| Revision as of 14:46, 7 April 2014 edit131.111.23.90 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:23, 8 April 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,120 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Solar variation/Archive 3) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes}} | {{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes}} | ||
| == Activity and variation == | |||
| 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: | |||
| #]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 "]") | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Thanks for your courteous and detailed response. I wonder, though, if both of us are using words the same way. | |||
| ::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. | |||
| ::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. | |||
| ::Some "deniers" are concerned with irradiance, but others are concerned with cosmic rays. Is there a term for changes in solar activity which comprises both ] changes and ] changes? Or does "]" refer only to the former? --] (]) 16:06, 4 February 2012 (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) | |||
| Ed, here is some more thinking on things that vary: | |||
| #]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 | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Abbot's solar variation tool == | |||
| 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) | |||
| == new review paper == | == new review paper == | ||
Revision as of 00:23, 8 April 2014
 | Environment NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 Archives | |||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
new review paper
This is a sort of todo note for me or anyone else that has more time than me. A new review article 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. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
TSI
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
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.
66.127.213.130 (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)dogsinlove
- Which of our graphs are you talking about? File:Carbon14-sunspot-1000px.png? In what way are the two graphs inconsistent? William M. Connolley (talk) 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. 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)
Categories: