Talk:Climate change/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Average temperature is computed, not *measured*

I strongly object to Obedium adding the word *measured* to the following text.

The measured global average air temperature near the Earth's surface ...

By definition, averages are computed, not measured. In the case of global temperature, a very complex model is used to perform that calculation. Q Science 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In the very narrow sense in which you're using the term, all temperatures are "computed." I suppose you could replace it with some words about average temperature as computed from observations, but I can't see where that adds value for the reader. Raymond Arritt 23:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not say calculated instead? Seems like more precise language. Zoomwsu 02:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like reasonable word usage to me. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not just say "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface"? It's simpler, correct, and gets the idea across. Enuja (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A sensible suggestion indeed. Classic writing advice for modifiers (adjectives and adverbs) is "when in doubt, leave it out." Raymond Arritt 02:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot it's protected at the moment. Raymond Arritt 02:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Calculated is more precise and contains information that your version would omit. Better to be more informative? Zoomwsu 15:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not more informative. The temperature I read from a single thermometer is "calculated" from the expansion coefficient of Mercury or alcohol (or some more esoteric property of semiconductors nowadays). Using just "calculated" is not informative, but it may be misleading, as it might suggest that no measurements are involved (otherwise, if you mention one, why not the other? "calculated from worldwide temperature measurements" is a bit cumbersome). --Stephan Schulz 15:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you could have said it is "measured" from the expansion coefficient. A scale has been agreed upon to take these measurements from mercury expansion and from there, it becomes measurement, not calculation, just like you do not calculate an observable distance but measure it. --Childhood's End 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you're taking it too far with the mercury stuff. I think calculated is a better term than measured, and better than complete omission of a qualifier. Calculated leaves us with an out--it supposes the possibility of error. Using just "the temperature is X", doesn't indicate the possibility of error and gives the false impression that the surface temperature is a concrete fact, which it isn't. Zoomwsu 17:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that any average is calculated in a way differently than a single measurement is. I see no problem with the word. That said, (with respect to Zoomwsu's comment) we're saying "the average temperature is X" which definitely does imply a calculation and hence room for error. Basically, I don't care whether it says "calculated" or not, so I'll argue both sides of the issue. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The temperature measurements taken outside my house are not computed. Global temperature is. I don't see why we are arguing over avoiding this language since it provides a very relevant nuance. I prefer "computed" over "calculated". But perhaps a good option would be "modelled"? --Childhood's End 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Modeled, of course, would be inaccurate because the temperature is not modeled at all- it is measured. A model would not require any measurement at all. I agree with Raymond Arritt that, if you want to mince words, all temperatures are calculated averages - they depend on the average pressure exerted by the collisions of the molecules in the substance you're measuring with your measurement device. But the internally-calculated output of a temperature-measuring device is generally called a "measurement", not a "calculation". I support Enuja's suggestion that the word be removed entirely. johnpseudo 18:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop playing with words. A duck is a duck is a duck, and same applies to a measurement. On the other hand, you cannot measure global temperature, so it should not be implied that you can. --Childhood's End 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you measure the temperature in Houston? In your backyard? In your body? Not according to you. You are implying that without absolute knowledge of the system in question, you are merely "calculating" the temperature....The fact that measurements are taken in multiple places around the world serves only to provide a more-exact measurement, just as taking an average of the temperature read at different places in your backyard would provide a more-accurate measurement. The only difference is that, because the earth is a very volatile system, it is more difficult to provide an exact measurement for the global temperature whereas the measurement of the temperature in your backyard is easier because the system is more uniform. johnpseudo 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. The length of a sheet of paper can be measured with a ruler. The fact that I dont precisely know myself what is a perfect meter does not mean that I am not taking a measurement. There is a recognized system that determines what is a meter, which is why I don't have to calculate length when I can take direct measurements with proper instruments. Same goes for time, or for temperature measurements taken with a thermometer at point X. The difference is that you cannot take a direct measurement of the Earth's temperature, so it needs to be modelled/calculated/computed. --Childhood's End 17:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

All temperature measurements incorporate a model, from mercury-in-glass to PRTs. The original addition of "measured" was a poor idea; just say "The global average air temperature" as its been for ages William M. Connolley 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I really think this is much ado about nothing, but William's suggestion makes sense. If you think that all averages must be calculated/computed/etc. (which no one is really disputing), then just saying "The global average air temperature" already contains that information. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I could bear with this phrasing, although I don't think it's as precise as having calculated in there. Zoomwsu 23:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Average is good. It requires both measurement and calculation. Only problem is that many people will not recognize that it is an average of a sample not the average of the "population" of temperatures. (I'm not saying that they are stupid but that they would not really think about it that carefully, are not aware of how low the resolution is, and are not aware of things like microclimates). --Blue Tie 17:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as I understand it, it is not only a weighted average, but I believe there are additional calculations required to adjust for UHI effects, etc. (No sources on this, so take it with a grain of salt. I trust one of the other editors will correct me if I'm wrong about that.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It is very much calculated, NOAA calls the derivation of the figure as an analysis. Here for an explanation of "The merged land air and sea surface temperature data set.": http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/gcagmerged.html Sln3412 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Appeal for translation help

Please, I need help to translate this article to all the Wikipedias. This is an important theme, is a global probleme and we must put it in all the languages as possible as we can. Please, help!!!!!! Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.60.101.71 (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to do some work on the Spanish version. The English version has very high quality compared to the others which give the subject a more superficial treatment. Brusegadi 18:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Raymond Arritt 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected page

There's no way a user, who claims scientists skeptical of a human cause for global warming are all in the pay of oil companies, should be permitted to fully protect this page from editing claiming "POV pushing". Clashwho 20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad he did. And you can always go to Conservapedia and edit the global warming article there. :) Count Iblis 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who says all scientists skeptical of Global Warming are in the pay of oil companies should only be permitted to edit the liberalopedia. Wikipedia ought to run him out on rail. His POV is apparently so ingrained that he doesn't even recognize it. Clashwho 20:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well he knows that that is a sweeping statement and not 100% accurate. He did not change the sentence in the article to somehing like: "A few scientists who are in the pay of oil companies disagree". Also, note that on most issues the Left is Right and the Right is Wrong, so there is no need to create a separate "Liberopedia", because its contents would be very similar to Wikipedia. :) Count Iblis 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for wearing your extraordinarily liberal bias on your sleeve. You probably aren't the most impartial user to be editing this page, either. He has not said that he knows it was a sweeping statement and not 100% accurate. Why are you speaking for him? Here is his exact quote from the edit history:

"rv per long discussion on talk page - "some" gives weigh [sic] too much weight to a a tiny oil-financed minority"

That's saying that every skeptic of IPCC is oil financed, which is preposterous. Wikipedia deserves better than to have such an important article locked by someone with such obvious POV issues. Clashwho 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people. Administrators should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However, this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page." ~ UBeR 21:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't even much of an edit war. I made one edit. One. And then he promptly reverted it and locked the page. Clashwho 01:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is commonly accepted practice to revert to the long-standing version, which is "few" Raul654 21:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Um. Sorry to say this but I don't think you should be protecting the page, you are involved. I'd unprotect it but I don't want to get into a war. I'm not really sure that protection is warranted at all. This is going to be yet another tedious round of some/many/few that will settle back to few after a little while, but protection won't help.

