Correcting Scientific Misconceptions: The December Solstice

I am still surprised how many articles on otherwise reputable websites when writing about scientific topics are riddled with errors and have clearly been written by lazy journalists with no knowledge of the subject they’re talking about.

One of the worst examples was an article on the December 2023 solstice which recently appeared on a popular British online newspaper “The Independent”. I’ve put the first part of it here.

—————————————————————————————————————–

—————————————————————————————————————–

Source  https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/winter-solstice-2023-when-b2468311.html retrieved 22 December 2023

It is truly amazing that such a short article can contain so many statements that are simply wrong. So, let’s have a look at it again.

The article says the solstice “will begin on 4:44pm GMT on 22 December”

WRONG: The December solstice doesn’t begin then, it is an event which occurs at a particular time. The December solstice occurs when the Earth’s North Pole is tilted furthest away from the Sun, which happened at 3:27 AM GMT. the journalists writing this could have easily checked when the 2023 December solstice occurs by checking with a reputable website such as https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/winter-solstice.html . I wonder where on Earth they got 4:44 pm from!?

If I’m being really picky, in precise writing the term UTC (which stands for Coordinated Universal Time) should be used rather than GMT but I’m probably being too pedantic by mentioning this, because GMT is widely used by the general public.

“Arriving on the same day across the globe, a solstice occurs….”

WRONG The date the solstice falls on depends on the time zone. For example in San Francisco, which is on the Pacific time zone, 8 hours behind UTC, the solstice occurred  at 7:27 pm on December 21.

“The solstice also occurs when the sun is directly over the Tropic of Capricorn”.

This is badly written. The tropic of Capricorn is a line of latitude running approximately 23.44 degrees south. Clearly the Sun cannot be overhead everywhere on a line of latitude at the same time. At some places located  on the tropic of Capricorn it was dark at 3:27 am when the solstice occurred! What it should have said is

 “….at the December solstice, the location where the Sun is directly overhead lies on the tropic of Capricorn”.

“…a solstice occurs when the sun reaches its lowest or highest point in the sky during the year as a result of the Earth’s axis tilting to or away from the sun.

This is badly written and incorrect. The true situation is more complicated.

For locations which don’t lie at polar latitudes, the Sun reaches its lowest point in the sky twice a day every single day of the year. This happens at sunrise and sunset! I guess what the authors really meant to say is:

 “…at the solstice the Sun reaches either  its lowest maximum elevation (for locations in the Northern Hemisphere) or its greatest maximum elevation (for locations in the Southern Hemisphere)

However, although this is true for most locations on Earth, it isn’t true for all locations on the Earth. The true position is a little more complicated. I’ve put a summary here.

LatitudeSun’s maximum elevationHours of daylight
Above Arctic CircleSun below horizon all dayZero
On Arctic CircleLowest value of the year. Sun briefly just above the horizonLowest value of the year (Few minutes)
Between Arctic Circle and EquatorLowest value of the yearLowest value of the year
On EquatorJoint lowest value of the year. The June solstice is the other dateAll days have same hours of daylight throughout the year
Between Tropic of Capricorn and the EquatorNeither the lowest nor the highest value of the year.Highest value of the year
On the Tropic of CapricornHighest value of the year. Sun directly overheadHighest value of the year
Between Tropic of Capricorn and Antarctic circleHighest value of the yearHighest value of the year
On or below Antarctic circleHighest value of the year24 hours

If you want to know the detail behind this then watch this video on my YouTube channel 🙂

11 thoughts on “Correcting Scientific Misconceptions: The December Solstice”

  1. As one who has willingly taken three COVID-vaccine injections, I basically believe the mainstream science behind the vaccines’ safety and reliability. Still, I feel the term ‘science’ generally gets used a bit too readily/frequently, especially for political purposes.

    I’m also cautious of blindly buying into (what I call) speculative science, in general. Due to increasingly common privatized research for corporate profit aims, even ‘scientific fact’ can be for sale.

    Research results, however flawed, can and are known to be publicly amplified if they favor the corporate product, and accurate research results can be suppressed or ignored if they are unfavorable to business interests, even when involving human health.

    And there may be corporate suppressions of cures for all sorts of ailments. Huge profits come first. Maximizing profits by risking the health or lives of product consumers will likely always be a significant part of the nature of the big business beast.

    Unfortunately, much of the Western world, though especially Canada and the U.S., is governed within a virtual corp-ocracy. Yet, none of the highly corporatized mainstream news-media, very much including the neo-liberal New York Times and Washington Post, dare describe it as such, thus so very little of society realizes it.

    With Canada’s corp-ocracy, it’s enabling the biggest of businesses get unaccountably even bigger, defying the very spirit of government rules established to ensure healthy competition by limiting mass consolidation.

    Like

  2. It’s really nice to see people correcting misinformation online like here, and the original article seems to have been very last-minute. I’m guessing the author’s lack of an appropriate background in astronomy meant he misinterpreted his source material and it really showed in the final writing. It’s easily done, I’ve definitely made that mistake too when researching things I don’t know much about. Even in the later part of the article, it’s very clear the research was surface level, because no historian in their right mind would quote Pliny the Elder as though he were a trusted source. That made me laugh a little bit! Happy new year, and let’s hope they get it right next Winter!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Happy new year to you too
      Thanks for you comment, although it is easy to miss things I feel that a mass circulation quality news website should have got the basic facts straights before writing an article such as this.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.