This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Global dimming article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 660 days
![]() |
![]() | Global dimming has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I can't find any publication by Ohmura in 1989, but he has four in 1990:
I'd guess that the first one is the most likely to be the relevant paper. -- John Fader 20:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
( Ferdinand Engelbeen 20:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC))
The theory behind the Horizon program, that more sunlight is reflected due to (sulphate) aerosols is at odds with measurements from space.
For the (sub)tropics, in the period 1985-2001 the amount of sunlight reflected by clouds reduced with ~2 W/m2 in the tropics (20N-20S). (see: http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/csrl/publications/pub_exchange/Wielicki_et_al_2002.pdf, confirmed for the 30N-30S (sub)tropics in http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_ChenCarlsonD.pdf) In the 1985-1994 period, there was a loss of cloud cover, both in the tropics and subtropics (and even up to 60N-60S) of 0.33% and 1.7% respectively.
If there is global dimming at the surface and no more reflection, the only explanation possible is that more sunlight is retained in the atmosphere itself. Which is possible with (dark brown and black) soot particulate. If soot particulate is to blame, then a reduction of it would have a cooling effect, not a warming effect.
Another hint is the amount of reflected sunlight from earth on the moon ("earthshine"), which parallels the "global dimming" trend, while it should have an opposite trend, at: http://www.bbso.njit.edu/science_may28.html (main page at http://www.bbso.njit.edu/ )
( William M. Connolley 09:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Somewhat in a hurry, I removed "This cooling effect may have led scientists to underestimate the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming." from the intro. I'm not really sure it *is* a cooling effect. Certainly a 5% reduction in solar would produce huge cooling, which would be obvious; since that isn't there, the (observed) solar reduction at the sfc is balanced by other effects - the same solar abs at higher levels; or diffuse.
I wonder if that might be better as more readable? Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I see this article is currently undergoing a GA review. That's great. I came to this article as I am currently looking at improving radiative forcing. I wonder if the term "global dimming" is just an "easier to understand term" for something that is already covered in some other articles as well. Namely in the article on particulates. From the main climate change article I get sent to Particulates#Climate effects and now I am wondering if that section doesn't already cover the same content as what is at global dimming? If not then how do the two articles interact, is one the parent article of the other? Might be worth looking at so ensure we don't repeat the same content in two places or at least to ensure that the two articles interlink well.
My suggestion would be to include in the global dimming article a bit more on the political/historical aspects, i.e. how the global dimming phenomenon was used by climate change deniers/skeptics for a long time (although I now see that the climate change denial article doesn't even mention global dimming once). But see e.g. History of climate change science#Discredited theories and reconciled apparent discrepancies. The article Scientific consensus on climate change mentions "global dimming" just once in the section about the 1970s. So I guess this is about interlinking this article with the other ones. EMsmile ( talk) 12:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
From the main climate change article I get sent to Particulates#Climate effects and now I am wondering if that section doesn't already cover the same content as what is at global dimming?
i.e. how the global dimming phenomenon was used by climate change deniers/skeptics for a long time
Hi InformationToKnowledge: you put this graph back in which I have just removed (see on the right): The reason why I had removed it was because I don't think it was specific enough for this article. Also the caption looked out of date for me and without a reference? On the article radiative forcing I have given it a different caption and the exact source, see on the right the second graph.
Could we at least agree to improve the caption with a source here as well? Making it clear and understandable to lay persons?
The same graph appears in quite a few articles by the way, and I think in each case the caption should be looked at (and adapted if necessary) and the source given, with page number:
P.S. I know that the source can be found by readers when they click on the image but I think it's good practice to add the source also to the caption itself, just to be sure.
References
EMsmile ( talk) 13:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The extent to which physical factors in the atmosphere or on land affect climate change. This includes sulfur dioxide, which reacts to form a variety of sunlight-reflecting sulfates. The large error bar shows that there are still substantial unresolved uncertainties about the strength of cooling caused by their dimming.EMsmile ( talk) 22:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This chart shows how much various physical factors affect climate change. For example, sulfur dioxide causes cooling because it reacts to form a variety of sunlight-reflecting sulfates. Its large error bar shows that there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the strength of cooling caused by sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere.EMsmile ( talk) 22:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Could we come up with a better section heading for the section that is currently titled "solar geoengineering"? All the other section headings are clear and generic, except for this one. Here is the table of content's structure to date:
History Causes Relationship to climate change Past and present Future Relationship to hydrological cycle Solar geoengineering
Maybe change it to: "Relationship with xxx" or "Applications" or "Interactions with xx"? EMsmile ( talk) 13:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Rjjiii
talk
06:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 08:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
No need for a QPQ considering the amt of noms. Okay hook, but I concur with Launchballer above about truncating it. I found some issues with
WP:CLOP and source-text integrity from a spotcheck of ~10% of the sources, but they aren't so egregious.
A solid GAN review tells me that great care was put into this article, but to be safe, I spotchecked ten sources (refer to this version for the ref numbers).
13, good; 25 doesn't say the studies occured in Germany and Israel; 38, no issues; 50, no mention of developed nations or wet bed combustion but will AGF the offline source cited beside it does---please confirm as well. 60 (not open access on my end? no issues otherwise though); 71, no issues; 85, no issues; 97, no issues; 108, no issues; 120 has close paraphrasing issues so please fix this.
A quick glance at the reflist suggests there are no blatantly unreliable RS, and the article was DYK-nommed at the right window of time. The prose is ok for a GA. Ran
Earwig for copyvio issues but no extreme red flags. @
InformationToKnowledge, please ping me once everything has been addressed.
PSA 🏕️ (
talk)
11:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) 12:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
References
@ PSA: All three issues should be addressed by now.
Thank you for paying attention to these details. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 22:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Global dimming article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 660 days
![]() |
![]() | Global dimming has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I can't find any publication by Ohmura in 1989, but he has four in 1990:
I'd guess that the first one is the most likely to be the relevant paper. -- John Fader 20:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
( Ferdinand Engelbeen 20:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC))
The theory behind the Horizon program, that more sunlight is reflected due to (sulphate) aerosols is at odds with measurements from space.
For the (sub)tropics, in the period 1985-2001 the amount of sunlight reflected by clouds reduced with ~2 W/m2 in the tropics (20N-20S). (see: http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/csrl/publications/pub_exchange/Wielicki_et_al_2002.pdf, confirmed for the 30N-30S (sub)tropics in http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_ChenCarlsonD.pdf) In the 1985-1994 period, there was a loss of cloud cover, both in the tropics and subtropics (and even up to 60N-60S) of 0.33% and 1.7% respectively.
If there is global dimming at the surface and no more reflection, the only explanation possible is that more sunlight is retained in the atmosphere itself. Which is possible with (dark brown and black) soot particulate. If soot particulate is to blame, then a reduction of it would have a cooling effect, not a warming effect.
Another hint is the amount of reflected sunlight from earth on the moon ("earthshine"), which parallels the "global dimming" trend, while it should have an opposite trend, at: http://www.bbso.njit.edu/science_may28.html (main page at http://www.bbso.njit.edu/ )
( William M. Connolley 09:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Somewhat in a hurry, I removed "This cooling effect may have led scientists to underestimate the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming." from the intro. I'm not really sure it *is* a cooling effect. Certainly a 5% reduction in solar would produce huge cooling, which would be obvious; since that isn't there, the (observed) solar reduction at the sfc is balanced by other effects - the same solar abs at higher levels; or diffuse.
I wonder if that might be better as more readable? Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I see this article is currently undergoing a GA review. That's great. I came to this article as I am currently looking at improving radiative forcing. I wonder if the term "global dimming" is just an "easier to understand term" for something that is already covered in some other articles as well. Namely in the article on particulates. From the main climate change article I get sent to Particulates#Climate effects and now I am wondering if that section doesn't already cover the same content as what is at global dimming? If not then how do the two articles interact, is one the parent article of the other? Might be worth looking at so ensure we don't repeat the same content in two places or at least to ensure that the two articles interlink well.
My suggestion would be to include in the global dimming article a bit more on the political/historical aspects, i.e. how the global dimming phenomenon was used by climate change deniers/skeptics for a long time (although I now see that the climate change denial article doesn't even mention global dimming once). But see e.g. History of climate change science#Discredited theories and reconciled apparent discrepancies. The article Scientific consensus on climate change mentions "global dimming" just once in the section about the 1970s. So I guess this is about interlinking this article with the other ones. EMsmile ( talk) 12:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
From the main climate change article I get sent to Particulates#Climate effects and now I am wondering if that section doesn't already cover the same content as what is at global dimming?
i.e. how the global dimming phenomenon was used by climate change deniers/skeptics for a long time
Hi InformationToKnowledge: you put this graph back in which I have just removed (see on the right): The reason why I had removed it was because I don't think it was specific enough for this article. Also the caption looked out of date for me and without a reference? On the article radiative forcing I have given it a different caption and the exact source, see on the right the second graph.
Could we at least agree to improve the caption with a source here as well? Making it clear and understandable to lay persons?
The same graph appears in quite a few articles by the way, and I think in each case the caption should be looked at (and adapted if necessary) and the source given, with page number:
P.S. I know that the source can be found by readers when they click on the image but I think it's good practice to add the source also to the caption itself, just to be sure.
References
EMsmile ( talk) 13:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The extent to which physical factors in the atmosphere or on land affect climate change. This includes sulfur dioxide, which reacts to form a variety of sunlight-reflecting sulfates. The large error bar shows that there are still substantial unresolved uncertainties about the strength of cooling caused by their dimming.EMsmile ( talk) 22:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This chart shows how much various physical factors affect climate change. For example, sulfur dioxide causes cooling because it reacts to form a variety of sunlight-reflecting sulfates. Its large error bar shows that there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the strength of cooling caused by sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere.EMsmile ( talk) 22:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Could we come up with a better section heading for the section that is currently titled "solar geoengineering"? All the other section headings are clear and generic, except for this one. Here is the table of content's structure to date:
History Causes Relationship to climate change Past and present Future Relationship to hydrological cycle Solar geoengineering
Maybe change it to: "Relationship with xxx" or "Applications" or "Interactions with xx"? EMsmile ( talk) 13:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Rjjiii
talk
06:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 08:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
No need for a QPQ considering the amt of noms. Okay hook, but I concur with Launchballer above about truncating it. I found some issues with
WP:CLOP and source-text integrity from a spotcheck of ~10% of the sources, but they aren't so egregious.
A solid GAN review tells me that great care was put into this article, but to be safe, I spotchecked ten sources (refer to this version for the ref numbers).
13, good; 25 doesn't say the studies occured in Germany and Israel; 38, no issues; 50, no mention of developed nations or wet bed combustion but will AGF the offline source cited beside it does---please confirm as well. 60 (not open access on my end? no issues otherwise though); 71, no issues; 85, no issues; 97, no issues; 108, no issues; 120 has close paraphrasing issues so please fix this.
A quick glance at the reflist suggests there are no blatantly unreliable RS, and the article was DYK-nommed at the right window of time. The prose is ok for a GA. Ran
Earwig for copyvio issues but no extreme red flags. @
InformationToKnowledge, please ping me once everything has been addressed.
PSA 🏕️ (
talk)
11:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) 12:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
References
@ PSA: All three issues should be addressed by now.
Thank you for paying attention to these details. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 22:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)