What might help to decrease the violence is to declare a 1RR rule on this page while the SFM war plays out. How about that? William M. Connolley 21:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The some/few/many thing is a ritual dance we go through once in a while. (The equinox just passed; maybe that has something to do with it.) I don't think it's a big enough deal to warrant protecting the page. Raymond Arritt 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The 1RR rule is more difficult to enforce than the 0RR rule :) Count Iblis 01:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This full protection is driving me nuts. Take this for example:

An increase in global temperatures is expected to cause other changes, including sea level rise, increased intensity of extreme weather events, and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

Is it really necessary to have the same article inlinked in two consecutive sentences? I had planned to change this earlier today, but the article had already been locked. Minor fixes like this happen all the time, but now they can't be made due to the protection. Wouldn't it be easier to simply enforce that the sentence in question cannot be changed during the course of the discussion, instead of locking the entire article down over the sake of a single word (albeit an important one)? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, but I have a hard time understanding why the some/few distinction is important. (Don't bother explaining it to me, I'm sure it's due to a difference of perception that cannot be easily explained.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do this. It seems like an uncontroversial fix that isn't related to the reason for protection, per the criteria in WP:PROT#Full_protection. If anyone thinks otherwise I'll change it back. Raymond Arritt 03:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this thread stems from the some/few thread, I don't want to elaborate much to avoid starting serious discussion. I just want to make my position on the matter clear: So long as the sentence remains there in some form, I do not care so much about its actual wording. The biggest problem I have is the improper citation that is provided for it. I may personally feel that "few" is an understatement, and "many" an overstatement, but as you pointed out there is no real way to add any kind of descriptor without stepping on someone's toes. The big problem is the way that some editors hide behind the editorial as if it carries legitimate weight when, in keeping with policy (WP:RS-WP:NPOV-WP:WEASEL), it shouldn't be there at all. So whatever the outcome, if that citation is removed without taking the entire sentence with it, policy will be upheld and the article will be better for it. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some scientists disagree" seems like an appropriate compromise to me. I don't even know what the word "individual" is there for. To make them all seem like unconnected naysayers? Lone voices crying out in the wilderness? That's hardly the case. As for the cite, yes, there are certainly better ones out there like my cite to the "The Deniers" series that I added and saw promptly reverted and the page fully protected. Rarely have I seen such an overreaction on Wikipedia, and the editor who did it has made statements that out him as far from an impartial observer. Clashwho 04:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the cite that I intended:[1] Clashwho 04:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Canada National Post series is certainly not a WP:RS. It's full of nonsense, and at least two of the described scientists have stated that they have been misrepresented. It probably was reverted quickly because we have been over this a couple of times already. --Stephan Schulz 05:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Canada National Post and that series? It's full of respected scientists who have deep problems with the IPCC's conclusions. It is emphatically not full of nonsense. Do you have a cite for the two scientists who feel they were misrepresented? Whatever they feel, they certainly do not support the conclusions of the IPCC. Clashwho 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this one, for an extreme example, where the newspaper had to retract the story. There are quite a few more (Toll, Kirkby, Landsea, Solanki, Wunsch, Friis-Christensen, Nordhaus, von Storch ...) certainly all support the IPCC conclusions. Some of them have differences with specifics - but the overall IPCC picture they are in agreement about. (try researching some of these yourself). --Kim D. Petersen 23:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If printing a retraction means a paper isn't a reliable source, then no respected newspaper is a reliable source. Clashwho 22:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats correct - but in this case it presented a biography of a specific living person - and got the basics wrong. This indicates that the journalist in question was very lax with his verification and that little or no editorial fact checking was made => which makes it an unreliable source per WP:RS. --Kim D. Petersen 14:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Being as the current source presented is about on the same level as the CNP article as far as reliability and relevance go, I don't see why we cannot simply eliminate the source altogether and leave the sentence there, worded in a way that we reach through compromise here. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually favor Stephan's suggestion above: remove the sentence altogether and add the link to the dissenting minority in the See also section. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Leaving the lead bereft of any mention of dissenting scientists is not an option. That will turn this article into propaganda, not an impartial source of information. Clashwho 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; this would obviate our quarterly some/few kerfluffle. Raymond Arritt 14:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose full protection. Why not restrict just to registered users to avoid vandalism? Zoomwsu 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

They had already done that. The page was semi-protected before this began. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 fails to understand how WP:DISPUTE works and would much rather revert others and lock articles he's not supposed to be locking. ~ UBeR 16:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Amusing, seeing as how I helped write it years ago. In the future, why don't you educate yourself before showing how ignorant you are. Raul654 17:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of us seem to need a refresher on WP:ATTACK and WP:CIV. Regardless of how strongly he may feel on this issue, this kind of behavior should not be acceptable from an administrator. And that goes both ways; this really isn't solving anything. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Says the guy who thinks all scientists who question the IPCC are in the pay of oil companies. After looking at WP:DISPUTE perhaps you should have a look at WP:OWN as well. Clashwho 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, thinking that all scientists who are skeptical of the mainstream position hold their views because they are paid by oil companies is ignorance. --Childhood's End 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've only just noticed that the protection is now by Navou, not Raul, and has been for a while William M. Connolley 11:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Initially by Raul, but I've taken responsibility for the protection and left a note on Rauls talk page. Navou ^banter 15:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There's really no need to have it fully protected... ~ UBeR 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I find myself tentatively but still surprisingly agreeing with UBeR here. The recent surge in nonsensical and contentious editing, especially by Clashwho/74.77.222.188, [2], was likely just a spillover from an edit war (actually, technically an "evidence war") at the Killian memos wikis I was engaged in. I've been blocked over 3RR and for using an "euphemism," [3], but I'm back now and may perhaps draw away attention back to a bigger concern for people of right wing persuasion. I say go back to semi-protection and see what happens. -BC aka Callmebc 14:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Stating this as a left wing vs. right wing or liberal vs. conservative discourse is not useful. We aim at the best possible representation of the current state of the science. Science does not care about political correctness (pun intended). --Stephan Schulz 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but the "few" versus "some" debate is hardly a matter of scientific reasoning. It seems to me to be a wee bit silly to protect this page over what seems a trivial issue. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have phrased it somewhat differently, but in any case, me thinks this particular point in human history will not be looked back as "The Age of Reason" down the road. But that's only a hypothesis and not a theory. -BC aka Callmebc 14:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking about hypothesis and theory, the FAQ calls GW a theory, but from what I understood, it's only a hypothesis... Sln3412 18:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You understood incorrectly. If you had personally noticed that the winters seem to be getting milder and that spring seems to be starting sooner, it would just be a hypothesis on your part at that point to say that the overall climate might be warming. But if you then spend the next couple of years taking precise measurements from all over the globe, examining whatever historical temperature records that can be found, doing careful extrapolations based on stuff like tree rings and ice core samples and then plotting all this out, and then likewise go plot both natural phenomena like solar activity and human-related activity like CO2 emissions, and then finally lay all this stuff out and examine possibly matching curves and trends, well...now you're getting into the province of theory, where real researchers are welcome. -BC aka Callmebc 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? What consensus?

Oreskes’ essay is now outdated. Since it was published, more than 8,000 further papers on climate change have been published in the learned journals. In these papers, there is a discernible and accelerating trend away from unanimity even on her limited definition of “consensus”.

