| Revision as of 20:11, 27 March 2014 editMhklein (talk | contribs)79 edits Added section entitled "Solar constant"← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:41, 27 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,342,926 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (20 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell| | ||
| {{WikiProject Environment}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Astronomy|solar_system=yes}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{Archive box|auto=long}} | ||
| }} | |||
| ⚫ | {{Archive box|auto=long|age=90|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
| |archive = Talk:Solar variation/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Solar variation/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes}} | |||
| == |
== Chart looks rather out of date == | ||
| The chart needs updating - as it ends in 2006 - missing the latest solar cycle. | |||
| Are there any actual astronomers here? ] is not the same as ]. What is the appropriate term for significant things that the sun does? The most significant things I know about are: | |||
| ⚫ | ] (]) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
| #]s and ] - these vary a lot, on an 11-year (or 22-year) cycle | |||
| #] - this changes in lockstep with the sunspots, right? | |||
| #] (i.e., "sunlight" ) - this varies vary little (hence the concept of a "]") | |||
| ⚫ | == Historical perspective == | ||
| What's the term for changes in ], especially cyclic changes? Right now ] => ] but that makes no sense. I tried making "]" as a disambig page, but is that really the solution? --] (]) 23:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | Is this quote really helpful? First off, it talks about weather prediction, not climate. The quote itself is ambiguous, open to interpretation as either: "history has shown time and again that it is pseudo-science" or as "in those days it was seen as pseudo-science, but now we have a better understanding". The intro of the source text would be a better choice imo: | ||
| :Hi Ed. Strictly speaking, "solar activity" is "what's going on", and "solar variation" is "how much is what's going on changing"? However, the two are so closely coupled that the terms are effectively used to describe the same thing. The ] isn't a constant. It does indeed change with solar activity, but only fairly little (which is why it only has a minor effect on global warming, which is why deniers often make solar variation seem to be BIGGER so they can pretend "it's not CO2"). If you check ] in the article, you can see that the red line (yearly variations in "the solar constant") very closely matches the direct indicators of solar activity. You can also see that the change over time is small - about 1 W/m<sup>2</sup>, or somewhat less than 0.1%. This is not measurable with pre-modern instruments, and it is much less than the ~3.5% yearly variation that we see due to the eccentricity of the earth's orbit. That's why the solar constant is called "constant", although it really is not. See ]. ;-) --] (]) 10:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :''Since it is the Sun's energy that drives the weather system, scientists naturally wondered whether they might connect climate changes with solar variations. Yet the Sun seemed to be stable over the timescale of human civilization. Attempts to discover cyclic variations in weather and connect them with the 11-year sunspot cycle, or other possible solar cycles ranging up to a few centuries long, gave results that were ambiguous at best. These attempts got a well-deserved bad reputation. Jack Eddy overcame this with a 1976 study that demonstrated that irregular variations in solar surface activity, a few centuries long, were connected with major climate shifts. The mechanism was uncertain, but plausible candidates emerged. '' ] (]) 20:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks for your courteous and detailed response. I wonder, though, if both of us are using words the same way. | |||
| ⚫ | :The article itself is rife with such conflicts. I don't expect an easy resolution. ] (]) 12:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::I have been thinking that "changes in solar activity" includes both (1) the fairly little changes in the ] and (2) changes in ]s. Note that I have turned ] into a disambig page. | |||
| ⚫ | == Solar constant == | ||
| ::The part I think is clear is that ] reaching the Earth (as ]) varies only fairly little. The part that's not clear is that changes in sunspots affect the ], which in turn affects the amount of ] which enter the earth's atmosphere. | |||
