Talk:Sunset/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sunset picture

I contest the recent forcing of a new lead picture into the article, per the discussion above. Please see also my talk page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I 2nd the contestment. Maybe for a different reason, but because it strays further from the definition. Quality is not an issue. The photo that is constantly being forced on us does not show brightly contrasting colors, which is the dictionary definition of sunset. Anyone should feel free to use a higher quality photo, but they can't replace it simply because it's of a higher quality; it must coincide with the dictionary definition equally or more than the one that's there. - Marc Averette (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• The dictionary definition MAKES NO MENTION OF BRIGHTLY CONTRASTING COLOURS!! Such a definition would be ludicrous because then this, this, this etc would all be sunsets! The replacement shows a very similar scene, and in fact shows at least as much colour as the previous one, without the issues with Alvesgaspar's image with the sun still visible. Quality is obviously an issue, and the previous photo fails miserably here. What is better in the article, this sentence "Sunset is da daily losing of the sun beneath da sky coz of the earth rotatin" or "Sunset is the daily disappearance of the sun below the horizon as a result of the apparent diurnal motion of the celestial sphere"? The same analogy applies to images. Let me repeat, quality is an issue, and in fact is the only issue here. --Fir0002 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There's more than one English dictionary, in case you weren't aware. Mine gave a 1st definition of the moment of the sun's disappearance below the horizon and a 2nd definition of sunset being the brightly contrasting colors in the sky *after* the 1st definition occurs. A beetle cannot be a sunset by this definition since a beetle doesn't affect the color of the sky. You should read a bit closer before jumping to conclusions and throwing tantrums. - Marc Averette (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "does not show brightly contrasting colors, which is the dictionary definition of sunset" Marc Averette 14 December 2008 Clearly you've got to be a bit more careful with your definitions. Further from that please provide a reference for your definition - while I agree that many dictionaries include a second definition to the effect of "sunset is also used to describe the atmospheric effects surrounding the sun setting" there is no requirement for "brightly contrasting colours" which at any rate your image doesn't display because all the colours are in a similar hue (red/yellow/orange). --Fir0002 22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I was simply paraphrasing what I had already quoted back in May:

Two good reasons to keep current photo. The 1st two dictionary definitions of sunset are:

1. The time of day when the sun disappears below the western horizon. - This obviously states that the sun must no longer be visible in the photo.

2. The changes in color of the sky at sunset. - This suggests that a more representative photo would have changes in color different from the normal color of the sky. The current photo is the most colorful example I've seen on the page so far; another good reason that it's far more representative of sunset than one that's lacking a lot of bright contrasting colors.

And as for the photo not having contrasting colors, perhaps you need glasses. The blue of the sky is clearly visible behind the clouds, which are illuminated orange/yellow/pink. Last time I checked, orange and blue were complementary (if contrasting in this case is meant to mean opposite) colors. - Marc Averette (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Damned by your own mouth then. If the only contrasting colours in your image are yellow/orange and blue than this shot demonstrates this contrast far more effectively since the blue in your shot contributes to maybe 10% of the image. In my shot the changes in the sky are illustrated clearly because we can contrast sunset conditions on the left with near-twilight conditions on the right. And again I'd like to request a reference for your definition, because personally I prefer the definition here --Fir0002 23:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't type with my mouth; perhaps you do? In any case, what you "personally prefer" is irrelevant. The Oxford English dictionary (the authoritative source, by the way) has this to say. 2 - "the colours and light visible in the sky at sunset", which suggests another definition to be colors, something your drab photo seriously lacks. I admit, the one there is dated. It was taken several years ago, back when 1.5 megapixel was top-of-the-line. If it's going to be changed, the one replacing it should also fit the colorful definition. - Marc Averette (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

OK from the Oxford dictionary we're only looking for the colours accompanying the sun descending below the sunset. These colours are well and truly present in my photo - claiming they're not only exposes the utter lack of objectivity in your arguments --Fir0002 05:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and just FYI in 2004 the top of the line camera had 16.6 MP and 3 MP cameras were common and relatively cheap (I had one for $600 since 2003) and your image is a mere 0.3 MP --Fir0002 05:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that quality is important, but should never prevail over encyclopaedic value. Maybe it is time to finally change the lead picture. I went again over the discussion above and realized there is already a minimal consensus. The opinion of Spiel496 is that the sun's disk should be shown; Marc Averette proposes two lead images: one before the astonomical sunset and the other after. I've no problem in accepting this last suggestion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't see a problem with multiple images either - IMO an article should have as many photos as possible since very few members of the public (none wikipedians) know what the commons link does or will even scroll that far down. But certainly the current image should be replaced ASAP --Fir0002 09:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Please see my proposal above -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC - Definition of Sunset and Lead Images

There has been quite a bit of debate in trying to establish what is sunset and from this definition which images suitably represent this. Note the relevant discussion is two sections above this on the talkpage

• Comment by Fir0002. Personally I'd suggest we adopt dictionary definitions, in which case there a two distinct definitions of "sunset". 1. The time when the sun sets [1] or goes below the horizon [2] (pretty much the Astronomical definition [3]). 2. The atmospheric or scenic phenomena accompanying the sun setting (descending below the horizon) [4]; alternatively the colours in the sky accompanying the sun setting [5]. In which case I'd suggest picking one of the images from the below gallery to lead the image - but with preference to the ones which don't show the sun because they at least could feasibly be illustrating the 1st definition along with the second (even if they weren't actually taken at the precise moment when the sun disappeared from view). --Fir0002 05:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Lead Image Candidates
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Comment

  

  Is this space shuttle launch past sunset? The controllers can't see the sun, but the astronauts a few thousand feet up certainly can...hmmm...

First of all, this whole discussion (amazingly long, I might add) is a candidate for WP:LAME, IMHO. I understand there is a scientific definition and a common definition for the term "sunset". I am a professional navigator in the US Air Force and celestial navigation information/charts are certainly based on the position of the sun and simple errors measured in seconds can indeed introduce errors measured in miles. So, the point of sunset does have a very specific definition from a scientific standpoint. It should probably be noted that the term "horizon" is defined as the point of the earth at sea level at the furthest point potentially visible in the distance when viewed from sea level. The actual sight of this point is irrelevant, so, if there is land on the horizon in any capacity (when viewed from sea level), sunset may not have yet occurred (example, sun setting behind a mountain ). Conversely, there may be sunlight visible if on a mountain peak looking down onto the ocean and the sunset may have already occured. So altitude is a factor if we're going to get that picky.

Second, there is the common definition of a sunset as the colors generated during the process of the sun setting, more of a reflection on the verb and not the actual time at which the sun actually disappears. Therefore "sunset" is both a noun referencing a specific scientific time and the visual effects related to the sun's movement around that time.

So, which image to choose? Honestly, I don't think any single image matters. My solution: You have 8 images. Put them in a gallery at the bottom of the page and rotate the images through the lead image placement every 30 days. These are all pretty good pictures and there is no reason we can't simply share the lead image.

Who's with me? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree

— BQZip01 — ^talk 06:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Rotation is not a bad idea - but is this something which is done elsewhere on wikipedia? Also I think doing that we'd get into problems with what goes into the "rotation gallery". Which is why I think it'd be good to settle on one or two images now which would serve as the lead image, at least for a while. --Fir0002 11:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, this is a lame discussion and I'm really tired of it. I don't care what image, or images, are put at the top of the article, as long as people don't put their egos or personnal interest ahead of intelectual honesty. I am also a professional marine navigator, professor of nautical astronomy and have written about these subjects (see the web). But am leaving this discussion. Go ahead, the way is free. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Ok lame as it is I think it'd be good to get this resolved. I think it's common ground that the scientific definition is when the sun first disappears from view and that the common definition is the atmospheric colours and lighting. What needs to be clarified is whether there is a "period of sunset" defined as the period in between the sun's lower limb touching the horizon and the upper limb disappearing from view. And if not, does the opening sentence need to be modified a bit to make this a little more clear? Eg remove the first sentence and start with "Sunset is scientifically defined as the... It is also commonly defined as..." --Fir0002 11:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Mostly I agree with BQZip01, rotate the images. It would be nice to have drawings showing the different definitions of sunrise, sunset, and twilight, which might actually help users and restrict the resumption of lameness. There are technical definitions available at http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/RST_defs.php#top htom (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment, but as I've repeated several times we've already established the scientific definition and common definition. What is not established is, as I mentioned above "whether there is a "period of sunset" defined as the period in between the sun's lower limb touching the horizon and the upper limb disappearing from view. And if not, does the opening sentence need to be modified a bit to make this a little more clear? Eg remove the first sentence and start with "Sunset is scientifically defined as the... It is also commonly defined as..."" Also if we are going to go with a rotating gallery is everyone happy with the images I selected into the gallery and if not please propose alternatives. On that point too, what do people think about seeking input from WP:FPC talkpage in deciding on the relevant images? --Fir0002 22:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The rotation idea is besides the point. WP:NOT is fairly clear about galleries. The images are only eyecandy and offer little educational value (in particular they are redundant). Rotate all you like, but keep the gallery off the article page. If this article needs any images than it is a good schematic illustration of the concept. And here I agree with Fir, a proper definition should be agreed upon. Preferably one that can be sourced to a mainstream encyclopedia (because that's what WP is, not an Astronomers Textbook, not a Celestial Navigation HowTo, not an Aerial navigators manual). --Dschwen 16:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • OK well I'm planning to visit the Victorian State Library in a week or so and I'll check what kind of definition other encyclopaedias have (that is unless someone out there has book encyclopaedias more easily accessible) --Fir0002 22:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Wow. All that on what sunset means? Really? Of course it's a duration and pictures of a "setting sun" are fine, regardless of how much of it is still visible. If you want to get technical (and it certainly appears you do), the light from the sun is actually bent by Earth's gravity. Even after the sun is completely "beneath" the horizon, its light curves around such that it looks like it's yet to set. Also, as it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach the Earth, the "actual" sunset is 8 minutes before we see it! OMG!!1!1!one!! --jwanders^Talk 17:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well IMO those "technicals" you mentioned are completely irrelevant because sunset only has a meaning if your reference point is the surface of the earth - the sun does not register sunset as being a different time! So it doesn't matter what gravity is doing to the light or how long it takes for the light to get to earth, an observer on Earth will see the sun sink below the horizon at a particular time (i.e sunset). Also I can't help feeling a little frustrated because you haven't addressed any of the points relevant to this discussion. Yes a setting sun is fine because it comes under definition 2., but the question is whether there is such a thing as a "period of sunset" which is specifically defined as the interval of time between the sun's lower and upper limbs touching the horizon. --Fir0002 12:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The conversations that go on at Wikipedia continue to amaze me, but I'm here, so WTH. I think the lead is a bit too long. It's pretty prose and all, but I'd probably vote for the definition as the lead. If it's acceptable to have the flowery comments, perhaps use quotes from poets and writers who are well known. Then that can even be sourced. As far as the picture, and they are all beautiful, I take a lot of sunsets myself. I guess I would choose the top left one. The bottom line? If we need this much text, time, and discourse to figure out what a sunset is, we might want to rethink how we're spending our time here. And yep, guess I'm now as guilty as everyone else. Well, it was an RfC, so now that I've "C"ed, I'm gonna go rethink how I'm spending my time, maybe while viewing a beautiful sunset .. good luck to all ;) .. Ched (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Totally out of line, my apology will be listed below Ched (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: came here via RFC, decided to edit intro in a way that I thought respected the discussion above. Hope it was helpful. Rd232 ^talk 13:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well done - that's a pretty good rewrite IMO --Fir0002 23:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanx. :) Rd232 ^talk 09:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead Image Selection

