Talk:Solar cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


External links modified[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk 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)

Sure[edit]

"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)

Current Solar Cycle?[edit]

Solar Cycle's are 11 years in length. Correct? What solar cycle are we in during the year 2016? Thanks. Wingate19 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


The average length is 11 years, though there is considerable variation about that mean value (from roughly 9 years to maybe 14). The current solar cycle is numbered 24. Heliophysics (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Removal of "double" and "exponential" dynamo sections[edit]

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)

Causes[edit]

The section on "causes" presently lists (as the first mention) the idea that the solar cycle might be caused by the orbits of Jupiter (and Saturn). This is not a sensible theory, nor widely accepted. The Sun is simply a variable star and the solar cycle is how it varies. Generally speaking, complex systems can exhibit all kinds of time dependence (steady, oscillatory, chaotic, etc.) and those behaviours don't usually need to be driven by an outside influence. In the case of the Sun, it is only approximately oscillatory, orbiting around two attractor points of opposite magnetic polarity. Anyway, I know this is descriptive, but some fixing of this section (and citations to sources) is needed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This is another example of a very niche, unproven theory being given too much credence. Heliophysics (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I took the material out, and changed the section "causes" to "solar dynamo". Basically, it is the solar dynamo that is oscillatory. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)