Schulte (2007: submitted) has brought Oreskes’ essay up to date by examining the 539 abstracts found using her search phrase “global climate change” between 2004 (her search had ended in 2003) and mid-February 2007. Even if Oreskes’ commentary in Science were true, the “consensus” has moved very considerably away from the unanimity she says she found.

Dr. Schulte’s results show that about 1.5% of the papers (just 9 out of 539) explicitly endorse the “consensus”, even in the limited sense defined by Oreskes. Though Oreskes found that 75% of the papers she reviewed explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus”, Dr. Schulte’s review of subsequent papers shows that fewer than half now give some degree of endorsement to the “consensus”. The abstract of his paper is worth quoting in full: “Fear of anthropogenic ‘global warming’ can adversely affect patients’ well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on “global climate change” found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes (2004), who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on “global climate change” had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 32 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to “catastrophic” climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.”

[4]

--Alexander 09:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

From the first paragraph of the same paper: "Yet the scientific consensus is that...it is we who are chiefly to blame for the equally rapid warming from 1975 to the present."--Chaser - T 09:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry. This was from another paper from the same organization.--Chaser - T 16:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Here is, verbatim, the first patagraph of the referenced report:

It is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus” was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change.

--Alexander 10:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• An entertaineing scam that surely will not die for a while yet. Linked report is written by this guy (Monckton link). Which is in part about a not-yet-published, submitted paper by Schulte (to an obscure journal, not actually used/cited by anyone. . .nevertheless even they rejected this "paper"). Of course everyone watching this page probably already knew about this disinformation (to the archives!) And of course if anyone had any lingering doubts about whether this was a scam or not, it's linked at the Inhofe page, and if there's any page more delusional or misinforming than the senate minority blog, I haven't seen it. R. Baley 11:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so then we should look at the work in its entirety instead of quoting selectively. I get it now! Would you extend this to critical inspection of the author, publishing journal, funding, etc., as R. Baley is doing above?--Chaser - T 16:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

[5] --Alexander 14:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think the ISI Web of Science covers Energy and Environment, a rather low key social-science journal whose review process has been criticized sharply in the past, and a favourite venue for GW sceptic papers - E&E certainly is not in any citation index. But even E&E rejected publication of Schulte. Schulte's paper currently is self-published crap, i.e. not a WP:RS. Secondary reports based on Schulte cannot have more weight, of course. --Stephan Schulz 17:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, Energy and Environment was not listed on ISI/JCR (I tried to look up its impact factor last time this was brought up). R. Baley 18:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Imagine an encyclopedia being compiled, say, during the Cultural Revolution in China. Everything that goes in that encyclopedia must be referenced to published works, and the only published works are those that were approved by the chairman Mao. Result: a Maoist encyclopedia. This is also the most serious problem of Wikipedia: it is biased toward "approved" pseudo-reality of the media and publishing world -- therefore, by definition, it is full of lies whenever it comes to any more or less contentious topic. And yes, the cabal will always say there is no cabal.--Alexander 06:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If E&E won't publish something, it does very much cast it into doubt. Although that doesn't mean it has to be bad, or that if, say, CP publishes something, it has to be good... Regardless, I doubt you'd ever get any traction on this... 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Sln3412 17:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm unclear on your argument, Alexander. Are you suggesting that we should give homeopathy, astrology, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, flat-earthers, and Time Cube the same weight as accepted science? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that articles on contentious, unproven theories, such as "global warming" and "Big Bang," be given two, "pro" and "contra," pages in Wikipedia. This would allow fanatical adherents of both points of view to keep to their own sandboxes without bullying and silencing each other, as it so often happens on this biased page. Arguments of the "debate is over, there is a consensus" type only demonstrate the weakness and the aggressiveness of an irrational belief. As long as there are serious climatologists that disagree with the AGW theory, every word about "consensus" sticks out like a blatant lie. Also, the United Nations is, probably, the most corrupt organization in the world, desperately justifying its existence by engaging in highly politicized scaremongering. Only the blind don't see that all this debate is about "who gets the public money." Citing IPCC reports as a "scientific" source is laughable. Insulting every skeptic and every critic already earned the environmentalists a dubious reputation of a religious sect. Meanwhile, nobody has taken up the $125,000 reward for scientific proof of the AGW -- which is the only fact an independent thinker needs to know to understand that this "we are evil" hysteria is groundless. --Alexander 18:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with these "rewards" is that the organization or person offering them always makes them vague enough that they can move the goalposts at their whim and never have to risk paying them out. As for my previous question, it's now moved to how do we decide which articles are "contentious, unproven theories" deserving of "pro" and "contra" pages in Wikipedia? How do we name these articles? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, you (who might or might not be Alexander as the person making the comments signed as Alexander is actually a dynamic IP address— most recently User:69.19.14.29) seem to have no problem with censoring other people's information, however. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexander, you're falling into the same "proven/unproven" trap that most naysayers do, a trap I would expect a philosopher to be able to avoid. There is no "proof" in science, and a theory is always a theory. Elevating contrary small-minority opinions to the same level as the best-supported theory is contrary to WP:UNDUE. We have to do what we can to provide a description of the problem that is appropriately weighted to our understanding and likelihood of being correct, as defined by the scientific community. This page does that pretty well. bikeable (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Small minority," "best-supported theory," "appropriately weighted," and "Our understanding" are individual perceptions having nothing to do with the science. Since Oreskes' research is highly doubtful, either any mentioning of "consensus" should be removed from the article, or the GW page should be divided in two: pro and contra. (My IP address is changing; this doesn't make me an "anon." If you have objections to my views, post your objections here but do not abuse admin privileges by silencing your opponents.) --Alexander 22:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus" is not based on Oreskes alone, but also on statements by the AAAS, the US National Academies, the American Meteorological Society, and circa 20 other national science academies, including those of nearly all major developed countries. Not one national science academy or comparable body objects. And especially if your IP address keeps changing, you should make sure to log in. Login status is based on a cookie, not on your IP address. --Stephan Schulz 22:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexander, Oreskes isn't even mentioned in the article. ~ UBeR 22:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, she is. Thankfully, she has been removed from the main article but there is still a reference link to her falsified "research" paper. I would like it to be removed, too. --Alexander Feht 07:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• To my surprise, I find that I cannot freely express my opinion here. I cannot even maintain discussion normally, because some political activists (Connolley, Schulz, et al.) make every effort, using every admin privilege in their arsenal, to silence me. Which is, in itself, an evidence of the religious and political, non-scientific character of their beliefs and activity. Back to the subject: as long as there are major climatologists not supporting the AGW theory, there is NO consensus, and every mentioning of "consensus" should be removed from the article. As to $125.000 reward, it has an exactly defined, unmovable goal: anyone who presents an incorrigible scientific proof that global warming, if any, is caused by human activity, gets the reward. There are no takers because there is no proof. --Alexander 00:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.58 (talk • contribs)

Alexander, please log in. Back to the subject. First, as long as there are major climatologists not supporting the AGW theory, there is NO consensus: that's not what "consensus" means; perhaps you should look it up. Second, I will give you a $125,000 "reward" if you will provide incorrigible scientific proof that the pencil I hold in my hand will fall when I drop it. (Oh, and I [the exclusive right] to determine the meaning and application of all concepts and terms.) Moral: there is no proof in science, your much-hyped "reward" is silly nonsense, and there is indeed "consensus" (not the same as "unanimity") on global warming. bikeable (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexander, please read WP:TPG. You are free to express your opinion as long as you stay on topic. The topic is the article, not "global warming" itself. The boundaries are somewhat fluent, but neither political rants not original research have a place here. See WP:NOT. I have blocked one of your IPs because you violated WP:3RR, were blocked on one IP, the came back on another and did it again. This is known as sockpuppetry and sufficient reason to block. If you are unhappy, contest the original block. Your text below about needing to use "running IP loopholes" in the case of blocks suggests that you do not understand this.

As for you "incorrigible scientific proof": There is no such thing, and if you claim otherwise you indeed do not understand the scientific method, regardless of your CV.

For consensus, I take the considered opinion of the worlds academies of science over yours, thanks. --Stephan Schulz 07:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I shall explain it once: I cannot log in to Wikipedia; to be exact, I can log in but, as soon as I move to the next page, I am logged out. I tried to solve this problem for two years, without any result. Contrary to the opinion of Mr. Schulz et al., it is NOT a matter of having a cookie in one's computer, it is a matter of constantly changing IP address. Back to the subject: Definition of "consensus" is known to me perfectly well, and the ugly scandal that is going on around the ubiquitous AGW political activism is definitely not a consensus; furthermore, it has very little to do with science, and everything to do with the re-distribution of public money. The fact that major scientific bureaucracies support this or another political cause is not a scientific consensus: these bureaucracies need money, money comes from the government and from the personal guilt-driven donors of Soros and Murdoch ilk. Scare the public, get the money - it is that simple. Environmentalist activism is not science, it's politics or religion, and it is becoming a major, international obstacle to progress, freedom, and civilisation. Unfortunately, there is only one politician who is not afraid to speak truth on this subject: the Czech PM, Vaclav Klaus. It breaks my heart that such a great undertaking as Wikipedia has fallen victim to agressive, rude, irrational activists. Save Wikipedia from fanatics, and start with this biased article.--Alexander 01:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexander's login problem is due to his access. He appears to be accessing via Hugh's Net satellite service. So do I and the only way to stay logged in is to use the secure server https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page - it's a bit slower, but I stay logged in. There's a wiki help page somewhere about it. Whatever... as for his pov, he'll likely still have problems as he seems to lack a basic understanding of how science works in addition to not understanding how Wikipedia consensus works. If Alexander will go to the secure page and log in, his frustration level will be reduced ... give it a try. Cheers, Vsmith 02:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your link worked after I confirmed my e-mail via secure server. But this is a MUCH slower connection, unfortunately. As to your frivolous (and rude) comments about me lacking "basic understanding of how science works," I grew up among the scientists, and I've been translating scientific papers last 30 years of my life. The subject here is not "how Wikipedia consensus works," it is the absence of true scientific consensus on the issue of anthropogenic global warming, and even on the issue of the global warming per se. There is a group of respectable climatologists flatly denying the AGW alarmism, and there are all indications of intimidation and persecution of scientists not following the bureaucratically approved political agenda. An impartial observer is forced, even against his will, to conclude that the whole "global warming" industry is fishy. BTW, there is no single scientific fact linking human activity to observed variations of temperature, and even the observed temperature variation is well within the error range.--Alexander 02:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (Removed brackets linking to separate user account. R. Baley)

Alexander, please just write your name, without the brackets. That is, if you're going to delete the IPstamp delete "[[User:" as well. Hopefully, you can get the log in thing worked out. Thanks, R. Baley 03:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Baley: this nit-picking -- please, remind me, what is the purpose of it? --Alexander Feht 07:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply at AF's user page (link). R. Baley 08:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to WP help for login problems, don't know if it will help or not. . .might give it a shot. R. Baley 03:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be able to stay logged in, finally. Provided you and your friends won't abuse your admin privileges again, I wouldn't need to use "running IP" loopholes.--Alexander Feht 03:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) ... and, yes it is quite a bit slower, but worth it to be able to stay logged in. Hope it helps with the frustration level. And please assume good faith. Vsmith 03:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and share many of the same concerns you do. It's really a sad an unfortunate truth that much of the reason I am involved in these Wikipedia pages is that the battles or words and reverts are a perfect microcosm of the broader debate on climate change. I've tried countless times to include content that immediately gets reverted and subsequently every argument in the book is thrown at it as to why it shouldn't be included. The battles go back and forth, and I, in the spirit of cooperation, give ground until there's nothing left and I'm forced to simply accept the fact that anything that questions the AGW orthodoxy has no place here (well, except for the Scientists who oppose the mainstream corner).

To all those who disagree with these positions: Does it surprise you that you keep having to fight these battles? That person after person come on here, wanting to add balance, and get stormed out of the room? Maybe the consistency of these battles gives credence to the fact that there is a real problem here. I'd ask that, in the spirit of improving these articles, we be a little more accepting and friendly to people who take their time to try and improve. Let's instead follow Wikipedia policies, for instance, by allowing an edit to stand until the discussion is resolved, instead of knee jerk reverts. Let's not keep some silly vise on the Talk page and delete entire threads because a few people don't think it's on-topic enough. Last time I checked, storing text is pretty cheap, and we have these things called "archives". I think today and the last few day's events set a horrible precedent, one that will most assuredly strengthen the position of those who would use this page as their soapbox to preach the AGW gospel and smite (read: revert) heretics. Zoomwsu 02:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Zoomwsu, what can I say? "If you can keep your head when all about you..." - you know the rest. --Alexander 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The article linked to by User:Alexander Feht (at the beginning of this section) entitled “Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, in the Science and Public Policy Institute website, is not a reliable source, but rather a demonstrably biased source on a website of a Washington DC organization that is in the business of pushing POVs skeptical of AGW.

Examples of featured articles on the SPPI website:

• “Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over
• Peer review? What peer review?
• Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?
• Fallacies about Global Warming
• A Fundamental Scientific Error in “global warming” Book for Children

FWIW, see also Sourcewatch's coverage of the Science and Public Policy Institute and Sourcewatch's coverage of Robert Ferguson

The article by "Viscount Monckton of Brenchley" “Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over" is a highly unreliable opinion piece, arising as it does out of Robert Ferguson's organization's website. It is written by Viscount Monckton of Brenchly. Monckton is not a scientist, but a retired business consultant with a very strong political bent, known for his conspiracy theories and intense skepticism of mainstream views in a number of arenas involving public policy and business, including HIV/AIDS. Monckton regards the global warming controversy as " ... [catalyzed by] the need of the international left for a new flag to rally round" following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989." ... Kenosis 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Anybody familiar with denialism is familiar with Monckton. It seems the denialists are having another go at this article. Misrepresenting sources is always a big flag. Odd nature 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What are Kenosis' remarks above but the same "pushing a POV" in support of AGW? What is being proven by listing several section titles of the report that I already referenced when I quoted it? Why both sides aren't given equal opportunities here? --Alexander Feht 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:Reliable sources. ... Kenosis 01:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Clathrate gun hypothesis

I want to have a link to this article (Clathrate gun hypothesis) in here, simply to help people interested in the topic find it. I'm not interested in debating it, but it definitely is of interest and should be referenced. In "Feedbacks" there is an o.k. sentence (Positive feedback due to release of CO2 and CH4 from thawing permafrost is an additional mechanism contributing to warming. Possible positive feedback due to CH4 release from melting seabed ices is a further mechanism to be considered.) basically talking about it, all it needs is a "(see: Clathrate gun hypothesis)" put in. Hirsch.im.wald 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Change to "Causes" Section

I propose changing the first paragraph under "Causes" to this.

The scientific method has not exposed the cause(s) for global warming, however many opinions and various degrees of consensus exist. Earth's climate is effected by a variety of known and unknown reasons. Below are some of the most common areas of consensus.

This change would maintain neutrality while respecting the Scientific Method. The fact is the causes of global warming have not been scientifically proven. There has only been consensus. To push a consensus as fact is unethical, untruthful, and degrades the wiki. The wiki should not have consensus or bias in scientific articles.

On the other hand, bias, opinion, and concensus deserves to be in the Global warming controversy area. Global Warming must remain bias free.

If I don't get debate on this, Im unilaterally changing it, and the editors can play revert-NAZI till they are blue in the face!!!!! --Ronjamin 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The proposed edit does not make sense. The article refers to the "scientific consensus", which is the overiding conclusion of the scientific community. It draws on the results of research done by scientists in a wide variety of fields. Those scientists would of course use scientific method in their research. The article does present contra positions to the scientific consensus, giving them due weight according to their support in the scientific community. --Michael Johnson 03:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: this is a response directly to User:Ronjamin) I'm responding here to more than just your comment above, but also to this diff [6], which you apparently edited (in two edits) and then reverted to four times. In this edit, you have removed a very large number of references and not added any new references in. It is hard for me to image how removing good references could be an improvement for a wikipedia article, and in this case I find the version without your edits to be much more informative and correct.

The scientific method is a process, and does not result in a specific product of truth; it results instead in a current consensus amoung scientists. This consensus can be changed when scientists are convinced of new results and what they mean.

As an important note, you are not going to be able to continue to revert to your version; you have already violated the three revert rule and, if you revert after notification and anyone notifies adminstrators of your violation, you will be blocked for 24 hours. If you continue to violate the three revert rule after your block expires, there will be escalting blocks and you won't be able to make other users go blue in the face by reverting your reverts. Enuja (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record Ronjamin (talk · contribs) is currently blocked (24hr, 3rr) so can not reply here at the moment. But I concur with Michael Johnson's assessment of the proposed change, it will likely lead to confusion (as to what it is scientists are doing if not science) and radically misrepresents the existing scientific opinion of climate change. As an aside, please also note that challenging editors (blue-faced or otherwise) to revert you is not helpful to anyone. --TeaDrinker 06:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The proposed edit is compltely fair and reasonable because it doesn't advocate one theory over another, which the current article does. Firstly, the definition of the Scientific Method illustrates clearly why this topic requires such a clarification.

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

The advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced. The conclusions of an experiment will hold regardless of the state of mind, or the bias of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation.

The current article, which is based on consensus, cannot stand up to the Scientific Method because there are too many divergent opinions that are also based in sound science. This makes the article intentionally misleading and biased toward one view more than another, and makes the article and the wiki useless as a reference tool. Only the "unwashed masses" would use the wiki as a legitimate reference source when in fact, it is nothing more than opinions generated by the loudest voices.......in other words, mob rule.

Michael asserts that the article refers to "scientific consensus" as the "overriding conclusion of the scientific community. This is an obfuscation of reality. Just do a Google Search and you will find just as many divergent opinions on this topic by scientists that have credentials as you will find supporting this so-called "overriding consensus". This is the underlying problem, because consensus doesn't necessarily mean truth, fact, or anything that can be illustrated using the Scientific Method. Consensus in this form is what kept the black man in slavery because he was considered chattel instead of a man. Consensus in this form is kept Copernicus jailed when he used the scientific method to prove that the earth wasn't in the center of the universe, bucking the official consensus of the Catholic church. Consensus in this form is what sent millions of Jews to their grave when the Germans "knew" they were sub-human. Consensus in this form is what doomed millions to death when zealots thought killing cats was the answer to the plague because they were "evil". Ask anyone out there to use their eyes, and they will tell you that they see the world is flat. THERE IS NO ROOM for consensus in a scientific article unless it is presented in an unbiased way. Here, there is too much bias. Until there is definitive PROOF, it is all conjecture. To place conjecture as fact ruins the wiki and reduces it to nothing more than propaganda.

Now, the so-called balance that you cite is only presented to obfuscate the fact that there is no reliable, scientific proof one way or another. The reasons given are presented in a way that "appear" to be the final truth. This is unethical, deceitful, and again, detracts from the efficacy of the wiki.....unless the purpose of the wiki is to be the mouth-piece of whatever dogma is the most popular. Use the edit, it's fair, reasonable, and doesn't detract from any opinion or consensus or scientific theory. It makes the article less biased, which should be the main concern here instead of parroting one side over the other without PROOF.--70.89.231.121 13:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You want to read some more history (e.g. Copernicus ) and in particular our article on the scientific method before you make sweeping pronouncements. For the science behind global warming, check reliable sources, not arbitrary web pages. There is no "PROOF" or even proof in science, except within the confines of an assumed theory. --Stephan Schulz 13:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect definition

It is hard to believe the term "in recent decades and its projected continuation" is actually a part of the global warming defintion. The term "global warming" has no temporal connotations, only spatial (i.e., global) and thermal (i.e., warming). However, I guess we will need to continue to settle for the current definition, that sounds as though it was composed by a third grader. Obedium 04:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Prodigy! The sentence seems fine; conveys meaning without verbosity. Brusegadi 04:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Global warming usually refers to the warming in recent decades, and its projected continuation. What's difficult to understand about that? ~ UBeR 06:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Obedium and reliable, objective sources agree. The wikipedia article takes this more obscurely sourced and less cited definition because it matches a pov. --Blue Tie 11:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "global warming" has no temporal connotations.? That's a nonsensical attempt to nitpick imaginary nits -- we're dealing with an active realtime curve of time and amplitude based on plotting many, many data points. At this particular moment, we can't project into the far (The Time Machine) future, but we can certainly estimate within reasonable limits of uncertainty the range of near future temps and their very likely consequences, [7] [8] [9], which are our main concern at the moment. -BC aka Callmebc 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Global warming" is descriptive of a physical phenomena, not the time period in which it occurs. One can say "global warming has been detected/measured/quantified in recent decades and based on current models is projected to continue," but the aspect of "recent decades" and "projected continuation" should not be tied directly to the defintion. This is contrasted with "The Ice Age," which has a specific temporal connotation.Obedium 06:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Obedium has a point - an important point, I would say. Wishy-washy extrapolation (computerized or just verbalized) is not an observed phenomenon. Anything imaginable can be modeled using a computer; such modeling doesn't make it real. Also, speaking just about the first sentence of our precious, over-featured article, the UN report-based numbers (0.74 ± 0.18 °C) are given but "± 0.18 °C" is not a margin of instrumentation error; it is just a root-mean-square error of the data picked to calculate the desired result. The actual margin of error, however, inherent in the equipment used to measure the temperature, where is it? I've read in several other sources that the inaccuracy of such equipment can reach up to 4 °C. If so, quoted numbers scientifically mean nothing. What, then, does "global warming" mean scientifically? --Alexander Feht 06:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A question better asked at instrumental temperature record William M. Connolley 08:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My question, Mr. Connolley, is specifically about the definition of "global warming" term, and thus pertaining to this discussion page. Will you, please, refrain from unnecessary remarks if you have nothing to say? --Alexander Feht 21:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he was replying to your claims of measurement error, which are discussed in the article he linked to under the section titled "Uncertainties in the temperature record." He was simply stating your comment would probably get a better response at the talk page of instrumental temperature record, because your question didn't really have anything to do with the definition of GW. ~ UBeR 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I, too, think that Obedium has a point, but I think you completely missed it, Alexander Feht. His point was most definitely not that global warming is not an observed phenomenon, but that it is not necessarily limited to the current time frame. Some scientists talk about global warming only in the last several decades, some since the industrial revolution, and others since the agricultural revolution. There's little doubt that it has been more intense in the last several decades, but there is speculation about whether or not it began recently. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Then at the very least, it should read, "Global warming commonly refers to. . ." because, commonly, it refers to the warming in recent decades and its projected continuation. There was warming throughout the multiple interglacials, but no one refers to those as "global warming," especially not in the sense as we discuss it in this article. ~ UBeR 20:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I endorsed Obedium's point, and then made my own, additional point, which you either misunderstood or intentionally misinterpreted. I will not, however, waste my time further explaining the obvious. --Alexander Feht 21:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on discussion input, it has been modified to read: "Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Climate observations indicate the Earth may have entered a period of global warming in recent decades, with some climate models projecting its continuation in coming years."Obedium 02:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No. "Modified, as per discussion" you say? Hmmm, I believe that was not quite the case. Your edits, especially in the context of your contrib history, [10], seem to consist of little beyond vandalistic, POV-pushing nonsense in Global Warming related wikis the past couple of weeks. What's up with that? I would normally post this on your talk page, but you have a strange history of blanking that out [11]. What's up with that as well? -BC aka Callmebc 04:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. Talk about inaccurate. This would be better, although hardly consensus:

Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Climate observations indicate the Earth has entered a period of global warming in recent decades, with almost all climate models projecting its continuation in coming years.

Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your proposal is pretty good. --Blue Tie 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why "recent decades"? Why "almost all" models? But I don't see it as better than what we have now, even if corrected William M. Connolley 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you prefer to "recent decades"? Other suggestions might include "recently" or "in the last century". The "recent decades", of course comes from the current lede. The advantage of this wording over the current lede is that it does not limit global warming to just the recent decades. Perhaps it would be better worded as "Climate observations indicate the Earth has entered a period of increased global warming in recent decades", as there is some debate as to how long the global warming has been going on (as I previously mentioned, and you're no doubt aware). As for "almost all", I suppose you're contrasting to simply "all". However, I'm sure the contrary editors could find models that prevent "all" from being used, so I proactively went with "almost all". Perhaps I'm wrong and there are no climate models that don't project its continuation, but I thought there'd be at least one that didn't. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In both common and scientific usage, "global warming" when used thusly without further qualification refers to the current phenomenon. Occasionally it's applied to other time periods but only when it's been made explicit that some other period is being referred to. Raymond Arritt 00:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The preponderance of reliable and verifiable cites on the definition of the term do not agree with you. --Blue Tie 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the editors of the Journal of Climate didn't get the memo.[12] You'd better set them straight. Raymond Arritt 05:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your reference does not say or hint that they did not get any memo. Incidentally, if you were not aware, the "preponderance of the evidence" about DEFINITIONS, means more than one source that is EXPLICITLY LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM. What you are doing, instead, is called "Original Research". You are synthesizing and extracting a meaning from your readings and not going to a referenced source for the definition.--Blue Tie 14:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me help you with your ironymeter. *SMACK*. There, that should have reset it... --Stephan Schulz 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm tempted to say I need another one because I still do not get what you are trying to say. But I don't think its me that actually needs the reset. It appears that you are not noticing that research into how the word is used is Original Research, whereas citing reliable sources is the wikipedia standard. --Blue Tie 14:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Then cite some. So far, you've only attempted proof by repeated assertion. Raymond Arritt 15:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

False. I cited multiple reliable sources with comments on each. You rejected without much comment. Why would I want to repeat that useless exercise? Unless you now feel more open to accepting cited sources. --Blue Tie 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Diffs? Or give us a hint at the time scale. I can find noting on the current page. --Stephan Schulz 15:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent.) Here is a link to one of my attempts to get this thing to use valid references. I think I tried 3 times and it is possible that there is a more detailed list. (I recall one). I would find the others but I have a really narrow bandwidth today and it is hard. Raymond Arritt rejected on the first effort when I quoted a dictionary and refused to join in thereafter. --Blue Tie 16:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the following introduction, which leaves room to accomodate the range of viewpoints encountered in this contentious subject, while still reflecting complete technical accuracy at a fairly high level of description. I believe this incorporates most of the recent suggestions:

Global warming commonly refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Climate observations indicate the Earth has recently entered a period of global warming, with an abundance of climate models projecting its continuation in coming years.

Obedium 04:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That entire second sentence is irrelevant. We're defining the meaning of global warming in the opener, not making a case for or against its existence. I see no problem with the opener we have right now. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be right. The current second sentance "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last 100 years" really captures things more clearly for the average reader than my suggested edit. It is not what I think that matters, it is really what the layperson who typically visits these sites for information walks away with that matters. And it is clear when they see "0.74 ± 0.18 degrees over the last 100 years," the first impression is "so this is what all of the fuss is about?" Perhaps it is the actual numbers that convey the context of the issue more clearly than further wordsmithing of the intro.Obedium 06:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We have been through this discussion a while back. I want to recall two things. First, as far as I am concerned, we are not defining the term. We describe how it is defined in reliable sources. Secondly, back then someone (I thougt Raymond, but may be wrong - it was certainly someone with his calmness and good sense) did an analysis of the use in both Google and Goole Scholar documents, and found that in the far overwhelming number of cases it refered to the current episode, not to any generic warming of Earth. --Stephan Schulz 08:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Ben Hocking's version.

Though Stephan says we are not defining the term, we are in fact, defining the term. To describe how it is used in reliable sources is Synthesis and Original Research. This is particularly true by using Google and Google scholar. The correct way to do it, per wikipedia standards is to use reliable sources that can be cited. These do not all agree on the definition of the term but three approaches can be taken to resolve it: 1) Use the definition that is common to all of them, leaving all specialized instances out, 2) Find and use every element of the all definitions as possible, 3) Use a definition that uses the only the preponderance of different reliable sources. I consider #2 to be nearly unworkable. I am not sure that #1 would be acceptable to anyone.--Blue Tie 14:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Blue Tie (I think) has a good point, which was made above. Global warming is considered to have begun in the Industrial Revolution with the release of GHGs at a large scale, which began in the 18th century. Good records of temperature became available in the mid-19th century, where the warming could be quantified. The GHGs have really only begun to overcome natural factors since the mid-20th century, and apparently so since 1980 or so. So I think we have to be a little careful when say global warming applies only to recent decades. ~ UBeR 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem lies in the fact the first sentence of this article is not really a definition, it is essentially a tautology, devoid of any real content. In the desire to keep things as a simple declarative sentence, it has pushed it in the direction of saying nothing. If a real definition is desired, a new starting point needs to be established, rather than simply trying to re-work the existing one, which is simplistic and empty.

