My question Evidence indicating that CO2 is responsible for Global warming was closed as being too broad.

There are many research papers on the topic, however it is a very specific question. If you are willing to suggest edits to re-open this question, I would be willing to listen, but I don't understand why it must be closed. Have I violated a policy?

I hate the fact I have to talk about policy now. But if this question is closed even questions such as "What evidence do we have that GR(insert any theory) is correct?" must also be closed. It is outrageous to me, but it's your site.

  • $\begingroup$ The ridiculous breadth of the question aside, why on Earth ask it here when there is Earth Science? $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Nov 2 '16 at 20:06
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty I was not aware of earth science. I have already asked QM to move it. $\endgroup$ – Prathyush Nov 2 '16 at 20:09

You are asking us to do a literature review on the subject of carbon dioxide and global warming. A student starting a PhD on the subject would spend weeks doing a review like this. Your question was closed as too broad because, well, it's too broad.

  • $\begingroup$ You need not do it there are people who would have looked at the literature and they can point me some relevant literature. You need not even bother with this question if you are not interested. $\endgroup$ – Prathyush Nov 2 '16 at 15:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Prathyush I think John's point isn't that it would be a lot of work to do it from scratch, but that there's simply too much information out there. Did you start to do some reading on your own? The amount of papers out there is enormous. Your edit did not make it any more specific. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Nov 2 '16 at 15:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Just to give one example, the most recent UN IPCC summary report is more than 150 pages long. $\endgroup$ – rob Nov 2 '16 at 15:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @rob: actually that would have been a good answer to the original question :-) $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Nov 2 '16 at 15:59
  • $\begingroup$ @HDE226868 Yes I did some research, I was thinking I could add the phase "key papers". And it could be helpful. The point is that there are people who have gone though the literature which I know is enormous. And I am mainly interested in people who have already done this research and can help me identify the key papers. If someone asked me for key papers giving the evidence for the correctness of GR I can. There is enormous literature in that subject also. $\endgroup$ – Prathyush Nov 2 '16 at 16:00
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnRennie exactly my point. Why don't you let this question remain open so that people can share the papers they would like to? $\endgroup$ – Prathyush Nov 2 '16 at 16:03
  • $\begingroup$ @rob there are no citations nor is the methodology clear when I look at the report. I still don't understand why this question has to be be closed. The question is specific and the literature is vast, but that is not a reason to close the question. $\endgroup$ – Prathyush Nov 2 '16 at 16:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Prathyush There is a three-page bibliography in the overall summary report that I linked above. The Working Group 1 report, on "the physical science basis of climate change," is 1500+ pages long, and each of its several chapters has several pages of its own references. There are two other working group reports of comparable complexity. Your original question, and this follow-up comment, suggest that you're not trying very seriously to explore this literature on your own. $\endgroup$ – rob Nov 2 '16 at 20:29
  • $\begingroup$ @rob I am sorry I have missed it, I only saw the chapter. It all started with a doubt that someone planted in my brain. It probably is too big for me handle :P. I will definitely look into chapter 8 Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing Carefully. $\endgroup$ – Prathyush Nov 2 '16 at 20:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .