Talk:Warm period

Refs
Why is Dennis Avery being quoted in this article? As far as I am aware, he has no particular expertise on the subject of paleoclimatology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.198.166.84 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree. I took him out - he isn't an RS for anything climate related William M. Connolley (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I found and added eight refs in about 15 minutes. Again, WMC, it would have been much more helpful if you had gone out and found some refs instead of just removing them. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm checking the refs to see if they actually say what they're purported to say. So far, the references are batting 0.000. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The refs do discuss warming and cooling periods during the earth's history, do they not? Why don't you use them to add additional information to the article?  We are trying to improve and expand this article, not get it deleted, aren't we? Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the references support the statement As far back as geological proxy measurements go, each warm period has been followed by a cool period, nor do they provide a rationale for "warm period" as a term unto itself. Quoth WP:V, references "must clearly support the material as presented in the article." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it would be more helpful to then change the article text to fit what the ref's say? Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

For example, you say that the Ravelo source doesn't support this article, but Ravelo clearly says that there have been warmn and cool climate periods. This, from the article abstract, "The Earth's climate has undergone a global transition over the past four million years, from warm conditions with global surface temperatures about 3 [degrees]C warmer than today, smaller ice sheets and higher sea levels to the current cooler conditions. Tectonic changes and their influence on ocean heat transport have been suggested as forcing factors for that transition, including the onset of significant Northern Hemisphere glaciation [similar]2.75 million years ago, but the ultimate causes for the climatic changes are still under debate. Here we compare climate records from high latitudes, subtropical regions and the tropics, indicating that the onset of large glacial/interglacial cycles did not coincide with a specific climate reorganization event at lower latitudes." Since each of these articles, like Ravelo, studies a different aspect of climate change temperature history, you're probably going to have to use some synthesis. No big deal. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's from a source that I'm about to add, "The subpolar and subtropical North Atlantic experienced a comparable succession of warming and cooling events during the latest Holocene." (deMenocal, Peter, et al. "Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period." Science 288.5474 (2000): 2198)). Clearly there are cool and warm periods. Is there an article for Cool period?  If not, there should be. Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another from the article, "High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 [+ or -] 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase tag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere." (Fischer, Hubertus, et al. "Ice Core Records of Atmospheric [CO.sub.2] Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations." Science 283.5408 (1999): 1712). Cla68 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Each warm period has been followed by a cool period."
...while this sounds as if it tries to say something, isn't it plainly tautological, given that temperatures vary either up or down? What's the purpose of this statement? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the purpose is to pad out an otherwise rather obviously pointless article. It is either meaningless, as you point out, or false, if you include the current warm period William M. Connolley (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

during which the earth's or a region of the earth's average atmospheric temperature is higher than usual
Errm, next problem. What is "usual" supposed to mean? Does Earth have a "usual" temperature? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

EB source
EB does not seem to have an article on "Warm period", and I can find no evidence that they use the term as anything more as a non-specialized phrase (such as "fast car" or "strong wind". I'd delete it, but that would reduce the article to nothing... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. I've redirected it to MWP, pending some actual content here William M. Connolley (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Censorship

 * As far back as geological proxy measurements go, each warm period has been followed by a cool period.

I suspect the reason for reducing this article to a redirect is to conceal this fact, to help promote the POV of AGW. A fair and neutral account of the science would include the fact that there have been natural cycles of warming and cooling along with the fact that a sizable number of scientists attribute recent warming to human activity. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See above. Can you explain how that statement is at all relevant? If temperature varies up and down, as it obviously has in the past, then of course after each warmer period there will be colder one and vice versa. This is the nature of a continuous mathematical curve. The same will likely happen with the current warming, although it may, of course, take a while. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't "warm is followed by cold" more a matter of definition than anything else? What else do warm and cold mean - they aren't absolute William M. Connolley (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. Or you could say that the warm period 520MYA was followed by a quite warm one 475MYA, followed by a quite warm one 375MYA, followed by a cold one 300MYA ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)