10 ms·
Solar cycle is more powerful and surprising than predicted
- brentstevenson1 3y agoFascinating solar cycle revelations! The Sun's heightened activity defies predictions, reminding us of the universe's enduring mysteries. Science at its finest
- reportgunner 3y ago[flagged]
- jSully24 3y agoI’m curious why you think that? Is there a relationship in earth temperature and this kind of solar activity? I’m far from knowledgeable in this area but I’ve never heard of a relationship before. (ed)
- steanne 3y agohttps://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-news/Does-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-new... "Do scientists think that changes in solar irradiance due to the 11-year solar cycle could be strong enough to cause the current change being measured in Earth's climate? In a word, no. "
- willcipriano 3y ago[flagged]
- flangola7 3y agoThank you for contributing constructively to the discussion.
- BirAdam 3y agoFrom that link: “Sustained changes in solar radiance – that is changes that occur over decades or centuries – could potentially have an effect on Earth's climate system, which is why such information is included, along with a variety of other natural and human-driven influences, in climate models.“ Increasing solar radiation at a time when greenhouse gas concentrations are higher absolutely will cause warming. If it didn’t, the entire basis of anthropogenic global climate change wouldn’t really work. Would the effect be less severe if humans didn’t put tons of greenhouse gas in the air, yes. Would warning still occur without an increase in solar radiation, yes. Do the two together have a greater effect than either alone, yes.
- dahart 3y agoIt’s funny to focus on words that talk about “potentially” having an effect while ignoring the known magnitude of this potential. That quote taken out of context leaves you with the impression that these two factors are both significant contributors, or even roughly equivalent, but the reality is that one of those factors is much much larger than the other, and the other is negligible, and I’m sure you know which one is which. “the Sun's energy output only changes by up to 0.15% over the course of the cycle, less than what would be needed to force the change in climate that we see. Also, scientists have not been able to find convincing evidence that the 11-yr cycle is mirrored in any aspects of the climate beyond the stratosphere – such as surface temperature, rainfall or wind patterns.“
- jpadkins 3y agowhat is the relationship between 0.15% more energy the sun may output vs. how much energy is retained via CO2 greenhouse effect? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page6.php https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/pag... Indicates that 5-6% of solar energy is thermal radiation from the surface absorbed by the atmosphere (greenhouse effect). This page states that CO2 is 20% of greenhouse effect https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5... "Carbon dioxide causes about 20 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect; water vapor accounts for about 50 percent; and clouds account for 25 percent." So 1 to 1.2% of sun's energy is CO2 greenhouse effect. So a 10% change in CO2 greenhouse effect is roughly the same amount of energy as the observed change solar cycle output. tldr; 0.15% of sun's energy output is actually a lot of energy!
- melling 3y agoHe’s offering innuendo. Climate change deniers have a whole lot of it. You don’t need to prove causality to throw a wrench in the argument. Make a statement then say “prove me wrong”
- krona 3y ago> Make a statement then say “prove me wrong” Climatologists can make the same argument. There aren't many earth-like planets with which to conduct controlled experiments.
- smt88 3y agoYes, but a good way to verify climate science is to make surprising predictions and then see how accurate they are. Climate scientists have made many such predictions starting in the 1970s. Exxon even had scientists in the 80's predicting climate change with surprising accuracy, and then they buried that research because it would hurt their business.
- krona 3y agoI think you're confusing prophecy with the scientific prediction of a theory which can be replicated.
- legulere 3y agoThere are in the form of simulations. You can measure many effects like light absorption directly and put it in a simulation. Discrepancies to reality can be investigated and used to make the model better. You can then use the model to see how things would be with more or less CO2-emissions.
- krona 3y agoWhether a model predicts the outcome of a simulation has no bearing in determining whether either correspond to a future reality. Running a simulation might be useful for directing scientific research, but it is not science.
