Talk:Solar cycle/Archive 1

Redirect to solar variation
Would it not be better to redirect this topic to the very comprehensive article on solar variation, or even to the solar cycles subtopic of solar variation? There might be a few unique bits which could be moved from here. Pol098 18:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree. It is true that the article on solar variation is much more developed than solar cycle, but I think we should keep a separate article. Solar variation deals with the changes in the total radiant emission of the Sun (cyclic and not cyclic). The solar activity cycle, on the other hand, is primarily magnetic in nature and affects many other things on the Sun beyond total irradiance: flares, sunspots, coronal holes, magnetic fields etc. etc. Of course, there is an evident need to develop this article more. Maybe we could shift the material on "solar activity" from solar variation to here? Gringo.ch 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree either. The solar cycle is interesting in itself, although if it gets big enough we can put a summary of it in Solar variation and use main to link to it.


 * Anyway, I've been reading the abstracts of some scientific papers linking the length of the solar cycle to variations in terrestial temperature. The linkage is about as indirect as CHC-Ozone-UV-cancer, but that's part of what makes it interesting. Some articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals have correlated solar cycle length (darn, a red link!) with ups and downs of the earth's temperature. The correlations might be a statistical fluke, but the papers did pass peer review, so they survived that initial round of scientific scrutiny. --Uncle Ed 01:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read Damon & Laut yet? Dragons flight 02:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I glanced at it just now, but is Eos a peer-reviewed scientific journal? And are Damon & Laut's objections any more important than M&M's objections to Mann's hockey stick? Oops, let me rephrase that: what's the upshot for writing objective, non-pov-pushing encyclopedia articles about climate change at this website? --Uncle Ed 03:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * D+L demonstrates that the solar cycles don't match temperatures when you do the maths properly. That has consequences for that particular theory. AFAIK the original authors have never protested D+Ls analysis William M. Connolley 08:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes they have. Friis-Christensen sent a rebuttal of all D&L's criticisms to EOS but EOS would not publish it. But fortunately thats all irrelevant to this article. The solar cycle is quite different from solar variation, at least as they are defined on wikipedia Paul Matthews 20:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)(https://roisao.com)

Current progress of solar cycle
The solar minimum arrived in early 2006 according to NASA

(http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/06mar_solarminimum.htm).

There are forecasts predicting that the next solar cycle will be a pretty strong one (30% stronger)

(http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm)

(http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml) DrBob127 01:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been articles from NASA saying solar minimum is here since at least Oct 2004. I would say, we are really close from solar minimum now, either past or future. The best thing to follow is probably this plot from NASA. It shows sunspot numbers versus time with predictions.
 * Concerning the forecast of the future solar cycle, I have heard about everything from weak to strong and average by different groups and authors. See for example here(NASA) and hereUSferdinand 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a sentence about the latest and next solar minimum/maximum in the opening blurb, no? I came to the article looking for that, and couldn't easily find the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.120.37 (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The 2009 predictions for Solar Cycle 24 will be a minimum. In 2008 the were 266 spotless days, the most since 1913. It most likly to peak latter as well. There are some claims that Solar Cylce 25 may also be a minimum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.164.199 (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

question about article history
where did all the history disappear? Also, where did all the previous discussion disappear? Lakinekaki (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just how much is 0.1% variation?
Some numbers to put the percentages into perspective. http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/04/post_3.html If you don't know the actual numbers, 0.1% can sound like a 'small' amount. If I have the math right, that puts a hurricane like Katrina equal to about 1/10 second of solar influx - spread over a week, or approximately 14 to 15 years of the total energy use of the human race. Human activity is as nothing on global temperature when compared to the smallest twitch in solar output. For the folks pointing to the record 2005 Atlantic hurricane season (nevermind the subsequent low activity) have a look at the 1979 Pacific typhoon season. That spawned the largest cyclonic storm on record, Typhoon Tip, and a large number of smaller storms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Impact on human mood and health
William James Sidis thought that solar cycles affect our mood and have correspondence with occurrence of wars and revolutions. Some more recent studies indicate correlation between solar cycles and human health a phenomena similar in nature to seasonal affective disorder.

