This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Climate sensitivity. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Climate sensitivity. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Climate sensitivity. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
This article needs a big rewrite I think. This specific section gives an overview of different studies into ECS between 1998-2014. I think that is way too much detail and makes the article not sufficiently accessible. I think there should be three subsections under this heading with paleodata, industrial era data, satellite era data. There should not only be sample calculations, but first an explanation of the physical principles in English. Any objections to me rewriting in that way? (Got a few things to do first) Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The phrase "is easy to calculate and is undisputed" for Jules Charney's proposed factor of 3.7 W•m−2•K−1 seems out of place in an encyclopedia. If it really is easy to calculate then why is the calculation not given, as is customary with easy calculations? If it is actually difficult to calculate then it might be undisputed because it is difficult to dispute that which is difficult to calculate in the first place.
Let me suggest the following way to compute it. I'm pointing this out because (a) if there's an even easier way already in the literature then that way ought to be in the article, and conversely (b) if there isn't then I dispute Wikipedia's claim "is easy to calculate" as being unsupported by any RS.
The relationship between small changes in temperature and small changes in radiative flux is given by the derivative dF/dT of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, namely dF/dT = 4σT3. The value of this relationship at any given temperature provides a conversion factor between the two kinds of small changes, temperature and radiative flux. This holds for all radiating objects, not just planets.
If the effective temperature of Earth is taken to be 254 K, this conversion factor is 4σ*5.67*254^3 = 3.72 W•m−2•K−1. A degree either way bumps this number up or down by 0.04 W•m−2•K−1.
The question then arises as to how this bears on surface temperature. That's easy: assuming constant lapse rate, the same change in temperature should occur at all altitudes in the troposphere from the surface to a little below the tropopause, the region where most of Earth's radiation to space comes from.
(This calculation ignores emissivity ε because if it is taken to be ε = (254/288)3 = 0.686 and the derivative is evaluated at the surface temperature of 288 K, as appropriate when including emissivity in the Stefan-Boltzmann relation, the outcome is unchanged. But in general emissivity of gases is a notoriously difficult concept to theorize about, and it is better to ignore it and work with Earth's effective temperature. In equilibrium, when the radiation and the temperature are measured at the same point the emissivity should be 1.)
There may well be another way of computing this quantity that is either easier to calculate or more faithful to the physics than the connection made here between changes in effective temperature and changes at the surface (or better yet, both!). If so it would be nice to know about it. If not I propose removing the phrase "is easy to calculate and is not disputed" and instead stick to merely citing Charney as its source. Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 21:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm now getting somewhat satisfied with the article. Most individual studies are replaced by an overarching story and recent concepts are included in the article as well. It's a bit slimmer than it was before.
What still needs to be done for good article nomination:
What am I missing?
Femke Nijsse (
talk) 11:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Can the following sentence (or some modification of it) be added to the article (penultimate sentence)? Of course, the bare links can be made full citations by the tool that does that. I'm linking the original study, and one of the responses to it and our response to the response, so that the interested reader can just for themselves to what extend to believe this strategy. I want to include it to link to the Schwarz study earlier in the article.
As I'm a coauthor to the last of these papers, I leave it up to you to decide whether it should be included.
The time scale at which a climate models respond to perturbations has been linked to climate sensitivity too. [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene ( talk • contribs)
References
User:Soccer59. I just deleted the note that equilibrium climate sensitivity is a misnomer. I performed an extensive google search, specifically fishing for a RSs that would support this, and even with this questionable strategy, I did not find a reliable source for this statement.
From a physics background, I can understand why you would like to add this qualification. The word equilibrium in physical systems is sometimes used instead of thermodynamic equilibrium, which has a very specific meaning. In the sense of that definition, equilibrium is a misnomer. But articles and reports about climate sensitivity never claim the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, but instead in global radiative equilibrium, which simply means the radiation leaving the earth is the same as what comes in. This is a theoretical concept as variations in both incoming and outgoing radiation can be considerable. With so many definitions of equilibrium around, you cannot claim one is wrong because a different one exists. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 16:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Chidgk1: added a section about the variability and climate sensitivity. As I'm the lead author of this study, I will not directly edit this section. (honoured to be added to Wikipedia :)). I do have some suggestions for change however. Do with it as you please.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-results-from-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-matter has an interesting graphic of various estimates. Not sure if that could be usefully used (if permission sought).