- bloaf 3y agoIt is a long-running myth in "climate skeptic" circles that we're due for an upcoming maunder minimum in solar activity which will reverse global warming (or cause global cooling). See, for example, this article from this global-warming-denialist source: https://cei.org/opeds_articles/its-the-sun-stupid/ https://cei.org/opeds_articles/its-the-sun-stupid/
- imtringued 3y agoThe modern maximum was in 1950 (referring to the highest number of sunspots) and sunspots have been going down. Ironically, global temperatures were at +-0°C during that time period. We have less sun activity and yet temperatures keep rising. If sun activity were to go up for whatever reason then we would be twice as screwed as we are now! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum https://www.climate.gov/media/15021 https://www.climate.gov/media/15021
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- SoftTalker 3y agoIt's almost like turning up your oven makes your food hotter.
- throwbadubadu 3y agoOr like too simple parables are just too simple..
- BirAdam 3y agoYeah, but in this case, not only was the temperature setting increased, but so was the oven’s insulation. As a result, the oven became more efficient at heating and more efficient at holding heat.
- nytesky 3y agoI thought higher solar activity meant increased sun spots and CME. In general that increases some solar wind particles. We could see significant effects if CME was directed towards us (Carrington event), and maybe that would represent more energy into the earth system. But in general, solar cycle isn’t “hotter”; sunspots in fact are cooler spots.
- xirtaivi 3y agoThe umbra part of the sunspot is cooler, but each sunspot also has a penumbra region which causes the sunspot to be brighter. This is due to the magnetic field generated that causes the sunspot to overcompensate. This is the reason some theorize the Little Ice Age may have been caused by the Maunder Minimum.
- jeffbee 3y agoThe correct way to frame the issue is that climate change was already worse than it appeared because we were in the low side of the cycle recently. Now we are in the high side and it seems a bit warmer.
- whall6 3y agoFor some reason this sounds like something you might read on Wall Street bets about stock prices
- jeffbee 3y agoAs far as I know there is no short-term celestial oscillation underlying prices of stocks.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hammock 3y ago> The correct way to frame the issue Thank you for sharing the approved language and allowing us to avoid cognitive dissonance
- caseysoftware 3y agoPotentially related: > "In the study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, Millán and his colleagues estimate that the Tonga eruption [January 15th] sent around 146 teragrams (1 teragram equals a trillion grams) of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – equal to 10% of the water already present in that atmospheric layer. That’s nearly four times the amount of water vapor that scientists estimate the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines lofted into the stratosphere." Ref: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/tonga-eruption-blasted-unpr...
- lm28469 3y agohttps://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/ https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-tempe...
- tiffanyg 3y agoNot an "interesting coincidence". It's a coincidence, and the "interesting coincidence" framing is the dumbest of the rhetoric (aka propaganda) tools out there. It's the basest of the rhetorical tricks, put together this way. Relying on psychology to produce inference from implication, and biology to produce the dopamine hit subconsciously underlying a sense of achievement that helps slide the BS in YOUR head (or the heads of your "paymasters") past the psychological defenses of others. It's too bad we don't fortify more heads as standard practice, maybe the internet wouldn't spread stupidity like the drinking water from a 19th-century pump spread cholera.* See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc Etc. * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_Map https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_Map
- gymbeaux 3y agoI like the cut of your jib. Logical fallacies run rampant in today’s “rhetoric”. Makes it easy to brainwash people.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jron 3y agoScott McIntosh predicted it: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.15263 https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.15263 "Our method predicts that SC25 could be among the strongest sunspot cycles ever observed, and that it will almost certainly be stronger than present SC24 (sunspot number of 116) and most likely stronger than the previous SC23 (sunspot number of 180). This is in stark contrast to the consensus of the SC25PP, sunspot number maximum between 95 and 130, i.e., similar to that of SC24. Indeed, as can be seen in Fig. 4b, if our prediction for the 2020 terminator time is correct, such a low value would be a severe outlier with respect to the observed behavior of previous sunspot cycles. Such a low value could only be reconciled with the previously observed sunspot cycles if the next terminator event is delayed by more than two years from our predicted value, which would extend the present low activity levels to an extraordinary length. We note also that the relationship developed herein would have correctly predicted the low amplitude of SC24 (from a terminators separation of 12.825 years) following the 2011 terminator—three years after the 2006 NOAA/NASA Solar Cycle Prediction Panel delivered their consensus prediction (Pesnell, 2008). Finally, the arrival of the SC24 terminator will permit higher fidelity on the forecast presented."
