Talk:Solar cycle

Out of Date
Most charts in the article are ten to twenty years out of date while there's plenty of current data available. Very bad optics; looks like you're hiding something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.14.6.135 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi there, just saying that i changed the graphs on the sunspots section up to today i'm writing this, thank you for your attention! Arcinides (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Current Solar Cycle?
Solar Cycle's are 11 years in length. Correct? What solar cycle are we in during the year 2016? Thanks. Wingate19 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The average length is 11 years, though there is considerable variation about that mean value (from roughly 9 years to maybe 14). The current solar cycle is numbered 24. Heliophysics (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The wording of the article needs to be weakened from "nearly periodic" to something that better describes the unknown length of any new solar cycle. The Maunder Minimum alone should disabuse anyone of the idea that sunspot cycles are "nearly periodic." 136.181.195.29 (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Causes
The section on "causes" presently lists (as the first mention) the idea that the solar cycle might be caused by the orbits of Jupiter (and Saturn). This is not a sensible theory, nor widely accepted. The Sun is simply a variable star and the solar cycle is how it varies. Generally speaking, complex systems can exhibit all kinds of time dependence (steady, oscillatory, chaotic, etc.) and those behaviours don't usually need to be driven by an outside influence. In the case of the Sun, it is only approximately oscillatory, orbiting around two attractor points of opposite magnetic polarity. Anyway, I know this is descriptive, but some fixing of this section (and citations to sources) is needed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is another example of a very niche, unproven theory being given too much credence. Heliophysics (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I took the material out, and changed the section "causes" to "solar dynamo". Basically, it is the solar dynamo that is oscillatory. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Study corroborates the influence of planetary tidal forces on solar activity. It is also mainstream that Jupiter have an effect.185.62.108.116 (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, it may not have been mainstream, but it has now been proved, and a mechanism has been found. I will attempt to put this into the article. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

RE: "Imaginary" Movement of the Sun
I have removed the parenthetical text "(including its imaginary movement around the barycenter)" from the section "Speculated influence of the planets" which is neither supported by the citation nor scientifically accurate. I can only assume that this was part of an over-enthusiastic attempt to refute the Stefani paper, but as written it makes no sense as neither the solar system's barycenter, nor the Sun's movement around it are "imaginary". Perhaps the author meant that it was the effect of the Sun's movement around the barycenter on the solar cycle that was imaginary, but that is not how it was written, and in any event such a strong claim attempting to pre-invalidate future papers, should have some citations to support it. RBarryYoung (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Put the navigation menu above the "definition"?
The navigation menu location is under two sections (Definition and Observational history), which is uncommon and a bit weird. I propose putting it above these two, unless it's against some Wikipedia editing rules. Tomscience (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't see the navigation menu that you mentioned, perhaps it's already been changed? EMsmile (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)