So why does this not deserve two sentences in the whole article? It sais precisely 'current studies indicate'. It doesn't pretend to say that its a widespread scientific belief. Lakinekaki (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because we are out in the WP:FRINGE's. (and additionally your synthesis of unrelated sources (the references you just gave) is original research) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Before I argue that point, did you actually read the references? Lakinekaki (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes i did. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take another short look, for example at reference number 5 above, as the very first sentence in the introduction sais: The present work discusses the link between solar activity and appearance of affective disorders. Solar activity is reflected by the Wolf number, which is given by the formula R = K (10 g + f), where g corresponds to the groups of sunspots and f is the total number of sunspots. Lakinekaki (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, this does not deserve inclusion. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am very happy that you guys are so thoughtfully considering this issue, but would you also consider presenting some arguments to readers. For example, here I am providing yet another list of relevant references. Fringe? Lakinekaki (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Medical Hypotheses journal is a journal specifically created to show fringe science (by charter) . So Yep. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * a) example of this journals article being cited by 'non fringe' science journal papers . the origin of idea does not limit its reach.
 * b) journal is indexed in quite a few places, so i guess quite a few institutions care what it publishes: Medical Hypotheses is indexed and abstracted in: Science Citation Index, Index Medicus/Medline, Adonis, BIOSIS, Chemical Abstracts, Elsevier BIOBASE/Current Awareness in Biological Sciences, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, Current Contents/Life Sciences, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Medical Documentation Service, Reference Update, Research Alert, SciSearch, UMI (Microfilm), Russian Academy of Science
 * c) The journal therefore constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations. By looking at citations of references, this idea seems to be on the bridge from cutting-edge to the mainstream.
 * d) why you equate fringe science with hypotheses? this journal is about new hypotheses, not fringe science.
 * e) i provided link with articles from a few more journals, not only this one
 * few more references: found with simple search at google scholar Lakinekaki (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't help your argument/paragraph about human mood and a correlation with wars and revolution from solar cycles - that you in (e) reference papers that have nothing to do with the subject (first is about the human heart, second is about butterflies and the third is about a specific parasitic skin disease). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have another question for you. I am curious, are you some kind of experts in the field? Because I would really like to know what is your methodology in figuring out whether above idea is fringe. I know nothing about the field, and for me it is really hard to tell fringe from not fringe. Will you help me out with this? It will help me in my future edits. Lakinekaki (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing the synthesis, original research, or other assertions. These papers are explicitly commenting on the correlation between solar cycles and health. Kim Peterson has not really constructed a non-circular argument for synth assertion. Sesqu's opinion can be taken into account, but opinions do not decide what warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. Although some of these come from Med Hypotheses, not all of them do. (The Wiley&Sons link gives a cookie error -- could you provide another link?) II  | (t - c) 02:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

← I was asked to comment by Kim. Basically, if a claim can be sourced only or almost only to Medical Hypotheses, it is almost by definition WP:FRINGE. Medical Hypotheses carries "speculative" papers on a variety of ideas, from AIDS denialism to the Loch Ness monster, and its papers are not "peer-reviewed" in the generally understood sense. The operative policy is that on undue weight. If this claim is really notable, it will be referenced substantially by reliable, mainstream sources, not just Medical Hypotheses. There is some reputable evidence that, for instance, night-shift workers have a higher incidence of some forms of cancer and other disease - whether because of lack of exposure to solar radiation, or neurohormonal issues related to Circadian rhythm, or something to do with Vitamin D, is unclear. I suppose that could be mentioned here, though there are likely more appropriate articles for it. But inserting a bunch of material sourced to Medical Hypotheses violates WP:WEIGHT and tends to weaken the encyclopedicity of pretty much any article, this one included. MastCell Talk 03:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand why some editors stick to 'medical hypotheses' journal, when there are so many more citing the topic Lakinekaki (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And none of those papers are in obvious support of your text. That solar output may influence various disseperate mechanisms is not support for specific influence on "mood" or a correlation with war and revolutions. And we stuck to the Med Hypo because that was what you where giving as references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean now. Well, first sentence really doesn't fit well under 'impact on health' (it only indirectly relates to health, as in wars people lose it ;-), nor were citations there to support that statement. Citations support the second sentence about health.Lakinekaki (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, section title is actually 'impact on health and mood'. that's why i placed there first sentence too. Lakinekaki (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Non 'med hyp' citations. I selected a first few from this abundant list:

           

Also consider replying to the hypocrisy accusation below. Lakinekaki (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I am curious to see if you have slightest amount of good will and decency to re-include the section yourself. Or maybe you will try again to 'miss' to read abstract of these papers and claim there is no relevance. Lakinekaki (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please AGF. The section does not deserve to be in the article for the many reasons already given. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I did AGF until I SAW that there IS NONE. I gave example excerpt from citation #5 above -- from its introduction. Editor obviously didn't read it. Lakinekaki (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering exactly the same about you... I have already pointed out that one of your sources is about butterflies not humans. (which both show that i've seen your sources and checked them). And you just referenced it again, how come? Have you read the sources - or have you simply input some queries to google scholar and assumed that they would give the right results? What exactly does a paper from 1934 about correlation in economy with sunspots do in your list? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nb: i don't know if you are aware of it or not - the text you quoted from your #5 reference has nothing to do with health or mood - the paper does, but frankly if that is the state of psychology today - then i sure hope i'm never going to see a shrink. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The one about butterflies was there to show that field is far from fringe, and that some also explore effects on species populations. The one about economy has a weak indirect link to mood and health, IMHO. It is not supporting the statement from the paragraph, but I guess if it shows effect on economy, peoples mood probably depends on economy. So it is also there to show that this field is not fringe but studies these other aspects of impact of Solar Cycles. After all, you didn't object only to the sources supporting the statement, but to the whole idea being fringe. In regards to reference #5: affective disorders ARE health and mood issue. And you also mentioned above the hearth paper (ref #9) that talks about myocardial infarction, so here is how it is related to health Lakinekaki (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "I guess if it shows effect on economy, peoples mood probably depends on economy" you can guess as much as you want - as long as you do it outside of wikipedia, thats specifically disallowed per WP:OR and WP:SYN. And that is the major trouble with your contribution. (its btw a wrong guess according to the paper (iirc) which links the solar cycle => weather => agriculture => economy (something which is on the fringes in today's science). And quite frankly i find the spanish paper (#5) quite abhorrently non-scientific, but maybe thats just me. (too short a period, too few people, too little correlation (which the paper btw notices)). Find us some good solid reliable source(s) that assess the literature on solar cycle => mood, that would convince me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So according to your opinion for which i guess there is a place inside Wikipedia (unlike for my opinions), solar cycle => weather => agriculture => economy is fringe. So in your opinion solar cycles have nothing to do with weather, which has nothing to do with agriculture, which has nothing to do with economy? Huh? Quite frankly, I don't care if you find scientific papers non-scientific. Wikipedia is not a journal where you are editor in chief. I did found some good reliable sources, but I guess you are selecting them based on what ideas they are writing about -- and whether you like those ideas. I already wasted too much time arguing here. I will come back to this once WP:Fringe is put where it belongs. Lakinekaki (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes sunspots => weather is fringe, to the extent that climate scientists have stated that: "For a young [climate] researcher to entertain any statement of sun-weather relationships was to brand oneself a crank". And no - its not my opinion, its the general assessment. Sorry.


