Talk:Solar variation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New source

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

Sure ... one day maybe the climate folks will remember that solar energy really accumulates in self-constructed carbon based life. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)^{[Inappropriate under WP:TPG - ZP5 received complaint by KDP [1].]}

Color me befuddled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Graph C14 against measured Sunspots

The graph is cruely wrong because of false transformation of the original BP-scale. Consequently the lag is of course NOT 60 years. I hope that the author, Leland McInnes, is able to correct this and will soon bring us a corrected version. HJJHolm (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the pix for the moment. Of course, if you're right, they would need to be removed. But could you perhaps lay out your concerns in a little more detail? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For example, you removed File:Carbon-14-10kyr-Hallstadtzeit Cycles.png. This says it is the work of the US govt and I have no reason to think otherwise. Are you saying that it is wrong? If so, why should we believe you? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Look at the image talk page. It seems to be the case that the upper scale interpreted times "BP" as times "before present" without being aware that "present" in C14 dating is 1950. That leads to most of the 60 year offset (which indeed would be hard to explain physically). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing? [[2]] says "This file does NOT REPRESENT the source given, where on page 378 the scale only reaches to 7000 BP." but http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf shows 10kyr. Also, on that pic at least I think you'd be hard pressed to see a 50 year displacement William M. Connolley (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha! No, I talked about File:Carbon14-sunspot.svg. I think HJJHolm talks about the same. I don't know if there is a mixup or a separate problem with File:Carbon-14-10kyr-Hallstadtzeit Cycles.png. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that makes more sense. So the labels need to be redone, I think William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've "solved" this problem (not having a SVG editor) by just rubbing out the scale taht was wrong. Is that OK? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

New SVG image available at File:Carbon14-sunspot.svg if you want it. -Atmoz (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah well done, thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained rise since 1980

You HAVE to read this, there's a good explanation of why such a trend since 1980 : "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?" : http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf --GRAND OUTCAST (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, we do not have to read it. But several of us are well-acquainted with the document. It's old crap, written by a weather presenter and published by a political outfit. It's been refuted several times. -Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

trash talk is no substitute for reasoned discussion is rather ironically self-describing. This change is clearly contentious (and in my view as well, wrong). Please gain consensus for it before re-reverting William M. Connolley (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor is this [3] acceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Geophysical cooling...

I've reverted this edit for a number of reasons. First, it's not relevant for solar variation. Secondly, the temperature of the Earth core is very nearly irrelevant for the temperature on the surface, since heat flow is minimal. Changes in core temperature are certainly irrelevant for human time scales. Really long time scales are beyond the scope of this article, but temperature will certainly go up due to stellar evolution before it goes down (if the Earth still exists at that time). Thirdly, the simplistic model of core cooling "after each volcano eruption" is at least misleading, as the core is still actively heated by radioactive decay. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Engulfment

