This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
100,000-year problem 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 |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
100,000-year problem 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 14, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the "
100,000 year problem" is among the biggest mysteries facing those attempting to
reconstruct past
climates today? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The GA criteria are:
On the first point, the article can use some additional minor copyedit, but I'll just do it rather than quibbling about it here. - Arch dude 15:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve and expand the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've heard some talk of the 100,000 changes to actually be 80,000 or 120,000 changes due to ~40,000 year obliquity changes, but with some cycles missed (from feedbacks). This hypothesis isn't listed as one currently. It may be worth adding? [1] (Note: I only read abstract, but have heard of the "skip a beat" elsewhere). Jacobkhed ( talk) 21:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
References
Per Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Peer_reviewed_journal_with_a_climate_change_denier.27s_article, is http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305 reliable? I'm not sure; but I'm dubious that a theory with only one source paper belongs in the article William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Yet this common assumption, which has been endorsed yet not fully explained by the IPCC, is by no means universally acceptedsounds a little off. Probably better that we wait until more people are citing this bit of research, as is it might be a fringe theory. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Doug Weller has stated here, that Ralph Ellis is not published in peer reviewed journals. Does that mean that the section at Dust-ice albedo theory, depending on a sole Ellis citation, is not valid? ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
100,000-year problem 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 |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
100,000-year problem 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 14, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the "
100,000 year problem" is among the biggest mysteries facing those attempting to
reconstruct past
climates today? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The GA criteria are:
On the first point, the article can use some additional minor copyedit, but I'll just do it rather than quibbling about it here. - Arch dude 15:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve and expand the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've heard some talk of the 100,000 changes to actually be 80,000 or 120,000 changes due to ~40,000 year obliquity changes, but with some cycles missed (from feedbacks). This hypothesis isn't listed as one currently. It may be worth adding? [1] (Note: I only read abstract, but have heard of the "skip a beat" elsewhere). Jacobkhed ( talk) 21:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
References
Per Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Peer_reviewed_journal_with_a_climate_change_denier.27s_article, is http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305 reliable? I'm not sure; but I'm dubious that a theory with only one source paper belongs in the article William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Yet this common assumption, which has been endorsed yet not fully explained by the IPCC, is by no means universally acceptedsounds a little off. Probably better that we wait until more people are citing this bit of research, as is it might be a fringe theory. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Doug Weller has stated here, that Ralph Ellis is not published in peer reviewed journals. Does that mean that the section at Dust-ice albedo theory, depending on a sole Ellis citation, is not valid? ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)