 * Said someone in 1960s. You plugged citation out of the context of historical essay. Plus, it talks about weather, not health. I am sorry too. here is current news for youLakinekaki (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, said someone in the 1960's - and if you read the entire historical text (the whole Weart book is rather good btw), you will find that this is the case today as well. There are some hypotheses on the edge of climate science that proposes such a connection (most prominently Svensmark) - but no such thing has been established. And your newspaper article has nothing to do with weather - but is a very good example on how newspapers can exaggerate risks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Newspaper quotes NASA scientists.Lakinekaki (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. But that doesn't change that it has no connection to weather - or that the newspaper exaggerates. If your only measure for accuracy of science reporting is that it cites a scientist - then i'm sorry to tell you that you will end up with a very wrong picture in the end. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place for original research, nor a place where you can randomly pick out scientific articles and combine them in a way that to you seems reasonable. That particular thing is called a synthesis and is not allowed. And so far everything indicates that this in fact is what you are doing. I'm assuming that its not - which is why i'm asking for assessment papers from reliable sources that walk over these hypotheses.
 * Your initial reliance on a non-reliable and fringe journal, doesn't instil me with confidence. So find us the secondary sources that assess the field, so that we can assess the weight and the (apparent) synthesis that you are providing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hypocrisy
I am amazed by the hypocrisy of few editor here. In this completely unreferenced article, you are deleting the only 2 sentence paragraph that is extensively referenced. If you invest half the energy in all other sentences that you invested in figuring out the 'fringiness' of the paragraph that I added, maybe you would actually contribute something to Wikipedia. But I guess you like more to waste both your and other editors time and energy than actually do something useful.

And do not tell me that somehow everything else in the article is common knowledge for you and so obviously mainstream, because you probably don't know .... about most of what the article talks about. Lakinekaki (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you continue to vandalise this page by removing good references you will probably be blocked. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see now, I deleted that reference by mistake. But I see you also deleted the whole paragraph by mistake, so I will add that paragraph. Lakinekaki (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that "paragraph" should be removed, as the consensus is for it to go. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So 3:2 proportion is some kind of consensus?? Lakinekaki (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We also go on policy here. Policy is against inclusion. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * which policy? Lakinekaki (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean all the references found on Google Scholar? Or maybe undue weight one as compared to due weight of all the other unreferenced content in the article? Lakinekaki (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Collect the non-Medical Hypotheses articles that you can find (as I noted, the Wiley&Sons article gives a cookie error). Make sure you check them carefully for relevance (just SAD is not relevance), and consider quoting briefly to show that they back up your statements. You linked to a 1934 Quarterly Journal of Economics on this; that's way too outdated to include as plausible, although it could be used to ref the sentence related to it in the sunspots article. I think you might have something worth mentioning here, but you should get your strongest material and present just that. II | (t - c) 09:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing about WP:Fringe and editors who use it is that it only 'justifies' and makes it easier to delete content that they don't like while not even bothering to verify the content that they like. They label the idea 'fringe' as if they know anything about the topic and all the other content that surrounds that idea. That is just plain stupid. I provided A FEW references in the section above. I AM NOT going to quote lines of abstracts nor to copy/paste relevant sentences here. Ignorant people will remain so in spite of my best efforts. Those willing to investigate will actually read them. Lakinekaki (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a slow internet connection, so chasing down all your references would be a bit of a long mission. I am willing to entertain a claim that the effects of the solar cycle on human mental health is not fringe science, but at the moment I'm not convinced, and you have already trawled through the literature to an extent. I would therefore like to add my voice to ImperfectlyInformed's request that you sort out the citations that satisfy the following criteria: At the moment, I won't weigh in against the cabal working to subvert your efforts to include this content in Wikipedia, but if you were to show your most powerful references with suitable quotations, I might easily be swayed. Good luck! --Slashme (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They must specifically refer to effects of the sunspot cycle on human health
 * They must be recent (at least post 1980)
 * They must be published in journals which publish established, peer-reviewed science

Cut Alexander Chizhevsky biography
I've cut the following section, which is an overly long biographical description of unknown relevance (WP:WEIGHT) and notability to the subject in general. Is Chizhevsky really that important? Is he even important at all? When examining Google scholar i find very little (read: no) evidence to support that AC should be a key person or even an important researcher on this subject
 * In 1924 Alexander Chizhevsky, graduate of Medical School at Moscow University, published interdisciplinary works: "Physical factors behind the process of history" and "Epidemiological catastrophes and periodic activity of the Sun" studying cycles in living organisms in connections with solar cycle and cycle of lunar phases. Chizhevsky developed a new discipline, Heliobiology, a branch of Astrobiology. In 1939 Chizhevsky was elected Honorary President of International Congress in Biological Physics, for his 1936 publication The Terrestrial Echo of Solar Storms, 366 pp. 1976, Moscow, (First published in 1936 in А.Л.Чижевский. Земное эхо солнечных бурь.). However, soon Chizhevsky was arrested by the Soviet government and exiled to Siberia under the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin. Chizhevsky's publications were censored and his 1930s research of blood and electromagnetic parameters of erythrocytes in connection with cycles in human circadian system was banned, it was published 40 years later, in 1973. Chizhevsky's 1928 publication "Influence of Cosmos on human psychoses" was censored in the Soviet Union, albeit in 2003 this work was referenced in a Journal of Circadian Rhythms article.

Please discuss but do not reinsert unless there has been sufficient discussion, and until the notability and relevance has been established. And frankly under no circumstances does a biography of a researcher belong on such an article as this one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
As a side-issue to the above - i'd suggest that we cut down on the pictures of scientists here. The article seems to have enough more relevant graphs and pictures so that it wouldn't be a loss. As it is, they clutter the article (imho) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clutter? Those three small head shots?  I'd say they humanize an otherwise dry article and (in conjunction with their captions) help give historical context.  Also, credit where due to the pioneers in the field.  So, you can see I (imho) don't agree. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree about humanizing or that they were pioneers and should get credit - but 3 pictures in the first section? Thats a bit too much imho. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason i was talking about clutter is particularly the Spörer picture, which makes strange interactions with the butterfly diagram at some resolutions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Three does seem too many, an the captions are a bit long too. --Verbal (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening
The opening sentence of this article needs to be rephrased, as it's somewhat clumsy at the moment. --Slashme (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is indeed awkward. Suppose we were to tweak it to say this: "The solar cycle, or the solar magnetic activity cycle, is the main source of the periodic variation of solar phenomena, which in turn drives variations in space weather."  How would that play, and is it scientifically correct? Hertz1888 (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

UVB variation
This section needs additional sources and verification. The current single source is a web archive link (which is bad per linking policy), and the archive links it to a "conference statement", which doesn't appear to be a reliable source - especially as it's been removed. --Verbal (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also removed the other information about "associations" due to WP:FRINGE. --Verbal (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lakinekaki wrote:
 * 11-year cycle of solar flares causes as much as a 400-percent variation in UVB at 300 nm reaching the earth. When solar flares are inactive, there is a decrease in the ozone concentration, allowing increased UVB to penetrate to the Earth's surface. For association between solar activity and cardiovascular mortality, the solar cycle stage and solar cycle number are important parameters in a given geographic area. There is an indication of a link between solar activity and appearance of affective disorders. Also, sunspot-influenza connection is being considered. Other health risks are examined.


 * So what is wrong with above? Don't mention guideline WP:Fringe, as policy WP:REDFLAG (Wikipedia:Verifiability) has greater importance and they are contradicting each other. By WP:REDFLAG, you have to EXAMINE citations, and explain what is wrong with them. I don't have to prove to you that they are solid sources UNTIL you show to me why they are not solid sources. Lakinekaki (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're misinterpreting the spirit of WP:REDFLAG. The heading of that policy point is "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Not "Exceptional claims must be accepted unless something is badly wrong with the sources"! --Slashme (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have to examine the citations if the text in the article does not meet criteria for inclusion. An "association" and "correlations" that are not accepted by mainstream do not cut it for inclusion in a serious, scholarly article. Please format your comments better as they are disrupting the page. I think the citation given for the UVB variation is not an RS, for reasons given above. -- Verbal  chat  10:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are disrupting Wikipedia. What is not accepted by mainstream? Explain? Quote? Argue with facts, and not empty words. Read references. Search for words. To make it easier for you lazy and non AFG editors, I copied/pasted few whole sentences as they were published in papers, with minor edits. Look at a number of few paper authors and where they come from. There are TENS of them. And you are telling me about mainstream. S.... ... Lakinekaki (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The onus for justifying inclusion on wikipedia lies with the contributor - not the reverse. As i've pointed out quite a few times by now - you need to provide a secondary reliable source that assesses the field. Finding individual papers to support a personal hypothesis is not difficult, its called a synthesis - what you need to provide us with is secondary sources that A) Make your point B) Give us an assessment of weight of these issues in the literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are misquoting both WP:OR and WP:SYN. And you are ALSO misquoting WP:WEIGHT as WP:NPOV, which WP:WEIGHT is a part of, doesn't even mention 'secondary sources'. I did justify the content for inclusion by providing a solid reference for each statement. Did you see how many scientists and from how many countries signed first 2 sources? They are far from 'individual hypotheses' and they cite tens or even more than hundred of other papers. Lakinekaki (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No i'm sorry to say that i'm not misquoting anything. And yes - i have noticed the number of scientists on the papers, i've even taken the time to read the 2nd reference (i reasonably ignored #1, since it is reasonably non-controversial) - and it is a call for mainstream med. science to take up this line of investigation again, considering new evidence, since the original russian results had been dismissed. Its controversial (according to the paper) - but the scientists (all from the same BioCos group) believe that they have found something. That makes it fall under WP:WEIGHT, unless the response from the rest of science was positive. That is the reason that i'm asking for a secondary assessment report on these issues. (primary, secondary and tertiary sources are covered in WP:V btw.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you are having trouble responding. Let me help you: since you think mainstream is saying something else, why don't you find a few references that show that. After all, they will come from mainstream, so they will be abundant, and very easy for you to find. Lakinekaki (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have to examine the citations if the text in the article does not meet criteria for inclusion. That's the dumbest thing I've read recently. How can you know if text meets criteria for inclusion if you don't read the sources? Lakinekaki (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What I think Verbal was saying is that if what is being claimed is "indications of links" and connections that are "being investigated", it doesn't matter what the sources say, so there is no reason to examine them. --Slashme (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It still has to adhere to WP:WEIGHT. And especially since this isn't an article on medical sciences. We need to assess whether its a notable hypothesis, which is why i've asked (several times now) for a secondary assessment report/paper on the literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

