Talk:Grand Canyon

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CamdenAl, Ncomar1, Mitchunk13, Kreino1, Tonix223, Dchokr1, Moc504. Peer reviewers: Jjame67.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I had some photos to add but that sent the row of photos too far below the text, so I set most of them into a gallery. The three I left out I thought were pretty good, but maybe we should come to a consensus about which photos to 'feature' (keep full size). Maybe set up a poll - use the photos added so far as candidates and vote for your top 3? Zaui 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for throwing out the gallery (see WP:NOT point 4). We have commons for this purpose. --Dschwen 21:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

100% agree. All the images stuffed into this already poor article make it look worse than it really is (I can say that since I'm one of the main authors of this article and the person who look several of the photos in it). Much more text is needed and the images need to compliment the text by illustrating places, things and concepts mentioned in the text. Most of the images in this article don't seem to have a logical purpose for being there other than being pretty. That they are so big makes it even worse (I almost always just use the stand thumb width of images even though I have high res screens). --mav 06:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved it to the bottom of the page for now. I agree it should be removed, though. // Habj 07:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw in my support for trimming the images--this is way too cluttered at the moment. Robth^Talk 13:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are simply too many images. The Grand Canyon is a visual thing and should have a few choice photos to accent its article, but this is way overboard. Most importantly, having six on the lead is unacceptable. I also agree with the general poor state of the article, much in contrast to the subject. Maybe this will sound cynical, but perhaps we need a category for Poor Articles to identify articles in this kind of disrepair. The subject is a good one, so the article can be good; nay, it must be good. If no one else wants to clean this up I'll take to the task, starting with the images, this week. I would appreciate any help with the text. Notary137 05:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't forget, just been working on a template all day. Will try to wade through the gallery on Sunday. If any are appropriate to the context of article sections, I will move them first. Notary137 03:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Added a couple of <!--comments--> to the article to try and keep more images from coming in. Someone added one Friday. Notary137 03:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a really good quality one I found: Image:Rim of Grand Canyon.jpg. I think it stands above a lot of the existing images in terms of quality, so I'll let you hombres decide on what to do with it. Black-Velvet 09:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the images around for relevancy. The lead section now starts with a panorama (I think this is appropriate). All subsequent sections have at most one image each. I've tried to keep it relevant. The Image gallery has been removed. This gallery was a subset of the gallery available in commons. This way Notes, References and the list boxes are finally visible. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Huge improvement. Thanks! --Dschwen 22:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What about a separate gallery page (or pages) for images – with a link (or links) from the Grand Canyon page. Figaro 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See Grand Canyon#External links for a link to just that, Commons:Category:Grand Canyon. – Quin 07:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Plants Section says: "This variety is largely due to the 8,000 foot (2,400 m) elevation change from the Colorado River up to the highest point on the North Rim." But the highest point is Point Imperial at about 8800 feet, while the floor is at 2600 feet. Why is 6200 rounded to 8000?128.187.112.7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I took a look at this. The full elevation range in the canyon is from the lowest point on the river at the southwestern end of the canyon, which is roughly 300 m, up to Point Imperial at 2683 m, which gives an elevation range of roughly 2,400 m, which is what the cited source says. Mikenorton (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Grand canynon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 30#Grand canynon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Colorado Canyon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 30#Colorado Canyon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Great Colorado Canyon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 22#Great Colorado Canyon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Canon of Colorado. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 22#Canon of Colorado until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The suggestion that geologic evidence supports the erosional age of western Grand Canyon as being 17 to 20 million years old or older (rather than 5 to 6 my) has been refuted by the abundant and chronologic field evidence described in the article by Young and Crow in the journal, Geosphere (2014, v. 10, no. 4, p. 664-679), titled “Paleocene Grand Canyon incompatible with Tertiary paleography and stratigraphy.” The Paleocene through Miocene age of the dated Cenozoic sedimentary section on the Hualapai Plateau demonstrates that deposition, rather than erosion, was active across the western Plateau (at the location of the modern gorge) through late Miocene or early Pliocene time. Young1940 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

do the names in Indigenous languages all mean "Grand Canyon"? or are they other words? or names? --142.163.194.149 (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wnfrase (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bnthomas17, Clhild.

I would add about the Grand Canyon in popular culture. If possible, even make a standalone article on it. Cwater1 (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Change to Whitehall, as used by Chidsey in reference #62 Kcmowildman (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Mason2678 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I logged in for 4days but this doesn`t let me go in

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the name of this monument is simply "Grand Canyon". Referring to it as The Grand Canyon is wrong, I believe, and the article should be edited to reflect this. However, I don't feel like doing it. Also, I could be wrong, ofc. Eaglizard (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe the article is correct. This article is about the geographical entity known as the Grand Canyon, which refers to a canyon, its tributary sub-canyons, and the surrounding plateau. Use of the word "the" is correct.

The Grand Canyon is contained within many different political entities, each of which has their own Wikipedia article. The most famous is the national park called "Grand Canyon National Park"; it does not include the word "the".

The other political entities are:

• Grand Canyon–Parashant National Monument;
• the Hualapai Indian Reservation;
• the Havasupai Indian Reservation;
• the Navajo Nation;
• the Kaibab National Forest.

As an aside, this article does suffer from a number of other naming issues. For example, the terms "South Rim" (upper case) and "south rim" (lower case) are frequently used, but never defined, and frequently confused with each other. The same is true for "North Rim" (upper case) and "north rim" (lower case). However, even normally reliable sources (such as major newspapers) get this wrong more often that not, so I'm loathe to get involved in such a messy area. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That's well argued. Eaglizard (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Summary of Powell expedition says boats were shipped east from Chicago. This is incorrect. 172.125.123.147 (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You are obviously correct. Fixed. No idea why nobody else responded to this earlier. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Insert https://www.bryoticworlds.com/post/moran-point-everything-you-need-to-know into "Moran Point." It includes over 2,500 words of information. Natureman4 (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. And read MOS:EL and WP:COPYVIO. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

In the lede, there's a statement that "Some of the surrounding area is contained within the Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument." [note: it used to say "The surrounding area is contained within the Baaj..., but I changed it as noted]. Why should reference to Baaj be included, when other parts of the surrounding area are ignored, e.g.: Vermilion Cliffs National Monument; Lake Mead National Recreation Area. My inclination would be to remove Baaj from the lede, rather than add even more stuff that isn't in the Grand Canyon. Comments? Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The grand canyon is about 5,000 square kilometers 134.228.178.46 (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The Grand Canyon provides one of the clearest natural demonstrations of Loschmidt’s gravito‑thermal effect and the associated “heat creep” process that is evident in all planets and moons. Despite the canyon rim receiving far more direct solar radiation than the canyon floor, the base is consistently 11–17°C warmer. With a height difference of 1.78 km, this corresponds to a temperature gradient of 6–10°C per km, matching the environmental adiabatic lapse rate, this range in the gradient being similar to that in the troposphere due to variations in humidity. Direct sunshine reaches the canyon floor only briefly: Summer: typically 3–6 hours Winter: often 0–2 hours Narrow sections: even less

Because the base receives less solar heating than the rim, the persistent warmth at the bottom cannot be explained by solar radiation. Nor can it be explained by “heat trapping,” “air stagnation,” or other commonly repeated but physically inconsistent claims. The only mechanism that correctly predicts the observed gradient — and its stability day and night — is the gravito‑thermal effect described by Josef Loschmidt. Gravity acting on a gas establishes a temperature gradient as part of maximum entropy production, and the continual redistribution of thermal energy (“heat creep”) maintains that gradient.

A full explanation, with linked papers, is available at: https://climate-change-theory.info Center for the Refutation of False Science (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Warning: this is original research WP:OR and self-promotion WP:SELFCITE. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia reads: "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

In regard to my extensive relevant research over 15 years I believe that I am an "established subject-matter expert" because I have written peer-reviewed published material which has never been refuted (effectively peer-reviewed by thousands in open media) and I have even made a world-first discovery in atmospheric physics.

Never-the-less, I have removed references to my papers and website, but that will deprive readers of having a far more detailed explanation of my discovery which is in my papers and requires the graphics therein for a proper understanding. Retired Physicist (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I was unable to find any citations of your papers by reputable subject-matter experts, only your self-published papers on non-peer-reviewed aggregation sites such as SSRN. At scopus.com you have 0 citations.

