Talk:Solar variation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Satellites

Are satellites or space probes ever used to study solar variation? The article doesn't seem to mention any.... (sdsds - talk) 04:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they are. Per reference #3 in this article there is satellite data going back to 1978 - nearly three complete 11-year cycles. The use of satellites to study solar energy flux is also mentioned here. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

Set up merge. Reason: Effect of sun angle on climate is basically a few illustrations and their explanations, which just as well can be used to make a few points of Solar variation more easy to grasp. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted. Your proposal to merge effect of sun angle on climate into solar variation makes me wonder if you have any idea what either of those two articles is about. Solar variation is about variations in energy that the sun emits. It has nothing to do with seasons on EARTH, or anything about the earth at all. If the earth disappeared, the topic of solar variation would still exist. Effect of sun angle on climate is about the way in which variations of the EARTH's position affect its absorption of energy from the sun. If there were no variations at all in energy emitted by the sun, the topic of effect of sun angle on climate would still be there. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

...I notice that there are some mentions of the effects on the earth in this article. But those are about the effect of solar variation on earth. The other article, effect of sun angle on climate, does not mention nor even hint at solar variation. It's about variations in geographic location on earth and variations in the earth's position, NOT about variations in the sun's output, which is the topic of this article. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Earth

Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} —Preceding comment was added at 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

New Research

According to the BBC there's been new research debunking the alleged link between global warming and sun activity. Here's the link to the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm Looks interesting. Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The preprint of this now published article can be found here Count Iblis (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....that statement might be a little strong. They have shown a lack of correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover -- thus the hypothesis that solar activity might effect cosmic radiation intensity on earth, leading to variations in cloudiness and thus warming -- I think that hypothesis is kaput. But that is not the same as debunking a relationship between global warming (and cooling) and solar activity. For example see DYNAMICS OF CLIMATIC AND GEOPHYSICAL INDICES and look at the graphics. SunSw0rd (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Time scale on graph

Just throwing this out there, what about a longer time scale graph for the page? If people want to draw conclusions about climate why not give them a thousand year graph or something so they can match it up themselves to the temperature record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.67.33 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Solar brightness"

The article keeps mentioning "Solar brightness". Are they talking about infrared too or just visible light? It sounds like they mean just visible light and infrared light from the sun is what causes heat such as you feel the sun on your skin makng it hot that's infrared light. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent satellite stuff should be total power integrated over the spectrum. However, its not a wonderful term since its ambiguous. Would "power" be better? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I heard today that the term "solar irradiance" covers all electromagnetic spectrums of the sun. At the source http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm , it says "The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) is a NASA-sponsored satellite mission that is providing state-of-the-art measurements of incoming x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, near-infrared, and total solar radiation." So it might be good to be clear when the measurements are "solar irradiance" and when they are only some of the frequencies. This is a nice picture, Image:Solar Spectrum.png Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The article covers the issue. Until recently, of course, it was impossible to directly measure total irradiance. However, since we have had satellite observations available, we can now correlate the total irradiance with the net radiation at the surface, and possibly extrapolate this back. Unfortunately, some component of what doesn't reach the surface is absorbed in the atmosphere, and since absorption percentage may vary due to such characteristics as airborne particulate matter (volcanic or human in origin), it's still tricky. --Abd (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the term "solar brightness," I'd assume, linguistically, that the primary meaning would have to do with the Sun itself, as distinct from how it looks to us. However, an obvious usage would be how it looks to us. ("The sun seemed so bright today.") When we talk about the Sun being a variable star, what we see from the earth is irrelevant (except in a practical sense of trying to estimate the brightness in spite of atmosphere being in the way.) --Abd (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Damon and Laut Claim

There is a statement: "Damon and Laut, however, show that when the graphs are corrected for filtering errors, the sensational agreement with the recent global warming, which drew worldwide attention, has totally disappeared. Nevertheless, the authors and other researchers keep presenting the old misleading graph.[21]"

The problem is, when following the link and reviewing the Damon and Laut paper, and looking at the graphics, that statement itself is misleading when taken out of context. There are in fact 2 problems.

(1) The first problem is that the identified arithmetic error impacts only the last 2 data points (see figure 1(a) in the Damon and Laut paper) which are labelled 3 & 4. With this as the only change, the correlation over the time period since 1860 still remains very high. Thus the key part of the statement boils down to "the recent global warming". Recent is not defined but from context occurs only for data points 3 & 4.

(2) The second problem is that figure 2 (from the paper) has itself a serious error. This is the temperature line shown by the dashed line (Jones and Moberg 2003). From about 1980 to about 2000 it shows a temperature increase of about 0.6C. However from 1980 to 2000 the temperature increase has only been about 0.3C -- half of what figure 2 shows.

There is a documented refutation of the Damon and Laut paper here: Comments on the Forum article by E. Friis-Christensen and Henrik Svensmark.

Regarding the whole "global warming" area and the related topics, it appears that the current standard is "peer reviewed publications" -- I cannot locate anywhere where the Damon and Laut paper was submitted to a peer reviewed journal -- it appears to be a "discussion paper" and the provided reference is merely to a personal repository held by Stephen Schneider at Standford University. Upon review of the refutations of the Damon and Laut forum discussion paper by Friis-Christensen and Henrik Svensmark, they are extensive.

So I see 2 courses. 1st, we can retain the Damon and Laut citation and quotation, but add fairly extensive text and citation from Friis-Christensen and Henrik Svensmark indicating the problems with the Damon and Laut source. 2nd, we can simply delete the Damon and Laut quotation and source based on the facts that (a) it is not from a peer reviewed publication and (b) has extensive criticisms. I would like some comments on this, and am open to going either way with this. SunSw0rd (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no comment response, I will delete the Damon and Laut reference (for above reasons) and the statement in question. Any comments related to the deletion, add here. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but Friis-Christensen&Svensmarks correlation breaks completely with the corrections in Damon&Laut. The remaining correlation is not sufficient to establish much. Lassen&Friis-Christensen later acknowledge this in a paper. There might (note: emphasis) have been such a correlation paleoclimatically - but either that correlation has been broken (possibly by AGW) or the correlation wasn't there in the first place (and its coincidence). Both are equally possible. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Kim -- that's not really the point. The point is that the Damon and Laut reference is (a) not from a peer reviewed paper and (b) flawed as identified in the above criticism of their "forum discussion paper, also (c) source reference is only to a personal document collection by Stephen Schneider. You may wish to retain the editorial comment but the reference and reference citation must go. SunSw0rd (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly prompts you to say that a paper published in Eos isn't peer reviewed?[1][2] - as for your nice original research on temperature change from 1980-2000..... Its wrong. Jones&Moberg (as well as the cloud data) is for the Northern hemisphere not the globe - so comparing it to a global reconstruction is wrong. Temperatures did indeed rise that fast on the NH [3] (see figure 3). Your final comment about Schneider is irrelevant, since thats just a courtesy link, so we can read the complete paper without having to purchase it from Eos. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

EOS is a weekly newsletter. There are some articles that are "refereed" but this was not one of them. This was a two pager posted in the Forum section of EOS -- therefore it does not meet the standard of a paper in a peer reviewed journal. But clearly you are refusing to take a conservative position on this. SunSw0rd (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

EOS is a peer-reviewed journal - it is published weekly - but that doesn't make their peer-review scare-quote worthy, or less valid. And you will have to substantiate that Damon&Laut wasn't reviewed by reliable sources. And contrary to what you think, i am extremely conservative here, i'm not going to accept your original research on why D&L shouldn't be acceptable. Put some reliable sources on the table that supports your assertions, and then we can talk. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

AGU is one of the most even-handed organizations existing for the publication of new research. But EOS is famous for being the 'viewpoint press' on occasion - readily accessible to those with an excess of public relations and political science acumen. EOS is not in the same league with the regular journal peer review processes of the AGU and other orbanizations.--Dikstr (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But this is not original research. The question relates not to EOS, but to the forum section of EOS. See here for the following written exchange for some light on the use of the Forum section: "If, according to the AGU, the EOS Forum contains articles stating a personal point of view on a topic related to geophysical research or the relationship of the geophysical sciences to society, how can you claim that your article is peer reviewed? The article was independently reviewed and evaluated for suitability for publication by an editor who has expertise in the particular subject area. The associated process is correctly described as "peer review". Appropriate to the relatively short and non-technical nature of Eos "Forum" pieces, the associated peer review process is not as extensive as that employed for articles in the more technical literature such as Geophysical Research Letters, or Journal of Geophysical Research."