UVB variation (2)
The source http://consensus.nih.gov/1989/1989SunUVSkin074html.htm (link updated) backs up the statements with which it is being associated. It is a twenty year old NIH consensus statement and carries a warning that it should be applied only with due caution, but measurement of variation in intensity at a given wavelength over the solar cycle does not strike me as a statement that will grow too stale quickly. The article text was pretty much a direct quote of the source, so I rewrote it. Probably the statement is covered under 'works for hire for the US government', but it is still bad practice. A more recent statement from an astronomical or meteorological source might be preferred. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've improved some of the references. Verbal   chat  10:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I meant to include proper formatting in the update, thank you. - Eldereft (cont.) 11:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

what do you make out of this?
- Norman Lockyer, founder of Nature wrote in 19th century: Within this general area, one of the most active areas of current research seems to be the correlation of solar activity and myocardial infarction...

Don't really know what 'general area' refers to, but solar/health studies seem to be far from fringe. Lakinekaki (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I make from it that in 1869 even very clever people could be fall for pseudo-science, due to the cultural climate of the time ans a lot less being know generally about these things. A reference from a published article in Nature from 1969 would be much better, and one from 2006 better still. But what you really need a references to some kind of meta-discussions about this phenomenon where it is explicit in saying that this theory is not fringe (or is mainstream, or enjoys wide support, etc.) from the last 25 years. That would be much more convincing. I'm glad to see you now support WP:FRINGE too  Verbal   chat  08:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * pseudo-science?? whatever!


 * cultural climate man are you getting exotic in your analysis.


 * it doesn't matter if paper is 100 years old. this (Solar cycle) article writes about other people from the same century and what they did, and presents historical context. i am not saying we should 'time-travel' the fact from 19th century and claim studies are most active today, but we should state that at that time studies were most active in that area (after actually reading the whole article when we get access to it). he is doing a 'meta-discussion' and saying others are doing lots of research.


 * my citing of WP:FRINGE in that edit was a test to see how the other editor, a WP:FRINGE supporter, will behave if i accuse his edit as fringe in the same manner that WP:FRINGE proponents accuse my edits as fringe -- without much argumentation. result was that while my edits had to be discussed before being placed in the article, his edits were placed in the article before being discussed. he also had much different standards for RS than are required for sources that i provide. i still think WP:FRINGE sucks


 * Lakinekaki (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From the FRINGE page: "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Clearly, whether this is fringe or not, it merits some sort of mention in this article. The question is not whether it should be mentioned in the article, but whether we can mention it without reading the full-text of the articles and really having a fair idea of its current status. So, if you have full-text, you should read them and report to us; if you don't, check out RESOURCE. That 1994 paper in a notable journal talked about resolving the controversy. It might be a good place to start: first, get the full-text, then look up that paper in Google Scholar and see what papers cite it. With that book you could mention it as an interesting historical oddity, nothing more. II  | (t - c) 09:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I don't think we should include above link with only a short snippet, and I did say once we get a full article we can consider. However, it does give enough indication that the whole thing is far from fringe. Existence of controversy (as mentioned in few sources) makes it even less fringe. So WP:fringe here really shouldn't even be mentioned.


 * However, I have to mention WP:FRINGE again: A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively.... You see, that's another problem, sometimes it talks about theory, sometimes about ideas. Did I post here theory about solar/health stuff, or idea, or statement, or opinion, or fact, or have I simply quoted few papers. Are those papers writing ideas, theories, facts, statements...?
 * Lakinekaki (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Only now I realized referenced paragraph was without placing it on the talk page:

For association between solar activity and cardiovascular mortality, the solar cycle stage and solar cycle number are important parameters in a given geographic area. There is an indication of a link between solar activity and appearance of affective disorders. Also, sunspot-influenza connection is being considered. Other health risks are examined.

