Extreme Cold Weather Can Be Linked to Solar Cycle
CLAIM
Common cold atmospheric condition to grip globe as solar minimum to deepen, NASA says
DETAILS
Factually inaccurate: The headline and commodity misrepresent the solar activity forecast presented by US science agencies.
Misunderstanding of science: A solar minimum would non cause cold weather around the globe.
Primal Have Abroad
This headline (and the commodity below it, as scientists who reviewed the article item below) misrepresents a NOAA printing release by inventing a claim that appears nowhere in that source—the thought that a coming minimum in the Sun's natural 11-year bicycle of solar activity will crusade cold weather effectually the world. There is no evidence supporting this.
REVIEW
CLAIM: Common cold weather to grip world as solar minimum to deepen, NASA says
The NOAA release says zilch most Earth's weather or climate in the normal sense, but only discusses "space weather", which is near solar conditions and furnishings on the upper atmosphere. Hence, the headline of "Cold atmospheric condition to grip WORLD as solar minimum to DEEPEN, NASA says" is wrong and strongly misleading.The outset paragraph ("A DEEP solar minimum is set to bring a prolonged period of colder temperatures across the earth, NASA has predicted") is too wrong, as the article says that the next solar bike is expected to be like to the preceding one and that they don't expect a new sort of Maunder Minimum. Moreover, the article says that the steady turn down in the solar wheel amplitude has come to an terminate.
The statement that the Sun emits less heat due to a subtract in magnetic waves does not make sense. The reason why the solar output varies with the solar wheel is the presence of flares that accompany the sunspots. The sunspot wheel is connected to the Sunday'due south magnetic field, non waves. On the other mitt, light is the same equally electromagnetic waves (waves that are partly magnetic). I call up the announcer got the physics mixed up.
The cited release says that the decline in solar activeness has come to an cease, whereas the Limited article says it'due south going to deepen.
The statement that the global temperature dropped past 1.three°C during the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) is probably picked from an outlier study that is dissimilar from almost others. A more credible figure is 0.3°C[1].
- [i] Shindell et al (2001) Solar Forcing of Regional Climatic change During the Maunder Minimum. Scientific discipline
Firstly, the NASA printing release [that this article is based on]: That is reasonable, but there is some academic argue here that is glosses over. Information technology has long been known that there are precursors that can tell y'all something about the size of the upcoming solar bicycle—the level of activity in Earth's magnetic field during the preceding minimum beingness the most famous example. We now accept a good understanding of that in terms of the long-term variation of the open magnetic flux of the Lord's day. However, there appears to be a big difference between how anticipated the second half of the upcoming solar cycle is (after what is frequently chosen the "Gnevyshev gap" that is seen in several solar parameters) compared to the first half. A contempo workshop held at ISSI, Bern (The International Space Scientific discipline Institute) establish that although the start half of the cycle is predictable, the second half is much less predictable and indeed, the current solar cycle (numbered 24) is a good example of that. Autonomously from that, the NASA press release is reasonable and well informed.Notwithstanding, the Express article is a classic instance of "spinning" a bizarre narrative out a few wildly exaggerated and misinterpreted facts.
This article peddles the incessantly repeated but wholly incorrect idea that the Maunder minimum gave a menses of global low temperatures (misleadingly called the "petty ice age" although it was not an water ice historic period of any kind). The article is probably wrong in suggesting that solar action will be lower than in was in 2007/viii, and to relate such a minimum between cycles (lasting at well-nigh a twelvemonth) to the l-yr Maunder minimum (when there were no cycles at all) is, bluntly, baroque.
The statement that the Sun gives off more than heat at sunspot maximum is correct. However, the article doesn't mention that it is very pocket-size—only a 0.1% variation. The explanation every bit "magnetic waves" is meaningless—the lower emission at sunspot minimum is really because at that place are fewer small magnetic flux tubes called faculae threading the solar surface.
"experts are expecting the solar minimum to deepen fifty-fifty further before it gets warmer"
I know of no such experts. Information technology is true that some indicators of the solar wheel will probably go a little lower than they are at present over the adjacent year, earlier solar activity picks upwards again in cycle 25. Even so, based on past solar cycles, the Total Solar Irradiance (the total heat and light we go from the Lord's day) decrease from here to its next minimum volition be almost 0.01% at the very almost, and more likely 0.001%. (Meet Effigy beneath)
Figure – Blended Total Solar Irradiance as daily values plotted in unlike colors for the different originating experiments. Source
"An international console of researchers led past NASA and NOAA has released a new prediction for the solar cycle: The electric current solar minimum is going to deepen, potentially reaching a century-class low in the next year or so."