So I turn it around -- because the Forum section is, as cited by a Forum contributor, not subject to extensive peer review -- I suggest that unless the D&T Forum article (all 2 pages of it) can be shown to be peer reviewed according to standard peer review criteria, then it should be deleted. Peer reviewed journals may have letters to the editor or perhaps even purchased advertising -- surely you would not accept either as evidence for science articles in wikipedia just because they appeared in a peer reviewed journal, would you? I'm pointing out that this is questionable.

And to follow up -- in my original posting I suggested two alternatives. If you do not want simple deletion, then I think we need to provide a quote from the rebuttal to D&T here, along with a link to it. SunSw0rd (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As your research has determined, the EOS article is peer-reviewed. So far so good. I have nothing against you using parts of the response as well - since that part is peer-reviewed also. But i will note that most of that response isn't applying to the data and corrections - but rather to the "tone" of the language used in D&L, so i doubt if it is useful here. Referencing the external response is on the other hand not going to fly, as it is not peer-reviewed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Are the basics true?

"Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1% or about 1.3 W/m² peak-to-trough during the 11 year sunspot cycle. The amount of solar radiation received at the outer surface of Earth's atmosphere varied little from an average value of 1,366 watts per square meter (W/m²)." ... "A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature, determined that there has been no net increase in solar brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming."

I see a variation of 1,368 to 1,373 W/m² and an increase after 1970's. I think Mangini is right, the Solar variation influences a lot the global warming. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A 0.1% increase or decrease does not seem like much. But the sun pumps out about 174 Petawatts against the Earth. A 0.1% variation is a variation of 174 trillion watts. However, this NASA document asserts a 0.2% increase since the 1600's. It says: "Estimated increases since 1675 are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%." So that is 348 trillion watts. Now one watt is one joule per second, that is, it is a time based energy value. So that is 348 trillion joules per second, every second.

Now the IPCC asserts the CO2 forcing is about 1.4 watts per meter squared (about 2 watts per meter). And that 348 trillion watts of increased solar radiance works out to about 2.5 watts per meter. So yes -- CO2 has a forcing effect. But obviously yes, the variation in radiance, including the increase since 1675, also has a forcing effect. Both together have caused warming -- and a good thing too -- the climate in the Northern hemisphere during the Maunder minimum was no fun! SunSw0rd (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC CO2 and solar forcings have been discredited by more recent research. Both are model derived using questionable assumptions. The direct role of total solar irradiance variations is much more important than global circulation models predict. --Dikstr (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Discredited? That's a little strong. You still haven't answered my questions about the methodology of the study from below and on your talk page; I would appreciate hearing why this study is so much more valid than earlier research when it uses an almost physics-free framework. Awickert (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC predictions depend for their high estimations of GHG warming on constructs like the Mann 'hockey stick' and GCM's with highly speculative and unverifiable models of climate response to various types of forcing. The hockey stick has been thoroughly discredited. The GCM's are bad examples of trying to apply basic physics to very complex processes - they either produce nonsensical results or are much less accurate than their constructors are prepared to admit. The new work I cited is phenomenological. They use real data and proxies with mathematical processes that look for statistically significant correlations. --Dikstr (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a variation of 1,368 to 1,373 W/m² - where? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't answer for Chris but the wiki page Solar constant says: "The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1366 watts per square meter (W/m²),[2] though this fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1412 W/m² in early January to 1321 W/m² in early July)". NASA also asserts that solar radiance varies by about 0.1% per 11 year cycle, and "drifts by 0.2% to 0.6% over many centuries". Since 1675 up, but obviously it goes down as well. SunSw0rd (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The quoted statement atop this section is a myopic interpretation of knowledge in this area as of 2006 and far short of a characterization of current understanding in the area of direct solar forcing of climate change. Solar Influences on Global Change, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., p. 36, 1994. was published 12 years earlier, represented a distillation of knowledge of the subject at that time, found that the 'little ice age' climate minima were most likely the result of intrinsic solar total irradiance variations, and no significant empirical evidence to the contrary had surfaced by 2006.--Dikstr (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Solar variation theory and global warming

Something that I'm worried that this section misses, though it provides opinions of scientists, is any objective calculation. From the graph on top, changes from solar cycles are on the order of 1 W/m^2, which is 0.073% of the total output of the sun. The graph by the Solar variation theory section shows just 0.3 W/m^2 change, though I'm worried I'm mis-interpreting it because I don't know what the "F" means, so I'll just take the top estimate. Doing the radiative balance calculation myself, taking a mean albedo of 0.3:

• Least solar radiation:

$1365.5{\frac {W}{m^{2}}}\pi R_{Earth}^{2}\left(1-\alpha \right)=4\pi R_{Earth}^{2}\sigma T^{4}$

$T=254.79K$

• Most solar radiation:

$1366.5{\frac {W}{m^{2}}}\pi R_{Earth}^{2}=4\pi R_{Earth}^{2}\sigma T^{4}$

$T=254.84K$

So it seems like direct solar forcing should cause the Earth to warm by only 0.05 °C.

So is there something I'm missing, or is there any reason that people believe that this is actually important, when global temperatures are fluctuating by an order of magnitude greater than this?

Awickert (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this why the article says:

The theories have usually represented one of three types:

• Solar irradiance changes directly affecting the climate. This is generally considered unlikely, as the amplitudes of the variations in solar irradiance are much too small to have the observed relation absent some amplification process.
• Variations in the ultraviolet component having an effect. The UV component varies by more than the total.
• Effects mediated by changes in cosmic rays (which are affected by the solar wind, which is affected by the solar output) such as changes in cloud cover.

?

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The section seems to bat things back and forth a lot, and seems to be wordy and convoluted, with lots of quotes from different scientists. There is bullet point about ultraviolet, but I didn't see anything more that addressed it directly, and the same for the clouds. So what I was trying to say is I see a lot of "some people say it is important and shows that anthropogenic global warming isn't true but it really isn't important because these scientists say that it isn't." But I see nothing that actually addresses the arguments and, specifically, the whys or the quantification of these effects, which I think would make it clearer and more informative. So that's it: I don't know why UV and/or clouds and cosmic rays would be important, or how much, and feel no more educated after reading it, so the only thing I can reason is the black body balance, which alone makes me feel like it is, to a first order, unimportant. Awickert (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been fought over a lot. And perhaps the actual science isn't too clear. I've just taken out a couple of "papers" that weren't; it might help. We may be assuming that anyone reading this knows too much. Is it really so unclear? I've just expanded the UV bit a little, though its slightly hard to do as I have no ref. Oops. Its definitely a theory though.

Your calc is sort-of wrong because you're trying to do max/min of the solar cycle. The solarists are doing pre-industrial to present, which could be larger (though of course we only have proxies). In fact a large max/min solar cycle would be an embarassment to them, because we don't see one in the sfc temperature. If all this is incomprehensible it should be improved, so do keep complaining William M. Connolley (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - so thank you for the additions and subtractions. I am still confused, though. I see that they're trying to explain the long-term trends with solar forcing. However, the plot of long-term sunspots shows that the long-term trend is of smaller amplitude than the 13-ish-year sunspot cycles. The NASA plot shows that power outputs are similar in amplitude on the plot, though the absolute amplitudes seem to have shrunk to 1/3 of their original value. So (I should have said this) I took the 13-year cycles because (a) they are of equal to higher amplitude, and (b) we had measurements, so they seemed like a good estimate to upper bound.

