Talk:Climate change/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions about Climate change. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

→

Climate models capabilities

A change was made some time ago which seem to have been reverted at some point. The section about climate models says that

Climate models can produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate

The last part implies that models will simulate all aspects of climate someday, which is an unsupportable claim. I suggest that this sentence is qualified with "at least for now" at the end, or that "yet" is removed. --Childhood's End 17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence with the "yet" is open-ended. The sentence without it is an absolute statement that indeed is not supportable. What if we restrict it to current climate models and drop the speculation about what they can? "Current climate models produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but do not simulate all aspects of climate". --Stephan Schulz 18:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between "but cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate" and "but cannot simulate all aspects of climate, at least for now". Don't they both imply that it might happen in the future, but that we can't do it right now? I don't see that either one suggests that it will happen in the future. That said, for the sake of consensus, I have no objections with the second version as I see them being equivalent statements. If anything, the version you're proposing sounds to me like it is more likely that it will happen in the future than the current version sounds. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Stephen's version resolves it all as it indeed contains no speculative claim. @Ben, the difference between the current wording (with 'yet') and the one I contemplated (with 'at least for now') is that the former suggests it will for sure, while the latter only suggests it might happen (which was also speculative in fact, so I think that the version proposed by Stephan is even better). --Childhood's End 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this conversation is very logical. Scientific models are approximations of real life processes with varying degrees of accuracy. Sometimes the model exists because the theory is incomplete, sometimes a model is used because of limitations in computing power in dealing with all possible variables, and sometimes a model is used just for convenience to better visualize the otherwise not-so-easily comprehensible, like the idea that atoms can somehow resemble tiny solar systems. In the case of global warming, a key element is the very clear correspondence of atmospheric C02 levels to global temps. Raise the CO2 levels and the temperature goes up. That makes even the simplest climate model inherently predictive. "Speculation" has little to do with any of this. -BC aka Callmebc 12:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but CE's point is that there's no reason to believe that any model will ever "simulate all aspects of climate". I disagree with his assertion of the meaning of "yet", but that disagreement is purely academic as I agree with the current version. Even if you do believe that we may one day be able to "simulate all aspects of climate" (which I doubt you do), unless we have a reliable source stating that we shouldn't imply that in the article. (Again, I don't think that "yet" does imply that in this context, but I have no problem leaving the word out, either.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We'll never be able to simulate all aspects of climate because we'll never know all aspects of climate (or any other nontrivial natural phenomenon, for that matter). I don't see the point of the statement, whether "yet" is included or not. Raymond Arritt 16:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

His point was that the use of the word "yet" makes it seem otherwise. Since no one seems to object to the removal of that word, it doesn't really matter whether we agree with him on his interpretation of the word. Others might also interpret it the same way, and removing the word does no harm to how I (and presumably you) interpret it, so it's all good. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming on Mars

Are you the one deleting this chunk that I've added to the Global Warming article?

While some skeptics of Global Warming declare that Global Warming is a hoax in its entirety, some who admit that the global temperature is rising argue that it is not attributable to man, and that it is a natural phenomenon. One argument for this theory is that a simultaneous phenomenon is happening on the planet Mars, ^[1] which suggests that Global Warming may not be limited to the only planet where human interaction could have influence.

In addition, while Venus is the token example of an Earth-like planet globally warmed by excessive C0₂ in the atmosphere, there is no man-made industrialism or other sources of greenhouse emissions present on Venus.

I find nothing oppinionated about this entry, and it is cited by a reputable source (National Geographic), and it portrays a valid point.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HillChris1234 (talk • contribs)

It's not a valid point. Mars is not Earth and it has issues the Earth doesn't have, most notably global wide dust storms. See also this more recent article. And that National Geographic article is only about the "views" of just one scientist, a Russian named Habibullo Abdussamatov, and that same article mentions that his views "contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." So this hardly merits inclusion in the discussion page, never mind the main article. -BC aka Callmebc 21:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved this from TeaDrinker's talk. I thought they were more appropriate here. I also de-linked the subject because it looks better black.Brusegadi 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me to be syntheses and undue weight.Brusegadi 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(I hope no one minds that I did a bit of formatting above.) My concern (aside from 3rr and such) was as mentioned, undue weight. The second paragraph (on Venus) may indeed be an improper synthesis as well. Solar effects are already sufficiently covered (there is an entire section on it), that this (over) simplistic view of planetary analogies really would only mislead people. It is also most certainly out of place in terms of article flow as well. I replied in person on my talk page, as well. I should also note HillChris1234 (talk · contribs) is presently blocked for 24 hrs for 3rr problems, so no immediate reply should be expected. --TeaDrinker 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Find a more reliable source that makes a connection between Mars warming and Earth warming and you will have a better argument for including the content. A single NG article that documents the opinion of a single scientist (with multiple critics in the article, to boot) does not support mentioning it in Wikipedia's primary GW article. Has there been any research conducted to support the common solar factor? If so, include it! Zoomwsu 21:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The best material on the solar forcing hypothesis already is included in the article (e.g., Solanski's work). I don't know of any published work on the common planetary warming issue. Its main proponent has some rather, um, "novel" ideas about the climate system. Among these are that the natural greenhouse effect does not exist, and that different chemical constituents of the troposphere can spontaneously unmix. Raymond Arritt 00:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The problem is, just because this article's title is "global warming" does not automatically say it's about global warming on Earth, because clearly, Earth is not the only planet where this is happening. There may be some truth to the theories that the sun is causing global warming, but that does not explain all of the observed global warming. The sun being the strongest in a million years does not explain why the north pole was briefly ice-free for the first time in 50 million years. Obviously, people are not saying that global warming is caused completely by humans, so why should this be so controversial? Sure, there are different theories on the things that will happen, but most scientists have clearly said that the sun, volcanoes, and continental drift can not be responsible for all of global warming. They say that humans are invloved because when you add the estimated effects of humans to the numbers, it pretty much adds up. The article should at least have some mention of most of the different theories, including the ones about the sun. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion of solar variation in this article. If you read it through you will see that they discuss each relevant forcing on earth. In addition, we should not discuss other planets because it is undue weight.Brusegadi 17:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not undue weight to give one paragraph in an overall article that is based upon scientific conjecture, to ONE of the other conjectures that may explain things differently. It is, in fact, necessary per NPOV. Undue weight would be if it were given the space of half the article. --Blue Tie 23:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I said. Conveniently, the article already has a section on variations in solar output. Brusegadi 23:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If it were a theory that was considered to be reasonably serious by climate scientists, then we could mention it. Remember that this is an article about a scientific theory and it is a fact that outside the realm of peer reviewed journals, there are very few reliable sources. Just today I had a discussion about including a hot news item about relativity in the wiki article about this subject see here.

The same concerns hold in this case too. If there are many unreliable sources out there and we want to use what we read in there for a wiki article, then we must also be permitted to do Original Research to correct mistakes etc.(which is in principle possible because many editors here are experts in the field of climate science). Count Iblis 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand (really I do) that this is a wikipedia policy-free zone. So policies such as WP:NPOV do not apply. However, they are the basis for my comment. Of course if WP:NPOV is not relevant here, my comments do not apply and yours would perhaps pertain better. Notice though, how WP:NPOV states things (they will not be to your liking):

Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles.

I know... I know... They erred and forgot to add "except for Global Warming".

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

Do you notice that even "flat earth" gets SOME mention?

Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later.

See how National Geographic fits the bill?

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

Note that they do not have to be scientists, just prominent adherents.

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. ... A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas. Types of bias include: ... Scientific ... favoring (or disfavoring) a scientist, inventor, or theory for non-scientific reasons.

An example of a non-scientific reason for disfavoring a view would be that only a few scientists hold that view. That might be a cause to consider it a minor perspective, but it is not sufficient to block it entirely. (And again, remember about Flat Earth).

--Blue Tie 00:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On flat earth: You may want to ask your self for how long the notion that the earth was flat was held as truth. I think that flat earth is prominent because it was 'truth' for so long. That is why it warrants mention in the earth article. See the difference, the Mars thing you want included has never enjoyed the widespread acceptance that flat earth once did. Brusegadi 01:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That dog don't hunt in these woods. Global Warming is a new concept -- the term is only about 30 years old. So all things in this article are relatively new. But, it is a very weird standard that "how long" something has been known is the main standard. Because the fairly long-term sense of normal temperatures does not agree with global warming. Yet that has not been contemplated in this article. And the instant that we pictured rings around Jupiter, that was a known fact, yet it was brand new in the several thousand year history of our knowledge of that planet. --Blue Tie 05:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

One word...Svante. Look him up. On top of that, you have the additional problem that Global Warming's notability does not come from how old it is; it comes from the overwhelming scientific support it has. Flat earth's notability for inclusion is not from its overwhelming scientific support but from its historical support; it was held as truth for many years. The Mars warming comparison to earth warming has neither historical support nor scientific support (to the degree that would merit inclusion.) To simplify, I have discussed at least two things that may warrant inclusion: 1)Historical 2)Scientific. Mars and Earth warming comparison enjoys neither. Do you see? Brusegadi 18:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, Blue Tie makes a pretty good point. I'm not exactly sure how it plays out on this page, but it seems pretty clear from the sources he cited that room should always be made in these articles for the minority viewpoint, even if only a few scientists hold such views. Even if certain view are held by a "tiny minority" of scientists, if many more non-scientists would agree, it makes it simply a "minority" viewpoint. I think we need to discuss this point further and develop a better consensus on how to present the AGW-critical viewpoints in a fair way. Zoomwsu 01:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What sources? The only thing he mentions is the National Geographic. If that is the by now (in)famous article we all have seen, it does not advocate, but only describe the ridiulous position of Abdusamatov. In the second half of the article, it has a number of scientists explaining in the strongest language what hogwash this is. Unfortunately, the article is split onto two web pages, and many only seem to see the first. And of course, solar variation is discussed here (btw, since the "Mars" joke, several new papers have come out that all put fairly low limits on the possible influence of solar variation). --Stephan Schulz 06:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring more broadly than this specific instance. Views critical of the AGW orthodoxy are consistently suppressed on this page, even if they are held by a significant minority of scientists and people in general. I happen to think that the Abdusamatov article is insufficient to warrant mention here, but user:Blue Tie's comment extends more broadly than this specific article. Zoomwsu 17:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Do you think that Earth should make space for the idiots who think that the Sun orbits the Earth, or that the Earth is flat? 18% of Americans (in 1996) thought that the Sun orbited the Earth (though I rather suspect they're the same people who believe the Earth is 5000 years old, too). If the overwhelming scientific opinion on a subject is X, then the main article about the science of that subject should be X. If there is scientific controversy, it should be included, but if there isn't any real scientific controversy, then it shouldn't be. Very, very few scientists don't think global warming is happening, and the few who don't believe in it/don't believe it is manmade are being paid very handsomely by the oil industry and Detroit.

Your words betray your bias and suggest you're not being fair and rational on this issue. There is clearly still controversy among scientists regarding AGW (see Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming), so the idea that there "isn't any real scientific controversy" is false. Moreover, plenty of the critical scientists cited on that page are not "being paid very handsomely" by the O&G industry. Moreover, even if most think they are wrong, minority viewpoints deserve mention. Please take your bias elsewhere, we strive for neutrality and are committed to following Wikipedia policies, as you don't seem to be. Zoomwsu 17:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There IS a very small amount of scientific controversy over global warming, but I don't think it warrants talking about beyond the space it has already been given. Compare to evolution, where there is absolutely no scientific controversy. Titanium Dragon 11:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Individuals cited, for instance, in Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming would seriously question some of the statements on this page, meaning we should look at doing more to include those minority views here. Moreover, since a significant portion of informed non-experts also questions the theories espoused here, it qualifies AGW-critical arguments for inclusion. All I'm really saying is we need to think about stepping back and considering how well we're including minority viewpoints. Zoomwsu 17:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz explains perfectly that there is a dispute. I suspect that the intent of the Mars information is to suggest that the understanding of solar loading may be incomplete. Anyway, per wikipedia NPOV Policy alternative views should be included. They do not have to be given undue weight but they should be included. The only problem is that wikipedia policy does not pertain to articles such as Global Warming. I wish that they would put that into the policy instead of the pesky statement saying it applies universally, to all editors and all articles and is not negotiable. --Blue Tie 15:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You're brushing aside the provision of WP:NPOV that states Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. The Mars parallel has been proposed by a single scientist in a non-peer-reviewed venue. It's hard to imagine a more "tiny-minority" view than that. (The proponent of this idea has also demonstrated an appalling lack of knowledge of even the most elementary physics of the climate system, though that's not the point here.) Raymond Arritt 15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What is more: We do discuss solar variation as a possible contributor to global warming. The Mars issue is an extremely peripheral aspect, irrelevant (because we have better and more direct means to measure solar output) and, moreover, multiply refuted.--Stephan Schulz 16:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not brushed aside the provision governing minority opinions. The problem is that this is a view presented by one scientist but picked up by many other people. It has made its way into discussion in legislatures around the world in the debate on global warming and is considered by a sizable minority of people to at least be interesting in the debate. Note also the words that Jimbo puts to this notion of credibility. Speaking specifically to this point he says: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". There are several prominent adherents, though they are not all scientists. As for solar variation, I personally think it is possible that solar variation has NOTHING to do with the changes on Mars, but the adherents of this view are suggesting that solar variation may not be accounted for or measured appropriately, hence this tidbit is a contra view about something that is already mentioned -- it is NOT additional ancillary detail. It is contra. In short this meets the requirements per NPOV for admission: Prominent adherents who can be named, reliable sources and it balances other elements of the article. But so what? This is an NPOV-free zone! --Blue Tie 17:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

W._Somerset_Maugham once wrote, If forty million people say a foolish thing it does not become a wise one, but the wise man is foolish to give them the lie. Global warming is a matter of science and research and it's not exactly being "NPOV-free" for a responsible encyclopedia, one that is striving to be accurate & informative, to give little or no mention to discredited/fringe theories, ill-informed speculation, weaselly disinformation, and/or out and out crackpot nonsense. It doesn't matter how many right wing/conservative blog sites repeat and pass along whatever is the anti-science du jour, it is still a very foolish thing. The current scientific consensus came from over a century of hard, serious research and it was very gradual, beginning, as is usually the case, with just a few sharp, insightful thinkers. To you "skeptics" out there, I strongly recommend you read this article that covers the long scientific process of discovery that lead to human-generated CO2 being the primary suspect in the current round of global warming. While I'm at it, I should also recommend this excellent New Scientist article, Climate change: A guide for the perplexed. -BC aka Callmebc 20:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes it is NPOV-free to fail to mention opposing viewpoints that are reliably sourced. Your view is that if YOU PERSONALLY deem something to be inappropriate, THEN it should not be included EVEN IF it meets wikipedia critiera. That is what I meant by an NPOV zone. That is the view here -- that wikipedia standards should not apply. As an aside, I am not a skeptic. I happen to think the earth is warming. I happen to think that humans may well be responsible. I also happen to not care very much unless the tractor currents change. So, my comments have nothing to do with being skeptical. They have to do with wikipedia policies. And you may have noticed that I did mention that those policies do not apply here, despite what wikipedia claims. --Blue Tie 21:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but a lot of folks have pretty funky ideas about what something like "opposing viewpoints that are reliably sourced" means. Just sorting through this discussion illustrates that. If someone comes to the Wikipedia looking for a good intro to the topic of global warming, how helpful really would it be to include space for "opposing viewpoints" that are far, FAR inferior in science content and credibility compared to the main content? That's not science, it's condescending politics, and has nothing at all to do with a true NPOV. -BC aka Callmebc 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, ultimately, this is an article about the scientific theory of global warming. Then, apart from the issues of undue weight raised by others above, one has to give the scientific perspective to anything one includes here. In this case, that would mean that we cannot even say that since Mars is experiencing warming because that hasn't been accepted as a fact or a reasonabe hypothesis by scientists. The fact that many people do believe that is simply irrelevant.