In other words: you are not an established subject-matter expert, and you have not been published by reliable, independent publications. Facebook and Amazon comments are not peer reviewed journals. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

My published works cite and build upon peer‑reviewed research by qualified scientists, and several of my papers have themselves been reviewed by reputable experts. In particular, my 2012 peer‑reviewed paper on radiative processes received explicit praise from Professor Claes Johnson, whose 115‑page monograph Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation remains a substantial contribution to the field. I recommend that you read page 24 of that work, where Johnson addresses the conceptual errors that continue to permeate modern climatology. Professor Johnson has been voted the top scientist in his field in Sweden.

I also draw your attention to the formal statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as set out in Laws of Thermodynamics. The Second Law applies strictly to individual natural processes or to integrated sets of interacting processes. It does not apply to “net effects” constructed by combining unrelated processes, as is routinely done in climatology’s radiative‑balance diagrams. This misuse of the Second Law underpins the claim that cold atmospheric gases can somehow deliver more radiative flux to the surface than the Sun itself—an assertion that defies both physics and common sense. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to validate the climatology diagrams that depict greenhouse gases—less than 1% of the atmosphere—sending roughly double the radiative flux toward the surface compared with direct solar input.

My ResearchGate profile contains citations of my papers, where you are welcome to engage directly regarding my world‑first identification of the heat creep process. This process arises naturally from the Second Law and is observable in planetary data across the Solar System and notably in the Grand Canyon.

Finally, I encourage you to locate any valid refutation of my ten relevant papers—or to attempt one yourself—using long‑established physical laws and empirical evidence. To date, no scientist has produced a physically coherent rebuttal of the mechanisms I have described. Retired Physicist (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

My remarks stand. No citations. Like SSRN, ResearchGate is not a peer-reviewed journal. You cite reputable scientists in your self-published papers, but reputable scientists do not cite you. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

ResearchGate requires contributors to hold recognised scientific qualifications, and several qualified researchers have cited, recommended, or engaged with my work there and on other platforms. Across all platforms, my papers have been read more than 20,000 times without any substantive refutation. Open scientific scrutiny by thousands of independent readers is, in my view, a more meaningful test of validity than the traditional model in which two or three colleagues — often trained from the same textbook — provide a closed review.

My 2012 paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics was formally peer‑reviewed by three PhD‑qualified scientists, all of whom are named at the end of the paper. In addition, Professor Claes Johnson — recently ranked Sweden’s leading scientist in Mathematical Physics — provided strong private endorsement of the work. His own peer‑reviewed publications challenge the “radiative forcing” mechanism found only in climatology literature, and my work is consistent with the long‑established physical principles he applies.

The issue I am raising is not about venue but about physics. Climatology papers reviewed exclusively by fellow climatologists and published in journals that do not accept dissenting analyses tend to reinforce the framework promoted by Pierrehumbert and the familiar energy‑budget diagrams that depict greenhouse gases radiating roughly twice the flux of solar input back to a warmer surface. Given the extremely low atmospheric concentrations involved — approximately 0.25% water vapour, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and less than 0.0002% methane — it is understandable that scientists such as the late Hal Lewis and the 2022 Nobel Laureate in Physics, Dr John Clauser have described this framework as pseudoscientific.

My work is grounded strictly in the established laws of physics, including thermodynamics as taught in mainstream university physics departments. Wikipedia’s role, I would respectfully suggest, is to assess contributions on the basis of their scientific coherence and consistency with physical law, not solely on the publication venue.

Please confirm any details with trusted official sources. Retired Physicist (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

ResearchGate allows anyone with an institutional email address to join and upload documents, and this minimal requirement can be circumvented. Uploaded documents are not peer-reviewed nor validated for quality or accuracy.

You have not been published by a reputable peer-reviewed journal. You refer to three names in your document. Hans Schreuder is Chief Financial Officer & Founder Member of Principia Scientific International, a pseudoscience and junk science website; Alan Siddons is a Founder Member of Principia Scientific International; Dr Matthias Kleespies is a member of Principia Scientific International. Claes Johnson has a single self-published paper in climate science. Private endorsements are not peer-review. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Across more than a decade, thousands of readers have examined my work and no one has ever produced a valid physical argument showing that the “heat creep” process does not exist. Likewise, no climate scientist has ever been able to quantify the observed global mean surface temperature using only valid physics, without resorting to assumptions or radiative‑forcing constructs that contradict fundamental thermodynamic principles.