Also, as I've said, I am not a climate scientist, just a geologist armed with some simple relationships. I do not understand, without it bein' 'splained to me, in simple English or maths, why the UV and the cosmic ray variations would be important. What makes intuitive sense to me is that sunspots could work to attenuate solar radiation and/or to change its wavelength by being cooler radiating bodies on the surface (and therefore having a longer-wavelength blackbody spectrum). I don't see why this would cause more UV as its on the short wavelength end of things - wrong direction, though I have heard this before, and my reasoning could totally be missing important things. I know nothing about the cosmic rays and clouds, so I can't even start there. So if you could explain it to me, I'd appreciate it, and more importantly, I could work to re-write the section in a way that at least I, a halfway-decently educated kid from an engineering school but without any real background in climate science, could understand it, and hopefully make it much clearer than that.

Awickert (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell you *why* the UV fluctuates more, but it does. About 2-3 times the viz, I think, depending on wavelength. Cosmic rays stuff is the idea that the solar wind protects us from CR sometimes, and that CR may act to cause cloud condensation nuclei, and thus later the properties of clouds, and so their albedo. Its not impossible, just dubious. More tomorrow night, unless someone else gets in first William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okie-dokie. If you don't know, it's OK - I'll do my own research. It does sound like Occam's razor is splintering, though. Awickert (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the UV enhancement is primarily coming from solar flare activity (which is of course increased when there are large numbers of sunspots). I've also seen evidence of ozone concentrations in the stratosphere being modulated by the solar cycle. How significant this is I don't know. Dragons flight (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Enhanced UV during periods of high solar magnetic activity (solar maxima) is caused by the generally higher energetics and excitation levels of the atomic constituents of the outer solar atmosphere. Flares contribute but sporadically. --Dikstr (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Awickert (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh - thanks for the good starting point, I'll read. Awickert (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

These simple models cannot adequately deal with the complex climate system and its sensitivity to the primary climate forcing: the sun. Even the complex global circulation models (GCM's) are unable to treat the solar forcing realistically. Some recent papers that don't rely on models have shown that the effect of solar forcing during the industrial era have probably caused more than 50% of the global warming during that period. [Scafetta, N., West, B. J., Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record since 1600, Geophys. Res. Lett., V. 112, 2006.] The weight of evidence is growing rapidly against anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) as the primary cause of global warming.--Dikstr (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC) And don't put any credence in the UN's IPCC report - its just a political document.

Ah... thanks for the tangentially-relevant lecture?

In any case, thanks for the paper. I'm not sure I agree with their methods, especially that of the empirically-semi-arbitrarily-determined \alpha and the amount by which they claim recent temperatures changed due to solar cycles, which is twice the blackbody calc. above which shows that the difference in the power in and out means that it shouldn't be that much, and the correlations I've read have been dubious at best). To me, it just smacked too much of questionable correlation, and I find it hard to believe that the increase in temperature outweighs the increase from additional power into the Earth system.

But back to the topic I tried to start, can you answer the questions I had about UV and cosmic rays?

Awickert (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

During the more active phase of the sunspot cycle, the solar wind increases. This modulates the interplanetary magnetic field, which has a role in deflecting cosmic rays. Because the Earth's magnetic field also deflects cosmic rays, the impact of this varies with latitude. Depending on how one does the accounting, the cosmic ray flux variations might be 10% at low latitude and 50% at high latitude. In terms of causation, cosmic rays are the principle source of ionization in the atmosphere above ~1 km (the lower atmosphere has a large component from radon and other natural background radioactivity). There are several plausible, but unproven, mechanisms where changes in ionization can aid or inhibit the creation of clouds by impacting the condensation of water vapor. Because dust and aerosols can also act as nucleation sites, most ionization mechanisms (if they work at all) are probably only significant in relatively clean air where there are few other nucleating materials. Cloud cover as a whole is responsible for a net -30 W/m^2 of radiative forcing so relatively small variations could be interesting to climate. (Note however, that the magnitude and sign of climate forcing varies by cloud type, so the altitude and location of any cosmic ray forcing will be important.)

The mechanism described above is an interesting and active area of research. However, we also have good records of cosmic ray flux going back 50+ years without showing a large trend. The absence of a trend suggests that even if there is a connection between cosmic rays and climate, it is unlikely to play a large role in the warming over the last several decades. Dragons flight (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow - cool - thanks! That's really cool, and makes me more sure that I should take an atmospheric science class or two someday, or maybe just read a book. It also answers all my questions. Would you mind if I slightly rehashed what you said and looked through some sources and put it on the article? Awickert (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mind? Why should I mind? Improving the article is exactly what we want you to do.  :-) Dragons flight (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Great - I changed the tone from conversational to more professional and added it to the top of my hideously messy sandbox. It'll take me a while to dig up sources, because I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, but when I do, I'd like to re-structure the section so that it goes in this order:

• Introduces the premise of solar forcing on climate
• Suggests the 3 major ways (blackbody, UV, and cosmic ray), and then addresses each of these in terms of a conceptual understanding of why they might be important, and a synopsis on what current scientific thought is on their importance.
• Any other general information; conclude.

Awickert (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

PS - as for blackbody section, would doing a blackbody calculation be considered doing original research if I did it on the correct magnitude of W/m^2 solar forcing change from pre-industrial to now? If so, would it be OR to say that, for solar input where it is and a radiative balance, a good rule is that there is a 0.1 degree C change for every 2 W/m^2 increase or decrease? Unless someone who knows more thinks that that would be invalidated or just overly-simple because of all the other stuff going on. Awickert (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest finding and using a referenced climate sensitivity (i.e. °C / (W/m^2) ) instead. Obviously such a thing is a linear approximation (so only good for small changes), but unlike using the blackbody calculation it includes the fast feedbacks (i.e. greenhouse effects) which increase the ratio appreciably. Even so, the impact of solar variability would seem to be quite small. Dragons flight (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks for the suggestion. Awickert (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

On S+W [4] and prequels may be of interest. [5] discusses some solar stuff by Coutillot and others. [6] discusses Svensmark, from a negative perspective, but it will tell you what the ideas are William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links; I glanced over the first one, and it echoes my thoughts on the 1st paper - that their method to a first order doesn't use physics - though I'd like to read the basis for their model too, which they cite, and I asked Dikstr at his talk page if he has any info about it. I'll write more when I read the other pages, and/or add to my sandbox. Awickert (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so you all know, I'm still looking at this, just got busy elsewhere. Awickert (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Awickert - re your solar forcing on climate approach - (1) the black body thing would provide an overly simplistic but useful idea of the radiative balance issue and would never be confused with original research. (2) if you don't add total irradiance variation as a primary climate forcing your section will appear seriously deficient in awareness of, or biased against, current work in the field. --Dikstr (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks. However, I don't see how total irradiance variation is really changing all that much as a function of time - it seems like, from the plots I've seen, it's only 1 W/m^2. And that's what makes me skeptical about the paper - I'm happy with what they say that the wiggles correlate if one picks a particlar solar history. However, I'm a skeptic about the amplitude. Awickert (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

TSI doesn't have to change by much over the 3 decade period of satellite observations to date to be important over the longer climate timescales. In Solar Influences on Global Change, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., p. 36, 1994. it was found that 0.1 to 0.2 % per century sustained TSI variation was the likely cause of the 'little ice age' climate minima. --Dikstr (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it is important. I had just thought that you were talking about present-day climate change, where it seems to be more of one factor among many. Awickert (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lede

I suggest that the last two paragraphs of the lede be removed. They are not strictly about solar variation, but are rather about thoughts on solar variation with respect to present-day climate. The third paragraph is simply X says bla, which is not very helpful in terms of knowledge. The fourth paragraph says "Y says bla bla" in its first and only cited sentence. The other sentences expand the first statement well beyond the scope of the lede and are not cited (could be original research). In particular, it pushes the position that solar forcing works instead of greenhouse gases, not in tandem with them, as I believe most research states. The last sentence invokes water vapor: this is purely about the hydrologic cycle, and responds to any temperature increase, greenhouse gases or solar, so I don't see how this is a refutation of GHG importance, and it is uncited. I'm not expert enough to comment on the rest of this, but I don't think this belongs in the lede, and doesn't belong anywhere unless it is cited. Awickert (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean. I took out D's tosh [7], if that helps William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That helps; I'm also not so happy with the sentence preceding it that he was working to refute, because it's sort of a blurb at the end that doesn't really say much more than "X says Y", IMO. Awickert (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The two sentence fragments that were added onto the last sentence have pushed me over the edge on it, and I am removing it. It is tangential to the topic, just says that some people say some stuff, and not even grammatically correct. That material would however be useful in the body. Awickert (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing by Dikstr

D (a person so confused he doesn't quite know whether he is Richard Willson or not [8]) is polluting the article with the usual skeptic "its all the sun, guv" nonsense [9]. Its not going to last, so I hope he gives up soon. This article has to agree with the GW one, and that takes its lead from IPCC, oddly enough William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that political correctness is the driving force behind your edits here. The IPCC view is half a decade out of date and did not represent a consensus on available information at the time. To deprive Wikipedia viewers of a balanced view of current research in this area is a disservice to them--Dikstr (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC).

First, as I said above, what you wrote doesn't belong in the lede, as it isn't about solar variation, but is about currently proposed effects of solar variation to currently-observed global climate change. Second, your one reference hardly constitutes generally-accepted current research, and what you write in the paragraph goes beyond what the reference says. I would appreciate you constructively addressing my concerns on talk pages, as I've already brought up both of these issues that you conveniently ignored. Awickert (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The previous paragraph re Foukal's review and conclusions regarding the climate effects of solar variability make a response necessary to avoid a biased view for the section. As for 'generally-accepted current research' - I don't know what your standards are but the AGU's are as high as there are. I have responded to some of your inquiries but the other are so vague response is pointless. If you would care to state your questions in succinct form I would be happy to address them accordingly.--Dikstr (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, look one section up, I addressed the Foukal review as well as your work, proving that you don't read my comments. I also suggested modifying the Foukal review paragraph in my earlier edit comments. I know enough to know that one article doesn't create a consensus, especially when that one article uses empiricism that borders on non-physical methods. In my experience, an empirical correlation needs to be backed up in order to be generally applicable, and needs physical constraints to understand amplitude (like power input into the Earth system) instead of just pattern-matching. I've also read enough articles to know that getting a paper published in AGU journals constitutes a good idea, not truth. By all means, you may write about the paper, but trying to say that these guys re-wrote climate science and that global warming is only because of solar forcing in the lede section of an article whose focus isn't global warming is a stretch in my opinion. In response to your comment about the complexity involved with GCM's: how about the simple calculation by Arrhenius 100 years ago about doubling CO2 and increasing temperature by 3 degrees? So my questions: from earlier, do you have the papers that are cited for the method, especially about their use of the /alpha value? Hopefully the re-wording is straightforward enough. Awickert (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WMC reverted before me, though I left an edit summary for Dikstr. It reads, "Undo: Reasons (1) you still haven't addressed my talk page concerns, (2) 1 non-physically based paper by non-climate-scientists doesn't make it notable, let alone that notable, (3) bad grammar." Awickert (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict resolution

So there are a lot of reversions, especially between William M. Connolley and Dikstr. My general opinion on the matter is that Dikstr believes that global warming is solar-forced, and very strongly. William M. Connolley thinks that Dikstr is wrong and that his/her references are of low quality. Dikstr responds by saying that they are from journals. My point of view:

• Dikstr has an agenda and point of view. One reason for this is that this shows that he believes a study on correlation which to me seems almost entirely non-physical (he hasn't replied to my talk page comments stating this) provides "solid" and "conclusive" evidence that solar forcing is the cause. Another reason is a recently-removed statement about ACRIM that was mis-cited. On the up-side, Dikstr was quick to remove this statement after I fact-tagged it; on the down-side, he mis-cited in the first place.

• William and I agree that Dikstr is POV pushing. However, I disagree with his recent removal of a research study. I believe that even if it was bad science, all the citation stated was the position of the scientists, and it should be included. Material supporting or refuting the claims of the study could also be added.

The above is just my opinion, however, and anyone is (obviously) free to disagree and/or tear it apart. Awickert (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me have a go at ripping it up. This isn't a page of sci opinion of sol var and gw - it is a page about the subject itself. So the citation stated was the position of the scientists, and it should be included is not a valid argument. We should be citing good science, not bad. There are lots of papers on either side - we don't cite them all (too many) and we don't judge them by number, we report the scientific consensus and give suitable weight to both sides based on that. Which means that the solar-ists get short shrift William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Everything in Wikipedia is opinion or 'POV'. Some opinions are just better justified by experience, information and objective thought than others. Science, like everything else, is not a black and white, right and wrong component of our intellectual culture. Science is (nearly) always working toward finding the true workings of nature. Science is also aware that each new level of our knowledge is just a new, and hopefully better, approximation of reality. Commonly held POV's in science are useful for acquainting new science thinkers with the results of previous research but should never be presented as the last word on any subject. It is an important service to readers of Wikipedia that they understand this and are also made aware of new areas of investigation that may challenge current commonly held POV's. When we stop testing commonly held POV's we stop doing real science. Science without challenging the status quo of knowledge is just another form of religion in which the canonical laws are defended regardless of logic or new information! --Dikstr (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• In the case of solar variation and its climate change implications we are very much in a stage of new discovery - both in the areas of intrinsic solar luminosity changes and their implications for climate change. The reference I cite for Douglass and Clader is the view of researchers published in a peer reviewed journal. If Connolley disagrees with them he should argue his point in a peer reviewed venue to have it considered with equal weight. Otherwise it is just one person's opinion and that is not what good reference sources like Wikipedia are built on.--Dikstr (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia is opinion or 'POV' - No. When we stop testing commonly held POV's we stop doing real science. - Indeed. But this is wiki. We are reporting science, not *doing* it. D&C is peer reviewed. But it is not true that every P-R paper should be reported in wiki. Nor is it true that every P-R paper on solar variation should be reported in the SV article. This is entirely a question of due weight to give different opinions. The opinion that GW is largely due to solar variation is clearly a small minority one, and should be reported as such William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course its all POV - there are no sacrosanct truths - only the best scientific approximations to the truth at any point in time. Including statements and references demonstrating that new research calls into question the IPCC view on GW is hardly 'doing science' but being honest with the readers. Not including it is pushing a POV.--Dikstr (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So what was When we stop testing commonly held POV's we stop doing real science. for? Was it just irrelevant? You want D+C included; I don't. Your argument (as near as I can understand it) is that it should be included because it calls into question IPCC view. This is hardly conclusive: there are plenty of other papers that call into question the IPCC view that aren't in wiki. It is a question of WP:WEIGHT William M.

Connolley (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in (and outdenting) but my review of the article and particularly the secton on solar forcing and global warming does not indicate any POV pushing. I do think that it's too technical for our readership and needs some trimming/editing.

But I don't see any POV-pushing. In fact, the article leans toward the prevailing consensus: CO2 does force temperature increases. This article is about solar variation, after all, so we would be remiss if we didn't discuss the possibility that solar variation is driving (in some measure or another) climate variation/change, citing papers in peer-reviewed journals.

