Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:41, 13 March 2010

Environment NA‑class

This environment-related redirect is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment NA This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Solar variation redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Consensus Citation?

The section entitled "Global Warming" starts off with the incredibly strong statement "The scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change.", after which is a source tag.

The source, however, turns out to be a single, primary source written by a single author. Even more interestingly, the "Conclusions" section of the single author paper cited begins with the sentence: "Radiation from the Sun ultimately provides the only energy source for the Earth’s atmosphere and changes in solar activity clearly have the potential to affect climate."

Furthermore, the source in question seems to be from an older intro statement saying "Researchers argue over whether or not solar variations play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change.", which was replaced by the newer (completely contradictory statement) in the following edit...

21:28, 7 June 2009 Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs) (63,713 bytes) (→Global warming: changing a bit; section heeds help esp with clarity of writing)

I do not believe that reversing the meaning of a sentence without changing the source can be seen as "clarifying". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.120.89 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem is. It looks fine to me William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can find an up to date source for the consensus (which I severely doubt) i.e. post climategate/copenhagen/Hamalayan glacier lie, then it really is meaningless to talk about a consensus which clearly doesn't exist. I suggest you save us the embarrassment of further discussion and simply remove it! 89.168.179.31 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Amount of variation

In the correct Graph of the last 30 years (by Rhode), the variation of the three sunspot cycles amounts to 1 of 1365 W/m², what gives naturally 1 ‰ instead of the noted 1 %. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HJJHolm (talk • contribs) 08:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Haigh information

I notice that the following sentence, "The scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change" is sourced to Joanna Haigh, but without giving a section or page number. I looked through the paper and can't find where it says this. If no one can produce where it says this in the source, I'm going to remove the sentence. It appears to me that the opinion that solar variation has little effect on recent warming is definitely the current stance by the IPCC, but not necessarily the consensus view of all the world's scientists. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You were doing fine until the last sentence. Of course our sources must support our content. However soap-boxing outlier positions, such as the notion that Working Group 1 has misrepresented the state of the science, isn't on. You also seem to be pushing a fringe line in your additions. Beware. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 01:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know which source(s) the IPCC relies on for their solar forcing opinion. Can anyone represent that to me. Thanks in advance. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, find us a source that states that the IPCC represents the united view of most of the world's scientists on solar variation and that can go in the article. In the meantime, no one has produced a source that says that the sentence in question should remain there. Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For starters, there are about a half dozen sources arising out of the scientific community that the IPCC properly represents the scientific consensus here. Included in the IPCC reports are repeated clarifications that solar variation is not substantially responsible for present-day global warming. here, for instance, you'll find solar forcing mentioned many times, with the IPCC going lengths to make clear that their conclusions already consider the possibility of underestimates of the extent of solar forcing. And in Table 9.1 it's clear that solar forcing was part of the analysis of every one of the analyses featured in the table. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Kenosis, I now have a better appreciation for how the attribution outcomes have been forced. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh - why are you starting another pointless fight? This will go nowhere and you know it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC, that sentence was not sourced correctly. If it doesn't get sourced correctly, it gets removed. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So that the rest of us can play along at home, would you care to outline the sourcing problem you have found? --TS 23:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the first post in this thread. The Haigh citation does not include a page or section number to back up the claim contained in that sentence. I couldn't find it when looking through the source. Thus, I recommend deleting that sentence. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Zulu Papa 5, you will find a discussion of attribution studies and the like in Chapter 9 of the AR4 Working Group I report. --TS 19:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

GW stuff

The solar-variation-gw stuff is a mess and needs fixing up.Cla68's recent edits took it in the wrong direction, but did at least raise the problem William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to put a POV spin on the report by Scafetta. Are you saying that Scafetta did not conclude that solar variation may be "underestimated by current climate models"? Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The original wording essentially asserted S&W's opinions as fact. It needs to be properly clarified that this is their own conjecture, e.g., "which they consider evidence that the contribution of solar forcing may be underestimated..." or the like rather than simply stating "that indicate the contribution of solar forcing may be underestimated..." On a side note the original text erroneously attributes the paper solely to Scafetta (as does your comment above). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I took out some ZP5 stuff, since it was wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

He has added some more which is incoherent; I'll use tomorrows revert to get rid of it if no-one else does first William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Too late. "Cloud cover attributed to greenhouse gases"? I would need some convincing.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong about it? Other than I put it there. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware that anybody attributes cloud cover to greenhouse gases. Do you have a source? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The point was attributing amplification to greenhouse gases. Cloud cover and humidity are the amplified processes. I'll find a source. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be more more careful to say what you mean, using precise wording, in order to avoid further confusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check these diffs. , they both cite the amplification context. "Feigned incomprehension" used to be considered uncivil in Misplaced Pages. Somehow that status has changed for assuming good faith in all. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We're not feigning incomprehension. You are genuinely incomprehensible William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I get the vague feeling that Zulu Papa 5 ☆ refers to positive feedbacks, possibly under the (mistaken) assumption that these are taken into account when calculating the effect of an increase in greenhouse gases, but not for solar variation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On feigning incomprehension see to avoid comprehension as PA. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "amplification" I am interested in what the sources say about how it is attributed to gases in contrast to solar variation, or just constant solar processes for that matter. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't say this is any clearer now. Amplification of what? I thought we were talking about the amplification of the effect of solar variation onto the climate, in particular on average global surface temperature. The known positive feedbacks are insufficient, by a large range, to explain observed temperature changes as the effect of solar variation even assuming standard behavior of greenhouse gases. And if you, for some reason, disregard the enhanced greenhouse effect, the water vapor feedback (an enhanced GH effect) would be further reduced, as would be the effect of other GHG related feedbacks like the arctic methane release or CO2 releases from warming oceans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

