Talk:Solar radiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Confusion
Because the surface area of a sphere is 4 times the surface area of its cross-section, the temporally and spatially averaged insolation over the Earth's surface above the atmosphere is a quarter of this value, 342 W/m²
I can't for the life of me understand this sentence. Does cross section mean diameter, this is the first mention of insolation and could it be replaced with "incoming solar radiation (insolation)"? I don't know much about this so I thought I'd best leave it alone but could someone please change it? I've put a heading on a previous talk topic, if this is offensive feel free to delete it. Rex the first 23:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do the changes I've made make it clearer? Dragons flight 00:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I thought my sentence was a model of concision and clarity :-) To be picky,
-
-
- The Earth recieves a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section (π R2), but averaged over time this energy is distributed across the entire Earth's surface area (4 π R2).
-
-
- is slightly misleading, in that: averaged over time this energy is distributed across the entire Earth's surface area implies (to me) even distribution; averaged over time the insolation is uneven wrt latitude. William M. Connolley 09:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
I think the newer edit makes more sense but maybe you could add
"even though the insolation is uneven wrt latitude"
or something like, thanks anyway! Rex the first 16:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cold and hot countries edits
(next two items are copied from user pages)
"In cold countries most people like sunshine and prefer not to be in the shade. In hot countries the converse is true and the midday hours people preferably stay inside, because it is too hot to go out."
I dont mean to sound arrogant or anything, but I dont think adding that to the article about Solar radiation was a very relevant contribution. What you wrote was your opinion and it is fine, but an encyclopedia should have non-biased factual information. Again, I hope you dont take it offensively, but I have removed it.
Nice to see kind people on wikipedia contributing to articles, and you seem to have done alot of good work.
Jedi Dan 16:39 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
- I had my doubts about Patrick's addition at solar radiation too, and at first the only reason I put it back in after the edit conflict was because I know he generally does good work, and wouldn't put something like that in just to be a smart aleck. Then, figuring there must be some reason for what he did, I checked the "What links here" for that page, and sunshine is, sure enough, a redirect to solar radiation, so I would think he'd put that in there for people who followed that redirect to get there. -- John Owens 16:52 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
- Adding to that, actually, it seems to me that Patrick's contribution is possibly even more relevant. After all, most of the current content is about the solar fusion that produces the radiation, than the radiation itself. Don't get me wrong, I love knowing more details about the process, but Patrick's bit is at least as relevant to the article title (and especially the redirect) as Jedi Dan's. Now that I see that solar fusion doesn't exist yet, perhaps some of this could be moved there? Or moved into fusion, and make solar fusion a redirect to that? -- John Owens 17:13 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
There is already quite about about fusion at Nuclear_fusion and my article was meant to really be an overview about fusion and how it relates to solar radiation rather than anything in depth about the process. I suppose I perhaps put a bit too much irrelevant information in myself, I dont mind if someone wants to reorganise things or move it about.
Jedi Dan 23:19 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Moving stuff to Nuclear fusion
(William M. Connolley 20:37, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)) I removed a load of stuff to nuclear fusion which I thought was fair... but I'm willing too be disagreed with.
[edit] Carcinogen
Just a note that solar radiation is brought up as a IARC Group 1 carcinogen in the list there, but there's no talk about its carcinogenic nature to humans here about UV light exposition. This article is also not member of the Category:IARC Group 1 carcinogens category. I'm not sure of in which extent this information should be added though, so I'm just bringing it up here as a heads-up for now. I'd probably expect to read something about the solar radiation risks to humans here, although I'm not sure it's actually supposed to be in the Group 1 Carcinogen category and all. -- Jugalator 02:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps there should be a section on the biological effects of various parts of the spectrum. (SEWilco 07:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC))
[edit] Merging Sunlight
- Opposed: Solar Constant and Solar Radiation are close enough to each other to warrant merging. However, Sunlight is clearly a distinctively different subject. It is the sort of article that a six-grader would go to for information on the nature of sunlight. Trying to merge a scientific discussion of the solar constant into Sunlight is unwarranted. What should ocurr is Solar constant should be expanded with all the information from Solar radiation and Solar radiation should be tossed. This way, you have two distinctive topics: Sunlight and Solar constant. Greg L 17:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
