Talk:Global dimming

message: I can't find any publication by Ohmura in 1989, but he has four in 1990:
*Ohmura, A., 1990: Reevaluation and monitoring of the global energy balance.  Sanderson, M. (Ed.): UNESCO Source Book in Climatology, 35-42.
*Chen, J. and Ohmura, A., 1990: On the influence of Alpine glaciers on runoff. Lang, H. and Musy, A. (Eds.): Hydrology in Mountainous Regions I, IAHS Publ., 193, 117-125.
*Chen, J. and Ohmura, A., 1990: Estimation of Alpine glacier water resources and their change since 1870s. Lang, H. and Musy, A. (Eds): Hydrology in Mountainous Regions I, IAHS Publ., 193, 127-135.
*Enomoto, J. and Ohmura, A., 1990: The influence of atmospheric half-year cycle on the sea ice extent in the Antarctic. J.Geophys.Res, 95, 9497-9511. 
I'd guess that the first one is the most likely to be the relevant paper. -- John Fader 20:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 21:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ohmura article

message: (Ferdinand Engelbeen 20:20, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory behind the program

message: (William M. Connolley 09:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rm cooling effect 

message: I wonder if that might be better as more readable? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How about now? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use “sunlight” instead of “irradiance” in first 2 sentences? 

message: 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 Also the caption looked out of date for me and without a reference?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.
[[File:Physical Drivers of climate change.svg|thumb|300px|Contributions to warming: The graph shows "temperature changes from individual components of human influence".IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3−32, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.001.|alt=Warming contributions of various GHGs, agents, factors [name the year that the contributions pertain to] [*correct reference given under the 'Talk' tab*]. Plus, the figure is inaccurate; at least wrt. to methane.]]
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:
* Attribution of recent climate change
* Cloud feedback
* Sulfur dioxide
* Global dimming
* Radiative forcing
* Climate change
* Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere
* Greenhouse gas
* Atmospheric methane
* Gas venting
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.
 EMsmile (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, that graph is used on a lot of articles because it really is very useful. It might need to be removed from some of those, but certainly not this one. As for the source, yes, the first sentence should be sourced to SPM, while references 76-78 in the article all make the case that there is unfortunately still a lot of uncertainty about the exact amount of cooling, which is why that large error bar is needed (It is not "outdated" at all!) I simply overlooked adding one or all of them to the caption that time. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but this wording in the caption is unclear to me: "including the cooling provided by sulfate aerosols and the dimming they cause". Is cooling and dimming now two different things here? Also this sentence could be made clearer by adding the words in bold: "The large error bar for the contribution of sulphur dioxide in particular shows that there are still substantial unresolved uncertainties." And what are "substantial unresolved uncertainties", surely there could be simpler wording for that? Is that source on page 7 saying it in those exact words? Does that uncertainty get explained in the main text? I only see it mentioned twice in the Wikipedia article text. Perhaps it deserves a separate sub-heading?  EMsmile (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I still find the caption for that bar chart image rather unclear and layperson-unfriendly. Marked in bold where I stumble over the wording  EMsmile (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so here's my proposal for a caption that is easier to understand:  EMsmile (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about image and its caption 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've changed it to "Possible role in solar geoengineering". Good? EMsmile (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Possible role" implies that solar geoengineering could work without the existence of global dimming, which is really not the case. I changed it to "Relevance for solar geoengineering" instead. Also changed Clayoquot's subheading for contrails to hopefully clarify that altogether, they just have very little relevance next to the others. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's better. - I wish some of the long paragraphs were still broken into two. They make for difficult reading when they are so long... like walls of text. Would you be able to break some of the really long paragraphs into two at logical points in the flow of text? I think that would be helpful. EMsmile (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better section heading for the solar geoengineering section? 

message: All three issues should be addressed by now.
# For [25], the reference to those two countries appeared left over from an earlier version of the page, so I removed it and provided additional verification for the rest through a review paper mentioning those studies.
# For [50], I decided to instead replace the neighbouring offline source, [51], with two online references specifically addressing those points about role of wet-bed combustion and developed country policies.
# With [120], it was not cited correctly in the pre-GA version of the page, and the issue was not fully addressed during the review. I found it easier to rewrite the paragraph and use a different, live reference.
Thank you for paying attention to these details. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Did you know nomination