The vast majority of people, including many politicians know very little about science. This means that certain things many people believe in can be ruled out a priori if you know about science. They may be upset that wiki articles don't mention the things they like to see mentioned.

Similarly, there exists a significant minority of people (mainly children under five) who believe that Santa Claus lives on the Norh Pole. But why doesn't the wiki article about the North Pole mention this significant minority view? Of course, the answer is that we know that this is false. Now you may think that this is a ridiculous example. But that's only because you also know that Santa doesn't exist. However, Many three year olds do believe in Santa and they would be upset that the wiki article on the North Pole doesn't mention Santa :) Count Iblis 18:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

But you see this article is NOT about the scientific theory of global warming. It is about Global Warming. Look at the title. It does not say "Scientific Theory of Global Warming". It says "Global Warming". Certainly much of the information about global warming comes from scientists, but that is not the sole concern of this article. And whether politicians know very little or very much would depend upon the politician. I am not as inclined as you are to lump everyone into inappropriate groups and then declare my point proven. And, Santa Clause is mentioned in the article on the North Pole.

But you seem to be laboring under the impression that you need to defend the situation here. No need to defend it. But it should be labled "Wikipedia policies do not apply to this page as they do elsewhere -- even the non-negotiable ones.". --Blue Tie 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The choice of the title is almost always a result of a compromise between concisesness and accuracy. You cannot read too much into it. E.g. the page in Evolution is called "Evolution" and not "Scientific theory of evolution". You need to read the article to see what it is about, and in this case it is primarily about the science of global warming. To use the wiki policies you need to define what the focus of the article should be, what counts as reliable sources etc. In case of this article we have made these decisions and are applying the wiki rules accordingly. Count Iblis 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is not quite true. A concise title that got to the point you are trying to make would be "The Science of Global Warming". But that is not the title. And it was never debated as the title either. So, it is not a compromise between some alternatives that reflect science and some that does not. I have read the article. I see what it is about. It is about Global Warming. However, you have not made all the decisions here by applying wiki rules accordingly. This is a wikirule-free zone. Its ok. No need to defend. I just wish it would have a label. --Blue Tie 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not correct that it hasn't been discussed before - it has been... by you (+sm8900,+the machine) - during mediation and FA (Featured Article) review. On wikipedia rules being followed - i suggest that you take it up higher (AN/I, RfC etc.) - complaining here is simply ranting. Either you believe you have a legitimate gripe, and take it further - or you haven't, and are simply ranting. --Kim D. Petersen 19:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As you indicate above, the discussion was not on this page, which is where content -- and the title -- of this page should be discussed. (er...Per wikipedia rules, but not per the rules of this page). And it was not ever actually "discussed". I brought it up. I said that it was not properly named because repeatedly people limit the content that can go into the article contrary to its title and in fact, inconsistently with wikipedia rules and with other content on the page. Inconsistent application of the rule of this page (but since this is not a page that is subject to any real rules, it can go any way it wants). Yet as I recall, no one really responded to discuss it in detail when I brought it up. So it was NOT discussed. It was mentioned. That is all. And in both the cases you mention there was a failure of discussion. The mediation closed as a failure and the FA passed despite not having more than about 50% support as I recall and even the most scientific author of the article had withdrawn support. Yet it passed FA despite a lack of concensus. Which is not per standard wikipedia rules. But this is a page that is not subject to wikipedia rules.

As far as having a legitimate complaint, I do not see where I have complained about this content per se. I have said, however, that this page ought to be labeled "Wikipedia-rule-free Zone". Or the NPOV and RS policies ought to be re-written to reflect that things like NPOV are not negotiable and apply to all editors and all articles except Global Warming. That is not a complaint. However, if you think I ought to couch it as a complaint I am open to your suggested wording. --Blue Tie 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the North Pole article does mention Santa Claus. Raymond Arritt 18:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So if the north pole melts, kids will think Santa fell into the ocean? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 19:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I see! Now, let's try to mention warming on Mars in this article in a similar way :) Count Iblis 20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, so if the Martian polar caps melt, then Santa Claus... oh dear. Raymond Arritt 20:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Your fears -- and children's fears (I am supposing that they are different) are unfounded. Santa Claus is not on Mars nor on ice, but on solid ground. --Blue Tie 21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

While my opinion may not amount for much, i am apt to give it often. Looking strictly from the encyclopedic point of view, i find the article well written and even overly informative at times. The title of the article is global warming and it utilizes its space describing global warming and the science involved. It would unduely lengthen and confuse the title subject using space to describe what it is not. It is linked to an article titled global warming controversies which by title is the space that should be used for that subject. Also the term global warming is not 30 years old, it was mentioned in the New York Times as early as 1929 and other publications throughout the 30's and 40's immediately following the 1895 articles warning of global cooling and the impending ice age. As i understand it, especially from the loudest critics, the debate isnt whether global warming exsists, the debate is over the cause. Like i said, just my humble opinion. And what is this about no santa? Jmsseal 01:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It should not discuss what it is not. I have not proposed that. Instead, I have suggested it be about global warming and include alternative views per NPOV. But of course NPOV does not apply here. And as for the critics.... I really do not know what they think so much... if it exists or does not exist or whatever. I do not really read their work that much. However, jumping to a more interesting thing... My source for 30 years was the dictionary where it was described as being from the late 1970's. I am curious about the earlier references (and perhaps dictionary editors should hear about them too -- so much for "reliable sources"). I am interested in any references you have from 1895 , 1929, 1930's and 1940's that use the term "Global Warming". thanks! --Blue Tie 17:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Try [1] for history/references. Btw. WP:NPOV very much applies to this article - but so does WP:WEIGHT,WP:FRINGE and WP:COMMONNAME --Kim D. Petersen 17:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

None of those policies you cited apply to this page. They just don't. For window dressing, once in a while they pretend, but they do not actually apply. That's fine. It should just say that somewhere in the article and in the talk page. But that is less interesting to me than the 30 years thing. I was excited to see the link but the link you gave does not work for the purpose you claimed. It uses the term "Global Warming" but it was written in 2007. I was really hoping for something more than 30 years old to express the term "Global Warming". Do you have another link? Or are you trying to suggest that the phenomenon called "Global Warming" is older than 30 years? I know that I suggested that a few months -- indicating that it had been a phenomenon, along with global cooling for as long as we have had an atmosphere. But other reject that idea. Again... I would really like to see a reference that supports the statements made above: "the term global warming is not 30 years old, it was mentioned in the New York Times as early as 1929 and other publications throughout the 30's and 40's immediately following the 1895 articles warning of global cooling and the impending ice age.". I should ask the original writer -- I think you are not well enough equipped to support someone else's comments. --Blue Tie 19:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- I've started to push for a better method for dealing with repetitive and/or weaselly questions and assertions. I had already answered your question about 10 days ago with a link to this excellent article by the AIP that thoroughly covers the history of global warming research in regards to CO2 emissions. And in its first paragraph it states, At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. But here you are today acting like nobody answered your question. I think this illustrates the need for a combination of FAQ & Primer to deal with such pointlessly (well, aside from being weaselly...) repetitive postings. -BC aka Callmebc 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to your "thank you"... you are welcome, even if you meant it snidely. But, I think something has been lost in this discussion. Let's recap.

I said the term global warming is new. About 30 years old. You replied: "the term global warming is not 30 years old, it was mentioned in the New York Times as early as 1929 and other publications throughout the 30's and 40's immediately following the 1895 articles warning of global cooling and the impending ice age.". Ok, THAT was genuninely interesting to me. I said so and gave you my reasons. But when I asked for a source you give me a webpage that is about as old as this morning's coffee -- not sources from 1929 or even 1979. I suggest that when you provide MODERN reinterpretations of old studies that refer to them as "Global Warming" studies (and by people who were not the authors) -- that does NOT really suggest that the term "Global Warming" is older than 30 years. It rather enhances that idea. Or does this logic make no sense to you?

Hmmm...well, for one thing I never wrote "the term global warming is not 30 years old...." bit -- it was Jmmsseal. I had written this instead. That AIP article was pretty darn thorough in naming names and dates, so all you had to do was Google any of those names to get more detailed info. For instance this bio of Svante Arrhenius makes it pretty darn clear that Arrhenius was referring to what we now term "global warming". He used the archaic term Carbonic acid to refer to CO2 when in 1895 he presented a paper titled On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. In that he wrote, A simple calculation shows that the temperature in the arctic regions would rise about 8° to 9°C., if the carbonic acid increased to 2.5 or 3 times its present value. A little later in 1904, Arrhenius wrote the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry, be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries. Are you actually calling this a "reinterpretation" to say that Arrhenius was talking about global warming? -BC aka Callmebc 22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have suggested previously that Global Warming (as a phenomenon not a term) is hundreds of millions or billions of years old, but that was, oddly, rejected as irrelevant to an article on "Global Warming". (Well not so odd if we realize that this article does not really follow wikipedia rules). So, instead I am now not talking about the phenomenon, but rather the TERM -- as were you (unless you are now being "weaselly" as you put it).

So, I have a reliable source that dates it to 1975 or 1979 (I do not recall which, but I can find the source for you, if you care). Do you have a reliable source that dates it before that time? This is not an unfair question and it is not inappropriate to ask it more than once when it has never been answered before. Well, at least under wikipedia rules... its appropriate to ask about sources. I know... I know... this webpage does not operate on those rules. I sometimes forget.

Perhaps it's more a case of it not being enough to give someone a thoroughly researched scientific article for an answer -- you also have to assume that it will only be glanced at without excerpts and additional references to those excerpts presented at the same time. -BC aka Callmebc 22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And on that score, if we are noting things about this page, I might suggest that your rude and snide response illustrates the need for a tag at the top of this page and on the article that this is a wikipedia-rule-free zone. For example, WP:Civil and WP:AGF would not be appropriate here based upon your reply. The same tag should also go on your proposed FAQ page. --Blue Tie 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith - a few minutes of search found this quote "...In attempting to identify the ultimate causes of secular climatic variation, it should be ascertained whether this global warming trend has actually leveled..." in J. Murray Mitchell Jr. (1961) RECENT SECULAR CHANGES OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 95 (1), 235–250. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1961.tb50036.x - so are we now going to hear you starting to ask for any reliable source more than 46 years ago? And i really fail to see what the importance of this is. --Kim D. Petersen 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Or this sentence "...in judging the true global warming or cooling.." in Harry P. Bailey 'A Method of Determining the Warmth and Temperateness of Climate' Geografiska Annaler, Vol. 42, No. 1 (1960), pp. 1-16 doi:10.2307/520173 - which also mentions global cooling ;-) So the 1961 paper wasn't just a fluke.--Kim D. Petersen 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As a veteran of many a battle of science versus disguised-nonsense, some of the tactics of, oh say, the global warming "skeptics" include using circular "logic", re-re-presenting fringe, obsolete, and/or discredited theories over and over and over again in various guises, and/or pretending to have an open mind and are simply wanting hard facts or such and not "theory." If I misjudged you, I apologize for my cynical snideness. -BC aka Callmebc 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already said that I am not a skeptic. I believe the temperatures are increasing. I do not have a problem that it may be caused by mankind's expenditures... I think that is likely, but I am willing to acknowledge that there could be other causes. But I would not call that skeptical but rather open minded. Though I am not a skeptic I do not consider skeptics to be either stupid or evil, however I believe some people do consider them to be stupid, evil or both. --Blue Tie 14:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that very few if any people consider the broad majority of skeptics/sceptics to be "stupid, evil or both". It would be incredibly hard to reach a verdict more damming than "misled" i.e. that almost all of them have been led amiss. Personally I do not rule out a much wider range of verdicts including possibly "correct" although it does look very like the tide is going out on that one. --BozMo talk 14:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea of human activity being able to affect the entire Earth's climate was a slow one to be accepted by the scientific community, but with more research came more evidence until now it rightly dominates the scientific position in regards to the current round of global warming. In a sane society with a good, responsible free press, the central question would be what to do about it. But as a Google on "global warming" demonstrates rather nicely, we're apparently not so sane and our press not so responsible: vying for top spot with the Wikipedia entry is globalwarming.org, an utterly bogus organization created by one of the Exxon-funded disinformation proxies called the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Check out this 1998 Exxon memo, especially page 4 with the section tellingly titled "Victory Will Be Achieved When" and followed by 5 points that have essentially become the master blueprint for all the subsequent, deliberately dishonest anti-global warming, anti-science nonsense since. That memo and organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute should have been exposed mercilessly for what they are a long time ago, but....like I said, our society is apparently not so sane and our press not so responsible, hence all this endless, time-wasting, mostly clueless wrangling over whether global warming is real and caused by humans instead of trusting the evidence, trusting the research, and just plain trusting science and getting our collective butts in gear. -BC aka Callmebc 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear up the Mars thing, I like New Scientist's explanation best:

There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouses gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.

The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.

