# Talk:Climate system

I'll possible nominate this article for Good article status. I think it's important that our basic articles go through a quality check and the GA nomination is a good process for that. Any suggestions what to improve before that? I've signed the article up for copy-editing. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Good plan. I think I've covered all my suggestions in the polish I did except for the mention of evaporation at the ocean surface.
It occurs to me that the article should get a high importance rating in the project. I was going to do it myself, but wasn't sure if there should be a consensus on it beforehand.
Cadar (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the polish! Please go ahead in terms of adding an importance rating. Typically this is done by a single person and doesn't need consensus, as it's not really controversial. As I wrote the article, I didn't think it is my place to do the assessment. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Done 
Cadar (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll leave the quality scale for someone else to decide on since we've both contributed to it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadar (talk • contribs) 11:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Geez, I'm impressed!  I've never met anyone who can edit in Polish NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to deal with this DYK nom but I have comments.  
The first line currently reads that the five components of the climate system (air, water, ice, Earth's crust and life) determine the characteristics of the climate but this isn't strictly true, is it?  For example, earth's climate is also partly determined by the (thankfully fairly stable) solar inputs, form OUTSIDE the climate system.  For the second line, which currently reads that the climate system can also change without any external climate forcings? this implies the climate system is often static, rather than being a chaotic system where all the parts are constantly changing.  Sorry to be a hair splitter.  This page is looking great! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

First line: you've got a point. The first line used to be more clumsy, but probably a bit more correct. Earth's climate system is a highly complex system consisting of five major components: the atmosphere (air), the hydrosphere (water), the cryosphere (ice and permafrost), the lithosphere (earth's crust and upper mantle) and the biosphere (living things), and the interactions between them. The climate is determined by a combination of processes in the climate system. You could say that each of the individual parts of the climate system are determined by external inputs, so that's its still correct... If you have a source that explains it better, feel welcome to edit it!
I'll respond later to second point.Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A w e s o m e.  Thanks for a great start on this.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Femkemilene: I'm busy with another copy edit (I joined the Guild and chose this article for my first contribution ), and something occurred to me. There may be others. I'll add them under this topic heading as they come up.
Under the Components of the climate system section, there's mention of the effects mountains have on the climate by forming a barrier to winds and affecting rainfall patterns. It might be worth mentioning that   in the case of mountain ranges, they can essentially create their own weather patterns due to their sheer size. An example would be the Himalayas, which create the monsoons every year. Also, there's katabatic wind phenomena, when air is cooled and condensed and then slips off the high altitude areas into the surrounding lowlands. I think they're a phenomenon common to most mountain ranges, but their effects are extremely pronounced on Antarctica because of the lack of surface features to hold the cold, dense air on the ice plateau, so they can quickly reach gale force. This is from my own knowledge of the subject, so I don't have references to add to them, and I thought I'd leave it with you to decide whether they merit inclusion.