A real definition might read: “Global warming is the increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature, likely arising from an enhancement of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. Global warming is considered to arise from an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, above historical levels. It is commonly used to describe climate changes observed to occur in the period from the early part of the 20th century to the present, during which time this phenomena has been quantified through widespread surface and remote sensing temperature measurements. Although the specific time in which global warming in the current period was initiated is a source of debate, an abundance of current climate models project its continuation in the near future.”Obedium 04:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Are theorems in mathematics tautologies within their axiomatic framework? So, I do not see the problem with a statement being tautological. Some tautological statements may be devoid of meaning, but not all. "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 think this statement does a good job because of the way it is tightly packed. Your proposal, in my view, is too wordy. There is an entire article dedicated to the topic at hand, so there is really no need to tell an entire story in the defining sentence. Furthermore, your proposed definition, by mentioning likely causes (it mentions the greenhouse gases), is bound to become a subject of dispute in the future. That is just to mention one of the problems of being too wordy. The first sentence should be as short and as 'tautological' as possible in order to avoid conflict around it. Brusegadi 04:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it is a tautology. Indeed, I consider it far from that. I believe the opening paragraph is too limited and I think Ben Hocking's version is far better. But, never mind that. Here is the real thing: The current opening is Original Research and is not cited.--Blue Tie 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, it is a definition so I do not think calling it a tautology makes any sense, at least in the logical sense of the word, since I don't see propositions to evaluate. Of course, the lack of such propositional variables may make the statement a trivial tautology... I have not yet taken logic, so I may be mistaken. My response above is conditional on the other editor's belief. Hence, the use of 'tautological' and not tautological. According to wikipedia, there is another use of tautology in rhetoric, which is basically saying the same thing twice with different words. Our definition is the opposite of that. Not wordy at all. Brusegadi 21:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not an essay, and thus should follow an inverted pyramid scheme of putting key details up front, with successive supporting, but less important details added later. You DO want to put details up front, so the reader can quickly get to a meaningful definition, and can fill in this definition with more details later. But, we will be stuck with the current empty phrasing given in the article, since it essentially derived by a committee so as to please the lowest common denominator. This is why Wikipedia will never be suitable as an academic resource. Obedium 05:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for summarizing my point: "but less important details added later." The current sentence has the right amount of info. The definition is the first three lines of the article. It can be read in under 20 seconds by most English speakers. Reading the intro takes under 5 minutes. The intro provides enough detail for the person who wants to be quickly informed. Also, thank you for your opinion on why wikipedia is not accepted as a source in most academic environments, but that is not the purpose of this talk page. Do take a look at the external review link provided on the top of this talk page about the quality of the article we are discussing. Brusegadi 06:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"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."

Near surface air? Umm, that's pretty goofy I think. The original made more sense and is closer to defining it accurately in simple, non-vague language. Look at how NASA defines it,[13]: "The term Global Warming describes the observed and projected increase in globally averaged temperatures over time." I would use a modification of the NASA description that goes "The term Global Warming generally refers to the observed and projected increase in global air and ocean average temperatures over time." Well? -BC aka Callmebc 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Near surface may be unclear but the proposed definition is incorrect. The stratosphere is "air", but the physics behind GW says the stratosphere should cool. Likewise we can't say much at all about the deeper parts of the oceans at this point. A strictly correct definition would refer to warming of the troposphere, but that may be too technical for the lead sentence in an article of broad interest. Details are given later on that distinguish the layers where warming is expected. Raymond Arritt 05:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Near surface air Goofy? Well perhaps but it is the near surface air that is measured most and matters most because that is where people live.

However if you envisage statements like global warming will/may cause more floods, droughts, sea level rise ... and these are more important than the temperature change then it should be clear that the definition should have (or at least consider) increase in average temperature .... its associated effects and projected continuation. You could decide to separate effects from what global warming is but I get the impression that lots of things are blamed on global warming not on the effects of global warming so by common usage the effects should be in the definition. crandles 11:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, "lower atmosphere" then? If you consider the likely audience for a Wikipedia article on Global Warming, "global air and ocean average temperatures" will probably mean to them exactly what you want it to mean to them. I think it's foolish to try to split hairs at the intro on something with variable definitions and meanings, [14] -- you can be more precise further down when you get more into the details. And if you really want to split hairs, the bulk of the atmosphere is indeed "near surface" by weight. Also I sense that the change to "near surface air" was more a terminology ploy rather than a genuine attempt to actually be more precise -- anti-global warming folks tend to mix localized weather and climate with the bigger picture, and "near surface air" makes it sound like a localized effect and not so "global." But whatever... -BC aka Callmebc 13:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Over the land, "near surface" is what is measured (nominally 1.5m). Over the oceans, nominally SST is measured. If we're talking about the instrumental record William M. Connolley 16:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...if we really want to be precise: "The term Global Warming describes the observed and projected increase in globally averaged temperatures of the surface of the oceans and air located 1.5 meters high up over land." So much less confusing, no? -BC aka Callmebc 16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting past politics by focusing on the facts

I've noticed in a wide variety of discussions with people -- and smart people, every one of them -- that there seem to be two camps:

• (1) Those who have an instinctual feel that all this power consumption that we humans are currently engaging in must have some contribution towards global warming, and

• (2) Those who have an instinctual feel that all this power consumption that we humans are currently engaging in cannot be capable of a substantial contribution towards global warming.

The thing is, they're both right: greenhouse gases clearly have an effect on global warming, AND YET the direct, non-solar contribution towards global warming by human power consumption is neglible...less than 1/10,000th of the sun's contribution.

The article is currently under semi-protect, and I am a die-hard fan of authoring/editing via IP addresses, so I offer the following, intended-toward-consensus-building paragraph to be inserted as the 2nd paragraph in the Global warming article:

World energy resources and consumption are substantially a point of focus regarding a causal analysis of global warming. By comparing the contribution from the sun to that contributed by human energy consumption, it can be readily understood that the direct human contribution to earth's heating is a very small fraction: the ratio of 1.5×10¹³ watts / 1.740×10¹⁷ watts is less than 1/10,000th (0.01%). Direct heating of the earth by humans is thus neglible. However, the facts make clear that the earth has been warming recently, and so mankind's contribution is understandably under close review. Global warming theories that do focus on mankind's contribution point towards the important side-effects of human energy consumption, such as greenhouse gases added to the earth's atmosphere.

--24.28.6.209 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a hope. You make any number of mistakes. To pick only two: the contribution to GW from direct heating by power use is much smaller than the radiative forcing from the GHGs; and the comparison is not human forcing against absolute solar, but against changes in solar William M. Connolley 20:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus it makes no sense to link to global warming in the global warming article itself. ~ UBeR 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So fine, UBeR, remove the self-refencing wikilink if you find that to be a huge objection.