| The article states that "The amount of solar radiation received at the outer limits of Earth's atmosphere averages 1366 W/m<sup>2</sup>." Yet the Misplaced Pages article on the ] gives the value of 1361 W/m<sup>2</sup>. Can anyone explain the discrepancy? Thanks. ] (]) 20:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I don't think it's just "deniers" who are concerned with irradiance and cosmic rays. Very serious scientists are engaged in very material scientific endeavors related to the solar irradiance variation and cosmic ray variation. I would say that solar variation deals with variation in the solar output and also with other variations with the sun like variations in the sun's magnetic field & solar wind which in turn has an effect on cosmic rays hitting the earth. So in the climate section of this page, heaven help me for saying this, we should note that variations in the solar magnetic field & solar wind may cause an impact to cosmic rays hitting the earth. However, I stand by my assertion that this page should be mostly about solar variation (the actual physical changes to the sun) and that the terrestrial climate topic and climate change and other impacts of the sun on the earth should be handled in their respective pages with only summaries here.] (]) 20:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The lower estimate is more recent. Don't know if it is controversial. See ]. ] (]) 06:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Ed, here is some more thinking on things that vary: | |||
| ::I moved the order of these around slightly, to put the solar constant before the variation in solar constant, but didn't change the actual number without a canonical reference. Different sources do use slightly different totals. Several links were redirects to "]", so I consolidated these to just one place. ] (]) 17:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| #]s and ] - these vary a lot, on an 11-year (or 22-year) cycle | |||
| #] - this changes in lockstep with the sunspots, right? | |||
| #] (i.e., "sunlight" ) - this varies vary little (hence the concept of a "]") | |||
| # Sun's Magnetic Field Strength - varies with the sunspot cycle and with the conveyor belt cycle | |||
| # Sun's Magnetic Field Pole - It flips from time to time | |||
| # Sun's Great Conveyor Belt - varies in speed over time and we think has a longer term impact on the sun | |||
| # CME's - vary depending on a whole bunch of variables | |||
| == Predictions based on patterns == | |||
| Then beyond that, we have longer term solar variations like the fact that the sun is slowly getting hotter as it progresses along the main sequence. This page though seems to not be focused on that. It appears largely to have been built to promote or detract from AGW theory. I would like it to be more about our Sun's Variations but I'm outvoted largely. I'd engage Geoffrey Landis. He edits here and while his time is limited he is a Physicist from NASA who knows his stuff and is very balanced. ] (]) 15:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| This section is a bit rubbish. Firstly, it "predicts" the 2010 peak, and no-one (including me!) has bothered update it for whatever happened. Secondly, its almost all about "predicting" climate (has it been copied in from elsewhere) not predicting the cycles, so it belongs under the climate heading ] (]) 08:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Abbot's solar variation tool == | |||
| == Cosmic ray claim == | |||
| Hi everyone! I just uploaded an image of ] utilizing a tool which, I believe, he uses to "read" solar variation. Perhaps it will be of some use for this article! You can find the image ]. -- ] (]) 19:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :What fun. Certainly gives historical perspective. '']'' 20:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: I had a look, but I'm not sure what the picture is of. Guessing, I'd say it was some kind of mechanical fourier-analysis device ] (]) 21:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Why is the stuff on cosmic rays in there? It doesn't apply to solar variation in any way. ] (]) 16:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == new review paper == | |||
| :I'm not sure I understand the question. The sun's magnetic field deflects galactic cosmic rays. Thus, cosmic rays decrease with higher solar actitity. So this is related to solar variation. | |||
| This is a sort of todo note for me or anyone else that has more time than me. A came out this morning on Solar Irradiance Variation and climate. It seems to be pretty well written and could definitely be used to improve that section of this article. ] (]) 15:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :However, if you're just saying that there's too much on this subject for the article -- well, ok, maybe there is, and possibly it should be compressed and put into a single subsection, instead of spread over several. | |||
| :--by the way, you changed the term "galactic cosmic rays" to just "cosmic rays" in several places. I'm going to change those back-- the more generic term "cosmic rays" can also refer to solar proton events, which of course increase with solar activity. ] (]) 20:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Restructure proposal == | ||
| {{tlu|User:Lfstevens/sandbox}} | |||
| There is an inconsistency between the presented TSI graph, the graph of sunspot numbers and data available from NASA SORCE. I am looking at http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#historical and find | |||
| === Comments === | |||
| http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_tsi_reconstruction.jpg | |||
| * | |||
| which is not consistent with what is presented on this encyclopedia page. | |||
| * | |||
| ⚫ | ] (]) |
||
| : Which of our graphs are you talking about? ]? In what way are the two graphs inconsistent? ] (]) 19:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Historical perspective == | ||