Thanks for all of your work. I don't have enough time now to completely answer, but I'd like to reply to the Monsoon point. It's actually not the Himalayas that create the monsoon, but the difference in how easy land and ocean take up heat from the Sun. This article explains in a simple fashion how the Himalayas do impact the monsoon: https://www.himalayanwonders.com/blog/weather-climate-himalayas.html. Might include it, but will think about it some more after holiday.
The katabatic wind is very interesting, but a bit too technical I feel for this article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
"Create" is probably not the right word. Sorry, I was busy with five different things at the time. Certainly the Himalayas have a huge influence on the monsoon, and they do create unique weather conditions around them due to the sheer size and altitude of them. They're so high they project out of the lower atmosphere and cause unique atmospheric conditions above them which project out into the upper atmosphere.
Regarding the katabatic winds, I think a passing mention (the term is fairly obscure, granted, but "fall wind" is less technical and also valid) is warranted. They are an influence in the local wind patterns around Antarctica and Greenland, and in the case of Antarctica they create hurricane-force (300km/h+) wind speeds which scour the surrounding valleys clear of snow, which leads to the famous dry valleys. In other areas the dessication of the environment and the removal of the snow actually causes the ice to sublimate directly from the ice sheet. Antarctica and its local weather patterns are a major influence on the region around the Southern Ocean, and because that's the only ocean which encircles the globe and which has its own critical southern circulation currents, it has a major influence on the southern hemisphere's climate and therefore the global climate. It's all connected, you see 
Just as piece of interesting side information: Antarctica is the driest, the darkest, the windiest, the iciest, the coldest and the highest on average continent on the entire planet. Crazy stuff 
Cadar (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry about making small mistakes :). If it's okay with you, I'll go over the comprehensive sources I've got to see to what extent they discuss this. I find that that is the best criteria for inclusion decision. The exact wording or facts can then be provided by more specialists sources. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Cadar (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Something else: the albedo (aka reflectivity) of the cryosphere is critical in the climate system, because it helps to reflect a large part of the Sun's radiation back out to space before it can be absorbed by the system as a whole. This definitely needs mention, probably in passing in the cyrosphere paragraph, and also under the energy flow section in more detail, perhaps along with the fact that global warming is melting the ice and therefore reducing the Earth's total albedo, and therefore is a positive feedback mechanism helping to contribute to the climate crisis.
Cadar (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This is already mentioned under the responses section, specifically under the responses subsection, and more generally under the flows of energy section. I'll make it a bit more specific in the latter. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've given the whole article another going-over and have made a few minor adjustments. Apart from the issues I've raised above, I think you're good to go. By all means make any other changes you deem necessary and then mention them here and I'll do a double-check. Then we can sign it off 
Cadar (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate your copy-edit and the extra lengths you went though to also do a bit of a review. As the  comments you made are not part of the copyedit, you should be able to sign it off already. I'll be on a holiday from tomorrow, so it'll be a week before I have time to fully incorporate your suggestion. I think that while they can improve the article, it is ready for GAN now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
All good from my side, and as previously mentioned, it's up to you to include the extra suggestions. I'm hardly an expert, and we do need to provide references anyway. I'll go ahead and mark the copy edit as completed once I've had a chance to do a final read-through and sign off. Then I'll wait until you're back and can give this your attention again.
Have a great holiday 
Cadar (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Being late to the game and with a GA nom underway I thought I'd just post some proposed text here.  For a newbie the idea of "weather" vs "climate" is confusing, and the current lead (id=906390393) breaks with the usual convention of starting with the article title.  Instead we start with that confusing concept "climate".  Since I already know what we're tlaking about, I like the eloquent phrasing of the sentence.  But we should write for people who are clueless.  So with that in mind, I'd like to suggest some lead tweaks as follows.

Earth's climate system has five major parts: the atmosphere (air), the hydrosphere (water), the cryosphere (ice and permafrost), the lithosphere (earth's upper rocky layer) and the biosphere (living things).  Driven mostly by energy from the sun, the system's components are constantly interacting, giving rise to earth's weather.  The long term average of the system's behavior (measured as weather) is called "climate".
The long-term behavior of the climate system can change due to internal variability and external forcings. These external forcings can be natural, such as variations in solar intensity and volcanic eruptions, or caused by humans. The emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases from industrial sources and their subsequent accumulation is currently causing global warming. Human activity also releases cooling aerosols, but their net effect is far less than that of greenhouse gases.
Some thoughts about why I changed what I changed

This structure puts the article subject right at the beginning.  That's not required but it is recommended if it can be done without awkward phrasing.
kept the flow of heat, with different words, and wikilinked Earth's energy budget
took out the flow of water and chemical elements.  The proposed text says "Driven mostly by energy"... leaving room in the reader's mind for what else is going on.  The live version gives passing mention to water and chemical elements without any elaboration.  That just seemed out of place and if we elaborated that would bog the lead down.  Of course water and biogeochemical processes are discussed, and discussed very well, in the main body.  Can we live without them in the lead?
In the live text the concepts of weather and climate sort of just appear and the reader has to connect the dots to the interactions of the climate system's parts.  The new text walks the reader through that.
I haven't kept track of the RSs but of course if we make use of this we should make sure to keep the RSs
Feedback?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That one makes a brief mention of internal variability and the whole rest of the truckload is about external forcing, with a heavy tilt toward the human factor.  When I was working on a draft for this article in my sandbox I wrote this

Climate changes occur when there is a change in the energy flow through the climate system's five parts.  Such changes can be the result of "internal variability", when natural processes inherent to the various parts of the climate system alter the energy flow.  Examples include cyclical ocean patterns such as the well-known El Nino Southern Oscillation and less familiar Pacific decadal oscillation and Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. Climate change can also result from "external forcing", when events outside of the climate system's five parts nonetheless produce changes within the system.  Examples include changes in solar output, volcanism, and changes in earth's orbit.  Human activities can also change earth's climate, and are presently driving climate change associated with global warming.
I'm not suggesting we use all that, just posted her for discussion.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


### Internal variability... climate change... sometimes maybe I don't know
@Cadar, Femkemilene,  and William M. Connolley: and anyone... I confess I have not dived deep into RSs on this point, but I think ya'll have done more reading on climate variability so please help me understand before I try to fiddle with the text any more.  To introduce my question some touchingstones are...

For my purpose here "climate change" means generic climate change, any time any cause
For my purpose here I'll use the 30-year typical convention for defining the averaging period to determine "Climate"
With those things said, would you agree that short-duration internal variability (i.e., ENSO) are captured by the 30-year averaging window, and so are not usually said to drive "climate change", whereas longer period internal variability (i.e., Atlantic multidecadal oscillation) would not be captured in the 30-year averaging for "climate".  That means swings of these long-interval phenomena are not captured in a 30-year meteorological record.  And so, arguably these longer ones really do drive natural "climate change".   

From your reading of RSs, is that how you two understand the interplay between internal variability and climate change?  Thanks for educating me. 
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This page from the Aussie gov't sort of supports the idea that there  is a little blurrly overlap NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the FAO definition (p2) is quite good:
Box 1.2: Climate variability and climate change
Climate variability refers to variations in the mean state and other climate statistics (standard deviations, the occurrence of extremes, etc.) on all temporal and spatial scales beyond those of individual weather events. Variability may result from natural internal processes within the climate system (internal variability) or from variations in natural or anthropogenic external forces (external variability).
Climate change refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or anthropogenic force.

They specifically say over time for the timescale of climate change, without defining precisely what time scale we're talking about. Change over a period of 30 years or longer is a natural choice, but not the only correct one. I've not seen a definition incorporating a specific period. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone else who is not an expert find the sentence "Climate is defined as the 30-year average of weather as well as its long-term patterns of variation in meteorological variables and is determined by a combination of processes in the climate system." hard to understand? 
I think I get the first bit "Climate is defined as the 30-year average of weather" and the last bit "and is determined by a combination of processes in the climate system" but I cannot understand how the middle bit "as well as its long-term patterns of variation in meteorological variables" fits together with the first bit.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

As an expert, I don't even fully understand the sentence. I think at the heart of the difficulty here lies the fact that we don't often define climate well. 30-year average is a often-used definition, but there are more. I'll come back to it in next few weeks. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow that was a quick reply. Maybe as there is already a link to the "climate" article in the first sentence the definition could just be removed from here and left to the "climate" article to define.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Currently shortened to "Climate is the average of weather, typically over a period of 30 years, and is determined by a combination of processes in the climate system". The problem I see with this is that average is only one statistic, other statistics like variability are also part of climate. To me, 'Climate is the statistics of weather' paints a potentially misleading picture that it is about statistics. I am wondering if it is improved or worsened by saying something like: "Climate is the average, variability and other measures of weather, typically over a period of 30 years, and is determined by a combination of processes in the climate system". It is of course important to source a definition rather than just make it up but I thought I would seek other views. crandles (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Rule 1)  First research and understand what the RSs say.   Rule 2)  First master Rule 1.   So..... what do the RSs say when trying to define climate?   As I undestand it, when we say "average of weather" that implies, in your words, "measures of weather typically over a period of thirty years".  When we assemble such a long record of "measures" what we call "variability" is documented in statistics instead of vague anecdotal recollections.  And there are so blessed many meteorological phenomena that can be measured!  So when we say "average weather" we're not just averaging a single data set about a single phenemona.  They crunch numbers in all kinds of ways, and the output isn't just a number like "average weather" might simplistically imply.  It's much more nuances.   Experts like Fremke talk about it in terms of the Köppen climate classification which is above my pay grade. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
"Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the
mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system."
from [1] page 4 seem to suggest some think average is possibly not rigorous enough. I suspect that definition might be rather unweildy for a lead sentence. crandles (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to Femke for starting this article!   Here is a list of some articles that may have significant overlap with this one. 

Tipping point (climatology)
Abrupt climate change
Earth’s energy balance
Glacial Period
Ice Age
Late Cenozoic Ice Age
Greenhouse and icehouse Earth
Climate state
Climate change feedback
Runaway climate change
Climate sensitivity
Radiative forcing
There are probably others, feel free to annotate/add/delete NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, you expressed this concern 4 years ago, is this still a concern now? I couldn't spot any unjustified overlap at this point. (If the article doesn't use the content of a related article sufficiently, we could now also use the excerpt tool where it makes sense.) EMsmile (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Climate system/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 10:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Beginning with a few observations regarding WP:WIAGA #2, #3 and #5:

There are still some unsourced paragraphs.
There are two paragraphs that are not directly 100% sourced. One of them needs fixing (counteracting the uptake by sedimentary rocks and other geological carbon dioxide sinks.), the other one is an introduction and just summarizations of the next paragraphs according to @NewsAndEventsGuy:. It was added a few days ago, and I will go over it to see whether it is indeed sourced below or whether it needs tweaking and/or extra sources. I'm trying to keep this article balanced (not too much about one aspect of the system), so might add some more stuff in the Flows of energy, water and elements section to 'compensate' for this addition. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
One down. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
"Land use change" is unduly focused on human impacts; natural climate change can also happen that way as noted in African humid period for example.
I'm not aware of any external land use changes that are not human. As far as I can see, the examples under African humid period are all feedbacks. I have been staring at that paragraph for a bit because it's too short to read easily, so suggestions are welcome... I could expand on vegetation feedbacks under the next heading (response time and feedback). Would that work? Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
"Land use" is a philosophic construct.  It is a bit like when I started college, initially majoring in "forestry" and being very stunned by the implications of what the diploma would actually say.... "timber resources management". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I see that there is currently a merge discussion underway with climate change, so I wonder if the stability criteria are met.
The plan is that if we merge (instead of my proposal of renaming "climate change" to "climate change (general concept)") we don't really bring in new content or sentences. The parts of the article about climate change are already copied & pasted (& summarized & corrected & sourced provided) from climate change. I do not think this interferes with the stability criteria. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that the criteria explicitly state merge proposals are okay. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
File:Climate-system.jpg: Needs to state the license of the underlying images.
Done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. I think I'll need to postpone further comments to tomorrow; the university homework and sleep deprivation have sent me crazy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry, take your time and always prioritize real life :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Make that another tomorrow; this week has been exhausting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, continuing on this:
1a: "Brakish" seems like a typo to me but otherwise this seems good.
Done. Thanks @Chidgk1: for making all my awkward sentences readible and correcting all these tiny words that I always typo.
1b: Good.
2a: Good.
2b: Good.
2c: AGFing on some sources I can't access, but for others: #4 does use 1% for all non-major atmospheric gases, not just argon. #7 does not say "liquid". #31 does only support the second sentence and #41 might have a similar problem. #42 also does not entirely support the text sourced to it. The second sentence cited to #56 is not supported by that source. #69 does not say what effect the aerosols have on snow.
As I've been using Google books for many of the references, I'm not always able to reaccess them. So I'll try to find a new reference for #4, maybe one that does the rounding (0.93 -> 1%) for me. #7: to me it was an obvious rewording of their text, but do you think they possible mean something else with hydrosphere proper? #31 Nice catch and done. I think it may have been supported by a later source and I put the sentence in between. Removed it as it was slightly off-topic. #41 and #42: should have added some tags when I added these sentences that they don't support everything yet. #56 Good catch: will correct it here and on climate change. (Done 12:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)) #69 Will find additional source. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I think I've done everything now. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
2d: Didn't notice any.
3: Seems like.
4: Seems like.
5: Seems like.
6: Seems like.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the IP who edited the lead, I noticed this section only really describes changes in climate.   If we really talked about changes in the climate system, we'd talk more in this section about changes in all five components and their interactions.  For example, desertification of a tropical jungle makes for very unhappy orchids, to be only slightly facetious.   Maybe this section could be renamed to reflect that we're talking about changes in climate, and we could add another section "impact of climate change on climate system compenents" (maybe with [[template:Main] pointing at Effect of global warming).  Or something?  Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Currently, Earth's "climate system" is described as being composed of five components. They are the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere and biosphere. Each such component lacks a position in spacetime, thus being an example of an "abstract" object but a physical object has a location in spacetime thus being an example of a "concrete" object. If described, each location in spacetime would be a set of points in spacetime. As a study of Earth's climate system is of the "longitudinal" variety, spacetime would reduce to its "time" component. Hypothetically, a specified interval in time would possess a partition, the nature of which has not yet been identified by the climatological community. Each element of this partition would contain the Earth and its atmosphere in a particular element of this partition. The Earth and its atmosphere in a particular
element of this partition would be an example of a sampling unit. The totality of these sampling units would be an example of a statistical population. In reality, this statistical population does not exist. It seems to exist due to confusion of "abstract" with "concrete" objects on the part of global warming climatologists. To confuse "abstract" with "concrete" objects is to be guilty of an application of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness. Climatologists are guilty of incorporating this fallacy into the arguments that are made by their models. Consequently, runs of these models provide no information to an official of a regulatory agency about the outcomes of the events of the future for Earth's climate system precluding regulation of this system by this official.

Terry Oldberg
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com
2601:647:5C00:4CF0:E9ED:142B:621E:ED17 (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

My addendum to the manuscript is not published. Why? Sidney Oldberg (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to the article was poorly referenced, so it got reverted. I doubt the IPCC made these statements. If you cite the IPCC, you need to provide a page number, or some other indication where in the report they've stated such things. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Also, there is no such things as "addendums" for Wikipedia articles. If you want to propose major changes, it's often better to first float your ideas here on the talk page.  EMsmile (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear fernke:
Im my role as an "Aexpert Reviewer" for the manuscript of IPCC A46, I read the entire document following whicch I advised the editors of the deficiencies that I report in the addendum/ These deficicnces run through the entirn document making it impractical and unnecessary to cite all of them. Sidney Oldberg (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
You're not making much sense to me. On Wikipedia we rely on reliable published sources. Do you have a source that criticises the view of the climate as a system? Anybody can be an 'expert reviewer ' of the IPCC. A non peer-reviewed comment commenting on the IPCC report is not considered reliable. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Femke
I am prepared to provide citations to elements of the peer-revewed scientific literature that refute the claims that are made in IPCC AR6 and in in the Wikipedia article that I am attempting to edit for conformity with the truth. However, before putting in the labor I wish call your attention to the following misapprehensions on your part and request that you inform me of any points of disagreement on your part:
1) Contrary to your claim that "anyone can be an expert reviewer," the IPCC accepted my offer to act as an expert reviewer only after reviewing my record of peer-reviewed publications in the literature of climatology.
2) Contrary to your claim that "there is no such things as "addendums" for Wikipedia articles,"Wikipedia's style-checker disallows deletion of a previously published article thus providing no alternative to providing an addendum under the condition that the claims made by the previously published Wikipedia article are refuted by the edit, as is the case here.
3) Contrary to your claim that I did not float my ideas on the talk page, I did so two years ago and received no response from anyone, including yourself.
4) Your comment that "I doubt the IPCC made these statements" is unfounded.
Finally, I request that you respond swiftly to this letter as the consequences from inaction would be unacceptably detrimental to the interests of the people of this world.
Cordially
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher.
Los Altos Hills, California, USA
1-650-941-0533 Sidney Oldberg (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
You're possibly conflating me with EMsmile, but I'll respond in full.
0. Per WP:SCIRS, the preferred sources are secondary sources like the IPCC and books from scientific Publishers that summarise the available literature. If you only have primary sources, it's well possible it would be WP:undue to mention it. You'll unlikely to  convince anybody here to include them, unless there is a sufficiently big minority of scientists subscribing to these ideas. We do not include WP:fringe viewpoints.
fair enough, you'll need a semi-relevant qualification. The bar is low, and even many climate deniers have not been rejected.
this is just a disagreement about wording. On Wikipedia, we say 'addition', not addendum. We also say talk page post, not letter.
True. The suggestion two years ago did not attract any support though.
You cited the IPCC as if they were criticizing themselves. You're not allowed to add your own analysis of a source per WP:original research.
—Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear Femke:
Per WP:SCIRS, the notion of a "fringe theory" seems to preclude the possibility of publishing in Wikipedia a proof of the fact that the argument made by an IPCC climate model falsifies Aristotle's Laws of Thought but a proof of this fact is precisely what I wish to publish in Wikipedia. Is there a workaround for this dilemma?
Cordially,
Sidney Oldberg Sidney Oldberg (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
There is unlikely a workaround. It depends on published sources. Do you have a high-quality secondary source that addresses this disagreement? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear Prof: Femke:
The scientific method of investigation is summarized by the motto of the Royal Society: "Take nobody's word for it." "High-quality secondary source that addresses this disagreement" does not reduce to "take nobody's word for it." I conclude
from this evidence that that Wikipedia's method of investigation is not the scientific method of investigation. Am I wrong?
Sidney Oldberg
Scientist Sidney Oldberg (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello Sidney. You are part-right. Wikipedia does not do WP:original research. We collate work that others have done using the scientific method. We do describe scientific disagreements, but only if they are published in reputable sources. If you are able to convince scientists of your theory and publish it in reputable journals, it can be considered for inclusion. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
In this case, the scientific method was not followed in the research yet Wikipedia published an account of this research despite this shortcoming of it. The shortcoming is to have mistaken an "abstract" event of the future for Earth's climate system for a "concrete" event of the future for this system, where an "abstract" event of the future is 'abstracted" (removed) from a location in space and time whereas a "concrete" event of the future has such a location.
For example, a "rock concert" lacks a location in space and time thus being an example of an "abstract" event whereas a "rock concert" that occurs at Madison Square Garden in New York City between the hours of 7"30 and 10 PM, local time, in the year 2025 has a location in space and time thus being an example of a concrete" event of the future.
While a "concrete' event of the future has a probability of occurrence, an "abstract" e event of the future lacks a a probability of occurrence for, according to the late theoretical physicist R. Christensen:
"A probability is a non-negative real number associated with a physical, i.e., observable, event ( Ref: R.Chrsistensen, "Foundations of Inductive Reasoning," ISBN 0-938-87600-7,1964, p.120
but as it lacks a location in space and time, an "abstract" event of the future is not observable.
Q.E.D. 2601:647:5A00:70A0:34F6:CF54:1B0C:24AD (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree here, there's an ongoing issue here, and in many of these climate change related articles, conflating the abstract with the concrete, especially as it relates to modeling and the use of the models to produce predictions concerning tertiary effects.  Crescent77 (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Among the "climate change related articles" that convflate "abstract" with "concrete" events of the future for Earth's climate system is the latest edition of the Climate Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC AR6). Based upon my publication recored in the climatological literature, the UN IPCC appointed me to the role of Expert Reviewer of the manuscript for IPCC AR6 but when I advised the editors that to publish it would be misleading because it conflated "abstract" with "concrete" events of the future for Earth's climate system they ignored me.As written, Wikipedia's areticl on Earth's climate systems is among the consequences of this treatchery. Thus, I will edit this article for accuracy in regard to the "abstract" versus "concrete" distinction a week from now onless further discussion of this matter is needed. 2601:647:5A00:70A0:81BD:97F:406E:3306 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I strongly support this. Make sure you include references. Crescent77 (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Sidney, you seem to be under a misconception what climate models do. Climate models do include coordinates, and model concrete places in time and space. Conspiracy theories around treachery are not welcome on Wikipedia.
Again, anybody with a half-relevant background was allowed to call themselves "Expert Reviewers", which simply means you've asked to see the draft, and the IPCC said yes. DeSmog has a little article on why this is nothing prestigious. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I would remind folks that "expert" status has no relevance to the inclusion of material by any WP editor, all our work is based off the utilization of reliable sources.
That includes conspiracy theories around treachery, which are welcome on Wikipedia, IF they are reliably sourced.
