Talk:Solar cycle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Question

I also like to answer on this article: what if the core of the sun is spinning around faster than the (liquid) surface of the sun? This would explain why magnetic fields change acc to the surface. Same is happening on the earth, only on earth it goes slower. Idea?

There is already a separate topic called stellar structure where internal star dynamics are talked about...good luck with the math.174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For the rest of us

Forgive me, but Space is not my area of expertise. Does any of this actually affect the average person in a tangible way? I don't mean it as an insult, I'm just wondering if the solar cycle impacts earth's temperature or anything else that doesn't require an astrophysics degree to appreciate. --Anoma lee (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The effects of the solar cycle are subtle enough that they're still being investigated. Most of the effects are not dramatically obvious. Because solar flares are part of the cycle, the possibly more dramatic effects of a flare are indirectly part of the cycle's effects, but only in the way that a hurricane's effects are part of summer. Even so, a flare's effects usually are not visible to the average person; see the article Solar flare for a description of those. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree...the soalr cycle can have direct impact on daily life - if your power goes out or cell phone stops working or plane flight gets canceled due to solar storms.

65.215.33.194 (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)KC

" I'm just wondering if the solar cycle impacts earth's temperature or anything else that doesn't require an astrophysics degree to appreciate."

Concerning the quoted text, maximum and minimum sunspot activity is directly related to global temperature of the period of a few decades. please see Maunder Minimum

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.33.129 (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Significant circumstantial and anecdotal evidence points to a correlation between increased sunspot activity levels and instability in electronics and computer systems. Perhaps someone with the right kind of connections could find some verifiable source to quote on the topic... because my independent research is highly suspect.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml http://correlate.googlelabs.com/search?e=id%3A2qDdrjg-yY9&e=linux+problems&t=weekly&shift=-1

SinbadEV (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge with sunspot cycle?

The top of this page says it is about the "sunspot cycle". So why do we need an article on the sunspot cycle? II | (t - c) 07:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have put a merge tag on that article. --Slashme (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I think everything worth saving in the other article is now here, so we can make that one a redirect to this one, which I will do now. The whole "Jupiter-effect" thing is still a bit fuzzy to me, and I don't think that the references I could find are enough to really give the whole story (although they were from Springer-link so I could only see the abstracts). We really need an expert to sort out what is notable and well sourced for this part of the topic. --Slashme (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: At this point, the sunspot cycle page redirects to the solar cycle article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not supported by reference: solar variation effect on Earth climate

"Solar variation causes changes in space weather and to some degree weather on Earth, and possibly climate change on Earth" Reference: Space Weather: A Research Perspective, National Academy of Science, 1997.

The referenced article only mentions that space weather affects technologies we depend on. If the article does claim anything about the effect of solar radiation on climate, please provide the page number. I did not find it.

On the other hand, this article "Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming" (cited at Solar variation) says that changes in solar variation are too weak to explain climate change.

-Pgan002 (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Solar cycle length and terrestrial temperature (part 2)

I'd like to see more information about scientific observations of any correlation between the length of the solar cycle and observed (or proxy-calculated) atmospheric temperature on the earth.

• The most well-documented connection between solar activity and climate change is the Maunder Minimum. This was a 40-year period when extreme cold weather prevailed in Europe. [1]

• The relationship between cycle length and Earth temperatures is not well understood. Lower-than normal temperatures tend to occur in years when the sunspot cycle is longest, as confirmed by records of the annual duration of sea-ice around Iceland. The cycle will be longest again in the early 2020's. (bold markup added for WP discussion) [2]

Is there a consensus that precludes mention of other views, relating to this topic? Or are we editorially allowed as Wikipedia contributors to mention other (perhaps minority) ideas? If it's the latter, then I wonder if we may write about claims made by some scientists of a connection among sunspots, cosmic rays, and terrestrial temperature. Apparently it is not any variation in the brightness of sunlight (at the source) but rather the role of cosmic rays in such things as cloud formation, seen as affecting how this sunlight actually winds up reaching the earth and warming its atmosphere. Perhaps this has been studied by scientists, and we can summarize the result of this scholarship. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong article? Maybe... see Weart's quote here. Vsmith (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's the right article. It's just that there are two sides to the question. One side is the scientists saying they've found a consistent correlation between solar cycle length and terrestrial temperature, and the other side is those who don't accept it.

My questions are:

1. Is there a consensus about whether there's a demonstrable correlation?
   • And if so, might we not write about this?
   • Or if not, is there enough minority support to merit writing about it anyway?
2. Is there scientific debate about solar cycle length and terrestrial temperature?
   • If so, does Wikipedia cover both sides of scientific debate, only one side, or just ignore such things? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sunspots and terrestrial air temperature

There are 2 factors I've read about as (possibly) related to global warming or cooling:

• Changes in how strong sunlight is, at the source (i.e, solar variation)
• Changes in sunspots (i.e., the well-known 11-year cycle)

I understand that solar variation is not widely considered to be significant, in terms of causing measurable changes in terrestrial air temperature.

However, I've read numerous articles about historical claims by scientists that sunspot number correlates with the temperature of the earth's atmosphere. Fewer sunspots, lower temperature, as during the Maunder Minimum.

I'd like to see more information about this (claimed) correlation, particularly:

• studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals asserting either (1) a correlation or (2) a cause-and-effect mechanism (such as solar wind, cosmic rays, and cloud formation)
• studies acknowledging the correlation but arguing against proposed cause-and-effect mechanisms
• studies denying any significant correlation

Anyone care to help with this? Or anyone think we shouldn't do this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Luminosity and the solar wind

Can we have separate sections or subsections on the roles of changes in sunlight output and changes in the solar wind? I think some of our contributors are confused about the difference, or are inadvertently blurring the distinction.

