Talk:Sunspot - Knowledge

1956:

portion of the scientific community holds the belief that sunspots do indeed contribute to global warming. Therefore the 'application' section on the sunspot page is the correct and relevant place to put this cross-reference to further information for the reader as it refers to how sunspots have been reported to affect this planet, whether you personally hold this view or not. Knowledge is made great precisely because of the ability to click through links from one topic/page to another topic/page and for the benefit of a reader coming to the sunspot page, it is in their interests to see as much relevant cross reference material to this topic as is possible. The fact that you and a handful of others do not personally hold the view that sunspots have anything to do with global warming is completely irrelevant, and Knowledge does not exist to hold personal viewpoints, only impartial and accurate reference material. Further, when you continue to delete this entry (to the detriment of the greater Knowledge community at large) purely because you don't agree with it personally, it becomes a matter of censorship-with-a-view-to-withhold-information-from-the-public-for-personal-gain-or-reason and is unacceptable not only to the terms of use of Knowledge, but also the greater internet domain. The entry you keep deleting is based on fact, does not hold any personal view and is also of good use to a reader to allow them to become more informed on the topic of sunspots, regardless of whether you personally agree with the direction this entry goes in or not. The entry being put there does not reflect my personal view on sunspots and global warming, only directs an interested reader to further information, however your deletion of said entry does indeed impose your own personal view on the reader as it removes their ability to learn more purely because you personally don't think they should know about it. That is censorship and that is unacceptable. The entry you keep deleting is of use to a reader as it provides further relevant information on what the scientific community believes is connected to sunspots, so should be left there and not deleted any further.

2058:

acitivty was the main naturally-occurring cause of global warming and the text then links a reader to an existing Knowledge page elsewhere on this. The text inserted has no doubt and is factual, because this is what the film proposed. Whether the proposition itself is proven, accurate or popular or not has no bearing on this. If an interested reader chooses to click through to the film's Knowledge page they can easily see how controversial it is anyway. The page on the film is where discussion on it's scientific merits should take place, not here. The fact that a well-known film which has become part of mainstream culture mentions sunspots and sunspot activity as it's main content certainly justifies it to be included on the sunspot page itself. It's like having a page on diamonds and not being able to click through to famous diamonds of note in history or places where diamonds are mined or diamond curses or whatever. From the one page you can go in all directions, and the sunspot page needs to reflect the same thing where Knowledge is concerned. When you are on a Knowledge page it shuld contain ALL relevant cross information to that subject and as the film makes a proposition about sunpsots, I can't see why the fuss about having it referenced on the sunspot page.

429: 660: 1782:), which states an average photosphere temperature, a range of reduced temperatures for sunspots, and that fact that is faculae (bright spots associated with sunspots) that are brighter and thus 'several hundred degrees Kelvin' hotter then the average photosphere, and thus are responsible for the overall radiation from the Sun being greater. The paper looks official, however im not sure if its a peer reviewed paper or not. It also doesnt reference where these temperatures came from..-- 200: 1661:, professor of physics at Ursinus College, worked for several years in the late 1930’s developing a digital electronic computing machine to test the theory that solar fluctuations, sun spots in particular, correlate with and affect our weather. In 1941, he left Ursinus to work at the University of Pennsylvania. There his computer experience led him, with Presper Eckert, to develop ENIAC, the first digital electronic computing machine, ancestor of the billions of computers in use today. 553: 336: 2254:

misapprehend, perhaps taking it out of context, and assume it is a far more precise range than it is, whereas some people (like me) find it aesthetically displeasing. If we put 3,230 degrees, this implies an error of no more than ± 5 degrees. I believe that it would also be improper to state that the error is explicitly 47 degrees C, because the author has not explicitly stated this error on the original data, and it is a range anyway. What do you suggest? --

419: 392: 264: 233: 543: 516: 360: 1687:. The link contains no useful information for checking up on this, but it did make me wonder about how deep the sunspot-associated convection went. If there's a sensible point here, it might be worth adding something to the article. I'll leave the external link in as a place-holder for now, although as it's close to content-free, it should really be deleted. Cheers, -- 191: 1595:

this page and the linked reference. Even if the reference were legitimate, I also wouldn't be comfortable putting that information on this page, because it didn't look like particularly good research. I went looking for the paper to see how they calculated a "0.008 probability" of such a correlation but couldn't find the full reference as I already mentioned.

904:

state, "Far Eastern observers carefully noted such spots, and records dating back to at least 165 BC have come down to us." This statement cites the following reference: K.K.C Yau and F.R. Stephenson, "A Revised Catalogue of Far Eastern Observations of Sunspots (165 BC to AD 1918)", Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 29 (1988): 175-197. --

274: 2041:

keep reverting the link to, is much more complicated and less well understood. The present article needs a lot of work and has other features that are just as flaky and irrelevant to the physics of sunspots. The article needs the attention of a sunspot expert and better scientific focus, I'm afraid. I hope to make improvements later myself.

712: 696: 2146:

and the "active network") are what make the Sun a little brighter during sunspot maximum. These things can happen without any sunspots being present, so giving the impression that sunspots actually have an effect is misleading. All of the phenomena are produced by the magnetic field, so this is what should be blamed.

2817:

In simple terms, active regions are areas of strong magnetic field on the Sun's surface that are often, but not always, accompanied by sunspot(s). These sunspot(s) are just one of the many byproducts of the strong magnetic field within the active region. Further, the majority (if not the entirety) of

2073:

No, actually. You're dead wrong when you say "a Knowledge page ... shuld contain ALL relevant cross information to that subject". There is a tendency for articles to grow pointless pop-culture references: 'mentioned in Simpsons episode 115', 'Slayer did a song about...', and these need pruning out to

1955:

Squiddy, I have been accused by you in a private message of "mindlessly re-posting" the mentioned section within the 'application' section on the sunspot page, however you could equally be accused of "mindlessly deleting" it. The text you keep deleting is relevant to the topic of sunspots, a sizeable

1850:

One major advantage of sunspot number is that there are historical observations of it that go a long way back in time. You're absolutely right that the exact boundaries of a sunspot are somewhat arbitrary, but there are modern methods of correcting for the effects of observing conditions and the like

1827:

In order to make sense of the notion of counting sunspots one would have to define when a feature was sufficiently large and distinct to constitute a sunspot, when to count a sufficiently tightly packed clump of spots of varying size and shape as one spot (proximity), and so on. Why does the article

1714:

That was my thought too, but the site does seem to be reporting on genuine science stories. I thought that there might be some underlying information about stellar convection that could be added to the article. In the ocean, convection is constrained (in part) by seafloor bathymetry, but there's no

1594:

I removed information about cycles in peace and geomagnetic storms from this section primarily because the reference was shoddy at best. It was a secondary source citing a journal called "Cycles" that I couldn't find any reference to online. I also couldn't find any reference to that paper outside of

2222:

The conversion of the colour temperature range of sunspots into degrees Celsius is unduly precise. (That is, because the figures in kelvin are only given to two significant figures, giving the same data in Celsius to four significant figures is misleading and, in my opinion, wrong.) I tried to round

2177:

I think what you've got there is OK. There certainly is a correlation on long time scales, in the sense that the TSI variation has an 11-year period just like the sunspot occurrence. But in detail the faculae don't match one-to-one with spots. It is interesting that the faculae are the dominant term

1995:

Taurus, I have reverted this again. The Knowledge article on sunspots should be about sunspots. Global warming issues have their own places in this system. In my view Sunspots should stick with our basic understanding of spots as physical phenomena. Of course there is room for cultural matters (e.g.