I think that the definition for sunset has been more or less resolved now. There are two definitions used in the article:

1. The precise moment when the sun disappears from view - a more scientific/technical definition

2. The atmospheric conditions which surround this event (the pretty clouds/lighting before and after the sun disappears from view) - the common definition ("look at that beautiful sunset")

So now we can move on to selecting what's going to replace the current lead image. Here's a gallery (be now means complete) of potential candidates:

• Lead Image Candidates
• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Oh and just for disclosure I've spammed a number of users I found from the article's history and placed a note on WP:FPC and Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography to speed this discussion up a bit

- So #1 is still a candidate? The sun can be visible? - Marc Averette (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Number 1 fulfils definition 2 - the atmospheric conditions before and after the sun disappears --Fir0002 03:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

---

!Votes:

• 3 Yes I'm biased but I like my own the best of all of them. One of the key features IMO is the composition which shows sunset conditions on the LHS and twilight conditions on the RHS. It primarily fulfils definition 2 but could also fulfils definition 1 since the sun is not visible. --Fir0002 00:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Don't care I have cast my !vote in the direction of apathy! Seriously, just put one up there. A little later, someone else can put up another one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 1 seems to be the obvious choice to me. All images are pretty, but only 1 shows the sun actually setting. --Dschwen 03:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Um but we've established that there isn't any significance to the sun partially sinking below the sunset. Refer to the definitions above - sunset is either the exact moment when the sun disappears from view or it's the atmospherics accompanying this event (before and after). So to a certain extent we're just voting on which of these has the best atmospherics - ie which is prettiest/most striking --Fir0002 07:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • So add it in some position other than the lead, the !vote is just for the lead image and the article is relatively void of images atm anyway. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I think you're missing my point - the lead image should be of a sunset, and the definitions for a sunset (as pointed out above) do not talk about a period of the disc of the sun slipping below the horizon. I'm not saying it's a bad image, but I'm just point out that showing the sun partially above the horizon isn't actually a draw card - and IMO certainly shouldn't be a deciding factor. --Fir0002 09:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
        • First line of article: "Sunset is the daily disappearance of the sun below the horizon as a result of the Earth's rotation", 1 shows this process happening. The atmospheric conditions are next mentioned, and probably should be the subject of the next image Noodle snacks (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah I see where you're coming from. That was debated a bit higher up the talkpage. I think I'm speaking according to the final resolution of the issue when I say that this sentence does not refer to a period of time when the sun is in the process of disappearing - rather it is talking about a specific daily point in time when the sun completely disappears for the first time. This I think is made a bit clearer in the following sentence: "These conditions often appear before and after the precise moment the sun disappears below the horizon, and as a result the term "sunset" in common usage has a substantially looser meaning than in scientific and technical applications." In some ways I'd almost argue #1 should be avoided because it confuses the definition of sunset that we've settled on (at least this is how I understand it). --Fir0002 09:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 1 per Dschwen, I have some equally pretty sunsets in my collection, but 1 portrays the most useful information. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 1 is my choice. The definition mentions the sun's disk and the horizon, so I think it is helpful to have the sun's disk and the horizon visible in the picture. To be accurate, the caption should mention that the photo was taken 1 or 2 minutes prior to the actual moment of sunset. Spiel496 (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 5 because it shows the widest variety of colors. I also think the vertical aspect ratio fits best in the article. Cacophony (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 1 is technically the best. The others are also beautiful, but a bit further from the subject. Inwind (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 1 or similar is what people will expect to see for this article I think, and there's room for another image further down, for which I'd like an image with a city skyline (like 9 above, or the current lead). Common usage definition would permit a wide range of images, and I'm not sure an unambiguous photo of astronomical sunset is possible (but would make a good addition if one could be found+agreed on, but needn't be the lead). Rd232 ^talk 13:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 1 is to me the obvious choice. The others are in some way more specialised or have a variety of non-sunset features. This just shows the subject, and nothing more. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• 1 for the lead photo. I also concur with Rd232 for 9 to be placed further down. It has deep orange hues that complement the blue sky. It also shows the horizon, unlike 2,3,4 & 5 that have hills blocking the horizon, making it unclear that the sun has even set (it could be behind the hills). - Marc Averette (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think the consensus is pretty clearly for no. 1 so I'll go ahead with the replacement sometime tomorrow unless anyone has objections? --Fir0002 10:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Would say 1 but abstaining for lack of viable alternative. Is the only one that's obviously a sunset, rather than an illustration of twilight. May we have more selections of sunsets to choose from, please? Wikimedia Commons Quality Images is full of them. Durova^Charge! 21:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I had a quick look but could only find one other sunset image with a sun in it. That said I'm continually surprised that people haven't looked at the definitions I added on top of the gallery in the (vain) hope that people would have a good idea what a sunset, for the purposes of the lead text, is. The other images are not illustrations of twilight as per definition 2 and the further definition of twilight as a time of soft diffused light - not fiery sunset conditions! --Fir0002 23:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • peter, this is a non-argument. Even if you define the sunset as the point in time, where the upper rim disappears below the horizon, it would still be better to show the sun just before that point, rather than showing no sun just after that point. You'll never exactly hit the exact point in any case. --Dschwen 00:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree - we have to choose something which reflects the leading text. We don't want contradictions. I agree it would be difficult to show definition 1 in a photo (the point at which the sun disappears) which is why the image we are choosing is meant to be illustrating definition 2 - the atmospheric conditions. For this purpose the presence of the sun is quite irrelevant. --Fir0002 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
        • 1 does show the atmospheric conditions equally well, plus it allows the viewer to make a visual connection to the disappearing sun. --Dschwen 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree that part of the sun must appear in the photo. In the vernacular of the English language, a sunset includes the sun. On an extreme level, I'd like to see something similar to the opening of the Lion King, which shows the sun prominently (see this; while I'm aware it's not realistic, it's the general idea I'm getting at); after all, it's a sunset. (Granted the sun was rising in the movie, but you get the picture). A sunset is the process in which the sun lowers until it falls below the horizon - when showing, say, half the sun cut off at the horizing, that is a midpoint of the sunset itself and shows many colors, as shown above, but still shows the sun itself. While all of the images above are beautiful, I believe it must include the sun and that the arguments above are too nit-picky and one must consider the common conception - i.e. zoom out from the article and look at common perception. This should be the basis of the article. If it's not, add it then reference it. Then it is. Per Durova, I don't really support any of them, but if I had to choose, #1 is the best (note twilight versus sunset). Any other would be great if they included the sun in them! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology from Ched

I stopped back to see how things were going here, and when I re-read what I had written, I was shocked. I am truly sorry. Had I said those things in a room of friends that knew my twisted sense of humor, it would have been one thing, - but in group of people that don't know me, and that I'd like to make friends with ... very poor form. I apologize for the poor choice of words, and will make a very strong effort to watch my smart mouth in the future. The topic and pictures are beautiful, my smart-alec mouth was stupid. I am sorry. I wish I could say that someone borrowed my computer, but I can't. I don't have an excuse for my choice of words. I promise to be more constructive without the smart mouth in the future. I can only say that it honestly was a poor choice of words in an (poor) attempt at humor. I hope I'll be forgiven. Ched (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries Ched, I'm sure if anyone was offended it was only momentary. All the best --Fir0002 23:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

dust myth?

In a recent rewrite of the Colors section Accas1 writes that it is a myth "that pollution and dust enhance the beauty of sunsets." I must take issue with this statement both from personal experience, and from the references I mentioned above (during the Endless Conversation with The Good Doctor Fry):

• The Science of Color, by Steven K. Shevell, Optical Society of America, Elsevier, 2003, ISBN:0444512519
• Atomic and Molecular Spectroscopy: Basic Aspects and Practical Applications, by Sune Svanberg, 2004, Springer, ISBN:3540203826
• Field Guide to Atmospheric Optics: V. FG02, by Larry C. Andrews, SPIE Press, 2004, ISBN:0819453188:

  Shorter-wavelength sunlight is therefore scattered more out of the beam by the additional aerosols and particulate matter, leaving only the longer red wavelength to get through to the observer.

These books and others overwhelmingly support the idea that airborne particles play a major role in sunset color. Don't get tripped up on the fallacy these particles are too large to be wavelength-dependent scatterers. While the 1 to 10 μm particles account for most of the mass, the particle number concentration in typical air peaks at about 0.02μm diameter. Counted by surface area, the peak concentration is more like 0.1 μm. I don't know which population dominates in scattering, but it's not unreasonable to suppose that sub-micron particles play a major role in the predominantly short-wavelength scattering that leads to red sunsets. Without better citations I think the dust myth paragraph should be eliminated. Spiel496 (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Spiel496,

With all due respect, I must disagree with your reluctance to accept the idea that dust and pollutants do not necessarily contribute positively to sunset coloration. In my 15 February re-write of part of "Sunset," I stated that, if one defines sunset "beauty" to be spectral purity and intensity, the contribution by what most people consider to be atmospheric pollution, (i.e., dust, soot, and haze particles in the lower layers of the troposphere), is not a positive one. As I stated in the 15 February edit, if pollution were a first order contributor to the creation of beautiful sunrises and sunsets, industrialized areas would be known for their low-sun hues. It is indeed correct that dust and other particles assist in the general reddening of the sun, particularly when it is low in the sky. But it is a disservice to Wiki readers to perpetuate the idea that pollution enhances sunset colors without providing more details; as scientists we should do better than this. I did provide a few such details for the section on afterglows; the previous text suggested that volcanoes somehow enhanced sunset colors without mentioning the oft-neglected fact that it is only when gaseous volcanic products condense in the stratosphere that beautiful afterglows are produced. Volcanic dust in the troposphere reduces spectral purity; extinction also is increased. As a result, sunsets viewed through a lower atmosphere loaded with volcanic aerosols are dusky and "flat." In short, where the particles are located along the path of the sunlight is important. If there exist so many particles in the lower atmosphere such that attenuation and, to a lesser extent, loss of spectral purity, become significant (as is the case in situations that most people would describe as "polluted"), then sunset colors are not enhanced.

