Sea level high stand 1,550 results Google scholar
Sea level highstand 4,610 results Google scholar
Encyclopedia of Geology
Nature
Science
Wikipedia -
You may create the page "Sea level high stand",
Interesting subjects that do not have a Wikipedia article. And might never be found on Wikipedia. People, places and things. Over time it's possible entries here might appear on Wikipedia. If you come across this most rare event, please let me know.
Total Pageviews
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
The Older Peron Submergence
Attempts to remove any data about sea level from the Older Peron article are happening. Have happened.
Image of sea level from Quaternary Sea-Level Changes: A Global Perspective
By Colin V. Murray-Wallace, Colin D. Woodroffe
Image of sea level from Quaternary Sea-Level Changes: A Global Perspective
By Colin V. Murray-Wallace, Colin D. Woodroffe
From a 1974 CIA report on Climate (concern over cooling) there is this image, based on Lamb
No doubt based on a blog entry here, Bob and company at Wikipedia have tried to remove any reference to higher sea levels during the Older Peron, in essence changing the past (but only on Wikipedia). The first edit happened right after his comments on that blog post.
Thankfully they have no power to remove the thousands of references and papers from the rest of the world.
Actual Science, something often lacking on Wikipedia.
And to be sure, I won't be mentioning other scientific pages on Wikipedia in the future, since this allows the vandals to find where to remove information.
Monday, July 28, 2014
JB Sigwart, Louis Frank or the "small comet" theory
No article for JB Sigwart, John B. Sigwart, Louis Frank or the "small comet" theory
Which didn't actually surprise me. The official small comet page at the University of Iowa.
The ultimate test proved the reality of the holes, but to this day the observations are denied, or not mentioned, or something. I don't actually know. Everything went quiet back in 2001 after the proof was undeniable.
Certainly there are good reasons to deny it's small comets, as noted on this NASA page. (1997) But what are they? And why is there no entry on Wikipedia? Most odd. Tempting to start the articles, but experience has shown what a pain in the ass that would become. Until the articles were all deleted.
Which didn't actually surprise me. The official small comet page at the University of Iowa.
The ultimate test proved the reality of the holes, but to this day the observations are denied, or not mentioned, or something. I don't actually know. Everything went quiet back in 2001 after the proof was undeniable.
Certainly there are good reasons to deny it's small comets, as noted on this NASA page. (1997) But what are they? And why is there no entry on Wikipedia? Most odd. Tempting to start the articles, but experience has shown what a pain in the ass that would become. Until the articles were all deleted.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Watt per square meter
Does not exist on Wikipeida
And it's not because it's missing an "s"
Watts per square meter does not exist.
It is the SI unit for the power of electromagnetic radiation per unit area (radiative flux) incident on a surface. Radiant emittance or radiant exitance is the power per unit area radiated by a surface.
So it a measuremnt of the power either landing on or leaving a surface,
And it's not because it's missing an "s"
Watts per square meter does not exist.
It is the SI unit for the power of electromagnetic radiation per unit area (radiative flux) incident on a surface. Radiant emittance or radiant exitance is the power per unit area radiated by a surface.
So it a measuremnt of the power either landing on or leaving a surface,
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Reliable fact based articles that involve "warming" in any way
I've noticed the terrible bias about anything global warming on Wikipedia many times on this blog. Sometimes it's so blatant, so wrong, I'm tempted to edit and fix something, but that usually involves some ignorant person (who may have added the info in the first place) changing it back, or worse. So instead, this blog post. (I may go change it later, and note what happens)
Today I was reading the Juneau Icefield and Mendenhall Glacier articles. The glacier article says
" including Mendenhall Glacier. The glacier has also receded 1.75 miles (2.82 km) since 1958"
The Juneau Icefield article says "On the west side of the icefield, from 1946-2009, the terminus of the Mendenhall Glacier has retreated over 700 metres (0.43 mi)".
Obviously both can't be true. Looking at a scientific source about it I find "Mendenhall Glacier has retreated 2800 meters since 1910 and 580 meters since 1948." source
The Mendenhall Glacier article doesn't have a single reference that states scientific measurements of it. It does include
"Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature". Retrieved 17 October 2013.
"Climate Change: Basic Information". Retrieved 17 October 2013.
Neither of which are scientific sources of information on the glacier. Neither source even mentions the Mendenhall Glacier.
Today I was reading the Juneau Icefield and Mendenhall Glacier articles. The glacier article says
" including Mendenhall Glacier. The glacier has also receded 1.75 miles (2.82 km) since 1958"
The Juneau Icefield article says "On the west side of the icefield, from 1946-2009, the terminus of the Mendenhall Glacier has retreated over 700 metres (0.43 mi)".
Obviously both can't be true. Looking at a scientific source about it I find "Mendenhall Glacier has retreated 2800 meters since 1910 and 580 meters since 1948." source
The Mendenhall Glacier article doesn't have a single reference that states scientific measurements of it. It does include
"Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature". Retrieved 17 October 2013.
"Climate Change: Basic Information". Retrieved 17 October 2013.
Neither of which are scientific sources of information on the glacier. Neither source even mentions the Mendenhall Glacier.
Friday, July 4, 2014
Dynamic theory of tides
Used to be there, but thanks to the ceasless efforts of some Wikipedians, it is no longer found. Even the article on tides, which it redirects to, no longer mentions the theory.
The well written and well sourced article is still available on a user page.
Reddit page with animation of the nodal points
The well written and well sourced article is still available on a user page.
Reddit page with animation of the nodal points
Entire blog about the tides (highly recommended)
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
The CO2 Theory (Enhanced greenhouse theory of global warming)
Not found on Wikipedia
The CO2 theory is the theory called global warming theory, or Anthropogenic climate change, or Anthropogenic Global Warming, (AGW), or the Enhanced greenhouse theory of global warming, or the greenhouse theory of climate change, or CO2 Theory of Global Warming or the Enhanced greenhouse effect theory of climate change , or The greenhouse warming theory, or the CO2 Thesis, none of which have entries on Wikipedia.
CO2 thesis
It's not that they are not used on Wikipeida, they just don't have articles, definitions, or discussion pages on how to improve the article about them. Here it is used by Hansen in Hansen et al 1981
.
The CO2 theory is the theory called global warming theory, or Anthropogenic climate change, or Anthropogenic Global Warming, (AGW), or the Enhanced greenhouse theory of global warming, or the greenhouse theory of climate change, or CO2 Theory of Global Warming or the Enhanced greenhouse effect theory of climate change , or The greenhouse warming theory, or the CO2 Thesis, none of which have entries on Wikipedia.
CO2 thesis
It's not that they are not used on Wikipeida, they just don't have articles, definitions, or discussion pages on how to improve the article about them. Here it is used by Hansen in Hansen et al 1981
Hansen et al 1981, another thing not found on Wikipedia.
Hansen et al 1981 (dead link). see here https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)