I've reverted the edit because the long-long-long-term secular change in the sun is really outside the scope of this article, and because even the two sentences contained errors of both grammar and fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course disagree about the scope issue, because the article requires a NPOV. Apologies about the grammar, which issues of fact in the two sentences bother you? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• The long term solar life cycle trend expects that the sun will engulf the earth, as the sun becomes a red giant due to losing mass. The sun is gradually becoming more luminescent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Who knows (talk • contribs) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Stephan. Ultra long term changes belong in astrophysics articles, and probably already are, but more comptently William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The trend expects nothing, it is. If the sun will "engulf" the earth is an open question. And while the sun will become a red giant, it will not do so due to losing mass, but due to running out of Hydrogen in the core. Mass loss is incidental, not causal. This article deals with short term solar variations - measurable directly or per proxy, over a few thousand years. Neither the faint young sun paradox nor stellar evolution in general are relevant for it. Why do you think this has anything to do with NPOV? This is no more POV than excluding properties of reals from an article on integers... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead says "Solar variation refers here to changes in the amount of total solar radiation and its spectral distribution." this is relevant to the long term trend and the long term gradual changes in the sun are relevant to this article. NPOV means we must include all views on solar variations both short and long term. I'll look into your concerns and the sources and propose something new. thanks for your help in improving this addition. Including "comptently" or competently. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Note the suspicious absence of the words "all" and "for all eternity" from that sentence. Compare Hammer, which does not discuss boxing gloves, guns, axes, or political programs, all arguably "tools to deliver an impact to an object". The term "solar variation", as described in our article and generally used, simply does not include the effects due to the long-term evolution of the sun. If you think otherwise, find a reliable source. The sun will go red giant in a few billion years. The longest time frame in the article is on the order of 10000 years. That's a difference of scale of 10 million. In other words, its about comparable to a demand that our article on Earth should discuss every garbage can in Central Park. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be an idea to have a couple of words in the opening sentence to make it clear what time frame the article is describing. It goes onto talk about "recent satellite observations", etc., but some sort of statement along the lines "... within the last million years" or something might make this clearer. I do agree though - we absolutely do not want confuse things here with mentions of stellar evolution and geological time periods. --PLUMBAGO 09:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, I checked the source [4], the time range that was studied does include the time range supposedly covered by this article. In addition, the Introduction specifically describes the relevance beyond your's (and WMC's) original research that would obstruct inclusion here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but that source is not about solar variation. In fact, the term does not appear in the paper at all. The paper is primarily about modeling the distant future and the effect of solar mass loss on the orbit of the Earth - in particular the question if the Earth will recede fast enough to avoid being swallowed by the suns atmosphere (and coming to the result that no, that is unlikely). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The source is about the sun's variation. Variation: 1 a : the act or process of varying : the state or fact of being varied b : an instance of varying c : the extent to which or the range in which a thing varies. Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. Again, the paper meets the article's scope for: "Solar variation refers here to changes in the amount of total solar radiation and its spectral distribution." . First OR, then a semantic distraction. Why such a fuss over two harmless sentences from a relevant source about the sun and the earth for this article? Would you suggest creating an article on the Sun's Evolution and the impact on the earth? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the proposed edit would make the encyclopedia worse by mixing up essentially unrelated topics, giving the wrong impression that solar variation, as commonly used, has anything to do with stellar evolution. I'm not aware of any original research I tried to insert into the article, however, what you do above is a classical case of WP:SYN, and using both bad and unnamed sources, at that. If you want to do some better OR, take a look at Google Scholar. None of the hits on the first two pages is about the sun going red giant in some 5 billion years. In fact, Google Scholar only finds 6 hits mentioning the two terms in the same publication, and none of those claims that going into the red giant phase is an instance of "solar variation" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I know - why don't we just have one really big really long article that is about everything William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Stephan's Steven's concerns about WP:SYN; however please have some faith, there are other articles specifically on "solar variation" which discuss the "solar evolution" so the combined context can be sourced. Nor was the text intended to be be a synthesis of original conclusions. (WMC's sarcasm isn't appreciated). I suppose the onus is on me to supply additional sources to support the statments and the context now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is "Steven"? And you are correct - the onus is on you. You may also want to explain why your interpreation is more correct than what can be gathered from this[5]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Another source

This source [6] makes a link between solar variation and solar evolution. Revised content on the way. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not. And its apparently an internal literature survey, so why would you think this is a RS, in the first place? Note also the complete lack of red giants and engulfing in the document... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's published research. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-published, and only for a non-standard definition of "research". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It's a technical report (i.e. grey literature) that lists two sources for long term variability (one it which it then fails to expand on). The rest of the long table of "variability" deals with the higher frequency stuff that this article covers. This is not a source for shoe-horning stellar evolution (long time-scale secular trends) into an article on high frequency (up to 1 million years) solar variability. Apart from the opening sentence not clarifying what is meant by solar variability (see my previous comment), you've still to explain why this article needs to span all changes to solar output. Among other things, the processes covered in the current article are weakly connected with those related to long-term solar evolution. --PLUMBAGO 20:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another older source discussing the longer (nuclear), thermal and acoustic (shorter) time scales [7]. Wow, apparently it's established that the sun's variable behavior can be characterized over mutiple time scales and this can be described in different terms of art to define the frequencies. Amazing. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. About as amazing as a dose of Prozac. And the medium term changes (years to millenia) are those that are addressed under the title Solar variations. And I note once again a lack of red giants and engulfing in the article... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting over correcting

