Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Q Science (talk | contribs) at 22:42, 17 December 2009 (→Emails on Fred Singer: "Fair use" applies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lohachara Island

In case you need the names of more of the islands in the area, the map in the upper right corner of the Lohachara Island article is an old map with a lot of detail. Click on the map to see the image page. Click on the map on the image page for a larger map (it may take some time to download). The Image page has a link to the original map, which I think was an even larger file of the same region. (SEWilco 08:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Thanks - I have added the reference and an enlarged image to the bottom of the page Q Science 10:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In your email you mentioned the links pointing to the wrong urls - I'm working on that

You mentioned the word "thier" ... thanks - there were lots of errors.

WinFixer

"Undid revision 242011032 by Sephiroth storm several sections had been made unreadable, many claims were made, or changed, without any references"

How were the sections made unreadable? IMO, the changes were made as part of an improvement of the article, most of the changes were style of writing changes, so the article was more Encyclopedic, taking out words like "They", making better sentences than "but do not actually do so" and "but it has never been shown to do such things". My changes to the "Methods of Infection" section were to make it more NPOV, and to make it more Encyclopedic, listing of every broweser was not nessesary. As for my "unreferenced additions" to other sections, I moved a couple of sections around to put them in the correct location in reference to the article. Please feel free to comment on my talk page. Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• You do not have correct facts: These "facts" have been in the article for some time and were ill referenced. Half of the data was not listed in the references.

• At the time the article was written, neither McAfee nor Symantec could detect or remove it. Unless you have personally tested it against ALL the WinFixer versions, you should not make a claim that they can now.

I used reliable sources that said they could remove at least one WinFixer application, and I said that they MAY remove the infection. It would be unfair to Misplaced Pages users to not list the programs simply because they cannot remove every variant of the software. Don't forget, many malware programs change all the time, and AV vendors do not immediatly have a fix. my data was based on information in the references that said that they could remove the infection.

• By the way, WinFixer is extortion, not scareware or a rogue program. It makes someone's computer unusable until you pay them to remove it.

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. If you believe it is extortion, then sue, otherwise call it what every referenced page called it, the same thing that security researchers call it, and what the original author of the article called it, A Rouge Security application. I welcome suggestions on further fixes to the article, and if you have an interest in these programs, feel free to join WikiProject Malware and/or WikiProject Computing/Computer and Information Security task force Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming Definition

It is nice to see your attempting to sway WMC with reason... I wish you luck it has not worked for anyone else... he has a very long history of being just barely within the letter of wikipedia policy to escape being called out but not the spirit... if you want to know more click on my name then "send user email" and I will get back you privately with some very interesting facts in this matter.--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It won't let me unless I first give it an email address - maybe later.

I found this on your page

Venus ... is a run away-greenhouse effect and Mars appears to have become a global freezer, despite the fact both of them have roughly the same amount of CO2 the earth does.

Do the math - Venus has about 170,000 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as the Earth. That is not a typo, it is 170 thousand times as much CO2. Also, the sun does NOT heat the surface. Therefore, there is no way that Venus represents "a run away-greenhouse effect". I saw your discussion on this with WMC, but decided it was better to respond here. Q Science (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming video

Thank you for that splendid link to Spencer's presentation. I'm staying out of the Misplaced Pages stuff on warming, and sticking to simple things, like fisheries. I think WCC and his acolytes have shepherded themselves into such a consolidated position that they have little room to breathe. Perhaps they are resting on their laurels – a job well done. But I doubt the job has really started. In a former life I was deeply committed to physics and mathematical modelling. It is easy to fall in love with elegance and seeming rigour. I went to school with another boy who became a distinguished international lawyer, and, briefly, prime minister of our country. He is profoundly in love with the eloquence and conceptual beauty of international law, but seems disconnected from what actually happens on the ground. Likewise, relying on results from mathematical models applied to systems as complex as global warming seems a little naive. I don't have a view on warming – it's too complicated and I'm too old. But I am an interested observer, and it's okay if WCC wants to patronise. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Runaway climate change

Pls comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Runaway_climate_change Please can you get back to me on my talk page about any 'problems' you may have had with other editors in this field?Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Mailed fist

This came and went without me even noticing. I think it was correctly removed; its nothing to do with improving the GW article. If you care to, you can discuss it on my talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty upset when I saw what you wrote in the blog, it is a completely different persona from what I've seen here. I would have ignored it if I had simply stumbled onto it, but you linked to it from wikipedia. I considered deleting your link, but I didn't think that that would be appropriate without explaining why. So, I wrote the post instead. I still think that ts was wrong to delete only the one section and not both.

By the way, I have heard Dr. Spencer talk and he makes a lot of sense. He may be wrong, but "wacko" is over the top. Q Science (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming debate

This is in response to this edit of yours.

While new data does ideally lead to new theories and new debates, we don't expect new data (from, say, new methods to measure microgravity differences) to lead to radically altering the way we think the effect of gravity works on the surface of the earth, and we don't expect new satellites to change the basic observation that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have increased the temperature of the earth and the prediction that they will continue to do so.

The temperature of the atmosphere has been measured by balloons for over 50 years. If those measurements are correct, then the global warming models are wrong. One paper based on satellite data says that all those measurements are wrong and that the GW models are correct. So, yes I expect the new data to be very important. Q Science (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Misplaced Pages is not the place to discuss whether global warming is real or not: we must leave that to reliable sources, and simply report what the reliable sources say, in direct proportion to what they say (if 10% of reliable sources were skeptical about anthropogenic climate change, we'd need to spend 10% of the article discussing that part of the issue, but they don't, so we shouldn't). We all need to try to avoid discussing the issue on the talk page, and we need to stick instead to improving the article.

Then join me and criticize those that claim "the debate is over" or "the science is done". Q Science (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, your link included some misleading statements: see on the ACORN statement. - Enuja (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the reference, I checked several and found no agreement on anything. Therefore I picked one with a low dollar value for NASA so I wouldn't be criticized for exaggerating. Personally, I think that if the entire stimulus package went to NASA then the entire world (not just the US economy) would be better off. Also, thanks for the ACORN link. I had been wondering about those claims. Q Science (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cite doi ...

If you create any templates that are erroneous and nobody else has edited them, just tag them with {{db-author}}. You don't need to take them to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know Q Science (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Matter interacting with electromagnetic waves

Q Science, thank you for putting your position so clearly. I have taken time off a/ to look at what you wrote in detail, b/ to write down what I know in a logical way and c/ to avoid having it wiped out, even though one can find it somewhere else! So here it is : - 1/Stefan-Boltzmann law There is a subsection “Temperature of the Earth” and it gives 279K as the temperature in the article it says “The above derivation is a rough approximation only, as it assumes the Earth is a perfect blackbody. The same equilibrium planetary temperature would result if the planet's emissivity and absorptivity were reduced by some constant fraction at all wavelengths, since the incoming and outgoing powers would still match at the same temperature (this equilibrium temperature would no longer fit the definition of effective temperature).” It has been established since Kirchhoff’s paper of 1862 that an isolated body in a radiation field reaches a temperature that is independent of its coefficients of absorption and emission, depending only on the distance from the source. It is also independent of the reflectivity and transmissivity of the body and its colour. Few peope see it this way but it is correct. There are various ways of showing this, one argument goes this way, if it wasn’t true the body would progressively cool to the CMB 2.75K or heat to the Sun’s temperature. To explain just how this “Kirchoff’s law” works, I go into considerable detail below.

