Talk:Extraterrestrial atmosphere/Archive 2

Move the page

The page should be moved to Solar System warming because System on Solar System is capitalized. ~ UBeR 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How about considering a bigger change, to something like "Solar system climate change" (I'm assuming no-one would really want to write "solar system climate" and have change as a sub-header). And I think the intro needs a re-write too; it either needs to say "SSW is a neologism that..." which is ugly, or wrap the words up in such a way as to not really *define* it. It isn't necessary to start all articles with "<articlename> is...". How about: "Of the various bodies in the solar system, some have been observed to show variations in their climate or in parameters linked to their climate." or somesuch. Also, it does need somewhere to make the major point that while "climate" on earth would be multi-y avgs, on most of the outer bodies we have less than 1 "years" obs and seasonal effects will be important William M. Connolley 16:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Having another go?

This page's default state is as a redirect. We can have another go at making sense of it - it might be useful - but it needs to be accurate and not misleading. I've amended the intro and the Jupiter section to help William M. Connolley 08:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the familiar problems. Zeeboid reverted by edit [1] with the odd edit comment that change is not backed up in anyway. please consult NASA. But my edit is fully supported by the current article text, and "please consult nasa" is so vague as to be pointless. Zeeboid: please make an attempt to edit contructively William M. Connolley 14:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please make an attempt, William, with repairing the familiar problems of you altering things with a bit of a global warming spin. What sources are you using to back up the statement you added?--Zeeboid 14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The article itself supports my edit. Which bit, precisely, are you objecting to? William M. Connolley 14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"The only planet for which there is good evidence of warming is the Earth (no source for statement), where it is attributed to human activity (where is this proven. not theorized, proven. otherwise you need to note its theory). There is no evidence that changes in solar radiation are responsible for changes on planets other than the Earth.(again, whats your source? who said solar radiation is not responsiable for changes on planets? changes to climate? your trying to tell us here that planets that include an atmosphere well above 90% co2 in come cases are not being affected by solar radiation? cite your source) "

That there is only good evidence for Earth is obvious. You can quibble sources if you like but its only quibbling. We have nothing like global T for any other planet, as the article text makes clear. Attribution - that comes from the linked article; the GW article says much the same, as does the text Uber added just lower down. And there is no evidence for sol rad ch comes, again, from the article itself - if you can find somewhere in the article where it says otherwise, pleas point me to it William M. Connolley 15:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In Line 17, did the Pulkovo Observatory attribut or assert? whats your source? the source thats listed makes it clear that the observatory has attributed, not that they are "asserting"

It asserted: there is no science whatsoever backing up their assertions: these ar merely off-the-cuff statements by one person William M. Connolley 15:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In Line 23, you are playing with words here, but I can concede what is there may not be approperate. how about "could be undergoing climate change"?--Zeeboid 14:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there is room for compromise William M. Connolley 15:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this here?

There was an AfD with consensus to redirect. Who resuscitated this bit of nonsense against this consensus, and how can we return to the AfD consensus? I've tried to tag for deletion but since it already went through and AfD, am getting things mixed up. Raymond Arritt 14:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

True. But it doesn't have to stay nonsense - it can become sane, if people can restrain Zeeboids antics William M. Connolley 14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem: even if the article as such was created in good faith (and I think it was), it will inevitably used as a jumping-off point for POV pushers. Aside from that, the term is a neologism. Raymond Arritt 14:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Raymond, I started this article because I hope to make it a sensible article that is supported by scientific literature. I hope you can help me expand it rather than delete it. Thanks. ~ UBeR 15:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, are you trying to debunk global warming or are you genuinely interested in creating an article on a valid scientific theory? This article has shown signs of nothing more than an attempt to use wikipedia for POV pushing/global warming debunking.

For example: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations," which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950.