This is my opinion as a long-time Wikipedia editor generally editing in another scientific field (Mesoamerican studies focusing on the Olmec). Thanks, Madman (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for offering your input. Just so you know, the current article is the version without the information that Dikstr would like to add. Although I am more of an inclusionist, the point William is offering is that in physical science, there are more clear good and bad ways to go about doing science, correct and incorrect conclusions, and we should pick the articles that are more solid and that offer broadly-accepted conclusions.

My issue with the paper in consideration is it is an ambitious attempt to characterize temperature as an effect of everything but greenhouse gases, and that it involves what looks like a halfway-hopeful correlation between the residuals after a fitting linear combination of 2 noisy functions and a linear trend were removed from it. After adding in solar forcing, they get a good fit, but in my experience, a linear combination of 3 arbitrary noisy functions and a linear trend can fit almost anything. I'm not sure if this is William's issue with it or not, but I do see his point in that we should not present all science, good or bad. I also see Dikstr's point that it is published, so it should be included.

On a different tack, the solar/temp-residuals fit has a flat mean, which says to me that they don't say that the sun is driving temperature increase, but just bouncing T around a bit, so if the paper is included, it would seem to be better in somewhere not talking about global warming.

What I think the best point I've seen so far is WP:WEIGHT. I believe we should remove all names of researchers unless they are notable for themselves and not their work, and focus on the work in question. I therefore say that, based on the references used here, we should say that there is a correlative basis for thinking that present-day temperature increase may have an important solar component, but that (unless we find papers that say differently) there is no solid physical basis for this line of thought.

Awickert (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My response is: 1. If the IPCC had to wait until there was a succinct physical basis for its conclusions we'd not be having this conversation. 2. In the field of climate science, correlations between measured or proxy models of climate phenomena are important tools of the trade. 3. The IPCC's AGW conclusions are highly dependent on very poorly understood approximations to the forcings of solar irradiance and water vapor wherein parameter choices designed to maximize the AGW GHG effects have been made. 4. Connolley's WP:WEIGHT issue is not discussion but a dodge behind a vague wiki concept. 5. I'm not championing the Douglass paper per se, it is just an example of work in the field. I use it as a refereed publication indicating that there is a body of respected work that is at variance with the AGW GHG viewpoint. Douglas and Clader don't have to be named in the text but there is absolutely no justification for objecting to referencing their paper in a footnote.--Dikstr (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

General points: Blanket criticism of correlative analysis of climate data and proxies fails to recognize the fact that in our data-rich and model deficient age of science these are the tools that produce usable knowledge and coherent results. Succinct physical models are not available to validate either the IPCC or other approaches to explaining climate change today and will not likely be in the near future - the physical systems we're dealing with are too complex. Since science moved out of 19th century laboratories and into the real world we've found most fields of research too complicated for closed physical models. Basic-principle physical concepts are important for guidance but are not capable of the detailed characterization of complex systems like the climate.--Dikstr (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll still defend my blanket criticism of correlative analyses. Although they can show us important information when used properly, if we leave too many parameters free, we leave the realm of reality and enter the realm of making stuff up; I believe they could have gotten a good fit as well by including GHG content as another parameter, but then it would be fitting 5 independent parameters to one set of data instead of 4, and that would have been even worse. If I get really motived, I'll combine time-series of the OPEC barrel, the rice production of Japan, and the size of Jupiter's big red spot, along with a straight line, to try to match global temperature as a function of time. I also believe that I have much more faith in models than you do, especially in finding something (anything) to characterize the physical system than an arbitrary set of curve-fit parameters, which I believe is one of the worst options (the only worse one being a model with no ground truth).

I also will argue that the IPCC's conclusions do have physical basis. To your points, 1. GHG's have a mechanism and a very strong correlation. 2. Yes, but these correlations are very straightforward, and often have physical basis: delta 18O and sea level, due to isotopic fractionation and sequestration of water on the contients, for example. 3. I'm not involved in climate modeling, but from what I understood, the models took solar irradiance and water vapor very seriously; I have no direct evidence though.

As to the main point of this, though, since I've blabbed enough: I am then making the WP:WEIGHT a discussion, with which I am proposing to remove all researcher names and simply mention the nature of the work. I'll use the paper by S&W, as it does show a correlation. I still don't see how the Douglass paper really challenges the GHG viewpoint with solar forcing, as the solar forcing fit seemed to have a horizontal mean, meaning that it would just cause wiggles based on the sunspot cycle. Awickert (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

1. GHG is sometimes correlated with the global temperature anomaly and sometimes not. The GHG 'mechanism' is model dependent and AGW can (and is) amplified by parameter choice in GCM's. Total solar irradiance is ALWAYS correlated with the global temperature anomaly. GHG was anti-correlated during 1940 - 1970 and has been again since 2000. Glad you agree with my second point. 3. The models (I'm most familiar with the NASA GISS GCM approach) treat these two forcings very approximately precisely because their mechanisms are so poorly understood.

The issue here is that solar forcing is likely a significant climate change forcing during the industrial era and its contribution needs to be understood. If the climate significance of solar variation is to be mentioned in this section then there needs to be a balance between the evidence for all forcings, including GHG and solar.--Dikstr (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that solar forcing of climate should definitely be mentioned, and if you could find a mechanistic paper to go with S&W, that would be great, especially since no one argues that GHG's are the only forcing on climate, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the bumpiness in the T(t) diagram were from sunspot cycles. And then we can present what those papers say, and why they believe that the sun will be important (I mean, besides the obvious) - how does that sound as a solution? But as an aside, I honestly can't see why solar forcing would be responsible for the large trend associated with global warming, seeing as there is really no upward trend in solar intensity, that I've seen (example I googled). Awickert (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been a significant upward trend in total solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum 'little ice age' climate minimum in the 17th century. This is true for all the current solar modelers I'm aware of. One of the best references is Krivova et al (Solanki's group): [10]. Scafetta and I have taken issue with their interpretation of the last few decades on a relative basis [11]but that does not negate the significant TSI increase since the 1700's.--Dikstr (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - that makes sense, I was speaking more in the 2nd half of the 20th century, which is where I'd looked. I'll check out the references you provide.

Since you don't comment on my above conclusion, I'm assuming it's acceptable to you? Use S&W and some other source(s) to explain that/why solar forcing may be important. Awickert (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is a good one. I will work on the solar forcing justification and get back to you --Dikstr (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - sounds good, and looks like we'll be avoiding my #5 pet peeve by replacing "X says Y" (uninformative) with "Y is possible/likely/uncertain/fact because [reasons]". Thanks! Awickert (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to write "Scafetta and I" you'd better say who you are William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He's Richard C. Wilson, of course, writing about his own work and relevant topics. Awickert (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He might be, but I don't like it being said implicitly rather than implicitly. To be explicit, I'm not accepting this "I" until the claim is made explcitly, and demonstrated William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversions by Dikstr

(dedent)The section currently in question, starts out with rather dubious sourcing. By referencing the 1994 NAS report on page 36 [12] to support the sentence... This has several problems - the first being that the reference is completely out-of-date, and the second that the report does not give any certainty to the extent that the sentence implies. Secondly we have the problem with the rest of the section giving rather undue weight to Scafetta&West, a paper that is on the outer edge of what current solar/climate research shows (see for instance Lockwood&Fröhlich(2008), Amman et al(2007) both of which have higher citations that S&W). All in all, there is a very good reason that at least 4 people have removed it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As a participant in writing the NAS report and longtime worker in this field I know of no reason why this document should be considered 'out of date'. The issues of solar variability and climate change today are very much an extension of the evidence for TSI-related climate change documented by the 1994 NAS report. Much more solar and climate data has been acquired and analyzed since but none conflicts with the basic findings of the report. If you consider it 'out of date' then you must cite specific criticisms, either your own or refereed findings of others. Otherwise its just your personal and unjustified bias or an overt act to propagandize the non-solar view of climate change forcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikstr (talk • contribs)

Since 1994 research has gone on. It is by any measure outdated. For instance section that you are pointing to at page 36, touches upon the Friis-Christensen&Lassen(1991) correlation between solar cycles (or sun-spots) and temperature, a paper that has long since been shown to completely break after 1980. See for instance Solanki&Krivova. The IPCC and the newer CCSP reports should be the reference point here. Neutrality on Wikipedia does not mean equal time, it means that we describe research according to weight in the literature. And Scafetta&West is straying too far from the mainstream scientific opinion. They are mentioned (as they should, since its a minority opinion, but you cannot use them for much more).

