Talk:Terraforming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Terraforming (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
|
|
edit - history - watch - refresh | |
|---|---|---|
|
||
 |
Terraforming has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space exploration. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. See also our assessed articles. |
Assessment: |
 GA Class |
||
| High Importance | ||
Contents |
[edit] Terraforming vs. Planetary Engineering
In the spirit of a neutral point of view, this article should be moved to Planetary engineering. The term, terraforming, is inaccurate and anthropocentric. --Viriditas 21:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree. The article is about making various planets and other astronomical bodies more Earth-like, which is what terraforming is. I see no reason why one would also want to include information in the same article about Venusforming, Marsiforming, or whatever else; much better to create an entirely new article dedicated to that specific type of planetary engineering to hold the details. If you want a generic overview then planetary engineering would be a good place for it with a link to terraforming, Venusforming, etc. for the specifics. Bryan 00:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Terraforming has arrogant, homocentric connotations which you have indirectly acknowledged. The very notion of forcing alien worlds to be more "Earth-like" is a sisyphean task. These planets will never be "Earth-like"; they are unique in and of themselves in every way. I suppose it is difficult to think outside the current paradigms which structure our language, but others have tried and succeeded. Haynes suggested the word ecopoiesis. Once a rival to the concept of terraforming it is now enslaved as a subset, which is ironic (and insulting) if you consider that terraforming was a lowly, specialized subset of ecopoiesis; a grander, more inclusive term which forces the mind to think beyond the confines of its own point of view and embrace distant alien worlds as homes to inhabit and explore, not as foreign lands to conquer into submission. --Viriditas 13:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If "terraforming" has arrogant, homocentric connotations, then we have a section for discussing the problem in this article: "Ethical issues". Feel free to expand that section, and add a note and link to the more general planetary engineering. As Bryan is saying, this article is about the very specific concept of making planets Earth-like, not modifying planets in general.
- As a side note, this article looks quite good to me. Maybe a featured article candidate? The problems I can see are the duplicated sentences about fiction in the lead section / the fiction section, and the previously mentioned "Ethical issues" section perhaps being a little short. Also, although the article has images it has no GFDL image. I could easily "remake" at least the one at the top showing a transformation, though unfortunately that wouldn't be too original... Fredrik | talk 14:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I support planetary engineering. The arrogant, homocentric connotations of the word "terraforming" is what I was objecting to in that context. While the two of you (and many others) might claim that terraforming is about making planetary bodies more Earth-like, the process of introducing ecosystems will be a unique process which will depend on the systems already in place. Ecopoiesis is at the root of any serious terraforming operation, and this does not entail or an imply an earth-like form. I am suggesting that the word "terraforming" is limited in scope, and interferes with the vision required to succeed in this task. The steps towards these goals are essentially described as homocentric, not ecocentric. When people use the word "terraforming" they are not talking about making worlds more Earth-like, but more conducive to human habitation. This is in sharp contrast to, ...the process of establishing an ecosystem, or biosphere, on a lifeless planet is best termed 'ecopoiesis.'(Haynes RH, McKay CP, Adv Space Res. 1992;12(4):133-40.) Ecopoesis (creating an ecosystem) is a prerequisite for generating atmospheric oxygen (Fogg, J Br Interplanet Soc. 1995 Oct;48(10):427-34.). Ecopoiesis is usually referred to as ecosynthesis in the relevant literature, due to NASA's penchant for that term. The process of making Mars habitable for terrestrial organisms is called terraforming or planetary ecosynthesis. (Graham, Astrobiology. 2004 Summer;4(2):168-95.). I intend to update the page to reflect the history of the term and its usage. --Viriditas 04:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Well, yes, the term "terraforming" is indeed limited in scope compared to "planetary engineering" or "ecopoesis". But that's quite proper, because the subject of this article is limited in scope in the same way. It's all about making various planets more Earthlike, which is what terraforming is. If you want to write an article about creating ecosystems on non-Earthlike planets or about modifying planetary environments in general, I really think you should simply create the articles ecopoiesis and planetary engineering and do it there, rather than hijacking this existing terraforming-focused article for that purpose. Some of the material from here could be split off into those new articles (geoengineering, for example), which would allow this article to become even more focused on the subject of its title. Bryan 05:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Please explain to me how an update consisting of at most, an insertion of a paragraph or two in the history section, can be construed as an act of "hijacking"? Again, terraforming is not about making planets more earth-like. If it was, terraforming would be mostly concerned with creating liquid oceans and propagating vertebrates with gills. The term is a misnomer. Terraforming is really about creating ecosystems and niches for life, which is why terms like ecopoiesis and ecosynthesis are more exact. At the very least, some mention should be made of these terms in the article, which is exactly what I have proposed. I am not interested in wikiterrorism, nor edit wars of any kind. I apologize for any misunderstanding I may have fostered.