KDP [8] and Stephen [9] why are you two reverting in place of correcting content with the statements in your edit summary? I feel like am being forced into revert violation by the two of you. Please consider Wikipedia:Revert#When_to_revert. This excessive reverting without talk is hostile in a probationary environment. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The original version was correct and complete. Yours (either) was plain wrong. We are talking here on talk, and we have given extensive edit summaries with reasons. Please stop inserting stuff that you don't understand. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you two will offer to elaborate on your notes, so we can correct it:

KDP: "rv No! It both increases and decreases (thats why its variation) - its currently decreasing (which is one of the sceptical arguments for "global cooling"). usi"

SS: "Rv to correct version. There is no measurable secular increase on decadal or even millenial timescales"

The statement attempted to present the specifics of the changes, and avoid a non-specific, possible irrelevant statement. I have faith your view(s)can "change" too, just like NPOV can change. I just wish there was a predictable and reliable frequency. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

But the variation is "non-specific". There are several rough low-amplitude cycles with a lot of random noise thrown in. Solar output varies up and down, with no significant trend before you go into millions of years (and hence beyond the scope of this article). The really really long term tendency is down, of course....to a white dwarf and then, unless we live in a big rip universe, to a black dwarf. But that is as much out of scope as stellar evolution in general. Why do you put in specifically wrong statements? Yes, my views can change. I only have a fairly basic understanding of solar physics. But my views are unlikely to change because you make random unsourced edits to the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Time scales

This [10] solves an issue and creates others. Is this supported by the sources? Does this force this article into a narrow POV on the time scales? Where would other time scales, that are discussed in the sources, be included? What is the longest time scale on the scale? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's supported by the content of the article. That was my point above. My edit serves only to contextualise the article as it currently stands. And to make it clear that the long term evolution of the sun lies outside the remit this article (since it's covered in other articles). --PLUMBAGO 18:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How about an RFC on this issue, to bring in other views and maybe some sources? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Up to you. I see no support for it in the discussions above. Basically, you'd be arguing for a merge of this article with those relating to stellar evolution and the main sequence. I can't see that either succeeding or being useful. That said, one potential problem with the article as it currently stands is its conflation of true solar variation (on short time-scales, before you ask) with the apparent solar variation caused by the Milankovitch cycles of Earth's orbit. Technically, the sun is not (necessarily) varying during these, so the article title (and current lead) may be misleading. --PLUMBAGO 19:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actualy, I would like to see the list here [11] acepted as a source for the range, or perhaps another source example. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Splitting of the page

To my mind, the page mixes two different subjects: solar variations and solar activity. Solar variations, as it is stated in the beginning, are changes in the amount of total solar radiation. The solar activity, which is mostly discussed afterwards (sunspots, solar cycles etc) is a magnetic activity of the Sun, which, in particular, may cause variations in the solar spectrum and irradiance (and may not). On the other hand, there are irradiance variations which are not a priory related to the solar activity. Unfortunately, now the page is constructed in such a way that this difference is very vague. I propose to split the page into Solar variation and Solar activity (now the second is a redirect to the first). The page Solar variation should mostly include information about long-term solar irradiance variations and its influence upon the Earth. It should also have a short part about relations between solar irradiance and solar activity (with a link to Solar activity).The page Solar activity should deal with activity phenomena (sunspots, solar flares, prominences, coronal mass ejections, particle events etc) and their effects on the inter-planetary media (solar wind etc) and on the Earth (magnetic storms etc). --Vladimir Ivanov (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a cause and effect issue where the "activity" causes the "variations". I am for better clarification here, if splitting will help; however, the term "solar variation" has been appropriated by the climate change modeling paradigm, to fit the box model definitions, where only changes from what is assumed to normal, stable or status que are relevant as "variations" from the steady "total solar radiation". It has never been clear to me, what threshold of activity is a relevant variation. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plausible split. Go ahead William M. Connolley (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Probably Solar activity should be the main article, with Solar variation as a sub-article (if it's needed at all ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

