Template:Did you know nominations/Fixed anvil temperature hypothesis

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed anvil temperature hypothesis

(

)

Anvil clouds rising over a thunderstorm

... that the fixed anvil temperature hypothesis states that anvil clouds (pictured) warm less than Earth's surface and that this may have effects on global climate?

Reviewed: Robert Corrigan

Created by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 19:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC).

Review

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - We seem to be at the frontiers of science with this topic and so the extent to which such sources can be considered reliable is debatable. I'd prefer a MEDRS level of sourcing – reviews or other statements of general consensus.
Neutral: - The article says that the hypothesis is "widely accepted" but that's not quite my impression. The source for that para says that it's popular but then proceeds to argue against it.
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - The hook's expression "anvil clouds warm less than Earth's surface" is an over-simplication which distorts the hypothesis. As I understand it, the hypothesis is that anvil clouds tend to top out in a fixed way, you'd get more of them with general warming and so there's a positive feedback. Expressing this succinctly and accurately in a hook seems difficult.
Interesting:

Image eligibility:

Freely licensed:
Used in article: - The photo and caption in the article is somewhat misleading as "Hector the Convector" forms over the Tiwi Islands rather than the mainland. I find this cloud to be quite interesting and so it's worth providing a link to it.
Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I'm tempted to edit the article myself but will give the nominator some space first... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, Andrew Davidson, it's been three weeks since the review and I don't see any article edits; where does this nomination stand? Jo-Jo Eumerus, please note that responding inside that DYK checklist template can prevent the approved nomination from being moved by the bot to the Approved page; I'd like to suggest that you move your comments so they are below the template (either just above or just below this comment), so their placement doesn't cause issues down the road. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, moved my comments to all the red issues here:
- According to Web of Science, this is the only review article available. There is also this IPCC report which mentions it. You are not going to get an useful article out of only review articles, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- That wouldn't be a very high-weight objection, then, since it'd be backed by only one paper. From reading the rest of the literature I get the impression that only the two refinements discussed but they apparently haven't caught on yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- No, the hypothesis is precisely that anvil clouds don't warm if Earth's surface does. Their total volume is a different theory altogether. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Changed the caption, but I am not sure if the image description is enough of a source for the caption to say "Hector". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  Andrew Davidson, please continue the review, now that Jo-Jo Eumerus has addressed the issues you raised. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The nominator does not seem to have addressed the issues; just disagreed with them. My views are unchanged so we have an impasse. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't agree that MEDRS-level sourcing is needed for this one - for one thing, it's not a matter of life and death. And I disagree on the other issues, too. I dunno, what's the procedure when nominator and reviewer of a DYK disagree on an issue? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: if it's intractable, the nominator can request a second opinion using {{subst:DYK?again}}.

To clarify the procedural issue, WP:DYKHOOK states that "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change...". An unproven and uncertain hypothesis is, by its nature, not well-established. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The hook, though, isn't about whether the clouds warm or not, but about the hypothesis itself. Its definition is unlikely to change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: and @Andrew Davidson: Just weighing in here with my two cents. Could we change it to something like this so it seems less authoritative?

ALT1:... that the fixed anvil temperature hypothesis proposes that anvil clouds (pictured) do not remove excess radiation as the Earth's surface temperature increases?

We don't have to go with this exact hook (I'm sure I'm not really grasping the science-y bit). But maybe a hook that emphasizes that it's just a hypothesis would be a good middleground? BuySomeApples (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

A bit more technical than the original, but it works I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Since Andrew Davidson hasn't returned, calling on a new reviewer to check proposed ALT1 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've not gone away and am still watching but still feel negative about this for the reasons given above and ALT1 has not changed my view. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The article itself still has many issues, as the original reviewer pointed out. However, I'm willing to go with ALT1 if everything else can be corrected per the original review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

As it stands, I don't think that most of the "issues" are actionable. Most of the sources that mention this hypothesis state that it's a possibility w/o giving much further detail and other than the things covered under "alternative views" there isn't much if any rebuttals. I don't think you can use this source to argue against it in Wikipedia voice - it's basically "others accept this view but I don't see it in my models" which is good enough to write an "alternative view" section but not for a "it's debatable statement" as "others" outnumbers "I". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm sorry for the delay—I think I'm in over my head with this nomination, I'm not up to snuff with what's needed for scientific sourcing. If someone else could re-review, that would be good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this again. The idea that MEDRS has to be met here is, in my opinion, bunk. Not only is this not biomedicine or pharmacology, I'm not convinced that DYK requires a MEDRS level of sourcing even for a biomed or pharmacological article. The article is neutrally worded (it doesn't assert validity so much) and properly sourced. The image is freely licensed and used in the article. I'm passing this nomination, I think Jo-Jo Eumerus is correct in judging how to present the information in the sources. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)