More sunlight coming from the sun => more sunlight hits the earth => air temp goes up

• But not very much, compared to temp increases due to recent or projected increases in greenhouse gases

More sunspots => more solar wind => fewer cosmic rays striking the Earth's atmosphere [3] => this may affect cloud cover => cloud cover is related to air temperature

• Note this this is not a viewpoint I want to endorse, but merely one which I think should be described, at least briefly, in the article. I haven't the foggiest idea (!) if this hypothesis is true or false, and only a vague idea of whether it's popular or not. My only interest is in who says it makes sense (or doesn't), and the reasons they give. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I agree with your point in the previous section that we should be doing some digging into the peer-reviewed literature. I did some preliminary searching on astro-ph and found a lot of crank papers (including one invoking electric universe!) on this particular subject, so it may take some time to get a handle on it. On your comments in this section, I don't think that the solar wind actually correlates with the solar cycle. Thus, there would be no reason to discuss the the effect of solar wind/cosmic rays on climate in this article at all. I wonder though if it might be useful though to have a separate article on the sun and climate or something close to that? Sailsbystars (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Got a ref for that? (As Vsmith might say.) I don't mean to be rude, but I'm unfamiliar with your climate science credentials. If you're not a scientist or science professor, maybe you could refer me to scientific papers, textbooks, etc., which have weighed in on the solar cycle / earth climate connection (or lack thereof)?

Now my only credentials are that I took physics in high school and college. I think that and $3.50 buys me a cup of coffee at Starbucks, but it might also entitle me to contribute to a Wikipedia article, provided I'm quoting published authors rather than giving my own opinion. Would you like to help me write a balanced and neutral article about the science of the solar cycle and the any effects it may or may not have on terrestial climate, such as cloud formation and atmospheric temperature?

Note: If you think that you can't write without bias, or you don't trust me to write without bias, let's not do it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Solar activity and climate change

• Paula Reimer, a researcher at Queen's University Belfast, said, "Whether solar activity is a dominant influence in these [climate] changes is a subject of intense debate." Sunspot Activity at 8,000-Year High - Robert Roy Britt - 27 October 2004

Was Reimer correct? I mean, was there ever a time when there was intense scientific debate over the things like the 11-year solar cycle and the idea that the number of sunspots or the length of the solar cycle contributes in a significant degree to changes in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere?

If so, I'd like some help contrasting the mainstream view with the minority view - keeping in mind as always that we don't want to give readers the false impression that "fringe" views are more commonly held among scientists than they really are. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_cycle&curid=206555&diff=433309464&oldid=433260291

My understanding is that the the contribution to Earth's climate from the 11-year solar cycle is still up for debate. I have been reading several of the original papers involved in the debate (Svensmark 1998 and the various responses) and it's not at all certain that the 11 year solar cycle is linked to tropospheric temperatures in a meaningful way. I also looked up that thing I mentioned earlier about solar wind. It's clear that the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) counts correlate with the cycle, but Svensmark 1998 cites Svensmark 1997 which simply states that the cause is well-known and fails to elaborate and neither mentions solar wind. So I don't think solar cycle->solar wind->GCRs->climate is the correct chain of events. Solar cycle->x->GCRs->earth climate is the suggested sequence, but I haven't seen a good description of what the intermediate mechanism x is..... Sailsbystars (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The causation is: Increased Solar Activity->Increased Solar Wind (and CME, etc)->Increased (and more convoluted) interplanetary magnetic field->Greater deflection of GCR->Decreased GCR flux reaching the inner solar system->???->Climate. Every solar cycle the entire orientation of the solar dipole field reverses, the solar wind carries that field and its fluctuations throughout the solar system introducing the weak but pervasive interplanetary field. Though weak, it can have a large effect on particles traveling over long distances and at high rates of speed. Dragons flight (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a recent video/article posted on the wall street journal about solar cycles affecting climate change. The title is The Other Climate Theory, and was posted 9/9/2011 8:24:45 PM.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Terrestrial Climate (November 2011)

Edits have been made to the Terrestrial Climate section of this article. This section is added to discuss how to make the section better:

1. One comment in the edit history mentioned "culling" "preliminary" content - we should discuss when a peer reviewed Nature Journal published paper ceases to be "preliminary" and who decides on the culling (I thought NATURE was the gold standard on scientific findings). NASA's SORCE satellite has been providing some great data and over the last couple of years quite a few great papers have been published in NATURE that advance our understanding of solar cycles and the impact of solar cycles on terrestrial climate: it's fresh, it's new, it's relevant, it's peer reviewed to the highest standards (these findinds should be included here)...this is why encyclopaedias release yearbooks - to incorporate new findings. Additionally, work at CERN's CLOUD facility is also covered extensively in multiple other Wikipedia articles and relevant to solar cycles - it should be in here. CERN and NATURE are some of the best references we use here and to label them "preliminary" simply because an editor might not agree with the viewpoint expressed is not very objective and immaterial - the science is the science.
2. Of note, several solar cycle comments in this section are caveated with anthropogenic global warming disclaimers - why is this relevant, necessary, or desirable to level set solar cycles particularly against global warming but not against other forcing mechanisms mentioned in the climate change article of wikipedia? (where solar cycles stand in relation to other forcings should be treated and baselined against other forcings in the main climate change article and then a short link made from this page to the climate change page.) It's clumsy the way it is written right now and makes Wikipedia come across as biased towards one viewpoint. This entry should be about how the solar cycle impacts the terrestrial climate irrespective of how solar cycles stack up against AGW theory or other forcings (I submit that's for other guys to figure out and for us to internally link to - once they figure it out).

