Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:17, 20 December 2009

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Little Ice Age article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Rm graph

See MWP. William M. Connolley 09:55:23, 03 September 2005 (UTC).

Lord help us

Conspicuous blending of topics in the "Depictions of Europe" section and throughout. This is unencyclopedic to say the very least. Worthy of a non-encyclopedic tag for the entire article. An artist impression of one moment (possibly imagined) is entirely irrelevant to this topic. Imagine for yourself then, that the ice-skater fell through and the pond melted.

I am of the opinion that these artistic impressions were made of rather unusual events rather than common occurrences; as most art is for fancy and specter rather than reflection of the "regular accepted" state of happening. This is regardless of graphical/numerical data, which remains the only important graphical representation of this topic.

Again, keep artistic topics in their broad category of period art representations. Do not interject imagined portraits of fanciful artists into scientific material if you'd so kindly please.

71.238.120.249 (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the discussion in the section "Depictions of winter in European painting"? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I agree that this is totally unencyclopedic. The visual imagery to accompany the text should be provided in the form of 17th and 18th century photographs, rather than these silly drawings.--24.255.191.74 (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that 17th and 18th century photographs do not exist, the Little Ice Age had a cultural impact on Europe that is important; the Little Ice Age is more than scientific in its scope. Also, please try to write with a little bit of respect, or at least complete sentences; it makes the conversation flow better, Awickert (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Besides the fact that 17th and 18th century photographs do not exist, the Little Ice Age had a cultural impact on Europe that is important; the Little Ice Age is more than scientific in its scope."

Yes, that is the point, I had no idea that the sarcasm was so cryptic. It seemed to me like the sort of thing that called for an abrasive response, since the same person has multiple complaints in the same vein on this page. 'Encyclopedic' doesn't imply 'bone dry'. These are the only images available of the phenomenon, and as such are relevant to the discussion. The logical conclusion of the policy idea put forward would be to require articles about those who died in the era before photography to display only DNA sequences, or photos of tombstones and skulls.

Also, where are the incomplete sentences again? I understand the complaints about my attitude, but I didn't comment in AOL form. --24.255.191.74 (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete sentences are at the beginning of the thread. Forgive my missing the sarcasm, I was having a hard time figuring out what you wanted. So you are saying that the LIA climate should not be discussed in context of the images? Awickert (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not terribly sure how you got that out of what I wrote. I don't 'want' anything, I was addressing the concerns put forth by 71.238.120.249. The concern seems to be that works of art, unable to represent a scene with scientific accuracy, are altogether outside the scope of this article. This seems nonsensical, given that the article is about an event within recorded human history. It implies that, in an article concerning a phenomenon for which there is scientific evidence, that scientific evidence precludes any coverage of the subjective human experience with that phenomenon. It would require that, where there is any relevant data, no other indications or evidence be considered. That is what I was getting at with the comment about DNA sequences, tombstones and skulls. Where the scientific evidence runs counter to the written or drawn historical record, that situation should certainly be stressed and may be a good argument for excluding that historical record. Where the two things complement one another, or at least are not wildly inconsistent, I don't understand why one becomes suspect and should be excluded.

In short, I'm pretty sure we agree with one another. Which is why I quoted you, and then indicated that the quote expressed the same idea I was trying to communicate. --24.255.191.74 (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Put another way, I very much do think that the LIA should be discussed in the context of the images. --24.255.191.74 (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry again; I thought that you were the same person editing from two different IP addresses. Yes, then we 100% agree, and sorry for wasting your time. (The civility comments, incidentally, were meant for the first IP poster.) Awickert (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that I re-read it, my first comment was more than a little ambiguous as to who may have written it, so that's on me. Sorry for the confusion. --24.255.191.74 (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

...and now the sarcasm all makes sense... Awickert (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Riches Heures du duc de Berry

"Rich Hours" has no significance in this context. A light dusting of snow over Northern France in February is depicted. "The Assumption of The Virgin" is also period correct and just as well, has no bearing here. 71.238.120.249 (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is minding the minder? Climategate and Misplaced Pages

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_how_the_cabal_controlled_wikipedia

One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties. In these ways, Connolley turned Misplaced Pages into the missionary wing of the global warming movement. Let's see how long this Talk comment lasts. When are you coming back to debate us? Give up this mission--you've been exposed. Your friend, Ray Lopez Raylopez99 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Anthropogenic influence, any secondary scientific sources, or even primary for that matter