- nytesky 3y agoSolar cycle is to hotter sun like climate change is to global warming. Not a perfect analogy, but helps with the gist.
- defrost 3y agoWorth noting that, according to NASA: Do scientists think that changes in solar irradiance due to the 11-year solar cycle could be strong enough to cause the current change being measured in Earth's climate? In a word, no. Scientists agree that the solar cycle and its associated short-term changes in irradiance cannot be the main force driving the changes in Earth's climate we are currently seeing. For one thing, the Sun's energy output only changes by up to 0.15% over the course of the cycle, less than what would be needed to force the change in climate that we see. Also, scientists have not been able to find convincing evidence that the 11-yr cycle is mirrored in any aspects of the climate beyond the stratosphere – such as surface temperature, rainfall or wind patterns. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-news/Does-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-new... The cycle is a regular small flucuation in total energy with relatively little change in the part of the spectrum that comes all the way through the atmosphere to heat up the land and water .. ibcreasing insulation trapping that heat has been the driver of climate change here. If you read the linked article or any related science article the focus is on the geomagnetic surges caused by the changes in the suns field.
- blindriver 3y ago[flagged]
- GeoAtreides 3y agoMan, do I have good news for you! You don't have to wait, we're already tracking temperature vs solar activity: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/ https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-tempe...
- ericbarrett 3y agoWe know so little about the Sun’s weather. Take the Maunder Minimum, a period spanning at least three solar cycles where there were three orders of magnitude fewer sunspots observed[0]. Imagine the effect if the standard cycle we knew increased by as much...! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
- 1970-01-01 3y agoCorrelation was recently discovered between solar cycles and earthquakes. Volcanism correlates to earthquakes, but I don't believe it goes in both directions. Ergo, the solar cycles should not affect global warming. But that's not what we are now observing. Very interesting news.
- fguerraz 3y agoI can't wait for Quanta Magazine's interpretation of this... Surely we're all doomed, right?
- 0xTJ 3y ago"is more [...] surprising than predicted" What would it mean for it to be less surprising than predicted?
- gumby 3y agoEven though I"m working on the climate, I'm still quite worried about a Carrington event making it all de facto irrelevant. The way modern society works, a single such event would likely kill the majority of the world's population.
- hattmall 3y agoI'm curious why you think it would kill most people? Are you thinking exploding batteries and wire induced fires? Societal unrest from the grid being down??
- gremlinsinc 3y agoa Carrington event would take roughly 2 to 3 years to get power back on assuming best case scenario. What do you think happens when there's no electric freezers for food storage, shipment, etc. No credit or debit cards. all digital money will basically be erased or locked on a hard drive that can't be accessed until the grid goes back up. All factories cease production, I don't think diabetics stand a chance, and many others with debilitating diseases. Hospitals will be working without electricity, without patient records, without power saws to saw through bone more efficiently, without lights except candles, without most medicines, and without a supply chain. Essentially what a doctor can fit in a bag and carry and has zero electric components will still be useable. So scalpels, and other surgical tools, tongue depressor, blood pressure cuff, stethoscope, etc. People who wear glasses better hope they don't need a new prescription or break their glasses as there will be no solution. To me the scariest fact is that every frozen and refrigerated food item in the world will spoil within 3 days. The only food remaining will be things like cereal, wheat, rice, canned goods etc, of course competition to get the last of the food will make the fight over toilet paper seem like the great emu was vs WW2. Military arsenals requiring electronic targeting may go down too, all stocks basically go to zero, instability in markets and govts will be global. Charismatic leaders might become war lords and take over large territories that were big, strong nations before the event. If you had no warning of the event, you wouldn't even know for a week or two what happened. you can't look it up on the Internet. there's no tv or radio for you to get updates on the situation or warnings/alarms. I think I heard estimates that said about 2.4 billion out of 8b, will be all that remain after 3 years. In other words 2/3rds of mankind will be gone. In the middle ages people relied on goods from nearby farmers markets or grew it themselves. There wasn't a global supply chain, so life would carry on as normal. We'd literally be sent back to the middle ages.. etc etc etc...