May be it is not needed. In fact they commonly speak about solar variations refering to solar constant variations, so it could be a part of a non-existing article Solar constant. And I'm not sure that the part of the text about Global warming will looks well either in Solar activity or in Solar variation. The point is that there are two kinds of solar-driven models of climate changes: first one is related to solar constant variations and the second one, to solar activity trigger effects. I would prefer to move the global warming related materials here: Global warming#Solar variation. --Vladimir Ivanov (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there? I thought they all abstracted this into total insolation as an input to the models. As for your move suggestion, IIRC it was moved the other way. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you try to explain the climate changes by insolation variations, you should say something about the cause of these variations, and it is a part of your model as well. A model that links the climate changes directly with solar constant variations and a model that, say, implies the scheme "solar activity → solar wind → galactic cosmic rays → cloudiness → insolation" are two different kinds of model. --Vladimir Ivanov (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely against moving the solar variation stuff *into* global warming. It is related to the rest, but definitely a sub-topic, and belongs in its own article (but I don't much care what it is called). There is a lot of stuff to be talked about around variations of the solar "constant" and the different reconstructions, opinions and theories William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be sure: I was talking about moving of "Global warming" section rather than all "solar variation staff". --Vladimir Ivanov (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd still rather not have it in global warming William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to leave global warming alone for now. The distinction between the two modeling approaches is interesting (must be the discrete vs continuous issue again, if only time could tell us the right way. Calculus solved the issue by inventing a discrete change so small, that it is continuous.) Looking at what links here [12], there's no doubt the term Solar Variation (and this article) is intended for the climate change context and there's a compelling case to keep it as Solar Variation. As Solar Variation is the term often applied to attribute for natural climate change resulting from the sun. Changing the article title, to Solar Activity, would seem to put the context back into the general topic of earth science, which could muddle things. It makes sense to have the lead in Solar Activity, but with a good transition. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So... how about recreating solar constant, moving the stuff from sunlight into there, adding solar constant#variation and putting the variation-of-the-constant in there. And then putting flares etc in solar activity? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't help here because it's not my field, but there are two stubby articles, solar minimum and solar maximum which could be incorporated/expanded/turned into redirects if this area is going to be reworked. They seem a bit neglected at the moment. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Solar constant as a separate article is a good idea, to my mind. Solar minimum and solar maximum are to be incorporated into Solar cycle, they are hardly important as individual articles. --Vladimir Ivanov (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start. Solar constant has some stuff and solar variation has less. There are some refs to patch up and other stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Other forms of solar variation

I've heard that sunspots correlate with changes in other forms of solar "radiation" (see Solar wind), which in turn affect the amount of cosmic rays which hit the earth. Is that true?

If it is true, where does information about it belong in this encyclopedia? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Variation, and connection to global warming (out of place here)

The article is about solar variation not about Global Warming or Global Warming controvery. This section is largely out of place here - it was just dumped from Solar Constant where it didn't belong either by William M. Connolley. The section is poorly written and is replete with poor citations and poor quotes and is a global warming war (editors have added pro and con statements with any citation they can to support their views) Example, the first sentence misquotes Joanna Haigh (a respected scientist) and makes a reference to an entire website for the citation - readers can't check a reference in this manner. This is not up to the standards of Wikipedia. The citation merely reads Joanna Haigh with no date, retreived date, etc.

It might be prudent to put a short summary here aknowledging the link between solar variation and global warming theory: that is what we are talking about here . . . if the sun has a huge impact on the climate, AGW theory falls down (is less impactful on policy). If the sun is relatively constant, AGW theory has more substance with respect to policy. It's beyond us to solve this here though or to even have the fight in this article. We should acknowledge the link and put a short summary and point the reader to Global Warming Controversy or to Global Warming or Both and let those guys figure it out in the proper pages.

We should further not fold solar cycle into this page.174.49.84.214 (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

William M. Connolley. I think we're making some progress. At least we cleaned up Solar Constant. I really think the only two things needed here are the note above and if you want to have a factual deviation between solar cycles and temperature (which we've seen in the last 30 years) then I think that's ok but we really should not get into the nastiness of the AGW fight or have long book quotations on what is supposed to be a meaty solar variation page.174.49.84.214 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

William M. Connolley -- Perhaps we should create a Solar Variation Theory page where we can put this. I think it's important stuff, if written well. I just don't think that we should have a global warming solar variation theory on what is largely a page on the stellar physics and variation of our sun.174.49.84.214 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Modern Minimum?