Earth’s equilibrium temperature

In short the equilibrium temperature is independent of albedo and wavelength effects. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not correct. Albedo is very important. Stand in the Sun, then put a mirror between you and the sun. That is albedo, it is just a fancy word for reflection. Q Science (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"just a fancy word" Quite right, but the key point is the difference between "Absorption and Emission" and "Reflection/Scattering"; note that absorption etc. is the exchange of light energy with molecules by means of electric dipole, the molecules heat up/cool down according to the energy exchange. When light is reflected it is redirected, nothing heats up, nothing cools down. Don't forget, it is the same dipoles that do the absorption as do the emission, that is why the two coefficients are equal, true for gases liquids and solids. As you point out albedo is a fancy word for reflection, but because it takes so many forms this isn't exactly clear. When looking at something like the Earth with gas water and solids it is not easy to resolve what is reflecting and what is absorbing/emitting; I have said before that light is trapped in material with a refractive index >1, see Light extraction in LEDs, this should explain why water (70% of the Earth's surface) can never be 100% efficient radiator i.e. a black body. Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation cuts through the detail and states the A & E are equal. This isn't obvious because both reflection and A & E have wavelength dependence; you can read why in the link I gave to Kirchoff's 1860 paper where he refers to an "arbitrary" body.--Damorbel (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me take it step by step. A single molecule with an electric dipole moment, like CO2, interacts with radiation at all wavelengths, it is the electric dipole moment that experiences electromagnetic force due to the electromagnetic field of the radiation. This interaction is very similar to the working of a small electric motor or generator with a permanent magnet. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

On the first pass, this does not matter. Q Science (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

First pass? Sorry, don't understand.--Damorbel (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Absorption and emission

If the molecule temperature is 0K any incident radiation will start it vibrating at its natural resonant frequencies. At these frequencies it absorbs radiation with greater efficiency, most of them are in the IR. If the molecule is above 0K, it will be vibrating already because of thermal energy, the vibration also accelerates the electric dipole moment, the requirement for generating an electromagnetic field, i.e. it radiates. It radiates preferentially at the resonant frequency, even if it didn't resonate it would still radiate because of the thermal energy accelerations. The radiation is a way of transferring energy and, in the absence of another source of energy the molecule will lose thermal energy and cool down. In most cases the source of radiation is matter with a temperature that is higher, lower or equal to the molecular temperature. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Temperature

If there is another source of energy, let us say infrared radiation from a distant object, just one of three things can happen; if the field from the source has a higher amplitude than the field produced by the molecule, the molecule will absorb energy from the incident field and its temperature will increase. The spectral line characteristics of energy absorption in this way are called Fraunhofer lines. If the molecular field if greater than the incident field the molecule will lose energy in proportion to the difference in field amplitudes and its temperature will fall. If the molecular field and the incident field are the same the molecule neither gains nor loses energy, its temperature remains the same. You will notice that the absorption and emission depend on the frequency (wavelength) of the radiation but not the ratio, the ratio is independent of frequency. If the frequency is at a peak, both absorption and emission are easy and equal, but off peak the ratio remains just the same - unity. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If the emission and absorption lines are at different frequencies, then no energy is transferred. If the source field has a continuous blackbody spectrum (distribution), and the molecule only absorbs at specific frequencies, then there are issues. There is also an issue when the molecule absorbs at one frequency (because of the temperature of the source) and emits at another (because of its own temperature). It is not clear to me what the *ratio* is referring to.

In the case of the Earth/Sun system, the frequencies of absorption and emission are very different. Q Science (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the incoming radiation is absorbed because it interacts with the dipole in the H2O and CO2 whether it is resonating at the natural frequency or not. The same applies to emission, surely the molecular vibrational resonances (for that is what the spectral lines are) give the highest intensity but the total energy is not changed by the resonance, it merely distributes it differently in the spectrum.--Damorbel (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems logical. But it is slightly off. The molecules absorb those frequencies that are available and emit based on their temperature. Thus absorbing shortwave light produces heat. Then they emit longwave IR photons according to their temperature. They specifically do not always emit the same frequencies that they absorb. If they did, they would not get warmer. Q Science (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I am repeating myself, but for my own benefit! The Sun's radiation comes from a "hot" source which peaks in the visible. Some of this is absorbed which has the effect of heating the absorbing material. Because the "heated material" is far from the Sun, it doesn't get very warm, but that doesn't stop it radiating, however because it doesn't get very warm only the IR region is excited enough to emit. This "excitation" is sufficient to emit all the energy absorbed at shorter, visible, wavelengths.Damorbel (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, we agree on that. Q Science (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Gases

