Talk:Solar minimum

Untitled

link to NASA should be updated.

Scientist should check for accuracy; minimum is associated with increased X-ray affects.

Neutraility and Misleading Information

I removed the phrasology "solar conveyor belt" because this is not a phrase generally associated with solar minimums/maximums. Instead the correct phrase and idea is solar dynamo, which was what had been used in one of the referenced articles but changed by a previous Wiki editor when put here.

Information about the prediction of the sun spot cycles was corrected, since the formula is how the minimums/maximums could be calculated, which was most likely how the computer model may have been created.

The article was revised to allow the information about solar minimums(and solar maximums) being a normal part of the sun's existence. It seemed that there was a minimalistic amount of references and information for this article, which then gave one POV and bordered on limited neutrality. The solar maximum article was much worse in reverting to POV and not very neutral in its previous form.

I hope the changes are acceptable and that anyone who cares to re-edit or especially to add carefully reviewed referenced articles and websites--not just those written by one unverified, non accredited author who writes and submits articles to NASA@science, which are shown to be carefully edited, omitting pertinent information, losing their neutrality, and anyone who will take the time to review everything written will see what's what. Thanks and Happy Editing. Brattysoul (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?

In the 'predicting' section, the first para is about how the pattern of activity is hard to model and thus predict, but the section ends with the (partial) sentence 'A "clockwork pattern" that has held true for more than 200 years.' I think this refers to the irregular 11-year cycle of sunspot activity, but it isn't clearly explained. Also, the ref given for that final sentence, http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/deepsolarminimum/zurich.gif, gives a page-not-found error.

Some clarification by someone who knows a bit about the subject would help - it sounds contradictory at the moment. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is contradictory. Solar activity is actually very predictable to anyone who has done even a cursory study of it. It's all cyclical, meaning it repeats. This makes it very easy to predict, unlike what that first sentence states. It is easier to predict BECAUSE it is cyclical/nonlinear. 209.179.71.76 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still cannot predict specific events. Ruslik_Zero 05:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NCAR Model Failed

As with all theories, post-dicting data is a great first check on a model. Unfortunately, the forward prediction capability of the NCAR model currently touted as "98% accurate" in the main article failed miserably to predict Solar Cycle 24. From the linked article:

The scientists expect [Cycle 24] to begin in late 2007 or early 2008, which is about 6 to 12 months later than a cycle would normally start. Cycle 24 is likely to reach its peak about 2012.

We now believe that the cycle will peak in 2013. The latest prediction from NASA is for a solar maximum near 62, the smallest solar cycle in 200 years, as opposed to the NCAR prediction from the link for a maximum near 140 for the second largest solar cycle in 200 years.

It's time to retire the NCAR statement and link. 65.202.226.2 (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)mjd[reply]

Just to update this sentiment, NCAR did fail badly on the magnitude of Cycle 24, but it seems to have been spot-on with the solar maximum. The secondary peak NASA was predicting for 2013 has proven very modest, and the smoothed SSN peak for the cycle was in February of 2012 at a value of 66.9. In a broader context, Cycle 24 probably should not be considered part of the "Modern Maximum", either. The detailed articles I've seen only count cycles 18-23, not all the way back to cycle 14 (which itself was comparatively weak) as the "1900-present" era in the article suggests. I think we've got to re-think our idea that we understand how the solar dynamo works. Dms422 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Solar minimum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090418184949/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/deepsolarminimum/zurich.gif to http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/deepsolarminimum/zurich.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legality?

Is it legal to mention the Grand Solar Minimum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.110.97 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--- Err... You just did! 51.6.91.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]