Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-01 Greenhouse effect


 * Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Who are the involved parties?

 * ;, User (some minor contributions by others as well)

What's going on?
I edited the page Greenhouse effect to start the article with a brief description of what the greenhouse effect is. User "Short Brigade Harvester Boris" revised the edit in order to delete a scientific term, "reradiate," from the text. I reverted my text, adding commentary to the talk page explaining why I though that the original phrasing was accurate, and noting that it is a term that is both commonly used in physics, and also in commonly used in the published literature. ("Short Brigade Harvester Boris" has subsequently commented in the discussion on the talk page, but has not revised that article again.) User "William M. Connolley", however, has now joined in to revert to the text deleting the term "reradiate". In response to this, there has been a series of comments on the talk page; and I added to the text three citations to examples the use of the word reradiate in textbook definitions of the greenhouse effect, a footnote discussing why the term may be confusing, and links to dictionary definitions of the words "reradiate" and "greenhouse effect". However, this seems to be insufficient, and William Connolley continues to remove the text, in the belief (without citations) that the term is inaccurate. (A different editor,, cited a link to a web page (Frazier) in which the author of the web page states (without citations) that the term is "nonsense science;" Atmoz has not, however, participated in the edit war, but only participated in the talk page discussion.) User "Dragons flight" has also contributed to the discussion and not now also edited the text.

Comment by WMC
The statement above is out of date.

This arbcomm decision appears relevant

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
This seems to be an unresolvable edit war; I've done the obvious things, e.g., adding the citations, but don't see signs of any kind of pending end.

Administrative notes
I suggest putting in a request for clarification. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
As far as I can tell, the assertion that the term "reradiate" is inaccurate is WP:OR, in that there have been no citations adduced to support this view (except for the Frazier website, which I would consider to be opinion, not science.)

Is this issue still open? Karbinski (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd stopped editing the article while waiting to see if the request for mediation would any result, and the issue has been quiescent since then. However, I haven't changed my opinion: the current text is not as clear as the text that it was reverted from. in that the text as written now fails to explain what the greenhouse effect is.  So, in my opinion, it's still open. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems the consensus is the current they absorb and they radiate is the better description. A Request for Comment on changing the introduction to use reradiate is an option. Karbinski (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, at best, consensus minus one. It's certainly not the scientific consensus; the scientific consensus is that greenhouse gasses absorb infrared and then reradiate it.
 * It would, perhaps seem like an esoteric question, but the text as rewritten has removed causality from the greenhouse effect. Stating "they absorb, and they radiate" but deleting any connection between the two contains causailty about as much as the statement "I play the trumpet, and I read science fiction" does.  It is not an explanation; it is a collection of unrelated observations.
 * It does bring up an interesting problem; given that a vast number of references say that the greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gasses absorbing infrared and reradiating it (and I gave three such references; if a different number is required, let me know what that number is.)-- so, given that the references say "reradiate": if there's a conflict between WP:consensus and WP: reliable source, which is the correct answer? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We have 3 people who work(ed) in the area of atmospheric sciences pointing out that re-radiate is misleading/wrong, because... well; its all on the talk page; why repeat it here? And we have one other who doesn't like it. There are many careless explanations of various phenomena out in the world; there is no reason why wiki should repeat errors. For example, there are numerous otherwise reliable sites that will tell you that the GHE is like a greenhouse; we don't use them William M. Connolley (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * None of them seem to be physicists, since they have left the physics out of the explanation. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I fear you are suffering from the physicists-know-everything fallacy. Or rather, to the oversimplifications that physics often suceeds by. But the atmosphere is complex. Don't oversimplify it William M. Connolley (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this is exactly the heart of the problem; computer models are a good way of solving problems--especially complex problems-- but they are a poor way of understanding mechanisms. I will write out a longer discussion in the talk section.  Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you talking about computer models? They have no relevance here. DO you know whats going on? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

IPCC, 2007 WG1 Chapter 1 Section 1.4.1 The Earth's Greenhouse Effect (p. 103) has no mention of the term "reradiate". The FAQ (p. 115) does however. Can we agree that the IPCC document represents a consensus and is a RS? - Atmoz (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're proposing. It looks like page 115 is the only part of this document in which the greenhouse effect is specifically defined (earlier parts discuss the history, but not the definition-- page 103 is in the section "Examples of Progress in Understanding Climate Processes").  Since the words used in this definition are pretty much exactly what I'd said should be in the definition, clearly I'm not likely to object Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Are the first four references inclusive of the they absorb/they radiate description? If so then it seems the consensus(minus one) is sound. If not, then a challenge for a citation - to appear within the article (not only the talk page) - is reasonable: no matter how true/apt the current description is (if it is), it must still be verifiable for the wiki user. If such a citation(s) is provided, then again the consensus is made sound. If such a challenge is not met within a reasonable period of time, then the existing description should be open to removal (the burden of proof lies with those championing the content in dispute). Karbinski (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first four citations, with the "absorb/reradiate" text in bold are:

and the next two:
 * [1] IPCC AR4 SYR Appendix Glossary -(does not use the word "reradiate", as far as I can see, in the chapter cited)
 * [2]Stephen H. Schneider, in Geosphere-biosphere Interactions and Climate, Lennart O. Bengtsson and Claus U. Hammer, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0521782384, pp. 90-91. "The atmosphere is more opaque to terrstrial infrared radiation than it is to incoming solar radiation... the atmosphere allows a considerable fraction of the solar radiation to penetrate to the Earth's surface and then traps (more precisely,  intercepts and reradiates) much of the upward terrestrial infrared radiation.
 * [3] E. Claussen, V. A. Cochran, and D. P. Davis, Climate Change: Science, Strategies, & Solutions, University of Michigan, 2001. p. 373. As concentration of gasses that absorb and reradiate infrared energy (i.e., greenhouse gasses--GHSs) increase, the warming effect increases"
 * [4] A. Allaby and M. Allaby, A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0192800795, p. 244. greenhouse effect: The effect of heat retention in the atmosphere...  of molecules that  absorb and reradiate infrared electromagnetic radiation.
 * [5] Annual Reviews (not available on the web; I might be able to dig it up at work, but I couldn't  check it right now')
 * [6] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Chapter 1: Historical overview of climate change science. page 97  "Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.. "  Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As these sources are in use to support the current description, and - it seems - even used to diffuse an edit war, they appear to be considered reliable (as opposed to other sites that describe GHE as a greenhouse). That is, it seems these sites are to be used.  At any rate, taken together, they do not verify the current they absorb / they radiate description.  I think a call for verification from reliable sites that are to be used (as opposed to the talk page or sites describing GHE as a greenhouse) is legitimate.  Or am I mistaken that "they do not verify the current ... description?" Karbinski (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the references provided by Geoffrey, including books and scientific journals, as well as common sense, are strong enough to back the use of the term "reradiate". Earth is not the primary source of radiation, the sun is the primary source. Since sun radiates the Earth and then Earth radiates back, using deductive reasoning, it can be concluded that this is reradiating. Can we close this case before it escalates to lame edit wars? OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is the usage of the word - not that it happens. As several have pointed out, reradiation does happen and is an important effect.... but it is not an encompassing and accurate description of the whole. The references above just acknowledge that reradiation is a term used, but not (as is the gist) that it is the whole description. Try reading the talk discussions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that most definitions of the greenhouse effect in textbooks and scientific publications explicitly use the phrase "reradiate" in the definition of the term. Here, for example, is the definition from the IPCC: "thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."  Not using the phrase is redefining the term in a way that differs from way the term is defined in reliable sources. You say that it is "not an encompassing and accurate description of the whole."  It is correct that it is not an encompassing description of the whole study of thermal transport in atmospheres.  It is, however, an accurate word to use in the definition of the greenhouse effect according to reliable, cited sources (although apparently not in the personal and unreferenced opinion of many Wikipedians.) Geoffrey.landis (talk).
 * The IPCC glossary does not use the term "reradiate" which is generally where I would go to see how the IPCC defines things.  I'm not sure why one should prefer the FAQ when looking for a definition.  The FAQ, written with the help of professional educators, was meant to put concepts in plain and straight-forward language to aid a broader, less technical audience than the main body of report.
 * ("put concepts in plain and straight-forward language to aid in a broader, less technical audience than the main body of the article"-- Isn't that a concise statement of how to write the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article?)
 * Or in short, it simplifies things. As far as I've seen "reradiate" is never used in the main body of the IPCC report or in the glossary of definitions.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that both the they absorb/they radiate and reradiate descriptions are supportable by reliable sources. Therefore we can go with either. Given the status-quo consensus, I think we need to go with they absorb/they radiate. Karbinski (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At the moment, the working compromise seems to be that it's ok to quote the words used in the IPCC FAQ, including the word "reradiate", in a footnote but not in the main text. I would like to move it up, since deleting the term has removed a concise statement of the causal connnection between infrared absorption and radiation that is the essential physics of the greenhouse effect.  However, I am getting tired of arguing the point, and I'm willing to accept the compromise of having the term appear only in the footnote. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)