Please feel free to comment and let's make it better.174.49.84.214 (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

1.) I made that comment. Peer review alone is not sufficient condition for inclusion in wikipedia. Many new papers are published every day, but "the fact that an analysis appears in print has no correlation with it's likelihood of being correct" (quoth one of Akin's laws of spacecraft design). Nature in particular has a habit of publishing "revolutionary" papers which are then overturned in the next month's issue. (Are you an amateur or professional? If professional you should be well aware of this.....) It's exciting science, but very preliminary science. Thus we shouldn't over-emphasize papers that were just published in the past month, particularly Nature papers that haven't had a chance to be vetted by the community.

The main climate change page makes note of some of these findings from NATURE so they're not preliminary from what I can tell. Should we exclude that science from everywhere on wikipedia and only include the IPCC position (I write that for effect ;-) ). How do we include fresh new science without sacrificing quality and particularly why cull it from here where it belongs but not from the main climate change page?174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2.) Many people have looked for a connection between solar cycles and climate over the past 20 years, and found none or a very weak connection. This is the main, well-established position in the science literature and should be featured most prominently. To include every new study is the science equivalent of WP:Recentism. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

SORCE is answering some of those questions today if not planetwide then from a severe weather front. That whole text is being rewritten from what I can tell. (irrespective of the role of CO2 and AGW - that's something else) Maybe another section labeled Historical connections between global warming theory and solar cycles? and we keep this section strictly about the effect of the solar cycle on the terrestial climate?174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Recentism I don't think applies here. The main climate change page references what was written here as does the CLOUD and Cosmic ray articles so we really can't delete from here on those grounds - unless we rewrite the other pages. Fair? 174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A few other thoughts. Your contention here is that the prevailing thinking is that for the last 20 years research has been done on climate change and the solar cycle and found a weak connection with very recent global warming (I won't dispute that). However, if we look at the solar variation page, we start to see the longer term perspective here and we see a very strong correlation between temperature and solar cycles in the slightly longer term. Are you suggesting that this section on terrestrial climate should be only for the very short term? Because there appears to be broader implications between solar cycles (solar activity) and terrestrial climate that go well beyond the very recent history. How do we reconcile the long term solar variation page (solar cycle) contents with short term global warming impacts presented here? Right now, I think it's grossly unfair and irresponsible to marginalize so severely the longer term impacts of the solar cycle on the terrestrial climate for the sake of short term AGW theory (correct as it might be in the short term). The reader is left thinking that solar cycles are a non-issue and that's just not the case. Do we put a reference in this section to the longer term impacts seen in solar variation? and narrow the scope of this to only short term climate impacts with clear labeling. I'm just thinking out loud here but from what I'm reading in the other wikipedia pages, I cannot agree with what is written here that the correlation between solar cycle and terrestrial climate is weak (that analysis is misquoted in that it only looks at the very short term) ... but I can accept that in the very recent history there is a divergence between solar cycle and terrestrial climate correlation. - how is it best to lay this out? 174.49.84.214 (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thinking more about this, I'm more convinced that this section should not be about solar cycle vs AGW theory - that is not the predominant message. It should be about the solar cycle's impacts on the terrestrial climate (period). If there is a divergence in recent history between the solar cycle and temperature, we can note it (which I think there is and we can) but it's not the predominant takeaway. The predominant takeaway is that the solar cycle affects climate and weather. From there, I think it's ok to link to the climate change page to get a broader perspective on volcanism, plate tectonics, and AGW but to have the debate discretely in this page about solar cycle vs AGW is confusing and out of place regardless of the evolution of global warming theory (which is fascinating in and of itself and merits discussion in that page).174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, recent research at CERN's CLOUD facility links cosmic rays to cloud formation

This needs rework. The source for that is [4] which says "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I added the word "may" before link to make the tentative link clearer. The title of the article in Nature is "Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays" hence the reference and the disclaimer is added. I then linked internally to the climate change section of cosmic rays which gives the reader more if they desire to follow that line of thinking. Agree that more research is needed and glad that the work was finally done. We good?174.49.84.214 (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it will need more. Would a reader of our current text understand that it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

But that is what the experiment is about William -- that is the title of the news release, "Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays." Saying that the experiment was conducted in some vacuum chamber and that the word "cloud" and "climate" was not used in the technical writeup is immaterial and dilatory to the main point that the science shows -- it's just being a philosophical word mechanic after the fact. When Nature interpreted the science they chose, "Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays." and the CERN scientists did not object to that statement. So I think that the statement is quite clear and sufficient additional links to CERN, Climate Change, Cosmic Ray, Nature News, and the Nature article itself are provided that everyone from gradeschool children to seasoned scientists can chase the details from the writeup as it is. I'm all for being clearer but if our goal is simply to be dilatory, I will object.174.49.84.214 (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know you; we are not on first name terms. The statement I quote is from the researchers themselves; we should not be mislead by headlines William M. Connolley (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to know you to write on Wiki and I don't need your approval either (respectfully William). The name of the facility is CLOUD Why do you think that is the case? The researchers have not objected to the headlines or descriptions. I provided a link to that facility described on Wiki which describes the science being done there. I provided a link to the actual research and to the Nature news release who categorized the research as, "Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays." I provided a link to the climate change thinking on the Cosmic Ray page of wikipedia. <redacted, comment on content - not other users> I think the statements, references, and links stand for themselves. The science is the science, wherever it takes us. I have been respectful of AGW theory (which I support). Wikipedia is here to make the information available and to make it reachable to the masses. To remove these findings for political reasons is contrary what this publication is. This research is also available on the main Climate Change Page, the cosmic ray page, and at the CLOUD page, I've linked them. If you have a suggestion for a rewrite that makes it better - without marginalizing the work, please post it here and we can discuss.174.49.84.214 (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of collaborating William, I've added another reference, this one directly from CERN titled, "CERN’s CLOUD experiment provides unprecedented insight into cloud formation." This reference has video to the scientists themselves describing what is going on inside CLOUD and putting to rest that this experiment is about clouds, climate, cosmic rays and about the solar cycle because of other science that I know you are aware of.[5]. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(Anon gripes and personal attack removed ... discuss the content, not other users) Vsmith (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why Italicize?