You are entitled your personal opinion on what is happening - but not to present it as if it was mainstream, you will have to do it according to weight in the literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) the Friis-Christensen&Lassen(1991) correlation is only one (and a relatively minor one) of many stated evidences of the solar variability/climate change relationship; (2) it is NOT on page 36; (3) to reject an NAS report on the basis of one or a few studies that haven't stood the test of time well, when the vast majority of the cited studies have, is very selective, indeed one might say, prejudiced reasoning. Your AGW bias is showing and it is not in the best interest of a useful information resource.Dikstr (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference you are inserting specifically states that page 36 is the one of interest, so you can blame yourself for that one (so where is the section supporting your addition then?). Its interesting that you are complaining about studies being too new, when the study that you are using as your main point of reference (Scafetta&West) is from 2007, and has a very small citation count. To conclude, since 1991 there has been a lot of development in satellites, proxies and in basic research. The 1991 report has been superseded by several assessment reports, as i've stated earlier. Any discussion should be from that standpoint. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) Which reference is that? You gave the impression that you were familiar with the NAS report apparently to make it seem you knew what you were talking about; (2) 'complaining about studies being too new' ??? Hardly - I have no idea why you would make that statement - is English your first language? (3) That more recent publications usually have smaller citation counts is not surprising to most of us; (4) The IPCC reports will have to rise or fall on their merits over time - we all get smarter as we progress (hopefully)- but its difficult to overcome an abysmally low starting point (the Mann 'hockey stick' comes to mind).Dikstr (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

New NASA Report

A new NASA report released on June 5, 2009, appears to confirm the solar variation theory, attributing sun activity to the cause of any change in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.PokeHomsar (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this new report have title and author or possibly a link? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[13] If the date looks odd, well... Offhand, I can't find an actual paper that this "report" was based on. -Atmoz (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

www.prisonplanet.com/nasa-goddard-study-suggests-solar-variation-plays-a-role-in-our-current-climate.html

That should suffice for now.PokeHomsar (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, that might be because literally no one covered it except for the conservative blogs. I wouldn't have known about it if I didn't read MRC postings...PokeHomsar (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the source. It would have been better to link to this than a partisan blog. From the article:

"For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

So I don't think it confirms any solar radiation theory to the exclusion of AGW. Auntie E (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the bias in the report. They cite absolutely no evidence for how normal solar variation cycles went away and gave way to greenhouse gases being the primary cause. This is the problem with the debate. I think that caveat was added to the end of the report to not derail the Obama Administration's plans for cap-and-trade.PokeHomsar (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there are several man-made global warming cheerleaders in NASA. The most notorious man's name escapes me...PokeHomsar (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That name would be Jim Hansen, director of the NASA/GISS.Dikstr (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So the report is great except for the part you disagree with, then it's "biased?" AGW is the scientific consensus, not bias; they don't need to support what already has the consensus in this article. And your personal opinion about the politics of the statement re:Obama are irrelevant. Please do not confuse politics and science. Auntie E (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, they never said the cycles "went away" just that Anthropogenism is the most important factor in GW. Auntie E (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC

Attribution of recent climate change. Observe the 11 year modulation of the solar influence corresponding to the solar cycle.

Have you (PH) even read the PP article in full, let alone the original report? Also note that the PP article is from June 9th, the DailyTech article is parrots is from June 4th, but the Science Daily article it cited is from May 12, 2008. Hardly news. And if you look at the image to the right, you will see a significant influence ascribed to solar influence back in a 2004 paper - and even then, what was new was the detailed modeling, not the general understanding that changes in insolation influence the climate. The 2001 IPCC TAR discusses the issue and refers to a 1999 paper here. But solar variations are not the predominant influence at the moment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus? Anybody who's talked to scientists know that "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. There is no consensus. 3,000 scientists signed a statement coming out against man-made global warming. The whole problem with the global warming debate is the effect of policies when you consider net gain/loss. Cap-and-trade will die on the House floor because it will only cause a .1 degree change in global temperatures over the rest of the century. The cost is extremely high for such a low effect. I mean, cows pollute more than cars. But to tax farmers for each head of cattle would cause a huge uptick in the price of any cow by-product and harm those with limited incomes the most. The problem is what to do about it and what would happen if we let it be, what it would cost for any of the varying policies, and what would happen if the policies were enacted to a tee. In the end, leaving it be costs infinitely less and there's little to no difference between the results of ignoring vs. full-on acting.PokeHomsar (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. There is no consensus. 3,000 scientists signed - if its an oxymoron, why do you feel a need to disprove it? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because there are so many IPCC sycophants proselytizing the AGW theocracy for various reasons (most of them non-scientific),Dikstr (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• As hard as it may be to grasp this, but the political implications of a scientific theory have absolutely no effect on its veracity (or, to be more precise, on how well it models reality). If I fall off an airplane, I consider the effect of gravity to be extremely undesirable (indeed, I even do so if I fall off my mountain bike ;-). That does not in the least change the fact that I will fall, nor will it reduce the effect of the deceleration trauma at the end of the fall... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

But the problem is that global warming isn't about the science anymore, it's all about the politics. One side doesn't care about the science anymore because they think the "consensus" has been reached. The other side has been pointing out the questionable errors in the "evidence" from the very beginning and have been accused of being "as bad as Holocaust deniers" for being against the fake "consensus" of man-made global warming. Once something gets politicized, facts just get in the way.PokeHomsar (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Once something gets politicized, facts just get in the way -- indeed, as you demonstrate. To the rest, m:DFTT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So, I'm a troll now?PokeHomsar (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't stress the "now" part... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what SBHB is referring to is the likelyhood this thread will go nowhere, since you're the only one pushing for inclusion and you've already undercut the veracity of the article. You seem to be arguing with yourself, which is a fight no one wants to step in between. Dayewalker (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wish this website would largely lose its bias. I mean, how is it possible there are ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and FNC controversy pages but no MSNBC controversy page? Why does O'Reilly have a separate page for his criticisms but not for Olbermann? Why do the editors think MMfA is a reliable source but not the MRC? I feel like Howard Beale...PokeHomsar (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Its because O'Reilly is a brilliant independent thinker, unlike OlbermannDikstr (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So it seems that the problem is that the original report does not do what the blog post claims it does. As the blog post is by a partisan source, and the report is from a scientific source, the only option available is option b. Perhaps global warming controversy would be a better place to go, because it sounds like the claims are on shaky scientific footing, but certainly participate in the controversy. As a matter of fact, I would be happy to see a good section on the various aspects of news coverage. Awickert (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is not a a 'scientific source'. Its a non-peer-reviewed press release in NASA News by the SORCE/TIM science team designed to garner some positive publicity for the TIM instrumentation. TIM is embroiled in a controversy about its lower TSI calibration scale relative to the two other TSI observing satellites/experiments now in orbit (ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 and SOHO/VIRGO) and is opting for positive PR in instead of good scientific work on its scale issues in its battle to persevere.Dikstr (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Meteorological Community

"The meteorological community has responded with skepticism, in part because theories of this nature have come and gone over the course of the 20th century.[4]" ... this is a very casual line and certainly does not read as an encyclopedic entry should ... furthermore, the stated link is really to another series of links and I could not see where that comment was made, if the comment wasn't made on that page but deduced from it, then a better link is needed which says that clearly. BobKawanaka (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Scafetta and West (2007)

I just read SW07 completely for the first time. I hadn't realized what an astonishingly poor grasp they have of the basic science of climate physics and dynamics -- should we be citing them at all? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard to believe you read it since you missed the point of the paper completely. It is not about climate physics and dynamics but about applying a new analytical technique to analyzing the climate and total solar irradiance observations and proxies.Dikstr (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

On one hand, it's devoid of physics (though I'm unsure of how well we understand solar forcing... perhaps well, S&W would insinuate poorly). On the other hand, it's published. Sorry to Kim for misciting them as saying that it was a major forcing; it's been too long since I read the paper and my memory of it got confused with Wiki conversations. Because I think it'll help discussion, their findings are summarized in this paragraph lifted from the conclusion:

"According to the findings summarized in Table 1 the increase of solar activity during the last century, according to the original Lean et al.’s [1995] TSI proxy reconstruction, could have, on average, contributed approximately 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming: the low and high estimates depend on whether PMOD or ACRIM satellite composite TSI is used for the period 1980–2000, respectively. This contribution is not constant during the century because the increase of solar activity could have, on average, contributed approximately 75% of the 1900–1950 global warming but only 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. By considering a 20 –30% uncertainty of the sensitivity parameters, the sun could have roughly contributed 35–60% and 20–40% of the 1900–2000 and 1980–2000 global warming, respectively. These findings would confirm that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century and, in particular, during the last decades. The sun played a dominant role in climate change in the early past, as several empirical studies would suggest [Hoyt and Schatten, 1997; Eddy, 1976; Crowley and Kim, 1996; Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995], and is still playing a significant, even if not a predominant role, during the last decades.

The last two sentences which I have italicized for emphasis are the nonquantitative readers' digest version of their conclusions. Awickert (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"if any"

I find Dikstr's removal of these words to be reasonable because:

1. Changes in solar output do affect climate (though they may not be the dominant mechanism in the present day)
2. Climate scientists also investigate earlier times on Earth, in which the output from the sun was much less

Also:

• Since these comments seem to be oriented to climate science of the present-day, this should be clarified.
• If this is about present-day science and is clarified, I still think "if any" should be removed (there clearly should be some effect), or kept with "significant" added for clarification.

Awickert (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well put. The 'if any' in the context of that section is inappropriate editorializing IMO.Dikstr (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reword if you want, but the idea that the sun's output can change and have an insignificant affect on the climate needs to stay. -Atmoz (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of relative contributions of different climate forcings is appropriate to its own section, not the section specifically invented to discuss the effects of solar variability. The 'idea' you propose is biased editorializing in the solar variation section.Dikstr (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Link to Add

• List of Scientists Opposing the Mainstream Scientific Assessment of Global Warming

Any objections? Zanze123 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would we add this link? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Scafetta and Wilson, Geophysical Research Letter (2009)

Has anyone looked at Nicola Scafetta and Richard Wilson, “ACRIM-gap and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model”, Geophysical Research Letter 36, L05701, doi:10.1029/2008GL036307 (2009) and its implications on the global warming section of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.251.169 (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Citation?

The section entitled "Global Warming" starts off with the incredibly strong statement "The scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change.", after which is a source tag.

The source, however, turns out to be a single, primary source written by a single author. Even more interestingly, the "Conclusions" section of the single author paper cited begins with the sentence: "Radiation from the Sun ultimately provides the only energy source for the Earth’s atmosphere and changes in solar activity clearly have the potential to affect climate."

Furthermore, the source in question seems to be from an older intro statement saying "Researchers argue over whether or not solar variations play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change.", which was replaced by the newer (completely contradictory statement) in the following edit...

21:28, 7 June 2009 Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs) (63,713 bytes) (→Global warming: changing a bit; section heeds help esp with clarity of writing)

I do not believe that reversing the meaning of a sentence without changing the source can be seen as "clarifying". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.120.89 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem is. It looks fine to me William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can find an up to date source for the consensus (which I severely doubt) i.e. post climategate/copenhagen/Hamalayan glacier lie, then it really is meaningless to talk about a consensus which clearly doesn't exist. I suggest you save us the embarrassment of further discussion and simply remove it! 89.168.179.31 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Amount of variation

In the correct Graph of the last 30 years (by Rhode), the variation of the three sunspot cycles amounts to 1 of 1365 W/m², what gives naturally 1 ‰ instead of the noted 1 %. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HJJHolm (talk • contribs) 08:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Haigh information

I notice that the following sentence, "The scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change" is sourced to Joanna Haigh, but without giving a section or page number. I looked through the paper and can't find where it says this. If no one can produce where it says this in the source, I'm going to remove the sentence. It appears to me that the opinion that solar variation has little effect on recent warming is definitely the current stance by the IPCC, but not necessarily the consensus view of all the world's scientists. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You were doing fine until the last sentence. Of course our sources must support our content. However soap-boxing outlier positions, such as the notion that Working Group 1 has misrepresented the state of the science, isn't on. You also seem to be pushing a fringe line in your additions. Beware. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 01:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know which source(s) the IPCC relies on for their solar forcing opinion. Can anyone represent that to me. Thanks in advance. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, find us a source that states that the IPCC represents the united view of most of the world's scientists on solar variation and that can go in the article. In the meantime, no one has produced a source that says that the sentence in question should remain there. Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For starters, there are about a half dozen sources arising out of the scientific community that the IPCC properly represents the scientific consensus here. Included in the IPCC reports are repeated clarifications that solar variation is not substantially responsible for present-day global warming. here, for instance, you'll find solar forcing mentioned many times, with the IPCC going lengths to make clear that their conclusions already consider the possibility of underestimates of the extent of solar forcing. And in Table 9.1 it's clear that solar forcing was part of the analysis of every one of the analyses featured in the table. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Kenosis, I now have a better appreciation for how the attribution outcomes have been forced. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh - why are you starting another pointless fight? This will go nowhere and you know it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WMC, that sentence was not sourced correctly. If it doesn't get sourced correctly, it gets removed. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So that the rest of us can play along at home, would you care to outline the sourcing problem you have found? --TS 23:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the first post in this thread. The Haigh citation does not include a page or section number to back up the claim contained in that sentence. I couldn't find it when looking through the source. Thus, I recommend deleting that sentence. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Zulu Papa 5, you will find a discussion of attribution studies and the like in Chapter 9 of the AR4 Working Group I report. --TS 19:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

GW stuff

The solar-variation-gw stuff is a mess and needs fixing up.Cla68's recent edits took it in the wrong direction, but did at least raise the problem William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to put a POV spin on the report by Scafetta. Are you saying that Scafetta did not conclude that solar variation may be "underestimated by current climate models"? Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The original wording essentially asserted S&W's opinions as fact. It needs to be properly clarified that this is their own conjecture, e.g., "which they consider evidence that the contribution of solar forcing may be underestimated..." or the like rather than simply stating "that indicate the contribution of solar forcing may be underestimated..." On a side note the original text erroneously attributes the paper solely to Scafetta (as does your comment above). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why

I took out some ZP5 stuff, since it was wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

