Talk:Polar stratospheric cloud

Untitled[edit]

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=263&tstamp=200512 "The Coldest Clouds" Maybe some of this can be inserted into the article? I'm not much of a meteorological enthusiastic right now, but I came upon this. --MeekSaffron ^{(Jaffa,Tree!)} 18:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

Why does this article goes by polar stratospheric cloud instead of nacreous cloud, like how noctilucent clouds is named. It seems to me nacreous is the more common name, and so this should follow the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Can this be renamed and moved to the more common nacreous?

Given that they are clouds in the polar stratosphere, the name seems natural... William M. Connolley 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could say the same of polar mesospheric clouds (noctilucent clouds), but it seems from my recollection and from the external links that nacreous is more common. --Skew-t 23:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this debate should probably be reopened considering that they've seen PSC's/nacreous clouds in places like Scotland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland...places that aren't anywhere near either pole, and therefore not exactly polar in nature. I think the title should probably be changed to Nacreous clouds.--MonkBirdDuke 18:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone holes[edit]

Is there any evidence that nacreous clouds are implicated in the formation of ozone holes? I read an internet article on yahoo about spotting nacreous clouds over Antarctica, however they said that some researchers found no links between the formation of these stratospheric clouds and ozone holes. It's very possible that it's out there, but it is not cited in the body of the article. -- MonkBirdDuke, 00:20, 9/19/2006

I posed this question over a month ago, and no one's responded...so I removed it. Editor William Connelly insists that the ozone hole theory is legit, but has not proved it to my satisfaction or the other editor actively editing this page. The source is hardly definitive, and still not sourced in the article. Discuss it on the talk page or cite a proper source. And remember Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions or original research. WP:OR and WP:NPOV. For now, it stays out. --MonkBirdDuke 00:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The linkage of OD and PSCs is sourced, via the FAQ, on the OD page. Altough you insist on an apparently high standard of refs, your own sources appear to be an internet article on yahoo about spotting nacreous clouds over Antarctica, however they said that some researchers found... which is useless. See-also [1] and [2] William M. Connolley 08:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever including that internet article from yahoo on wikipedia. I checked the history of the article and can't find it. When was this?--MonkBirdDuke 13:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to point out that your source of information for reverting this article appears extremely thin William M. Connolley 14:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the question, chief. When did I ever use a yahoo article as a source on here? I don't recall ever doing that.--MonkBirdDuke 15:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about what I wrote on my blog? My blog is a blog. It's not an encyclopedia article. I was just making an observation about seeing these clouds in the news. Holding my xanga up to the same standard as an article in an encyclopedia is ridiculous.--MonkBirdDuke 16:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about your blog. I'm referring to the comment you made at the start of this section: I read an internet article on yahoo about spotting nacreous clouds over Antarctica, however they said that some researchers found no links between the formation of these stratospheric clouds and ozone holes. That (as far as can be told) seems to be the source of your skepticism about the PSC-OD link William M. Connolley 16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was like a month ago. --MonkBirdDuke 16:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? You mean... but now you've changed your mind? Or found a better reference? If so, you've yet to share it William M. Connolley 18:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just mean that was before any discussion had taken place. And please, be civil, per wikipedia guidelines. By the way, it looks like this page has had a lot of edits recently. You're a sysop, make yourself useful and protect (or semi-protect) the page.--MonkBirdDuke 18:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were calling other editors aggressive in changing the article, yet you've been reverting it several times without asking for, nor respecting any consensus. The sources that you give are very informative, but none of them directly implicate PSC's in the formation of ozone holes. From your user page it's obvious that you don't represent a NPOV (see WP:NPOV). I think you're trying to promote an agenda by calling anything and everything global warming-related. I'm not saying that what you're trying to say isn't true, but it doesn't belong listed as a fact on Wikipedia unless it's proven and verifiable, which it obviously is not. Instead of engaging in edit wars, try rational discussion on the talk page. Such activity is not what I would expect from a wikipedia admin.--207.200.116.201 14:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific justification for linking ozone holes and PSCs is very strong. Your own biases and scientific ignorance are clear: I think you're trying to promote an agenda by calling anything and everything global warming-related - what has this got to do with GW? This is OD, which is different. Now as far as I'm concerned, this [3] is vandalism - calling the EPA "not an acceptable source" is absurd. Ditto this [4]. The link that you don't like [5] provides ample justification for linking PSCs to OD. If you don't like global warming, go fight over the GW page, not this one William M. Connolley 14:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes clear that 207 is merely a vandal/troll: [6] William M. Connolley 15:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone depletion section[edit]

Since it's a rather hot topic around here, I went ahead and gave ozone holes their own section. A small paragraph about a certain aspect of the clouds doesn't belong in the introduction. I think it reads better this way.--MonkBirdDuke 19:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, put another way, you've reverted the OD link out of the intro yet again. Please don't do this William M. Connolley 19:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better that way. Don't be pissy. It's not your article. I thought it would probably be vandalized less this way. Put something else about OD in the intro...just not that big chunk of information.--MonkBirdDuke 20:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're just trolling. PSCs are implicated in OD is hardly a big chunk of info. But it is probably the thing most people want to know. I'm done reverting for the day, but I don't think your constant attempts to get this fact out of the intro will work William M. Connolley 21:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very believable that the information I added is a bit long for the intro. (Unsurprisingly, I added it because of some people's assertions that the bit about PSCs being implicated in OD was inadequately sourced.) It's entirely reasonable to give OD its own section if anyone wants, but not at the expense of removing all mention of it from the intro. OD is an important focus of much of the scientific interest in PSCs, and so a fair presentation of the topic requires mention of it in the intro. Arbitrary username 22:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be blamed for all this vandalism (per Connolley's accusation), so I've reverted the page twice now to include the OD information in the intro.--MonkBirdDuke 22:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just sprotected the article so the anon vandalism should stop William M. Connolley 09:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it would be helpful if an adminstrator who is so far uninvolved in the content dispute could please watch this page. If an administrator other than WMC is watching this page, then please could you make yourself known here. I believe that removal of sourced material without consensus is vandalism, so it is entirely appropriate to deal with it using admin tools such as rollback/blocks/sprotect, as WMC has done. But having an uninvolved admin on hand would save any risk of misinterpretation of administrative actions. Arbitrary username 21:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist now. I've reverted reference deletion and blocked an AOL vandal, but not really involved in the so called dispute. Sprot appropriate due to AOL/sock(?) vandalism. Vsmith 00:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Arbitrary username 09:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea a cloud could prove to be this controversial of a subject. Wikipedia never ceases to amaze.--MonkBirdDuke 18:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Polar stratospheric cloud. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]