Please make sure your edits are reliably sourced, or they will be promptly removed. Crescent77 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what your plan is but I am worried when you say "I will proceed with editing the manuscript of this article". If you plan to reinstate this earlier edit of yours (see link here), then I would object. It is not written in an encyclopedic way and doesn't fit here, as others have said above already. You would just be wasting your time as it would just get reverted. By the way, since you already have a Wikipedia login, it would be better if you wrote your talk page contributions after logging in because otherwise it looks like there are two different people posting, when both are actually you. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Who are you and what is your argument? 2601:647:5A00:70A0:2843:B055:CB39:5707 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I gather that you are EMSmile. Please share with us your record of peer-revoewed publication, if any, in the peer-reviewed literature of climatology. Sidney Oldberg (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I would remind you that personal credentials are irrelevant on WP. The substance of the edit is what matters, not the editor. Crescent77 (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Dear Crescent 77. Why have you not answered my questions? Is it because you don't want to answer them? Sidney Oldberg (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
What questions? You haven't asked me any questions. Crescent77 (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The questions you have not answered are:
a) who are you?
b) what is your argumen?
c) what is your record of peer-reviewed scientiic publication? Sidney Oldberg (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
a) and c) You may be confusing me with someone else,  but asking for personal information on WP can be inappropriate and is generally irrelevant. I assure you I have no COI with any publications referenced in this article.
b) I'm not making any argument, I just want to ensure you abide by WP policies and guidelines with your edits. Your previous edit was reverted because it did not, which seemed to cause you some consternation. I would rather you not have to repeat that, it would be nice if the work you put in here was utilized to make WP a better resource, rather than being reverted. Crescent77 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I gather that you are unable to cite your record of publications in the scientific literature because you have published nothing in this literature. Am I right? If so, what makes you think your are qualified to prevent an edit that is required for correction of an error in the text of an article that is already published in Wikipedia? Sidney Oldberg (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
It appears you are seriously misinformed as to how Wikipedia works. I would start by readingWikipedia:Five pillars. Crescent77 (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The Five Pillars state in part that:
Wikipedia has no firm rules
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: they can be corrected easily because (almost) every past version of each article is saved.
As written, the Five Pillars surely accomodate correction of an error hat is made by a previously published article. This what I am trying to do and you are blocking. Sidney Oldberg (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Just to be clear, nobody is "blocking" you. To get "blocked" from editing WP by an administrator would require a very serious infraction of acceptable WP conduct; your willingness to engage in discussion is a fair indicator that you are far from being "blocked".
What I am trying to do is ensure that your future edits improve WP and aren't immediately reverted. I think I may understand some of where you're coming from.
As editors, we report out on what reliable sources say. We can't "correct" errors made by published articles, that would be WP:SYNTH. What we can do is include material from other relaible sources that refutes the published source that is "incorrect", but keep in mind that has to follow considerations of due weight. Crescent77 (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Dear Crescent 77
Inasmuch as you have not yet presented us with your your true identity or peer-reviewed publication record in the literature of global warming climatology, you have given us no basis for belief in the proposition that you are equipped for the task of deciding to revert my prospective edit of the manuscript for Wikipedia's article on Earth's climate system on any intellectual basis whatsoever. Thus, I call on you to withdraw your threat to revert whatever edit I might make in advance of actually making this edit. Sidney Oldberg (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Call on me all you like, I can't withdraw a threat I never made. To repeat, I'm trying to help make sure your future edits stick, and are NOT immediately reverted by other editors.
