Talk:Solar variation theory

(William M. Connolley 09:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I'm quite happy to see this extracted from the GW page (if only the text disappears from the GW page too...). Merge with SV looks sensible too.

I think merge with Solar variation is not a good idea. SV deals with the Sun, while this article deals with the global climate: still quite separate subjects. GregorB 00:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe the two really can't be separated... We don't know about solar variation in the past except indirectly, from paleoclimatology. A merge - if done right - would be sensible after all... GregorB 16:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... now I'm not sure a merge is good. And certainly no-one has done it. I'm going to have a look... soon. William M. Connolley 13:04:32, 2005-08-20 (UTC).

Too much of solar variation is about climate. If it's worth trying to distinguish between changes in solar activity and changing impacts on Earth (maybe), that requires a different split than the previous solar variation / solar variation theory split. Rd232 20:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

solar radiation covers some of the same territory too. Rd232 20:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]