time and that some of the assumptions on which analyses presented in the Article are based are incorrect.
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.
S. I. Zharkov agrees with the retraction. V. V. Zharkova, E. Popova, and S. J. Shepherd disagree with the retraction.
References
Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., Boggs, D. H., Park, R.S. & Kuchynka, P. The Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and DE431. The Interplanetary Network Progress Report, Volume 42–196, February 15, 2014.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zharkova, V.V., Shepherd, S.J., Zharkov, S.I. et al. Retraction Note: Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale.
Sci Rep10, 4336 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61020-3
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Comments
Commenting on this article is now closed.
Valentina Zharkova
Three authors (VZ, SS, EP) wish to protest the paper retraction as a cover up of the discovered new solar forcing mechanism affecting the Earth and other planets. SZ asked the Editor to remove his name from the paper authors that the Editor did not acknowledge.
The retraction note from the Editor R. Marszalek is misleading because we do not calculate in the paper the distance between the Sun and Earth. The main topic of the paper was the oscillation of magnetic field baseline.
In the paper we discovered 2100 year oscillations of this baseline field, which correlated with variations of solar irradiance and terrestrial temperature. All of these were observational results not dependent on the mechanism which causes these oscillations. Only in the last section we looked at possible mechanisms. We found that the solar inertial motion can lead to the change of this magnetic field baseline, irradiance because of the change of Sun-Earth distance based on some other research done by many researchers since 1965. We did not calculate this distance, but used only for illustration that solar irradiance change if the distance change
This is the very fact of the changing S-E distance, which the Editor and AGW people objected very strongly and wanted to hide from general public.
We believe, this retraction is a cover up of the important solar forcing input not considered before in any terrestrial models.
Confirmation of these words comes from the New Scientist post, which was commented by the two AGW leaders G. Schmidt (NASA) and K.Rice (Edinburg University, UK) https://www.newscientist.co....
Hence, the main reason the Editor retracted the paper is that we declared that the Sun-Earth distance changes over the period of 2100-2200 years known as Hallstatt's cycle from solar irradiance investigation (Steinhilber et al, 2012).
The authors prepared their responses to the Editor's text which can be found here http://mpee.northumbria.ac.... sent to the Mr Marszalek but he did not publish them that is contrary to the rules.
Our paper can be found on the e-archive https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.... where for the illustration we have marked in blue some tiny changes which we would do now using the JPL ephemeris showing that S-E distance changes with the rate of 0.00027 au per 100 years, or 0.0027 au per 1000 years. This is again contrary to what the Editor, and post-publication reviewers claimed, who still insist this S-E distance does not change.
Well, in addition you can read our erratum paper published on the site http://mpee.northumbria.ac.... where one can see the plot of the Sun-Earth distance extracted directly from JPL ephemeris and some other plots.
After we submitted to the Editor in September 2019 this plot obtained for the effect of four large planets on the Sun-Earth distance, the website http://www.alcyone.de removed the option to calculate the Sun-Earth distance with the effects of 4 large planets!
NASA attempts to paint the upcoming solar shutdown as a window of opportunity for space missions, “the improving ability to make such predictions about space weather are good news for mission planners who can schedule human exploration missions during periods of lower radiation.”
How can they expect to live in a world where men can travel to space when that world will be in chaos and those men will be starving?
Everett F Sargent
Dr. Zharkova,
Hello again.
I still have an interest in obtaining the digital data time series as presented in your paper. "Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale."
Figure 2 (the red, dark blue and cyan lines) as shown here ...
EDIT: For some unknown reason, Figure 2 is not currently showing up as an inline image.. Pleas see this link for Figure 2 ... https://www.nature.com/arti...
Frank den Hartog
I find this retraction very disturbing, and it may even be illegal. First of all, this journal does not have a "post-publication peer-review" process, see https://www.nature.com/srep... , so it cannot reject or retract an article on the basis of that. Second, if we start retracting papers because of apparent mistakes found in hindsight, also various papers from Einstein should be retracted, including the one on special relativity. I firmly believe that this would not be for the good of scientific progress. Dr Frank den Hartog University of New South Wales
"Formal post-publication commentary on published papers can involve either challenges, clarifications or in some cases, replication of the published work and may, after peer review, ...
These comments should ideally be based on knowledge contemporaneous with the original paper, rather than subsequent scientific developments.