Based on articles like this from Nat Geo, and the research coming from NASA, I would love to see an article get underway on what is projected to possibly be a solar minimum counterpart to the Modern Maximum. I have no bias in the warming/cooling debate, I just think it's terribly important to understand what may be happening to our star, and would welcome an article. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A prediction is not a fact. Give it another cycle and see what happens to consensus in scientific community. CarolMooreDC 13:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It does not have to be a fact to be in Wikipedia but it should at least be a sound scientific theory vs just conjecture. Shawn, I think what you need is to find out is if "Modern Minimum" is a sound scientific theory like Global Warming? Some of the thinking is already in Solar Variation but it's not explicitly called out in a separate page. If you can find some robust peer reviewed literature (one to two solid sources that describe the theory), then an article can be created. Describing a theory (the facts) is acceptable even if the theory is still being tested. Wikipedia is full of theories that have been debunked and many others that are in the process of being debunked. I will caution you that proposing a global cooling theory will really get the proAGW environmentalists at Wiki flocking to your site - they hate anything that would detract from their pet AGW theory.As As a side note global cooling is what I think would come from decreasing solar activity but that theory is already in Wikipedia but the forces that be have made sure that it's listed as a discredited theory (and mere conjecture) - maybe it needs to be brought to life but only if the science supports it.174.49.84.214 (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

shortened introductory sentence

I shortened the introductory sentence under the "Climate Variation" heading. Since solar intensity variation is already a topic of its own before this section, the fact that intensity varies doesn't need to be repeated. Also, papers on climate variation discuss not only the effect of variations in total solar intensity, but propose other factors as well (e.g., UV, cosmic ray-induced clouds), so it restricts the subject a bit too much if we start out by saying it's a discussion of solar intensity. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about the audience (we could have 10 year old and experts) and consistency across Wiki. I was trying to use some of the same language from our other pages. If that's not standard, I apologize for that. I'll take your lead you seem to have more experience here 174.49.84.214 (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

From Solar cycle

Solar cycle had a long section on climate-stuff, but not as long as the stuff we have here. So I've arbitrarily declared this the main article, for now, and here is what was there, to be merged in as required. Note that the 0.1K stuff is new [13] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree completely. The junk you have currently on solar variation is horribly written and horribly cited by contrast what is on solar cycle which you removed is well written and well cited. Your proagw content should be removed from solar variation to some climate change page. The content on Solar Cycle is correctly where it is at. The short term solar cycle affects the climate. It's not a climate change war - it's a fact. It doesn't fit with your pet theory but too bad. The citations are there and are correct. Please don't deface solar variation nor solar cycle arbitrarily William M. Connolley 174.49.84.214 (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

Per the suggestion, I've made an attempt to clean up the article a bit and move all of the material to the appropriate article (that is, if it's related to the 11 year cycle, the solar cycle article, if it's related to long-term solar variability, this article). Hope this is satisfactory to everybody! Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I just read through the lastest versions of both, and it looks to be a pretty fine splitting of the pages for the most part. Another possibility (but one which doesn't seem necessary at the moment) would be to create an entirely separate article on Solar influences on terrestrial climate, as there's certainly enough material to do so....

I do have one not-insigificant concern, and that is the material presented in the paragraph beginning "In 1991, Knud Lassen of the Danish Meteorological Institute...." In particular, the graph linked therein terminates with the solar cycle peaking in 1991. In addition to the problems laid out in its own paragraph, the length of the solar cycle has dramatically increased (gone down in the graph) in the past two cycles (last minima separated by almost 13 years!) while temeperature has risen another 0.2-0.3K, so the postulated correlation is now complete rubbish. I'd lean towards deleting that entire paragraph as no longer relevant.... Sailsbystars (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I went back and dug up the original paper http://www.sciencemag.org/content/254/5032/698.abstract (which, mysteriously, was not cited or linked in the article) and the criticisms of it. I agree with you that it looks like the work in question has not held up, but (as the article says) the work is well cited, and the criticisms are detailed in the wikipedia article, so I'd think it's material worth keeping. Another problem is that the paragraph discussing the work is somewhat out of place-- it's sandwiched between two other papers not related to it-- but offhand I don't see a better place to move it to without a bit of rewriting. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