Apologies in advance if I mess up this page. I hope not. I have only infrequently noted things over the years.

I do not understand why italicize : although . . .climate "Recent research at CERN's CLOUD facility examines links between cosmic rays and cloud condensation nuclei, although it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate." In one way of thinking, it is patronizing. In another way of thinking, it is agenda driven, like it is trying to protect a point of view (Please do not draw the conclusion that cosmic rays might cause clouds, as it will break my pet theory). I do not think it too unreasonable to write something non italicized to the effect: "Note, the paper does not attempt to demonstrate a causative correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation." Though even that is pedantry. My preference would be to leave it out. I would think an encyclopedia would orient towards a clear statement of facts. Wading into warnings about how to interpret structurally sound factual statements should not be a part of the encyclopedia. For instance, given the italicized comment above, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to continue: However, cloud forming nuclei are necessary for the formation of clouds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_physics) Somehow, I think whoever did the italicizing might not like that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.78.225 (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a quote William M. Connolley (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Acccording to Wikipedia Italics, italics are used for emphasis not to discern quotes. This is a misuse of the tool. The lay reader will interpret the italicized words as emphasis. Proper quotation marks should be used if the actual article is being cited directly.174.49.84.214 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC).

It's also an incomplete quote or misquote, Jasper Kirby said, "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step." We should cite it correctly and completely if we're going to cite it and we should attribute it to the author since it is a direct quote.174.49.84.214 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree 71.116.78.225. The way it is written this appears to be agenda driven and a misquote. I called it defacement (perhaps strongly) and I complained about this and asked for editorial help from Wikipedia and I was frustrated (for which I have apologized). Another editor Vsmith reinstated William M. Connolley's remarks although it is clearly a violation of direct quotations rules as well as reading very biased. Now William M. Connolley has proposed removing this entire section and "incorporating" it into Solar Variation. Sad.174.49.84.214 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a misquote. It is a direct accurate quote. Nor, obviously, is it a defacement. Nor did Vsmith reinstate my remarks, because they weren't my remarks, they were a quote. It isn't a quote of a complete sentence, which is not a problem, because there is no requirement for that. Making it a quote of a full sentence would not make it a complete quote, but would not be a problem. As for the italics, you may feel free to fix them (note a minor technicality: you have quoted the article page about italics, not the MOS page Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotations, though as it happens they say the same thing) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The way it is written, it does not adhere to normal citation rules because 1) the quote is not in quotations 2) the author of the quote is not named and 3) the quote is out of context. My college professor would call it plagiarism, clearly misquote and as 71.116.78.225 notes it is inapropriately putting emphasis on a partial statement. Not including the full statement from Dr. Kirby is misquoting him. He is clearly expressing the promise of the link between clouds and climate and acknowledges the early state of the science. Please read the rewrite. Happy if you wordsmith it to make it clearer. Please don't move the entire section to SV, I object as noted above.174.49.84.214 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Further, I don't think the quote is necessary. It detracts from the article section and flow and think it should be removed but if you insist on keeping it William M. Connolley, at a very minimum we should quote Kirby correctly. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

One page to rule them all

Material on climate-related stuff is uncomfortably split / duplicated between here and solar variation and Solar_constant#Variation. I'd like to move the climate stuff to SV, mostly William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The Solar Variation page is a much broader topic. This article is discretely about the solar cycle and the effects of the solar cycle. The section on terrestrial climate in the solar cycle pages appropriate exists here to cover the terrestrial climate impacts. Agree that there is quite a bit of overlap but the solar cycle merits its own page and the terrestrial climate impacts of the solar cycles should also be kept here. Also deeply concerned at the elements that might be dropped out in the transition.174.49.84.214 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought you'd stormed off in a huff? If you want to talk (or rather, if you want to be listened to), you'll need to be polite William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The solar cycle is linked to the terrestrial climate. SV impacts on climate are very broad and very long term. Removing terrestrial climate from here will give the impression that the solar cycle has no impact on the terrestrial climate - which is a gross omission. Logically, the section should stay and some elements brought in from SV to supplement. I'm ok with showing divergence in the recent term and attributing that divergence as evidence of global warming (and linking to that section) but object to this becoming an AGW section or to it being erased entirely. Much very good sciene going on in this field that should not be marginalized.174.49.84.214 (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

From looking at the solar constant page and other pages' edit history, it appears that William M. Connolley came through about a year ago and dumpted a ton of ProAGW content into each of the discrete pages. Now he purports to want to clean up the mess that he created by folding all the topics under one. I disagree with his approach. We should:

1. Solar Constant: Remove his ProAGW 23,000 bytes of ProAGW content that William M. Connolley added to the Variation section from the Solar Constant Article and be discrete about Solar Constant labeling it an old deprecated theory and point the reader to solar variation. Variation does not make sense in the Solar Constant Page other than to say that the theory has been replaced with Solar Variation
2. Solar Variation: We should clean up the ProAGW stuff out of the Solar Variation Page because solar variation is too broad a topic for any AGW stuff which is short term, Maybe link a relevant small section from there to Solar Cycle which are already linked via a main
3. Solar Cycle: We might want to bring some ProAGW stuff from the Solar Variation page to the solar cycle under the banner of a special AGW section section and link the reader to either the main climate change page or the global warming page.