If the submission serves only to identify an important error or mistake in the published paper, it will usually lead to the publication of a clarification statement (correction or retraction, for example)."
This can easily be read as "the journal can retract a paper whenever they like." Said otherwise: this is not a policy. It is not clear from this text that it is the journal that can retract the paper, on which testable criteria, and what is the appeal process. As it reads now, the journal has the right to retract the paper whenever somebody shouts it has an "important mistake" (what's that?) in it. Let alone that this is a proper post-publication peer-review process as this journal claims it has but it hasn't. A good example of a reasonably good post-publication peer-review policy can be found here https://www.mededpublish.or... . Note that that journal does not retract a paper based on post-publication peer review. I repeat, if we start going down that path, also many of Einstein's should be retracted.
Anyways, who cares what you think, seriously. All you got is your own singular opinion.
I'm not here to argue opinions, I'm here to argue facts. And those very inconvenient facts are all contrary to your singular opinion. Sorry about that one, seriously.
And, in this case, the facts are all on our side, sorry about that one, seriously. You know, like gravity. You know, like sampling and aliasing.
You exhibit no (meaning not even wrong, as in) subject matter expert (SME) status. Have you even gone into the technical matters contained within this paper? No, I didn't think so.
And dude, you don't know shit from Shinola. You are no Einstein, that is for sure. Einstein is your very own strawperson. Got that? A logical fallacy, that one is.
Valentina Zharkova
Fully agree with Frank den Hartog's comment below. This is outrageous violation of the author's rights and freedom of expression of scientific opinions.
Furthermore, my university web site where I placed all the relevant documents was brought down a month ago for 'revision for REF'.
I moved most materials to my own site in the new domain: http://solargsm.com. You can find our protest, the documents sent to the Editor in protest which he did not publish, despite the rules. You can also find the links to the paper in e-archive, which is available for reading and to erratum paper which proves every point in our paper are correct.
I will also place other papers we publish on this and other topics in that web site, under publications heading.
I do not have an opinion on the paper in question itself, if it should or should not have been published. But it should not have been retracted given the weak justification by the journal editors. After a paper successfully passed peer-review, that's it. The first preferred option in case of mistakes found in hindsight would be a correction to the paper with an erratum published in the journal. Retraction should only happen because of academic misconduct or if the authors themselves choose to retract. If the paper is so lousy as many people appear to think, it shouldn't have passed peer-review in the first place. Maybe, the journal should endeavour in finding better reviewers. Or, alternatively, authors should be very wary sending papers to this journal or citing papers from this journal, in general.
Jenda
We have to understand the position of the editors. They'd get no grants if they did not vaporize the article. The scam must go on!
Valentina Zharkova
We have published last week a preprint with the confirmation using the real ephemeris of the daily Earth-Sun distances that our results reported in paper Zharkova et al, 2019 are correct. The variations of Sun-Earth distances hinted in the paper were confirmed by the S-E distance ephemeris.
Therefore, the paper Zharkova et al, 2019 has been retracted without any grounds!
Read our preprint paper and the Appendices which use the real ephemeris of the distances.
Dear Valentina Zharkova. This is very bad news, science is not so good nowadays. I am very upset about these bad Editors.. I think a span of time of one hundred thousand years is very much adequate for your projections and your field, anyways. Of course these AGW people are mad at you.. Citing Schrodinger: " But in the tribunal—to keep to the similar of a moment—there sits by the side of the judges a non-jurisprudent assessor, namely our own little self which finds it distasteful to pass for an automaton."(from What's Life)
Loveto ClearClouds
Any time tptb demand a scientific paper be retracted, all I see is censorship. This paper feels right to me and I am well aware how much tptb want to keep knowledge from we the people. This article proves their “CO2 global warming” lies and they just can’t have that. Research the Georgia Guidestones and you’ll innerstand exactly what’s going on.
Bill Gates quietly bought a $43 MILLION beachfront home last spring g after kicking off his plandemic. Does that sound like something someone would do if they believed the home would be underwater in the next 10 years? I don’t think so.
In May 2021 have published the book chapter Millennial Oscillations of Solar Irradiance and Magnetic Field in 600–2600 //www.intechopen.com/chapters... with the confirmation using the real ephemeris of the daily Earth-Sun distances that our results reported in paper Zharkova et al, 2019 are correct. The variations of Sun-Earth distances hinted in the paper were confirmed by the S-E distance ephemeris.