172.214.130.253 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bias

You know, I'm a student of computer science, and I've had several instructors who have assigned papers, and have demanded we do NOT use Wikipedia as a source. The reason for this is because Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia editable by anyone, and the information contained in Wikipedia is not always 100% accurate. I always hated it because I've always found Wikipedia a good place to get info on certain topics, but I can understand why.

I tried adding a passage last week that mentioned global warming on other planets. I cited National Geographic as my source of information, and my entry was not intended to be biased in any way. That entry was:

While some skeptics of Global Warming declare that Global Warming is a hoax in its entirety, some who admit that the global temperature is rising argue that it is not attributable to man, and that it is a natural phenomenon. One argument for this theory is that a simultaneous phenomenon is happening on the planet Mars, ^[2] which suggests that Global Warming may not be limited to the only planet where human interaction could have influence. In addition, while Venus is the token example of an Earth-like planet globally warmed by excessive C0₂ in the atmosphere, there is no man-made industrialism or other sources of greenhouse emissions present on Venus.

If people would like to alter my entry, I welcome that. In some Wikipedia guides to editing, Wikipedia suggests perhaps altering what a user has entered instead of erasing it completely. After getting in an edit war, I was banned. I then came to the conclusion that the Global Warming article is for those who only want to see a one-sided view of Global Warming, so maybe I should add my epcert to the page on Global Warming Skepticism. When I added it, however, my entry was again deleted. The user who deleted my entry said, "This is a fringe arguement." A fringe arguement? Global Warming believer or not, how could you deny that possible Global Warming existing on other planets is not vital to any science or arguement of Global Warming???

In addition, I highly suggested mentioning in the open sentence that Global Warming is the IDEA of increase, my suggestion was ignored, I tried changing it myself, and someone just reverted it. I then tried revising that in saying that Global Warming references ANY warming on a planetary level, as to suggest that Global Warming could refer to any warming at any time on any planet, but that wasn't good enough either. I feel this wasn't good enough because those who keep a short leash on this article wish to keep this article as a one-sided biased view of Global Warming. Even if Global Warming is happening in our present day, those who closely monitor this article have only reinforced my opinion that the present day arguement that Global Warming exists is a political issue. I believe any warming on Mars should be considered Global Warming, as well as any warming that may have taken place on Earth millions of years ago. However, I feel those who closely monitor this article have fought to keep only the present day idea of Global Warming mentioned in this article because of their political agenda to environmental action. I welcome this kind of bias in an article that mentions environmental action or any article relating to the fight to reduce carbon emissions, but I feel this is a place for non-biased scientific information. Not a political agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HillChris1234 (talk • contribs)

The problem with

While some skeptics of Global Warming declare that Global Warming is a hoax in its entirety, some who admit that the global temperature is rising argue that it is not attributable to man, and that it is a natural phenomenon. One argument for this theory is that a simultaneous phenomenon is happening on the planet Mars, [15] which suggests that Global Warming may not be limited to the only planet where human interaction could have influence. In addition, while Venus is the token example of an Earth-like planet globally warmed by excessive C02 in the atmosphere, there is no man-made industrialism or other sources of greenhouse emissions present on Venus.

is everything after the [15]. First of all, "Global Warming" is understood to refer to Earth by almost everyone except for those want to make a point about other planets getting warmer. If you replaced "Global Warming" with "planetary warming", that second sentence would be accurate. Finally, that last sentence seems to imply that scientists have argued that only an active source of greenhouse emissions could account for present-day greenhouse gases, which is a faulty implication. One could reword it as "Venus is an excellent example of an Earth-like planet globally warmed by excessive CO2 in the atmosphere," but that wouldn't fit in with the point you seem to be trying to make.

To address your comment about "political" bias in this article: I do not disagree. However, there is also a political bias in the article on September 11, 2001 attacks regarding the conspiracy theories. This bias is meant to reflect the WP:WEIGHT of scientific or other evidence. Also, note my comment in the section immediately preceding this one. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So, why doesn't someone just try to alter my entry instead of just booting it? So, would it be acceptable if I said something to the effect of, "...this suggests that Global Warming could just be an instance of simple planetary warming." And maybe added something to the effect of, "...however, while some Global Warming advocates agree that Global Warming could be attributed to natural causes, some feel man-made carbon emissions could be accelerating this natural phenomenon." ^(talk) 11:29, 20 August 2007 (EST)

It's a common problem that I've recently addressed about on my talk page. As a rule of thumb, I think they should have either edited your entry or deleted it and mentioned why it was inappropriate. In this case, in addition to the factual errors, it is more appropriate to include in Global warming controversy than here. Very few scientists have connected the warming on Mars to the warming here on Earth so it qualifies as a bit of a fringe topic. (I.e., it does not suggest "that Global Warming could just be an instance of simple planetary warming." Your other quoted statement is also quite inaccurate.) Therefore, the correct course of action would have been to remove it AND mention on the talk page why it was removed (without you having to ask). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your experience is neither the first such experience, nor will it be the last. It's quite unfortunate, really. It's a continual battle to make sure AGW-critical views are presented and I don't think that the current article series on this subject does it as well as it could. Zoomwsu 15:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea that GW is happening across the solar system, or that Mars warming tells us anything useful about the Earth, is so fringe it doesn't deserve mention. There are no scientific papers at all (AFAIK) that connect the two; nor are there any reputable online sources. The Nat Geog can only find Habibullo Abdussamatov to say it, and there is not the tiniest hint that he has actually done any analysis to support this. See-also Climate_of_Mars#Evidence_for_recent_climatic_change William M. Connolley 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The problem is deeper than Ben suggests. "One argument for this theory is that a simultaneous phenomenon is happening on the planet Mars,..." fails WP:WEASEL. It does not state who makes this argument. And in fact, this argument is absent from the scientific literature. It has been offered by Abdusamatov in the popular press, and met with universal ridicule by all scientific commentators. It's been repeated on blogs and in propaganda ad nauseam, but not got any traction among experts. We cannot and should no add every ridiculous fringe theory (and its refutation), otherwise the article would become an unreadable mess. See WP:WEIGHT. If and when this is reported in a reliable source, then we can discuss how to add it here. And the NatGeo, while usually a reliable source, is not reporting the point, but rather Abdusamatov opinion (and its prompt refutation). I don't quite get your point about Venus. It's an example of extreme CO2 induced greenhouse effect, but no-one ever claimed that anthropogenic factors had anything to do with it - just as no-one claims human responsibility for Jupiter's Hydrogen atmosphere, or the unregulated nuclear reactions in the Sun. --Stephan Schulz 15:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So, if Earth is warming and Mars is warming, you don't think it even deserves mention that there could be a common denominator here? Forgive me, but that's ridiculous. If all the planets are warming, I think that tells us VOLUMES about the warming of Earth.HillChris1234 11:44, 20 August 2007 (EST)

Come on, where've you read that "all the planets are warming"? That's just nonsense. I suggest you look at http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/ , for example. Nils Simon 15:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If one of us makes this claim, its WP:OR. If Abdussamatov makes this claim in the popular press, its an extreme fringe view. Reliable sources do not even claim that the Martian global climate is warming. A lot of reliable sources do show that the common cause proposed by Abdussamatov (increased solar activity) cannot be a major factor (and, by the way, that his knowledge about thermodynamics is abysmal). --Stephan Schulz 15:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If all the planets were warming, that would be very interesting. Of course, that's not known to be the case, is it? Keep in mind, that if there's no connection, you'd expect about half of the 7 other planets to be warming and half to be cooling. Obviously, for planets that take more than 10 years to orbit the sun, you're going to have to wait a long time to determine what's going on. That leaves us with 3 "other" planets: Mercury, Venus, and Mars. Mars has shown evidence of recent warming — what about Mercury and Venus? (And, would getting 3 heads in a row prove a coin was biased?) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say all the planets are warming. It was argued that if it is happening "across the solar system" what does it say about Earth, and I argue it would speak volumes. As far as Venus is concerned, Venus' atmosphere is about 85% CO2, proving that what is being considered as Global Warming on Earth has already happened to Venus, which proves to us that this Global Warming could happen without human interaction. I'm sorry, but I believe that speaks VOLUMES about what could be happening to Earth. As far as the guy above who replied; I sourced National Geographic, and he sourced a website called BadAstronomy. I just don't understand how we can ignore the FACT that other planets MAY be going through the same thing!(talk) 12:04, 20 August 2007 (EST)

Sorry, but I suggest you step back a while, read all the discussion, catch your breath, and then tell us what we should do about the FACT that you MAY already have killed 22 innocent victims! ;-) --Stephan Schulz 16:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

BadAstronomy has a lot of good astronomy information. He wasn't suggesting it be used for the article, but that it be used by you. Also, you used the word "planets" again where you mean "Mars". (And why would you stress the word "FACT" and "MAY" in the same sentence?) It would be intereseting if all the planets are warming. It would also be interesting if most of them were cooling. It'd be really, really interesting if most of them were losing mass or spiraling into the sun.

As for Venus, no one disputes the fact that global warming could happen without human interaction, so your comment appears to be irrelevant. I could die without getting shot, but that doesn't mean that getting shot isn't going to increase my chances of dying. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope neither of you are trying to compare the planetary climate mechanisms of Venus with that of Earth's. Moreover, about three of the seven planets could be said to be undergoing a "global warming" (that's quite debatable though), none of which seem to have a common source. ~ UBeR 16:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm... The sun? Is hot not hot on Venus? Do they have a different kind of CO2? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.26.68.146 (talk) 16:27, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I've gotta say... I believe Global Warming is a scientific issue whether it exists or not. At the same time, nobody can deny that it IS a political issue! Politicians are constantly arguing as to what to do about it, whether it exists or not, and there are lobbyists in Washington arguing for both sides of the argument. Climatologists who have worked for the IPCC have come out claiming to have been fired for being critical of Global Warming, and there are still a large amount of scientists and others who just don't believe Global Warming is real. Whether we agree or not, we should be presenting this as a hypothesis or theory as opposed to "this is the way it is, no questions asked!" I really don't want to turn this forum into arguments for or against Global Warming, but even if Global Warming is strictly a scientific issue and we wish to keep this article to a scientific level, science is dependent on skepticism, and we should take those opinions and scientific arguments seriously. We shouldn't just be cutting it dry because of a so-called "consensus." I mean, there's a consensus that God exists, but where's the science? HillChris1234 11:44, 20 August 2007 (EST)

Sorry, but apparently you have been lied to, and have fallen for it. The IPCC cannot fire scientists, because it does not employ them in the first place. There is not "a large amount of scientists" opposed to the IPCC positions, although no doubt any scientist is opposed to "this is the way it is, no questions asked!". However, few of the skeptics pose valid questions. Abdussamatov is one of the more obviously ridiculous examples, but Tim Ball is little better. This article has been the subject of extremely heavy discussion and massive attempts at POV-pushing. Very many topics have been discussed. Unless you have a good understanding of the actual science, you should be somewhat careful. We have extensive archives of old discussion. Catchy soundbites by "sceptics", even if they sound plausible at first view, very often are not. --Stephan Schulz 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem, HillChris1234, is that you shouldn't be using any tertiary sources, like any encyclopedia, for papers. If you instructor demanded you not use Wikipedia, they were correct in doing so. One big reason is that it is at the whims of the public, but, more importantly, historiographical sources such as encyclopedias are not desireable for research. ~ UBeR 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another point is that wikipedia is not just this article on Global Warming. Each article has its own focus. If real world facts, such as the comments made by Habibullo Abdussamatov, are notable then they can be included somewhere in wikipedia. However it may not be suitable to be included in this article. There is an entire wiki article devoted to: "global ewarming controversy", but this article focusses on the scientific perspective on global warming. Habibullo Abdussamatov research is not notable in the scientific community. It may be notable outside of the scientific realm.

Similarly, there are wikipedia articles on homeopathy, astrology, creationism etc. etc. An experiment involving extreme dilutions done by someone suggesting that "water has a memory" cannot be included in the wiki chemistry article, because that is not notable in the chemistry community, but it can be included in the article on homeopathy. Count Iblis 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. But, we're talking about scientific debate, and all I see here is agenda. I'm sorry. Science must contain DEBATE, and any conclusion that it shouldn't is folly. In addition, any attempt to hide arguments for or against an aspect of science is only to rob the world of healthy debate and accurate depictions of what is really going on!~ talk 12:07, 20 August 2007 (EST)

But the scientific debate is not ours. That would be original research. The scientific debate is alive and healthy, but the core issues are indeed settled. See scientific opinion on climate change for an, as far a I know, unprecedented list of statements by influential and recognized scientific bodies on the topic. --Stephan Schulz 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There already is debate on this page, similar to the debate you'll find on nuclear fusion, general relativity, or quantum mechanics. And, as with those other articles, the debate is given the weight it deserves. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. Mars is warming, Venus has warmed, Jupiter may be warming, and Earth is warming. But, Earth warming has nothing to do with any other planet warming. It's not possible for Earth to be warming for the same reason as other planets who are warming. That's a fringe argument that doesn't deserve mention at all. In fact, this isn't an encyclopedia that's intended to educate people, it's intended to tell us what we've already been told.

I even tried to put my entry under Global Warming Controversy, and it was still deleted. Absolutely ridiculous. Obviously, this article is being watched by Global Warming advocates with a political agenda who are interested in keeping opposing points of view out because they're one-sided.