To get a discussion started, there seem to be basically two citations to popular press accounts without specific scientific literature being cited. If you are calling this a "scientific" opinion it may help to find some scientific notice and review of the work or at least cite some scientific journals in which the work has been puvlishsed ( firexxxfox 100 keys behind agin). aaaasads While these may be primary sources wikipedia does seem to encourage their uses in cases where popular press may get things wrong ( usually medicine is singled out here but principle seems more widely applicable). In any case, if you are going to give this new , politically correct theory its own section it would seem that more citations would help substantiate its prominence in the article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a ref to Ruddiman's original paper in J. Climatic Change. I hope you get a better computer soon! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps establish the theory exists but doesn't do much to address prominence. You have a section on this and a graph with a huge "antrho" bar but the literature seems sparse to say the least. If you go to the author's bio page, all the sources are by him with no indication of notice by others ( while I assumes there is some since he wrote an article i sciam). I have 500Meg or RAM yet firefox keeps doing virtual memory everytime I fill in a form. IE complains I need to turn on active X and it is a mess on pubmed. I don't see a need to turn on active X and am unclear why I need 500M to avoid a minute of disk accesses for a key press. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also have to question the way that the unrelated Anthropogenic Global Warming theories about today are included in this article. This seems to be a bit of a stretch as if this topic is being used to remind everyone that today everyone agrees humans are causing warming. I'm not sure it is that far out of line, but doesn't seem to have been written primarily to relate this topic to a more current issue. Perhaps just something to the effect that this may or may not have been caused by the same effects in the same proportions and go ito detail about who believes what on the AGW pages. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a link to RC for the secondary bit William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that helps but if I understand that, the link just substantiates that his work has not yet been given significant or in-depth review coverage by other scientists only that it is noted in passing as being "interesting" . I would argue for inclusion even with a few sources from some communities as long as the article reflects its status in some communities but you need to make sure the weight or tone is appropriate. So far, nothing cites a scientific article which considers his work in any significant way- just his own sciam article, his own original research, and some popular press besides the passing mention in RC. "New and exciting" while not mutually exclusive with notable often suggests a lack of signicant notice as it is too new and too different to allowed a decent treatment by others. That graph still seems to have visual anthro bias too as just glancing at it it looks like the anthro contribution is the dominanant contributor when the significance is only advanced by one person with a fringe theory. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Ruddiman's publications and CV, the man is a notable force if drops a note from the coffeehouse table. This particular paper has been cited 238 times. Such a citation count certainly establishes notability and impact. Take your pick among the cites if you want to add more context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be too hard for someone to find some and then you can just argue over contest and perspective- are they uniformly negative or just cites in passing (" other theories have been proposed including "). If you only want coffeehouse notability, then you need to include all the other ignorant theories you often dismiss as fringe based on merit. If I thought it was that bad I would have yanked the section myself but it would help if someomeone could try to extract a consensus from all those cites.( firefox took literally 5 minutes to come back,m I booted debian from which will be next post adfasdfs). With the med literature I have automated tools for that but here I am struck with ad hoc unstructured doc searches. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As Stephan points out, his papers on this sub ject have been widely cited. That, from a scietnific point of view, is notability. Whether or not he is talked about in the popular press is irrelevant. Also, I don't understand what you mean by That graph still seems to have visual anthro bias too as just glancing at it it looks like the anthro contribution is the dominanant contributor when the significance is only advanced by one person with a fringe theory - which graph? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are many then I'm just suggesting including a few more scientific refs. The Stanford News suggests these exist but is a bit dumbed down, if there are scientific sources on which this PR is based that would probably be better. Also, it isn't clear how the Standof work is related to Ruddiman- this would help establish who has contrubuted to and reviewed the anthro contirubtions but also I'm mixing thoughts on this article and Ruddiman BLP. In terms of prominence, you would need to look at the papers ( say it is 200 cites ) and compare to the probably huge number of non-anthro cites- not just in body count but also in depth and attitude. Again, I'm not claiming the article is wrong as written, just that it isn't documented and not consistent with my memory of the theories from quite a while ago. The graph seems to highlight anthro contributions, just a visual thing. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Once more, which graph? There are three, none of them directly in the Ruddiman section. --!Stephan Schulz (talk)

questionable graph ( but my debian pdf reader scrolled to page 16 !)

Wow, I just loaded original source for graph, apparently this,

"...he figures used to generate this plot were obtained from the IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers, page 16. " and nothing bad happened. Anyway, from what I can tell, this has nothing to do with litte ice age, but relates to the atmosphere circa 2005, "FIGURE SPM-2. Global-average radiative forcing (RF) estimates and ranges in 2005 for anthropogenic" . While this is ancient history for PC's and teen fashions,it is hardly a geological time scale likely to be relevant to this topic. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So, I guess my concern was just that it didn't look right in context- the anthro terms for this topic may have significance but most literature makes out to be only one component. But, this graph seems to apply to a different time period and only appears to consider anthro terms. So, it may be misleading because it doesn't apply or I misread something and the text should make clearer why it is relevant and in context. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

to wit, radiative forcing functions seems misleading,

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Radiative-forcings.svg Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess that title isn't quite right but it is the "Radiative forcing" chart and I meant to include in prior posts just was always the last thing and I was taken by the working pdf viewer :) Anyway, there is only one chart AFAIK that lists contributions and it is labelled "Radiative" and it applies to atmosphere circa 2005 AFAIK but please correct if wrong here. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also the only graph to mention a halocarbon contrib. Remember all those cans of RAID they sprayed to try to eliminate fleas carrying the plague? Neither do I. LOL. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the answers have changed much since, so I don't care too much about it being updated. Is there anything better than tha AR4 numbers anyway? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Shutdown of thermohaline circulation

William M. Connolley removed the Shutdown of thermohaline circulation (originally "Ocean Conveyor Shutdown") (Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation)from the causes of the Little Ice Age section. I have restored this portion of the article including references from NASA and an article from the Times. I hope this satiates Mr. Connolley's desire for references. Regards, Rowlan (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorace, DOCTOR. I'll make sure to properly tip my hat to you also. Rowlan (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt it. It certainly does not satisfy (nor satiate) mine. None of the two sources mentions the little ice age - as far as I can tell, not even remotely. I've removed the section. If you can find a reliable source that suggests that the LIA is connected to a slowdown (or shutdown) of the thermohaline circulation, feel free to add it back. But sources that talk about changes in the thermohaline circulation 13000 years ago, or possibly in the future, don't support the case for a connection with the LIA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've found more refrences, and you can now end your campaign of vengence against this theory.Rowlan (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking to Dr. Connolley or to me? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking to the pair of you. I see how my comment could be unclear, so I've seperated it into to parts. Rowlan (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've fixed the formatting. I still don't think the current text is acceptable. The Fagan book is the only source for the connection between thermohaline circulation and LIA so far, and it only mentions the theory with a big question mark and in passing. As far as I can tell, Fagan got it from Wally Broecker. We might be able to find a better source for the theory in his The Role of the Ocean in Climate, available here. But even then there still is no source connecting the possibility of changes in the conveyor in the LIA with concerns that this may happen as a result of current global warming - unless such sources are found, this is a textbook case of WP:SYN, and not acceptable under our no original research policy. Sorry that we are so anal - all the climate articles are contentious because of the political debate about global warming, and the best way to avoid descending into a shouting match is the insist on reliable sourcing following WP:V. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section agani. It doesn't look to me like you've addressed the problems - the BBC ref is unusable William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Connolley, why is the BBC ref unusable? Also, I've referenced a book on the topic. I believe the claim is substantial enough to leave. I've provided supporting evidence that is suffice enough to list as a Theory of The Cause of the LIA. I'm restoring it as it was, please leave it. I will continue to add references as I find them.Rowlan (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

For a start, I don't see where it mentions LIA. But more, its just some talking heads being quoted badly out of context to make up a prog. This isn't Lord Reith's BBC William M. Connolley (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It does mention the LIA if you read it in entirety. Also, you aren't the end all be all of judgement. It's a theory, which implies that it's a topic that is up for debate. It is a valid theory, and I will fight for it to stay. It is now probably the 3 sentences with the most referrences in this whole article. Rowlan (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a theory, but as far as I can tell one with fairly few adherents, the most notable of which is Broecker. If it stays, it should probably be attributed to him. Please try to find good sources - no mountain of blogs and similar sources is useful, and sources that don't support the main claim are worse than useless - they only confuse. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've not posted any blogs as sources. I'm not pulling this from some random dude writing about global warming. All the ref's are from scientific journals, and articles. I'm also including one from Broecker (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34299/). I hope this helps to ensure that this contentious theory stays around.Rowlan (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Universe today is a decent site, but essentially a blog. Some of the sources you added later are much better, and support this at least as a theory. But it still needs clean-up, and I still see no connection to a possible future change connected to the LIA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I still can't see where the BBC refs the LIA. Please quote, here, the section you mean from the BBC page. Adding lots and lots of refs isn't a sign of strength. Take out all the weak ones. I've removed some William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit definitely helped the wordiness of the first sentence. I've re-added the 2 ref's for the last sentence. I think taking them away dilludes the credibility to those theories. I'll compromise where I can, as that's the only way to achieve anything on here, but I am monitoring this to ensure that it stays as a valid concept about the origins of the LIA. This topic has been featured on at least 3 large networks, the BBC, the History Channel, and PBS. People who see these programs will be looking for this theory as it is promoted by the historians and scientists giving commentary. I hope we are now past trying to qualify it's existence.

My one question is should the named be changed from "Ocean conveyor shutdown" to "Thermohaline circulation shutdown" with a reference to ocean conveyor shutdown as an alias? Rowlan (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)