--Viriditas 07:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't mean it in that strongly a negative sense, sorry if you took it as threatening. By moving the article, all this material on terraforming would wind up under an article that was about a more general subject and the "terraforming" article would be left with nothing but a redirect. Since in my opinion most of the material here does belong under the "terraforming" label, I'd have to either move the stuff back or recreate the current article from scratch - hence my description of a move to a different title as being "hijacking" of the content. Obviously we disagree about whether the term is a misnomer, I think it's quite clear that most of the stuff talked about in this article currently is about making planets more Earth-like. Not all of it, though - I've already mentioned the geoengineering section as one such. Tell you what, how about I go ahead and start articles on planetary engineering and ecosynthesis myself and we'll see if they can all coexist to the satisfaction of everyone concerned? Bryan 17:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- At the very least, I do think that the article should be categorized under engineering. You seem to have avoided my point about expanding the history section to include other terms and processes. Some of the material does indeed belong in terraforming, and you would not have to recreate the article from scratch to include it. Like I said before, an addition to the History of scholarly study section, the Ethical Issues section, and the Theoretical methods of terraforming section are needed. This addition is not meant to change any of the existing information but merely to add content (see above) that is missing. As for starting the other articles, I think that's a different issue. If you want to do that, go right ahead, but the terraforming article still needs an update. --Viriditas 19:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Once those other articles exist, then their relation to terraforming and links to them should definitely be included in the intro to terraforming. I'll create them and see how it goes in an hour or so. Bryan 00:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- At the very least, I do think that the article should be categorized under engineering. You seem to have avoided my point about expanding the history section to include other terms and processes. Some of the material does indeed belong in terraforming, and you would not have to recreate the article from scratch to include it. Like I said before, an addition to the History of scholarly study section, the Ethical Issues section, and the Theoretical methods of terraforming section are needed. This addition is not meant to change any of the existing information but merely to add content (see above) that is missing. As for starting the other articles, I think that's a different issue. If you want to do that, go right ahead, but the terraforming article still needs an update. --Viriditas 19:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't mean it in that strongly a negative sense, sorry if you took it as threatening. By moving the article, all this material on terraforming would wind up under an article that was about a more general subject and the "terraforming" article would be left with nothing but a redirect. Since in my opinion most of the material here does belong under the "terraforming" label, I'd have to either move the stuff back or recreate the current article from scratch - hence my description of a move to a different title as being "hijacking" of the content. Obviously we disagree about whether the term is a misnomer, I think it's quite clear that most of the stuff talked about in this article currently is about making planets more Earth-like. Not all of it, though - I've already mentioned the geoengineering section as one such. Tell you what, how about I go ahead and start articles on planetary engineering and ecosynthesis myself and we'll see if they can all coexist to the satisfaction of everyone concerned? Bryan 17:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Please explain to me how an update consisting of at most, an insertion of a paragraph or two in the history section, can be construed as an act of "hijacking"? Again, terraforming is not about making planets more earth-like. If it was, terraforming would be mostly concerned with creating liquid oceans and propagating vertebrates with gills. The term is a misnomer. Terraforming is really about creating ecosystems and niches for life, which is why terms like ecopoiesis and ecosynthesis are more exact. At the very least, some mention should be made of these terms in the article, which is exactly what I have proposed. I am not interested in wikiterrorism, nor edit wars of any kind. I apologize for any misunderstanding I may have fostered.--Viriditas 07:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Well, yes, the term "terraforming" is indeed limited in scope compared to "planetary engineering" or "ecopoesis". But that's quite proper, because the subject of this article is limited in scope in the same way. It's all about making various planets more Earthlike, which is what terraforming is. If you want to write an article about creating ecosystems on non-Earthlike planets or about modifying planetary environments in general, I really think you should simply create the articles ecopoiesis and planetary engineering and do it there, rather than hijacking this existing terraforming-focused article for that purpose. Some of the material from here could be split off into those new articles (geoengineering, for example), which would allow this article to become even more focused on the subject of its title. Bryan 05:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I support planetary engineering. The arrogant, homocentric connotations of the word "terraforming" is what I was objecting to in that context. While the two of you (and many others) might claim that terraforming is about making planetary bodies more Earth-like, the process of introducing ecosystems will be a unique process which will depend on the systems already in place. Ecopoiesis is at the root of any serious terraforming operation, and this does not entail or an imply an earth-like form. I am suggesting that the word "terraforming" is limited in scope, and interferes with the vision required to succeed in this task. The steps towards these goals are essentially described as homocentric, not ecocentric. When people use the word "terraforming" they are not talking about making worlds more Earth-like, but more conducive to human habitation. This is in sharp contrast to, ...the process of establishing an ecosystem, or biosphere, on a lifeless planet is best termed 'ecopoiesis.'(Haynes RH, McKay CP, Adv Space Res. 1992;12(4):133-40.) Ecopoesis (creating an ecosystem) is a prerequisite for generating atmospheric oxygen (Fogg, J Br Interplanet Soc. 1995 Oct;48(10):427-34.). Ecopoiesis is usually referred to as ecosynthesis in the relevant literature, due to NASA's penchant for that term. The process of making Mars habitable for terrestrial organisms is called terraforming or planetary ecosynthesis. (Graham, Astrobiology. 2004 Summer;4(2):168-95.). I intend to update the page to reflect the history of the term and its usage. --Viriditas 04:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Terraforming has arrogant, homocentric connotations which you have indirectly acknowledged. The very notion of forcing alien worlds to be more "Earth-like" is a sisyphean task. These planets will never be "Earth-like"; they are unique in and of themselves in every way. I suppose it is difficult to think outside the current paradigms which structure our language, but others have tried and succeeded. Haynes suggested the word ecopoiesis. Once a rival to the concept of terraforming it is now enslaved as a subset, which is ironic (and insulting) if you consider that terraforming was a lowly, specialized subset of ecopoiesis; a grander, more inclusive term which forces the mind to think beyond the confines of its own point of view and embrace distant alien worlds as homes to inhabit and explore, not as foreign lands to conquer into submission. --Viriditas 13:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Ethical issues
I have added some more information to the ethical issues section, but it needs clarification and references to noted authors (claimants). In the near future, it may be worthy to export this section to a new article (Ethics of terraforming) which is why I'm in the process of summarizing and distilling each view to their main points. It's actually a little more difficult than it looks since there is some overlap between each position and they are not as sharply delineated as they might first appear. --Viriditas 23:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The ethics section is only three paragraphs long, IMO it'd have to get a heck of a lot longer to justify breaking it off into its own article. How much were you thinking of writing on it? Bryan 00:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
- I agree with you. I don't know how much I could write on it, but I'm sure it could reach at least 12 paragraphs. I'll try and add some attributions later, but other than that, I probably won't extend it all that much, at least not until more work is done on the environmental ethics article. I'm still interested in creating ecopoiesis (also known as ecosynthesis) and adding those elements to the terraforming page. Also, how do you feel about including citations? -Viriditas 01:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Sounds good, 12 paragraphs sounds like a good size to consider splitting off. As for citations, a "references" section is great but I'd recommend being careful not to put lots and lots of citation numbers into the text itself; too many superscripted or bracketed numbers make text less pleasant to read IMO. But that's a personal preference, so don't let it hold you back. :) Bryan 03:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
[edit] Discussion
This is the place to discuss the article. Where would be a place to discuss the subject as such?
