Misplaced Pages

Talk:Solar variation: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:15, 16 February 2015 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,011 edits Predictions based on patterns: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 16:41, 15 July 2015 edit undoLfstevens (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,396 edits Cosmic ray claim: new sectionNext edit →
Line 47: Line 47:


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) 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)

== Cosmic ray claim ==

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)

Revision as of 16:41, 15 July 2015

WikiProject iconEnvironment NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
NAThis redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 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.
Article policies
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)

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)

Categories: