How horrible is Wikipedia really? (concrete examples, please)

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

It’s much strange.

Even more so the furious tap dancing that happens when you simply point this fact out.

It was already explained in post #114. And the reason why the Spencer angle was needed to be discussed is precisely because that virtually emeritus scientist was pointed in context with the Wikipedia issue as a cite to follow, then to me it is no wonder why the critics of Wikipedia - on this subject - are not making much progress there.

[Rick_Kitchen]

@FXMastermind

Of course none of that deals with the complete lack of “The greenhouse warming theory” on Wikipedia.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#S2

Or what hansen calls “the CO2 theory”.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

It’s also called the “Callendar effect”, which is yet another name for the theory, which no longer appears on Wikipedia, but of course it once did.

Guy Stewart Callendar - Wikipedia

As I said, it’s a concrete example of when Wikipedia can be horrible. While Spencer has no trouble explaining the theory, it never is explained on Wikipedia, under any name. Even the original name, the “greenhouse-effect theory” has no article. It doesn’t even appear on the article for Arrhenius! How is that even possible? The name “greenhouse effect theory” isn’t some obscure misunderstood term.

Same for Hansen’s use of the “CO2 theory”. Yet they simply do not have an article, not even a redirect to the global warming theory. Remember, the word theory does not even appear in the global warming article there.

It’s much strange.

Even more so the furious tap dancing that happens when you simply point this fact out.

I don’t understand your complaint. There is clearly an article at greenhouse effect - Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

[FXMastermind]

@jimbuff314

I think he meant “missing carbon sink” and he is correct. The term “missing sink” does only appear in Reference #7.

Consequently, so much for that article, eh?

Yes, but is it because all the editors are idiots? Or has someone removed any mention of it? I mean, it appears in a source, but not the article. How strange. Just like the global warming theory, why would it be missing?

@GIGObuster

Many times I told him that the context clearly shows that the thing is explained even if the term is not in the article,

If this were true, then it would be child’s play to simply prove it.

Of course you can’t, which is why it’s a concrete example.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Yes, but is it because all the editors are idiots? Or has someone removed any mention of it? I mean, it appears in a source, but not the article. How strange. Just like the global warming theory, why would it be missing?

If this were true, then it would be child’s play to simply prove it.

Of course you can’t, which is why it’s a concrete example.

As BigT mentioned, the whole article does (and in the Greenhouse Gases section), but it is much easier for you to just look for your semantic games.

In any case, by mentioning Spencer the critics of Wikipedia (regarding this issue) did give the game away. It is no wonder to me why in this case the Wikipedia guardians are so harsh.

[FXMastermind]

You claimed the missing carbon sink was explained, even when not mentioned by name. Show us.

I mean, it should be easy as pie.

Same for basic global warming theory. Just quote and link.

It’s not hard to do.

@BigT

The entire theory is described in the article.

I asked you to quote it, you never answered. Why is that?

The good correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature strongly supports the link that is predicted from basic global warming theory.

Global Warming in a Nutshell

Show us the theory on Wikipedia.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

You claimed the missing carbon sink was explained, even when not mentioned by name. Show us.

I mean, it should be easy as pie.

Same for basic global warming theory. Just quote and link.

It’s not hard to do.

I asked you to quote it, you never answered. Why is that?

Just games, and there are reasons why it is that deniers prefer to continue to talk about missing sinks*, in reality most scientists do think there is not much left missing.

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0708/full/climate.2007.35.html
*reason being that, as in the case of water vapor being a feedback and the “missing” carbon sink, contrarians do depend on ignoring the published science. No wonder Wikipedia has them behind the 8 ball.

[FXMastermind]

NASA is launching the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 to solve the missing carbon mystery

According to the experts of Wikipedia, there isn’t any missing carbon, no missing sink, and especially no mention of either on Wikipedia.

Horrible

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

NASA is launching the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 to solve the missing carbon mystery

According to the experts of Wikipedia, there isn’t any missing carbon, no missing sink, and especially no mention of either on Wikipedia.

Horrible

Not quite, the issue is not much about missing sinks, but how the sinks are distributed and how much they actually absorb from the totals that it is known that is not being absorbed, it is very important to know how the sinks behave and the capture levels of all the identified sinks because then we should know what things to do to help increase specific sinks or to prevent their degradation. The big picture however continues to show that the sinks out there are not helping change the observed increases of CO2 in the atmosphere, one of the big reasons why OCO-2 was launched was to see if the sinks are reversing as some fear.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/#

CO2 is a constituent of the Earth’s atmosphere. We know that CO2 is one of several gases that trap heat near the surface of the Earth. These gases are known as greenhouse gases. Many scientists have concluded that substantial increases in the abundance of CO2 will generate an increase in the Earth’s surface temperature.
Since the beginning of the industrial age, the concentration of CO2 has increased from about 280 parts per million to about 400 parts per million (ppm) to date. In May 2013, the Mauna Loa Observatory measured a record 400 parts per million in CO2, for the first time ever in human history. Furthermore, a global network of ground-based measurement sites has observed an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration by almost 20% over the past 50 years - the most dramatic change that we have ever seen in human history. The amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere through human activities, according to the Global Carbon Project (GCP), has been steadily climbing; and the level was over at over 30 billion metric tons in 2005.

The world’s oceans, plants and soils on land, and numerous other less significant carbon pools within the global carbon cycle steadily absorb carbon and are called sinks. They serve to reduce the amount of CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. However, the geographic distributions of carbon uptakes by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems are still uncertain. In addition, the effectiveness and efficiency of these sinks may change over time as more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere and, therefore, warrant study.

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

Not quite, the issue is not much about missing sinks,

Yes, the issue of WP being horrible is exactly about the missing sinks missing from Wikipedia.

You claimed just because the name wasn’t used, the article still explained the matter. You are wrong of course.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

Yes, the issue of WP being horrible is exactly about the missing sinks missing from Wikipedia.

You claimed just because the name wasn’t used, the article still explained the matter. You are wrong of course.

Nope, you are, I was not the one that talked about it. My comment was regarding the sour grapes people like you have about Wikipedia regarding this issue.

Be as it may, even on this issue you are also wrong as NASA explained looking for missing sinks was not the priority, it was to check where and how much each of the sinks is working separately, the big picture still shows that all those sinks are not good enough to control the human releases of global warming gases.

[Acsenray]

The craziest thing about Wikipedia is that primary sources can be killed as “original research,” meaning that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, even when they are contradicted by primary sources.

[FXMastermind]

@Acsenray

The craziest thing about Wikipedia is that primary sources can be killed as “original research,” meaning that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, even when they are contradicted by primary sources.

Even worse, you can’t actually say anything word for word from a source, you have to create original text, based on the sources. While original research is absolutely against the “rules”, everything has to be original wording. You can’t repeat what a source states.

[FXMastermind]

For example, you can’t just take all the official records of temperature data for the arctic region, put them all on a page, and create a page called “the temperature record of the arctic”. And list all the sources of the data. That is against the rules.

It would be original research.