Some other notes on the article: Other strategies includes details of attempting to use solar cycle. I would have expected attempts to use response to volcanic eruptions to be mentioned, perhaps more prominently than solar cycle.
This article misrepresent the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions (TCRE) as TCR and fails to provide a full and robust definition of TCRE. To address this problem I am drafting a new article dedicated to TCRE (which is different subject than ECS, as evidenced by a significant amount of research and publication on the subject over the past decade) which will be linked to the climate sensitivity article. This new article will partially follow the TCRE review paper by Matthews et al. 2018 [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderMacIsaac ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
References
I am really confused how this article passed the GA process without a significant overhaul of the prose: there are dozens of moments where the passive voice, and the relatively poor syntax of the sentences make the article very hard to understand. Some examples, just from the lead:
There is a lot of great information in this article, and that the overall structure is quite good -- but it certainly doesn't meet the "well written" criteria: its actually quite hard to understand from a lay audience perspective. @ Stingray Trainer and Femkemilene:: I am really struggling with the prose, and the number of weird and abstract, hard to process sentences in the article, this page needs a serious copy-edit to be approachable for anyone not in the field. Sadads ( talk) 01:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
|reason=
parameter so that other editors can address the clarification that you feel is needed. Thanks. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)11 minutes into this video the lecturer seems to say that ANY doubling would give an increase of about 4 W/m2
I would intuitively have thought that the second doubling would give a much bigger increase.
This video says it is due to the band sensitivity effect - so maybe that should be explained in the state dependence section?
Or perhaps not if it is out of date due to improved cloud modelling?
Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I think this is tricky because there seems to be more than one definition of "climate sensitivity" so should it include both? Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
A copy edit of this article was requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests on February 19. I accepted the request and worked on the citation templates and convert templates, but I decided to wait on a full copy edit while other improvements were discussed and implemented. The article has been improved significantly, and since it has been pretty quiet around here for a few days, I am going to begin a full copy edit of the article. Please bear with me and discuss here if I change something that you don't like; if you change it back right away, we will no doubt have edit conflicts, which are no fun for anyone.
I will post here if I have any questions and when I am done. Thanks for your patience. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 18:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Questions for talk page watchers:
More to come. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Climate sensitivity. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Climate sensitivity. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Climate sensitivity. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
This article needs a big rewrite I think. This specific section gives an overview of different studies into ECS between 1998-2014. I think that is way too much detail and makes the article not sufficiently accessible. I think there should be three subsections under this heading with paleodata, industrial era data, satellite era data. There should not only be sample calculations, but first an explanation of the physical principles in English. Any objections to me rewriting in that way? (Got a few things to do first) Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The phrase "is easy to calculate and is undisputed" for Jules Charney's proposed factor of 3.7 W•m−2•K−1 seems out of place in an encyclopedia. If it really is easy to calculate then why is the calculation not given, as is customary with easy calculations? If it is actually difficult to calculate then it might be undisputed because it is difficult to dispute that which is difficult to calculate in the first place.
Let me suggest the following way to compute it. I'm pointing this out because (a) if there's an even easier way already in the literature then that way ought to be in the article, and conversely (b) if there isn't then I dispute Wikipedia's claim "is easy to calculate" as being unsupported by any RS.
The relationship between small changes in temperature and small changes in radiative flux is given by the derivative dF/dT of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, namely dF/dT = 4σT3. The value of this relationship at any given temperature provides a conversion factor between the two kinds of small changes, temperature and radiative flux. This holds for all radiating objects, not just planets.
If the effective temperature of Earth is taken to be 254 K, this conversion factor is 4σ*5.67*254^3 = 3.72 W•m−2•K−1. A degree either way bumps this number up or down by 0.04 W•m−2•K−1.
The question then arises as to how this bears on surface temperature. That's easy: assuming constant lapse rate, the same change in temperature should occur at all altitudes in the troposphere from the surface to a little below the tropopause, the region where most of Earth's radiation to space comes from.
(This calculation ignores emissivity ε because if it is taken to be ε = (254/288)3 = 0.686 and the derivative is evaluated at the surface temperature of 288 K, as appropriate when including emissivity in the Stefan-Boltzmann relation, the outcome is unchanged. But in general emissivity of gases is a notoriously difficult concept to theorize about, and it is better to ignore it and work with Earth's effective temperature. In equilibrium, when the radiation and the temperature are measured at the same point the emissivity should be 1.)