| ⚫ | Is this quote really helpful? First off, it talks about weather prediction, not climate. The quote itself is ambiguous, open to interpretation as either: "history has shown time and again that it is pseudo-science" or as "in those days it was seen as pseudo-science, but now we have a better understanding". The intro of the source text would be a better choice imo: | ||
| ⚫ | :''Since it is the Sun's energy that drives the weather system, scientists naturally wondered whether they might connect climate changes with solar variations. Yet the Sun seemed to be stable over the timescale of human civilization. Attempts to discover cyclic variations in weather and connect them with the 11-year sunspot cycle, or other possible solar cycles ranging up to a few centuries long, gave results that were ambiguous at best. These attempts got a well-deserved bad reputation. Jack Eddy overcame this with a 1976 study that demonstrated that irregular variations in solar surface activity, a few centuries long, were connected with major climate shifts. The mechanism was uncertain, but plausible candidates emerged. '' ] (]) 20:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | :The article itself is rife with such conflicts. I don't expect an easy resolution. ] (]) 12:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | == Solar constant == | ||
| The article states that "The amount of solar radiation received at the outer limits of Earth's atmosphere averages 1366 W/m<sup>2</sup>." Yet the Misplaced Pages article on the ] gives the value of 1361 W/m<sup>2</sup>. Can anyone explain the discrepancy? Thanks. ] (]) 20:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:41, 27 December 2024
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 Archives | |||
|
|||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Chart looks rather out of date
The chart needs updating - as it ends in 2006 - missing the latest solar cycle. 131.111.23.90 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Historical perspective
Is this quote really helpful? First off, it talks about weather prediction, not climate. The quote itself is ambiguous, open to interpretation as either: "history has shown time and again that it is pseudo-science" or as "in those days it was seen as pseudo-science, but now we have a better understanding". The intro of the source text would be a better choice imo:
- Since it is the Sun's energy that drives the weather system, scientists naturally wondered whether they might connect climate changes with solar variations. Yet the Sun seemed to be stable over the timescale of human civilization. Attempts to discover cyclic variations in weather and connect them with the 11-year sunspot cycle, or other possible solar cycles ranging up to a few centuries long, gave results that were ambiguous at best. These attempts got a well-deserved bad reputation. Jack Eddy overcame this with a 1976 study that demonstrated that irregular variations in solar surface activity, a few centuries long, were connected with major climate shifts. The mechanism was uncertain, but plausible candidates emerged. Ssscienccce (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article itself is rife with such conflicts. I don't expect an easy resolution. Batvette (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Solar constant
The article states that "The amount of solar radiation received at the outer limits of Earth's atmosphere averages 1366 W/m." Yet the Misplaced Pages article on the solar constant gives the value of 1361 W/m. Can anyone explain the discrepancy? Thanks. Mhklein (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- The lower estimate is more recent. Don't know if it is controversial. See Solar irradiation. Lfstevens (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I moved the order of these around slightly, to put the solar constant before the variation in solar constant, but didn't change the actual number without a canonical reference. Different sources do use slightly different totals. Several links were redirects to "solar irradiance", so I consolidated these to just one place. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Predictions based on patterns
This section is a bit rubbish. Firstly, it "predicts" the 2010 peak, and no-one (including me!) has bothered update it for whatever happened. Secondly, its almost all about "predicting" climate (has it been copied in from elsewhere) not predicting the cycles, so it belongs under the climate heading William M. Connolley (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Cosmic ray claim
Why is the stuff on cosmic rays in there? It doesn't apply to solar variation in any way. Lfstevens (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the question. The sun's magnetic field deflects galactic cosmic rays. Thus, cosmic rays decrease with higher solar actitity. So this is related to solar variation.
- However, if you're just saying that there's too much on this subject for the article -- well, ok, maybe there is, and possibly it should be compressed and put into a single subsection, instead of spread over several.
- --by the way, you changed the term "galactic cosmic rays" to just "cosmic rays" in several places. I'm going to change those back-- the more generic term "cosmic rays" can also refer to solar proton events, which of course increase with solar activity. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)