Talk:Flare star

Main sequence star flares
The main sequence stars in question exhibit so called superflares. It seems their amplitude is too low to justify the claim from that RS CVn comparing source, that absence of mysterious extinctions prove that Sun has no superflares. The worst flare of Groombridge 1830 had an amplitude of 0.62 for 18 minutes, which is decidedly tiny. In temperature that makes T' = (100.4·0.62)0.25·T where T is normal temperature, say 290K (17°C), then we get T' = 1.15·290K = 334.5K (61.5°C). 61.5°C instead of 17°C for 18 minutes – that's tough indeed, but anyone who have bathed in a Sauna know that that's survivable for most humans. Any such event would go virtually unnoticed through the geological history of Earth. A similar radiation attack on Earth's atmosphere would probably cause a sudden cloud coagulation, negating most of that sudden heat attack by increasing the planet's albedo. Might seem like an unexpected and mysterious weather change, rather than a global dramatic radiation attack. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The known "main-sequence flare stars" (term invented by myself, don't use!!) are: Groombridge 1830, κ Ceti, MT Tauri, π¹ Ursae Majoris, S Fornacis, ο Aquilae, BD+10°2783, 5 Serpentis and UU Coronae Borealis. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Get quantitative, please
The article says a flare star "can undergo unpredictable dramatic increases in brightness". That's a nice qualitative description, but we really need a quantitative description of these increases. 75.163.190.245 (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Images
Too many? Jtadesse (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)