Talk:Climate forcing

message: A separate article on this is not needed or helpful.  Forcings are best discussed within specific contexts, since the choice of what is called forcings is situational.  If a model for predicting vulcanism or solar variability is developed, then these are no longer forcings but become internal variability.  If a model experiment is run that attempts to see how other variables repond to a change in the assumptions about carbon sinks (because they can't be modeled yet, etc.), then carbon sinks become a forcing.  Any non-ab-initio parameterizations within models can be considered forcings.  You should step into the fray and try to swim before assuming that what has already been achieved is insufficient.--Silverback 00:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate article

message: I think it would be better to try to keep the more indepth explanations off the page and keep it general. If clouds are generally considered "aerosols," (right?) then cloud forcing should go in the "Aerosols" section and keep its current page. It can be explained in general though underneath "Aerosols" about how aerosols can reflect sunlight and retain heat. Clouds as a forcing would be a really good example of an aerosol forcing seeing as aerosols basically end up being clouds anyway, they just have different sources than natural clouds. This is also because I'm sure clouds as a forcing can be expanded upon. --Ben 08:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cloud forcing (merge suggestion)

message: When I changed the intro a bit to reflect some stuff that I read, it seems to me that maybe some of the usage of "climate forcings" should be changed to simply "climate forces." Forces is simpler and there is less confusion I think. For example, we'd have "Non-radiative forces" rather than "Non-radiative forcings." Comments?--Ben 00:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a bad example, I think "Non-radiative forcings" is ok. I think the difference is "Deforestation" is a "Climate Force" while "Greenhouse gas forcing" is the forcing. So it can be said that "deforestation" is a climate force which forces climate via the theory of "greenhouse gas forcing" which is a type of "climate forcing."--Ben 00:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Climate Forcings and Climate Forces

message: I suggest moving the article to climate forcing and having this page redirect there (right now climate forcing redirects here. When I first created the page I figured "climate forcings" was the same as "climate forces" (they're talked about that way it seems, that should probably be mentioned). But it seems to me that they aren't, rather "climate forcing" is the name for the theory of forcing climates. I won't do it for a while, or if anyone objects, maybe my current interpretation is wrong too :P.--Ben 06:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick google search shows respectable people using both "climate forcings" and "climate forcing", but the one without the "s" seems to dominate by a factor of five.  So I would say go ahead with the move.   — Cortonin | Talk 07:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Move

message: New :Category:Climate forcing and :Category:Climate forcing agents --Ben 22:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: CC: from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley
I withdraw my proposal for mediation. WMC you "win" if that's what you'd rather have than discussion. Someone else can deal with you. I will cease discussing or arguing with you. I also will cease working on climate forcing and any and all related climate articles. WMC you might as well just erase climate forcing, since you never wanted it and never edit it, 
: (William M. Connolley 23:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I, not WMC, was the one who never wanted the article, it is a poorly defined concept.--Silverback 15:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice

message: Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:
Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin
 
by William M. Connolley
 
 
 
Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case. 
--mav 22:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary injunction 

message: Hi - I just saw this article and for several reasons it is really, well, let me call it "sub-standard". I think it should be totally removed and perhaps replaced by a short and simple mathematical discussion of short- and long wave radiation balances. Common stuff for Geo science and Astronomy students (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strahlungsbilanz). Further concepts could be explored under climate modeling. I think lobby talk and ideological aspects should be kept out of these articles. The "scientific definitions" (how about: findings? Research results?) are readily available in countless widely used standard textbooks. Maybe I shall quote Philip K. Dick: "Reality is that which doesn't go away, when you stop believing in it." But I shall not meddle in here. Greetings from Europe, Stefan
: Hi Stefan (is that The Stefan or A Stefan?). Anyway, I agree. Any article that starts Note: This Wikipedia article is a work in progress. Some terms may be misrepresented. and has nonetheless not seen any progress at all for months is in trouble. This article was the creation of Ben. For various reasons he never improved it. No one else seems to want it. I'm going to redirect it, again. William M. Connolley 14:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub standard