1971:

The film is not about sunspots. In a film over an hour long, there is a section less than ten minutes long about sunspots and solar variation, mostly about solar variation. The scientist whose work was used in this section, Eigil Friis-Christensen, later complained that the film had used 'fabricated

1835:

As a numerical measure of solar activity, counting sunspots instead of integrating their intensity would appear to have all the drawbacks of counting the zero crossings in a time series instead of computing its variance. If it's done because it's the traditional thing to do then that's fine, but in

1621:

The information about life-span and sun-spot cycles is highly speculative, derived from a very small sample size and is probably a statistical aberration. Also the two references actually reference the same study. As I am not an expert on the subject, I will refrain from editing... but this nonsense

1533:

It isn't that significant, really--the rate of sunspot production varies naturally over long periods of time. There were five sunspot groups in October, and four of these were from Cycle 24. This is uncharacteristic of recent cycle transitions but not a significant deviation from normal, according

1349:

Sunspots appear darker (relative to the unaffected areas of the sun) in the visible spectrum, however in the ultraviolet and higher frequency spectra they appear to be very much brighter. (Source - "The Sun" a one hour British science documentary shown on SBS television, Australia, March 18, 20:30).

749:

This line: "...and while the observation of a reverse polarity sunspot on 4 January 2008 officially began Cycle 24, no additional sunspots have yet been seen in this cycle." Needs to be updated now that additional sunspots have been sighted - but they are not the right polarity for the new cycle. In

2309:

Why "the details of their apparent motion could not be readily explained except in the heliocentric system of Copernicus"? (17th &18th Century) The Earth in the center and the Sun around it, like in the geocentric model, still the sunspots should behave like as the Sun in the center, should not

2238:

Rounding is not a correct solution. If an author says that a temperature is 3,500 K (rounded to two significant figures), he actually says the temperature is 3,500 ± 50 K. Converted to Celsius it should then say 3,230 ± 47 °C. But rounding the temperature to 3,200 °C would mean 3,200 ± 50 °C, which

2145:

Thank you! I think maybe we're converging on a good approach here. You are right, the reference to my article is not exactly the right thing, so I will try to patch this up later. The sunspots themselves are irrelevant to climate more or less on basic principles; things related to sunspots (faculae

2109:

I've put in a new version of the relevant section, with lots of links that avoid polemics.Taurus is right, there is no reason not to have links to this kind of application of sunspot behavior, and the rest of us are right that the link should not be to something tendentious. In a technical article

2040:

There's no reason not to have cultural aspects of sunspots in the article, but it is a fine point. Sunspots themselves are not what produce effects on the Earth - that we know very well indeed from the observational work. What might have effects, and inspire television programs like the one that we

1606:

I also take some issue with other citations from "Scientific Frontiers" (there's another citation in the same section regarding influenza) since it seems like a secondary rather than a primary source (and it also seems like a collection of articles from disreputable journals), so I might go through

1157:

I see a quote saying "but new estimates suggest a delay until 2009" but no reference given. Is this along the lines of 'okay, there's no massive evidence of global warming this year...but just wait until next year when the sunspot cycle begins again (even though it's 2 years late by then)!' More in

1057:

There are sections on the history of sunspots in the "17th & 18th Century," "19th Century," and even "21st Century." It seems odd that there is no section on 20th Century sunspot observation, given the enormous strides in solar observation and understanding thereby gleaned during that time. I'm

2253:

However, in its present form, the article suggests that the temperature range is "exactly" (to four significant figures) "2,727–4,227 °C", with an implied error of 0.5 degrees -- surely this is less correct than rounding. From the context, it is clear that this is not the case, but some people may

1823:

The article refers to sunspots as discrete entities that can be counted. The first photo makes clear that this notion is problematic: the shading features vary in size, shape, intensity, and proximity, ranging down to the limit of visibility, and a more powerful telescope would reveal many more.

1767:

It occurs to me that our article needs to say unequivocally what the solar scientists think they know about sunspot temperatures, so if estimates can vary from the first one to the second one (two disjoint ranges) then we should not be precise, and in any case we should provide a readily available

1598:

If it is decided that we should put back the section I removed, the wording definitely needs to be changed as it was very misleading. For one thing, I would choose to call it a 0.8% chance of happening (which means that such correlations exist by chance 1 in 100 times) or leave that part of it out

2193:

Maybe you should rephrase it then, Hugh. It is unclear the way it is. As I read it now it says climate and sunspots are correlate, sunspots are colder though, but at the same time climate is heated while the sun is hotter because of other phenomena which are not correlated to sunspots. Therefore

1084:

made an edit (in his words, "corrected a probable error") with respect to sunspot effects on the prehistoric earth. The edit may be legit, but "probable" isn't good enough to change an article without a citation from a reliable, scientific source (preferably more recent than the articles from the

903:

I think the reference to Gan De observing sunspots in 364 BC should be removed unless we have a better source. On p. 9 of "On Sunspots" by Galileo Galilei & Christoph Scheiner, Translated and Introduced by Eileen Reeves & Albert Van Helden (University of Chicago Press, 2010), the authors

2336:

It doesn't make sense to me that high optical density (= absorbance) would make the filter have the appearance of a mirror. If it attenuates mainly by absorbtion, it would not look like a mirror. If it mainly reflects (as mirrors do), it is not because of high optical density but because of high

2161:

I added a string of text from your answer to the article, but I don't understand though. Jack Eddy found a correlation between sunspots and the climate. You say that the phenomena that caused the climate change are not related to sunspots, meaning there is no correlation. Then what did Jack Eddy

987:

It would be nice to have some more information on this event, does it have a name? I have heard some fascinating stories about it. Maybe it even deserves its own page, after all, it is the most powerful solar flare in recorded history, it's definitely an important topic. This has major practical

2455:

I think it would aid the article to explain if old counts were as accurate as modern counts. Now we can now shoot beams through the sun from earth and send satellites to the far side of the sun. I do know that the earth rotates around the sun and that the sun rotates also, but I do not know the

2434:

than the rest of the sun. (this is because the magnetically induced downdraft prevents the heat/energy from rising up in that area, making it cooler. The rest of the sun simply outshines the spot, like it does to all the other not as bright things in the day time. That said, sunspots do tend to

1831:

This is particularly relevant to the question of the significance of the Maunder Minimum. In the absence of a definition of sunspot, how do we know whether this was a genuine physical phenomenon or merely a consequence of that century's astronomers applying different criteria for when to count

1578:

On reflection I've removed the "Latest events" section. It's more like a news item than encyclopedic content. The significance of the delay in the rise of sunspot activity is a cause of some discussion by solar scientists but the length of the trough appears to be well within historic levels.

2057:

Just as many thousands of other Knowledge pages contain links to related information pertaining to the source topic, why should the Sunspot page be any different? The text in question purely states that the film (and whether the film is controversial or not is irrelevant) proposed that sunspot

1874:

I will try to revert to the article as of Nov. 7, but this may be beyond my Wiki skills to some extent. Most of what has been added in the last few edits makes very little sense and is outside ordinary thinking. The authors of this material should publish somewhere else, since Knowledge should

832:

I'll go ahead and update the history to include the Nov 4 2003 record-setting X28 flare. Holographic images show there's still amazing activity on the far side of the sun. We'll see in a handful of days what might sweep across the ecliptic when that part of the Sun comes back into view.

1832:

something as a sunspot? One could easily imagine them recording the article's first photo as containing just a single region of significant activity. The article mentions the issues of lack of observational data and negative observations, but not that of definition of the concept.

1131:

To explain this, I may say that sun spots are rifts in the surface of the sun, exposing a lower layer. This lower layer gives less light and heat than the surface, and therefore, the more spots there are on the sun, the less heat the sun will give, and the cooler will be the

2860:, hi. Each article needs to satisfy two basic tenets: notability and verifiability. You'll need several sources which discuss the topic in-depth to show that it's notable enough, and then everything in the article needs to be able to be verified in the sourcing provided. 2542:

A 22-cycle is mentioned only as a hypothesis from 1908. I heard an astronomer on the radio saying that it is now generally accepted that the physical cycle has 22 years. I know nothing about this, but someone who does should track down a reference or two and mention it.

2268:

I agree, there are pro's and con's for both views. BTW, I don't see how you derive "2,727–4,227 °C, with an implied error of 0.5 degrees" from 3,230 ± 47 °C. I have no further suggestions, I only feel it's not right to introduce an extra error for the sake of conversion.

2333:: "Special purpose hydrogen-alpha narrow bandpass filters as well as aluminum coated glass attenuation filters (which have the appearance of mirrors due to their extremely high optical density) on the front of a telescope provide safe observation through the eyepiece." 1727:

I agree with Plumbago. If there really is something to the "depth" of sunspots, I want to know more about it. How deep? Why? How are the measured? Etc. I did some Google Books searches and found some interesting books devoted to sunspots and how they form during

2936: 2129:

Thanks, Hugh. I added the link to your article, although it's content does not seem to reflect your contribution here. Am I right about that? Secondly, I have the feeling that the last two sentences contradict each other. Could you please explain?

1111:

was into astrology. Sidis couldn't even listen to irrational things (like the bible). Read his biography! as I wrote in edit summary: link talks about correlation of ionization from the sun radiation on human mood etc. You can compare this with

2414:

Sunspots appear dark or black presumably because they don't radiate in the visible light spectrum. Do they radiate at some other wavelength, e.g., microwave or x-ray? Or, are they black simply because they're deep holes in the face of the Sun?

848:

Tsk tsk, Mr. Poor. The lines you added to the Intro support your politico-scientific views; and so far as I know, what they assert is accurate. But does this really belong in the Intro, where we are trying to say succinctly what sunspots

2090:

This seems to be turning into verbal arm wrestling. Taurus, if It is not true, there is no place for it in this article. The only thing you can do is check publications about the subject. A simple Google search for instance, led me to

1756:

Do we have any simple, accessible, reliable sources on sunspot temperatures. I know they're supposed to be thousands of kelvin lower than the sun surface temperature, but a quick google doesn't come up with anything snappy.

1430:

article quotes it as being 5,780 K, and it would probably wise to be consistent within articles). Sunspot temperatures can be in the region of 3000-4000K, as noted by Wallace et al (Science, Vol 268, pp1155, 26 May 1995).

2178:

on longer time scales, ie that as the spots (dark) get more numerous the Sun actually gets brighter; apparently for other stars the opposite can be true, and it depends upon the age and rotation rate of the star.

153: 2906: 2026:

Adding the effects of sunspots to this article is valid. It is preferable to use a different source though. The documentary is subject of a polemic and justly or unjustly regarded as controversial.

2574:, the only mention of a 22-year cycle is "Hale suggested that the sunspot cycle period is 22 years.." with a citation to an article from 1908. The word "dynamo" doesn't occur in the whole article. 204: 1896:

I will check back later on to see what happens, since this is my first experience at a reversion. I actually am the author of a related article on Scholarpedia, in case anybody wishes to check:

871:

As best I can tell from the charts included in the article, we're approaching a minima; would someone who actually knows like to confirm this by adding something to the article to this effect?

840:

concnerning the sunspost story a detail review are given in wilfried schröder, das phänomen des polarlichts, darmstadt, wissenschaftliche buchgesellschaft, 1984 (revised version Bremen: 2000)

1996:

Galileo or his British predecessor on the history side) but an acknowledged polemic on television doesn't qualify as scientific discourse. But, thanks for finally joining the discussion. --

1603:) was probably mining for correlations, for every 100 correlations he checks, he'll find one of these "long shot" correlations - even if he is checking ONLY things that have no correlation. 1299:

I have added Strassmeier as a source, and the already-referenced Svetlana Berdyugina's comprehensive review of methods and results contains many references to starspots in the literature.

1339:(temperatures around 3000 °C)." Yet in the intro, it says they're between 4000 and 4500K. I'm no expert either, but I do know that there's a big difference between 3000C and 4000K... -- 1729: 497: 402: 369: 247: 2926: 2896: 669: 526: 1223:

What about ultraviolet, huh? Don't do that stuff. Just get eclipse shades that cost a few dollars. They probably even give them out for free if your area's having a major eclipse.

1188:

I removed someone's claim that a floppy disk can be used to view the sun. Someone have a source that this is indeed safe (and preferably also that it is not an opaque material)? (

2360:

Should this article use "BCE" instead of "BC" with respect to dates before the common era, since this is an astronomy subject (and that is the convention)? Yes. I know all about

1353:

This would seem to indicate that the emitted radiation has increased from the visible frequency band to a higher-energy band. This is consistent with an INCREASE in temperature.

1212:

I think that CD should be safer. Reflecting infrared is requirement for it's function. And CD's are easily available. (although it may take some time to find some without print.)

868:

Neither this article nor any of the references seem to address this question, since after all, anyone who's reading technical stuff about sunspots would obviously already know!

2911: 2223:

the figures to two significant figures, but it seems to have been implemented by some sort of conversion macro. Does anyone know how to enforce a specific precision? Thanks --

1931:

The addition of one of the ideas advanced in a polemical film, which does not have support from the scientific community, is too fringe-y to include in this article, IMHO. If

1085:

1980's cited for the paragraph). I'll check back later and, unless a citation of a scholarly source is forthcoming, will change back to the pre-edit version of the paragraph.

2966: 2842:

deserves its own dedicated article and I will be removing the redirect in 7 days (on 15 July 2021) unless someone gives a legitimate reason as to why this shouldn't be done.

1764:

from "roughly 4,000–4,500 K" to "roughly 5,000–6,500 K" and so I went searching in the article for sources. Finding no obvious references I then searched quickly elsewhere.

326: 1199:

No, it's not safe. They meant the floppy magnetic stuff on the inside of old-style floppy disks. Again, it's not safe and transmits dangerously high levels of infrared.

819:

was blinded late in life by an eye infection; his extensive observations of sunspots were 20 years earlier. The warning against direct observation has been corrected.

589: 1715:

equivalent inside stars. If there's a story here, it'd be nice to add it - at least to give a more complete description of the structure of the spots. Cheers, --

750:

light of this - and the fact that cycles do not have definite starting dates anyways - IMHO this reference to Solar Cycle 24 starting on Jan.4 should be removed.

2996: 2946: 2931: 2715: 2711: 2697: 1327:

I'm no expert but the listed temperatures are low compared to standard sources (e.g., Allen's astrophysical quantites; Ostlie+Carroll; Zirker) which quote 4000 K

674: 584: 374: 147: 1413:

Although they are at temperatures of roughly 5,000–6,500 K, the contrast with the surrounding material at about 5,800 K leaves them clearly visible as dark spots

485: 2784: 614: 2011:

I agree. This article should be on sunspots, and sunspots only. There are plenty of other articles for the debate on Climate Change (aka Global Warming). --

965:

I read your reference (and found others to corroborate it), and agree. Article changed accordingly (and other linked articles will need to be updated, too)

2921: 2659: 2364:

and other WP-conventions about "first use", etc. However, I think a good case could be made for using "BCE" in all astronomy-related articles. Thoughts? --

2283:

Not necessary to worry about the C conversion. It's in brackets, it's clear that degrees K is the cited figure and that the conversion is derived naively.

316: 2822:

recently published articles covering the two, so I will not be providing any specific papers as proof. For those looking for a non-technical source, see

2669: 865:

One of the most obvious questions anyone who knows just a little about sunspots might want to ask is... Where are we in the sunspot cycle at the moment?

345: 243: 79: 1423:

Sunspots are cooler than the surrounding photosphere. Hence they're dark. Becauyse relative to the surrounding area, they don't emit as much radiation.

2891: 1732:...". This same book states that sunspots can have a diameter as large as 50,000 km, but I couldn't find anything about their depth. It is a start. -- 1521:

observatory reported only a half-sunspot, and another reported zero sunspots. The former had not happened in fifty years, and the latter in a hundred.

703: 1237:

Regarding the second photo up: I see no reason to believe that's an actual sunspot, instead of the much more likely lens or digital chip dust-bunny.

2986: 2971: 2961: 650: 640: 604: 475: 2818:

all published literature on the topic refers to sunspots and active regions as two different things. This claim can be easily verified by checking

2991: 2901: 891:

The last sentence in the sixth paragraph says "Even the lack of a solar corona during lunar eclipses was noted prior to 1715." Shouldn't it be

2941: 776:, that would explain the reference to anyone who cares to find out about it. I don't think it should be there with no explanation, however. -- 428: 3001: 794:

and it would make sense to introduce the term Schwabe Cycle here, with a link to Solar Variation, as well as the concept of Sunspot Numbers--

609: 594: 85: 1363:

Ok, if no-one is going to offer a differing viewpoint, then I am going to change the introduction to reflect the fact that sunspots are not

1002:

Would it be appropriate to mention somewhere that August 2008 was the first month in over 100 years that no sunspot activity was recorded?

1783: 1607:

and either replace Scientific Frontiers references with more reputable sources or delete information that I can't find corroboration for.

2556:. The 22-year cycle is the solar dynamo cycle and the corresponding sunspot cycle (with change in polarity) is known as the "Hale cycle". 2916: 2499: 2491:

Astronomer William Herschel believed they were portholes into a dark subsolar world where people lived beneath the sun's radiant sheath.

1173: 1035: 1009: 757: 1824:

There could be anywhere from two to eight sunspots in the photo depending on one's criteria for size, shape, intensity, and proximity.

2311: 2255: 1538: 599: 451: 2687: 2981: 2956: 2693:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1915: 1564: 2479:

contains information which, if correct, should be incorporated into the article. But it should first be verified by other sources.

919: 2976: 2951: 1684: 1804:] showing a long term reconstruction of the sunspot number shows the number going below zero, is anyone able to justify this? -- 2886: 799: 287: 238: 99: 44: 30: 2649: 2847: 104: 20: 1836:

that case shouldn't the article say something about the underlying assumptions and drawbacks of this traditional metric? --

2110:

like this I think it is important to stick with real information, rather than opinion. I would have linked my own article

1129:, whoever she may be. Sidis is probably of historical interest; his theory is junk, because he has it the wrong way round 577: 566: 521: 442: 397: 74: 2310:

they? In other words, sunspots' apparent motion on the surface of the Sun should not be a matter of system of reference.

2792: 2758: 2660:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100216030712/http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182h/Climate/Solar/Maunder%20Minimum.pdf

213: 2484:

For ancient Africans living on the Zambezi River, sunspots were mud spattered in the face of the sun by a jealous moon.

2670:

https://web.archive.org/web/20051212113926/http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/sharpest_image_sunspot.html?6102005

1113: 659: 168: 65: 135: 2830:

Any given appearance of a sunspot may last anywhere from a few days to a few months, though groups of sunspots and

2608: 2594: 2561: 2440: 1282:

OK, I thought it might be something like that. But the text seems misleading as written (not to mention unsourced)

1224: 1200: 2496:

I don't currently have time to look into this myself. Offering it here for anyone who wants to pursue the matter.

1779: 2857: 2843: 2400: 1453:

Is it worth mentioning the life cycle of a sunspot? I.e. that they are born at the equator and die at the poles?

1283: 1260: 1135: 1104: 876: 2714:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2663: 795: 2274: 2244: 2199: 2167: 2135: 2100: 2031: 2673: 1787: 2503: 2493:

I have my doubts. Did Herschel really "believe" that or would it be more accurate to say he "speculated" it?

1169: 1039: 1013: 2788: 2749: 2641: 2342: 2315: 2259: 1841: 761: 109: 2823: 2777: 1568: 2637: 2518: 2063: 1975:

This isn't a useful place to point people interested in sunspots, and attempting to use this article as a

1961: 1769: 1680: 1667: 1638: 1580: 1542: 932: 129: 2733:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2721: 2604: 2590: 2557: 2436: 2183: 2151: 2119: 2048: 2001: 1911: 1882: 1683:

recently added an external link that suggests that the "depth" of sunspots (relative to what?) has been

1165: 219: 2640:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2074:

keep articles focussed on their topics rather than turning into big fuzzy collections of random shite.

2059: 1957: 1935:

wants to add it, can he/she give reasons why it is notable and within the scope of this article, using

1932: 1238: 875:

Seems a fair question. I put it into the intro from one of the refs. I'm not sure if it belongs there.

2384: 1149: 2476: 2396: 2389: 2338: 2288: 2205: 1903: 1627: 1535: 1470: 1439: 1161: 1090: 1063: 1031: 1005: 970: 773: 753: 190: 125: 2603:

And by the way, the 1908 paper by Hale is very nice. I often recommend reading classic old papers.

2461: 2270: 2240: 2195: 2163: 2131: 2096: 2027: 1454: 1270: 1108: 552: 350: 161: 55: 1666:

The story of ENIAC is well known. The rest (which is applicable to this article) is unsourced. --

450:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2681: 2369: 2228: 2092: 2016: 1976: 1837: 1809: 1737: 1612: 1560: 1308: 1269:

We can see changes in the brightness of other stars that are interpreted to be caused by spots.

70: 2718:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1623: 1478:

potentially affecting airline flights, communications satellites and electrical transmissions.

2734: 335: 175: 2319: 2079: 1984: 1944: 1705: 909: 51: 2179: 2147: 2115: 2044: 1997: 1907: 1878: 1081: 740: 279: 2741: 2650:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050315081547/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm

2420: 2361: 2284: 1435: 1117: 1086: 1059: 966: 781: 576:

and related subjects on Knowledge. To participate, help improve this article or visit the

2114:

if I could have figured out the syntax, but the present version looks pretty good to me.

2773:

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

2095:

although It is rather old, so I don't know if it is superceded by more recent research.

2700:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2457: 1860: 1340: 949: 558: 434: 2740:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

988:

importance too because a repeat of this magnetude of solar flare would be devistating.

2880: 2861: 2839: 2807: 2586: 2575: 2544: 2365: 2224: 2111: 2012: 1897: 1805: 1733: 1716: 1688: 1608: 1527: 1392: 1372: 1354: 1304: 854: 820: 736: 732: 141: 1300: 2653: 2075: 1980: 1940: 1936: 1701: 1658: 1483: 1189: 957: 923: 905: 834: 1499: 1700:

I've removed it. There's a bit of a spamming campaign going on with that site. -

727:

It would be nice if people who contributed to this page could also help with the

2937:

Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)

2707: 1852: 989: 728: 542: 515: 418: 391: 2456:

answer to my question: can we detect more sunspots than our forefathers could?

1780:

http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/issues/fiz-99-23-2/fiz-23-2-10-98080.pdf

1622:

should either be removed or it should be explained that is speculative trivia.

2706:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2416: 1637:

I've removed the section on human ecology. This is fringe science at best. --

777: 548: 424: 269: 2664:

http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182h/Climate/Solar/Maunder%20Minimum.pdf

1058:

not an expert in the area, so I'll leave it to another to add the section...

2239:

introduces a deviation in the mean and error from the original temperature.

1856: 292: 263: 232: 2674:

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/sharpest_image_sunspot.html?6102005

1253:

Similar phenomena observed on stars other than the Sun are commonly called

2482:

For example, regarding mythological interpretations of sunspots it says:

1336: 2834:

tend to last weeks or months, but all do eventually decay and disappear.

2824:

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/sun-space-weather/sun-active-region

359: 2811: 2633: 2571: 2330: 1851:- that's referenced plenty of times in this article in the form of the 816: 572: 447: 24: 2589:

linked in that section, though you might find this kind of technical.

1025: 2826:. This claim is even implied within the article when it is said that 998:

August 2008, no sunspot activity for the first time in over a century

953: 938: 2486:

Is this true? If so it belongs in the "Early Observations" section.

2385:

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/1443/1gcrsvstempscorrelation.png

918:

How certian is the date, 28 BC for the Chinese first observation?

711: 695: 2477:

http://nautil.us/issue/22/slow/the-315_year_old-science-experiment

2390:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

1471:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/04/26/solar.cycle.ap/index.html

1371:

than the surrounding area (with appropriate references of course)

1332: 1134:

However, he's a useful example, so I thank you for providing him!

945: 2553:

This subject is already discussed, referenced, and wikilinked in

2769:

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

1599:

entirely. If you think about it, given that the guy (presumably

1518: 2393:

The state oscillation with an 11 year cycle gets very visible.

1600: 2871: 2851: 2796: 2763: 2612: 2598: 2578: 2565: 2547: 2507: 2465: 2444: 2424: 2404: 2373: 2346: 2292: 2278: 2263: 2248: 2232: 2209: 2187: 2171: 2155: 2139: 2123: 2104: 2093:

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html

2084: 2067: 2052: 2035: 2020: 2005: 1989: 1965: 1949: 1919: 1886: 1864: 1845: 1813: 1791: 1772: 1741: 1722: 1709: 1694: 1670: 1641: 1631: 1616: 1583: 1572: 1546: 1486: 1457: 1443: 1427: 1395: 1375: 1357: 1343: 1312: 1286: 1273: 1263: 1241: 1227: 1203: 1192: 1177: 1138: 1120: 1094: 1067: 1043: 1017: 992: 974: 960: 926: 913: 879: 803: 785: 765: 743: 690: 184: 15: 1561:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081111230341.htm

710: 658: 358: 334: 739:, etc... pages), which really need some extra information. 2644:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1259:- do we really have the rez to see them on other stars? 2688:

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/

2554: 1761: 1127: 2218:

Sunspot temperatures (conversion into degrees Celsius)

1512:

I've removed the following from "Significant events":

1504:

Very informative. Answers to a lot of these questions

1028:(Sunspots for the last 10,000 years and more)please? 160: 2907:

Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences

2435:

radiate more than the solar average in the UV range.

1528:

Sun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century

446:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2710:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1426:The surface of the sun is approximately 5500K (the 2112:http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Solar_activity 1652:I've removed this from the section "Application": 895:eclipses? RWinther, January 10, 2006, 02:55 (UTC) 2489:Regarding early Western interpretations it says, 2654:http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1500:http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag227.htm 2783:Participate in the deletion discussion at the 2696:This message was posted before February 2018. 2927:C-Class Astronomy articles of High-importance 2897:Knowledge vital articles in Physical sciences 2304: 1303:has some interesting "images" of starspots. - 772:Well, maybe not... if you link "Cycle 24" to 174: 8: 2451:Counting sunspots on the far side of the sun 349:, which collaborates on articles related to 291:, which collaborates on articles related to 2912:C-Class vital articles in Physical sciences 1685:estimated from solar simulations as 1500 km 2967:C-Class physics articles of Mid-importance 2585:I apologize for not being very clear. See 1391:despite emitting higher energy radiation. 1331:Not only that, but the article also says " 948:observation, looks like we should go with 510: 386: 227: 2632:I have just modified 3 external links on 2194:climate is not correlated to sunspots... 1657:This theory has been around a long time. 2570:I don't know where you are looking. In 2305:Sunspots' behavior and reference systems 1927:reference to Global Warming Swindle film 1875:reflect consensus views as best it can. 944:cites afew earlier observations and the 512: 388: 229: 188: 2625:External links modified (January 2018) 2430:Sunspots, rather than black, are just 2997:Low-importance Space weather articles 2947:High-importance Solar System articles 2932:C-Class Astronomical objects articles 2383:Diagram with emphasized peak groups: 1482:can it happen what the article says? 7: 564:This article is within the scope of 440:This article is within the scope of 285:This article is within the scope of 1760:What prompts this? Well recently 1026:http://dreamofthought.blogspot.com/ 218:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 2922:High-importance Astronomy articles 2838:Given this information, I believe 14: 2636:. Please take a moment to review 1819:"Sunspot" as an undefined concept 1601:very reputable-seeming individual 1508:Removed from "Significant events" 2892:Knowledge level-5 vital articles 1979:for polemic doesn't improve it. 1563:paragraph 2 needs to be updated 1024:Could we see graphs like these? 922:is a source that gives 170 BC. - 702:This article was previously the 694: 551: 541: 514: 427: 417: 390: 346:WikiProject Astronomical objects 272: 262: 231: 198: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 2987:Low-importance Weather articles 2972:C-Class fluid dynamics articles 2962:Mid-importance physics articles 2814:? They are not the same thing. 1335:(temperatures around 2200 °C), 704:Space Collaboration of the Week 645:This article has been rated as 480:This article has been rated as 321:This article has been rated as 301:Knowledge:WikiProject Astronomy 2992:C-Class Space weather articles 2902:C-Class level-5 vital articles 2797:12:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC) 1773:02:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 1742:01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 1723:06:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 1710:11:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 1695:07:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC) 1178:16:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC) 304:Template:WikiProject Astronomy 1: 2942:C-Class Solar System articles 2466:22:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 2347:10:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 1920:16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC) 1887:16:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC) 1846:17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC) 1792:11:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC) 1778:What about using this paper ( 1762:somebody altered the estimate 1671:23:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC) 1573:07:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC) 1547:09:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC) 1444:18:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 1313:00:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 1095:02:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC) 1018:01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC) 667:This article is supported by 625:Knowledge:WikiProject Weather 495:This article is supported by 460:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics 454:and see a list of open tasks. 367:This article is supported by 343:This article is supported by 42:Put new text under old text. 3002:WikiProject Weather articles 2764:23:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC) 2613:02:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC) 2599:02:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC) 2579:01:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC) 2566:15:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC) 2548:03:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC) 2374:01:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC) 2320:19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC) 2210:12:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 2188:20:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 2172:10:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 2156:05:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 2140:10:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC) 2124:03:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC) 2105:18:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2085:10:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2068:07:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 2053:21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC) 2036:13:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC) 2021:19:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 2006:12:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 1990:14:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC) 1966:00:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC) 1752:Sunspot temperatures (again) 1617:20:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) 1344:07:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC) 1287:20:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 1274:19:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 1264:08:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC) 1228:18:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 1139:23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 1126:Nope, I think CarolMoore is 1121:23:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 1044:18:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 993:01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 837:02:10, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC) co 744:03:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 670:the Space weather task force 628:Template:WikiProject Weather 463:Template:WikiProject Physics 2331:Sunspot#Sunspot_observation 1950:14:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 1870:Recent changes need undoing 1642:17:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 1584:17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC) 1458:10:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC) 1384:Ok, I was wrong, sunspots 1242:16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 1193:01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1158:hope than in commonsense? 