Total Pageviews

Friday, May 24, 2013

How Magnets Work

OK being the repository of the worlds knowledge, you might think this one would be on Wikipedia.

You would be wrong.

If you type it in you get a horrible choice between the the Insane Clown Posse song Miracles and the article called Magnet.  

There is no page called How Magnets Work.  Not even a redirect to someplace that explains this. would probably be the best place for a redirect.

Using a search engine online should answer the question, if your question is actually "How is a magnetic field created?" From
How is a magnetic field created?
When current flows in a wire, a magnetic field is created around the wire. From this it has been inferred that magnetic fields are produced by the motion of electrical charges.
But what most people want to know is how does a magnet attract certain metals?  Or, how does a magnet attract or repel another magnet?  What is happening in the space between magnets that causes them to act as they do?

Tuesday, May 21, 2013



Mind blown.  There is no article for skeptic.  So of course I check atheist.

You won't find skeptic or atheist on Wikipedia.  How is that even possible?

Monday, May 20, 2013

meta musings

Do you know of something not found on Wikipedia? Do you care?  Would you start a blog to document these things?

Thursday, May 16, 2013

The "Skeptical Movement"

I know it exists.  In fact it is used on Wikipedia (and elsewhere), but there is no definition or article for it on Wikipedia.

What is the Skeptical Movement?  Usually I link to at least one good source for something not found on Wikipedia.   This one seems to not have a definition that is scientific in nature.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Temperature of the sun

You won't find the Temperature of the sun on Wikipedia.

This isn't a mystery, as nobody actually knows the temperature of the sun.

 Not that there isn't a lot of speculation and information about the sun, and the various temperatures involved.

The center might be around 15,700,000 kelvin, the Photosphere we are pretty sure about is exactly 5,778 kelvin, and the Corona around 5,000,000 kelvin.  (which means the temperature rises as you leave the surface, a lot)

This all has to be true, because it is on the Wikipedia article.

It still doesn't tell us the temperature of the sun. But this is understandable. as nobody knows the temperature of the Earth either.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Evidence Based Science

Evidence Based Science has no entry on Wikipedia. (I made it up years ago, after seeing the term, Evidence-based medicine being used).

Evidence-based medicine is defined as "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients".

Makes you wonder, what other criteria would be used in making decisions about patient care? Money? Profit? Guessing?

 Not going to go there.

 However, many years ago I started a blog about Evidence Based Science but you won't find it on Wikipedia either.  I did find 14 instances of the term evidence based science being used on Wikipedia.  It's just never defined there.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Winter of 1933-34

This one might exist somewhere, but it's certainly not showing up.

Winter of 1933-34

Nobody can argue there wasn't a winter, and it's certainly notable.  It was by far the coldest winter in the north east United States, since records have been kept.  It was notable in New England and New York for the devastating effects on the apples. source source source source

Do winters show up on Wikipedia?  Yes, yes they do. which redirects to certainly exist. does not.

Winter of 2009-10 in the US?  No.

Does Winter of 1933-34 exist on Wikpedia?

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Theory of Evolution

It may be hard to fathom, but there is no article for Theory of Evolution.  Instead you get redirected to Evolution, which is like typing in Theory of Gravity and finding there is no article. (there isn't)

Nor is there an article called "Newton's theory of gravity".  But back to "theory of evolution", which certainly must have at one time had an article.  (there was)

The original article created back in 2001 is simple and straightforward.

theory of evolution is an attempt to scientifically explain how evolution occurs. There are countless theories of evolution, many of which are compatible with one another. Others, such as Lamarck's theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, have been falsified. 
In popular usage, "the" theory of evolution refers to the various theories proposed by Charles Darwin, notably the theory of common descent, and the theory of evolution by natural selection. It also refers to the modern Darwinian theory that combines evolutionary theory with the science of genetics.

To the point, and exactly what you would expect when trying to find out what "theory of evolution" means.
Of course somebody may have been looking for "Darwin's theory of evolution", when they typed "theory of evolution.".  But,   there isn't an article for "Darwin's theory of evolution". It redirects to "Darwinism".

 No, I am not making any of this up.

A blog that linked to the post The Holocene transgression (and global sea level). does not appear on Wikipedia.

Neither does mandyjo

Evolution denial

The phrase Evolution denial leads to an article called Creation–evolution controversy, so there is no page called Evolution denial.

So Global warming denial should lead to the article Global warming controversy, right?

Not on Wikipedia.  It will go to Climate Change denial.  (like there is some weird controversy over the very issue of climate changing)

The first line dissuades anyone who might be confused.
Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming,
So it's really a global warming article, or something.  The first version (2007) probably will make more sense.
Climate change denial refers to the claim that anthropogenic climate change or global warming has not taken place to the extent or in the manner agreed upon by current scientific consensus
Obviously common sense would tell us it should be part of the Global Warming Controversy.  Except the article on that says
" Many of the largely settled scientific issues, such as the human responsibility for global warming, remain the subject of politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them – an ideological phenomenon categorised by academics and scientists as climate change denial."
So there isn't really any controversy over global warming.  Facts, something often not found on Wikipedia.


Wikigroaning will probably  NEVER be found on Wikipedia.

Hope springs eternal. (Truthiness used to be forbidden, but now it has an article)

There is a way to see what used to be in Wikipedia.  Unless there is a deletion, the history files will show what somebody doesn't want you to read on Wikipedia.

The first Wikigroaning entry (2007)

'Wikigroaning is a term, coined in June 2007, to describe "the art of highlighting Wikipedia's bias toward things that don't matter".[1]. The practitioner "think[s] up two similar topics, one being of genuine historical or social relevance, and the other being useless to everyone but a small coterie of fans", and then compares the length of their respective Wikipedia entries.[1] A good example would be a comparison of Wikipedia's entry on knight with that on Jedi knight. The term was invented by the website Something Awful in an article entitled "The art of Wikigroaning".[2].

Smoker box

A Smoker box is a metal box filled with wood chips to give a smoke flavor to foods.  It's one of many articles deleted from Wikipedia.  (it should at least be a redirect to the Barbecue Grill article) You will find it described as "A small metal box containing wood chips may be used on a gas grill to give a smoky flavor to the grilled foods".

Or you can use Google and Google images

Just another thing not on Wikipedia.  .Yes, a small group of somebody actually felt it was important to delete  the Smoker box. (not simply change it to a redirect)

So now if somebody types in "Smoker Box" on Wikipedia it asks "did you mean smother box".  Which is an article that is not notable, pornographic in nature, and unlike a smoker box, not even in existence.

See Wikigroaning (which is also something not found on Wikipedia)

Effects of contrails

While there is an article "Effects of Global warming", oddly enough there isn't one for "Effects of contrails".

It's odd because contrails are a known and measurable factor in changing the atmosphere and heat balance of the planet.  See Google scholar

Also, the article Effects of Global warming does not include the term contrails.

It does use CO2 13 times.

There is an article about the Environmental impact of the coal industry, but not one for Environmental impact of contrails.

(edit) Found it under Environmental effect of aviation 

An obvious redirect is in order.

Ship trails

Ship trails are clouds produced by ships at sea, polluting the atmosphere. A redirect to ship tracks would be easy enough to add to Wikipedia.

While one of the sources for the Ship tracks article is Twomey, S. (1977). "The Influence of Pollution on the Shortwave Albedo of Clouds". J. Atmos. Sci. 34 (7): 1149–1152.

You won't find "pollution" in the Wikipedia article.
On average, polluted clouds reflect more sunlight than their unaffected counterparts.


Large linguistic group of Native people of Peru. Now included under  the
Cahuapanan languages.

Mainan and Mainas should redirect to

CONCERT campaign

The CONCERT campaign  (CONtrail and Cirrus ExpeRimenT) was a scientific study of contrails conducted in 2008. No article on Wikipedia.

Microphysical and radiative Properties of Contrails detected during the Aircraft Mission CONCERT 2008 (CONtrail and Cirrus ExpeRimenT)

Christiane Voigt, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, DLR, Oberpfaffenhofen, Wessling, Germany; and U. Schumann, P. Jessberger, A. Petzold, H. Schlager, F. Holzäpfel, A. Dörnbrack, J. F. Gayet, and M. Krämer

Large uncertainties remain in the assessment of the climate impact from contrails, in part as reliable in-situ measurements of conrails are rare. To this end contrails from a series of aircraft were probed with the DLR research aircraft Falcon during the CONCERT campaign in November 2008 over Europe. During this campaign, the Falcon was equipped with instruments to measure the particle size distribution, extinction and particle shape as well as trace gas distributions of NO, NOy, H2O, CO and O3.

During 5 mission flights contrails were probed at altitudes between 9 and 11.6 km and temperatures between 213 K and 229 K near and slightly below ice saturation. 22 contrails from 11 different aircraft with ages below 10 minutes were detected in the vortex and early dispersion regime. In particular we present new observations of the contrail from a large aircraft (A380). The evolution of the A380 contrail within the first 6 minutes of its lifetime will be discussed. Based on our measurements we investigate the impact of the aircraft type on microphysical and radiative properties of young contrails.

Further, the specific climate impact from each of the measured contrail cases is assessed with the help of a new contrail cirrus prediction tool (CoCiP). The model computes the integral of the radiative forcing of the contrail over the computed life-time of the contrail and is tested with the detected contrails. It will be shown that the climate impact of contrails depends on both aircraft and meteorological parameters.

Kinetic event

Kinetic event doesn't have an entry.  In the past I would have put a redirect to the article Word of the Year where you would find under

Most Euphemistic

2010kinetic event (Pentagon term for violent attacks on troops in Afghanistan)


A show about science and story telling.

The Climate Wars (or Climate war)

The Climate Wars is not an article on Wikipedia. Neither is climate war. But if you search for either you will find plenty of articles that use the terms.

Yet another thing that is both not found and found on Wikipedia.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Beautiful writing

No, not an entry called Beautiful Writing, just beautiful writing in general.

The great encyclopedias were carefully crafted, edited and written by professional writers, often some of the best minds who studied a subject, but almost always the writing was beautiful.  I picked an example at random to compare with Wikipedia.

Encyclopedia Britannica
Luther, Martin (1483-1546), the great German religious reformer, was born on Nov, 10, 1483, at Eisleben, in the county of Mansfield, wither his parents, Hans Luther and Margaret Ziegler, who belonged to the free peasant class, had migrated from Mohra, in Thuringia..

Martin Luther (German: [ˈmaɐ̯tiːn ˈlʊtɐ] ( listen); 10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was a German monk, former Catholic priest, professor of theology and seminal figure of a reform movement in sixteenth century Christianity, subsequently known as the Protestant Reformation.[1] 

I looked at many articles to compare the writing, and Wikipedia is often blunt, ugly and drab, even repulsive to read at times.  It is the language of a mob, rather than a great mind.  

Because beauty exists in the eye of the beholder, this is, of course, my opinion.  Another thing you will never find on Wikipedia.  You will however, find that I'm entitled to it.

Climate History (Climatic History)

If you open up an old  Encyclopedia and look up "Climatic History", you will find an article on climate history.

Not on Wikipedia.

The redirect for Climate History  goes to "Temperature record", and that article is an obvious piece promoting something, It is not an article on either climate history, or the history of climate.

In fact, the article Temperature record article does not even contain the phrase "ice ages".  It only contains the word "rainfall" once, and only to tell you how uncertain it is to connect it to temperature.  Unlike an encyclopedia, it doesn't even mention "wetter" or "drier", two words used a lot in talking about climate history.

There are a lot of things missing from Wikipedia, but the climate history of our planet?  How does that happen?

Deaths at Burning Man

Nobody can ever die at Burning Man.

While Burning Man is obviously an article on Wikipedia, it does not contain the word "died", "deaths" or "killed", much less any mention of anyone who died at the event.  The article does include the word "death" twice, but neither instance is about anyone who died there.  If you believe Wikipedia, nobody has ever died at Burning Man. If you listen to people who actually know about Burning Man, like 9 Ways to die at Burning Man, it's understandable the Burning Man Corporation would want everyone to believe there has never been a single death there.

If you don't want to read that link, the technical reason nobody can ever die there,  it's because you can only be declared dead at Reno, the closest city.  Even if you commit suicide at Burning Man (it has happened) your death will be in Reno.

Another thing you will not find on Wikipedia.

The Ice Age Floods Institute

Was looking at the The Ice Age Floods Institute website, and checked Wikipedia for background information on it. and while it is used as a source for many articles on Wikipeida, it is not found on Wikipedia.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Why this blog?

It's easier and faster than adding new items to Wikipedia (something I have done now for almost a decade).

Some things can't be added because there are no sources that meet the mysterious guidelines of Wikipedia.

Also I hate dealing with idiots there, who want to delete information.

Why this blog? Mostly because I enjoy it.  And it allows a place to store links and info that isn't on Wikipedia.  My own private Idaho

The Schwan Glacier, Alaska

Another huge glacier not found on Wikipedia.  Popular with snowboarders and skiers, who have to be flown to it by helicopter.  These ski guides have reported that it is growing (2013).

22 articles on Google Scholar
About 2,980 results on Google
Video of going down it
Images of Glacier
Cool landslide onto the glacier

Friday, May 3, 2013

The Holocene transgression (and global sea level)

During the Holocene climatic optimum there was a time when global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average. (source) Temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees warmer than present. (source)

This called the Holocene Transgression. It took place at various times in different areas, but scientific studies of it call it the Holocene transgression. For example
To establish a chronology of the Holocene transgression in Arctic Siberia,
Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii
Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

Google Scholar lists over three thousand papers, including 1,810 that include the term "sea level".

But an article about the Holocene Transgression is not found on Wikipedia. The maximum sea level rise during the Holocene climatic optimum is called the maximum Holocene transgression, an example is shown here
The altimetric correlation between the base of the beach ridge dated at 6055 ± 20 YBP and the inner margin of the corresponding marine terraces allowed us to constrain the maximum Holocene marine transgression to about 3 to 2 m above sea level.
 Here is another example in the following evidence based science paper.
A detailed ecological, micro-structural and skeletal Sr/Ca study of a 3.42 m thick Goniopora reef profile from an emerged Holocene reef terrace at the northern South China Sea reveals at least nine abrupt massive Goniopora stress and mortality events occurred in winter during the 7.0–7.5 thousand calendar years before present (cal. ka BP) (within the Holocene climatic optimum).
 Sea level rose by ∼3.42 m during this period, with present sea-level reached at ∼7.3 ka BP and a sea-level highstand of at least ∼1.8 m occurred at ∼7.0 ka.
Google Scholar has 5,869 papers about it.

It's considered by scientists who study our planet to be a factual thing. In essence it was the highest sea level rise in the last 100,000 years.

 You might not be able to read about it on Wikipedia, (it does appear in the Holocene climatic optimum article). The article on the  Older Peron  was fairly good, and explains the sea level, but since this blog post was edited to remove any hint that there was a higher sea level during the Older Peron .  The article on the Holocene Maximum doesn't mention sea level at all.  Nor does the article on sea level mention the Holocene transgression, or the higher sea level that we know happened.

The sea level change is one of the strongest reasons for knowing the Holocene climatic optimum occurred. Also the remains of trees above the current treeline, lake sediments, ice cores and other evidence support a much warmer period 9,000 to 5,000 years ago, and at some point it was as warm as it would get. There was much less ice and the oceans were higher. You can actually see this high level here in the image

 Like many things not found on Wikipedia, it's fascinating and interesting.  There are raised beaches worldwide that provide irrefutable evidence of the higher sea level, and this has been known for a very long time. (source, Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1956 edition)

But you won't find that fact on Wikipedia either.

Some of the water came from the Hans Tausen Iskappe, which didn't exist during the climactic optimum.   The history of our planet is very interesting. The climate history is very interesting.

While there is an article on Paleoclimatology, it doesn't mention the Holocene transgression, the climactic optimum, or the sea level that occurred because of it.

You won't find an article about the History of Climate or Climate History on Wikipedia, but that is another entry.

The maximum sea level rise at any point is called the Holocene sea-level highstand, That's another term you won't find an article for on Wikipedia.

For example, from the Journal of Sedimentary Research, Section A: Sedimentary Petrology and Processes

Vol. 70 (2000), No. 3. (May), Pages 478-490
Responses of Stable Bay-Margin and Barrier-Island Systems to Holocene Sea-Level Highstands, Western Gulf of Mexico
 Independent evidence from studies of geodynamic, climatic, and glacio-eustatic processes can explain the mid-Holocene highstands and late Holocene lowering of sea level that is observed in tectonically stable coastal regions far from former centers of glaciation.

(edited July 2014) Like all things Wikipedia, the information on Wikipedia can change.  Anytime, by anyone.  Since
this original blog entry the Older Peron was changed to remove relevant data by an account
 that only made two edits to Wikipedia.  Both edits were to gut the Older Peron article.

Meanwhile, back in the world of science

Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits
Sea level paper

Image of Holocene climatic optimum

Sycamore Spring Reservoir AZ

Sycamore Reservoir, and Sycamore Dam, also called Sycamore Spring Reservoir (map) (map)

A wondrous place not found on Wikipedia.  The old dam was built to supply water to a prison camp built on Mt Lemon AZ

Nice picture here

Google maps wide view

Google maps close up

Google street view of entrance to the area

edited June 1 2016