Lakinekaki (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And its still not something that can go in. Is it really an important parameter? Certainly the BioCos group thinks so, but also assures us that its already been dismissed in mainstream medical science, and appeal to their collegues to reconsider, given the new results compiled in the NEL paper. The BioCos group (in the NEL paper) on the other hand completely dismisses the affective disorder link that you later link. ... and so on.
 * What we need is once more a secondary assessment source that shows the relative importance (or lack thereof) in the mainstream medical science on these particular connections. Its not enough to show that some think so. That is the whole idea of WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Its here for others to see and expand on it. Lakinekaki (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So here is a 'meta synthesis' in a book where few studies are cited:

Space Weather Study Using Multipoint Techniques: Proceedings of the COSPAR ... - Page 352

Lakinekaki (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not in my local university library. Is it on the web somewhere as well? What do they say? --Slashme (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I found this Lakinekaki (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound very convincing... Have you read the book? Nb: I'm pretty sceptic regarding the COSPAR's reliability - because they in 2002 are referring to the Friis-Christensen&Lassen(1991) study on correlation on sunspot-extrema with temperature... A correlation that Thejll&Lassen(1999) showed to be non-existing 1990. That doesn't strike me as giving confidence to that particular section of the book. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So your evaluation of COSPAR's reliability is called WP:OR? Plus, if you even bothered to read the single page that I linked to, you would see that they do cite Thejll&Lassen(2000) non-working, published version of the paper. And this is precisely why the book is a 'meta-analysis' as they cite the historical development of the topic. Both sides, not only those you would like to read.


 * So, do we need little more WP:OR by skeptical Wikipedia editors here, and more of their peer-review of peer-reviewed journals, and of books citing those journals? Or maybe you will finally start actually respecting WP:RS, and other policies, even if they defend inclusion of ideas you dislike? Lakinekaki (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember, what you're citing isn't a normal book, it's a collection of talks from a colloquium on space weather. With this being said, I think that a short mention might be made in the article, something along the lines of "effects of the sunspot cycle on human health have been suggested since (year)[ref].  While not generally accepted as proven, they remain under investigation [more recent ref, e.g. the COSPAR thing]"  Kim P, I know you think this is fringe science, but try not to be influenced by Lakinekaki's abrasive attitude.  My opinion is that it is fringe science to an extent, but is notable enough for a mention, pointing out the fact that it's not mainstream. --Slashme (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm of the specific opinion that its fringe (but in many cases valid) science. Thus it does not belong in this article. This article is primarily about the physics and the history of the scientific development of the physics, which means that our focus on other aspects has to be the mainstream one - otherwise we will be putting too much WP:WEIGHT on aspects that may (or may not be) widely accepted. If this belongs anywhere it would be in the medical articles, and if included there - then we can make a summary of it here. If it is not mentioned to any prominence in the medical articles - then its simply too fringe to be notable enough to be included in a generic article about solar cycles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not quite in agreement with you here. The solar cycle is not a well-accepted risk factor for any of the medical conditions listed, and does not make up a notable part of their investigation.  This means that it's not notable in that context.  However, in the context of the solar cycle itself, biological effects seem to me to have been suspected by sober professional scientists for a while, and there is some evidence to support them, if not rock-solid convincing evidence.  This makes it somewhat notable to this topic, at least to the extent to deserve a mention.  I completely agree that a detailed discussion would give undue weight to the topic, but a short sentence or two with references seems acceptable to me.  The argument that this article is focussed on the physics of the matter isn't that persuasive to me.  There's nothing in the title that suggests that the physics of the solar cycle must always remain the primary focus of the article.


 * If you are concerned that this part of the article will then act as a "seed crystal" for a growth of pseudoscience, I understand that. Along with a number of other editors, I have been defending Veni, vidi, vici from that kind of snowball effect for a while, and I am quite willing to help keep the hordes at bay over here too ;-). --Slashme (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Slashme. My attitude is little abrasive, but you also have to put yourself in my shoes, and understand that I am under attack by a few editors who started supporting ScienceApologist who was deleting sourced content without any explanation.


 * I never intended to present it as mainstream, but only to mention that this has been studied sometime by someone, and that findings were such and such. Enriching articles with interesting information (that meets WP:V,RS,NPOV) -- that's the purpose of wikipedia as i see it. Lakinekaki (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see whether we can organise some kind of compromise here. If we all keep cool heads, we will see that we're all on the same team, despite what this guy might think. --Slashme (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

reference for first statement
The solar cycle, or the solar magnetic activity cycle, is the main source of periodic variation of all solar phenomena driving variations in space weather.