1114:seasonal affective disorder 961:15:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 927:15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 880:21:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 3018: 2917:C-Class Astronomy articles 2727:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2629:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2508:02:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC) 2405:17:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 2279:07:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 2264:18:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 1590:Sunspots and Human Ecology 1534:to David Hathaway of NASA 1487:11:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1396:02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 1376:02:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 1358:23:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 823:02:42, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC) 766:15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 651:project's importance scale 486:project's importance scale 327:project's importance scale 2872:13:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC) 2445:02:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 2425:11:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC) 2293:06:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 2249:14:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 2233:20:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 1814:06:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 1204:21:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC) 1068:22:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC) 983:Event of 1 September 1859 975:14:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC) 914:23:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC) 899:Date of first observation 857:18:47, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC) 844:The politics of the intro 786:19:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC) 666: 644: 536: 494: 479: 412: 366: 342: 320: 257: 226: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2982:C-Class Weather articles 2957:C-Class physics articles 2852:23:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC) 1865:22:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC) 1828:say nothing about this? 1798:Negative sunspot number? 1632:21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 1100:Sunspots and revolutions 804:11:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 570:, which collaborates on 498:Fluid Dynamics Taskforce 2977:Fluid dynamics articles 2952:Solar System task force 2410:Why are Sunspots black? 1730:cyclic convection cells 370:Solar System task force 2887:C-Class vital articles 2802:Active region redirect 2519:User:Lfstevens/sandbox 715: 663: 363: 339: 75:avoid personal attacks 1225:Sagittarian Milky Way 1201:Sagittarian Milky Way 796:Richardson mcphillips 714: 662: 362: 338: 288:WikiProject Astronomy 205:level-5 vital article 100:Neutral point of view 2858:CoronalMassAffection 2844:CoronalMassAffection 2832:their active regions 2708:regular verification 2513:Restructure proposal 1555:cycle 24 has started 1419:This makes no sense. 1323:sunspot temperatures 1284:William M. Connolley 1261:William M. Connolley 1136:William M. Connolley 1105:William M. Connolley 1080:On 27 November 2010 877:William M. Connolley 774:List of solar cycles 351:astronomical objects 244:Astronomical objects 105:No original research 2698:After February 2018 2325:Attenuation filters 1676:"Depth" of sunspots 1109:William James Sidis 567:WikiProject Weather 443:WikiProject Physics 2789:Community Tech bot 2752:InternetArchiveBot 2703:InternetArchiveBot 1526:The reference was 1517:In August 2008, a 1449:Sunspot life cycle 1434:Any objections? -- 861:Where in the cycle 716: 707: 664: 585:Articles Requested 364: 340: 307:Astronomy articles 214:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2728: 2082: 1987: 1947: 1933:User:Taurusthecat 1923: 1906:comment added by 1892:OK, that was easy 1720: 1692: 1164:comment added by 1034:comment added by 1020: 1008:comment added by 768: 756:comment added by 720: 719: 701: 689: 688: 685: 684: 681: 680: 590:Project Resources 509: 508: 505: 504: 385: 384: 381: 380: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3009: 2868: 2865: 2762: 2753: 2726: 2725: 2704: 2685: 2605:Isambard Kingdom 2591:Isambard Kingdom 2558:Isambard Kingdom 2437:Darryl from Mars 2213: 2080: 1985: 1945: 1937:reliable sources 1922: 1900: 1718: 1690: 1495:Recent info NOAA 1180: 1076:Early atmosphere 1046: 1003: 751: 698: 691: 633: 632: 631:Weather articles 629: 626: 623: 561: 556: 555: 545: 538: 537: 532: 529: 518: 511: 468: 467: 466:physics articles 464: 461: 458: 437: 432: 431: 421: 414: 413: 408: 405: 394: 387: 309: 308: 305: 302: 299: 282: 280:Astronomy portal 277: 276: 275: 266: 259: 258: 253: 250: 235: 228: 211: 202: 201: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3017: 3016: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3008: 3007: 3006: 2877: 2876: 2866: 2863: 2804: 2785:nomination page 2778:Sunspot vtt.jpg 2771: 2756: 2751: 2719: 2712:have permission 2702: 2679: 2642:this simple FaQ 2627: 2540: 2527: 2515: 2475:The article at 2473: 2453: 2417:Virgil H. Soule 2412: 2397:Alexander.stohr 2388:Basic version: 2381: 2358: 2327: 2307: 2220: 2203: 1929: 1901: 1894: 1872: 1821: 1800: 1754: 1678: 1650: 1592: 1557: 1510: 1497: 1468: 1451: 1409: 1325: 1250: 1244:Ubiquitousnewt 1186: 1159: 1102: 1078: 1055: 1029: 1000: 985: 901: 889: 863: 846: 830: 814: 725: 630: 627: 624: 621: 620: 619: 595:Become a Member 557: 550: 530: 524: 465: 462: 459: 456: 455: 433: 426: 406: 400: 375:High-importance 323:High-importance 306: 303: 300: 297: 296: 278: 273: 271: 252:High‑importance 251: 241: 212:on Knowledge's 209: 199: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3015: 3013: 3005: 3004: 2999: 2994: 2989: 2984: 2979: 2974: 2969: 2964: 2959: 2954: 2949: 2944: 2939: 2934: 2929: 2924: 2919: 2914: 2909: 2904: 2899: 2894: 2889: 2879: 2878: 2875: 2874: 2836: 2835: 2803: 2800: 2781: 2780: 2770: 2767: 2746: 2745: 2738: 2691: 2690: 2676: 2668:Added archive 2666: 2658:Added archive 2656: 2648:Added archive 2626: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2601: 2572:Sunspot#Period 2539: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2531: 2530: 2526: 2523: 2514: 2511: 2472: 2469: 2452: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2411: 2408: 2394: 2392: 2387: 2380: 2377: 2357: 2350: 2337:reflectivity. 2326: 2323: 2306: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2271:Jan Arkesteijn 2241:Jan Arkesteijn 2219: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2208:comment added 2196:Jan Arkesteijn 2175: 2174: 2164:Jan Arkesteijn 2143: 2142: 2132:Jan Arkesteijn 2097:Jan Arkesteijn 2088: 2087: 2028:Jan Arkesteijn 2024: 2023: 1993: 1992: 1973: 1954: 1928: 1925: 1893: 1890: 1871: 1868: 1820: 1817: 1799: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1784:110.32.151.142 1753: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1677: 1674: 1664: 1663: 1649: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1591: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1556: 1553: 1551: 1524: 1523: 1509: 1506: 1496: 1493: 1491: 1481: 1475: 1467: 1464: 1462: 1450: 1447: 1408: 1405: 1403: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1379: 1378: 1347: 1346: 1324: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1277: 1276: 1271:Dragons flight 1249: 1246: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1207: 1206: 1185: 1182: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1143: 1142: 1101: 1098: 1077: 1074: 1072: 1054: 1051: 1049: 1023: 999: 996: 984: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 950:4th century BC 900: 897: 888: 885: 884: 883: 862: 859: 845: 842: 829: 828:2003 X28 Flare 826: 825: 813: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 789: 788: 748: 724: 721: 718: 717: 708: 699: 687: 686: 683: 682: 679: 678: 675:Low-importance 665: 655: 654: 647:Low-importance 643: 637: 636: 634: 618: 617: 612: 607: 602: 597: 592: 587: 581: 563: 562: 559:Weather portal 546: 534: 533: 531:Low‑importance 519: 507: 506: 503: 502: 493: 490: 489: 482:Mid-importance 478: 472: 471: 469: 452:the discussion 439: 438: 435:Physics portal 422: 410: 409: 407:Mid‑importance 403:Fluid Dynamics 395: 383: 382: 379: 378: 365: 355: 354: 341: 331: 330: 319: 313: 312: 310: 284: 283: 267: 255: 254: 236: 224: 223: 217: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3014: 3003: 3000: 2998: 2995: 2993: 2990: 2988: 2985: 2983: 2980: 2978: 2975: 2973: 2970: 2968: 2965: 2963: 2960: 2958: 2955: 2953: 2950: 2948: 2945: 2943: 2940: 2938: 2935: 2933: 2930: 2928: 2925: 2923: 2920: 2918: 2915: 2913: 2910: 2908: 2905: 2903: 2900: 2898: 2895: 2893: 2890: 2888: 2885: 2884: 2882: 2873: 2870: 2869: 2859: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2840:active region 2833: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2825: 2821: 2815: 2813: 2809: 2808:active region 2801: 2799: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2779: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2768: 2766: 2765: 2760: 2755: 2754: 2743: 2739: 2736: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2723: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2699: 2694: 2689: 2683: 2677: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2630: 2624: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2587:Babcock Model 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2546: 2538:22-year cycle 2537: 2533: 2532: 2529: 2528: 2524: 2522: 2520: 2512: 2510: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2500:121.45.100.90 2497: 2494: 2492: 2487: 2485: 2480: 2478: 2470: 2468: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2433: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2409: 2407: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2391: 2386: 2378: 2376: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2355: 2351: 2349: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2334: 2332: 2329:This text in 2324: 2322: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2217: 2211: 2207: 2201: 2197: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2107: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2086: 2083: 2081:(squirt ink?) 2077: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2055: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1991: 1988: 1986:(squirt ink?) 