Overall, I'm agast at how these pages have been masacred and mangled and how no editors have risen to resist this gross invasion. Connolley create this monster and now he rides on a horse painted white purporting to want to clean this up.174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Terrestrial Climate

William M. Connolley simply deleted the short term terrestrial impacts because he felt like doing so and didn't incorporate into solar variation. This is about short term impacts to the climate due to the solar cycle and correctly this content belongs here not in the longer term solar variation page. It has been restored by me. William M. Connolley, please discuss before defacing through deletion. The solar variation climate content is largely out of place, very poorly written, poorly organized, and just dumped there by William M. Connolley from Solar Constant. William M. Connolley is not the decider. We all decide on Wikipedia. The citations are correct and are strong. Please do not delete this section without substantial discussion. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to make more sense to put the material about temperature variation correlated with the solar cycle into this article, and climate variation correlated with longer term solar variation into the solar variation article (which is now listed as "see main"). In fact, the current version of the article is exactly opposite- the short-term correlation of temperature with solar cycle was removed, but a discussion of the long term variation was left in.

I do find it disconcerting that a large block of text was simply deleted and not put into the solar variation article. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

--OK, I added back a little bit of overview material and a reference to a paper on temperature variation correlated with the 11-year solar cycle; and cut down the discussion of the longer-term variation slightly. As rewritten, it is still a lot shorter than the original material that was deleted, but I think it is now much more directly relevant to the solar cycle article. The rest of the deleted material I moved to the solar variation article. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Geoffrey.landis. My faith is partially restored in the community. I like where your writeup is going and agree there is a place for short term terrestrial climate impacts caused by solar cycles in this page.174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There were thirteen(13) very solid citations in a well crafted section on the short term impacts of the solar cycle on the terrestrial climate that William M. Connolley and his climate Cabal removed from this page today. In its place now stands a watered down ProAGW section with 5 dated and much weaker citations - some dated and misatributed and any attempt to correct the citations is reverted. This is global warming revisionism in a page about physics - why? What has been done here today is deplorable. This is why serious people don't contribute and why authorship is down.174.49.84.214 (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the section that William M. Connolley excised from Terrestrial Climate. He and his cabal resisted and reverted any attempt to change and they never came to the talk section here to discuss. They just did what they wanted and walked away with their chains and baseball bats like thugs. Yes, its that sad that they weren't willing to collaborate on what it should look like.

Data collected from older U.S. and European spacecraft previously showed that the solar luminosity is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of solar maximum, at peak sunspot activity, than during solar minimum, when spots were rare. This radiative forcing correlates with a variation of ±0.1°K in measured global temperature. Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s.

On the other hand, an analysis of data from NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment challenged the idea that decreasing solar activity cools the Earth, and vice versa. Solar activity seems to work the opposite way around: less visible light reaches the Earth's surface during the Solar maxima than during the minima. This is caused by redistribution of the Solar energy during the maxima from the visible light, which actually heats the surface and the troposphere, to the ultraviolet light, which is absorbed high above the ground in the stratosphere. The research also found that the Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over the period of the declining solar cycle from 2004 to 2007.

Recent research suggests that there may also be regional climate impacts due to the solar cycle. Measurements from the Spectral Irradiance Monitor on NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment show that solar UV output is more variable over the course of the solar cycle than scientists had previously thought. Climate models taking this information into account suggest these changes may result in, for example, colder winters in the US and southern Europe and warmer winters in Canada and northern Europe during solar minima.

Recent research at CERN's CLOUD facility examines links between cosmic rays and cloud condensation nuclei. Dr. Jasper Kirby, an experimental particle physicist currently with CERN and a team leader at CLOUD said, "At the moment, it [the experiment] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step." During periods of high solar activity (during a solar maxima), the Sun's magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity (during solar minima), more cosmic rays reach Earth, potentially creating ultra-small aerosol particles which are precursors to cloud condensation nuclei.

More broadly, links have been found between solar cycles, global climate and events like El Nino, and a study indicates that heat caused by El Nino has a temporal correlation with civil wars. In other research, Daniel J. Hancock and Douglas N. Yarger found "statistically significant relationships between the double [~21 year] sunspot cycle and the 'January thaw' phenomenon along the East Coast and between the double sunspot cycle and 'drought' (June temperature and precipitation) in the Midwest."

One well-documented correlation between solar activity and climate change is the Maunder minimum, which occurred at the same time as the Little Ice Age period during which cold weather prevailed in Europe. Research had suggested that a new 90-year Maunder minimum would result in a reduction of global average temperatures of about 0.3°C, which would not be enough to offset the ongoing and forecasted average global temperature increase due to global warming.