In the Earth's atmosphere gases do not have a high density, although they do not behave like isolated molecules either. An isolated molecule has a very narrow resonant line, like the Fraunhofer lines. The thermal collision processes in a more dense gas blunt the sharp peak and broaden the line from the thermal energy exchange. However gases at atmospheric pressure do not behave like black bodies, yes polar gases absorb and emit but each in its own portion of the spectrum (it really doesn't matter if the spectra overlap).

Since gases cannot emit with intensity greater than a black body at a given frequency (the excess radiation would be re-absorbed - think of the thermal emission conditions above), the limitation imposed by the spectral characteristics means that the emissivity of a gas could never be that of a black body. This is the basic interaction where absorption and emission are involved. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that gases can not emit with a greater intensity than a blackbody. I have been searching the literature for specifics on this but have not found anything. In electronics, many properties change at resonance, the most important being reactance (complex resistance, sort of). By analogy, I am not convinced that enough experiments have been run with gases. Q Science (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reflection/Scattering

The next, and very important, is the interaction with matter by reflection/scattering. For our purposes they can be treated together because they both have two very important characteristics, 1/they work independently of temperature of both the energy source and the matter doing the reflection/scattering; 2/they involve absolutely no energy exchange with the matter doing the reflection/scattering; 3/scattering by small particles results in light being reflected in various ways of which Lambertian reflectance is the most commonly considered. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that both 1 and 2 are incorrect for gases. Only certain ranges of frequencies are scattered, and the available frequencies depend on the temperature of the source. Rayleigh scattering is not Lambertian since it polarizes the light. Q Science (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure about scattering in gases except to know that absorption/emission only happens with gases having a dipole moment that can couple energy in and out of the electromagnetic field. Gases without this, O2, N2 still scatter (reflect?) as does CO2, but not very much.--Damorbel (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

All matter (including gases) reflect/scatter radiation, largely dependent on their refractive index (RI), other mechanisms are not excluded. RI is quite dependent on density so the effect seen with gases is usually just with long path lengths and small angles (see mirage). What follows is usually seen in connection with solids but it applies to gases in proportion. Because we can use rays to illustrate what is happening the description using Fresnel equations is the easiest. If you go to the link you will see that rays incident on a surface are partially transmitted and partially reflected according to strict laws. These laws are completely symmetrical; we are familiar with the light source in the low-density material (outside the lens), we also know that light, once inside the high-density part, can suffer total internal reflection. If the source of radiation is inside the high density material some of its radiant energy is trapped, this effect is well known, it occurs in swimming pools where underwater light does not escape, it has important consequences for light emitting diodes in that it tends to reduce their efficiency (Light extraction in LEDs).

Remember that the "refractive index" is not actually a constant, but is a complex function (has an imaginary part) of wavelength, temperature, polarization, and other variables. Q Science (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No contest, scattering is wavelength dependent for particle size near the wavelength of light.--Damorbel (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This optical effect traps thermal radiation and for this reason, no solid material can match the radiative efficiency of a black body. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the considerations with IR is that the wavelenght is longer than the thickness of a single layer of atoms. Q Science (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Absorption and emission in liquids and solids

The absorption/emission characteristics of liquids and solids are dependent on electric charge bound to molecules, just like gases. If the material is transparent radiation is neither absorbed nor emitted. Not all matter that does not absorb are transparent; if the matter has a granular characteristic with small particles having many air/solid interfaces the material is opaque because scattering from the small particles dominates the optical processes. NaCl can illustrate the action of electric charge in a solid. NaCl is transparent over a broad spectrum, much broader than glass, because the simple molecules are symmetrical and charge neutral. However, if you immerse a NaCl crystal of in Na vapour, the metal diffuses into the crystal and it takes on a deep blue colour.

Like gases, the absorption and emission ratio is the same for all frequencies, even though the absolute value varies through the spectrum. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Colour effects

Some colour effects in solids are due to factors other than absorption etc., these are optical effects with dimensions at optical wavelength or greater, interference and diffraction gratings come to mind. These effects are similar to the Fresnel effects mentioned previously; they also work independently of the absorption/emission process. Although they do not influence the ratio of absorption to emission, which remains unity, the spectral effects change the magnitude of absorption/emission. Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Equilibrium or not

Now we can look at the equilibrium condition. It is clear from above why absorption and emission coefficients ratio is independent of wavelength thus the temperature of a body having a shape symmetrical with respect to a radiation field is defined by the intensity (a flat shape, edge on to the Sun does not meet this condition, it will get very cold!).

Not true, see above. Also not clear. Q Science (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Take an extreme non-equilibrium condition; a body, heated by the Sun, suddenly loses its input radiation by an eclipse, for example; what happens? It will cool down. How fast? If you did not know the emissivity you would not be able to find out, even though it had been in radiative equilibrium before and you knew its temperature, all you knew was that it emissivity and absorptivity ratio was one. The body can have any emissivity, if it is radiating into deep space it will cool down and maybe we can estimate its emissivity from the the rate of cooling. You can change the emissivity in the infrared only by enclosing the body in a multi layer membrane that reflects infrared only, it will work like a thermos flask, the body heat will be retained for a long time. Alternatively you can coat it with carbon black; the sunlit temperature will be the same but when the eclipse starts it will cool very rapidly.

Yes, a thermos flask has a mirror, but more importantly there is a vacuum that stops conduction and convection. Q Science (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that is the point I am making, the Earth is in a vacuum. Here you can find the original text of Kirchhoff's law of thermal thermal radiation in his paper "On the Relation Between the Emissive and the Absorptive Power of Bodies for Heat and Light". I would like to explain why this text is convincing, I think we discussed it before, I'm not sure I made myself clear at the time but it is now part of an edit war which is rather a shame. Kirchhoff based his theory using a model with absorption and emission coefficients; when a fully working model of atomic and molecular behaviour became available the way light energy is absorbed and emitted by interacting with charge (as I describe here) greatly simplified matters, the developement of quantum mechanics enabled the understanding to go a great deal further. To go further you should read Max Planck's Nobel Prize lectureand his book, The Theory of Heat Radiation (Google preview available here). Lacking knowledge of atomic/molecular structure, Planck proposes an emission structure (for a black body) made of "Ideal Linear Oscillators" (p135); he also justifies the unity ratio for absorption/emission on thermodynamic grounds (p22 ff). Planck did not have Eintein's discovery to hand, it was his work that prompted it! The "black body assumption" so common in discussions of the GHE can only be made without knowledge of the important work of in this field Kirchhoff, Planck and Einstein. --Damorbel (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You really can't expect to defend a position using papers written in the 1700's and 1800's. However, I like the mirror experiment because it provides a way to move heat from a cold body to a hot body. It seems like an easy way to build a perpetual motion machine. The Kirchhoff paper (1866) is also interesting. Apparently, some carbonates glow at lower temperatures than predicted by the blackbody equations. He also says that gases are poor blackbody emitters. Unfortunately, I did not find what you wanted me to see, please give a page number and I will try again. Q Science (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be odd indeed to be relying on Kirchhoff's work for modern understanding. The whole point of refering to his work is to show that, like Newton, he established some physics that has stood the test of time. Surely the thread that links his work to Quantum mechanics (via Planck) shows this. What neither Planck nor Kirchhoff had the Bohr model when doing their research. I have remarked elsewhere that it is the acceleration of charges that governs the absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation (this explanation is not at all bad).