Perhaps you actually don't understand how utterly unhelpful your attempted "contributions" have been so far. Let's take this little list of links for example:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

A National Geographic piece about the contrarian views of a lone Russian scientist named Habibullo Abdussamatov -- views that the same article says "contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." In other words, a crackpot.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

A rehash of Abdussamatov's discredited view by a rather dubious Canadian columnist.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

An old, now mostly obsolete 2003 piece discussing the possibility of Mars coming out of an ice age, with absolutely no reference to how this relates to Earth.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/warming.htm

A web page linking global warming to a government conspiracy and something called "Hyperdimensional Physics" that I do believe is not exactly part of mainstream or even branchstream physics.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming030207.htm

Yet more of the Abdussamatov along with a recycling of the nearly as dubious theories of Danish Scientist Henrik Svensmark.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Some random posting by what looks to be a computer geek -- hardly a climate scientist.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

A 2006 article about a big storm on Jupiter that "could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe." This is like Mars's global wide dust storms -- Jupiter's issues are completely alien to Earth's issues.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=140587

A right-wing blog site linking to this not-exactly-scientific article.

yep... looks pretty fringe to me...(talk) 12:36, 20 August 2007 (EST)

Maybe because this nonsense is pretty fringe, which is why your posts to the main article get removed. What would be useful is an explanation for how this anti-science nutcase stuff became embraced by not just right-wingers, but otherwise seemingly rational (enough) conservatives. Curious people and those tired of having to revert endless attempts to insert crackpot "alternative POV's" in the main global warming wiki would like to know. -BC aka Callmebc 00:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mars is warming, Venus has warmed, Jupiter may be warming, and Earth is warming." Now, that sounds a lot like disinformation, although I'm trying to assume good faith. Mars has shown recent signs of warming over a very short time period. True. Venus has warmed (in the very distant past). True, but this says nothing at all about your primary conjecture, does it? Jupiter may be warming. Anything "might" be warming, mightn't it? Also, note that it takes Jupiter 11 years to go around the Sun. It takes a lot more than 2 solar orbits before you get to talk about warming, I'm afraid. Earth is warming. True, and of course this is not in debate. So, boiling your original sentence down to the points that support your argument: "Mars is warming ... and Earth is warming". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure if you realize it, but your sources back up your fringe statement quite well. You'll notice that in all of the somewhat reliable articles that "support" your Mars claim, it's always the same scientist that's quoted (about the connection to global warming, that is). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious. To those of you who think anyone who disagrees with the Global Warming "consensus" is a right wing nut job who doesn't know anything... What's in it for you for Global Warming to be real? Why are you all rooting for the Earth to burn up and we all die? Are you trying to revert us back to the stone age? I mean, it seems like you all like the idea that the world is getting warmer and we're all gonna die.

Are you a sockpuppeting? I mean this looks very much like this. Be careful, it can get you blocked. Brusegadi 04:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, an explanation of the Mars and Pluto warming:

There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouses gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.

The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.

172.214.130.253 20:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176975,00.html

The above is a Time magazine poll that suggests that while 85 percent of their readers feel Global Warming is happening, only 31 percent of those 85 percent agree that it is caused by man.

So, what's the consensus? Is it that the Earth is Warming or is it that it's caused by man? I think the watchdogs of this article have basically turned it into a caused-by-man thing, so I'm wondering if 31 percent is the kind of consesus we're looking for...HillChris1234 19:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaking popular opinion for science. This is about science William M. Connolley 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, you'll notice that only 19% did not think that it was at least partly caused by man. Most of the remaining 49% have no doubt been confused by attempts at WP:NPOV in the media that have ignored WP:WEIGHT. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the poll is from last year, and in the US this is changing fast. We could also see something more up to date here. Finally, the sample for the poll comes from the readers of the magazine. They are not scientist so that poll does not count in this article. Brusegadi 19:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

HillChris1234, magazine reader opinion ≠ public opinion, and public opinion ≠ scientific opinion. Can you please stop brining up ridiculous appeals and rants, and instead try to focus on something more specific you'd like to change about the article? ~ UBeR 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, ≠ is not transitive here... Brusegadi 20:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

While in general ≠ is not transitive, it is true that magazine reader opinion ≠ scientific opinion. I suppose it'd be better if we had an unambiguous symbol for "is worth less", because that would be transitive. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Math is always general! I know what Uber meant. I made my comment as a joke to lighten up after catching up on so much commentary that took place while I slept. I particularly loved it when the word 'political' was written instead of scientific so another edit was made to 'correct' the 'Freudian slip.' Oh, and by the looks of it, it seems like we will be needing that 'is worth less than' symbol ;) Brusegadi 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just seems that consensus is only derived from sources of climatologists whose careers depend on the existence of Global Warming, and nobody else matters. I think there is a huge case to be made that explains that Global Warming is not real or is not man made, and I don't think these points are taken into consideration in this article. 12.26.68.146 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No there isn't. Sorry! Just look at the data. The data shows global warming is happening, pure and simple. This is completely incontrovertible. You have to actually completely throw out all data to claim that global warming is not happening.

As for being man-made, it is also demonstrably man-made. We increase the amount of various gases in the atmosphere, particularly CO2, but other gases as well. These gases are better at trapping heat (which is demonstrable). You can easily put 2 and 2 together and get 4. No other factor we've found links up with global warming the way human introduced pollutants do. Titanium Dragon 08:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that means, then, that before man there were never periods of warming and periods of cooling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 (talk) 21:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense. The fact that the earth's temperature has changed in the past doesn't add weight to the reasons for it changing now. You may as well try to disprove a paternity test by claiming other people have had children in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.24.155 (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Disinfo Alert: Daily Tech Report of a "New" Survey

The latest "Global Warming is a Scam" nonsense making its way through the right wing blogosphere is an alleged, and not quite yet published, survey of peer-reviewed journals that purportedly shows that "less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory." This survey report originates with this Daily Tech blog, which also says that the survey is authored by a medical doctor named Klaus-Martin Schulte and has supposedly been submitted to a journal called "Energy and Environment." The editor of that journal is a "Reader in Geography" named Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen.

This pre-publication survey is represented by the Daily Tech blogger, Michael Asher (who has an anti-global warming history), as being an update to this 2004 survey by Naomi Oreskes.

So we have a right wing blogger reporting on a unpublished survey submitted to an obscure journal of unknown scientific credibility -- what are the odds of this being taken seriously by logical, well-informed, responsible people, especially by those in government? Yeah, well.... FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 12:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Update -- I suppose that it's no surprise that Brit Hume of Fox News gave this a mention as well, and of course leaving off one or two minor, little, piddly details.... -BC aka Callmebc 14:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I stopped reading at history professor Naomi Oreskes in the first sentence. Naomi Oreskes is a history of science professor, which is an entirely different discipline from a history professor. Similar name, but not even in the same ballpark in terms of substance. To paraphrase the Simpsons, it's clear whoever writes this blog doesn't know his asshole from a hole in the ground. Raul654 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How does this matter to the article? Blogs are not reliable sources. Are you just venting some frustration or something? --Blue Tie 23:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

'Tis a bit annoying, though, to see how that highly dubious blog post was featured on both a Senate office site, even if it was James Inhofe's, as well as Fox News (of course). If you didn't know any better.... By the way, Oreskes has posted a response to this new, um, report. -BC aka Callmebc 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oreskes refutation is nothing short of devastating. In fact, point 7 just about sums this whole endeavor up: Contrarians have been trying to refute my work for three years. A previous claim, also circulated and cited by Marc Morano, was subsequently retracted by its author. Evidently it has taken them three years to find some one foolish enough to try again. Raul654 02:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Precipitation

Hello, Karbinski - I disagree with the fact tag you inserted, as both the sub-article Effects of global warming and the summary paragraph in this article seem to contain information concerning changes in precipitation, cf statement "A 2001 report by the IPCC suggests that glacier retreat, ice shelf disruption such as the Larsen Ice Shelf, sea level rise, changes in rainfall patterns, increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, are being attributed in part to global warming," and the sections Effects_of_global_warming#More_extreme_weather and Effects_of_global_warming#Increased_evaporation. Thanks,Hal peridol 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is there, but you really have to look for it. References serve the user in more ways than just verifiability. Perhaps, the link to percipitation (meteorology), although its a valid article in its own right, should not be linked within the context of the paragraph (other linked sub-articles mention global warming effects, but percipitation does not).Karbinski 18:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you put in the degree symbol

How do you put in the degree symbol? the small little circle? 138.220.67.145 21:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's listed with other symbols right under the "Save Page" button (not sure if you have to be logged in to see them, though). In any case, you can copy/paste it from here: °

Hope this helps. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! A non-POV discussion! --Cheeesemonger 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I LOL'D! Anyway, if you're using Windows, you can also press alt+0176. BeefRendang 10:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Map in Economics section

Hello, Vinny Burgoo - you have inserted a map of CO2 responsibility 1950-2000 into the Economic effects and impacts section of the article. I don't think it belongs there, and in addition, that section is a summary of the Economics of global warming article. If you think that there is necessary information within the map, it should be described in that article first. Thanks, Hal peridol 00:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, UBeR, sorry for the misspelling in my edit summary.Hal peridol 00:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You're out of date, Hal peridol. The first map I ~~snuck~~stuck in was of CO2 responsibility (it's still up there somewhere); the one you have just deleted was of GHG Intensity - a measure of doom per dollar or bang per buck or something, and thus totally at home in the Economics section. I'll leave it deleted for now, though. The Economics text perhaps needs to catch up with the map. (I am still wondering why UBeR told me to make a 280px image the same width as other 280px images, though. Odd.) Vinny Burgoo 00:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I said the two first images should be consistent with all the other ones, which is what I did. Watch your diffs carefully. ~ UBeR 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I get it now. Sorry, UBer. Vinny Burgoo 01:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that I was looking at the wrong map caption - my apologies. I'm still not sure that the deleted map belongs in the section it was in, though - the Economics section (currently) is concerned with the effects of global warming on the global/local economy, rather than vice versa. This could be changed, but some restructuring would be necessary first, I think. Hal peridol 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Climate Change" vs. "Global Warming"

In the course of the prior "debate," I came across a couple of references, like this EPA one, to how "according to the National Academy of Sciences, The phrase "climate change" is growing in preferred use to "global warming" because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures." Apparently this is in reference to this National Academies report, Understanding and Responding to Climate Change. While the main wiki article is called "Global Warming" and that there is another wiki article called Climate Change, I'm thinking that in the content part of the article, when you can use either the term "global warming" or "climate change," and especially in the context of referring to scientific studies, it might be more appropriate to choose "climate change." But in the context of referring to the other aspects of the topic, most especially public opinion and the surrounding politics, then maybe "global warming" should be the preferred choice. This might be a good way to separate the catch phrase from the somewhat more complex underlying science. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 13:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Loss of Artic Ice leaves experts stunned

Recent comments by some of the scientists contributing to the IPCC report evidence their concern that what they are observing now is outside the range of all the scenarios being considered. Global warming is not a theory, its an observation. What's theoretical is how fast its accelerating, and how much the observed acceleration is outside the modeled range on which the consensus of scientists was agreed even a few years ago.

The rate of loss accelerating

The Arctic has now lost about a third of its ice since satellite measurements began thirty years ago, and the rate of loss has accelerated sharply since 2002. Dr Serreze said: "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate. It seems that the Arctic is going to be a very different place within our lifetimes, and certainly within our childrens' lifetimes."

Rktect 11:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been reverted three times here. Really? When? William M. Connolley 12:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[[2]]

[[3]]

[[4]]

[[5]]

[[6]]

[[7]]

Rktect 00:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, I added something about this to the global warming controversy article (and a couple other editors helped clean up my poor wording). As this is still new, and evidently not widely supported, I didn't feel it belonged in this article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldnt the appropriate place to discuss that be here on the talk page?Rktect 00:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing, I thought — unless you're suggesting that I should have discussed it before I didn't add it, although I'm not sure how that'd be possible. :) I didn't actually touch this article, btw, with respect to arctic sea ice — just the global warming controversy article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ben - I followed your link, and it pointed to an article on Polar Bear Conservation issues (which also mentiones retreating sea ice). How does this conflict with the new observations? --Stephan Schulz 14:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The timescale for arctic melting was longer in the article. It was saying 40% gone by 2050 (which I believe came from the latest IPCC) instead of 100% gone by 2030, which is a brand new statement, based off brand new observations, that could be overstating things a bit. OTOH, I suppose we'll know in less than 25 years whether it was. :( Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Either you or I are a bit confused. The only numer I can find is the 42 percent of the Arctic range of polar bears that will be lost. That is not the same as sea ice distribution. Anyways, it's quite plausible that the article is based on older projections, of course. The original study will have needed some time, and filtring to the popular press takes more. But even then I would not really take this as an opposing voice, but rather as one based on older sources. --Stephan Schulz 21:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be me. I read "42 percent of the Arctic range" and later "thinning sea ice" and my mind put the two together. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible that I was confusing it with this story or one like it. From that story: "An analysis of 20 years' worth of real-life observations supports recent U.N. computer predictions that by 2050, summer sea ice off Alaska's north coast will probably shrink to nearly half the area it covered in the 1980s, federal scientists say." Of course that says "sea ice off Alaska's north coast" and not "arctic sea ice", but I'm assuming that Alaska's north coast is part of the arctic. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bullet Points?

I'm wondering if obvious/documented effects that are happening now, like the arctic ice melt and declining polar bear population, as well as some of the things extensively listed in this National Parks Conservation Association report, could be listed as bullet points (with appropriate refs of course) under the existing Attributed and expected effects section in the main article. I think that might help make things cleaner, more readable and hence more effective. -BC aka Callmebc 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Changes

1) In the opening section, I do believe "Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount of warming expected in the future, and how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe." would be less awkwardly written as "Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount and rate of the overall warming trend that should be expected, and how related climatic changes will vary from region to region around the globe."

2) And that this section, under Causes, be removed altogether: "This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. In contrast to the scientific consensus that recent warming is mainly attributable to elevated levels of greenhouse gases, other hypotheses have been suggested to explain the observed increase in mean global temperature. One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of increased solar radiation associated with greater numbers of sunspots.[12]"

That doesn't really belong in there since that odd "50 years" bit isn't attributed, and that the solar radiation "hypothesis," along with its 2004 newspaper reference, is now obsolete and basically refuted in the Solar variation section.

Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 16:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We can get refs for the "50 years" bit (Mauna Loa, radiosonde network, etc). Also the fact that a hypothesis is obsolete and refuted doesn't stop people from adhering to it, when it's what they desperately want to believe... Raymond Arritt 17:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I see now -- it was Keeling who put together the first direct, realtime CO2 measuring system in the late 50's at the Mauna Loa observatory. Still, though, even with that as a ref, that doesn't justify the "This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years" (which is a bit closer to 60 yrs) part since scientists had been researching atmospheric CO2 levels since the late 1800's, with good estimates based on historical records going back as far as 1751. While there have been obvious technological leaps, as well as a huge increase the number of researchers, that's just how science moves once people get seriously curious. That whole section strikes me as just being a weasel insert and should be deleted. And it is very inconsistent with the rest of the article. And my bad on the top posting (I was spending too much time at the top of the page and forgot.) -BC aka Callmebc 18:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The solar hypothesis is by no means obsolete. The Lockwood and Froelich paper has been widely disputed eg. [8]. Iceage77 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Are there any peer reviewed criticisms? Count Iblis 19:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That piece was written by a mechanical engineer and not a climate researcher, and the engineer lists himself as being a member of the ironically named Friends of Science Society, which has, surprise surprise, somewhat dubious credentials and does not represent a legit scientific viewpoint by any means. -BC aka Callmebc 19:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, using one unreliable source to discredit another. ~ UBeR 19:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society is just as "unreliable" as an unrefereed posting by the Foes of Science... err, if you say so. Raymond Arritt 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. I was responding to Callmebc, as represented by the amount of indentation. ~ UBeR 19:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Foes of Science vs. the smog blog. You had me worried there for a bit. Raymond Arritt 20:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me reclaim my 3-indent position. The Desmpogblog.com piece summarized The Globe and Mail newspaper piece on "Friends of Science". I would have linked directly to the G&M piece, but you have to pay to see it. However, in the interest of completeness, I located a copy of the article on the author's (Charles Montgomery) website, go see. -BC aka Callmebc 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum -- that Globe and Mail article referred to a "now-infamous 2003 memo" written by a "U.S. pollster and consultant Frank Luntz". Curiously enough, that Wikipedia article on Luntz gives no mention of that memo, but a little Googling found a PDF of it quickly enough. The rather interesting bit about global warming starts on page 7 (by the PDF page count). -BC aka Callmebc 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

CO2

as i know, CO2 is one of the green house gases. in plant the photosynthesis uses CO2 and light as energy to produce sugar and oxygen. so i wonder, if we know how the photosynthesis work, is it possible to make a machine or something that can do a similar job, to transfer CO2 to O2, that can help the earth. but if it is not possible, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardchow (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do understand the various mechanisms of photosynthesis. And yes, we can build machines that will extract CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into other carbon compounds. It requires copious amounts of energy, of course. Since plants are already doing this (and with solar energy), why should we build machines? We could just as well collect the biomass of grown plants and sequester it. Various carbon offset programs are regrowing forrests, which keep a certain amount of carbon (and hence CO2) locked up. There are various difficulties about the scale and the economics, though. And as long as we do not actively remove carbon from the biosphere (e.g. by burying it deep underground), the effect is rather limited. Also, if you look at the energy and effort involved, it almost always is easier to not use fossil fuels in the first place than to extract the corresponding amount CO2 from the atmosphere later. --Stephan Schulz 15:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc's revert

With regard to the following sentence in the article's introduction: "Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe."

Callmebc, please explain how "climate change" makes more sense "in context" as opposed to "global warming," especially since this article is specifically on Global Warming and not on the more general Climate Change. Diophantus 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Because "global warming" is a less scientific term for what's happening to the world's climate than "climate change." The earth is not warming up uniformly -- some areas are warming up drastically while other areas are actually cooling, and there have been shifts in precipitation patterns as well. And the main article itself has a "Terminology" section that pretty clearly states: The term "global warming" is a specific example of the broader term climate change, which can also refer to global cooling. In common usage the term refers to recent warming and implies a human influence.[6] The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses the term "climate change" for human-caused change, and "climate variability" for other changes.[7] The term "anthropogenic global warming" is sometimes used when focusing on human-induced changes.

Satisfied? If so, you should do the revert this time. -BC aka Callmebc 16:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc, no I'm not satisfied.

The fact that some parts of the Earth are cooling is irrelevant, since "global warming" denotes an overall warming trend. The very first sentence of the article says that global warming refers to the "increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation." I'm not sure why you even bring this up. My only guess is that you believe that the clause "...and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe" will lead readers to conclude that all regions of the world are warming. I don't think that will be the case.

The terminology you quote supports my point.

It makes no sense to use "climate change", because this term also includes "global cooling," while the article deals specifically with global warming. If you look at the introduction, you'll see that except for this one sentence it only talks about warming. This sentence is inconsistent with the rest of the intro and the article as a whole. And you were saying something about context? Diophantus 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside the U.S., popular use of term "climate change" is essentially synonymous with "global warming." It's more accurate in a way, because it's impossible for the atmosphere to warm without other changes to the climate also occurring. We're approaching how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory here. Raymond Arritt 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond,

Relevant wikipedia entries are pretty clear on the meaning of "climate change" and it's not synonymous with "global warming," regardless of what the popular use of the term may or may not be. Shouldn't Wikipedia be consistent? Diophantus 04:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What I said about context is exactly that. Your version: Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of global warming expected in the future, and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe. The original version: Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe. The context is that having "scientific" and a reference to "changes" in that sentence makes the orginal "climate change" phrase more appropriate. Justifying it by referencing another part of the article makes little grammatical sense -- you have to look at the context of the sentence first. Also you shouldn't make a change like that without running it by the discussion page first. So are you going to revert it or what? -BC aka Callmebc 03:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

With regard to "changes." The sentence is very much grammatical. Warming is, indeed, a change. Now if you're feeling very adamant about it, then a proper course of action would be to replace the word "changes" with something else, like "degree of warming," instead of reverting. All things considered, your reservations about context within the sentence are specious at best. This becomes especially problematic when your version compromises the broader context, which is just as important unless one has an attention span of one sentence.

No, it's not grammatical. The original sentence flowed from "global change" to "changes" while your version inconsistently went from "global warming" to "changes". A term like "warming" is a vector, meaning it has direction and at least some sort of implied rate, so you should have used a term like "rate of change," but even then, as I already pointed out in my first reply, it would still not be entirely appropriate since "global warming" is not consistent in different areas of the globe, with some areas, as with some sections of the Antarctic actually cooling. The bottom line is that your change made the sentence less sensible.

There is nothing inconsistent about going from "global warming" to "changes". It's perfectly clear what is meant. There is no implication that all regions of the world are warming. The word "changes" doesn't have to be previously referenced within the same sentence. The paragraph that precedes the sentence in question explains all the changes related to global warming. I expect a reader will remember what he read a few sentences back. (And not that it matters, but warming is not a vector -- it has no direction.)

With regard to science, I would like to hear how "climate change" is more scientific than "global warming."

This again was already covered in my first reply, with the most pertinent excerpt being The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses the term "climate change" for human-caused change, and "climate variability" for other changes.

This doesn't even come close to answering the question.

With regard to editing Wikipedia, could you point me to a page which says that one must discuss changes in the talk page first. On the other hand, I do know there's a Be bold policy. Diophantus 03:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest you look at the top of this page and read the banner that starts off This topic contains controversial issues -- it specifically covers making changes to the main article, including stating After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page. Which you didn't do.

Nice try, but this banner talks about making "substantial changes," and the reason it's there is due to the controversial nature of the article. My edit was minor and was neutral with respect to the controversiality of the article. Also, it presumes that all editors will visit the talk page before editing.

And in regards to "being Bold," I suggest you also actually read the Be Bold policy, especially the section titled but don't be reckless. So....? -BC aka Callmebc 13:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a poor understanding of what is meant by reckless, if you think that my edit was reckless. An edit is not reckless just because Callmebc deems it reckless. There was no "disregard for verifiability, neutrality, and the other guidelines that comprise the five pillars of Wikipedia." By your standards, your revert was reckless as well. Diophantus 04:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough -- I think I've humored you well more than enough. You've failed to come up with a single logical -- or even coherent -- rationale to justify your popping by and arbitrarily changing a phrase in a highly politicized article, especially with no reason given in advance, even as a courtesy. I suggest you brush up on both your grammar and physics (if the temperature of a room is steady at, say, 78 degrees -- that's a scalar quantity; but if the temperature is going up at, say, 1 degree per hour, you have both direction and movement -- hence a vector quantity.) I'm again reverting your change. Please do not change it again unless you can come up with much more convincing reasons than you've offered so far. - BC aka Callmebc 05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you've humored me indeed. You've failed to come up with a single logical -- or even coherent -- rationale to justify your revert. All your "arguments" have fallen short, so now you're resorting to the "my way or the highway" argument. Please, stop imagining yourself to be the owner of this article.

I suggest you take your own advice and brush up on grammar and physics (and reading comprehension while you're at it). You clearly have no clue what "faulty parallelism" is. Go back and read up on it again and again until it sinks through. Your argument that "warming" is a vector reveals your shallow understanding here as well. Warming is by definition temperature "going up." There is no other choice of direction. To describe a vector such as velocity, one needs to give both a direction and magnitude. To describe warming, you don't need to give a direction. Essentially, warming is a direction. "Temperature change", on the other hand, is a vector -- a trivial one-dimensional vector. To describe it you need to give a direction (warming/cooling, or up/down, or plus/minus, or whatever other words you want to use) and magnitude (measured in degrees Celsius, or degrees Fahrenheit, or whatever other units you want to use). Diophantus 17:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure.... Anyway the argument is moot now (see below) and I have moved on (with a vector). By the way, the temperature outside has changed 20 degrees since 2 days ago -- should I put on my shorts or a sweatshirt? -BC aka Callmebc 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Yeah, I'm sure..."? I suppose that's all one can say when he was shown to be consistently wrong. And yeah you've "moved on" with vectors. I suppose that's another way of admitting an error. Good job to save face. Diophantus 01:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....it was already changed by Raymond_arritt. Hmmm, I don't know if I'm crazy about that rewording either, but it's late, so I'll sleep on it. -BC aka Callmebc 05:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to Raymond's edit. Diophantus 01:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diophantus (talk • contribs) 01:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Capita measurement

I take issue with the two images at right which appear under the Causes section of this article. Both of them display CO2 emissions on a per-capita basis, but this is a somewhat deceptive way to display this information. Looking at the images displayed in this article, China and India appear as minor contributors, shaded in the same manner as most of the nations of Africa. In a per-capita sense, this is accurate. Yet the following table contains information from Wikipedia's list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions. As we can see, China (at the time of this table's creation) was second only to the US in terms of CO2 emissions, and other nations like India and Japan were also major contributors.

Rank	Country	Annual CO₂ emissions in thousands of metric tons	Percentage of total emissions^[3]
1	United States	6,049,435	22.2 %
2	China	5,010,170	18.4 %
-	European Union	3,115,125	11.4 %
3	Russia	1,524,993	5.6 %
4	India	1,342,962	4.9 %
5	Japan	1,257,963	4.6 %
6	Germany	808,767	3.0 %
7	Canada	639,403	2.3 %

The images which appear in this article do not reflect this, and the reason is obvious. China's per-capita CO2 emissions are approximately one-fifth that of the United States, but China's population is also nearly five times that of the United States. Canada produces less than half the amount of pollution that comes out of India, but in the graph this trend appears in reverse. I wouldn't say it's necessary to remove both of these graphs from the article, but it's obvious that they are not representative of the major global contributors of CO2 and changes are needed. The best way I see to do this and maintain balance would be to generate another chart which shows emissions on a per-nation basis, or in terms of land mass, and replace one of the above images with the new one so both methods of measurement are displayed right next to each other. I don't have the software to do something like this, but perhaps someone here who does would be willing to volunteer. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

China has already surpassed the U.S. in total emissions (and if I'm wrong, it will most certainly happen before 2009). There's a reason China wants to have everyone look at their emissions per capita, and that's because it makes them look better. Whether or not this was the intention of the map maker, that's what it's doing. ~ UBeR 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is one case where I believe the solution to a perceived "bias" is to add a second "bias". I.e., an image that shows GHG and/or global warming contributions per square kilometer of land area or something. If I had the skills, I'd do it. Per capita is important, but I think per area is also important. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why emissions per unit area are relevant at all, but I'm willing to listen. Have you seen any scientific discussion of why this should matter? Raymond Arritt 16:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer the second question first — no, I haven't seen any scientific discussion of it. As to the first, it's partly a matter of politics (so perhaps is more appropriate in the global warming controversy article), but it's also a matter of sustainability. It's easy to say that China is (now) the biggest contributor of carbon emissions, but considering how large China is (in area), perhaps other countries' contributions are more significant (in a non-statistical sense). Per capita is very relevant, but it "punishes" countries that have more sustainable population densities. A country with a very high population density will be unable to generate as much CO₂ per capita as a country with a much lower population density. Sure, there's a POV hidden here (although presumably quite different than others who feel this way) — I feel that population control is a very important component of global warming control. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no scientific discussion as far as I know about why this should matter, but there is also no scientific discussion on why per capita rating is better or more relevant than by nation. This is not so much a scientific debate as one of interpreting statistics, and as such there is no 'right' way to analyze the numbers we see on emissions. Being as both analysis have political consequences, the best way to maintain neutrality is to represent both points of view. Sort of like how when the US government formed there was disagreement on how states would be represented in Congress, resulting in both the Senate (by state) and the House (by population): neither solution could have stood on its own. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The measures I've seen most often are per political entity (i.e., national emissions), per capita, and per unit of GDP. The point is not that any of these are better or worse in an absolute sense, but that they each give different useful information. It would be nice to have all three but that may be too much for the present article. I'd argue for having all three or having none. Raymond Arritt 16:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think the best solution might be to have none here, but to have a link to a (probably new) article that contains all of these (and possibly my pet, as well). I say this mainly because Global warming is already a large article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Arritt. The ways CO2 and other GHGs are most commonly displayed is either through total CO2 per nation, total CO2 per capita, or total CO2 per USD in GDP (PPP). I agree that all should be shown or none. At the current moment, there is little room to add more images, and last time I was here we were looking for images to actually remove because some sections get so clustered (and begins to alter where the edit buttons are). ~ UBeR 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, emissions per GDP is the most useless measure. In the US, for example, there are high rates of insurance and litigation, to name two, the actually provide no productive 'work' per se, but are pervasive and extravagant in cost. On the flip side, China is producing prodigious quantities of products for other nations, though the CO2 emissions are being assigned to them. Such lopsided calculations only play into the hands of those who wish to obfuscate. --Skyemoor 01:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There definitely are problems with CO2 emissions per unit GDP (as there are with CO2 emissions per unit of anything) but the measure is widely used as a point of reference. See for example the IPCC Working Group 3 reports. Raymond Arritt 01:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The map that replaced my GHG per capita map is labelled "GHG emissions per nation based on total CO2 emissions". What does that mean? That CO2 emissions have been extrapolated to include all GHG emissions? I doubt that the map actually does that - and why would anyone do that, anyway, when estimates of total GHG emissions are available ready-made? The replacement map is almost certainly mislabelled - and it was such mislabelling that prompted me to make my own maps. If you don't like 'em, fine. But be aware that there is more to global warming than GHG emissions, and that there is more to GHG emissions than CO2. So any maps used by Wikipedia must say exactly what they include and what they do not include. Labelling a CO2 map a GHG map is BIG no-no. Such antics create sceptics. (Re the per-capita point, if I get time I might do a per-nation GHG-including-land-use-change map from the same data to keep everyone happy.) Vinny Burgoo 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be my bad, sorry. I was getting ahead of myself a little, and if I made changes in error I apologize. As far as the images go, it's not a matter of liking or not liking them, simply an attempt to maintain balance by presenting multiple analysis of the data. Anyway, if you would be willing to make a map based on emissions per nation that would really be great. I liked the style of the other ones and it would be good to keep things consistent. Thanks. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Per capita information is useful, but we need to add a similar map with 'CO2 emmissions by nation' or remove the per captia maps. The per capita by itself can be deceptive since it hides the fact that the no 1 and no 4 emmitters are China and India. Those per capita maps make them look 'green' and environmentally friendly. Living in China rightnow, I can attest otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.37.9.106 (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a GHG-by-country map using the same data (or I will in a minute). I agree that there probably are too many images in this article - but also that per capita, per PPP GDP dollar and per nation should probably be shown together. So it's probably best to have all three or none. (I don't mind which.) Vinny Burgoo 13:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put it in. There's no room for all three. (The new one is called GHG_by_country_2000.svg.) Vinny Burgoo 13:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut Solanki