I searched the source provided for relevant words, and read all the content relevant to above statement, but really couldn't find the statement(s) that backup above statement. Could anyone copy/paste relevant paragraph. I couldn't find where does the source state that solar cycle is the main source of variations in space weather. Lakinekaki (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Try reading it. It isn't a direct quote. Your POINTy disruption is getting tedious. Verbal   chat  07:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I challenge you to find it, as you will not be able to. I did read content where keywords were mentioned, in particular 'solar cycle', 'main source' and 'variation'. Above statement is not a simple interpretation from the source, but a more complex conclusion, or even a synthesis. Lakinekaki (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * nb. your ad hominem accusations are getting tedious also. Lakinekaki (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Try cycle. It isn't an Ad Hom. as I haven't attacked you, and I haven't attacked you in order to denigrate your thesis. Verbal   chat  07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Laki, I am supporting your efforts to get a mention of the investigation of medical effects of the solar cycle into the article, because I agree that it would be a valuable addition to the article, but this is the kind of activity that can make other editors unwilling to work with you. After reading the cited reference, it is clearly obvious that it supports the assertion quite adequately.  I can therefore quite easily see what Verbal is referring to when he says that you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and your edit summaries support this: "rv. no vandalism. i just want to learn how other editors souce mainstream and far from fringe idea." seems to me to be an edit which is aimed at probing the level of comfort with different sources for different types of assertion.  This one is sourced now, and lots of us agree that the source is appropriate.  Let it go. --Slashme (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Verbal that this is tedious and counterproductive. Really, Lak should be thanking Verbal for taking the time out of his day to cite something that Lak was apparently too lazy to even bother with. On the other hand, the cited paper states that many things affect the Earth's space weather, and mentions the solar cycle as an example of the "long-term 'climate-like variations" -- Lak is technically correct in that nowhere does it appear to state that the solar cycle is the main source of variation, although it seems more than likely, given the emphasis placed on the solar cycle throughout that paper. So we can either ignore the rule (which seems highly plausible in this situation) or change the wording to "a major source". Anyway, it is about my bedtime. Here are a few other sources. First two appear large and freely accessible.  II  | (t - c) 07:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the last contribution from me to this article and this talk page. Hopefully, it will show you that there IS a bias among some editors here in the scrutiny they apply to various statements that present various ideas contributed by various editors. Please do not reply to me personally here, but only reply if you want to the content below. I don't care about any more arguing with you as I wasted so much time already on nonsense. Point of Wikipedia is to have articles on as many topics as possible (that meet core WP policies), and that articles include as much interesting information as possible (that meets core WP policies). However, because there are quite a few guardians on Wikipedia, instead of contributing to articles, editors need to contribute to talk page disputes. And then I only remember silly arguments like wiki is not a webhost, nor has space for fringe stuff while in the same time it wastes so much space and time on disputes like this. Imagine how many articles could fit into the space of above discussions. Here is actual content:

So here are few paragraphs from the source:

a. The Sun undergoes long-term (decade or more) "climate-like" variations such as the roughly 11-year solar cycle.

b. ''The solar magnetic field evolves over the solar cycle along with the sunspot number. Driven by the motions of the ionized gases beneath the visible surface, the North and South poles of the solar magnetic field reverse approximately every eleven years around sunspot number maximum. As a result, there is a roughly 22-year cycle in the Sun's magnetic "polarity," with the North or South magnetic pole in the northern hemisphere of the Sun during alternate sunspot maxima. The field is more complicated at solar maximum when the simple solar minimum structure, which resembles Earth's field or that of a bar magnet, is disrupted by the strong fields of many active regions.''

c. Processes related to this evolution of the solar magnetic field are the ultimate causes of space weather.

d. ''Most of the effects we classify as space weather can ultimately be traced to changes occurring at the Sun. These include variations in both the solar electromagnetic radiation and the production of solar wind, plasma, and energetic particles. All of these are ultimately related to the evolution of the solar magnetic field.''

And here is the first statement from this article:

The solar cycle, or the solar magnetic activity cycle, is the main source of periodic variation of all solar phenomena driving variations in space weather.

And here are few things that are not so obvious and need clarification:
 * 1) a. tells solar cycle is 11 years long, while b. sais there is a 22 year magnetic cycle, so above statement shouldn't equate the two with the 'or'
 * 2) c. sais processes related to the evolution of solar magnetic, while above statement sais solar magnetic
 * 3) d. sais ultimately related to the evolution of the solar magnetic field, while above statement sais is the source. why is relation (correlation?) equaled with causation.

Maybe above is clear to people in this field, but to me who know almost nothing about this field, the synthesis of the first sentence is not that obvious from presented paragraphs, and it even seems like an invalid synthesis.

Lakinekaki (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You cut off c. a little too soon. "Effects of the 22-year cycle can be seen in some space weather records, but it is primarily the 11-year cycle of activity that is of concern in space weather." So it appears unlikely that the first sentence is wrong. II  | (t - c) 08:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sunspot number graph
That graph of the sunspot number over time is a hideous gif. I have at least now made the background white, but if someone can get me the raw data for the period before 1700, I can make a much better one using gnuplot. --Slashme (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just replaced with a similar png already on the servers. The data you mention are available off this NOAA FTP server in monthrg.dat, with the format explained in readme.txt. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: according to this online colorblindness simulator, the data curves are readily distinguishable in that image. I think that this satisfies accessibility requirements (along with a detailed description for people using screen readers), but if anyone would like to describe the two data sets in terms other than red and blue that would be fine. The rest of the page also appeared not to be losing any information in the simulator. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I'll get onto it on Friday. Where does the continuous black line come from? If it's just a moving average, can I leave it out of my version? --Slashme (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is certainly what it looks like. The picture description does not say, nor could I find it at GlobalWarmingArt (original source, GFDL-compliant), so I just omitted the description rather than make a misstatement. Have fun with gnuplot. - Eldereft (cont.) 11:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've uploaded my file. The first version had text that was too small on the thumbnail version. If it still looks too small, you might want to purge the cache, but if need be I can make it a bit bigger yet. I think the colours should be fine, as the green line is much darker than the red one. --Slashme (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it looks good, thank you. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sunspots (economics) / Sunspot equilibrium
A link to one of these (nearly identical) articles has just been added to the article. I swapped the link to the other, as at least that one has references. However, I'm not sure either of these links are entirely relevant to this article. Verbal  chat  06:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Numbered graphics
At the time of this writing, the numbered Figures in the article start with Fig. 2, the others are out of numerical order, there are two Figures 5, and the rest are unnumbered. Readers might just get a little confused. And then there's the question of whether the Fig. no. designations match those in the text. I won't attempt to unscramble this situation myself lest I make it worse. Expert attention needed. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Hertz 1888. This article could use some clean-up, particularly in light of the growing debate on the role of the solar cycle in climate change.  According to this page, this article was viewed 11,000 times in January, up from 6,600 in August.


 * I will do what I can to better format and present the article, although i am no expert on the matter. Madman (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that User:Dikstr has added a number of images and some highly dense technical material to the article. I have moved 2 of the images and another somewhat-intrusive one into a ==Gallery== at the bottom of the article.  Someone will have to address whether the material is too technical for this article.  I will do more work later.  Thanks, Madman (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Madman, thank you for your rapid response and extensive efforts. To exaggerate only slightly, order is emerging out of chaos with regard to the photos and the article overall.  Hertz1888 (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Madman & Herz - the graphics I provided were awkward in the text area. Moving them to a gallery was a good idea. As far as their appropriateness - ACRIM_Composite TSI presents the most recent solar irradiance results in an easy to digest graphical format and the 'Big Dipper' presents the original discovery of the sunspot deficit and facular excess irradiance in easy to understand graphical format. The 3 graphics in the solar irradiance section can provide no more than a superficial understanding of the TSI variability issue. --Dikstr (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My difficulty with the graphics is that I don't understand them and there is really no explanation or background given. Wikipedia articles and graphics should be understandable by most readers, but your recent additions are, to my mind, too technical and dense.  These charts in particular are difficult to understand and without explanatory text.  For example, for most folks "Big Dipper" refers to the constellation but that is apparently not the case here.  Can you help me (and others)??  Madman (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dikstr, I agree with Madman on all points. These may be key graphics (and I thank you for bringing them in), but they lose much of their value unless sufficient information is given for at least a rudimentary comprehension of their meaning & context.  For example, I looked in vain for an explanation or definition of "ACRIM".  As for the gallery, I have changed the layout and scaling to correct the awkward text flow.  The text is no longer forced to start over on the right, then jump over to the left. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Herz - a google of ACRIM will turn up a plethora of sites discussing it. There are references cited in the two figures that discuss ACRIM and point to the ACRIM website where 'all is revealed':[Satellite observations of total solar irradiance]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikstr (talk • contribs) 06:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but...the information, or at least a hint about it, belongs in the article, along with explication of other presently obscure concepts in the graphics. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mutation
I am not sure what article would be the best host for the idea, but decreased solar activity is directly related to an increase in the mutation of pathogens. The most susceptible being Influenza. Because solar radiation has a way of deflecting harmful cosmic rays, during a period of decreased activity the bare iron nuclei of cosmic rays rain down on earth and cause a cascade of atomic particles, the most common being Carbon-14. An additional effect of the cascade, is the mutation of the most susceptible organisms, leukocytes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.33.129 (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Solar cycle length and terrestrial temperature
I updated, without prejudice, a link to a blog entry that was mislabeled. It was purportedly a reference to a journal article, but when I clicked on the link I got a blog entry at http://www.warmdebate.com/ instead.

Would somebody please find the correct link? I'm sure that sometime since 1991 there has been a peer-reviewed journal article disagreeing with K. Lassen's conclusions, and to be fair to both sides in the controversy we should include it.

I just think that a blog entry on a debate cite is not a proper reference. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the further mislabeling of the link (website title vs. article title) and mildly agree with Ed on the policy side: Is this site notable? If so, how? The blog has two entries (both by the same guy, both posted during the last two days), and the forum has less than 10 posts in total. I don't know much about the topic, so I can't judge content, but whatever the point in question is, it can likely be made with a more widely accepted source.
 * But I guess that the mislabeling is mostly a copypaste-mistake: In the edit in question, the template is used a few times - the first call is for a ScienceMag article. So the link was likely right (as intended), but the label wasn't. --Sid 3050 (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Took out the blog ref. The Ofcom ref covers the discrepancy. Seems the bit about the film may have an undue weight problem here. Vsmith (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now we know who found a correlation (Lassen), but who found that the correlation only went up to the 1970s? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

TGGWS is trash. There is no call to reference it at all in a science article, which is what this is. The rest is, or should be, under solar variation William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

110-year solar flare cycle
What about the following. Is this reasonably grounded? Should it make its way into the article? (I haven't found references elsewhere):

From: 

Irv Schlanger, an assistant professor in Drexel University's Computing and Security Technology program says: "We are all familiar with the 11-year solar flare cycle," says Schlanger. "What most people are not aware of is the 110-year solar flare cycle. The 110-year cycle is massive when compared to the 11-year cycle. The affects of the 110-year cycle would be very similar to that of a nuclear EMP. We are currently due for the 110-year solar flare."

Daniel_C (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction
In the History section - "Until recently it was thought that there were 28 cycles in the 309 years between 1699 and 2008, giving an average length of 11.04 years, but recent research has showed that the longest of these (1784–99) seems actually to have been two cycles,[2][3] so that the average length is only around 10.66 years. Cycles as short as 9 years and as long as 14 years have been observed." If the 1784-99 cycle was actually two cycles occurring in the space of fifteen years, then there must have been cycles shorter than nine years. Could someone check this? - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.173 (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)