I though I had pretty pretty much all the useful content from [this version] into either this article or to the solar variation article. It's true that the section here is now very short (3 sentences), but it does direct the reader to the solar variation article both at the beginning and at the end. 04:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

nothing from this content has been incorporated into solar variation. William M. Connolley merely excised it from here and dumped it into the talk section. In the process he added a very weak stubb here forcing people like you to come in and do a bunch of editng. We went from 13 citatations to now 5. Further, what is in solar variation that William M. Connolley dumped there from Solar Constant is largely a proagw rant extremely poorly written filled with misquotes and misatributions but no editor from anywhere challenges him on it. This section here merits a substantial section on the effects of short term solar cycles on the climate. I appreciate what you've done. At least it's not a blatant proAGW stubb anymore but still Wikicrimes have been committed here.174.49.84.214 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the Haig based intro btw. It is balanced and she's substantial. In the Climate variation ProAGW section her words are misatributed though.174.49.84.214 (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the climate material in Solar variation is bit more of a data dump than a clearly-written essay. It could use some rewriting to improve the clarity and eliminate some infelicitous language, and right now it rather jumps from paper to paper in some cases without clear chronological order. But I'm not sure I have time to think out a logical organization right now-- I may just add it to my "when I get time" list.

Optimally it should be neither pro- nor anti- AGW, but instead a source of background information that the advocates on both sides can refer to in order to ground their arguments against what has already been done. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree and I like your approach and I thank you for your balanced perspective. Further, I would prefer this little AGW war to not creep into every article on Wikipedia (that's a large part of my frustration here) We don't need to caveat every sentence with an AGW component - it really makes Wikipedia come off as biased. New satellites and new research is shedding light and growing our knowledge base on solar cycles and that research merits unfettered representation. I say let the facts be the facts and let others go fight their wars (and let the best theory win in the end). We have plenty of great articles that tackle climate change. I say point them to those where it makes sense and let those experts have their arguments. Again, thank you much for helping to keep this balanced.174.49.84.214 (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

LOSU

If you've found a more recent reference that has changed the LOSU (level of scientific understanding) on a finding, it is your responsibility to also update the reference link not just change the LOSU in the text and leave the old citation. Please be professional and don't just undo somebody's edit based on the reference there without doing the cleanup. I checked the reference and the chart still says Very Low. Please update the reference and update the entry and make a note. And if possible, make an entry in the talk like I just did. BTW, TAR is scattered throughout multiple articles on here and LOSU is wrong on those as well, would you help KimDabbleStein? 174.49.84.214 (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I gave the reference - and if you had bothered to read the ref to the section in the AR4 that is already given in the paragraph - you'd have found the same. I'm sorry - but i don't find the talk-page here constructive, with all the personal attacks and other insinuations flying around. So i'm avoiding it. You've broken WP:3RR - so i suggest that you self-revert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I did follow the links in the reference. The links take me to a chart with a VL LOSU. There are other links and none of them take me to your reference. The reference link should go directly to the citation for a L LOSU otherwise the researcher will be confused. I'm happy to accept the change, but we have to clean up the references to TAR and we have to not point the user to the entire AR4 working paper.174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here, i've cut out the relevant column and bolded the low:

Solar irradiance

B

3

Low

Measurements over last 25 years; proxy indicators of solar activity Relationship between proxy data and total solar irradiance; indirect ozone effects Range from available reconstructions of solar irradiance and their qualitative assessment

Here btw. is the text from AR4 that is cited in the section - which says the same thing:

The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002).

The thing with very low certainty is cosmic rays - which isn't a factor in the text that we quote. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Insisting on using "very low" because it was like that in 2001 is quite unreasonable; edit warring to breaking 3RR to force your wording in is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The statement "but the level of understanding of solar impacts is very low" isn't referenced, and isn't (as far as I can see) in the AR4. Since that sentence starts with "The current scientific consensus is..." I don't think we should be relying on a 2001 document. So I think the entire statement should just go William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE THE REFERENCE!! That's my point! Look at your reference 26. It clearly shows us a graphic indicating that the LOSU is VERY LOW. Remove that reference and include your good reference.174.49.84.214 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Do please read WP:POINT. Disrupting Wikipedia (by edit-warring) to make a point is not acceptable. Update the reference yourself, instead of editwarring is the correct thing to do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You should definitely keep the LOSU statement otherwise the reader will think you're dealing in absolutes, which we are not. The reader deserves to know the LOSU.174.49.84.214 (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't LazyPedia or MyOpinionPedia, this is Wikipedia --- you have to update the citations and you have to make full citations and you can't point the reader to a book as a reference. And your readers are not necessarily experts so we have to be clear. Clean it up that's all I'm saying with this one174.49.84.214 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but WP:POINT stands. And you've admitted in both text here, and in your edit-comments that you deliberately reverted to a wrong version. If you want this small point cited, then you can insert a or put in the citation. Editwarring to preserve something that is wrong, to make a point - simply isn't in the cards. And i suggest that you find a more civil tone, since you've been well beyond what is acceptable on wikipedia several times. (see WP:NPA for a good overview). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Scope of the article

• The solar cycle, or the solar magnetic activity cycle, is a periodic change in the amount of irradiation from the Sun that is experienced on Earth.

Hey, is this about what the sun does (up there), or how it affects us (down here)? I'd like to have a more general article, which talks about natural variations on the Sun. Once we understand the Sun (i.e., have read about what happens with it up there), we can turn our attention to what it sends out: to other planets as well as the big blue marble.

This will also help clarify any disputes over whether solar variability affects terrestrial climate. By the way, is the general scientific usage of "solar variation" really limited to changes in solar radiation? If so, is there a term for changes in the solar wind, or better yet, a term which encompasses both meanings?