Part of our disagreement here, I think, might reflect a difference in background. I come into this discussion as a meteorologist. I can tell someone in advance whether or not a particular sunset at a given location is likely to be colorful and bright, or muted and dull by considering the turbidity characteristics along the path taken by the setting sun. I appreciate the factors discussed in the references you mentioned; they set the theoretical record straight; more dust = more reddening. But it is also true that, whether from natural or man-made sources, there exist enough particles in earth's atmosphere to yield red sunsets in even the cleanest air. What matters from the view point of someone at the surface is whether or not that strongly-colored light (and its projection onto clouds) may be clearly seen at the ground.

I will give some thought to modifying "Sunset" at a future date along the lines I have discussed above, pending your response. You have contributed a lot to the article, and I respect your views. But I think that the article can be improved with a more thorough discussion of the role played by the location and amount of dust, haze, and other particles in the atmosphere.

Accas1 (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree on the science. A communication issue arises because "particles" can mean such a wide range of phenomena. Both the particle size and the particle number density can vary by easily three orders of magnitude; that's a big space of possibilities. I would concede that a large concentration of 2 um particles -- fog -- just makes everything gray. The point I am trying to make in the article is that scattering by molecules alone isn't a strong enough effect to give the sun a vivid red-orange color at sunset. Books on the subject say that particles are important for this. What size, though? I think the article would benefit from that detail. Certainly smaller than 2 um, because that's the typical cloud droplet size, and clouds are, of course, not colorful. Spiel496 (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Colors and scattering

Responding to The Good Doctor Fry above, 22:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)...

I do not "force [my] view of things"; I paraphrase content from published sources. Go to books.google.com and read the originals for yourself. Find better sources, if you like. But until then mind Wikipedia:Verifiability and avoid language like "You may cite all the references you like..."

To summarize Dr Fry's points:

• Forward scattering by particles favors red light.
• Redness in the (nonscattered) light from the setting sun is enhanced by the absorption (not just scattering) of blue light by particles.

These are perfectly reasonable statements. If someone finds citations to back them up, I'm in favor of including them in the article. For now, I'm reverting Dr. Fry's edit, because of the unverified material, and also because I feel the edit harmed the readability of the section.

My interpretation of the sources is this:

• Forward scattering by particles is wavelength-independent. They scatter a lot of red light simple because they're illuminated with red sunlight.
• Loss of blue light in the setting sun is caused by scattering of blue light by particles, not by absorption.

Spiel496 (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Spiel, As I noted above, a single Raleigh Scattering 'wavelength dependent' explanation cannot and does not explain both a blue sky and the intense reds and oranges of sunsets that pass through dust/soot/aerosol laden atmospheres. If your explanations were correct, then the long air paths at sunrise and sunset would actually enhance the blues on the horizons. Attempts to use a single explanation are simply factually incorrect, flawed, and misleading. Is the intent of Wikipedia to mislead readers under the aegis of verifiability, and to satisfy one editor's inability to understand the underlying science? If Spiel's proposals that the blue is scattered off into space by solid & liquid aerosols and particulates, then the images from space, taken from directly above sunsets and sunrises, would show enhanced blue light above the exposed atmosphere - which they don't.

The fact that your quotes do not include/mention Mie Scattering or discrete dipole approximation from the sources you cite, demonstrates that you or they really don't understand the scientifically accepted and best mathematical explanations of the intense reds and oranges of sunset. Why substitute self-satisfying yet misleading edits, with claims of improving the 'readability of the section'. Re-write the section if you like, but please don't continue to incorrectly attribute two fundamentally different scattering processes to a single cause.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Dr Fry has made a lot of points, so I'll address them individually.

• "If your explanations were correct, then..."

These are not my explanations. They are from Field Guide to Atmospheric Optics: V. FG02, by Larry C. Andrews, SPIE Press, 2004, ISBN:0819453188 and others.

• Does the single wavelength-dependence explanation predict enhanced blues on the horizon?

No, I don't see why it would. I think what happens is that light from the horizon starts off just as blue as the rest of the sky, but because it must travel through more air (compared to light from blue sky directly overhead) to get to the observer, the scattered blue light is scattered a second time, leaving the sky near the horizon "whiter" or at least a paler shade. I don't have references to back this up; I'm just saying the observations don't contradict the published books.

• Is the intent of Wikipedia to mislead readers?

Obviously not. But the "one editor's inability to understand" viewpoint falls a bit flat. I don't hear anyone arguing your point either. I have books on my side.

• Wouldn't images from space above sunsets show enhanced blue?

No. Air from regions experiencing sunset is being illuminated with reddened light so I'd expect it would have less blue light to scatter than it does at mid-day.

• Why don't my quoted sources mention Mie Scattering?

For the same reason it doesn't belong in the article. "Mie Scattering" is too broad a term. Even Rayleigh scattering is an example of Mie scattering. It's like saying "the sunset is red because of Maxwell's Equations"; while true, it just slaps a fancy label on the phenomenon without moving the reader any closer to an understanding.

Now, for my comments. My objections to the edit [6] by The Good Doctor Fry are:

• Introduces needlessly verbose language like, "dust particles, soot particles, other solid aerosols, and liquid aerosols".
• It makes no mention of the wavelength dependence of the process. Without wavelength dependence, there is no explanation of color. Dr Fry, are you claiming that the typical airborne particle scatters red light more strongly than other colors? Or, are you saying that blue light is more strongly absorbed? Also, find a reliable source.

• The material about Mount Pinatubo was duplicated -- please proofread.

Spiel496 (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

sunset is the perfect time to be with your love ones... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.162.160.246 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

November 2010

Spiel's recent edits to try to again inappropriately use Raleigh Scattering to describe sunsets as being caused by particles smaller than visible light wavelengths, defy the realities that atmospheric particles are much much larger ( a 20X error, since 10 um particles = 10,000 nm and visible light falls around only 500 nm), where Raleigh scattering requires that the scattering particle be much much smaller than the wavelength of scattered light. This 20X misapplication of appropriate theory and misconstruing and misinterpreting cited references both create conclusions that are exactly the opposite of reality and theory. If Raleigh scattering were the dominant effect, the sky would appear much more BLUE because the reds and yellows are DEPLETED by Raleigh scattering, so, the previous editor has misunderstood the wavelength dependence of scattering by air molecules to incorrectly interpret that Raleigh Scattering depletes blue, while Raleigh scattering actually INCREASE for the shorter blue wavelengths - which would make sunsets even more blue by his factually incorrect explanations, as sunlight passes through a longer atmospheric pathlength, the reds are DEPLETED by Raleigh Scattering. Overly simplified interpretations of scientific references, and inverting the mathematics of cited equations do support the previously presented false premises, but misinterpretation of references and miscalculations do not explain the reality of sunset colors. 1/(wavelength)4 for Blue light (430 nm) versus Red light (620 nm) gives Raleigh scattered Blue intensities that are 1.44X more intense than the depleted red intensities. If you do not believe this, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raleigh_scattering and do the Intensity calculations, ratioing: I(blue) / I (red) to prove to the reader that Blue is scattered preferentially (1.44X larger blue intensity), and the Red is depleted.

If Speil's arguments were correct, then crudely 1.44X more blue light than red light would be scattered by the longer atmospheric path lengths at sunset = Blue Sunsets even more intense than the blue sky of daytime, which just happens to be the opposite of the reality of sunsets being more red at sunset. This clearly proves that the reds of sunsets and sunrises are due to Mie Scattering of visible light by solid and liquid aerosols, where Mie Scattering becomes the dominant effect at sunrise and sunset due to the long path lengths of sunlight through LOW ALTITUDE DUST LADEN and AEROSOL LADEN air. When the sun is high in the sky, the path-length through low altitude dust and aerosol laden air is very short, which causes Raleigh Scattering (Blue enhancement) to dominate = blue sky during the daytime. When the sunlight's pathlength through low altitude dusty air is long, then Mie Scattering dominates, and the sky appears red at the low angles close to the horizon. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

---

It wasn't I who made the change (although I did make some recent readability edits). I think what the article is saying is:

transmitted =1 - absorbed - scattered

Since the scattering is predominantly short wavelength (blue), the transmitted is left predominantly long wavelength (red). You clearly feel very strongly about this subject. I suggest you round up some references that support what you are saying and let the community as a whole judge them against with references currently in the article. Spiel496 (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi Spiel, 6 months ago, I previously cited 3 articles, and quoted paragraphs and paragraphs of reliable sources on Mie Scattering, but you previously found those references too complicated for you to comprehend, (including lots of higher order mathematical explanations and Bessel functions) and those quotations I provided from reliable sources have since been moved elsewhere or deleted? Just because they are not present in this dialogue, does not diminish their significance nor does it lessen their applicability.

Low angle forward light scattering by particles, as characterized by Mie Scattering, is the accepted mathematical model for scattering of light by particulates and aerosols in the size range found in the atmosphere, and it has been the accepted model for 100 years, so, your claim that "Mie Scattering is too broad a term" simply does not fit reality.

Soot particles, dust particles, and solid and liquid aerosols are the specific physical things that selectively scatter the red and orange light from the sun to the observer, which does not seem to make their inclusion "needless" or "verbose". Unfortunately, the mathematics of the scattering of sunlight by 1 - 70 micron particles is very very complex, it has very irregular nearly discontinuous wavelength dependence (not a simple linear relationship), and hence is not appropriate for a Wiki article. I would gladly retrieve the references on Mie Scattering again, but the last 2 times I presented them, you ignored them and you have returned every time to faulty empirical applications of Raleigh Scattering.

Transmittance is not the same as forward scattering.

Absorbance of light is not the same as scattering.

Absorbance is not the same as absorption.

Scattering is not related to absorption nor is it related to absorbance. It is difficult to carry on a discussion, when one of the parties does not know the language of the topic, and it is even more difficult to discuss things when one party uses the terminology incorrectly.

Scattering as described by Raleigh Scattering and Mie Scattering are due to positive and negative interferences between light waves and: atoms, molecules, particulates, and aerosols. Interference phenomena are not the same as absorption, absorbance, and transmittance.

