Talk:100,000-year problem

message: 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)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: 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? Huybers, P., and Wunsch, C. Obliquity pacing of the late Pleistocene glacial terminations. http://rdcu.be/gysq (Note: I only read abstract, but have heard of the "skip a beat" elsewhere). Jacobkhed (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another hypothesis - obliquity & "skip a beat" 

message: 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)
replies: text: It makes reasonable amount of sense, but the sentence  sounds 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)
thread_title:  Dust-Ice Albedo Theory 

message: 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)
replies: text: See the section above. But yes: no-one has spoken up for it so I've taken it out William M. Connolley (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, he hasn't been cited. He has been published in an Elsevier journal published by a Chinese University, which is puzzling because he is basically a self-published author writing about " revisionary religious history", particularly about the "real King Jesus" and is described on his website thus: "He started as a software engineer, but moved into the equally technical spheres of mineral surveying, aviation, and palaeoclimatology,". His views on climate change are more pithily described here. One of his now blocked sockpuppets, Tatelyle, added the material. Thanks William. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly unreliable citation and section it supports