These variations lead to the increase of solar irradiance deposited to the Earth and other planets and terrestrial temperatures in the past centuries after Maunder Minimum that will last until 2500-2600. This are variations of solar irradiance called Hallstatt's cycles with a duration about 2100-2200 years. There were many of such the Hallstatt's cycles happened in the past, which led to the regular millennial variations of the terrestrial temperature recorded in the historical records.
Therefore, the paper Zharkova et al, 2019 has been retracted without any grounds!
Valentina Zharkova
danielrp
As a constructive feedback for Ms. Zharkova, i would had omitted the second section of her paper, because is nothing to do with the purpose of the study, that is about the reproduction of solar magnetic field oscillation and solar activity. It was not very wise to spend a whole second section of the paper on the solar motion about the barycentre of the solar system, because to use the term "likely to be caused" needs not only a whole new paper, but a lot of references and apendixes. Its obvious that the references used by Ms. Zharkova (Fairbridge,Charvatova, Palus, Shirley, etc.) are difficult to understand compatible with the approximation that assumes that the Sun feels Jupiter's gravitational pull while the Earth doesn't feel Jupiter's gravitational pull. If that was true, it would had been studied by a lot of researchers, because its a big cause. Ms. Zharkova is one of the best in her field, and i wish her the very best to fix this situation.
In the other hand, and in regard to the first section of the paper, solar magnetic field oscillation associated with solar activity is a field where science is having big advance, and lots of new work is pointing out to the same direction. Whats the cause? we still dont know, but the observations are there, and science shouldn't reject it just becasue we can not find the explanation.
Finally, and as a personal observation, its really unplesant how science works in the background, how political agendas are pushed in both sides of the spectrum, and how the truth is defended according to what is the scientist political background. Just an example, Mr. Michael Brown claims:
"Zharkova has taken an empirical model constrained with a few decades of data and then extrapolated to centuries and millennia. Such an extrapolation won't be correct - even if the model is correct (and that's a huge "if") inevitable small errors in an empirical model will get amplified by the extrapolation so predictions are meaningless."
Nature is full of papers built around models that not only extrapolates, but are not built around observations.
Valentina Zharkova
Three authors (VZ, SS, EP) wish to protest the paper retraction as a cover up of the discovered new solar forcing mechanism affecting the Earth and other planets. SZ asked the Editor to remove his name from the paper authors that the Editor did not acknowledge.
The retraction note from the Editor R. Marszalek is misleading because we do not calculate in the paper the distance between the Sun and Earth. The main topic of the paper was the oscillation of magnetic field baseline.
In the paper we discovered 2100 year oscillations of this baseline field, which correlated with variations of solar irradiance and terrestrial temperature. All of these were observational results not dependent on the mechanism which causes these oscillations. Only in the last section we looked at possible mechanisms. We found that the solar inertial motion can lead to the change of this magnetic field baseline, irradiance because of the change of Sun-Earth distance based on some other research done by many researchers since 1965. We did not calculate this distance, but used only for illustration that solar irradiance change if the distance change
This is the very fact of the changing S-E distance, which the Editor and AGW people objected very strongly and wanted to hide from general public.
We believe, this retraction is a cover up of the important solar forcing input not considered before in any terrestrial models.
Confirmation of these words comes from the New Scientist post, which was commented by the two AGW leaders G. Schmidt (NASA) and K.Rice (Edinburg University, UK) https://www.newscientist.co....
Hence, the main reason the Editor retracted the paper is that we declared that the Sun-Earth distance changes over the period of 2100-2200 years known as Hallstatt's cycle from solar irradiance investigation (Steinhilber et al, 2012).
The authors prepared their responses to the Editor's text which can be found here http://mpee.northumbria.ac.... sent to the Mr Marszalek but he did not publish them that is contrary to the rules.
Our paper can be found on the e-archive https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.... where for the illustration we have marked in blue some tiny changes which we would do now using the JPL ephemeris showing that S-E distance changes with the rate of 0.00027 au per 100 years, or 0.0027 au per 1000 years. This is again contrary to what the Editor, and post-publication reviewers claimed, who still insist this S-E distance does not change.
Well, in addition you can read our erratum paper published on the site http://mpee.northumbria.ac.... where one can see the plot of the Sun-Earth distance extracted directly from JPL ephemeris and some other plots.