Transmission and Intensity can be related to Absorbance when thinking about dyes in clothing and plants and nature, and to the reflection of colored light, and to the colors of solutions containing organic molecules , but Absorbance, Absorption, and Transmittance and Transmission do nor relate to nor are they relevant when describing scattering. Think of the intense colors of a peacock feather = scattering with causes some wavelengths to be enhanced in the viewer's perception and for others to be diminished - no absorption, no absorbance, & no transmittance.

Scattering is simply very different than absorbance and absorption phenomenae - and mixing the terminology only confuses the discussion - and takes the discussion away from scientific principles and away from mathematical equations. Please, if you want to discuss these things rationally, please read up on interference phenomenae, on scattering vs. absorbance, and on color science, and then apply the associated mathematics.

I pointed out how your use of Blue light scattered by Raleigh Scattering would mathematically enhance the blue light by 1.44X over red light, making for very Blue Sunsets if your presumptions were corrects, which you seem to have missed. Long sunlight path lengths through dust and aerosol laden air at sunset times, and the mildly wavelength dependent Mie Scattering mathematics simply describe and predict the red sunsets we actually see. The models you continue to propose would produce Blue Sunsets. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

Raleigh Scattering is not the same as Mie Scattering for sunlight, as each theory was correctly developed independently to describe the intensity of scattering based on both wavelengths and particle sizes. Raleigh scattering applies to particles and atom much less than 0.5 microns. Mie Scattering applies to particles and aerosols that are 1 micron and larger.

---

The Good Doctor Fry, you're not making your case. Write a short paragraph that sticks to one topic. Provide a reference relating specifically to sunsets. (The discussion containing your previous references were archived--see the top of the page.) I'll address the one part of your post which appeared to be a response to mine: "Transmittance is not the same as forward scattering". Maybe that's the root of the misunderstanding. Have you been talking about forward scattering all this time? I've been talking about transmittance, and the reason for the transmitted light to be red.

Meanwhile, I've reverted your edit. Regardless of how sure you are, on Wikipedia you simply should not delete referenced material without providing a new reference and some reasons why the deleted reference was incorrect. Spiel496 (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The version of the paragraph by User:The Good Doctor Fry is incorrect. The writer's causality argument that the color must be caused by Mie theory because Rayleigh scattering only occurs for particles much smaller than lambda is illogical and wrong. While Rayleigh scattering indeed is scattering from atoms and molecules preferentially in the blue spectrum, it is this very scattering that removes the blue portion of the spectrum from the observed light in the direction from sun to observer. In addition the greatly increased path length through the atmosphere caused much stronger absorption for such scattered light. Mie scattering does not generate that much extra color, it's observation usually results in murky halos in direct observation. It does, however, change the color composition slightly when viewing light in other directions, because of its strong forward scattering intensity. Therefore it enhances color gradually toward the direct line between sun and observer. The version of the paragraph by User:Spiel496 comes closer to the truth, but leaves opportunities for more misconceptions by stating that the color is due to Rayleigh scattering. Only later it clarifies the intent by mentioning the removal of blue light (in rather unencyclopedic language). I have rewritten the paragraph and would be surprised if the old references didn't match the new description better. Kbrose (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I didn't write it, but I don't mind people agreeing with me. I don't like to use the term Rayleigh scattering because to a lot of people that implies molecules alone; surely there is a significant contribution from particle diameters in the range 0.1 to 1 lambda. Kbrose, your update looks fine, but it emphasizes absorption more than the cited references do. Do you have a source that says absorption essential to the explanation? I'm concerned the wording might lead people to the misconception that blue light was preferentially absorbed, rather than scattered. Spiel496 (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Dear Spiel, Please check your mathematics: use the fully referenced equations given in Wipipedia for Raleigh Scattering, and you will find than blue light is scattered 1.44X more intensely than red light by air molecules, where higher I (intensity) = more photons scattered constructively = more blue light at the earth's surface due to Raleigh Scattering from air molecules. Again, you have stated things exactly backwards:

    "  the greatly increased path length through the atmosphere caused much stronger absorption for such scattered light. "

Again, the facts and the mathematics show that the more intense Raleigh scattering of blue light, means more blue light coming through the atmosphere to the viewer = more blue. Longer light path lengths through pure air molecules means MORE blue light is scattered with longer path lengths, and the scattered spectrum becomes more DEPLETED in reds and oranges. If your logic and explanations were valid, then sunsets and sunrises would be intensely BLUE...

These assertion by User:The Good Doctor Fry do not make any physical sense. You cannot increase the intensity of blue light by scattering in the direction of the incident beam of light from sun toward observer. That would amount to generation of energy out of nothing or conversion of other light into blue light. The scattered light is scattered OUT of the beam in pretty much all other directions which causes the sky away from the direction to the sun during daytime to be blue, but the blue light is decreased in the forward beam direction. At sunset and sunrise, when the path length is extra long through the atmosphere, this results in the complete removal of blue light from the incident beam. The true situation is amply referenced with several citations of credible and reliable nature. Kbrose (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions continue to confuse scattering with transmittance, and your opinions confuse scattering with absorbance, and your opinions continue to confuse scattering with absorption. Scattering is a spectroscopic phenomenon that involves the constructive or destructive interference of light waves/photons. Raleigh Scattering, Mie Scattering, & Dipole dipole interactions with light have NOTHING to do s nothing with absorbance of light, nor with absorption, nor with transmittance. Your continued mis-application of the terminology leads you in directions exactly opposite to the mathematics. Please, do the Intensity calculation from Wiki's Raleigh Scattering, and prove to yourself that I(blue light @ 420 nm) is 1.44X larger intensity (more light and more photons = more blue) than I (red light @ 620 nm). 3 minutes with a scientific calculator would show you that Raleigh Scattering cannot enhance red light.

Again, please familiarize yourself with Color Science principles and spectroscopic terminology, and with the spectroscopic phenomena of scattering and constructive interference and destructive interference (which do not include absorbance nor absorption nor transmittance), and then use the terms and words correctly. When you repeatedly use the wrong words to describe scientific facts, it makes it appear you have made a valid case, where you have actually argued for principles that would make BLUE sunsets and BLUE sunrises. Cutting and pasting and editing and paraphrasing scientific texts can result exactly the wrong conclusions by misapplying the wrong principles.

Raleigh Scattering is correctly described in Wikipedia, and Raleigh Scattering enhances blue light intensity relative to the rest of the visible light spectrum. Raleigh light scattering cannot be used to explain red light's enhancement at sunrise and sunset. Particle sizes equivalent to and larger than blue light's wavelength (430 nm) are not able to effectively do any Raleigh Scattering. Light scattering by particles and aerosol of 500 nm to 70 microns clearly produces red light scattered at low angles in the forward direction (and no blue).

There is no enhancement of red light at sunrise or sunset, rather it's the removal of blue light that is the effect. Kbrose (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why try to re-argue something that was resolved 100 years ago? More Raleigh Scattering of visible sunlight always = more intense blue light than red light... There are no absorption nor absorbance effects. It does not take a reference to prove this, just use your calculator & the formulas listed in Wikipedia to prove that blue light scattered from Raleigh Scattering is 1.44X more intense than red light = blue daytime sky.

Scattered light is removed from the incident beam, and since this preferentially blue light, it is represented in the light reaching an observer less than red light. Kbrose (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If your desire is to have accurate information in Wikipedia, then please stop inserting false and inverse/inverted verbal explanations that are contradicted by straightforward and accepted mathematics and physics equations that have been accepted for over 100 years. Please instead use accepted terminology in the ways they have been defined. Please stop making up your own personal definitions of accepted scientific termimology, as it only confuses the discussions.

Really, this is simple stuff, (except for the higher order math needed to describe Mie scattering or dipole dipole interactions or Maxwell's relationships), and there is no need to re-write spectroscopy to fit your personal views of scattering of sunlight by aerosols and air molecules. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

Apparently this is not so simple for User:The Good Doctor Fry as it refuses to read references. Kbrose (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There obviously isn't any WP:CONSENSUS here on the issue, so please don't just edit war back and forth about it and work towards an agreement. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi Guys, There is no controversy here. There is no need for consensus, as these things are scientific facts, proven and accepted for over 100 years.

Indeed, this has been known for a long time, but your version is not the proper one. Kbrose (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Spiel continues to incorrectly edit this section on color to say that Raleigh Scattering reduces blue light: inserting the false and nonfactual claim: "The Rayleigh scattering intensity is fairly omnidirectional and has a strong reciprocal 4th-power wavelength dependency and, thus, the shorter wavelength of blue light are effected much more than the longer wavelengths of yellow to red light. The enhanced scattering increases the path length for blue light preferentially, increasing its absorption in the atmosphere, resulting in drastically diminished blue intensity in sunlight reaching an observer. "

In reality and mathematically, Raleigh Scattering describes the INTENSITY = brightness of scattered light: see Wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering on Raleigh Scattering. If one does the Intensity calculations for blue light at 430 nm and for red light at 630 nm, you quickly find that Blue light is 1.44X more strongly, more intensely scattered to the viewer than red light. This means that longer light path lengths through pure dust-free and aerosol-free air has more blue transmitted forward than red, and that red light intensity is diminished and depleted by Raleigh Scattering = less red and more blue proportionately when visible sunlight passes through pure air.

The Mie scattering of visible sunlight at sunrise and sunset by dust and liquid and solid aerosols are the dominant effects that create the appearance of reds & oranges at sunset and sunrise. Spiel continues to incorrectly use scientific terminology, and misquoting, and mis-applying scientific references, and providing broken links to support his non-factual opinions and non-scientific opinions.

If the moderator of this page does not like the wording or the recent (overly?) detailed descriptions that have been introduced into the colors section, then I would be glad to work with you to edit it to Wiki standards - but a simple use of a scientific calculator of Wiki's referenced Raliegh Scattering equation shows that the Blue light in visible light is scattered more intensely by 1.44X than red light, giving us a daytime blue sky (since the part of the sky that daylight passes through has very few particulates and very little aerosols, while the long paths of sunlight through lower atmospheric dust-laden and aerosol laden air layers causes Mie Scattering to create the Red appearances of sunrise and sunset.

Please note that there is no controversy here. Spiel simply does not understand the scientific principles of scattering, and Spiel has not used the Raleigh Scattering calculations, and Spiel does not understand the terminology of the technical articles he quotes and cites, as shown by his continued mis-use of scattering to mean absorption or absorbance = apples and cumquats.