Not for nothing, but if the page is going to be locked for more than a few hours, we may as well talk about terminology. I just created a List of articles related to the Sun. Check out the redirects. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The most visible feature of the solar cycle is sunspots. The variation in the amount of solar radiation ("TSI"- total solar irradiance") is actually quite small. So I'd say that it is misleading-- in fact, incorrect-- to say that the solar cycle is "a periodic change in the amount of irradiation from the Sun". And, while it's true that it is "experienced on Earth," it's also experienced everywhere in the solar system, not just Earth. Mostly, it's "experienced" on the surface of the sun. So, yes: this introductory sentence is not accurate; it confuses a small portion of the solar cycle with the whole thing. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so let's change it. If TSI varies by a small amount, let's say what that amount is. Is it so small that historically it's been called "the solar constant"?

The article already has a section 3.2 Solar irradiance that goes into detail about this. The answer is, intensity varies by about one part in a thousand.

If sunspot variations correlate with (or cause?) changes in the solar wind, then maybe that should be mentioned, too. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sunspot variations definitely don't cause the solar wind. I think that the discussion of solar wind must refer to coronal mass ejections. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, sorry if I was unclear, but at times of high sunspot activity the solar wind pushes out a magnetic field that tends to shield the Earth from the cosmic rays that rain down from the universe beyond. [6]

• Solar wind, according to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, consists of magnetized plasma flares and in some cases is linked to sunspots. [7]

When they say "plasma flares" are they referring to coronal mass ejections? And when they say "linked to" do they mean "linked causally", as in A causes B or as in C causes both A and B? --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Full protectionUnprotected

This page has been fully protected for a period of a month. A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. The protection may be extended in case the edit warring continues once the block is lifted. The protection may also be reduced if talk page discussions seem conducive to the same. Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on this talk page. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. Editors are advised to discuss all relevant issues before requesting modifications. In case issues have been sorted out, a request for unprotection can be given at this forum. Please contact me directly for any administrative support. Wifione ^Message 22:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Which quite frankly doesn't make sense, since both editors are blocked now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been an unusually high amount of editing and reverts on this page recently, and, from the history logs, it looks like it was kicked off following my edits of 30 January. However, it's worth noting that all of the controversy has been on a single subsection of the article, 3.7.3 Terrestrial climate, which comprises an extremely small part of the overall article. It seems a bit overkill to edit-protect the full article, when only a very small portion is controversial. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Geoffrey Landis. I along with William M. Connolley were the offenders and I personally apologize to the serious people on here trying to make changes to the article. The Terrestrial Climate is the only section that should remain locked and I do think it should be locked. Further it would be good if we could actually collaborate on the talk page. That's what started all of this. Some contributors plain refused to come and talk about their changes and collaborate and of course warring brought the heavy hand down. Let's take the time now to fix Terrestrial impacts here. I'll start up the section in a clean start and let's edit it and we can promote the finished product after the lock expires. The rest of the article should probably be unlocked. Also, the Solar Variation climate change section should probably also be locked as the war will likely go there next. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Single section edits can come up only from the toolserver, not through admin actions. So request not accepted. I see discussions getting on. In good faith, I'm unprotecting the article. I'm watching the page. As this page has already undergone a recent protection cycle, please take care to stop at 2RR than reach even the third revert. Blocks will be made if another edit war erupts. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 05:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"very low" => "low"

Can we please get consensus for inserting the following citation after "low" and removing "very":

Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland (2007), "2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing", in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007 (ed.), Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |separator= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (link)

The relevant column from the table is clear (my bolding):

Solar irradiance

B

3

Low

Measurements over last 25 years; proxy indicators of solar activity Relationship between proxy data and total solar irradiance; indirect ozone effects Range from available reconstructions of solar irradiance and their qualitative assessment

So there really shouldn't be any objections? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks like the ref I failed to find in my comments above William M. Connolley (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for this being put into the article with the edit-protect template - so if there are any objections, i'd like to hear them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no objections from here on this change. I'm glad we are updating the article with the latest information and updating the citation 174.49.84.214 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, someone went in and updated the LOSU to "low" but did not update the reference citation from above. The article is incorrect. If you want it to be low, you need to update the citation. This is just lazy work from contributors. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Now it's right! Thank you William M. Connolley! 174.49.84.214 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As a gesture of goodwill, I will go to SV and make the change that's needed in that page so that it also reads "low" not "very low" and I'll update the citation. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Cycle 24 update

http://www.sydneyobservatory.com.au/2012/harry-is-disappointed-that-recent-sunspot-group-ar11598-was-only-a-modest-achiever/ Maximum appears as minimum http://www.sydneyobservatory.com.au/2011/harry-reports-on-the-latest-exciting-development-on-the-sun-the-disappearance-of-the-magnetic-hole-at-its-north-pole/ ---During old SC 23 activity in the two hemispheres was out of 'sync' by TWO YEARS --and this still seems to be the case. 68.188.203.251 (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have looked all over and this out-of-sync solar magnetic reversal seems to the best secret on the web. NASA: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/22apr_currentsheet/ even tho I have consistently posted this solitary reference from NASA. I at least expected to have more from this here, including an update --monthly would not be expecting too much---on the current status of the solar magnetic reversal. Clearly the radiation from the unusual shape of the current sheath is affecting Earth. 68.188.203.251 (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Terrestrial climate

I would nominate that Geoffrey Landis to write or take a heavy hand to this section. He's a PHD Physicist from NASA and is versed on the latest. He has the knowledge and is very balanced with respect to AGW and NonAGW factors. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the vote of confidence! I do have to point out that my time availability is somewhat limited, though, so I'm probably not the best person to do a rewrite. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence needs help. The beginning of the sentence says there is scientific consensus. However, the sentence ends with the statement that there is limited knowledge. Consensus should have more than limited knowledge - I would hope( but doubt). I understand Geoffrey's reluctance to step into this mess. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.186.53 (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Solar cycle prediction