Per Squeakachu, I think Wikipedia:Expert editors may be helpful for understanding how WP's community operates. Crescent77 (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Crescent77, thank you for being so patient with newcomers. Yesterday I was hunting around in the Wikipedia help pages to find the right page to explain to Sidney that someone with a vast amount of publications in the field does not automatically carry more "weight" as a Wikipedia editor compared to, say, and undergraduate student who is reading and using the available literature for his or her edits. This is to explain to Sidney why these statements of his are irrelevant and not helpful: I gather that you are unable to cite your record of publications in the scientific literature because you have published nothing in this literature. Am I right? If so, what makes you think your are qualified to prevent an edit as well as who are you? what is your record of peer-reviewed scientific publication? as well as Please share with us your record of peer-revoewed publication, if any, in the peer-reviewed literature of climatology.. I know it's written down somewhere but I couldn't immediately locate it. Which help page is the right one to explain this concept? EMsmile (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:Expert, maybe? Squeakachu (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a good one! I feel that I once saw an even more specific page that talked about this. Including why there is no need to disclose one's real name. There is WP:ANONYMOUS but I think there is also another page that explains this concept better but I can't find it at the moment. EMsmile (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Lol, I'm in the exact same boat as you, I did the exact same search when I read those very statements. I too recall reading a good description of it somewhere,  but I can't seem to find it either. Crescent77 (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Dear EMSmile:
The relevancy, if any, of your post escapes me. Please explain the relevancy. Sidney Oldberg (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
OP blocked for obvious WP:NOTHERE. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you to Lavalizard101 and Femke for taking this action! It was really just becoming a waste of time, trying to explain to that user how Wikipedia works. Sad. EMsmile (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The evidence that is presented in this blog suggests that it is infested by trolls whose purpose is to prevent exposure of the fact that the argument made by an IPCC climmte model is dressed up to look like an "abstract" event of the future for Earth's climate system is a "concrete" event of the future for this system, where an "abstract" event of the future is "abstracted" (removed) from a location in spacetime nut a "concrete" event of the future has such a location. The effect is to create the illusion in the mind of a reader of each of the IPCC's Climate Assessment Reports that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is an "existential threat" to mankind though there is no such threat.This illusion supports an ongoing attempt at destroying Western Civilization and replacing it by a Communist utopia whose putative existences violates Einstein's well tested Theory of Relativity. Sidney Oldberg (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What blog are you referring to?
FYI, blogs have very limited viability as reliable sources. For a more thorough discussion, read WP:Blogs. Crescent77 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Fyi: I just reported at ANI as not here / for personal attacks. They seem to refer to Wikipedia as a blog. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
OP blocked for obvious WP:NOTHERE. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I introduced this claim earlier but though it has not been refuted, the text of this article has not been revised to reflect this tacitly admitted fact. 2601:647:5A00:3250:5C8A:F149:7DBB:7A48 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

As written, the article implies that an "abstract" event of the future for Earth's climate system is a "concrete" event of the future, where an "abstract" event of the future is "abstracted" (removed) from a location in space and time whereas a "concrete" event of the future has such a location. That this is so is evident in the "spaghetti plots by which climatologists compare the predicted to the observed outcomes of the events of the future for Earth's climate system as the absence of a partition of time, each element of which is the location in time of a "concrete" event of the future.That this is so is disputed but without the presentation of an argument. 2601:647:5A00:3250:9DC5:517D:9078:63D1 (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I am wondering if you are the same person as the now blocked User:Sidney Oldberg as you are making similarly broad/vague/confusing statements. If you are not the same person then see above for previous discussions. EMsmile (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the one reference that was in short ref style in the lead to long ref style. The reason is that it makes it easier for when the lead is transcribed elsewhere, for example to Earth system science. I hope people find that acceptable. Given that two other refs in the lead were already in long ref style, I thought this should not be too controversial. EMsmile (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)