Increased Raleigh Scattering of blue light at sunset and sunrise as Spiel proclaims, would mean more intense blue light at the earth's surface, which would result in Blue Sunsets and Blue Sunrises, which simply proves his mis-understanding of the termimology of "scattering" and "intensity". More intensity = more photons transmitted = a brighter color at the wavelength. Is it a controversy to point out that someone has completely inverted the result of an equation, to give an incorrect backwards explanation? (I mention the controversy issue, because there is a warning about more than 3 edits in 24 hours resulting in blocking my account.)

There is no controversy. These issues of Mie and Raleigh Scattering were resolved over 100 years ago, and everything I have described is accepted by professional spectroscopists around the world. I simply live in Mexico, with no access to a US scientific research reference library - and Spiel has rejected or ignored the 3 previous references I provided 6 months or so ago, because they were too mathematically dense and too complex for him to understand. Must Wiki be held hostage by persistent non-factual edits by amateurs presenting opinions that are exactly opposite to accepted scientific materials, calculations, and principles?

This is like arguing that "I add 2 + 3" and "I get -5". Scientific facts that have been accepted for over 100 years do not seem to be a consensus affair. Maybe in Wikipedia, rejecting complete inversions of mathematical calculations have to be based upon some "consensus", but that seems more similar to some bizzare return to pre-Enlightenment 15'th century beliefs. I do not mean to be flip, but when someone completely inverts an accepted equation, and creates their own personal-but-incorrect definitions of accepted terminology to support a non-scientific opinion, then the Wiki process seems to have devolved to completely backwards and upside-down interpretations of accepted facts. Please, disbelievers, do the Raleigh Scattering calculation, to prove to yourself that the Intensity (brightness) of Raleigh Scattered blue wavelengths (430 nm) is 1.44X brighter than the Intensity (brigntness - or dim-ness in this case) of red light at 620 nm, and you can see for yourself that Spiel's predictions and misapplications of Lord Raleigh's equation would make sunsets & sunrises blue. No controversy here. No need for consensus.

The math proves that Raleigh Scattering cannot describe red colored sunsets and sunrises. Mie Scattering of sunlight off of dust and atmospheric aerosols does accurately describe and predict and explains the red & orange light seen at sunrise and sunset. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

Please read some credible references on atmospheric optics and light scattering and you will discover your mistakes. Kbrose (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If the premise that Raleigh Scattering of sunset and sunrise sunlight depletes blue in the line of the sun and increases blue away from the line of sight to the sun, then the sky would be blue to the left and the right of the sun along the horizon and also above the sun. Clearly, the light across the horizon is not blue at sunset and sunrise, it is red or orange. This simple physical observation proves that a Raleigh Scattering model cannot explain red sunsets and sunrises that span the horizon. Mie Scattering is a very complex phenomena, and most Physicists do not understand it, so, they revert to a corrupted interpretation of Raleigh Scattering.

Please, do the mathematics yourself. If you use Lord Raleigh's equation, it shows that blue light is enhanced by Raleigh Scattering vs. longer wavelengths of visible light = more blue light by 1.44X than red light after Raleigh Scattering. Do you see 1.44X more blue at sunset or sunrise - off angle along the horizon - which is what Raleigh Scattering would predict = Blue Sunsets/Sunrises? Clearly, if you look at a sunset, there is no enhancement of blue light. You may find overly simplified "Physics Made Simple" explanations in some texts, but they are simply factually incorrect, as the mathematics and real world observations clearly show. Mie Scattering off of particles correctly predicts, correctly explains, and correctly quantifies the reds and oranges, which Lord Raleigh's equation does not. Why cling to a misinterpretation of an equation that predicts the opposite of reality, and ignore the equation that does describe and predict real world phenomena?

Physicists make mistakes, this is a spectroscopic scattering issue, not a matter of absorption or absorbance, and any text that uses those terms does not understand spectroscopy. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

Because we mathematically-illiterate find pictures to be helpful, I have provided a diagram. The "colors" section is talking about the light labeled A in the diagram. This light has not been scattered. It was white when it left the sun, yet now it is red. What happened to the blue components? The claim by me and other editors is that the blue was lost because it was scattered out of the beam, leaving red. Therefore, enhanced scattering of blue leads to red sunlight. Second, the light labeled B: This light has undergone low-angle scattering, which is fairly wavelength-independent. Thus, the color is the same as the incident light, which is A--red. Is this reasoning flawed in some way? Spiel496 (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Since User:The Good Doctor Fry agrees that the Rayleigh scattering article is correct, he might read the same explanation there. His physics explanations are simply wrong. They do not make sense even on the surface. The light intensity an observer sees can be written as I = I_incident - I_scatter, neglecting any absorption (which appears to be about 7% according to some sources). Enhanced scattering in the blue thus removes more blue light than red light from I_incident and the observer sees a red color. His quoted calculation of 1.44x looked wrong from the beginning as well. Apparently he is not even doing his math correctly as a quick calculation results in scattering of about 5x for 400nm light over 600nm, namely: (6/4)⁴ = 5 (approx), for which I don't even need a calculator to detect the claims as fraud or hoax. How a loss of 5x in blue over red light does not make a light beam red, and instead make it blue, is puzzling. Kbrose (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide scientific sources that applies these principles specifically to sunrise/set, or have I missed them somewhere in the discussion? The Good Doctor Fry has been blocked 48h for edit warring, but all I'm seeing in this thread is a few people both asserting that their respective understanding of the phenomena is the correct one, and the other has made some mistake in calculation. This article needs actual sources that corroborate and verify what the objective mainstream scientific viewpoint is, not personal conjecture, however accurate it may be. EDIT:I see some references in the year-old discussion about what appears to be the same issue with the same people, but they don't appear to be in the article. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 18:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The article section in sunrise and sunset now contains about a half dozen references to authoritative physics books that specifically support the statements of the section. I even listed the page numbers in those to which the statements in the text refer to. Kbrose (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that solves my concerns. Unless Good Doctor Fry can provide reliable sources contradicting them, the version as it currently is should remain in my opinion. Just wanted to make sure what was actually supported, didn't immediately see the references. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Reflection from the sky

I have not read the book by Saha, but I suppose that the quoted "reflection" from the sky probably refers to scattering from water droplets (clouds, fog, mist). A few lines later, however, we call this same phenomenon "Mie scattering". So to be consistent I agree with Spiel496 that we should eliminate "reflection" from the first line of the paragraph. --GianniG46 (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, reflection is not Mie scattering. Reflection occurs from particles, but this is certainly different than Mie scattering, reflection, even diffuse reflection, does not have the spatial distribution of Mie scattering. Cherry picking is a favorite practice of Wikipedians, and not understanding a statement is no reason to remove it, but this can be observed often. However, there is no reason to remove a fact when it is correct and quoted, it makes the statement complete and more correct as this is one of the mechanisms of attenuation. Kbrose (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Or the phrase should be expanded, to make clear which are the reflecting objects. I suppose large water droplets, which, however, are included in Mie scattering, which treats spheres of any diameter. --GianniG46 (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Saha seems to be distinguishing between cloud droplets and smaller particles, but he/she didn't make the distinction clear in the snippet I read. It sounds like semantics to me. They both mean, "light changed direction because it interacted with an object". Kbrose, if the three of us can't state clearly what Saha meant, then that is a reason to remove the fact from the article. Do you have an example that is reflection, but not scattering? Spiel496 (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just why do you think you have to have to doctor a statement that doesn't need doctoring and is written to accurately reflect a credible source written by experts. 'Light from the Sun' is not the same as 'incident solar light', and it does not convey the same information. Scattered light in the atmosphere is after all also light from the Sun, but it is not incident light, which has the original intensity and a direction, which the statement is addressing and which is critical in understanding of the difference between blue sky and orange sunset. This is more of the typical inexpert and careless editing by people that don't understand the subject matter and who should not be editing material they don't understand in detail, as evidenced on this page.

As for the matter of reflection vs. scattering, it is not a matter of semantics. Why do you attribute something to semantics when you do not understand the difference? I already stated above that reflection is distinct from scattering. If you don't believe it then go and study the subjects, but do not alter or remove statements you do not understand. It is perfectly acceptable to speak of reflection and absorption in that sentence even though we don't discuss it in the article. Why aren't you removing absorption? Because you think you understand it? Presenting all sources of attenuation, as quoted from a credible source, makes the sourced statement correct and reflects the source accurately. The difference between reflection and scattering is well known and covered by every optics course. The source itself also makes it pretty clear that it means reflection, not scattering, by citing that on cloudy days up to 80% of incident radiation is reflected. Your ignorance of the subject matter should not give you the impetus to remove or alter the statement under no circumstances.

These matters are another reason for the terrible state of quality of science articles on WP. No matter how good an article initially is written, it only takes a few editors to deface them with meaningless or false information, based on belief, pov, ignorance. In a short period of time the articles are trashed and have no credibility. We just combated one hoaxter, now you start another one of these endless debates that are unnecessary. This is not a forum to teach you or anyone science by endless discussions. If you don't know it, stay away and learn by reading and researching on your own. Kbrose (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I stopped reading after the phrase "inexpert and careless editing". Summon a third party if you wish resolve this dispute. Spiel496 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As no one has come up with an example that represents reflection and not scattering, I'll go remove reflection from the article. Spiel496 (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dispute concerning type of scattering

I have just blocked The Good Doctor Fry (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for edit-warring. As an editor on scientific topics myself, I am aware of how much time can be wasted by this sort of disruptive editing. If the problem resumes, please don't feel a need to waste any more time with lengthy explanations, just bring it to my attention and I'll respond with a longer bock. Looie496 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I realize that I was incorrect in my recent edits of Raleigh scattering from the colors section, and that both Raleigh and Mie scattering are necessary to explain the variations of weakly colored sunset and sunrises due almost solely to Raleigh scattering vs. intensely and brilliantly colored sunsets and sunrises from Mie scattering that occur when particulates and aersols are in the air. I mistakenly became to involved in jousting with Spiel (my apologies), and I have edited the section on colors to include the contributions of both Mie and Raleigh scattering, because brilliant sunsets and sunrises that spans the horizon requires both. Raleigh scattering clearly scatters blues and greens off into other directions, successively removing blues and greens from white sunlight, leaving the reds and oranges that can be further scattered by particulates and aerosols by Mie Scattering. This explanation actually returns to one that I wrote a year ago, before edits and Raleigh-only scattering explanations. Sunsets and sunrises without large particulates or aerosols are particularly weak, less intense, and not brilliant when compared to sunsets and sunrises with large particulates and aerosols. Sunsets and sunrises with only Raleigh scattering are only faintly red near the sun and rise only close to the horizon, while sunrises and sunsets with large particulates or aerosols span the horizon and fill as much as a 30 degree angle above the horizon with intense colors from Mie scattering off of the particles. Again, my apologies for losing focus, and forgetting my earlier explanations that cover all types of sunsets and sunrises.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