The offset one-half is true, but the second half has come from a number of amateur space weather condition websites and its provenance is not at all clear—it is not in the official panel printing release. The "potentially" is a significant caveat. To do that, this minimum would accept to exist deeper than the last one (between cycles 23 and 24 in 2008/ix)—that is "potentially" possible merely now appears to be very unlikely indeed.
"The last time a deep solar minimum was in effect was the Maunder minimum, which saw seven decades of freezing atmospheric condition, began in 1645 and lasted through to 1715, and happened when sunspots were exceedingly rare. During this period, temperatures dropped globally by 1.3 degrees celsius leading to shorter seasons and ultimately food shortages."
This is and then full of nonsense it'due south hard to know where to brainstorm. Firstly, the Maunder Minimum was a 50-year period with no solar cycles— non a minimum between cycles. As I said to a higher place, the upcoming minimum is VERY unlikely to be deeper than the last 1 in 2008/9. Most chiefly, the Maunder minimum was Non (echo NOT) a menses of decades of freezing weather condition. It was a period when Europe had a higher fraction of cold winters but summers were, if anything, warmer in the Maunder minimum (as seen, for example, in the central England Temperature measurements) and paleoclimate information show a longer interval of slightly lower global temperatures (often massively misleadingly called the "little ice age") which began long before the Maunder minimum and didn't stop until afterward the Maunder minimum was over. The idea that the Maunder minimum gave periods of unremitting cold is just wrong—information technology is often quoted but it is totally wrong.
The claimed drop of i.3°C in the Maunder minimum is a ludicrous figure. The Figure below (from Owens et al paper[2]) shows whatsoever drop that could perchance exist associated with the Maunder minimum is 0.2 °C (and Owes et al testify that is non statistically significant). That minimum was almost 1.3 °C lower than today'south values because of 1.i °C of anthropogenic greenhouse warming since just before and just after the Maunder minimum.
Effigy – A comparison of solar activity and northern hemisphere climate from AD 800 to Advertising 2016. Top: Sunspot number, from straight telescopic observations (black) and reconstructed on the basis of fourteenC concentrations in tree trunks (red). Bottom: Northern hemisphere temperature anomaly, ΔT, (relative to the 1961–1990 hateful) for paleoclimate reconstructions, equally presented in the IPCC fifth assessment report. Colours, from white through reddish, evidence the probability density function (PDF), while the white line shows the PDF maximum value (or mode). The bluish line shows ΔT from the instrumental record (HadCRUT4). (Source)
"Vencore Weather, a meteorological website, said: 'Depression solar action is known to have consequences on World's weather and climate …. '"
I don't know who Vencore Weather are but that statement is incorrect. As I said, it is often repeated but is wrong.
The article appears to exist citing NOAA when it says "Space weather and terrestrial weather (the weather we feel at the surface) are influenced past the small changes the Sunday undergoes during its solar cycle." That statement is undoubtedly truthful about space weather. The statement about terrestrial weather is contentious. There is growing evidence that low solar activity leads to a weaker, more meandering jet stream (almost certainly because UV emissions from the Lord's day are lower) and this can atomic number 82 to cold snaps in Europe—but at the same time they crusade warmer periods in, for example, Greenland. There is no apparent testify that this leads to a significant drop in global temperatures.
The very top of Earth's atmosphere (the thermosphere, 250 km upward and above) is certainly influenced by solar action. This is important for factors similar orbital decay of satellites just has no implications for surface atmospheric condition at all. It is a space weather upshot not a terrestrial weather condition issue.
- [ii] Owens et al (2017) The Maunder Minimum and the Niggling Ice Historic period: An update from recent reconstructions and climate simulations, Journal of Space Weather and Infinite Climate
Climate Feedback:
Sensational claims about outbreaks of cold weather caused by solar action changes appear repeatedly at some outlets despite the lack of past prove or research supporting this idea. We recently analyzed the spread of a similar story beyond the spider web hither.
The claims in this Express article are virtually identical to two of their contempo articles, and also got repeated by a number of other sites, including Newsflash.one and Climategate.nl.
Source: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-in-the-express-that-low-solar-activity-is-bringing-cold-weather-is-false/
0 Response to "Extreme Cold Weather Can Be Linked to Solar Cycle"
Post a Comment