Author Topic: NASAs "glemte" solforskning i 2001  (Read 93 times)

Telehiv

  • Global moderator
  • Supermedlem
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 665
  • Qui vivra verra
    • View Profile
NASAs "glemte" solforskning i 2001
« on: 13.06.2020, 15:05:49 »
Dess mer man leter i historien til NASAs solforskere, dess mer vil man se at dette miljøet i mange sammenhenger og over flere tiår har krasjet med det mer ensidig CO2-agitatoriske miljøet i NASA forøvrig. Særlig tydelig ser vi dette da solforskerne i NASA i 2001 sammenholdt 1600-1700 tallets lave solaktivitet (Maunder Minimum) med den sterke kuldeperioden samtidig (Den lille istid). Altså den perioden som Michael Mann et al begynte å prøve å retusjere vekk med sin famøse hockeykølle fra 1998.

Men her noterer vi at NASAs solforskermiljø i 2001 faktisk våget å vise til at Maunder Minimum hadde direkte påvirkning på global temperatur, dvs, var hovedforklaringen bak Den lille istid (se videre). I kontrast til den grafen de viser nå, der NASA forventer et nytt Global Minimum, men denne gangen vil de ikke si like tydelig hva de sa i 2001, at en slik solaktivitet er relatert til global avkjøling. Her er NASAs solgraf nå i 2020:



Men vi klarer fremdeles å hente fram hva det i praksis opposisjonelle solforskermiljøet skrev om dette i 2001 i denne nå "arkiverte" artikkelen, sitat:

"From 1650 to 1710, temperatures across much of the Northern Hemisphere plunged when the Sun entered a quiet phase now called the Maunder Minimum. During this period, very few sunspots appeared on the surface of the Sun, and the overall brightness of the Sun decreased slightly. Already in the midst of a colder-than-average period called the Little Ice Age, Europe and North America went into a deep freeze: alpine glaciers extended over valley farmland; sea ice crept south from the Arctic; and the famous canals in the Netherlands froze regularly—an event that is rare today."

For å illustrere, la NASA ut denne figuren, som til forskjell fra Mann et al viser hvor kaldt det faktisk var i denne perioden:



Og kommenterte den slik (på en måte som trolig fikk blodtrykket til å stige betydelig hos CO2-hodene):

"The impact of the solar minimum is clear in this image, which shows the temperature difference between 1680, a year at the center of the Maunder Minimum, and 1780, a year of normal solar activity, as calculated by a general circulation model. Deep blue across eastern and central North America and northern Eurasia illustrates where the drop in temperature was the greatest. Nearly all other land areas were also cooler in 1680, as indicated by the varying shades of blue. The few regions that appear to have been warmer in 1680 are Alaska and the eastern Pacific Ocean (left), the North Atlantic Ocean south of Greenland (left of center), and north of Iceland (top center)"

Og så kommer det interessante fra solforskerne i 2001, når de stiller spørsmålet:

"If energy from the Sun decreased only slightly, why did temperatures drop so severely in the Northern Hemisphere?"

I påfølgende forklaring nevnes ikke CO2/drivhussgasser med ett ord, kun funksjonen til ozon:

"Climate scientist Drew Shindell and colleagues at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies tackled that question by combining temperature records gleaned from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and the few measurements recorded in the historical record, with an advanced computer model of the Earth’s climate. The group first calculated the amount of energy coming from the Sun during the Maunder Minimum and entered the information into a general circulation model. The model is a mathematical representation of the way various Earth systems—ocean surface temperatures, different layers of the atmosphere, energy reflected and absorbed from land, and so forth—interact to produce the climate.


When the model started with the decreased solar energy and returned temperatures that matched the paleoclimate record, Shindell and his colleagues knew that the model was showing how the Maunder Minimum could have caused the extreme drop in temperatures. The model showed that the drop in temperature was related to ozone in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that is between 10 and 50 kilometers from the Earth’s surface. Ozone is created when high-energy ultraviolet light from the Sun interacts with oxygen. During the Maunder Minimum, the Sun emitted less strong ultraviolet light, and so less ozone formed. The decrease in ozone affected planetary waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream that we are used to seeing on television weather reports.

The change to the planetary waves kicked the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)—the balance between a permanent low-pressure system near Greenland and a permanent high-pressure system to its south—into a negative phase. When the NAO is negative, both pressure systems are relatively weak. Under these conditions, winter storms crossing the Atlantic generally head eastward toward Europe, which experiences a more severe winter. (When the NAO is positive, winter storms track farther north, making winters in Europe milder.) The model results, shown above, illustrate that the NAO was more negative on average during the Maunder Minimum, and Europe remained unusually cold. These results matched the paleoclimate record.

By creating a model that could reproduce temperatures recorded in paleoclimate records, Shindell and colleagues reached a better understanding of how changes in the stratosphere influence weather patterns. With such an understanding, scientists are better poised to understand what factors could influence Earth’s climate in the future. To read more about how ancient temperature records are used to improve climate models, see Paleoclimatology: Understanding the Past to Predict the Future, the final installment of a series of articles about paleoclimatology on the Earth Observatory."


Et par gode spørsmål er selvsagt:
- hvorfor er denne kunnskapen nå stappet inn i et arkiv i NASA? Vi ser jo at det minner veldig mye om "fornekter"-beskrivelsene, men dog?
- hvorfor vil CO2-hodene fremdeles ikke snakke om disse brede paleoklimatiske fortolkningsmåtene, men bare fortsette å insistere på den ultrasmale CO2-hypotesen?

Link: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum   
« Last Edit: 13.06.2020, 15:28:25 by Telehiv »