Thank you for your civility, hopefully we can work something out regarding the article. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Simplification of the Colors section

As it currently stands, the "Colors" section I think gives a fairly complete explanation for the colors in a sunset. Many thanks to GianniG46, The Good Doctor Fry, Kbrose and others for digging up references and contributing words. The remaining flaw I see is not inaccuracy, but abundance: there's a fair amount of repetition and some excessive technical details. I plan to work towards reducing the length and simplifying the prose. If I consolidate out a key point, or simplify to the point of being inaccurate, by all means call me on it. My motivation is to make the article accessible to the average reader. Spiel496 (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please go ahead! The length and complexity of the 'colors' section are scaring and inappropriate for this kind of article, which is supposed to address the general reader. IMO it reflects more the erudit conflicts around the theme, among knowlegeable Wikipedia editors, than a genuine intention of being didactic. The recent attempt of user The Good Doctor Fry to force a diagram into the text is another symptom of the same disease. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to make incremental changes and reach a consensus when someone makes massive changes to the page in this manner. Kbrose, I reverted your edit (which was itself a revert as far as I can tell) not because I think the current text is perfect, but because I believe we can approach perfection by gradually modifying the current wording. Your edit brought back issues like reflection that I thought were settled. If there's something wrong with the section, please make your case here on a point-by-point basis. Spiel496 (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Particles and aerosols

The phrase "particles and aerosols" strikes me as completely redundant. Maybe in common use "aerosol" means "a liquid droplet", but the one I'm familiar with is "a suspension of solid or liquid particles in a gas". Is there any loss of meaning by simplifying all mentions of aerosols to "airborne particles"?

Yes, but for the average reader perhaps it would be useful to specify in some way that the airborne particles include microscopic water droplets, whose effects are strikingly visible in the photos. --GianniG46 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Since the goal of the article is not to create a treatise that replicates the formulae and details of spectroscopy texts, but to instead point average readers in the right direction with simplified explanations, I think it is useful to include the phrase "particles and aerosols", because a typical reader of this basic article on sunsets would likely not know the precise definition of particles to include solids, liquids, liquids combined with solids, and all of the aforementioned particles ability to contain dissolved gases. "Particles and aerosols" covers all the bases, without being excessively verbose.

Re Diagram: I admit that I am a total klutz at providing the diagram of sunlight scattering by Raleigh and Mie Scattering, but the diagram does pictorially show what happens, and would seem helpful to non-scientific readers. I'll be glad to provide the diagram by email to anyone who wants to contact me, so, they can make it more attractive.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor FryThe Good Doctor Fry (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

Scattering diagram

• Please stop adding oversized diagrams to the article. This is not the right place for learning about scattering. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I'd like to hear from some other users than just one. The initial diagram I inserted was poor quality. The current diagram gives appropriately colored descriptions of both Raleigh and Mie Scattering. Could we please consider including the diagram for a time, and soliciting other people's opinions?

I have created a smaller diagram, version 7. File:Raliegh mie fry7.jpg How does this look to other people?The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor FryThe Good Doctor Fry (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

I like the idea of a diagram of this style. However, I don't think it's going to work to include the text captions in the graphic. I get why they are there: it's a complicated situation with a variety if different processes that need explaining. The size and appearance will be improved by labeling the different scattering events with single letters and then moving the explanations into the caption. Another advantage to this approach will be that the image can be reused in other languages. Spiel496 (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the articles on Sunset or Sunrise are the right place for explaining what scattering is. Please try Raleigh scattering. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I remind you that diagrams very similar, but more accurate, can be found on Hyperphysics (Georgia State University). Perhaps here it is sufficient to put a link to that page. --GianniG46 (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I agree with Spiel. The Diagrams explain Sunrise and Sunset colors, (better than lots of text for tIypical readers?), showing how the White Sunlight gets turned into Reds and Peach colors at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sunset&action=edit&section=7Sunrise and Sunset. Sidelight re Spiel's comments: I got up early this morning with exactly the same thought in mind: Remove the boxes that currently have the captions, because they horribly clutter-up the diagram. I propose we move the text boxes into a separate diagram that works with the first diagram: I propose inserting both diagrams that show the color shifts better than other internet offerings - for people to inspect and make comments.

. File:Rayleigh mie fry1.jpg . File:Rayleigh mie fry2.jpg

Thanks.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor FryThe Good Doctor Fry (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

Per GianniG46's helpful suggestion, I have increased the size of the text and removed an extra text box, and uploaded new versions of the files to make them more readable.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

---

Dear GianniG46, you have deleted the diagrams showing what causes sunrise and sunset colors. Can you explain why you deleted them? I would certainly welcome better diagrams, if you have copies that are free to use in Wikipedia. I think the diagrams are very useful to young students and average Wiki readers who don't know about how sunsets and sunrise colors are created by atmospheric scattering effects.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

Doctor Fry, The drawings look very good. May I use them in a physics paper I have to write on light and refraction and scattering? Wanbli-G53 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanbli-g53 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to use the drawings in a paper, and reference them, but someone keeps deleting them from the article. Can we leave them for us to use? They are better than the other drawings I can find. Wanble-G53 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanbli-g53 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to use the sunlight-sunset-sunrise drawings in a paper, and I need to reference them, and they are better at describing the color shifts and color refractions than other drawings on the internet, and they are also the only ones available for use by the public, where the other Raleigh scattering and Mie theory drawings showing light scattering are not available for free public use.

If the people here keep deleting them, please tell me where I an find a free use diagram that shows the color shifting effects - using colors and ray diagrams to show all the different effects.Wanbli-g53 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Wanbli-G53

Dear Alvesgaspar, Can you please explain the reasons for your continued deletions of the 2 diagrams that show pictorially what happens to sunlight at sunset and sunrise? It does not seem to make sense to delete something that offers unique, accurate content, especially when you offer no explanations or justifications. These diagrams simply show the same things that are in the text, but unlike other diagrams on the with web, they include a combination of different colors and with different widths and different lengths of arrows to demonstrate the theories described in the text.

Dear Wangli-G53, Yes, you may use these diagrams, as long as you give appropriate credit to their creator and the source. I am the sole creator of these diagrams, and even though I licensed them for general use with attribution, you also have my (un-necessary) permission to use them. 189.148.60.123 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

Doctor Fry, please stop insisting with these unreadable diagrams. Your fans need them? Well, they can find them here and here, with no need of cluttering the article.--GianniG46 (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

GianniG46, Per your helpful suggestions, I have removed some of the cluttered excess text, and I have increased the size of the text fonts to make them readable.

I would enjoy hearing the comments of other people, in addition to those who delete them, including people like Kbrose and Spiel who have contributed to the currently accurate and good scientific explanations, where these diagrams give pictures to explain the text. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

Alvesgaspar, Why have you deleted the drawings again? I and other people find the helpful, and I need them to reference in a paper, but I cannot reference them if you keep deleting them. Please, give a good reason for deleting them.Wanbli-g53 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Wanbli-g53

• I already informed the three editors involved in this edit war that an incident has been reported in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Considering that The Good Doctor Fry has already been blocked for the some reason, the outcome is quite predictable. Proving that you are a sockpuppet of The Good Doctor Fry (if you are, indeed) only agravates your and his case. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Alvesgaspar,

If there is an edit war, I am not involved. I have little experience with Wikipedia, and I did not know Wiki's rules on the # of edits allowed per day. There is no mystery as to why I was temporarily banned, I simply did not know this site's rules. Please do not create a controversy where there is none. When I learned the rules, I evaluated how I had acted, I publicly apologized. People have requested diagrams in the past, so, I then rewrote the section to reflect the importance of both Rayleigh and Mie Scatteering. To further the knowledge process and increase understanding, I created novel diagrams that pictorially show the complex processes for readers that may not understand scientific jargon. Alvegaspar, (as Wanbli-G53 observed), does not seem to be contributing to improving the article in any substantive way, nor does Alvesgaspar have any solid justification for deleting the descriptive diagrams. Alvegaspar's reference to "sockpuppets" is similarly confusing - and appears to be some sort of insult, which would mean the only viable reasoning Alvegaspar can use to support deleting useful unique diagrams is to resort to obtuse name-calling? I would be glad to address any technical or scientific issues the Alvegaspar can offer, but I cannot find where he has raised any substantive issues that we could dialogue over.

I much appreciate Spiel's & Kbrose's et al's scientifically well reasoned and referenced approaches to working together to get to a good final product, and I am confused by Alvesgaspar's and GianniGs mostly unexplained repeated deletions.  Again, let's work together to keep improving this article, as it constructivey evolves to ever-better content. 

It should be clear by now that I am not a Wiki-guy, nor am I a Wiki-expert, so I do not know how to manipulate Wikipedia's systems, but just like my persistence in past years to fix repeated factual errors in the "earliest and latest sunset" section, I simply enjoy the underlying science, and I attempt to translate that knowledge into items that the general typical reader can understand. As such, I likely have violated protocols by posting this here, and I ask the indulgence of the mediators/administrators.The Good Doctor Fry (talk)The Good Doctor Fry —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC).

Fry, while I appreciate the effort you have put into this diagram, I don't feel it is ready for display in the article. First, the caption material cannot be part of the image-- that makes editing nearly impossible. Second, the "trial version" message is just too ugly. And even after fixing these issues I fear there is going to be some controversy about the content. Consider that even the editor one-year-ago-dr-fry would be reverting your changes. Spiel496 (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reflection vs Scattering

Sorry to bring this up again, but "reflection" has returned to the Colors section as a phenomenon distinct from "scattering". The cited book by Saha uses the same language, so this isn't a matter of unreferenced material. The problem is that the typical reader is not going to know how Saha distinguishes the two. So that leaves "reflection" just hanging there as jargon. I'll admit quite plainly that I, for one, cannot think of a light-matter interaction in the atmosphere that must be classified as reflection and not scattering. If no one else can either, I say drop "reflection" from the sentence. Spiel496 (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As stated previously, do not remove material that is correct and properly referenced. The reference is clear and the statement makes perfect sense. The statement is simply not complete without it, and the reference explains it. Why don't you object to absorption too? Kbrose (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not complete how? All I'm looking for is an example. You could say, "Without the word 'reflection' the statement doesn't include [insert phenomenon here]". I don't object to absorption, because I understand how it differs from scattering. Spiel496 (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why is "sun" always capitalized in the article? The OED does show capitalization in its modern examples. Brendtron5000 (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Renewed reversion to incorrect and unsustainable nonsense

Spiel496, stop reverting to this nonsense you have contributed to. It does not stand up to the references nor any sensible type of presentation level. Read the references and you will notice that nobody makes the claims presented in your version. Just one simple indication of your ignorance about these matters is, for example, to call particles in the air as 'aerosol'. Scattering happens from particles or molecules, not from an aerosol. The other claims about Mie scattering are far fetched from inexpert naive myths, not supported by references or sensible thought about the nature of these matters. Stop reverting. Kbrose (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I refer to "particles in the air" as "aerosol". That's the definition of aerosol. Got any other evidence that I'm ignorant? For the record, I advocated against the use of the word "aerosol" but went with the consensus when other editors pushed for keeping it. Similarly, I'm not a fan of the term "Mie Scattering".