There may well be another way of computing this quantity that is either easier to calculate or more faithful to the physics than the connection made here between changes in effective temperature and changes at the surface (or better yet, both!). If so it would be nice to know about it. If not I propose removing the phrase "is easy to calculate and is not disputed" and instead stick to merely citing Charney as its source. Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 21:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm now getting somewhat satisfied with the article. Most individual studies are replaced by an overarching story and recent concepts are included in the article as well. It's a bit slimmer than it was before.
What still needs to be done for good article nomination:
What am I missing?
Femke Nijsse (
talk) 11:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Can the following sentence (or some modification of it) be added to the article (penultimate sentence)? Of course, the bare links can be made full citations by the tool that does that. I'm linking the original study, and one of the responses to it and our response to the response, so that the interested reader can just for themselves to what extend to believe this strategy. I want to include it to link to the Schwarz study earlier in the article.
As I'm a coauthor to the last of these papers, I leave it up to you to decide whether it should be included.
The time scale at which a climate models respond to perturbations has been linked to climate sensitivity too. [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene ( talk • contribs)
References
User:Soccer59. I just deleted the note that equilibrium climate sensitivity is a misnomer. I performed an extensive google search, specifically fishing for a RSs that would support this, and even with this questionable strategy, I did not find a reliable source for this statement.
From a physics background, I can understand why you would like to add this qualification. The word equilibrium in physical systems is sometimes used instead of thermodynamic equilibrium, which has a very specific meaning. In the sense of that definition, equilibrium is a misnomer. But articles and reports about climate sensitivity never claim the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, but instead in global radiative equilibrium, which simply means the radiation leaving the earth is the same as what comes in. This is a theoretical concept as variations in both incoming and outgoing radiation can be considerable. With so many definitions of equilibrium around, you cannot claim one is wrong because a different one exists. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 16:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Chidgk1: added a section about the variability and climate sensitivity. As I'm the lead author of this study, I will not directly edit this section. (honoured to be added to Wikipedia :)). I do have some suggestions for change however. Do with it as you please.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-results-from-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-matter has an interesting graphic of various estimates. Not sure if that could be usefully used (if permission sought).
Some other notes on the article: Other strategies includes details of attempting to use solar cycle. I would have expected attempts to use response to volcanic eruptions to be mentioned, perhaps more prominently than solar cycle.
This article misrepresent the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions (TCRE) as TCR and fails to provide a full and robust definition of TCRE. To address this problem I am drafting a new article dedicated to TCRE (which is different subject than ECS, as evidenced by a significant amount of research and publication on the subject over the past decade) which will be linked to the climate sensitivity article. This new article will partially follow the TCRE review paper by Matthews et al. 2018 [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderMacIsaac ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
References
I am really confused how this article passed the GA process without a significant overhaul of the prose: there are dozens of moments where the passive voice, and the relatively poor syntax of the sentences make the article very hard to understand. Some examples, just from the lead:
There is a lot of great information in this article, and that the overall structure is quite good -- but it certainly doesn't meet the "well written" criteria: its actually quite hard to understand from a lay audience perspective. @ Stingray Trainer and Femkemilene:: I am really struggling with the prose, and the number of weird and abstract, hard to process sentences in the article, this page needs a serious copy-edit to be approachable for anyone not in the field. Sadads ( talk) 01:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
|reason=
parameter so that other editors can address the clarification that you feel is needed. Thanks. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)11 minutes into this video the lecturer seems to say that ANY doubling would give an increase of about 4 W/m2
I would intuitively have thought that the second doubling would give a much bigger increase.
This video says it is due to the band sensitivity effect - so maybe that should be explained in the state dependence section?
Or perhaps not if it is out of date due to improved cloud modelling?
Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I think this is tricky because there seems to be more than one definition of "climate sensitivity" so should it include both? Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
A copy edit of this article was requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests on February 19. I accepted the request and worked on the citation templates and convert templates, but I decided to wait on a full copy edit while other improvements were discussed and implemented. The article has been improved significantly, and since it has been pretty quiet around here for a few days, I am going to begin a full copy edit of the article. Please bear with me and discuss here if I change something that you don't like; if you change it back right away, we will no doubt have edit conflicts, which are no fun for anyone.
I will post here if I have any questions and when I am done. Thanks for your patience. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 18:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Questions for talk page watchers:
More to come. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)