there were thirteen very solid citations in the material that William M. Connolley removed and there are now only 5 much less substantial citations in the new rewrite on Solar Cycle. The quality of Wikipedia has suffered due to the actions of William M. Connolley and his cabal here today. This is why serious people don't contribute on here and why authorship is down.174.49.84.214 (talk)

The section in the Solar Cycle article is short because most of the material from that was moved to this article, but there is a prominent link at that article to this one, so it should be easy to find.

The concern is that there was no movement, just a deletion from solar cycle, and no discussion about moving. William M. Connolley merely "stated" that he was going to move and refused to collaborate on what we should do on talk or what it should look like. His cabal enforced the move and that was that. Now you and I are rewritting, a supposedly smaller version of terrestrial impacts on Solar Cycle but the decision to delete was entirely William M. Connolley's.174.49.84.214 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I do notice that there was one paragraph I missed, the one discussing the Maunder minimum. I'm about to put that back in. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx much174.49.84.214 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical perspective

This purely ProAGW long paragraph was lifted directly from a published book. Aside from making the article read as a ProAGW rant, it could be a Copyvio (too long to be fair use probably). Please discuss here if you want to reinstate and why.174.49.84.214 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The quotation is not extensive, it is set out from regular text as a quotation, it is verbatim, and it is attributed - thus it cannot be a WP:COPYVIO, and it follows WP:Quotations to the letter. As for being a "ProAGW rant" - that is not an argument - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't see this as being a noticeably "ProAGW" quote-- it seems to read more like a cautionary note warning about how hard it can be to extrapolate trends out of correlations. To the extent that it's saying that people in the past thought that they had a good theory of how climate worked, and they turned out to be wrong, I would read this as giving a similar caution to present-day scientists against excessive certainty: we may think we know what we're doing, but we may also be wrong. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical perspective

Physicist and historian Spencer R. Weart in The Discovery of Global Warming (2003) writes:

The study of [sun spot] cycles was generally popular through the first half of the century. Governments had collected a lot of weather data to play with and inevitably people found correlations between sun spot cycles and select weather patterns. If rainfall in England didn't fit the cycle, maybe storminess in New England would. Respected scientists and enthusiastic amateurs insisted they had found patterns reliable enough to make predictions. Sooner or later though every prediction failed. An example was a highly credible forecast of a dry spell in Africa during the sunspot minimum of the early 1930s. When the period turned out to be wet, a meteorologist later recalled "the subject of sunspots and weather relationships fell into dispute, especially among British meteorologists who witnessed the discomfiture of some of their most respected superiors." Even in the 1960s he said, "For a young [climate] researcher to entertain any statement of sun-weather relationships was to brand oneself a crank."

Lassen & Friis Christensen

Why exactly do we have such a long section on this? Earlier it might have been needed since this was an important conflict. But at this point in time, the conflict has been resolved, and while the correlation might have seemed interesting then, it turned out to be a case of correlation != causation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of brokeness. We also have (start with!) "Variations in total solar irradiance (TSI) were found to be the most likely cause of significant climate change prior to the industrial era by a U.S. National Academy of Sciences study,[42] and in 1997, astronomer Sallie Baliunas suggested that changes in the sun "can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming."[68]" (and the NAS study is from 1994). SB shouldn't be there, and we should find a more recent ref than NAS. The whole lot needs going over William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Baliunas citation references a quote in a Harvard newspaper. It does relate to how people were thinking as of 1997, but it's right on the edge of what is citeable, and probably the wrong edge. If he said the same thing (with actual numbers) in some more referenceable place, we should cite that, otherwise, makes sense to dump it.

I haven't dug up and read the 1994 NAS study. Reports by the National Academy of Sciences are the gold standard of a reliable source, though, so I can't see cutting it.

I agree that the Friis-Christensen & Lassen paper seems to be now considered at best a coincidental correlation. At the moment the article has three sentences explaining what the paper says, and six sentences explaining why it's wrong. If you think this is too much, I don't see that we can shorten the discussion of the paper itself by very much. The paper appeared in Science, a reputable source, and (as mentioned in the article), is a paper that is referenced a lot; so shortening this section would mean that you want to cut back on the text explaining why the paper is wrong.

The text does seem to be out of place in the location it's in, though; it does not relate to the earlier or later section. It would be better organized if we added a new sub-heading for "correlations with length of solar cycle" for this particular material. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

--OK, I deleted the marginally-notable Baliunas quote, and put the discussion of the Friis-Christensen & Lassen paper discussion in its own subsection. I think it reads better now. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Clouds and galactic cosmic rays

Just to explain my edit: The previous version of the article had the discussion of clouds and cosmic rays split in three places, without (as far as I can see) an organizational reason for which material was in which place. This revision put the material relating to how cosmic rays and solar activity affect cloud in the "effects on clouds" subsection of "Solar interactions with Earth"; and put the material discussing the effect, and how much cloudiness is produced, in the "Weather" subsection of "Solar Variation and Climate." (I also left the CERN material there-- it seemed to fit the logical flow-- but added a citation in the earlier section.) I did some minor clean-up while moving, but don't think I made any changes to the material, nor added or deleted any references, just repositioned them. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Clouds and cosmic rays sounds like a good article title. Is there any scientific research hypothesizing a causal link between them? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's a number of papers hypothesizing ways that there could be a causal link. Check the citations in the "Effects on Clouds" subsection (references 47-50 and 82, 87, and 88 in the current version of the article). At the moment, whether the effect is large enough to be noticeable in the real world is still unclear. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of the content regarding Clouds and cosmic rays is spread out over Wikipedia. The theory was originally proposed I think in 1959 and has been well documented. Some knowledge concentrated in cosmic rays and CLOUD. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Geoffrey, note that your link to Galactic Cosmic Rays leads to a different page from just Cosmic Rays.174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Activity and variation

Are there any actual astronomers here? Solar activity is not the same as solar variation. What is the appropriate term for significant things that the sun does? The most significant things I know about are:

1. sunspots and sunspot number - these vary a lot, on an 11-year (or 22-year) cycle
2. solar wind - this changes in lockstep with the sunspots, right?
3. solar radiation (i.e., "sunlight" ) - this varies vary little (hence the concept of a "solar constant")

What's the term for changes in solar activity, especially cyclic changes? Right now solar activity => solar variation but that makes no sense. I tried making "Solar variability" as a disambig page, but is that really the solution? --Uncle Ed (talk) 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 solar constant 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 the very first image 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/m², 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 etymological fallacy.  ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 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 solar constant and (2) changes in sunspots. Note that I have turned Solar activity into a disambig page.

The part I think is clear is that Solar radiation reaching the Earth (as irradiance) varies only fairly little. The part that's not clear is that changes in sunspots affect the solar wind, which in turn affects the amount of cosmic rays 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 solar radiation changes and solar wind changes? Or does "solar variation" refer only to the former? --Uncle Ed (talk) 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.174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ed, here is some more thinking on things that vary:

1. sunspots and sunspot number - these vary a lot, on an 11-year (or 22-year) cycle
2. solar wind - this changes in lockstep with the sunspots, right?
3. solar radiation (i.e., "sunlight" ) - this varies vary little (hence the concept of a "solar constant")
4. Sun's Magnetic Field Strength - varies with the sunspot cycle and with the conveyor belt cycle
5. Sun's Magnetic Field Pole - It flips from time to time
6. Sun's Great Conveyor Belt - varies in speed over time and we think has a longer term impact on the sun
7. 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. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Abbot's solar variation tool

Hi everyone! I just uploaded an image of Charles Greeley Abbot 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 here. -- Sarah (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What fun. Certainly gives historical perspective. CarolMooreDC 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 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

[img]http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_tsi_reconstruction.jpg[/img]

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)