He has added some more [14] which is incoherent; I'll use tomorrows revert to get rid of it if no-one else does first William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Too late. "Cloud cover attributed to greenhouse gases"? I would need some convincing.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong about it? Other than I put it there. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware that anybody attributes cloud cover to greenhouse gases. Do you have a source? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The point was attributing amplification to greenhouse gases. Cloud cover and humidity are the amplified processes. I'll find a source. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be more more careful to say what you mean, using precise wording, in order to avoid further confusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check these diffs. [15], [16] they both cite the amplification context. "Feigned incomprehension" used to be considered uncivil in Wikipedia. Somehow that status has changed for assuming good faith in all. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We're not feigning incomprehension. You are genuinely incomprehensible William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I get the vague feeling that Zulu Papa 5 ☆ refers to positive feedbacks, possibly under the (mistaken) assumption that these are taken into account when calculating the effect of an increase in greenhouse gases, but not for solar variation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On feigning incomprehension see [17] to avoid comprehension as PA. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "amplification" I am interested in what the sources say about how it is attributed to gases in contrast to solar variation, or just constant solar processes for that matter. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't say this is any clearer now. Amplification of what? I thought we were talking about the amplification of the effect of solar variation onto the climate, in particular on average global surface temperature. The known positive feedbacks are insufficient, by a large range, to explain observed temperature changes as the effect of solar variation even assuming standard behavior of greenhouse gases. And if you, for some reason, disregard the enhanced greenhouse effect, the water vapor feedback (an enhanced GH effect) would be further reduced, as would be the effect of other GHG related feedbacks like the arctic methane release or CO2 releases from warming oceans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

: For an analogy that might help improve this article's quality, let's assume the Global climate model behaves as an amplifier of input signals (sun, gases, etc). Then let's look at what the sources say about which features the scientist's selected to construct this filtered amplifier as well as its fidelity qualities. Then we can better articulate these in this article. Now if there is a Curse of dimensionality occurring or some other bias .... that can be left for the reader to decide. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but "what"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Time for sources and content. (The GCM is not inherently an adaptive control model, it requires human feedback to construct it.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you sound like a cross of ELIZA and Dissociated Press to me. You want some content in the article. I'm not even entirely clear what you want in the article, or why, or how GCM's suddenly enter the discussion. So I'd say the onus is on you to clarify what you want and to provide the sources for it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny .. I agree with you. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ACRIM / PMOD

This [18] is bad: replacing "one version" with an implicit assertion that all do. This needs to be fixed William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Dikstr's own web site says "One, the ACRIM composite..." so I've replaced "the" with "one." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Effects on clouds

I hacked some stuff out:

• The Earth's albedo decreased by about 2.5% over 5 years during the most recent solar cycle, as measured by lunar "Earthshine". Similar reduction was measured by satellites during the previous cycle.
• Mediterranean core study of plankton detected a solar-related 11 year cycle, and an increase 3.7 times larger between 1760 and 1950. A considerable reduction in cloud cover is proposed.
• A laboratory experiment conducted by Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center was able to produce particles as a result of cosmic ray-like irradiation, though these particles do not resemble actual cloud condensation nuclei found in nature.
• A 2009 peer reviewed article investigating the effects of a Forbush decrease found that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%.

The first two have been CN for ages. The second seems odd. The third is a lab expt, and isn't a paper. The Forbush stuff is odd; I don't really think it belongs William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Life cycle section

I've deleted the life cycle section apparently imported from Sun. A sentence or two on the sun being a fairly stable main sequence star may be appropriate, but none of the details on fuel burned, the Earth being swallowed, and the sun not going supernovae is relevant for this article, which is mostly concerned with variations on the scale of years to millennia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunate, you chose to neglect the the Sun's life cycle variation in this article. There could be no greater relevance than life cycle when the article is about solar variation. I am afraid your are enforcing a bias into the article, that would avoid the sun's life cycle which is a greater context for solar variations. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

From the edit sumary here [19] would you mind elaborating on where your pain originates? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

From the acute mismatch of the new material with the rest of the article. The longest time period mentioned in the material is 10000 years. Your addition increases this by a factor of one million, and throws in plenty of completely irrelevant material even for the most expansive definition of the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cut-n-paste from another article is bad William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously relevant to the article and it was shortened material to increase the relevance. What else can I do to make it better? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Summary_style Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Recognize that it's not relevant? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It meets this criteria Wikipedia:Relevant. I suspect your may have a bias, which you maybe forcing on me. How would you like to resolve this? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"It meets [...] Wikipedia:Relevant" ...and that's why we have articles on Sun, Formation and evolution of the Solar System, Stellar evolution, and others. It is not, however, relevant for this article, which deals with solar variations essentially on observable time scales. It is not useful to repeat the same things over and over again in different articles, especially not if the topics are only weakly connected. The process that causes the faint young sun to evolve into a red giant is very different from processes like the 11 year sun spot cycle. And it is so slow that for a discussion on human-level time scales it can be considered stationary. Can you explain what kind of bias (except bias for a usable encyclopedia) this argument exhibits? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You just explained your own bias, that the processes are different at different time scales. Your bias for this article seems to be for "human-level" time scales. Human time scales were addressed in the proposed content. The article is about how the sun changes. The sun's life cycle is a significant and relevant change for inclusion in this article. The content was appropriately summarized to be: germane, material, pertinent, and applicable for this article. You are constructing an obstruction to adding the content and ignoring creating a path to fair resolution. I find it disruptive. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No. The processes are different on different time scales - or do you think the hydrogen/helium ratio of the sun magically varies up and down on a decadal time scale? The second World war ended 65 years ago. What you propose is akin to handling the extinction of the dinosaurs and the battle of Berlin in the same article. "Over the history of the planet, the extinction rate among vertebrae has varied significantly for various reasons. Compared to the K/T extinction event, World War II was an insignificant blib." I don't think that is a useful approach. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Spare the death of an irrelevant strawman you make. This article and the content is about the sun changing. Please stay on topic to the proposed content and sources which adds relevant summarized info. Oz's starwman had no brain and was an inadvertent ignorant distraction. From WP:FOC "Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community. When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral."Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment not applicable. The content already is on Wikipedia - for your convenience I linked the articles above. Your interpretation of the topic of the article seems to be uniquely yours. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Back again to, how would you like to resolve? Should i present a few suggested options? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The way to resolve this is for you to recognize that this material does not belong into this article, or for you to convince at least a sizeable minority that it does belong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why a large amount of content from another article is useful. Nor is it clear that the material is helpful for this article - presumably, that was why it was in a different article William M. Connolley (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What would you see as usefull considering Wikipedia:Summary_style and this a sub article on the sun?. The content is intended to provide a summary on the life cycle which is a critical aspect of "solar variation" with a link to the main article. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY works the other way around. You have a summary of and a link to the more specific article (Solar variation) in the more general one (Sun). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It works both ways or else this article would be a POV Fork. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No. That is complete and utter nonsense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So this dispute is growing bigger, in place of resolving? Sorry you don't see a fork issue, may be time to neutralize a POV bias. NPOV means content WP:SPLITs both ways. If the content isn't splitting than it's forking. Base neutrality demands equality for content to go either way based on the specific subject. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

Would you consider translating that into english; or if you're unable to, perhaps you could find someone who understands what you're trying to say and could translate for you? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

When SS says wp:summary applies one way, then that's like saying this artice is a POV fork by construction because is negates a fair and balanced summary between the articles. To maintain NPOV, without creating a POV fork here, this article can have a summary too from the sun article, else it could be a POV fork. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

¿Que? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC) [<---don't mind him.. He's from Barcelona --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)]

Maybe getting close to issue a RFC for the content here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) Must be a team quorum call. (smile) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is more or less a sibling of Solar cycle, with a slightly broader context. It discusses periodic variation and other variations of the Sun in what is basically a fairly stable state. It is not an appropriate place for a meta-analysis of the Sun's entire life cycle. For the latter, see Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System, Sun#Life_cycle, and Stellar_evolution. As Stephan Shulz said above, a sentence or two would be adequate to establish that context for the article. Seems to me that one can readily wikilink and/or use the "see-also" section to the articles that deal with the entire life cycle. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)