(Speculate about methods of terraforming, discussing the conditions and mecanisms by which they work or the obstacles that would make them fail.)
84.160.196.73 11:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Colony
This should probably go under planetary engineering, but for the section about ethical issues somebody should discuss Rick Wernli's short story Colony, which appears in the anthology A Gathering of Flowers, edited by Joyce Carol Thomas. AGOF is published by HarperTrophy of HarperCollins Publishers. --Fighter 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Venus Terraforming
The article speaks of using comets. However has anyone any information on using ice-comets and let them rain down on Venus? Could an ice-comet (used from the Kuiper Belt maybe) be carefully brought over, broken in smaller pieces and brought down into the atmosphere? This would add water to the atmosphere and bring about a cooling and add to the creation of oceans. Which in turn help regulate a moderate temperature. Can anyone verify or correct this? Gryffindor 18:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- It would add water, but not necessarily help cool things down. In fact, it could make things even hotter since water vapor is a greenhouse gas. I've read speculation that Venus had a water ocean way back when the solar system was still young but that the slow increase in the Sun's temperature over time caused a runaway "humid greenhouse" effect, boiling them away. Greenhouse_effect#Water_vapor_effects and Greenhouse_effect#Limiting_factors have some information on this. Bryan 00:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- According to Robert Zubrin in Entering Space (ISBN 1585420360), it would take some 92 million "iceteroids" (i.e. objects composed primarily of ice, in this case water ice) with a mass of a billion tonnes each to create oceans on Venus large enough to absorb the CO2 (equivalent to a world ocean 200 meters deep). In short, it's not really a practical option. siafu 01:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
But what about a oblique asteroid impact to get Venus rotating in order to create a magnetic field? How big would it need to be and how fast would it need to be going? And say Venus has enough of an iron core to generate an adequate magnetic field, would a magnetic field, along with the help of some photosynthetic cloud seeded bacteria, be able to capture enough solar hydrogen in a reasonable period of time to start precipitating the Carbon out of the atmosphere, release the Oxygen and form water? It would be just the small matter of nudging an asteroid or comet at the right time onto a collision course with Venus with enough precision to make it an oblique hit and then to seed the clouds with a type of bacteria that could stay aloft long enough to convert the atmosphere to Oxygen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psoreilly (talk • contribs) 09:30, 6 March 2006.
Re the part about Venus being usuitable for space elevators: wouldn't it be possible to have the space elevator rotate with respect to the winds, rather than the surface and stop the tether before the surface (and maybe the sulfuric acid clouds as well)? Here is a suggested rewrite for that sections: "Venus' extremely slow rotation means that space elevators would have to rotate with respect to the 100 metres per second winds, requiring a tether on the order of 100,000 kilometres long..." if people think that's reasonable someone could stick it in. Felix Dance 07:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- It would seem to me that space elevators that would be anchored at a fixed surface point would indeed be impossible, but space elevators that wouldn't be anchored to any fixed surface point (in effect dangling lines from above) would (as far as I can tell) be feasible. Samy Merchi (Talk) 23:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Such elevators might have balance problems, though. When payloads climb a space elevator the extra kinetic energy needed to boost it into orbit come from the rotation of the planet, transmitted through the anchor point - the planet's rotation actually slows down infinitesimally when a car climbs the elevator cable and speeds up infinitesimally when it descends. A free-hanging space elevator would either need to balance payloads rising and falling or it'll need some form of propulsion to compensate. Bryan 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Free-floating space elevators (usually called "skyhooks") would need careful orbital maintenance anyway. The tether dangling into the atmosphere would create drag, even without moving payloads. Orbiting Venus, solar energy is greatly increased, so the skyhook could likely take advantage of that, either through ion propulsion or solar sails. Of course, we're just venturing off into tangential theory here (i.e., OR), but all this does not negate the fact that because of Venus' exceptionally slow rotation, simple GEO (VEO?) isn't really feasible to begin with and therefore the traditional space elevator concept is equally unfeasible. siafu 00:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Earth-like planet
This isn't so much a question about the document itself, but instead about the subject of it.
