Talk:Solar cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Solar System (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Solar cycle is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Astrology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Full protectionUnprotected[edit]

Padlock.svg
Policy shortcuts:

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"[edit]

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, Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 

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)

Scope of the article[edit]

  • 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. [1]
  • Solar wind, according to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, consists of magnetized plasma flares and in some cases is linked to sunspots. [2]
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)

Terrestrial Climate[edit]

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)

cycle 24 update[edit]

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)