My explanation, rigorously derived from the laws of physics and supported by extensive empirical evidence on Earth and throughout the Solar System, remains the only coherent and physically consistent account of how planetary temperatures are established. Nevertheless, I continue to welcome any serious attempt to demonstrate a flaw in this explanation. Scientific progress depends on such scrutiny, and I invite it openly. Retired Physicist (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding peer‑review: you refer to “subject‑matter experts,” but the subject matter here is not climatology — it is physics, specifically radiation, thermodynamics, and convective processes. Meaningful review of such work requires reviewers with at least an undergraduate major in physics, and journals whose editors possess equivalent qualifications. Radiation theory is mathematically intricate, and the relevant phenomena sit at the cutting edge of mathematical physics. The 115‑page treatment by Professor Claes Johnson, Sweden’s leading scientist in that field, illustrates the depth required.

Professor Johnson read my work on radiation and endorsed it, noting that only a small number of researchers like myself properly understand the underlying physics. My work extended his analysis, just as it extends the 19th‑century contributions of Josef Loschmidt regarding gravito‑thermal structure.

Unless you can provide a valid physics paper — grounded in long‑established physical laws — that quantifies planetary surface temperatures from a given solar flux and quantifies any change that would arise from variations in atmospheric composition, then there is little further to discuss. In the absence of such a paper, I will continue to maintain that claims asserting that trace gases such as carbon dioxide and methane supposedly warming planetary surfaces are not peer‑reviewed by qualified physics experts and not published in recognized physics journals Retired Physicist (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

No other person has provided a valid explanation for the observed reasonably constant temperature gradient (aka lapse rate) in the Grand Canyon, making the temperature at the base consistently warmer than the temperature at the rim, despite the fact that relatively little solar radiation reaches that base whilst of course somewhat more solar radiation reaches the rim.

Energy‑budget diagrams produced by climate scientists show that the magnitude of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is only about 163 W/m². From the Stefan–Boltzmann Law we can calculate the maximum temperature that any given radiative flux could achieve. A constant flux of about 163 W/m² corresponds to a radiative‑equilibrium temperature of about –40°C. Moreover, because the actual flux is an average of highly variable solar input and because the Stefan–Boltzmann Law equation contains the fourth power of temperature, the global mean surface temperature supported by such a variable flux is even somewhat colder than –40°C.

This raises the question: How can we quantify the observed global mean surface temperature (around 14 °C) using the Stefan–Boltzmann Law? If we can't correctly quantify the existing mean surface temperature then how could we quantify any higher temperature when carbon dioxide (0.04% of the atmosphere) and methane (<0.0002%) increase?

The IPCC explicitly abandoned the old “heat trapping” metaphor in the 1990s and replaced it with the radiative‑forcing framework. They have clearly stated that greenhouse gases do not trap heat. The clearest and most explicit quote comes from the IPCC’s FAQ section in AR4 (2007) which is still hosted on their website:

IPCC AR4 FAQ 1.1 – “Do greenhouse gases trap heat?” The IPCC states: “The term ‘greenhouse effect’ is misleading because the greenhouse gases do not trap heat. Instead, they absorb and emit infrared radiation.” Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 FAQ 1.1

An Energy Budget diagram showing back radiation from trace gases somehow being about double the flux from the Solar radiation can be viewed with this link: https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/climate-and-earths-energy-budget/#hds-sidebar-nav-7 Retired Physicist (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

FOOTNOTE: These gases are, as the IPCC has repeatedly confirmed, the only constituents of the atmosphere capable of radiating energy. That radiative ability is precisely what allows the atmosphere to cool at night: water vapour, CO₂, CH₄ and similar gases emit infrared radiation to Space, providing the only mechanism by which the troposphere can shed the energy accumulated during the day.

After a hot day, convection transfers energy from the surface into the lower atmosphere. Without the nocturnal radiative cooling provided by these gases, that energy would accumulate in the troposphere day after day. In other words, the very gases often described as “trapping heat” are in fact the ones that prevent long‑term atmospheric energy buildup by enabling nightly cooling.

Yet, despite the IPCC abandoning the "trapping" claims decades ago, recent peer-reviewed papers (such as Feng et al. (2026), Nature: A strong constraint on radiative forcing of well‑mixed greenhouse gases) still write about "radiative forcing" which was originally defined by the IPCC as the change in net downward radiative flux caused by greenhouse gases trapping infrared radiation!

The same non-radiative process by which gravity forms the temperature gradient by acting on individual molecules (as the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt explained) continues down into the Grand Canyon. Retired Physicist (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)