I need an expert opinion on whether or not an Earth-like planet (in other words, one capable of supporting human life) could form on its own WITHOUT having any indigenous species on it, seeing as how thats how Earth got its current atmosphere, and to some extent climate.
I would prefer an "expert" of some sort to answer my question, but if this is impractical, than anyone who can contribute a fairly decent answer should do so. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.170.90.50 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 February 2006.
- I'm not an "expert", but from the sounds of it, there would probably need to be microbial life of some sort, and possibly something akin to plant life (plants have something to do with the production or recylcing of oxygen on Earth, I forget what exactly). - RW 63.21.80.200 17:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- The atmosphere is not in a chemical equilibrium. Without photosynthetic organisms to produce free oxygen, it would quickly be bound into solid substances by chemical reactions. Only relatively inert gases like nitrogen and carbon dioxide would survive very long without replenishment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.55.254.106 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 July 2006.
[edit] Atmosphere
I changed the line, "The lack of a magnetosphere is also thought to have contributed to the lack of a Martian atmosphere in the first place," to "The lack of a magnetosphere is also thought to have caused the Martian atmosphere to become as thin as it is in the first place,", becasue not only is it misleading, its just plain wrong. Mars DOES in fact have an atmosphere, although it is very thin (mind you, there are bodies in the solar system that have even thinner atmospheres). Think of the countles people who read that and were mislead, of course the movie "Total Recall" indicated that Mars's surface was a vacuum as well, so this article is only half-guilty. Now, I've seen other mistakes in Wikipedia articles, but this is by far the most misleading. These experiences have seriously eroded my faith in a user contributed encyclopedia. People tend to overestimate Wikipedias status, becasue in my opinion, it is still an experiment, but I really don't want to see Wikipedia fail. PLEASE research before you contribute to an article!!!! Nick Warren 11:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good!
I'd like to see this as a featured article. How about submitting it for peer review? Mithridates 17:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I concur. This is an exceptional article and it should be brought to the atention of the general public, who seems to not be very knowledgeable on such subjects and would be delighted to hear that things like this just might happen in the not-so-distant future. This is a great article.Nick Warren 09:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- I listed the article at Wikipedia:Peer review as a result of the suggestion here. I also added a source to the article (Zubrin) to the article, as it seems sourcing is this article's biggest shortcoming, IMHO. We'll see what comes out. siafu 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
One fact that can be updated: the term "terraforming" was invented in 1942, not 1949; see http://www.jessesword.com/sf/list/?page=11 and http://www.jessesword.com/sf/list/?page=12 which list Jack Williamson quotes for different forms of the verb and noun. I'll do the update if no one else does; don't have time just this second. Mike Christie 15:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I don't get it
The article doesn't really delve into how Mars gets all this water. From by understanding, water molecules are locked in the ice caps and some of it underground. Yet these artist impressions show it with as much water as Earth. Could someone take a shot at explaing this to me or directing me to an article that has already explained this? Also, this article focuses mainly on Venus and Mars...but I heard that Europa could also be a candidate...is this true? Sean WI 02:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- The short answer is no, Europa is not at all a likely candidate for terraforming, though there are some plausible scenarios for colonization involving enclosed habitats. Europa's orbit is well within the magnetic field of Jupiter, meaning that its surface is constantly bathed in radiation levels that would be lethal to humans in minutes. Aside from that, it's exceptionally far from the sun (i.e., not much energy is received from the sun for a biosphere) and has insufficient gravity for an atmosphere of any noticeable density. Of course, the very concept of terraforming is still speculative, but at present the only real candidates are Mars and Venus. siafu 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
One question to be considered is the practicalities/cost. All other things being equal, Mars (some atmosphere, possibility of some permafrost etc) would be significantly cheaper to terraform than the Moon (no atmosphere) or Venus (get rid of heat, unpleasant atmosphere, excessive ground level pressure etc).
Some level of landscape development/transformation would be possible on most worlds with a solid and stable surface - setting up a base (whether or not involving domes), mining and mineral extraction etc. At what stage does landscape/atmospheric transformation become terraforming?
Going back to the ethical question mentioned above - what would the ethics be of an extraterrestial world that was somewhere between Earth and Mars - ie conditions are sufficient to let simple life (single cell etc) develop but are deteriorating?
Jackiespeel 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization
A few of us have been trying to start up a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization (shortcut WP:SPACE) to organize work on topics of direct relevance to Terraforming. Hop on over if you're interested. - Reaverdrop 16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ceres
Due to recent events, shouldn't Ceres be labelled as a Dwarf Planet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.182.167 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 26 August 2006.
[edit] Ocean albedo?
Something in the section "Theoretical methods of terraforming", subsection "Converting atmosphere" is confusing me. A sentence reads:
- Oceans would increase the planet's albedo and allow more incoming solar radiation to be reflected back into space.
Forgive a the ignorance of a layman, but doesn't an ocean decrease a planet's albedo? According to the article on albedo, oceans are one of the most light-absorbing features a planet can have, with an albedo of around 3.5%. Wouldn't introducing an ocean to most planets allow less solar radiation to be reflected back into space? The assertation of this sentence strikes me as false. Is there something I am not understanding here? Kevyn 03:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- No, you're right. The statement is in error. Oceans absorb a great deal of sunlight. In fact, they serve as one of the primary means our own planet uses to gain heat from solar radiation, with ocean currents then redistributing this thermal energy towards the poles. For a quick, simple, and easy-to-understand explanation of the concept, you might consider Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth. The film itself is arguably highly politically charged, but the explanation of how increasing ocean area on Earth will absorb more sunlight and accelerate icemelt is both a good explanation of the concept and a position of scientific understanding not in dispute.--Azriphael 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- By all means, feel free to replace that information :) Judgesurreal777 06:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would, but I don't have a good source for a citation, and there are more than enough un-cited references in this article already. This is part of my general knowledge, and I'm sure if I were to go dig through my bookcase I'd find a couple of sources I could feel confident about citing, but at the moment I don't know off the top of my head where I read this. If somebody has a reputable source to cite, I'd be happy to re-write the relevant material. Azriphael 14:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, what the heck, right? I went ahead and made the change, allong with a "citation needed" link. If anybody can dig up a good source, please link it. Azriphael 14:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- By all means, feel free to replace that information :) Judgesurreal777 06:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, you're right. The statement is in error. Oceans absorb a great deal of sunlight. In fact, they serve as one of the primary means our own planet uses to gain heat from solar radiation, with ocean currents then redistributing this thermal energy towards the poles. For a quick, simple, and easy-to-understand explanation of the concept, you might consider Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth. The film itself is arguably highly politically charged, but the explanation of how increasing ocean area on Earth will absorb more sunlight and accelerate icemelt is both a good explanation of the concept and a position of scientific understanding not in dispute.--Azriphael 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 00:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