Is this WP:OR or do you have refs to back up the type of statements listed above? I'm for having the article as long as it's not for the sole purpose of a coutner argument for global warming and is backed by the scientific community (no OR).-- I already forgot  talk  15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I already forgot. The highlighted phrases you mention come directly from our article on global warming. They are 100% verifiable and are similar to the wording used by the International Panel on Climate Change. I am just trying to adhere to WP:SUMMARY, but I will gladly add references if you have any doubts. Additionally, this article isn't about debunking global warming. This article is about documenting warming on other celestial bodies, fully backed-up by peer-reviewed, scientific literature. As William has stated above, we can make this article useful and accurate. Feel free to help. ~ UBeR 15:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure out why, but I have a problem with this article, namely that is implicitely presupposes that there actually is "solar system warming" while the evidence at most points to some isolated, independent warming events. It's a bit like calling a theft part of a "war in property", when thefts are usually independent and not caused by a common agenda. Thus, I think it will be very hard or impossible to make this article, under the current title, NPOV. We could have an article on the claim that the solar system is warming because of a shared stimulus, but I think it will be very hard to find reliable sources for that. Warming of individual solar system bodies should be handled in the individial article, like Climate of Mars or Pluto. --Stephan Schulz 16:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephan's comment goes to the heart of my concern. The title presupposes that there is a coherent phenomenon of warming throughout the solar system, but in reality we have a lot of separate processes acting on different bodies. I had originally thought of the title "climates of the planets" but some of the bodies are not planets. Anyone have suggestions for a title? This could turn into a nice summary-format article with links to appropriate sub-articles but the title is a serious concern. Raymond Arritt 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Climate change within the Solar System? ~ UBeR 17:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "Climates in the Solar System"? Raymond Arritt 20:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it makes sense to speak of "climate" e.g. for Pluto, where the atmosphere can only be described as a hard vacuum for part of it's year, and as non-existant for the remainder...--Stephan Schulz 23:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. Apropos this point, there aren't enough data points for many of these bodies even to define mean climate, much less any variations. What say "planetary atmospheres" or similar? Raymond Arritt 00:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Processes in planetary atmospheres (although that leaves off moons and dwarf planets)?. Maybe Extraterrestial atmospheres, but that excludes Earth. And would we include heating/cooling on bodies without a serious atmosphere (e.g. Mercury)? --Stephan Schulz 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial atmospheres sounds great. Unlike "planetary" that would include comets, which have very interesting atmospheres. Raymond Arritt 02:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds good, but still would exclude Earth by definition. Maybe we could exclude Earth and note it in the intro? ~ UBeR 05:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a good solution. There already are many (too many, IMO) articles on Earth's atmosphere. As you say the intro could note that the present article is only about other bodies, with something like "for information on Earth's atmosphere, see..." Raymond Arritt 15:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that the you suggested would be descriptive of the warming trend being observed on the spatial bodies being discussed. It suggests, rather, discussion of climate makeup of the various bodies, where this is not the case, and is not very indicative any change occurring, where there is one. It also suggests discussions of all the climates in the Solar System, when it is not a complete discussion of all the major bodies in the Solar System. ~ UBeR 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I think it would be great if the article were expanded into an overview of planetary atmospheres (along with moons and comets) and that's part of the reasoning for the name change. I have in mind an article that would start out explaining that other bodies in the Solar System have atmospheres; we have fairly good obs for some characteristics of some of these bodies; some of their atmospheres appear have changed in time; etc. with links to appropriate sub-articles. Raymond Arritt 20:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Quibbling

Pluto is a dwarf planet, not a planet (hence my original language in the intro). ~ UBeR 15:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Misc

Between 1975 and 1995, Mars underwent a warming of about 0.65 °C (1.2 °F). - has no source; sounds suspiciously precise. What is it based on?

Neptune's largest moon, has increased in absolute temperature by 5% since 1989 to 1998 - not in the abstract given as ref

William M. Connolley 18:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed this and amended the article accordingly. ~ UBeR 19:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Neptune, the farthest planet from Earth, has increased in brightness sine 1980, suggesting warming has occurred - really? I don't see this in H&L (speaking of which, if you want to help at http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/suggestive_correlations_betwee.php feel free) William M. Connolley 21:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Cite Please

If this informaiton is easially available (refering to the frist couple paragraphs and the fact tags) then it should be easy to list.--Zeeboid 17:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just follow the link to the main article. Feel free to add the cites if you feel the reproduction is necessary. --Stephan Schulz 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

not my responsibility. read wiki policy.--Zeeboid 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to improve the article, or do you just want to troll? You know where the sources are, you claim they are needed. So why don't you provide them, regardless of responsibility? --Stephan Schulz 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I want the article to be improved. As others here are the Environmental experts, and revert or change whatever I list anyway, I figured you and your buddies would be best to list these sources. Correct?--Zeeboid 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, taking the sources from article A and putting them into article B is not that hard. You might also profit from actually reading them.--Stephan Schulz 13:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening section

The line here keeps being removed by the usual suspects:

though Solar System Warming may sugguest otherwise.

Could someone please explain how you believe this to be inaccurate?--Zeeboid 18:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you seriously misquote and misinterprete the NatGeo article.

• Even the headline has the qualifier "scientist says" (refering to Abdussamatov in a mostly undeserved way). If you read the full article, in particularly page 2, you will find a thorough debunking ("His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University and Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."). Granting Abdussamatov extreme outlier position the editorial voice is simply wrong, and even mentioning him at all is probably a violation of WP:WEIGHT.
• Moreover, even Abdussamatov is only quoted as speaking about Mars, not the Solar System.

--Stephan Schulz 18:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A's comments appear to be based on nothing but his personal biases. If he has a reasearch paper to refer to, I've never seen it mentioned. As such, this stuff doesn't belong in the lead, even if it were stated in an NPOV way, which Z's additions aren't (the "though Solar System Warming may sugguest otherwise" introduces SSW as an established concept, which it isn't) William M. Connolley 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You completly miss what else the second page says. If you read whats after what you want to see:

"Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store. "The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years.""

• If he is speeking about mars, then this comment belongs in the mars part of this article. I can go with that.--Zeeboid 13:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

...where, of course, they already are, probably more prominently than deserved. --Stephan Schulz 13:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)