This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The chart needs updating - as it ends in 2006 - missing the latest solar cycle. 131.111.23.90 ( talk) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this quote really helpful? First off, it talks about weather prediction, not climate. The quote itself is ambiguous, open to interpretation as either: "history has shown time and again that it is pseudo-science" or as "in those days it was seen as pseudo-science, but now we have a better understanding". The intro of the source text would be a better choice imo:
The article states that "The amount of solar radiation received at the outer limits of Earth's atmosphere averages 1366 W/m2." Yet the Wikipedia article on the solar constant gives the value of 1361 W/m2. Can anyone explain the discrepancy? Thanks. Mhklein ( talk) 20:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This section is a bit rubbish. Firstly, it "predicts" the 2010 peak, and no-one (including me!) has bothered update it for whatever happened. Secondly, its almost all about "predicting" climate (has it been copied in from elsewhere) not predicting the cycles, so it belongs under the climate heading William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is the stuff on cosmic rays in there? It doesn't apply to solar variation in any way. Lfstevens ( talk) 16:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The chart needs updating - as it ends in 2006 - missing the latest solar cycle. 131.111.23.90 ( talk) 14:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this quote really helpful? First off, it talks about weather prediction, not climate. The quote itself is ambiguous, open to interpretation as either: "history has shown time and again that it is pseudo-science" or as "in those days it was seen as pseudo-science, but now we have a better understanding". The intro of the source text would be a better choice imo:
The article states that "The amount of solar radiation received at the outer limits of Earth's atmosphere averages 1366 W/m2." Yet the Wikipedia article on the solar constant gives the value of 1361 W/m2. Can anyone explain the discrepancy? Thanks. Mhklein ( talk) 20:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This section is a bit rubbish. Firstly, it "predicts" the 2010 peak, and no-one (including me!) has bothered update it for whatever happened. Secondly, its almost all about "predicting" climate (has it been copied in from elsewhere) not predicting the cycles, so it belongs under the climate heading William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is the stuff on cosmic rays in there? It doesn't apply to solar variation in any way. Lfstevens ( talk) 16:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)