: For an analogy that might help improve this article's quality, let's assume the Global climate model behaves as an amplifier of input signals (sun, gases, etc). Then let's look at what the sources say about which features the scientist's selected to construct this filtered amplifier as well as its fidelity qualities. Then we can better articulate these in this article. Now if there is a Curse of dimensionality occurring or some other bias .... that can be left for the reader to decide. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but "what"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Time for sources and content. (The GCM is not inherently an adaptive control model, it requires human feedback to construct it.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you sound like a cross of ELIZA and Dissociated Press to me. You want some content in the article. I'm not even entirely clear what you want in the article, or why, or how GCM's suddenly enter the discussion. So I'd say the onus is on you to clarify what you want and to provide the sources for it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny .. I agree with you. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ACRIM / PMOD

This is bad: replacing "one version" with an implicit assertion that all do. This needs to be fixed William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Dikstr's own web site says "One, the ACRIM composite..." so I've replaced "the" with "one." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Effects on clouds

I hacked some stuff out:

• The Earth's albedo decreased by about 2.5% over 5 years during the most recent solar cycle, as measured by lunar "Earthshine". Similar reduction was measured by satellites during the previous cycle.
• Mediterranean core study of plankton detected a solar-related 11 year cycle, and an increase 3.7 times larger between 1760 and 1950. A considerable reduction in cloud cover is proposed.
• A laboratory experiment conducted by Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center was able to produce particles as a result of cosmic ray-like irradiation, though these particles do not resemble actual cloud condensation nuclei found in nature.
• A 2009 peer reviewed article investigating the effects of a Forbush decrease found that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%.

The first two have been CN for ages. The second seems odd. The third is a lab expt, and isn't a paper. The Forbush stuff is odd; I don't really think it belongs William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Life cycle section

I've deleted the life cycle section apparently imported from Sun. A sentence or two on the sun being a fairly stable main sequence star may be appropriate, but none of the details on fuel burned, the Earth being swallowed, and the sun not going supernovae is relevant for this article, which is mostly concerned with variations on the scale of years to millennia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunate, you chose to neglect the the Sun's life cycle variation in this article. There could be no greater relevance than life cycle when the article is about solar variation. I am afraid your are enforcing a bias into the article, that would avoid the sun's life cycle which is a greater context for solar variations. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

From the edit sumary here would you mind elaborating on where your pain originates? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

From the acute mismatch of the new material with the rest of the article. The longest time period mentioned in the material is 10000 years. Your addition increases this by a factor of one million, and throws in plenty of completely irrelevant material even for the most expansive definition of the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cut-n-paste from another article is bad William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously relevant to the article and it was shortened material to increase the relevance. What else can I do to make it better? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Summary_style Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Recognize that it's not relevant? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It meets this criteria Misplaced Pages:Relevant. I suspect your may have a bias, which you maybe forcing on me. How would you like to resolve this? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"It meets Misplaced Pages:Relevant" ...and that's why we have articles on Sun, Formation and evolution of the Solar System, Stellar evolution, and others. It is not, however, relevant for this article, which deals with solar variations essentially on observable time scales. It is not useful to repeat the same things over and over again in different articles, especially not if the topics are only weakly connected. The process that causes the faint young sun to evolve into a red giant is very different from processes like the 11 year sun spot cycle. And it is so slow that for a discussion on human-level time scales it can be considered stationary. Can you explain what kind of bias (except bias for a usable encyclopedia) this argument exhibits? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You just explained your own bias, that the processes are different at different time scales. Your bias for this article seems to be for "human-level" time scales. Human time scales were addressed in the proposed content. The article is about how the sun changes. The sun's life cycle is a significant and relevant change for inclusion in this article. The content was appropriately summarized to be: germane, material, pertinent, and applicable for this article. You are constructing an obstruction to adding the content and ignoring creating a path to fair resolution. I find it disruptive. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No. The processes are different on different time scales - or do you think the hydrogen/helium ratio of the sun magically varies up and down on a decadal time scale? The second World war ended 65 years ago. What you propose is akin to handling the extinction of the dinosaurs and the battle of Berlin in the same article. "Over the history of the planet, the extinction rate among vertebrae has varied significantly for various reasons. Compared to the K/T extinction event, World War II was an insignificant blib." I don't think that is a useful approach. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Spare the death of an irrelevant strawman you make. This article and the content is about the sun changing. Please stay on topic to the proposed content and sources which adds relevant summarized info. Oz's starwman had no brain and was an inadvertent ignorant distraction. From WP:FOC "Misplaced Pages is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community. When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral."Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

New source

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/more-on-sun-climate-relations/ maybe William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure ... one day maybe the climate folks will remember that solar energy really accumulates in self-constructed carbon based life. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

1. "Climate change and cosmic rays". Danish National Space Center. Retrieved 19 April 2007.
2. "Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds". Geophys. Res. Lett.

• NA-Class Environment pages
• NA-importance Environment pages