There is a graph called "solar cycle prediction" near the start of the article. There is a background image in that graph of the sun. There are several problems with this. Firstly, the image makes the graph harder to see. Secondly, the image seems to have no relevance, as the graph data are for sunspots and the image does not show this. Thirdly, the image is not explained in the caption. And then there is no reference either. Thus, I would recommend that for an encyclopaedic article, that a more suitable, scientific graph is found to explain this concept, rather than using this glossy promotional one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.170.27 (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Another user reverted my addition of a new model for the solar cycle without discussion. I think this is inappropriate. If the new stuff was too prominent, it could have been edited to correct the problem. I don't edit war, so I bring the discussion to the talk page instead. I had signaled my intention to make this change with my reorg proposal above, to which the other editor made no reply. Comments again welcomed. Lfstevens (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Twas I. If you want to add a models section, then fine, but don't start it with just one model which happens to be the newest model and which makes controversial and unverified predictions; that's just too unrepresentative William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...I didn't include any predictions. The material I did use was factual and refed. Do you have a ref for other models? As you can see I'm doing a major reorg of this and related material. I'd be happy to include something on other models. I didn't see it anywhere in the articles I'm working on. Lfstevens (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent "maximum":

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/aug/07/new-sunspot-analysis-shows-rising-global-temperatures-not-linked-to-solar-activity says

A recalibration of data describing the number of sunspots and groups of sunspots on the surface of the Sun shows that there is no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, contrary to what was previously thought

and so on William M. Connolley (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Cut-n-paste

The article currently contains (literally) "The current solar cycle began on January 4, 2008, with minimal activity until early 2010.[3][4] " - ie the [3[[4] aren't refs, they're just brackets. Presumably copied from somewhere else William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Was copied from Solar cycle 24, fixed the refs for the "brackets" as in that article. Vsmith (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Page=211101

Does this article reference really have a page=211101?

References

Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Need an updated "400 410? years of sunspot observations" graph

That graph is now ten years old. It's missing Solar Cycle 24, entirely. It really needs to be updated! Does anyone have a newer version? NCdave (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and made an updated version of the graph, showing sunspot numbers through Oct., 2015. I.e., I added another decade to the graph.

I started with the previous version which was uploaded in 2006. I pasted a properly-scaled version of http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-sunspot-number.gif (last updated 2015-11-09) onto the end of the graph, to bring it up to date. The colors don't match (the new part is more purple than blue), and I didn't extend the black smoothed trend line, but at least it doesn't omit Solar Cycle 24 anymore.

I didn't bother to change the caption -- it still says "400 years" even though it is obviously slightly longer than that, now.

Strangely, the shrunk version in the article is still the old version. It doesn't show the additional decade. Will it get updated automatically, eventually, or do I need to do something else? NCdave (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that the shrunk version in the article eventually updated to show the additional decade. NCdave (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Solar cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111104044901/http://press.web.cern.ch:80/press/pressreleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html to http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070713180212/http://sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov:80/smex/trace/mission/trace.htm to http://sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov/smex/trace/mission/trace.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:31, 28 February 2016

--- wanted to check you but couldn't find where in the Solar Cyclepage you made these changes. What's the plain-text that these URLs are linked to? Spencer Weart (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)(UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solar cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.acrim.comtotal/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150815202558/http://www.utdallas.edu:80/physics/ to http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure

"Both long-term and short-term variations in solar activity are hypothesized to affect global climate, but it has proven extremely challenging to quantify the link between solar variation and climate.[67] Early research attempted to correlate weather with limited success,[68]"

Completely ignoring Professor Piers Corbyn's data and work. Nice going shills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.246.11 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

He's not "Professor" Piers Corbyn. He's Mr Piers Corbyn. And his work is neither published nor reviewed, so doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion on a scientific page. Heliophysics (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "double" and "exponential" dynamo sections

I suggest removal of the "Double dynamo" section. The work has been heavily criticised as it disagrees with all known reconstructions of past solar activity (e.g., https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.05516.pdf). At present, the text also contains the error of equating the Maunder minimum (low sunspots) with the Little Ice Age (low temperature), despite the fact the LIA started ~100 years before the MM.

Similarly, the "exponential dynamo" work is a single controversial paper, compared with the 100s for the standard dynamo model. (Also, the reference is incorrect, as Ilya Usoskin was not an author.)

Having sections on these highly controversial works give them equal weighting in the reader's eyes with the far more established "standard" dynamo work. If these fringe works really need referencing, it should be from the linked dynamo pages, not here. Heliophysics (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The normal Wikipedia approach for content that satisfies the notability criteria is to include the criticism, not to suppress the information. Praemonitus (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with removal of this material. There are lots of speculative papers out there, and I would be surprised if these, per se, rise to the level of "significant". Charles Perry is not a solar physicist, for example. A double dynamo, consisting of two independent dynamos, is nonsense if the the dynamics are nonlinear. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree criticism is important and Wiki obviously does not seek to suppress info. But it does seek to curate the important info. And as Isambard points out, there is a plentiful source of alternative theories; the two listed do not rise above the others in terms of rigour. (Indeed, the "double dynamo", at least in the incarnation cited in the removed text, has been thoroughly debunked. Have a look at the Usoskin "comment" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.05516.pdf. It's short and makes the case quite strongly.) Heliophysics (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)