Slashdot Mirror
Decade Old Academic Paper on Global Climate Zones Named the Most Cited Source on Wikipedia (theguardian.com)
An academic paper on global climate zones written by three Australians more than a decade ago has been named the most cited source on Wikipedia, having being referenced more than 2.8m times. From a report: The authors of the paper, who are still good friends, had no idea about the wider impact of their work until recently. The paper, published in 2007 in the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, used contemporary data to update a widely used model for classifying the world's climates. Known as the Koppen Climate Classification System, the model was first published by climatologist Wladimir Koppen in 1884, but it had not been comprehensively updated for decades.
The lead author of the paper is Dr Murray Peel, a senior lecturer in the department of infrastructure engineering at the University of Melbourne, and he co-authored the updated climate map with geography professor Brian Finlayson and engineering professor Thomas McMahon, both now retired. "We are amazed, absolutely amazed at the number of citations," Finlayson told Guardian Australia from his home in Melbourne. "We are not so much amazed at the fact it's been cited as we are about the number of people who have cited it."
The lead author of the paper is Dr Murray Peel, a senior lecturer in the department of infrastructure engineering at the University of Melbourne, and he co-authored the updated climate map with geography professor Brian Finlayson and engineering professor Thomas McMahon, both now retired. "We are amazed, absolutely amazed at the number of citations," Finlayson told Guardian Australia from his home in Melbourne. "We are not so much amazed at the fact it's been cited as we are about the number of people who have cited it."
Who Maintains That Page.
is like academic equivalent of being hottest search term on pr0nhub; its kind of a mark of shame, but all your peers secretly wish it was them anyways.
One of the other power hungry admins will revert its citation as not notable.
Normally in polite conversation we will talk about the weather. I would guess that many articles about towns/cities/states/countries/continent/hemisphere... would probably like to explain what climate it has. As climate affects the culture of the land.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Considering that nearly every article about a city, state, nation, geographic region, etc. talks about the Koppen climate classification of that area it's not surprising that the work would be cited so much. And for all you folks thinking this is about climate change, no it's not. It's about the existing climate as it is in those places.
We are not so much amazed at the fact it's been cited as we are about the number of people who have cited it.
A basic concept in geography taught to the kids from the very start of the subject is .. fundamental.
Is it the same climate change article that states unless you live on top of a mountain after 2009 your house would be under water? I'm confused because if the science was even minutely accurate we'd screwed by now.
You're just upset they rejected your citation of Alex Jones's report on Hillary's latest offense involving the construction of a Weather Control Ray.
"Climate change" is on the list of Wikipedia's hot button topics.
People will use citations - correctly or not - in such articles to bolster their agenda and make it less likely their point-of-view-pushing claims will be removed for "lack of objective evidence."
So, if you eliminated all uses where this citation was used on weather/climate-change topics or weather/climate-change sections of other articles, what would its count be?
Are you familiar with the concept of auto-fellation and self-fornication?
The most cited paper in Mathematics is over half a century old.
http://math.harvard.edu/~ctm/h...
The most cited work in optics is several centuries old.
https://www.gutenberg.org/file...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I wasn't, until I looked it up in Wikipedia.
Can you cretins give it a break? Please?
What I want to see, is the original study that determined CO2 emissions were a greenhouse gas.
I want all the details required to independently recreate the experiment and make my own observations.
I have looked, but so far, I haven't found the details. Does anyone here know where to go?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Life must suck being so angry, and emotionally and irrationally hate-filled.
How many more until Melbourne Uni recognise him?
Both sides of this thread are just pointless.
1. Not all Republicans deny climate science. Can we please stop politicizing climate science, on both sides?
2. Not all Republicans support Trump, and not all Trump supporters are Republicans.
3. > Is it the same climate change article that states unless you live on top of a mountain after 2009 your house would be under water? I'm confused because if the science was even minutely accurate we'd screwed by now.
Its not an article, its an academic paper (like it says in the title) from a peer-reviewed journal. If the article you mention actually exists, its not written by scientists.
Instead of getting your science and your politics from Facebook, you should try reading books or at least seek out articles that seem well researched and don't necessarily line up with exactly what you want to hear. Instead of voicing the first opinion that comes into your head maybe stop for a second and think about your opinion and the opposing sides. Maybe go and read a wikipedia article so you can say something useful.
Unless we collectively start communicating and actually thinking critically about what we're saying, we're all F'ed.
It is *only* the US right wing that politicized climate change. The POTUS called climate change a Chinese hoax. The POTUS said that he heard that vaccines cause autism. There is a huge chunk of the US populace that believes that these are not enough of a big issue to matter when selecting the President... those people are not necessarily anti-science, but they obviously think being anti-science is better than being a democrat.
See also The Discovery of Global Warming, which gives a historical overview of the major papers. Note that AGW was considered entirely disproven for about 50 years: the reasons why should be of considerable interest to true skeptics.
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
All Global Warming predictions thus far have not materialized. Yet the political ideology marches on... (global warming is no longer science, it's a political movement.. It lost the ability to be called science when the espouesers of it began to declare skepticism of it should be "outlawed" and even called for jailing of skeptics. We all know that the Scientific Method REQUIRES skepticism... unless it's "global warming", of course.....
I know, ready for the minions of the left to start flaming..
Well, guess what, I won't even be back to read your replies! Take that!
they obviously think being anti-science is better than being one specific Democrat.
FTFY