I don't want to go into Kirchoff's work in detail, surely you grasp the principle of the heating and cooling of molecules with a dipole through vibration? The problem that seems to be that this process is not related to reflection, something else I have mentioned before.--Damorbel (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The other situation is when there is a source of heat in the body, this is a little more complicated but basically this heat will be lost according to the emissivity and that will determine its temperature.

The ultimate consideration is a body with a surface that conducts electricity. Such a body absorbs and emits very little, conductors have a large number of free electrons, not part of a dipole so the do not impart motion to molecules. It is the free charges that do the reflection.

Hope this helps. I am sure there are imperfections, please be tolerant, I am looking forward to comments.--Damorbel (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You are rambling a lot. Much of this (not just the last section) has little or no connection to the greenhouse effect. You need to separate your thoughts into sun, surface, atmosphere, and then try to understand the interactions. You might find this animation helpful. Q Science (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about "rambling on". These thoughts are not about the GHE but the Earth absorbing the Sun's radiation and emitting heat to deep space. According to Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation the Earth's equilibrium temperature is about 279K independent of the albedo. He has a lot of science on his side, not from the AGW arguments, just thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. The important consideration behind Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation is that the changing of electromagnetic energy (light/IR) into heat and the reverse is a process completely different from reflection (physics).

Can you please provide a reference that supports "independent of the albedo"? It does not make sense to me. At equilibrium, watts in equals watts out and reflection (albedo) reduces watts in. Q Science (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If the ratio of absorptivity to emissivity is one, as established by Kirchhoff, Planck & co., then the the amount of light reflected (the albedo) does not affect the equilibrium temperature. --Damorbel (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If that was true, then it would not matter how far away a star is since the ratio would still be one. Q Science (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so! The intensity drops just the same with distance, that is the only thing that determines temperature (of rotating spheres, i.e. some planets). You have to put in this last condition, unless we have a perfect conductor of heat.--Damorbel (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the GHE also involves radiation, but radiation plays almost no part in regulating heat distribution in the troposphere, convection dominates. I freely acknowledge that the Earth is cooled by radiation from the so called GHGs, you can see that on the full disk pictures from weather satellites . This is the radiation at 6.2 microns from water vapour, interestingly no surface details can be seen.

In the morning, the surface is typically cooler than the local atmosphere. When there is fog, dew, frost, and the like, the heat of condensation replaces some of the heat that is lost by radiation. Before the temperature gets that low (and in the deserts, a small part of the planet), greenhouse gases return some heat to the surface. Heat distribution is provided by wind and ocean currents. Q Science (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You are probably correct. The equilibrium temperature of the planet only applies to a static situation. It is only because the Earth is turning that makes the average temperature "real". Whenever a temperature between two objects is in disequilibrium, e.g. dawn, radiation may well play a role.--Damorbel (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want this stuff on your talk page would you be so kind as to put it on mine --Damorbel (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

This will be great if it works. Thanks for figuring it out. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think it is working now :) This was a lot harder than I ever expected. The wikipedia method of renaming pages has serious problems. Q Science (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edit

Nothing in WP:WEASEL justifies removing a reliable source; it is a style guideline. If you're going to delete relevant info from a reliable source, then you need to provide a more satisfactory justification. Given the extensive objections on the talk page, and the fact that an edit-warrior was just blocked for similar actions, it might be worth discussing the issue further before continuing to revert. Honest edit summaries are also desirable; please don't claim that you are "removing unsourced information" when you are in fact deleting well-sourced information. MastCell  19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-read Weasel.

• Who says that?
• How many people think that?

There is no way that the ABC quote should be used. It is completely unsourced.

• ABC News showed Singer's most recent report on global warming to climate scientists from NASA, from Stanford University and from Princeton. They dismissed it as "fabricated nonsense."

Worded another way

• ABC News reports that an unspecified number of climate scientists from at least one of three institutions stated that ...

What am I missing? Q Science (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot. You're applying an internal Misplaced Pages style guideline to an external reliable source. ABC News makes clear who says that: climate scientists at a variety of top-notch scholarly institutions. We reflect what is in reliable sources. What you're doing seems so transparent to me that I can't totally believe that you're as oblivious as you're acting. In any case, I think it's probably worth waiting for some additional outside input to help resolve the issue; I can't express my objections to your proposed edit any more clearly than I already have. MastCell  20:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

SA

"Both Polargeo and Atmoz have bent over backwards to be civil to this troll." I'd like to see some examples of that. --Ronz (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have given all the examples that you need on SA's report. Rather than firing off "I'd like to see some examples of that." In your usual superior way I suggest you actually spend the minute or two that it would take you to find them in the talk page. However, I'm sure that is expecting too much as you came in to the talkpage with your illconceived deletion essay (showing a complete lack of knowledge of what had gone on previously) and then reverted me when my initial reaction was 'what a load of tosh!' Your superiority attitude stinks. Polargeo (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Given Polargeo's behavior, demonstrated above and elsewhere, I'd like to see what Q Science thinks is evidence of of the contrary. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case Q science has shown the ability to judge based on his/her own morals and ability and does not simply cite policy and guidelines in some superior fashion to defend his/her own weaknesses. Polargeo (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The case is that I'm asking for clarification in the form of evidence. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Polargeo's concerns about Ronz

You gave me an attack warning on my talkpage here which was based on my comment here. This is giving me an automated warning such as you would give a newbie for a comment which does not violate Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F except at the most marginal extreme as interpreted by you. I can give plenty of evidence that it is a valid criticism. You also reverted out my comment here even though it contained plenty of valid criticism of your direct argument. It appears that you are hiding behind policy to defend your own actions. Any criticism of your own actions is instantly reverted as incivility. I am so sorry that this is on Q Science’s talkpage but because you revert anything on your own talkpage, wikipedia, or article talkpages that criticises your actions directly I have no choice. Polargeo (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Posting the emails

I don't think it's appropriate to post the private emails, or links to the private emails on-wiki. Under no circumstances will the emails be suitable for use in the article unless a reliable source has commented on them. I've removed your talk page posting, per this reasoning. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that the emails are "private". When I work on government projects and use government computers, it is made VERY clear that my emails are NOT private. However, if you object to posting the exact quote, then please just summarize the tone and leave the rest of my post. I think that Trenberth has demonstrated that he is just as much a skeptic as Lindzen and the information should be included in the article. Q Science (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Emails on Fred Singer

I note your attempt to add discussion of the emails. While they are obviously "out there" in the public domain you will never be allowed to reference the directly because of WP:COPYVIO which is taken quite seriously. So unless and until they are republished in a secondary source, which is unlikely for the Singer related ones I am afraid, we should avoid them IMHO. So while I agree with what you added I don't feel right restoring it at this time based on the sources you were citing. Sorry.

Now, as for Singer's views on the subject you may find this conversation interesting, . I want to replace the World Magazine quote with the one I mentioned on the talk page because this is very clearly written by Singer himself and thus is clearly usable on his BLP. On his BLP it could even have been his own WP:SPS since he is the subject in question. --GoRight (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually had other references, but wanted to use the primary source in order to make sure that everything was in context. As for copyright violation, I quoted 5 words out of tens of thousands. "Fair use" applies. All I did was to help explain why Singer's quotes belong in that section. At any rate, Ronz can no longer claim that you are the only one that wants the quotes. Q Science (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)