I've cut this one (in the context of sun-spots/solar being an hypothesis for warming):

Leidig, Michael (2004-07-17). "The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2007-04-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Its a directly (and provable) distortion of Solanki's research. See for instance this and this. Find a reference to Svensmark or Veizer who are actually saying this - instead of using a piece of popular press that is (unintentionally i'm sure) misleading and directly wrong. --Kim D. Petersen 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Uber's revert -- we had gone over the Solar Variation/Friends of Science nonsense further up. The Solar Variation comment is, as I posted earlier, now obsolete and basically refuted in the article's own Solar variation section, and there wasn't a single good reason given to keep it. -BC aka Callmebc 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The FOS had nothing to do with the section you deleted. If the FOS were in the article, then you might have a point. Either way, see my response in the thread below. ~ UBeR 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Theory

There may be evidence for and against global warming - the global climate is an incredibly complex system which we are yet to understand fully (i would say we are a long way off this!) Thus global warming is a THEORY. It is yet to be proved true or false, and i think the article should reflect this. "Global warming is the theory that..." rather than "global warming refers to..." The rest is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.215.11 (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As usual, the term global warming is overloaded. But the actual warming is a fact. The explanation for it is a scientific theory. Science does not do "proof" anyways - a theory is the best you can get. There is a longish discussion of this somewhere in the archives. --Stephan Schulz 13:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How did anyone let you get away with that? Science does not do "proof"? The scientific method states that hypothesis - experiment - conclusion must always be performed in order to explain any phenomenon. Oh wait - has that been done with anthrpogenic global warming? Tractorboy60 09:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. From the article you quote: "It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2". Math does proofs. Science only has theories with varying degrees of support. As for your question: Yes, of course. Some examples:

Hypothesis: If the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, it will be depleted in C13 and C14. Observation: Oh yes, it is.
If the warming is caused by greenhouse gases, the high stratosphere will cool. Oh yes, it does.
If the warming is caused by greenhouse gases, it will in general be stronger in higher latitudes. Oh yes, it is.
If the warming is caused by CO2, it should be possible to find a correlation between temperature and CO2 in the past. Oh, look at these ice cores - there it is.
If you are a big-picture guy, there is Arrhenius's original prediction "if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it will warm."

...and so on. --Stephan Schulz 13:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are falling for the very error you illustrate - global warming alarmism does exactly that - using 3 (deducing a prediction) to prove 2 (the conjecture). All your examples above (apart from being plain wrong), fail this test. The experiment (4) has not yet been performed. This is not science.

To draw the distinction you make above between maths and science demonstrates that you misunderstand the nature of science. Science is not done by consensus; that is the domain of politics. I believe we should all step back from this post-modernist idea that ideology is more important than facts. Until we do, a balanced view is impossible. Tractorboy60 14:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Before making any further statements about this, you might want to actually read scientific method. Hal peridol 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If it's to do with not being able to prove a theory false in the absence of evidence to prove its truth, then so what? I'm not proposing the theory, the alarmists are and in my mind should prove the theory before forcing everyone else to conform to the doctrine. Stephan admits above, that all we have is a theory but presumably is happy (together with millions of other people) to have the world's population coerced into certain deprivations involving the spending of vast amounts of money for an insignificant return. That's a bit rich for a theory, but then need we seek any more proof that this is above all an ideological and political argument and not a scientific one? The propaganda has been brilliantly masterminded, though. If it can convince you, a physicist, Hal, then I am truly in awe! :-) Tractorboy60 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I second Hal's suggestion. You miss the point, namely that a scientific theory can never be proven. It can only be disproven. Regardless of how much evidence for a theory you assemble, it is always possible that it will fail tomorrow. That's why we talk about the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution. A theory that has a lot of explanatory power and that has made several non-trivial predictions gains support, but it never becomes certain in the strict sense. If people talk about "scientific proof", they either don't know what they are talking about, or they refer to a deductive proof under the assumption that a given, usually well-supported (but never certain) theory is valid. I don't know if that is relevant for you, but there is some evidence that suggests I do know something about science and proofs. ---Stephan Schulz 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Relativity and Gravity are supported mathematically (QED), and the equations derived have operated correctly ever since without significant dissent. Evolution is the best we can come up with to explain certain observable phenomena and the evidence is very compelling. Such understandings underpin the technology we all enjoy today. No such advantages exist with global warming theory in which a quasi-political body, the IPCC, steamrollers on the world, a political "consensus" from what amounts to pure conjecture disguised as science. There is no 'proof' that GW comes from anthropogenic CO2, and worse, no proof of the disastrous consequences we are told will happen. Mass acceptance has come about largely through political sympathy rather than scientific criticality. You say yourself that "Regardless of how much evidence for a theory you assemble, it is always possible that it will fail tomorrow". Well that reinforces my argument. I resent the implication of political interference, the spending of vast sums of money, the redistribution of wealth by carbon credits and political control of world energy markets, all on the back of this spurious claim and its associated shameless propaganda, reinforced by the despotic tendency to avoid debate by claiming "consensus", and pretending that debate is over before it even began in order to eliminate dissent.

I feel we are straying from the point somewhat, which was the idea of pointing out in the article that GW is a 'theory'. Lastly, Stephan, I apologise for the rather patronising tone of my earlier comments. That was not my intention, I assure you. My name is Tom, by the way. Tractorboy60 07:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom! Apology accepted, no bad feelings her. I assume you refer to Quod Erat Demonstrandum, not to Quantum Electrodynamics, as both are somewhat apropos here? No, these theories have not been proven. Newton's theory of gravity failed to predict the precession of Mercury, and mis-prediced the effect of gravity on light. The successor, Einstein's general theory of relativity, has been very successful, but it also is almost certainly "wrong" in the strict sense. On the low end, it is incompatible with quantum theory, another extremely successful theory, and on the upper end, cosmologists cannot currently explain the large-scale evolution of the universe without adding things like dark energy or cosmological constants. The theory does have a nifty mathematical derivation from certain assumptions, but these assumptions are likely either wrong or incomplete, and they allow for more than one solution. Evolution and global warming are both more "messy" in the sense that they describe very complex systems. But if you want "simple" math, Svante Arrhenius derived the core prediction (increased atmospheric CO2 will lead to warming) from first principles in 1896 (and arrived at a result that is very similar to the best current estimate. The scientific consensus for global warming, assembled by the IPCC (which is not "quasi-political"), and reaffirmed by a large number of very well-respected scientific organizations and academies, already describes the uncertainties. Whatever your political goals are, labelling global warming as "(only) a theory" is not a valid attack but at best content-free, and at worst misleading. You could argue that the theory is wrong or only weakly supported (though that would be hard to argue). As far as I'm concerned, it would be more productive to accept the state of the science (with the associated uncertainty) and argue for solutions that are compatible with your economical and political convictions and ideals. Anyway, to sum up: No scientific theory is ever proven. At best it is tentatively accepted as an excellent decription. --Stephan Schulz 01:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Tom is simply arguing that GW is "just a theory," though I could be wrong. What I think he's trying to point out is that no where is it mentioned the AGW theory is in fact scientific theory. ~ UBeR 02:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[cut per WP:SOAP William M. Connolley 08:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)]

Addendums to the FAQ recommendation

I see that William Connolley removed the rest of this discussion for essentially being redundant. I'm not so sure that was the best move: a lot of the anti-global warming sentiment revolves around very confused notions of what exactly a "theory" is in scientific terms. I think when a discussion like this forms, especially if it's a recurring one, a FAQ on it should be created as the first response to address the underlying concern, and have that added to the main article FAQ as a matter of course. And only when this is in place, then delete the bulk of the discussion, but with a reference to the FAQ added. Even though there is already a "Theory" wiki article, it would still be helpful to at least reference that with how this applies to the current global warming/general climate models. As it now stands, there is no "Global warming is only a theory" section in the current FAQ. This would seem a more logical and thorough method to address recurring confusion and build up a more complete and useful "Frequently Asked Questions" page. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I may have been too severe. The boundary where it had become junk was unclear. Adding to the FAQ is a good idea William M. Connolley 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Predictions of temperature change

We don't seem to have a good article on predictions of temperature change. There is a bit here; a bit in climate sensitivity; probably something over at GWC. Maybe there should be an article, on global mean and regional and ocean and so on? William M. Connolley 14:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are two articles that are related (although these analyze previous predictions): [9] [10] Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is actually yet another global-warming related Wikipedia article here that discusses the goings on at Climateprediction.net -- a distributed computing project meant to "produce a forecast of the climate in the 21st century". And still another one about the Effects of Global Warming, which also includes forecasts. How many climate change/global warming related wikis do we need? With that said, the Hadley Centre has some interesting stuff worth especially noting. -BC aka Callmebc 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The NAS also has this cute exploratorium-type virtual exhibit. -BC aka Callmebc 03:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You may want to hold off a little on predictions as there seems to be a rather large problem in data quality shaping up [11]. It's incomplete data so far but that chart looks very bad for the ground station data in the US. No doubt other countries are going to go through similar reviews once it gets out how bad the US is. According to what I understand, quality 1 and 2 stations are acceptable according to CRN and that's only 13% of the USHCN stations. The other 87% of the network looks to be not good enough. No doubt the data will firm up once the rest of the network is audited. TMLutas 03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On Environment stuff

I think adding stuff about environmentalism is not good because it takes us into the realm of normative analysis. I suggest we try to stick to the positive analysis. So, I reverted Hybridboy's changes and everything that resulted thereof. The most that merits weight, in my opinion, would be a link in the 'see also'. There may be important normative stuff, but I do not think this is one of them Brusegadi 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting: global warming is not interested on environment. This is illogical. On the other hand, global warming is used in some countries to try to promote nuclear energy with nuclear waste, instead of use the less pollutant renewable energies . This is clear: USA promotes nuclear power and building of new power plants. I can cite it with clear sources. Can you indicate any other sources about USA is not promoting nuclear energy ?. There is a fight between nuclear and renewables to replace petroleum. --HybridBoy 07:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not on the same wave as I am. I understand that this article is about the science. Anything that people decide to do with "the science" belongs elsewhere. Thus, this article is best suited to answer the question "What is going on?" and not "What should we do about it?" The last question should be dealt with on some other article. So, a statement that belongs here might be "CO2 causes warming" but a statement like "we should reduce CO2 emissions" does not belong in this article. Perhaps you should try Mitigation of global warming. Brusegadi 22:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Attribution / 50 years

Callmebc made what looks like an odd edit to me: [12]. As far as I'm concerned, the attribution is clearest over the last 50 years timespan: this fits in with what the IPCC says (tar or ar4). *Not* that the attribution (of an unspecified period) became clearest starting in 1950's. It didn't. Formal attribution doesn't start till SAR times-ish I think. Informally who knows. I don't think it had a great deal to do with Keeling anyway - by the time people started doing attribution inc CO2 was just background well-known info William M. Connolley 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that "50 years" stuff is directly attributable to Keeling's work, and he was singled out in this detailed AIP history. Can you specify a more likely scenario? And why also revert back in the solar variation nonsense? -BC aka Callmebc 19:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Keeling: his stuff only started in the IGY, so "late 50's" has to be wrong: you would have needed a decade perhaps of CO2 to know it was rising. But knowing CO2 is rising is only the first and easiest step in the entire process. Finding out is that CO2 was likely to affect climate was nothing to do with Keeling.

SV nonsense? You mean: One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of increased solar radiation associated with greater numbers of sunspots.? - I think they are wrong, but its certainly one hypothesis. Its one of the factors IPCC considers within its attribution analysis, after all William M. Connolley 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Keeling started his measurements in 1958, and from the AIP article, "With painstaking series of measurements in the pristine air of Antarctica and high atop the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, he nailed down precisely a stable baseline level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In 1960, with only two full years of Antarctic data in hand, Keeling reported that this baseline level had risen. The rate of the rise was approximately what would be expected if the oceans were not swallowing up most industrial emissions." And the problem with leaving that solar variation comment in is that: A) the reference associated with it is obsolete and had been removed by KimDabelsteinPetersen for reasons stated above; and B) It's directly contradicted by more up to date info in the article's own "Solar Variation" section, most especially by a reference to a 2007 paper by Lockwood and Fröhlich. -BC aka Callmebc 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Basing a trend on 2 years would be madness. And since the airborne fraction is only 50%, there is something wrong in that quote somewhere. But it doesn't matter - say it was the end of the 60's. Whatever. The most important part of what I was saying is that Keeling only establishes that CO2 was going up (and you need to go back to ice cores for pre-Keeling to complete the picture anyway). All the rest is harder.

Solar: yes the ref may have been obsolete but we all know its a widely-touted hypothesis. You can ref the ar4 chapter 2 p188 if you want. L+F isn't the end of all things - one paper doesn't do that, pro- as well as anti- William M. Connolley 20:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Connolley. Solar variation as a cause is most definitely a hypothesis, and to delete it would be saying otherwise. True, there are probably better references than the one that was previously used. If anything, the SV section proves there is still the hypothesis. So, please, don't delete the introductory to the section; it's useful. ~ UBeR 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is why i didn't cut the sentence - but only the reference, better references exists (iirc), look up Svensmark, Veizer, Shaviv and others. - the current one was both misleading and wrong, since Solanki doesn't argue this line. (quite the opposite actually). --Kim D. Petersen 21:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So is the general opinion here that a hypothesis with no good supporting references is just as worthy of mention as heavily supported theory with truckloads of supporting refs? I did a quick check on Connolley's ref and backtraced the key source data -- guess what that's showing as the solar radiation trend for recent years. "Controversial" doesn't exactly mean you have to humor the badly misinformed.... -BC aka Callmebc 20:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, solar isn't worth mentionning as much as CO2, which is why we don't. But it does need to be mentionned William M. Connolley 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't continue this discussion any further today, but consider well the passage in question: "This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. In contrast to the scientific consensus that recent warming is mainly attributable to elevated levels of greenhouse gases, other hypotheses have been suggested to explain the observed increase in mean global temperature. One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of increased solar radiation associated with greater numbers of sunspots.[citation needed]"

1) Where is the ref support for the "This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years text"?

2) If you are going to mention "one such hypothesis" with no good supporting ref, then why not mention the "hypothesis" that human-caused global warming was never more than a big ol' hoax? Give a crackpot a cracker and he'll take the whole box, and maybe even your pot. -BC aka Callmebc 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the previous reference that was used was probably not the best. Don't pretend as if the hypothesis doesn't exist. Again, see the AR4 chp. 2 sec. 7.1 (p. 188). ~ UBeR 21:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1: see the attribution article 2: hoax means denying the t record so isn't credible. Here I am agreeing with Uber, and only a few days ago with CE! William M. Connolley 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Probably" is not a ref, and just because a hypothesis "exists" doesn't exactly justify including it. I will make an issue of this if I don't start seeing some actual bona fide refs to support reverting my stuff, which hasn't exactly been un-sourced. Word. -BC aka Callmebc 21:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. There are plenty of hypotheses, many of which we do not include, mostly because of WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV. SV is included because it's the most prominent of the alternative theories and has quite a bit of scientific and peer-reviewed research on the matter; even the IPCC discusses it. ~ UBeR 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Of course" is not ref, and neither is "There are plenty." I'm not playing games here -- I'll give you some time to come up with some actual refs before reverting your unsupported (and more and more malicious/spiteful seeming) reverts again. You claim that nobody agreed with me, but the only objection was a not exactly convincing cite of a piece by a member of the grossly misnamed "Friends of Science." Remember? If there are truly "plenty" as you claim, then it should be easy for you to come up with just one legitimate one at least. -BC aka Callmebc 04:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. ~ UBeR 16:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate you making the effort, I have to point out some issues with those refs:

1) Not only is the Henrik Svensmark ref in regards to galactic cosmic rays and their possible affects on cloud formation, and not "solar radiation" per se, but Svensmark's claims have had little or no support among the overall scientific community. See this review.

Also you have two refs for Svensmark listed, the first as being from 1998 in the Physical Review Letters and the second as being from 2007 in Space Science Reviews, but the date of the second ref is actually August, 1999, and is essentially a rehash of the first cite.

2) A close reading of that IPCC "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing" ref does not support solar radiation forcing being a major or even a significant factor for the current round of global warming. Indeed, one of the lead authors, Piers Forster, said in reference to a Royal Society's journal Proceedings report debunking the link, "This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity."

3) The "Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun" ref also doesn't support solar radiation forcing, a point made much clearer in the abstract for the report: "Overall, the role of solar activity in climate changes -- such as the Quaternary glaciations or the present global warming -- remains unproven and most probably represents a second-order effect. Although we still require even more and better data, the weight of evidence suggests that solar changes have contributed to small climate oscillations occurring on time scales of a few centuries, similar in type to the fluctuations classically described for the last millennium: The so-called Medieval Warm Period (900–1400 A.D.) followed on by the Little Ice Age (1500–1800 A.D.)".

So, well, do you have any other refs? -BC aka Callmebc 18:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should go beyond reading the abstracts. There is really is much more to be said. What's being referenced is that such a hypothesis exists ("Several scientists have proposed that part of the global warming of about 0.8 °C since the mid 19th century has been related to a slow increase in solar irradiation from 1750 up to the present-day"[13]). Do you seriously doubt such a solar variation hypothesis exists, even after the IPCC discusses it? As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not here to tell its reader what is and what is not truth. In fact, Wikipedia is not truth, it's verifiability. We're to discuss the facts that surround the topic ("It demeans the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelize your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it"). The fact is that the hypothesis of solar variation exists within the field the climate study, and to deny that would be wholly un-encyclopedic. ~ UBeR 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that there is currently no support for the hypothesis that solar radiation is a significant factor in the current round of global warming. None. Yes, it has been discussed and studied, as well it should be in the interest of honest science, but....the end result is that the IPCC and everyone else seriously engaged in researching these things have found it, and are finding it, to be relatively insignificant. That's the bottom line, and to suggest otherwise, directly or indirectly, is to be deceitful and misleading to anyone coming to Wikipedia to get some good, solid info on the topic of global warming. That would be truly "un-encyclopedic." -BC aka Callmebc 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong to say that there is *no* support. From Bard+Frank: we also critically assess recent claims that the variability of the Sun has had a significant impact on global climate. You cannot regard L+F as the definitive last word on this issue (*I* think L+F are right, mind you) William M. Connolley 19:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see where I'm wrong. We're not talking about long term millenia cycles -- we're talking about this current, relatively extremely spike-ish warming trend, the thing we're actually referring to when we say global warming. There is no support for this by the Bard and Frank study -- they were primarily looking at the evidence for overall effects of solar radiation in both the long-long term and for recent decades, and they found squat to support the notion that it has much, if any, to with what's going on now. If you think I'm wrong, point out where. I went through all of UBeR's refs and did not find a single instance of legitimate scientific support for the "hypothesis" that the sun is a factor in what's happening now. If you guys don't know it by now, you should be warned that I do my homework (yes, I knew exactly what I was doing using that particular graph). -BC aka Callmebc 20:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for the wrong thing. The sentence in the article does not say "solar variation is the cause of recent global warming and here are the references to support that." It states that there is a hypothesis out there held by some scientists that suggests variation is the sun can explain global warming, and the references I provided support that sentence quite well. Considering the Bard and Frank paper was written in 2006, and they still state that "several scientists" hold the hypothesis to be true, you are incorrect to say that no one supports this hypothesis, when in fact I presented to you references that state quite the contrary. ~ UBeR 20:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, exactly what I'm arguing. B+F don't say solar *is* the cuase; they say that people are indeed saying it. As, for example, Svensmark is. Or Shaviv William M. Connolley 20:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is what the Wiki article says: "In contrast to the scientific consensus that recent warming is mainly attributable to elevated levels of greenhouse gases, other hypotheses have been suggested to explain the observed increase in mean global temperature. One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of variations in solar activity.[12][13][14][15]"

Please explain how any of your refs or excuses justify tying "variations in solar activity" to "the observed increase in mean global temperature"? -BC aka Callmebc 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. The article says, "other hypotheses have been suggested." The references I provided support this. The article says, "One such hypothesis" is the solar variation one. The references I provided support this. Quite frankly, this has reached the high school level of dissecting sentences. It would be much better for you, and for the sake of not continuing this ridiculous argument, if you just conceded. You misunderstood what the article was saying, and that's fine. Just leave it at that. ~ UBeR 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The meaning of "other hypotheses have been suggested" seems plain enough. There are serious people studying the role of solar variation on climate change. Yes, some of the reflexive denialists also have latched on to the solar hypothesis, but ideas aren't responsible for the people who believe in them. Raymond Arritt 21:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is beginning to feel more like grade school than anything. Let's recap, shall we: I removed the reference to "solar variation" under the section "Causes" because there was no good ref to support it. UBeR put it back claiming that it was "most definitely a hypothesis" but without supplying a reference to support it. When I made an issue of it, he came up with "4" references": 2 essential dupes of a pretty much discredited one (Svensmark); and two more that actuallly pretty much refuted that solar radiation was a significant factor for the current global warming trend. Alright, so on one hand we have a bona fide theory supported by tons of every growing evidence that the current round of global warming is overwhelmingly caused primarily by human activity; on the other, we have tons of unsupported hypotheses claiming otherwise, including that it's just some sort of natural cycles and/ot that it's all just some sort of liberal hoax.

All I've asked for is some sort of legitimate cite to show that including a reference to "solar variation" was a reasonable thing to do for an encylopedia article on the hot topic of global warming. So far I got a lot of excuses that boils down to "Well, we can't find any legitimate science references that support it, but since it gets talked about a lot, we have to include it." But according to this, WP:UNDUE: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

So are you really saying we need to include giving prominence to another "Flat Earth" view, in this case, that our current round of global warming could somehow be caused by a natural sun cycle despite not a shred of good scientific evidence to support this? -BC aka Callmebc 21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The sentence states there people within the scientific community who hold the hypothesis that solar variations are behind the cause of global warming. That's what has to be referenced, and that is what's referenced. This is a very simply concept, so I'm not sure why you cannot grasp it. So why is it reasonable for us as an encyclopedia to discuss a hypothesis that you feel is incorrect? Because it's a notable hypothesis; as such even the IPCC discusses it--it's not a fringe theory. It's discussed with scientific scrutiny. As I stated above, we're here to discuss the facts that surround the topic, whether you agree with them or not. This is the purpose of an encyclopedia. ~ UBeR 22:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why your inability to come up with any good, legitimate supporting refs? As I already pointed out, the solar radiation factor had been indeed been discussed, studied, but found wanting by climate science -- so why include it now? It may have been worthy of a mention several years ago, but science has moved on well past it, so to what purpose should it be mentioned as an alternative "hypothesis"? Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to be obsolete as well as misleading? -BC aka Callmebc 22:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I am going to have to repeat myself, my patience is wearing thing. The references I added fully support the content of this article. Notable alternative theories should be mentioned, and they are. Encyclopedias, notably Wikipedia, are not here to tell its readers what is truth and what is not. If you want to discuss the topic as it is in the scientific community, then the solar variation theory should very well be mentioned. If you cannot get this through your head, then feel free to start a dispute resolution, because your inability to understand these simple concepts is nearing irritability and ridiculousness, unless someone such as Connolley, Mr. Petersen, or Dr. Arritt can do better explaining to you. ~ UBeR 22:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to point out that I demonstrated that your refs did not at all support, never mind "fully," keeping in solar activity as a reasonable alternative hypothesis? In any case, we seem to be at crosspurposes here: I have the silly notion that an encyclopedia should enlighten with up to date, verifiable info backed up with legitimate sources and references; whereas you seem to think -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that if some people have alternative ideas regardless of origin, context, verifiability and/or lack of good supporting sources and references, they should be included as well. Whatever. I'll leave this be for the time being and ponder what would be the best approach to resolve this little disagreement.... -BC aka Callmebc 23:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be a strawman. My view is that content, such as stating alternative hypotheses exists, should be verifiable, accurate, and neutral. At the moment, the content that I specifically support being included fits this criteria, and that is the criteria for Wikipedia. There is no merit to saying alternative hypotheses do not exist. But by all means, if you think Connolley, Dr. Arritt, Mr. Petersen, and I are all wrong, feel free to go through the dispute resolution. I can only say you will be thoroughly disappointed, especially as it is much easier to concede now. ~ UBeR 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You offered up 4 refs that turned out to be worthless upon close inspection in terms of supporting the very dubious point you were trying to make. I'm looking at the bigger issue of letting agenda-laced, anti-science, crackpotty notions infect issues like global warming. For what it's worth, you've elected yourself to be a test case. Stay tuned for further developments.... -BC aka Callmebc 04:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hah! The point I was trying to make is that the solar variation theory exists, and my references are completely supportive of the indisputable fact. While you might get a kick out of calling multiple scientists anti-science, agenda-laced, and crackpots infectious to the scientific discourse on climate change, there will be very few people sympathetic your meritless cause that has served to do nothing more than to waste the time of these very pro-science people who have done nothing but to want the very best for this article. So by all means, continue your disingenuous tirade and ado--just know that in the meantime I've begun a RfC on the issue. ~ UBeR 05:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, this is getting out of hand. BC, all Uber's addition says is that there exists scientists that seriously consider/ed solar forcing as a cause. This is informative because a reader might ask herself 'what if it is the sun?' and when she reads the article she will see that the sun has been considered by the scientific community. On top of that it meets requirements. Here is one paper discussing this hypothesis. Brusegadi 05:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Check the date on that paper -- November, 1992. As I already stated, the solar activity hypothesis may have been worthy of a mention several years ago, but science has moved on well past it. Look at what happened when UBer tried to find refs to replace the deceptive one that had been there -- what you guys apparently aren't quite getting is that as far as present day science is concerned, there are now no legitimate alternative explanations for the current round of global climate change. And to even imply that there are in an encyclopedia article is to be deceptive and misleading, pure and simple. I dare anyone to find an up to date science ref that even allows for the possibility that there could be another explanation other than human activity -- the evidence and refinements in the science is just now so overwhelmingly lopsided in what they point to. The best you can do for accuracy's sake is only mention things like solar forcing in a historical context regarding global warming research, but not for the current science. I may be a newbie to this Wiki article, but that's not exactly the case in regards to the global warming "debate" for what it is. With that said, I am an info freak, and if there really are all those legitimate dissenting opinions/hypotheses out there, well...you know what to do. -BC aka Callmebc 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I added that paper because I thought you wanted more reliable sources. Concerning your view about the way the hypothesis is being presented, I really cannot find a way of adding anything new to the discussion. That is, anything I say will simply be a repetition of Uber, Dr. Connolley, or Dr. Arrit. Ciao, Brusegadi 02:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, BC, but I think you are missing something somewhere. Solar variation is a prominent hypothesis. That's why there are several papers discussing (and, for the most recent period, convincingly refuting) it. Describing an hypothesis is not the same as endorsing it. On a meta-level, when I see William and UBeR on the same side, I'm fairly certain that the issue is rather one-sided. And suggesting that especially William and Raymond are not "quite getting" the current state of global warming science is rather patronizing. --Stephan Schulz 14:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To say that the solar variation hypothesis is not worthy of mention in this article based on your opinion is original research, especially considering that it goes counter to the sources that I found. In their most recent report published in 2007, the IPCC still brings up the matter. In the Bard + Frank paper written in 2006, they still state the hypothesis exists. So for you to say it shouldn't be mention, whilst it's being mentioned and discussed in the scientific literature... well you hold absolutely no ground. ~ UBeR 22:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that's a very odd argument tack. Lots of hypotheses "exist," but are they all valid and should be included just because they exist? While Bard + Frank examined the solar issue, in the end they decided is was not a major factor. My basic point is that by mentioning the hypothesis under Causes without any indication of how they fit in with current research is highly deceptive and misleading.

Also, while this doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand, I suppose I should mention that my Wiki time here may dry up for a while -- I'm sort of one of the main editors at the Killian memo wikis, as well as an accidental expert on them, and Dan Rather has just filed a lawsuit against CBS. I have the feeling this is going to suck up a lot of my time, so if I start being a bit nonresponsive here, that will likely be the reason. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 23:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's our job to say what is valid and what is not valid. For the most part, that would original research. That, of course, doesn't mean we should include all hypotheses at will. WP:WEIGHT governs that concept. And because quite a bit of weight has been given to the solar variation hypotheses, whether it be through the IPCC or a number scientific papers on the subject, then that should be represented likewise in this article. Additionally, saying that we discuss the solar variation hypothesis without any context is completely inaccurate, as we devote an entire section discussing the relevant research that explains our current knowledge on the subject. ~ UBeR 23:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at the best evidence -- where are the refs for solar forcing being a legitimate alternative hypothesis in this day and age? If it really was true that "Solar variation is a prominent hypothesis," there would be legitimate scientific reports and papers at least giving it a mention, but go look and the only thing you will find are old, utterly out of date papers like the one Brusegadi brought up. UBeR gave 4 references, but as I pointed out, 2 were nearly the same and from the late 90's, but involved galactic cosmic rays, not solar radiation, and that idea has been pretty much completely discredited, and the other two refs, which were very techical, actually said in that solar activity was not a significant factor for what we're calling global warming. So if there is literally no current scientific support for solar variation as being now a legitimate alternative hypothesis, why present it as though it still is? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. See chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 Working Group I report, especially at section 2.7.1. If you think the AR4 isn't good enough, well, I give up. Raymond Arritt 03:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Try "redundant" -- I've already pointed out that Piers Forster, the lead author for that very IPCC report, in reference to a Royal Society's Journal Proceedings report debunking the link between global warming and solar radiance, said that "This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity." You and the others keep acting like just "mentioning" the hypothesis is good enough a reason to include it in the main wiki article when the very sources you're citing are actually debunking it as a valid alternative hypothesis!! What the heck?! Whatever -- let's see what, if anything, the RFC does. -BC aka Callmebc 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't majority rules all, in the sense that we don't just represent what a majority of the people think. If there are notable alternative hypotheses, which there are, then they can be explained within the context of scientific debate, per WP:WEIGHT. It's either your inability to understand how Wikipedia and its policies work or simply your want to argue mindlessly that keeps this going. Please fix one or the other. ~ UBeR 16:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should try to explain what "notable alternative hypotheses" mean in the context of a scientific topic. Getting away from global warming, let's look at a different topic I know quite a bit about -- the "forged" CBS Killian memos. There were/are plenty of "hypotheses" regarding them, but they are all based on extremely faulty notions about the capabilities of early 70's (and even 50's and 60's) office tech, the nature and format of a "Memorandum for Record" and how the contents matched up with official records. You put all the pieces on the table, including the dates when key records were released by the DoD under FOIA duress, and all of a sudden the forgery scenario doesn't fit in. The forgery charge then becomes notable in the sense of a widely held urban myth, but does it mean you still have to include it in a discussion as still being a viable alternative hypothesis? Getting back on a more scientific topic, how about including "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design" in regards to a discussion of evolution as an alternative hypothesis? The Evolution wiki handles this by placing this particular alternative hypothesis under a separate section called Social and religious controversies. If you want to include a mention of solar activity, I think it would only be likewise appropriate under a separate section to ensure that it's not seen as a viable alternative hypothesis by current climate research on the matter. -BC aka Callmebc 18:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There are serious scientists who believe that the Sun might have played a larger and more important role during the last 50 years - than is generally believed. Afaik none of them are saying that the Earth isn't experiencing greenhouse-enhanced warming - they just have varying estimates of how large this is compared to solar forcing. There is really no pseudoscience here - its mainly a specific scientific view, albeith a fringe one, but its notable enough to make the IPCC write about it. So its notable in this context as well - as a fringe notable view (according to WP:WEIGHT). [and this has so far been said by almost everyone here - in various forms] --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This is not an either/or situation, but rather a discussion of how much each casuse has contributed over time. --Stephan Schulz 19:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But how fringey does something need to get? Here, try this experiment: you're someone who's not tech, but tries to be well enough informed via a daily newspaper and at least a half hour of radio news in the morning and another half hour of TV news after getting home for the evening. You've heard lots of contradictory things about global warming, including how serious it is or isn't, and whether it's caused by humans or is some sort of natural solar cycle. You've also heard that it's still a subject of debate among scientists. Curious, you get on your computer and find the main Wikipedia article on it. You read it through and click on a good many of the links. When you are finished doing this, will you really come away with an accurate notion about what's really going on and the science behind it? I'm just saying.... -BC aka Callmebc 20:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It has to uphold the requirements by WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. We are not here to promote a certain view or educate - we are here to present the science, in an encyclopedic way. Which means that we present the prevalent view and the minority views according to their relative notability (weight). --Kim D. Petersen 21:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I would say for the most part this article is rather accurate--more so than many other Wikipedia articles. It's not as if your hypothetical guy would be completely misinformed by reading this article. In fact, he would be in the know. He would have accurate information--such as knowing other hypotheses are still held by a minority of scientists, that most scientists believe GHGs are the primary cause of GW, and that there remain certain uncertainties. This is good for him to know. If he were to thoroughly review the scientific literature, he would come to same conclusion. ~ UBeR 22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"On Environmental Stuff"

A possible source of information on this subject is the references and bibliography contained at the rear of the 2004 novel "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Of course, there may be bias in the references and bibliography cited by the author. No endorsement or agreement with the author's point of view as expressed in the novel is intended. George614 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

State of Fear is a novel. It is not a suitable source for a page on a scientific topic. I'll refrain from further commenting on the quality of the footnotes... --Stephan Schulz 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, he is only talking about the footnotes and not the novel itself. That said, although the motive of locating more sources is good, the best place to find sources is in other articles that are relevant to the topic (thus getting back to Stephan's point). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes are part of the novel, and have been under the same "rigourous editorial review" as the rest of it. --Stephan Schulz 15:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan and Ben, Your points are well made. I wasn't referring specifically to the footnotes in the text of the novel but to the references at the back of the book, especially the books in the bibliography. Some of those books, however biased, may lead one to additional information and perhaps even useful actual data.George614 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Henrik Svensmark

I note that there are now 3 refs to Svensmark's cosmic ray/cloud seeding theory (or rather, hypothesis) following the mention of "solar activity" on the main page. Anybody else see some problems with this? -BC aka Callmebc 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a WP:WEIGHT problem. But Svensmark's theory has several parts - one that galactic cosmic rays induce cloud formation (or, if that is refuted, low level cloud formation) and hence cool the earth, and the other that solar activity modulates galactic cosmic rays (more solar activity -> less galactic cosmic rays). Yes, I know you could not make this up if you wanted to... --Stephan Schulz 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just read one of Svensmark's papers. It made a lot of sense. I am not sure why you think is is weird that sun spots affect the Earth's magnetic field and that those changes affect the number of high energy protons (cosmic rays) entering the Earth's atmosphere. As for cosmic rays initiating cloud formation, that is exactly how cloud chambers detect cosmic rays. What I see is a possible explanation of *how* a decrease in sun spots could have caused the Little Ice Age by simply allowing more clouds to form. Q Science 15:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is no one has ever shown that the laboratory mechanism has any importance at all to the real atmosphere. Very much the opposite if anything; there are many different types of cloud condensation nuclei, the vast majority of which have nothing whatsoever to do with cosmic rays. Raymond Arritt 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And the correlations that Svensmark claim are all extremely tentative, with several of them refuted or at least very dubious. You should read some of the replies to Svensmark's papers. --Stephan Schulz 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Global warming controversy to See Also Section

I've added a link to the article Global warming controversy in the see also section. I feel this is a good edit, it improves the overall quality of the article in that it provides instant access to alternate points of view directly relating to the subject matter of this article.Jaredbelch 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My edit was ~~removed~~ reverted before I added the comment here, so I've added my changes back in, please lets discuss this if there is a problem.Jaredbelch 23:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The general policy is to only have links in "see also" that do not already appear in the text. Global warming controversy is already linked from the introduction (as public debate), as a "see main" in the "Issue debate, political processes and laws" section, and from the "Global warming and Climate change" infobox on the bottom. Don't you think this is enough? --Stephan Schulz 23:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right, I brushed up on the style guide, and the community seems to feel the same way [[14]]. With that being the case, I'm going to clean up the "See Also" section, I'll alphabetize it, and remove links that are already covered in the text of the article. Jaredbelch 06:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be very welcome. --Stephan Schulz 06:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and Low-carbon economy, I've left Renewable energy since it really isn't discussed in the article. Jaredbelch 06:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Arctic Sea Ice Reduction

The National Snow and Ice Data Center has reported [15] that sea ice has decreased to record levels. This may have a place in the attributed effects section. Superm401 - Talk 22:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall we also include information on the near-record expansions of antarctic sea ice?

Sea ice around Antarctica has seen unusual winter expansions recently, and this week is near a record high.^[4]

I find it interesting (and perhaps telling) that this was the last line in a long article about the arctic ice lows and its connection to global warming. I noticed your reference, Superm401, didn't even mention these near-record expansions. Zoomwsu 23:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In the mean time, whilst we warm our britches...

We have less to cool them with [16]. Is it my imagination or is the predicted timelines for this sort of stuff keep having to be ramped up? -BC aka Callmebc 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[17] and perhaps [18] if you're confident. Maybe I should ask "death spiral" Serreze William M. Connolley 20:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know -- power law distributions are slippery slopes in more ways than one.... -BC aka Callmebc 05:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Polar/Arctic Ice Melt Section

Getting more prosaic, I just noticed how the main wiki article actually gives very little mention to the arctic ice melt despite most of the recent "global warming news" centering on that. Actually, try this little experiement out for size: go to the main page and do a word search for "arctic" and then one for "polar". Interesting, no? For all the guff I got for wanting to remove solar variation as a hypothesis just because, well, it's not really considered a valid alternative scientific explanation anymore, it's been overlooked that some not so hypothetical stuff involving a key indicator of global warming has been marginalized, intentionally or not. My feeling is that it perhaps needs a wee bit more attention as per WP:Weight and such. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 14:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS, and we do mention the ice/albedo feedback early on. Global warming#Attributed_and_expected_effects is only a summary. The main article is at Effects of global warming. But you do have a point - that section is badly disorganized and could need some work. --Stephan Schulz 15:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you at least agree that the section is badly disorganized, but I do believe WP:NOT#NEWS is hardly applicable when a key aspect of research in a supposedly science-based Wiki article barely gets a mention at all, nevermind any breaking news on the matter. The word "arctic" only shows up once and then in the title of an article in "Further Reading," and the word "polar" likewise only shows up in another article title, again only in the "Further Reading" section. The word "solar" though -- go try to count all the mentions of that. I'm just saying.... -BC aka Callmebc 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Try Effects of global warming, where most of the information should be. Also try counting how many times "greenhouse" comes up compared to "solar." ~ UBeR 16:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but what term(s) are best connected to the current state of climate research? In any case, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Global Warming wiki essentially acts as a summary wiki that links to other wiki articles delving more deeply into specific aspects of the whole, rather complicated global warming/climate change topic. As such, it should still give weighted info regardless if there is another wiki covering that specific matter in greater detail. Indeed Solar variation has its own separate wiki for itself, so by your reasoning, that should likewise be given as little or even less mention in the Global Warming wiki as the arctic issues. Logical, no? -BC aka Callmebc 17:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The solar variation hypotheses holds quite a bit more weight than a news report. There'd be a serious weight issue if we devoted just one sentence to the solar variation hypothesis and an entire section on Arctic ice. ~ UBeR 17:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ice melting is an effect. Of course that it may lead to a positive feed-back loop but ice melting is definitely not a forcing. Solar variation can only be a forcing. So, the solar stuff should be mentioned while the ice melting stuff could be added with details on the feed-back loops if you guys think it has not been properly covered in the article. On the other hand, talking about melting ice alone and polar bears does not belong here; it belongs in the effects of global warming. Brusegadi 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I need to only point to what supposedly the "Global Warming" wiki is suppose to cover. It isn't just about the Attribution of recent climate change, which would be more suited for delving into forcing effects like possibly solar variation, nor is it just about the Effects of global warming, which would be more suited for delving into things like glacier retreat. It appears that a broad topic like Global Warming should endeavor to give a balanced introduction to at least the key aspects of the matter. I think. -BC aka Callmebc 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT does not mean everything should be discussed equally. ~ UBeR 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with you adding in something about the arctic ice, just as long as you don't complain if it doesn't survive the usual review William M. Connolley 20:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- I will endeavor to make it sling and arrow proof. -BC aka Callmebc 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Addressing GW: mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance

GW addressing include mitigation, adaptation, techonology and finance. I suggest include clearly these as main sections in the article. --Nopetro 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Mitigation and adaptation are their own articles, and are already incorporated into this article as much as they need to be without being redundant. They are both mentioned and linked in the opening paragraphs. As for those other two nonexistent articles... what changes exactly are you trying to suggest? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The technology and finance sectors of global warming can be found in the discussions on mitigation, adaption, and effects. ~ UBeR 22:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

^ Mars Hints at Solar, not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientists Say, by Kate Ravilious, 2/28/07, National Geographic via nationalgeographic.com.
^ Mars Hints at Solar, not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientists Say, by Kate Ravilious, 2/28/07, National Geographic via nationalgeographic.com.
^ Human Produced carbon dioxide only, total carbon dioxide in atmosphere is 2,700,000,000 thousand tons (See also: Carbon cycle)
^ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/science/21arctic.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1190410547-g+AnNNv76v0uyGNwzUm3vw&oref=slogin

[1] Mars Hints at Solar, not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientists Say, by Kate Ravilious, 2/28/07, National Geographic via nationalgeographic.com.

[2] Mars Hints at Solar, not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientists Say, by Kate Ravilious, 2/28/07, National Geographic via nationalgeographic.com.

[3] Human Produced carbon dioxide only, total carbon dioxide in atmosphere is 2,700,000,000 thousand tons (See also: Carbon cycle)

[4] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/science/21arctic.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1190410547-g+AnNNv76v0uyGNwzUm3vw&oref=slogin

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]