After we submitted to the Editor in September 2019 this plot obtained for the effect of four large planets on the Sun-Earth distance, the website http://www.alcyone.de removed the option to calculate the Sun-Earth distance with the effects of 4 large planets!
You can make your own judgements.
Kind regards
Valentina Zharkova
McTrimm Replied to Valentina Zharkova
Hell has no fury as a cooling sun.
Recently, I read:
How can they expect to live in a world where men can travel to space when that world will be in chaos and those men will be starving?
Everett F Sargent
Dr. Zharkova,
Hello again.
I still have an interest in obtaining the digital data time series as presented in your paper. "Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale."
Figure 2 (the red, dark blue and cyan lines) as shown here ...
https://media.springernatur...
and Figure 3a (the dark blue and cyan lines) as shown here ...
https://media.springernatur...
Thanks in advance,
Everett F Sargent
EDIT: For some unknown reason, Figure 2 is not currently showing up as an inline image.. Pleas see this link for Figure 2 ...
https://www.nature.com/arti...
Frank den Hartog
I find this retraction very disturbing, and it may even be illegal. First of all, this journal does not have a "post-publication peer-review" process, see https://www.nature.com/srep... , so it cannot reject or retract an article on the basis of that. Second, if we start retracting papers because of apparent mistakes found in hindsight, also various papers from Einstein should be retracted, including the one on special relativity. I firmly believe that this would not be for the good of scientific progress.
Dr Frank den Hartog
University of New South Wales
Everett F Sargent Replied to Frank den Hartog
Matters Arising ...
https://www.nature.com/srep...
"Formal post-publication commentary on published papers can involve either challenges, clarifications or in some cases, replication of the published work and may, after peer review, ...
These comments should ideally be based on knowledge contemporaneous with the original paper, rather than subsequent scientific developments.
If the submission serves only to identify an important error or mistake in the published paper, it will usually lead to the publication of a clarification statement (correction or retraction, for example)."
Frank den Hartog Replied to Everett F Sargent
This can easily be read as "the journal can retract a paper whenever they like." Said otherwise: this is not a policy. It is not clear from this text that it is the journal that can retract the paper, on which testable criteria, and what is the appeal process. As it reads now, the journal has the right to retract the paper whenever somebody shouts it has an "important mistake" (what's that?) in it. Let alone that this is a proper post-publication peer-review process as this journal claims it has but it hasn't. A good example of a reasonably good post-publication peer-review policy can be found here https://www.mededpublish.or... . Note that that journal does not retract a paper based on post-publication peer review. I repeat, if we start going down that path, also many of Einstein's should be retracted.
Everett F Sargent Replied to Frank den Hartog
Anyways, who cares what you think, seriously. All you got is your own singular opinion.
I'm not here to argue opinions, I'm here to argue facts. And those very inconvenient facts are all contrary to your singular opinion. Sorry about that one, seriously.
And, in this case, the facts are all on our side, sorry about that one, seriously. You know, like gravity. You know, like sampling and aliasing.
You exhibit no (meaning not even wrong, as in) subject matter expert (SME) status. Have you even gone into the technical matters contained within this paper? No, I didn't think so.
And dude, you don't know shit from Shinola. You are no Einstein, that is for sure. Einstein is your very own strawperson. Got that? A logical fallacy, that one is.
Valentina Zharkova
Fully agree with Frank den Hartog's comment below. This is outrageous violation of the author's rights and freedom of expression of scientific opinions.
Furthermore, my university web site where I placed all the relevant documents was brought down a month ago for 'revision for REF'.
I moved most materials to my own site in the new domain: http://solargsm.com. You can find our protest, the documents sent to the Editor in protest which he did not publish, despite the rules. You can also find the links to the paper in e-archive, which is available for reading and to erratum paper which proves every point in our paper are correct.
I will also place other papers we publish on this and other topics in that web site, under publications heading.
Enjoy your reading
Valentina Zharkova
Frank den Hartog Replied to Valentina Zharkova
I do not have an opinion on the paper in question itself, if it should or should not have been published. But it should not have been retracted given the weak justification by the journal editors. After a paper successfully passed peer-review, that's it. The first preferred option in case of mistakes found in hindsight would be a correction to the paper with an erratum published in the journal. Retraction should only happen because of academic misconduct or if the authors themselves choose to retract. If the paper is so lousy as many people appear to think, it shouldn't have passed peer-review in the first place. Maybe, the journal should endeavour in finding better reviewers. Or, alternatively, authors should be very wary sending papers to this journal or citing papers from this journal, in general.
Jenda
We have to understand the position of the editors. They'd get no grants if they did not vaporize the article. The scam must go on!
Valentina Zharkova
We have published last week a preprint with the confirmation using the real ephemeris of the daily Earth-Sun distances that our results reported in paper Zharkova et al, 2019 are correct. The variations of Sun-Earth distances hinted in the paper were confirmed by the S-E distance ephemeris.
Therefore, the paper Zharkova et al, 2019 has been retracted without any grounds!
Read our preprint paper and the Appendices which use the real ephemeris of the distances.
Archive paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008....,
Appendix 1 – S-E distances from the ephemeris https://solargsm.com/wp-con...
Appendix 2 – solar irradiance variations based on this distance changes https://solargsm.com/wp-con...
Mountaineer_br
Dear Valentina Zharkova. This is very bad news, science is not so good nowadays. I am very upset about these bad Editors.. I think a span of time of one hundred thousand years is very much adequate for your projections and your field, anyways. Of course these AGW people are mad at you.. Citing Schrodinger: "
But in the tribunal—to keep to the similar of a moment—there sits by the
side of the judges a non-jurisprudent assessor, namely our own little
self which finds it distasteful to pass for an automaton."(from What's Life)
Loveto ClearClouds
Any time tptb demand a scientific paper be retracted, all I see is censorship. This paper feels right to me and I am well aware how much tptb want to keep knowledge from we the people. This article proves their “CO2 global warming” lies and they just can’t have that. Research the Georgia Guidestones and you’ll innerstand exactly what’s going on.
Bill Gates quietly bought a $43 MILLION beachfront home last spring g after kicking off his plandemic. Does that sound like something someone would do if they believed the home would be underwater in the next 10 years? I don’t think so.
https://www.breitbart.com/p...
Valentina Zharkova
In May 2021 have published the book chapter Millennial Oscillations of Solar Irradiance and Magnetic Field in 600–2600 //www.intechopen.com/chapters... with the confirmation using the real ephemeris of the daily Earth-Sun distances that our results reported in paper Zharkova et al, 2019 are correct. The variations of Sun-Earth distances hinted in the paper were confirmed by the S-E distance ephemeris.
These variations lead to the increase of solar irradiance deposited to the Earth and other planets and terrestrial temperatures in the past centuries after Maunder Minimum that will last until 2500-2600. This are variations of solar irradiance called Hallstatt's cycles with a duration about 2100-2200 years. There were many of such the Hallstatt's cycles happened in the past, which led to the regular millennial variations of the terrestrial temperature recorded in the historical records.
Therefore, the paper Zharkova et al, 2019 has been retracted without any grounds!
Valentina Zharkova
danielrp
As a constructive feedback for Ms. Zharkova, i would had omitted the second section of her paper, because is nothing to do with the purpose of the study, that is about the reproduction of solar magnetic field oscillation and solar activity. It was not very wise to spend a whole second section of the paper on the solar motion about the barycentre of the solar system, because to use the term "likely to be caused" needs not only a whole new paper, but a lot of references and apendixes. Its obvious that the references used by Ms. Zharkova (Fairbridge,Charvatova, Palus, Shirley, etc.) are difficult to understand compatible with the approximation that assumes that the Sun feels Jupiter's gravitational pull while the Earth doesn't feel Jupiter's gravitational pull. If that was true, it would had been studied by a lot of researchers, because its a big cause. Ms. Zharkova is one of the best in her field, and i wish her the very best to fix this situation.
In the other hand, and in regard to the first section of the paper, solar magnetic field oscillation associated with solar activity is a field where science is having big advance, and lots of new work is pointing out to the same direction. Whats the cause? we still dont know, but the observations are there, and science shouldn't reject it just becasue we can not find the explanation.
Finally, and as a personal observation, its really unplesant how science works in the background, how political agendas are pushed in both sides of the spectrum, and how the truth is defended according to what is the scientist political background. Just an example, Mr. Michael Brown claims:
"Zharkova has taken an empirical model constrained with a few decades of data and then extrapolated to centuries and millennia. Such an extrapolation won't be correct - even if the model is correct (and
that's a huge "if") inevitable small errors in an empirical model will get amplified by the extrapolation so
predictions are meaningless."
Nature is full of papers built around models that not only extrapolates, but are not built around observations.
Regards