To the other editors, let me explain my reverts. I have been trying to make incremental changes to the Colors section to make it more readable. I interpreted Kbrose's edit to be a large rewrite of the section that undid some wording I thought there had been some consensus on. For example, he reintroduced "reflection" as a phenomenon distinct from scattering. (Being ignorant, I don't understand the difference.) Tell me if I was out of line. I still plan to make changes, but I can live Kbrose's version as a starting point if that is the consensus. Spiel496 (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why this acrimony? Nobody is apparently ignorant, here. So, I make a proposal. Let us reset matters to the version before the figures by Fry, when Spiel had offered to work to simplification of the text. I refer to november 19 or even to november 17, before Fry's text edit. I think it is stupid to engage a war between good faith persons. --GianniG46 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said. I overreacted when I reverted Kbrose's edit. I was ticked off that he ignored the discussion on a few points, but he did shorten the section a lot, which is a big plus. (Dr. Fry is not the most concise person.) It doesn't look like we're going to hear from anyone else, and I'm not going to "vote" for my own version, so let's just leave it. Spiel496 (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Kbrose: "Just one simple indication of your ignorance about these matters is, for example, to call particles in the air as 'aerosol'. Scattering happens from particles or molecules, not from an aerosol." The ignorance shown here is the intentional exclusion and removal of the "aerosol" terminology that is commonly used by atmospheric scientists and spectroscopists. Mie Scattering of the red light that remains after Rayleigh scattering is clearly caused by aerosols, including both liquid droplets and solid particles. see http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html. 5 decades of atmospheric sciences and spectroscopic references clearly use the term "aerosols" to describe small solid particulates and liquid droplets.

Continuing: Clouds (made of liquid and solid aerosols) and stratospheric liquid droplets clearly cause the intense reds and yellows of very nice sunsets that include both Rayleigh and Mie scattering.

"Tropospheric clouds are not the only ones that can enhance the beauty of the twilight sky. As already mentioned, particles in the stratosphere also can produce colorful sunrises and sunsets. Stratospheric particles are derived mainly from volcanic eruptions and exist as thin veils of dust or sulfuric acid droplets at altitudes of 12 to 18 miles. Like the stars and planets, these aerosols usually are invisible during the day because they are obscured by the scattered sunlight (blue sky) of the troposphere. About 15 minutes after sunset, however, with the troposhere in shadow and the stratosphere still illuminated by sunlight passing through the lower atmosphere to the west, these high-level clouds come into view. Since their colors achieve greatest intensity after the sun has set at the surface, volcanic twilights are known as "afterglows." http://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/corfidi/sunset/

The importance and significance of atmospheric dust particles is further described by NOAA scientists:

"Note that it is only when small volcanic particles have been lofted well into the stratosphere that colorful sunset afterglows appear. Volcanic particles that remain suspended in the troposphere after an eruption are comparatively large in size and number. " http://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/corfidi/sunset/

Hopefully, NOAA and NASA scientific descriptions of the causes of intense colors of sunsets and sunrises are sufficient for Wikipedia readers.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

Fry, please please please stop using "=" characters to separate your comments; they cause new subsections in the table of contents. Use "-" if you must.

Second point: too much. Before your edit the Colors section gave a concise, accurate, albeit somewhat jargony explanation. You've tripled its length to 1000 words. The reader is told three times that particles enhance the colors. I'm really on the fence as to whether it should be copyedited or reverted.

Third point, a technical one: you inserted a photo captioned "less intense sunset colors from just Rayleigh scattering". The red looks pretty intense to me, and I don't see how to back up the "just Rayleigh" claim. Spiel496 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Info - I have reverted the colors section. Please, The Good Doctor Fry, seek a consistent consensus before making this kind of changes. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

-

• • I have included official NASA and NOAA explanations and references that definitively describe the scientific phenomena that cause the colors of sunrise and sunset, along with citations of references as requested above. The official NASA and NOAA explanations also fit with all the other references listed in the article by other contributors.

• • When scientists in a sub-specialty agree on an explanation for over a century, and the mathematical equations accurately describe the real-world phenomena, then it does not make sense to devolve Wikipedia content to incorrect or incomplete "consensus" opinions of non-experts. It is better and appropriate to use complete and correct and accepted and referenced scientifically supported explanations. The theories that describe and calculationally predict the colors of sunrise and sunset are from spectroscopy, a highly specialized subset of Physics and Chemistry, and as such, spectroscopy is not well understood by typical Physicists nor typical Chemists.

• • Should the content of Wikipedia that concerns exotic and highly theoretical scientific topics be controlled by non-experts and dictated by the supposed consensus of people who have no training nor direct expertise in such exotic sub-specialties? If there are remaining issues of writing style or presentation styles, then let's work through the style issues consensually, while leaving the appropriate references and accurate & sufficient information intact. e.g. Does Alvegaspar contest or reject NOAA and NASA's concurring explanations? If so, I request that Alvegaspar please document sources and document information that justify his on-going non-scientific edits.

• • Alvegaspar alleges an edit war, as a red-herring / diversion(?) or cover for his scientifically-unjustified and scientifically-incorrect and scientifically-incomplete on-going edits, when in reality there has only been a resolute Ph.D. Spectroscopist (myself) who simply does not know Wikipedia's rules and conventions, a simple guy who does not know how to manipulate the rules and machinery of Wikipedia (unlike Alvegaspar who is an expert at Wiki-machinations). While I do not know Wiki-machinations or Wiki-politics, I do know the spectroscopy. I apologize for taking 2 years to find authoritative official NOAA and NASA references to support my clumsy descriptions of the last century's scientific understandings of sunrise and sunset colors.

• • Can Wikipedia's sunrise and sunset articles rise to the professional levels of other similar technical and scientific Wikipedia articles on other scientific and engineering topics, or must the sunrise and sunset articles remain stripped-down, less-than-accurate, less-than-detailed stories about little more than pretty colors and oooohs and ahhhhhhs, because some consensus-based non-scientific editors do not understand the underlying complex science? I think many Wiki-users would like to know about exactly why sunrises and sunsets have special colors, and it takes extended descriptions to describe the chains of sequential events that describe whats going on overall, without reverting to the use of higher order Bessel functions and advanced calculus (which are necessary to fully understand and describe what happens at sunrise and sunset).

Spiel, Thank you for the suggestion for substituting the "===" with a "-". I really do not understand how Wikipedia entries and symbols work, and I much appreciate the help. You also commented that you observe intense red colors of the sunset/sunrise foto with few aerosols present. Do those more dull red colors in that foto really match or compare with the color intensities of other fotos of brilliant sunrises and sunsets with additional Mie scattered light off of clouds and aerosols? Further, when there are only Rayleigh scattering events, the red colors rise only very slightly above the horizon, while cloud and aerosol enhanced sunsets/sunrises have reds, peaches, and orange colors that rise many times higher into the sky, up 30% - 40% of the viewing field vs the minimal reds of Rayleigh-only events. More colors (peaches, oranges and reds) that cover much more of the viewing field, plus sunset/sunrise colors that are much more intense and much brighter due to additional Mie Scattering, seems to justify more than a "just Rayleigh" claim.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry

Okay, I see what you're getting at now. When there are clouds, the whole sky lights up red; without clouds (or other particles) catching the red sunlight, all you see is an expanse of blue sky. True enough. Although, do we really need to invoke the the jargon "Mie Scattering" to talk about it? As the sun sets, the front of my house lights up red, too. Isn't it commonly understood that an object looks red when illuminated with red light? I wouldn't say, "look at the red light caused by Mie Scattering off the particles in my stucco". And I notice that the NOAA and NASA references you found -- nice write-ups by the way -- make do without using the term Mie Scattering. Again, not disputing the facts so much as the philosophy and style. In short, I don't think the point you're making requires a separate photo. Spiel496 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

-

Alvegaspar repeatedly continues to delete the key official NASA and NOAA references for unknown reasons. These two references explain and document the reasons why both Rayleigh and Mie scattering are important, and the NASA and NOAA references describe the underlying science and spectroscopy far better than the other references. Alvegaspar gives no reasons for his deletions, and his deletions reduce the utility of the article. He also deletes a very useful fotos, also giving no justifications nor explanations.

May we please include the NOAA and NASA references and use their official information - information that resolves the ongoing disagreements of the past 3 years?

• Comment -- The articles on Sunrise and Sunset are not supposed to be scientific papers but entries of a general purpose encyclopedia, aimed at the common reader. This does not imply necessarily that the text should be inaccurate or childish. On the contrary, it is usually possible to explain complex phenomena in simple terms. It all depends on the knowledge and talent of the writer. From what we see here, maybe the people involved in this fight don't know enough about the phenomenon, after all, or don't have enough talent to explain it in simple words. If that is the case, maybe they should leave the task to others. The continuation of the present edit war will not bring anything positive to the project or to the editors. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Alvegaspar writes "From what we see here, maybe the people involved in this fight don't know enough about the phenomenon,...". If Alvegaspar would read the official NASA and NOAA references, and leave those explanations and references in the article, then the article would make better sense. His arguments seem to be simple misdirection using confusion that he is creating with his deletions and "undo's" .

Here are the references that he continues to mistakenly delete:

• " ref http://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/corfidi/sunset/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) /ref "

• " ref http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) /ref "

Again, Alvegaspar offers no verifiable or provable justifications for his deletions and un-do's - and offers only his opinion that the most recently edited version of the article is somehow not described well in simple words. Should the opinions of a single individual who does not understand the topic, nor has experience in the topic dictate the content of the final product?