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1952: 1951: 1948: 1946:(squirt ink?) 1942: 1938: 1934: 1926: 1924: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1898: 1891: 1889: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1869: 1867: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1848: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1838:Vaughan Pratt 1833: 1829: 1825: 1818: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1771: 1768:reference. -- 1765: 1763: 1758: 1751: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1721: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1693: 1686: 1682: 1675: 1673: 1672: 1669: 1662: 1660: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1647: 1643: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1619: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1604: 1602: 1596: 1589: 1585: 1582: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1554: 1552: 1549: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1531: 1530:(DailyTech). 1529: 1522: 1520: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1507: 1505: 1502: 1501: 1494: 1492: 1489: 1488: 1485: 1479: 1476: 1473: 1472: 1465: 1463: 1460: 1459: 1456: 1448: 1446: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1432: 1429: 1424: 1421: 1420: 1416: 1414: 1407:Seriously...? 1406: 1404: 1397: 1394: 1390: 1387: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1377: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1356: 1351: 1345: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1322: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1288: 1285: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1262: 1258: 1256: 1247: 1245: 1243: 1240: 1229: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1194: 1191: 1183: 1181: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1166:Go Away White 1163: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1140: 1137: 1133: 1128: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1119: 1115: 1110: 1106: 1099: 1097: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1083: 1075: 1073: 1070: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1053:20th Century? 1052: 1050: 1047: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1036:90.59.169.175 1033: 1027: 1021: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1010:66.245.212.66 1007: 997: 995: 994: 991: 982: 976: 972: 968: 964: 963: 962: 959: 955: 951: 947: 943: 942: 940: 934: 931: 930: 929: 928: 925: 921: 916: 915: 911: 907: 898: 896: 894: 886: 881: 878: 874: 873: 872: 869: 866: 860: 858: 856: 852: 843: 841: 838: 836: 827: 824: 822: 818: 811: 805: 801: 797: 793: 792: 791: 790: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 770: 769: 767: 763: 759: 758:65.215.33.194 755: 746: 745: 742: 738: 737:solar minimum 734: 733:solar maximum 730: 722: 713: 709: 705: 700: 697: 693: 692: 676: 673:(assessed as 672: 671: 661: 657: 656: 652: 648: 642: 639: 638: 635: 616: 613: 611: 608: 606: 603: 601: 598: 596: 593: 591: 588: 586: 583: 582: 580:for details. 579: 575: 574: 569: 568: 560: 554: 549: 547: 544: 540: 539: 535: 528: 523: 520: 517: 513: 500: 499: 492: 491: 487: 483: 477: 474: 473: 470: 453: 449: 445: 444: 436: 430: 425: 423: 420: 416: 415: 411: 404: 399: 396: 393: 389: 376: 373:(assessed as 372: 371: 361: 357: 356: 352: 348: 347: 337: 333: 332: 328: 324: 318: 315: 314: 311: 295:on Knowledge. 294: 290: 289: 281: 270: 268: 265: 261: 260: 256: 249: 245: 240: 237: 234: 230: 225: 221: 215: 207: 206: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2862: 2837: 2831: 2819: 2816: 2810:redirect to 2805: 2782: 2772: 2750: 2747: 2722:source check 2701: 2695: 2692: 2631: 2628: 2541: 2516: 2498: 2495: 2490: 2488: 2483: 2481: 2474: 2454: 2431: 2413: 2382: 2379:Correlations 2359: 2353: 2339:Mats Löfdahl 2335: 2328: 2312:2.33.251.230 2308: 2256:86.144.52.67 2221: 2176: 2144: 2108: 2089: 2060:Taurusthecat 2056: 2043: 2039: 2025: 1994: 1958:Taurusthecat 1953: 1930: 1895: 1877: 1873: 1849: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1801: 1766: 1759: 1755: 1679: 1665: 1659:John Mauchly 1656: 1651: 1620: 1605: 1597: 1593: 1558: 1550: 1539:82.18.14.143 1532: 1525: 1516: 1511: 1503: 1498: 1490: 1480: 1477: 1474: 1469: 1461: 1452: 1433: 1425: 1422: 1418: 1417: 1412: 1410: 1402: 1388: 1385: 1368: 1367:but in fact 1364: 1352: 1348: 1326: 1301:This gallery 1254: 1252: 1251: 1239:70.61.22.110 1236: 1187: 1156: 1130: 1107:thinks that 1103: 1079: 1071: 1056: 1048: 1022: 1001: 986: 937: 936: 933:This article 917: 902: 892: 890: 870: 867: 864: 850: 847: 839: 831: 815: 747: 726: 668: 646: 600:Project Talk 578:project page 571: 565: 496: 481: 441: 368: 344: 322: 286: 248:Solar System 220:WikiProjects 203: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2204:—Preceding 2180:Hugh Hudson 2148:Hugh Hudson 2116:Hugh Hudson 2045:Hugh Hudson 1998:Hugh Hudson 1977:WP:COATRACK 1908:Hugh Hudson 1902:—Preceding 1879:Hugh Hudson 1853:Wolf number 1565:24.5.69.178 1184:Disk viewer 1160:—Preceding 1150:69.33.60.41 1082:Hugh Hudson 1030:—Preceding 1004:—Preceding 752:—Preceding 741:USferdinand 729:solar cycle 723:Solar cycle 148:free images 31:not a forum 2881:Categories 2759:Report bug 2285:Barsoomian 1939:? Thanks, 1802:The graph 1466:2011-2012? 1436:InvaderXan 1248:Starspots? 1118:Lakinekaki 1087:DoctorEric 1060:DoctorEric 967:DoctorEric 605:Assessment 2806:Why does 2742:this tool 2735:this tool 2682:dead link 2458:Fotoguzzi 1341:TheSlyFox 935:from the 298:Astronomy 293:Astronomy 239:Astronomy 208:is rated 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2748:Cheers.— 2525:Comments 2366:Thorwald 2362:WP:DATES 2225:Roberdin 2013:Thorwald 1916:contribs 1904:unsigned 1806:Damorbel 1734:Thorwald 1609:0x0077BE 1393:DrBob127 1373:DrBob127 1355:DrBob127 1337:penumbra 1305:Wikianon 1255:starspot 1174:contribs 1162:unsigned 1148:Welcome! 1132:climate. 1032:unsigned 1006:unsigned 855:Dandrake 821:Dandrake 754:unsigned 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2812:sunspot 2686:tag to 2638:my edit 2634:Sunspot 2471:History 2206:undated 2076:Squiddy 1981:Squiddy 1941:Squiddy 1719:LUMBAGO 1702:MrOllie 1691:LUMBAGO 1681:An anon 1648:Mauchly 1484:Phu2734 1190:SEWilco 958:MrFizyx 941:Courier 924:MrFizyx 906:Doesper 887:History 835:SEWilco 817:Galileo 812:Galileo 649:on the 622:Weather 610:A-Class 573:weather 522:Weather 484:on the 457:Physics 448:Physics 398:Physics 325:on the 210:C-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 25:Sunspot 2678:Added 2432:darker 2162:find? 1972:data.' 1389:cooler 1369:hotter 1365:cooler 990:Dru007 954:165 BC 939:UNESCO 615:Alerts 216:scale. 126:Google 1624:Ve2dc 1537:. -- 1455:Jamie 1333:umbra 946:28 BC 893:solar 778:Tckma 731:(and 527:Space 197:This 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2867:5969 2864:Onel 2848:talk 2793:talk 2609:talk 2595:talk 2576:Zero 2562:talk 2545:Zero 2504:talk 2462:talk 2441:talk 2421:talk 2401:talk 2370:talk 2352:BCE 2343:talk 2316:talk 2289:talk 2275:talk 2260:talk 2245:talk 2229:talk 2200:talk 2184:talk 2168:talk 2152:talk 2136:talk 2120:talk 2101:talk 2064:talk 2049:talk 2032:talk 2017:talk 2002:talk 1962:talk 1912:talk 1883:talk 1861:talk 1857:Eteq 1842:talk 1810:talk 1788:talk 1738:talk 1706:talk 1628:talk 1613:talk 1569:talk 1559:see 1543:talk 1519:NOAA 1440:talk 1309:talk 1170:talk 1091:talk 1064:talk 1040:talk 1014:talk 971:talk 920:Here 910:talk 800:talk 782:talk 762:talk 317:High 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 2820:any 2787:. — 2716:RfC 2672:to 2662:to 2652:to 2521:}} 2354:vs. 2202:) 1899:. 1428:Sun 1386:are 956:. - 952:or 851:are 641:Low 476:Mid 176:TWL 2883:: 2850:) 2795:) 2729:. 2724:}} 2720:{{ 2684:}} 2680:{{ 2611:) 2597:) 2564:) 2517:{{ 2506:) 2464:) 2443:) 2423:) 2403:) 2395:-- 2372:) 2356:BC 2345:) 2318:) 2291:) 2277:) 2262:) 2247:) 2231:) 2186:) 2170:) 2154:) 2138:) 2122:) 2103:) 2078:| 2066:) 2051:) 2034:) 2019:) 2004:) 1983:| 1964:) 1943:| 1918:) 1914:• 1885:) 1863:) 1855:. 1844:) 1812:) 1790:) 1770:TS 1740:) 1708:) 1668:TS 1639:TS 1630:) 1615:) 1581:TS 1579:-- 1571:) 1545:) 1442:) 1415:" 1311:) 1257:s. 1195:) 1176:) 1172:• 1116:. 1093:) 1066:) 1042:) 1016:) 973:) 912:) 853:? 802:) 784:) 764:) 677:). 525:: 401:: 377:). 246:/ 242:: 156:) 54:; 2846:( 2791:( 2761:) 2757:( 2744:. 2737:. 2607:( 2593:( 2560:( 2502:( 2460:( 2439:( 2419:( 2399:( 2368:( 2341:( 2314:( 2287:( 2273:( 2258:( 2243:( 2227:( 2212:. 2198:( 2182:( 2166:( 2150:( 2134:( 2118:( 2099:( 2062:( 2047:( 2030:( 2015:( 2000:( 1960:( 1910:( 1881:( 1859:( 1840:( 1808:( 1786:( 1736:( 1728:" 1717:P 1704:( 1689:P 1626:( 1611:( 1567:( 1541:( 1438:( 1411:" 1307:( 1168:( 1141:. 1089:( 1062:( 1038:( 1012:( 969:( 908:( 882:. 798:( 780:( 760:( 735:/ 706:. 653:. 501:. 488:. 353:. 329:. 222:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index