Talk:Maunder Minimum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Larger/Slower Sun

A larger and slower Sun, it is speculated, might also mean a cooler Sun that provides less heat to Earth

Umm, why is this considered "speculation"? It is a necessary consequence of the law of conservation of angular momentum plus the well known results of adiabatic expansion. (In fact it should be possible to calculate exactly how much the "solar constant" at earth decreases for a given change in spin rate.) This could in principle be offset by greater thermal production from the core, but that is believed to take at least millenia to make its way to the surface. Unless someone is aware of some reasoning which questions this rather obvious line of thought, I will change "speculation" to something like "natural consequence of fundamnetal laws".

(Just why the Sun expands and contracts is still a mystery.)

That's fair enough, but it should also be noted that there is evidence that many stars do so to a much greater degree (see variable star). Securiger 00:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Following on from that, the page says:
Recently published data suggests that the Sun expanded during the Maunder Minimum and its rotation slowed. At our current level of understanding of solar physics, a larger and slower Sun necessarily implies a cooler Sun that provides less heat to Earth.

This doesn't appear to have any source. How would it have been observed?

This paper looks to be the source of that - I'll add a ref to the article. Worldtraveller 17:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)) OK, thanks for the ref. I've modified the text, because it appears to me that what was observed was slowing, not expansion. Possibly slowing implies expansion...?

Because of conservation of angular momentum, it is difficult to explain slowing without expansion. Rpresser 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solar rotation

I think the solar rotation periods table would fit better in the article Sun. (SEWilco 04:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Trivia Not Allowed

Can someone direct me to the Wikipedia policy regarding how something is judged relevant enough to an article? The one-sentence trivia I put at the end in a specially-marked trivia section about the Maunder Minimum almost exactly matching the reign of the Sun King was removed. How does one decide exactly whether this very interesting (to some) tidbit is allowed at the very end? I just want to know the guidelines. DavidMann 22:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any solid policy on this, though the discussion on [[1]] may be relevant - its worth a look as possibly the lamest ever edit war on wiki!
My view on this is that the trivia definitely doesn't belong *here*: this is a scientific article. It could well be argued that it might belong on the Sun King page, as that deals with human beings.
If there is no explicit policy, then the relevant policy is that articles should be written by their editors... William M. Connolley 22:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the bit, because it just isn't relevant. The fact has nothing at all to do with the Maunder Minimum, any more than it would for any other person whose life happened to roughly coincide with the Minimum. There's no policy on this kind of thing, it just works (as so many things here) by consensus. If there proved to be a substantial consensus in favour of including this trivia, it would end up being included. Worldtraveller 00:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it would be allowed on the Louis XIV page because the article is already very long. 207.203.80.14 19:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's more relevant than for other random people by virtue of his being nicknamed "The Sun King" and being a major historical figure, probably the most influential and powerful person in Europe during that time period. Maybe that's not relevant enough for most people. I just don't care enough to try to gain some vague consensus; Wikipedia politics don't interest me that much. I'll focus on correcting typos and misinformation instead. 207.203.80.14 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, the amusing coincidence that the Sun shone in unspotted glory during the reign of the Sun King was first remarked upon by Isaac Asimov. Would an attribution to someone noteworthy enough to have an article make the difference? -- Alan Peakall 18:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be interesting if true. I discovered it on my own in an astronomy course. DavidMann 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have verified this attribution from the essay Out, Damned Spot!, the first essay in the collection The Sun Shines Bright of monthly science essays that appeared in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. In fact, Asimov merely says that he came across the coincidence, leaving it unclear whether he noticed it or whether it was pointed out to him by someone he did not name. The edition of the collection I consulted does not give individual publication dates for each essay, but the copyright notices suggest that the essay appeared in one of the years 1981-83. -- Alan Peakall 20:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solar Variation vs. CO2

To introduce speculation and controversy in the form of "Some scientists believe that solar variation drives climate change more than carbon dioxide does (see global warming)" clouds the article (making this part of the controversy), when it is enough to say the point is debatable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3xstmx3 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC).