Talk:Cloud formation and climate change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

starting point ofr exapnsion of article:[edit]

It looks like this site: http://www.wildlandschool.net/proj/clouds/History%20of%20Clouds.htm might be of use for giving those editors interested in expanding this article some keywords to use. It's a student site, so probably fails WP:RS on its own merits, but makes for a great intro. ThuranX 16:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

the site just seems to give general info on clouds and I couldnt find the word nepholog-- once....
???? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, that's why i said it's a good LAUNCHING point. I suggested reading it and using it as a way to get a toehold ont he subject matter, then use that to expand your google-fu, or heck, even go to a real library. ThuranX 00:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion for further research, if someone can find a copy of this book: http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Personal/Books/Hamblyn-Invention-Clouds/. ThuranX 00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, having looked the book up, it is a biography for Luke Howard, rather than a historical account of nephology. --Flunkybiscuits 08:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

nephology[edit]

As a branch of meteorology, this sems to be a rare usage; it's much more commonly found as a medical discipline (see, for example, Googgle hits for "Department of Nephology. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of those are obviously misspelled Nephrology, but perhaps this article really should be deleted if the usage is that rare. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[Smacks head] Doh! Of course it's a misspelling — I should have spotted that. I think that the article probably needs to be a redirect to cloud (or even to nephrology...). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

sources and edit conflict[edit]

In re the edit conflict--I didn't keep your formatting because I'd kinda just replaced the text--but I do think the spacing you wanted is there Flunkybiscits--if not, please fix it.

I did not really have too much trouble finding sources, though I will say this--there are a LOT of people out there who can't spell. I think one of the problems with finding sources, is that I think we depend too much on the web, and that since this is mainly a historical term, people out there aren't producing new material and uploading old material onto the web. I think we'd probably find different things if we went to some libraries and did research the old fashion way.

If people still think that this isn't enough info or isn't notable enough, then I'd like the following to be done before this article is turned into a redirect (and it should be turned into one to Cloud, not Nephrology--we shouldn't pander to people's inability to type or spell).

I think that first off, the decision should be made by the Wiki Meteorology Project people--people who know the subject far more thoroughly then we do and who can say--yes, it isn't notable, not by doing a websearch, but because they know the material and don't find it to fit WP:notable.

I also think that a genuine attempt at doing real research (not a few web searches) should be made. That's hard, I know--I have real research to do for a lot of things and it takes forever because I have a real life--I don't get paid for this. But as it stands, the article provides real information about the topic, links to the topic it would be merged to, links to other important topics, and so keeping it a stub while we wait for real research isn't a problem. Also, I've already provided a link to an article thereby proving that it is WP:notable. I'll do more research online later today or tomorrow. Btw, for people who are interested in adding to this article etc--google is not the place I'd go. I did use search engines, but I found google to be patently unhelpful. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Given what's been found about the word so far (that it's a short-lived term, no longer used), I can't honestly see the point of keeping it as anything but a redirect (though the information about it should be merged with Cloud first). It clearly doesn't refer to a separate concept, but is simply a synonym for "cloud science", and there's therefore nothing more to be said about it. (In fact, Wictionary might be the best place for it.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's a place for this information in Cloud, and while I do agree that the wiktionary entry on this should be expanded, I'd still like to hold off on this. I found reading the bit I could find online in the time I had fascinating. Just because it's a historical term no longer used doesn't me it's not notable. If you look at some of the stuff from the OED and one of the articles I mentioned, it's clear that this was a term that was used when the science was expanding and has a specific place in it's own right, seperate from that of Cloud and Meteorology. It fits WP:Notable as is anyway, so I don't see why the addition of content that showed that and in my opinion showed that it was more than a word that meant "cloud science" is a reason to make it a redirect. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought that an article on clouds wou;ld be an appropriate place to mention that the study of clouds was once called "nephology", but that this has now fallen out of fashion. Meteorology would, of course, be another possibility for merging and redirecting.

You seem to misunderstand my point about the term: the concept is notable — the word is just a word, and we're not a dictionary, so the notability of words isn't the point here. It deserves to be mentioned somewhere, but there are no grounds for a separate article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that there's sufficient historical context for the development of the field of study. I'm not sure how much is readily at hand, but the site I put up above indicates there's enough for a few paragraphs, and that's certainly enough to qualify. ThuranX
Again, that's not about the term "nephology", but about the history of cloud science; very interesting, but nothing to do with whether there should be an article here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 07:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the point is is that the study of clouds and nephology are not necessarily synonamous. Nephology as a dictionary term specifically means the study of clouds, but it was only used for a short period of time during which this study was really developing. Besides, we have encyclopia articles on words and how they develop and how the meaning changes and when they fall out of use and that's not something that belongs at wiktionary. And nephology is mentioned in the Cloud article, but anything more than it's current mention doesn't belong there. It's a well written article on clouds--the history of the study of clouds--nephology being that or seperate from that doesn't really belong there. Besides, I don't understand why we couldn't have an article on the study of clouds, and how the science changed over time--the article I added addresses part of that, and we could use resources from a wide array of time. We could also address the term, when it came into use and when it fell out of popular use. But such an article really wouldn't be located anywhere else as even though the term nephology has fallen out of popular use, no other term has replaced it, AFAIK. Anyway, the way I see this, this article could take several encyclopedic directions, and redirecting it seems to be a cop out. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Miss Mondegreen, how do you get to the conclusion that nephology is not synonymous to the 'study of clouds'? As a native speaker of Greek, I cannot come up with any other meaning for the word nephology. While researching did you find any other uses for the word? --Flunkybiscuits 10:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that it didn't mean that, I don't think it has another meaning, but it's only used for a certain period in time, while the study of clouds exists for a longer period of time. As a word in the English language, it is synonymous with "study of clouds", but in terms of the field, and from a historical perspective, I think it's quite different, it's more than that--please note though, this is only the sense I'm getting, from the little on Nephology I've seen. If you look at the sources I added to the article and read them, hopefully you'll get a sense of what I'm saying. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   13:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Having read the article from the 1906 journal (the source you are quotting)very carefully, I still cannot see how you get the impression that nephology is any more than the study of clouds. To my understanding, what this particular article suggests is that 'La revue nephologique'(a belgian nephological review journal) will appeal to an audience wider than metereologists. It does not say that the actual word 'nephology' is anything more than the study of clouds. Please note that this does not mean that I want the nephology entry deleted. All I am saying is that if we are to expand the article, we need to be careful of not duplicating stuff that is either in the 'cloud' article or in the 'list of cloud types' article. Maybe we should leave only the generic stuff on the cloud article and move all the scientific categorization to the 'nephology' one. What do you think? --Flunkybiscuits 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't quoting it actually--just quote marks around a phrase. My point about the article was that it is a good historical document. I never said that the word meant anything more. I'm saying two things. One, that the word has meaning in a historical context only for the most part as it's really not used today. Which means that we can write about how it came into use, and how it fell out of use and how the field continues etc. Oddly enough, there's almost more that can be written about a word once it is now longer used sometimes and I think that's the case here. The other thing we can do is write an article about the study of clouds, and include in there information on the actual word itself. I'd be hesitant to do anything to the article Cloud--it's an FA article and so I wouldn't mess with it. But I don't think that an article on the study of clouds would duplicate such information. The most it would would be by mentioning something in passing that's mentioned in detail in another article, and then that's just a great opportunity to wikilink. This article could really connect other articles and be a broad overview. Also, the historcial stuff is fascinating and should really be written about, IMHO. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's summarise things a bit cause I'm getting confused. First of all you did say here that 'the study of clouds and nephology are not necessarily synonamous (sic)'. When I asked you how you got to this conclusion you responded here by saying 'I didn't say that it didn't mean that, I don't think it has another meaning' but at the same time claiming that from the 1906 Journal you got the sense that nephology is more than the study of clouds. So how can you be claiming now that 'I never said that the word meant anything more.' as you do here? Am I the only one getting confused?
I understand that there is historical context behind any word, but in this particular case I don't think there is enough such context to justify a separate article. Yes, the word started being used at the end of the 19th century; yes it fell out of fashion in the mid-20th. That's it. All this we can include either in Cloud or in List of Cloud Types or in Meteorology.
Which leaves us with your second option - to write an article on the study of clouds. Now, being no meteorologist myself (I hardly touched the subject at uni) I do not know what we can include in such an article that is not duplication of the aforementioned ones. Maybe we need help and opinions on the matter from the people who know what they are talking about, i.e. the meteorologists. Now, where are they hiding? --Flunkybiscuits 00:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


I think that that would be a mistake. I agree with your first point, but to make this a separate article in which all the scince is to be found would be rather like putting all the scientific stuff about oxygen in an article on dephlogisticated air (which, you'll see, is in fact a redirect to oxygen). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough... What should we include in this article though, in order to expand it (if we are in fact doing so)? Anything I have found (and I have looked and looked) is included, in some way or another, either in the 'cloud' article or in the 'list of cloud types' one. My understanding, having read your previous postings, is that you'd suggest we just redirect 'nephology' to 'cloud', is that correct?--Flunkybiscuits 21:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, either to Cloud or to Meteorology. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood. There's a difference between the science, and the history of the science. If you read the article I attached as an external link--it doesn't really cover science, and it's not an in depth analysis of anything, but it's a wonderful historical document. Looking at it tells you a bit about where the science was at the time, and if you looked at more documents at the time and lined up more documents like that through the decades, that would give you a bit of the history of Nephology. You would see the changing of the science, you would see the emergence of a legitimate field, you would see so many things, and I'm saying that that is encyclopedic, and would belong at this namespace, and that I think it would be easily possible to encorporate the history of the name along with the history of the science in that same article. I'm saying we have choices--that several articles could be written here. But an article on the history of a science would not be really scientifically specific, and would link to a lot of other articles. It would include pictures of people who revolutionized the field, more than graphs of what happens when something evaporates. Does that make more sense? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes — but it's all part of the history of meteorology. If nephology had been like alchemy, which had a long and important existence before it developed into chemistry, and which was radically unlike chemistry in many ways, then I could see grounds for making a separate article. But it wasn't like alchemy in any of those respects, and I can't see that there are grounds. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one getting confused[edit]

Ok, I'm replying to you here because replying in that mess was getting confusing, and sadly--hard for my computer to load.

What I meant by the whole more than/not necessarily synonmous thing:

Technically, by definition, nephology means the study of clouds. Looking at the whole deal from a historical context, nephology covers a certain period of time. Nephology isn't used to mean the study of clouds in some periods and is in others, so to say that it's just a dictionary definition, and that there's nothing more to it, that it's synonmous with the study, and that it doesn't go deeper than that I think is wrong.

Saying, big deal, it was used for a certain time period, we'll put that sentence somewhere else I think is a bad idea. We haven't done enough research, and the what we have now, the OED information, the article, suggests that there is more to it, at least in terms of the developement and use of the word. We have lots of articles on Wikipedia about words, and why we would decide in this case to stick with the least amount of information and stick it somewhere else instead of trying to develop it baffles me. There is a story behind every word, if you look hard enough, and if you think that we really couldn't find how the word became popular and then how it didn't, and if you think that that isn't charted in articles and journals, I think you're wrong.

In re an article on the study of clouds. I personally don't think you need to know much about the topic to understand what I'm getting at but I could be wrong. Let's put it this way, we have articles about the minute details of specific battles, and articles about American history in general. This wouldn't be an article about Clouds. This would be about, in the 1900s, this field started to develop, the main theories at the time were x, y, and z. By the ____ and the developement of _____, researchers had abandoned x, and y, and were entirely focusing on z until ____ led to the discovery of _____.... By _____, the advancements that ______ had made had created a field where one didn't exist before. At around this time, the word Nephology, from the Greek Nephos...... Do you see what I'm getting at? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is at best speculation about what might be done if an awful lot of research (enough to make a publishable article) were done. And that's even supposing that we accept that the result would be an encyclopædia article, which I doubt (note that the source of your information isn't an encyclopædia but a dictionary; that should be a major hint). I think that, as consensus seems to be impossible to reach here, the best thing is to AfD this, and see whether a wider range of editors think that it should be kept, merged and redirected, or just deleted. Obviously I'll be arguing for the second of those. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The alternative is to add "mergeto" and "mergefrom" tags, and have a poll here. Which would people prefer? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Being a newbie, I am not sure I understand the difference... I think we should keep nephology, but bring over content from cloud and list of cloud types and possibly add more stuff as and when we find it. --Flunkybiscuits 14:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually I found the quotes from the OED fascinating, and those are certainly encyclopedic. First, how long does it take a bot to list something for expansion? Because while this is listed at requests for expansion, along with Rebroad's case why it shouldn't be expanded, it's not yet listed on the meteorology project page, and that's updated by bot.
I think that this article deserves a shot. I personally would like to wait on merge tags etc until this has been listed at meteorology for two weeks. I'm guessing people don't want to give it that long, but we should be able to give it a solid week listed at meteorology.
I have a problem with speedily merging or deleting things. Some things can't be researched on the internet, and it takes time for people to go to libraries and pick up books, and I think that choosing to merge or delete because the other might be more work is a sign of supreme laziness.
Ok, so I probably won't stop by the library before the weekend, and for wiki-research it often takes me a couple weeks to get to the library, but I don't understand the rush, and that's a personal thing.
Regardless, if this isn't listed as a page needing expansion at the meteorology page soon, we need to ask what's up with their bot and get it listed.
Is merging or deleting this article urgent?
If not, I have in my personal library several good sources that I just have to dig out and I'll go to the library and I'll get the article to start class at least. By that point, people should be able to expand with online research. If it's laziness, I'll do the work.
In re afd--technically the article meets notability standards as is, so you'd probably want to go ahead with a merge proposal. Ok, now everyone knows where I stand on the issue--give your opinions, but if you think that it's there's not enough information or whatever, and that a merge should go ahead, tell me how long you'd be willing to give to let the article expand.
Is anyone here from the project and knows whats up with the bot? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand why there is this confusion between something being interesting and it making a subject encyclopædic; lots of facts about words are fascinating, but we still don't and shouldn't have articles on them. Nor do I understand the stuff about "speedy merging or deleting"; I suggested going the non-speedy route in each case. Finally, nobody, so far as I can tell, has suggested that their worries are based upon lack of material. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the issue here is about the word nephology solely as a dictionary entry. My view on the subject is that if we are to have an article on nephology or 'study of clouds' it needs to be one stands by itself as an encyclopedic entry, i.e to have the history of the subject (incl. the most notable contributors), its scientific contributions, its current uses and its links with other branches of meteorology. The problem is that by creating this we'll end up with a lot of duplication. I don't mind helping out with re-writing the article from scratch, but I do not want to be involved in edit wars with editors of articles such as list of cloud types when I start moving content. Oh, and to confuse matters even more, I don't agree that nephology is a word no longer used, as the OED suggests. From a very quick online search, I found that it is still used in aeronautics, there still are university professors of nephology and it is being developed into new words, like astronephology. --Flunkybiscuits 14:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I really am confused. Why on earth, or air would there be duplication from list of cloud types? At most we'd mention a few specific ones that we're notable discoveries that changed the field. A history of a science article is a very broad overview and doesn't go into that kind of detail. Plus, even if there was minor duplication, and I think they'll be almost no overlap, why on earth would we move the material from there?
Whoah--that really does rock the boat or the skies or whatever. Wow, I'm not going to get that song out of my head now :(! Um...ok, if anyone finds anything online or anything of use, let's start at least compiling it in a new section in the talk page so we get some sense at some point of what we're doing.
Ok, so just to make sure I know where we are. No one knows what's going on with the bot, and no one knows what's going on here? Of course, I should probably avoid this article altogether. There was enormous storm today and 100,000 people lost power and trees were downed and I was somehow oblivious to all of this, so I think I just lost a lot of expertise points. Somehow, while driving, I managed to not notice an enormous storm. Take that Nephology! Miss Mondegreen | Talk   14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about the storm - I hope things have gone back to normal regarding disruption of power, etc...
Firstly, I still think that an article on nephology needs to be more than an article on the history of the subject; it should include more substantial information about the field. Also, and apologies for being a pendant, cloud types were not 'discovered', they were just named/classified. So, yes, we need to include at least the main classes of clouds, as this classification is the one of the most significant developments in the domain of nephology. The issue here is that this summary is the whole of the Cloud#Cloud_classification section in the Cloud article, which in turn refers to List of cloud types. I don't know what the situation is about duplication - is this too big a section to repeat?
After that, we could go on to mentioning how nephology has interlinked with other branches of meteorology, for example how it has aided weather prediction and also present any modern applications of the field. I am, obviously, completely clueless about these last bits, so any help from experts would be greatly appreciated. --Flunkybiscuits 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, I completely missed not-normal regarding the storm--I just heard about it which was so strange. I hope all the people affected are ok too, but it was totally weird to know that afterwards, I just was somehow either oblivious, or right outside of a storm.
Ok, now I see where you're getting in re classification and of course they weren't discovered! You aren't being pedantic--trust me, if you'd done it and I'd caught it, I'd have the same. At least I assume you meant that--because you should know that you can't hide that you're a jewel. *wonders if they have a "likes bad puns" userbox*
I think we cross the bridge of duplication when we come to it. If it isn't needed in Clouds, they can either shorten the section or link to list of cloud types, and if it really is needed in both articles, then they'll be some duplication, but I that while information might be duplicated it will be presented very differently.
Also, yes, once this thing has a framework, it's definitely going to need some expert attention. I'm more concerned about nephology having modern usages, and perhaps more than one. If that really develops, we might need to disambig ironically. That is something to really look at now that I'm thinking about it, because one of the things I did while doing research was type in, nephology.com, nephology.org, etc and those sites had nothing to do with nephology in re clouds, so I'm wondering how they got to the name. Btw, it took me forever to realize that I was MM. ?? I don't know why. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Some Resources[edit]

I have found a couple of websites that may be worth a look. They have a lot of useful information on the subject, even if they do not contain the word 'nephology'. I have not had time to carefully go through them, but will do so in the next week, so hopefully will be adding to the article.

The websites are:

http://www.cloudman.com

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/history/howard.htm (also useful for the Luke Howard entry)

--Flunkybiscuits 11:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Article move/hijacking vs. pov-forking[edit]

Seems we had here a strange little stub article about an archaic term for the study of clouds ref'd to some 1906 book or something. It was an obscure and harmless little stub ... who cares that someone coined a strange little word. Then some anons decided back in 09 or so to add a weasely little bit 'bout cosmic rays. And now an experienced editor decides to rename the article and basically turn it into a climate change fork, add some more weaselly stuff and link to it as a "see main" from a new weaselly "cloud formation and climate change" section in cloud. What to do with a hi-jacked pov fork target? Zap it. Vsmith (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It would only be a "pov fork" (a) if there were already an article on the topic, or at least a section and (b) if the new article violated NPOV by presenting only one side.
Which "side" is being presented? And to the exclusion of which other side? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, but if you're re-naming and changing the article focus from the original - then at least do a post move clean-up by rewriting the introductory sentences to align with the new focus. And please address the weasely "some" stuff. I'm willing to back off and give you time to work it over and turn it into a well written introduction to the topic. If it's going to be a "see main" linked from other articles it do need development. Have fun building the article. Vsmith (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I've noted this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force for more input and hopefully help as you rewrite this stub into a balanced article. Vsmith (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and I've changed the talk page heading to indicate my desire to be doing something other than pov forking. (If I'm harboring unconscious bias, than per the definition of "unconscious" I wouldn't be aware of it; so please help me avoid any NPOV violations. If the cosmic ray angle is so marginal as to merit no mention at all, stop me now; if I accidentally make it seem more popular among academics who study climate, then please correct that impression. The SciAm article iirc said that there is a mixture of opinion about the strength of the supposed linkage between sun spots, solar wind, cosmic rays hitting earth, and cloud formation; not to mention the amount of warming or cooling this implies in the atmosphere; I wouldn't want to make it seem like SS=>SW=>CR=>CF is the new orthodoxy - rather just one alternate hypothesis (or theory) that has gotten into the journals or lay press.
Fair enough? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cloud formation and climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)