Talk:Solar constant

message: This appears to be misattributed.  Dr Joanna D. Haigh is not talking about scientific consensus with The Sun and the Earth’s Climate  Someone who cares needs to provide a real link to the "scientific consensus" regarding the solar constant to support this claim or this should be removed. 
In fact Dr. Haigh writes, "The absolute radiometerscarried by satellites since the late 1970s have produced indisputable evidence that total solarirradiance varies systematically over the 11-year sunspot cycle, relegating to history the term “solar constant”, but it is difficult to explain how the apparent response to the Sun, seen inmany climate records, can be brought about by these rather small changes in radiation."
What she's saying is that SOLAR CONSTANT is really an old term and that new technologies are showing that the sun's output is not constant.  Her viewpoint is not reflected here.  How can we be so clumsy in our writing here?
Also, why must AGW theory be peppered into this topic anyway and why is it the leadin?  It's unecessary clumsy and gives a very biased impression of Wikipedia.  If this article is about the solar constant, it should be about the solar constant and if there is a minor tangental interest to AGW theory, we can point to that but to make AGW the centerpiece here is agenda driven. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, when we cite something, we should not cite an entire website.  It's very difficult to go dig through an entire site to find a reference.  Citations should be discrete and follow standard format.  All this citation says is Joanna Haig.  This is horrible work and almost tantamount to defacing.  Whoever did this did not care about Wikipedia and it's content, they just cared about getting their message out.  We need to be neater. It's almost like people are trying to hide things.174.49.84.214 (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  although the scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change. 

message: This historical perspective is basically a long quote from a book on the discovery of global warming and about sunspot cycles.  It bears little to no relevance to the solar constant.  What it is doing here is beyond me and by that I mean that it makes zero sense for this section to be here.  It's not even historical to the solar constant!174.49.84.214 (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical perspective 

message: It really appears that this whole section is just a bad rehash of the climate change debate and the role that the sun plays. With people just digging for any quote that they can to make their point.  There are some decent quotes here on both sides of the argument but the debate is just in the wrong article page --- this whole section probably belongs under a solar influence section of the global warming controversy article (and let those guys go at it).  This page is about the Solar Constant, a concept that is now largely disproven and then direct the reader to solar variation.174.49.84.214 (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: William M. Connolley.  On 2 October 2010, you added a whole ProAGW Variation Section taking the article from 5,000 bytes to 28,000 bytes.  Why?  This AGW stuff is entirely out of place and this is the solar constant not the solar variation page.  Can you explain?  I'd like to remove this entire section.  It's poorly written.  It's an AGW war now (by that I mean that editors have made swiss cheese to any cohesiveness the article might have had).  It misquotes and miscites people.  There is some good content onthere but it doesn't belong under SOLAR CONSTANT.  Where do you suggest this be moved to?  It seems to me you made the mess that you now purport to try to clean up :-)174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

text: So No William M. Connolley, these pages should remain discrete but we should remove the proAGW clutter you added over a year ago.  The ProAGW content on the solar constant page is wildly out of place and you should refrain from cluttering ancillary pages with ProAGW sections where none are merited.174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variation 

message: I think, the right word for this article should be "solar irradiance" but I am not shure in english terms here, I hope, some people who understand this wil chage it, if I am right. --Nolanus (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In English, "irradiance" refers to the ratio of power and area, that is, W/m². Any value for this ratio is an irradiance. Solar irradiance could refer to any irradiance measured anywhere in space. The term "Solar constant" refers specifically to the irradiance just outside Earth's atmosphere. So the title of the article is correct, because it refers to a particular irradiance, and not just any solar irradiance.----189.248.160.44 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar irradiance 

message: The  SORCE mission calls the "solar constant" a "misconception". It is NOT a physical constant such as the CODATA maintained by NIST. The discussion mentions its variation and that it is NOT a "constant". Consequently, to clearly show that it is not a physical "constant", as used in the scientific world, I placed all occurances in quotes (except the main title.)DLH (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not feel we are entitled to change the traditional presentation of the term on the basis of one published comment. I have instead rewritten the lead to explain at the outset that the solar constant is not constant, and not a physical constant as such, referencing the SORCE URL.  I have also removed the repetitive scare quotes, which would seem to distract more than inform. Thanks for your other changes. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes provided are NOT "scare quotes". I provided the quotes are the formal method to distinguish unusual from conventional scientific usage. I followed the explicit formal usage established by the SORCE scientific team: It was not until long-duration measurements from space were available that changes in TSI were accurately measured and the misconception of a “solar constant” changed. Similarly, the Encyclopedia Brittanica uses: The “constant” is fairly constant, increasing by only 0.2 percent at the peak of each 11-year solar cycle. Following this usage, I have restored the quotes to at least one occurrence.DLH (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks proper, putting the quotes around "constant" only. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree, there is no need to stress that the Solar constant is not actually absolutely constant. It is understood that it is just a traditional way of referring to this mean value, which is useful in solar calculations. Nevertheless, I still added a clarification mentioning that it is not like Planck constant or the speed of light, which are real constants in physics.----189.248.160.44 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Solar constant" 

message: ...it shows two curves. Presumably the black one integrates to 1667 Watt/m² and the red one integrates to 1661 Watt/m². The difference between the two curves should be explained. --Herbmuell (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice picture but... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Solar constant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305140149/http://www.smf.asso.fr/lameteo.html to http://www.smf.asso.fr/lameteo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)