Talk:Global dimming/GA1
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Chidgk1 in topic GA Reassessment
GA Reassessment edit
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- No activity to repair article and consensus that it does not meet the good article requirements
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The article is severely out of date and doesn't seem to mention the research done in the last 10 years. For instance the lead indicates there is a slight reversal of the trend quoting a 2007 source. This alone would disqualify it from being a good article.
Further comments:
- There is some uncited text,
- However some research shows that black carbon will increase global warming, being second only to CO2 -> WP:WEASEL.
- many individual studies are cited as primary sources making it unclear whether that is the scientific consensus or just a single paper,
- I don't think the geoengineering section is relevant to this article; I've never seen it in that context.
- The research section is specifically very much out-of-date and would benefit from being integrated into the main sections.
- I'm not sure "It has also been theorized that today's rapid climate change may increase volcanic activity." is relevant Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes when I read the lead of this article very briefly a few weeks ago I found it rather confusing. Perhaps I came to it from a redirect of "global brightening" whereas the linking article (I forget which) was talking about "solar brightening". I think variation in the radiation emitted by the sun needs to be clearly distinguished from variations in how much is absorbed by the atmosphere. Presumably this could be easily graphed over the past few decades from ground and satellite measurements. Also surely there must be more recent measurements over the ocean? Without a recent graph and clear explanation I don't think this article should be rated "good". Chidgk1 (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.