Is the version that follows really difficult to understand as Alvegaspar claims?:

• Comment -- Yes, I do understand the physics involved in the phenomenon, and no, I don'y think that the proposed version is better than the existing one. It is long, repetitious and boring, i.e. the contrary of what a Wikipedia entry should be. But that is only my personal opinion. The reason why I have reverted your edits is because you did not seek the necessary consensus, in a matter where different editors have different ideas of what the section should be. If I remember well, that was also the reason for your first block. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

-

Alvegaspar writes that: "The reason why I have reverted your edits is because you did not seek the necessary consensus, in a matter where different editors have different ideas of what the section should be. If I remember well, that was also the reason for your first block." By proposing things this way, he ignores the facts that the previous disagreements were about 2 key scientific factors - having nothing to do with "what the sections should be" - and Alvegaspar falsely substitutes a straw man that there were differences about the style of the section and he instead inserts his own proposal of "what the section should be.". The previous scientific disagreements centered on 2 items:

• The role of solid and liquid aerosols and particles, which have the same magnitude and larger than the wavelength of light, in producing sunset and sunrise colors. Other editors had argued that these were not important and not significant, while the key official NOAA and NASA explanations of the sources of colorful sunrises and sunsets confirm my assertions that they are important.
• The role of Mie Scattering of remaining red and yellow light by solid and liquid aerosols and particles, which have the same magnitude and larger than the wavelength of light, in producing sunset and sunrise colors. Other editors had argued that Mie Scattering off of these particles was not important and not significant, while the key official NOAA and NASA explanations of the sources of colorful sunrises and sunsets confirm my assertions that Mie Scattering is very important in producing intensely colored sunsets - which is why it is important to keep both fotos in the article: showing a.) the effects of just Rayleigh scattering vs. b.) the combined sequential effects of both Rayleigh and Mie Scattering.

A quick read of Alvegaspars recent explanations for his recent "undo's" shows that he neither includes either of these key reasons nor does he understand their importance in his reasons for making his changes.

A simple reading of the History and Disussions clearly show Alvegaspar has contributed nothing of scientific value to the discussions, except to comment about the size and quality of diagrams (style issues), and he contributes lots of ongoing unjustified "undo's" and substitutions of the entire article. He also continues to delete the key NASA and NOAA references, which resolve the previous disagreements. All of these actions and his lack of contributions to factual and scientific issues offer sufficient proof that his claims of understanding the underlying spectroscopic phenomenae and underlying science and mathematics are unsupported and effectively hollow.

I believe the fundamental content of this section should be edited by people who understand the topic, and that style-based edits like Alvegaspar's, should not remove or alter key content, like his repeated arbitrary removals of the NOAA and NASA references and his arbitrary removals of the foto that shows the results of only Rayleigh scattering. Alvegaspar continues to make changes to content and substance, under the false guise of battling "edit warring" and using misdirection and mischaracterization to justify his non-scientific edits.

I think style-based edits are fully appropriate, as long as the results do not change the essential content; do not change the facts; do not change the meaning; and do not remove important references or fotos. Alvegaspars repeated edits have changed the essential content, have changed the facts, have removed key facts, and have eliminated key references and fotos, all done under the blanket claim that he is simply improving the article to return to consensual-but-technically-flawed and incomplete explanations.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Doctor Fry, here is my suggestion: Pick the most important fact that you feel is missing from the current version and add/modify a couple of sentences to remedy the situation. The edit you're pushing is a huge rewrite of the section that I can't even identify what you feel is lacking in the existing version. In other words, make some incremental changes. Hell, my effort to remove the single word "reflection" from the first sentence got another editor so steamed up he/she reported me to an admin! So you can imagine how your 1000-word modification might meet some resistance. Spiel496 (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spiel, I like your suggestion on the face if it. The "1000-word modification" is actually an incorporation of things that you wrote, things that Kbrose wrote, where I merged the contributions of about 4 authors/editors from past versions - so, if Alvegaspar really was following the principles he proposes of consensual content and consensus editing, the version I propose above actually best fits a consensus of contributions from multiple authors (all who understand parts and contribute factual adn scientific parts). I used the paragraphs of at least 4 other authors/editors, and added three observations and 3 supporting sources about: 1. How Mie Scattering plays a key role by scattering remaining reds and yellows and peach colors by larger aerosols: clouds, particulate matter (dust soot, etc), and liquid aerosols like sulfuric acid droplets. to create larger areas of more brilliant and more intense reds/yellows/peaches. 2. I added how this increased scattering of light to the viewers is shown by the mostly Rayleigh-only foto versus the typical sunset/sunrise foto with coulds. and 3. I added the NASA and NOAA references that most completely describe the overall processes and the details of the processes: both Rayleigh and Mie Scattering during the daytime vs. sunset/sunrise effects.

So, if you ignore Alvegaspars: non-scientific reductions, and his deletions of key references, and his deletions of fotos, and his deletions of both Kbrose's previous text sections, and his deletions of your previous text sections, and his deletions of my previous text section, really, his version is the furthest from a consensus work. If you actually track the text and the ideas, the version I entered above contains the most content from the most authors, where I have simply removed the repetitive sections (where successive edits and successive additions by about 5 contributors created repetitions), and I added the key information from official NASA and NOAA references.

To see the reality and facts of my points, one needs to read all of the last 3 months of edits to recognize how much consensus material from authors that Alvegaspar's minimally scientific edits have removed and deleted. I simply bring back what seem to be the best of the past 2 years of efforts.

Alvagaspar's final criticism that the article should not be a scientific research paper - but instead a general encyclopedic entry - is yet another mischaracterization and another red-herringto justify his making changes. The combined version of scientific entries since last August (see above) does not have mathematical formulae, it presents nothing new nor novel - using only ideas presented and accepted 100 years ago, it uses language that well educated high school graduates have seen before, it uses concepts that well educated high school graduates can understand, and it contains a combination of basic references, written in simple terms, that well educated HS grads can read and understand. By these criteria, the article of consensus editing and consensus ideas proposed above seems to meet the requirements of an encyclopedia entry. If this article really was a scientific paper, we'd have to present the applicable formulae, tables of results, plots and graphs, and all the higher order derivations and mathematics required to apply Rayleigh's theory and Mie's theory, which would require 10 or 20 pages.

Having said all this, I propose we use the version that actually contains accurate material from the most authors from the past 4 months, and use the version that contains the best and most complete references = the one presented above. Alvegaspar's version is actually the 2'nd most recent - it is not an older consensus version like he proclaims. The facts are that Alvegaspar's version contains the least amount of consensually arrived at material, it deletes key references, and it deletes a useful foto that visually shows the differences between Rayleigh-only sunset/sunrises vs. sunsets/sunrises that arise from both Mie and Rayleigh Scattering. Does is make sense to revert to a pared down set of explanations that do not cover all the salient points, which is a version that is also missing key elements, just to satisfy one person who has contributed nothing of substance to either the article or the discussion: Alvegaspar? The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Doctor Fry, you're putting a lot of effort into attacking a single editor, which would have been better spent working on a more concise version of the Colors section. Alvesgaspar's primary objections were that your version is "long, repetitious and boring". I agree with that assessment. It's too long and awkward. For example,

• 1st sentence: "Incident solar white light traveling through the earth's atmosphere is attenuated by scattering and absorption by the air molecules and airborne particles by a combination of Rayleigh scattering and Mie scattering." The last prepositional phrase modifies no word that I can identify. "attenuated" is already modified with "by scattering".
• 2nd & 3rd sentences: Both start with the same four-word phrase. Well, almost the same.
• The phrase "violets, blues and greens" appears at the end of the 3rd sentence and then two more times in the first half of the 4th sentence. And then two more times later in the section.
• The word "Mie" appears nine times. I think that's more times than in the Mie theory article. Rayleigh appears twelve times.

And so on. These are the problems. If you really think this is good prose, round up another editor to argue your case. Spiel496 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spiel, I very much agree with editing that improves the style of the article. e.g. Rather than using the preposition "by" twice in one sentence, let's replace the second "by" with "via" or "through".

On a separate note: It is possible that the article requires more usages of the words "Rayleigh" and "Mie" than the individual articles on the two scattering theories, because the original scattering articles can easily replace "Rayleigh" or "Mie" with nondistinctive pronouns like "it" or "the theory", etc in place of "Rayleigh" or "Mie". (e.g. it took 3 uses each for each term "Rayleigh" and "Mie" to describe the point... unnngh, and that makes 4 usages of each.) The counting of the number of times a word occurs is neither a measure of accurate nor stylish communication. In an article where the main subject is neither Rayliegh nor Mie scattering, then using "it" or generic terms like "scattering" can be confusing when referring to specofoc scattering phenomena, since it is not clear which type of scattering is being described without the use of the specific words Rayleigh or Mie. (Dang, now, I've used each term 6 times...) Also, the Mie article does not describe many real world applications, like the daytime scattering events vs. evening/morning scattering events, nor does it describe the differences between scattering around the sun (causing the white halo) vs scattering of remaining rays of light after Rayleigh depletion at sunset/sunrise (Could I really have described the last facts about the Wiki Mie article without using the word "Mie"?) The Mie and Rayleigh articles focus on the mathematics of single theories, while articles on the applications of various combinations of multiple types of scattering events in the different conditions in the real world, which offers different linguistic challenges.

For added perspective: I actually removed about 30% of the text when combining 4 different previous versions, eliminating many repetitions.

What specific repetitions do you think could be removed or edited to reduce repetitions, without losing meaning, clarity, or accuracy?

Re my focus on Alvegaspar's repeated replacements and edits and his deletions of references, (a.k.a. "my attacks on a single editor"), and his ongoing non-factual criticisms & and his empty accusations: Alvegaspar has made formal repeated personal complaints against me with the Wiki-authorities, and has gotten them to initiate Wiki-investigations of me, and his personal efforts resulted in me getting temporarily suspended from Wikipedia. Due to his continuing personal vendetta against me, under the guise of creating a "consensual version" of this article, and due to his non-scientific edits, and his repeated usage of more recent, less consensual versions (masked by his rhetoric claiming the opposite), I believe that I had no other recourse but to describe the facts to the Wiki-powers-that-be and to identify his misdirections, his distortions of facts, his deletions of useful references, and his mis-labelings of what was actually happening and what had happened. I really am a Wiki-novice, and do not know how to manipulate the machinery of Wiki-politics nor Wiki-justice, which left me with this sole venue of attempting to describe the facts and the truth as I understood them in this forum. My apologies, but I thought Wikipedia was a free marketplace of facts and verifiable information, and was unfamiliar about how Wikipedia's rules could be used to get novices temporarily kicked-out, allowing the prosecutor to edit article content to suit his personal, non-factual ends. If Alvegaspar's distortions and his misrepresentations and his deleting of references has ended, then I consider the matter closed.189.148.46.177 (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)189.148.46.177 (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I give up. Spiel496 (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)