Mr. Connolley: you're going to have to parse your statement a bit, as it's frankly too abrupt for me to sort out. BTW, I'm not making any mistakes...I'm merely pointing out the fact that direct heating of the earth by humans is neglible...something we can ALL hopefully agree on; this is a process called "consensus building." As another example, in your statement the contribution to GW from direct heating by power use is much smaller than the radiative forcing from the GHGs...what exactly do you see as our disagreement here? I think I agree with what you're saying, and I think you agree with what I'm saying, but again your reply is a bit too curt for be to tell exactly what your disagreement is, but leaves me only with the observation that you do disagree about something. Finally, please dialogue, not demagogue. --24.28.6.209 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We may well all agree that direct heating is negligible, but that doesn't mean it has any place in the article. I'm sure we all agree that black != white, but that doesn't belong either. The issue of interest is whether GHG radiative forcing is negligible, which of course it isn't. The disagreement is over what should be in the article; I can't see your wording as providing any useful info William M. Connolley 20:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Right on. The statement is true, but we can't add the debunking of every misconception held over GW. Besides, the article deals with the greehouse, so if someone comes in thinking that GW has to do with wasted heat, they should be able to recognize that GW is not about wasted heat, but about trapped radiation. Just my thought... Brusegadi 22:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My point, and wording, is intended to set aside much of the contention that resists the notion of global warming. I don't think I need to remake the argument...it's fairly straightforward. My sense is that you've been standing too close, too long, to the GW forest, and have become a bit hardened when it comes to reaching out to what you perceive as the other side of the argument. I'm just here to tell you: many otherwise-intelligent people believe that direct heating via human power consumption is a big deal...or miniscule. The article does ignore this point, but to its detriment. Consider sleeping on what I'm talking about, and, if so-inclined, find a way to make this article less...in a word...arrogant. It's frankly not helpful.--24.28.6.209 20:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The article at the moment doesn't deal with misconceptions. Perhaps it should. If it did, your text wouldn't be helpful. We could perhaps add something in the "causes" section along the lines of "Direct heating by fossil fuel use is two orders of magnitude smaller than the radiative forcing GHGs" - is that the sort of thing you are looking for? One source for that is [15] but thats me; anyone know a better source? William M. Connolley 20:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a common enough misconception that I'm sort-of leaning toward a brief mention. As an aside, I doubt that people who hold this misconception would understand what "two orders of magnitude" means. Raymond Arritt 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with such microlevel causes isn't helpful for such a macro-oriented article. I'm not even sure of its usefulness in attribution of recent climate change (where such information would be most suitable). ~ UBeR 21:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Could this be a candidate for Talk:Global_warming/FAQ? Raymond Arritt 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with UBeR. I don't think this is even a major misconception. It may be a strawman used for fallacious arguments against anthropogenic global warming. But even so, I don't think it is used very often. We should stick with the serious notable hypothese and theories, not with random nonsense (given that the amount of random nonsense is so much bigger than the available useful information). Yes, the FAQ would be a better place for this. --Stephan Schulz 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Layout and external links

• "You shouldn't change things to fit your specific resolution"

Who said that? So you are saying that if a image or table overlay the text I cannot diminish or move to other section.

I don't know who else said that, but I'll gladly repeat it. HTML and Wiki-Markup are both structural markup languages, not WYSIWYG page description languages. If something is misrendered, that is either a problem with your browser, or with the MediaWiki engine. In the first case, fix your browser. In the second case, submit a bug report to the MediaWiki developers. It is neither possible nor reasonable to micro-opimize for all specific browser/screen resolution combination. --Stephan Schulz 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

After some tests, I found it is a problem with Firefox. IE6 does not display 2 columns in the references. Carlosguitar 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you using IE6 anyway? The references should be in two columns. ~ UBeR 01:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not use IE6, but Firefox. Carlosguitar 02:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We should move portal templates to other section or remove the 2 columns in the references. Select one.

About external link, there is too many guys, also I do not think that is necessary subsection, a simple bold text fix it. Carlosguitar 23:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You said, "See also section is too small to add these templates, that fix resolution for 800x600 users." I assume you meant that moving the portals to the EL section fixes it for 800x600 resolution users. I responded saying you shouldn't change layout styles to best fit your particular resolution. I also pointed out the layout guidelines state the "See also" sections is the most appropriate place for portal links.

For external links, WP:EL deals with what should and should not be listed in the EL section. If there are links that don't fit the criteria for inclusion (or fit the criteria for exclusion), feel free to remove them, giving your reasoning. ~ UBeR 23:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Uber I have totally right to fix resolution for 800x600 user, that is why specifying the size of a thumb images is not recommended. That is not "change layout styles to best fit your particular resolution" but a fix to display correct without damage for "all" resolutions. Carlosguitar 01:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't totally have the right to change things just because something doesn't look good in your resolution (Dr. Schulz agrees above). Indeed, many things may not appear in Firefox as they do in IE. (Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links has ways of helping "edit" links bunching, or fixing other problems.) For the same reason, using two columns for the references is most beneficial in this article, lest you get a very long vertical list. It might not look good on your 800x600 (it should), but you shouldn't change it because it doesn't. I personally won't change it back to two, but I hope you will. ~ UBeR 01:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I offered 2 options to you, and you do not want no one of them. What you will do to fix the the 2 columns for 800x600 users? If someone re-add 2 columns back I will move again the portal links to further reading section, since there is no damage for anyone. Yes, I have totally right to fix something for 800x600 users. Carlosguitar 02:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To Bozmo

Excuse me, Bozmo. exactly why did you remove that edit of mine? here is your explanation: "Worse. I would rather not have any statement than one which is blatantly misleading. US is historically No1 by a mile and probably still No1 by a mile except for dodgy tree accounting)" Exactly how is it misleading to state that a nation which is the No 1 emitter is "one of the top emitters"? That is not misleading at all. Would you mind explaining just what the heck you meant by that? --Steve, Sm8900 01:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I said misleading not false. It is misleading to use a heavily qualified statement when there is a shorter unqualified one which is also true. For example it is true to say "the USA probably has made a contribution of more than 1 tonne of CO2 to global warming polution" but it gives a wrong impression, it misleads. The "US is historically one of the" has two qualifiers. The double qualifier gives the impression neither works in isolation when in fact either of them works alone. Is that "exact" enough for you? --BozMo talk 10:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you say so. i do appreciate your reply. However, it still sounds a bit like shaky reasoning to me. i don't think that's a reason to remove someone else's work; merely revise it. After all this is Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for at least replying to my question. --Steve, Sm8900 13:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Graph normalization

Why is Image:Global_Warming_Predictions.png normalized to 2000 when the IPCC practice listed on Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png is an average from 1961-1990? It would be easier to compare the models to the data if they were normalized to the same mean temperature. Is there something I am missing that prevents this? --DHeyward 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Those look like old results (e.g., the GFDL model is given as R30). Maybe we should replace it with an updated figure, such as one stolen adapted from the AR4. Raymond Arritt 20:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Which are old? I like this one for the actualy temperatures. --DHeyward

One other question: is the weighting really as simple as NH+SH/2? THey can't just average all he weather stations in each hemisphere. There must be some weighting algorythm or the results would be horribly skewed by the invention of air conditioning. --DHeyward 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed global = (NH+SH)/2, but various corrections are applied to the raw data before averaging. The "invention of air conditioning" isn't an important consideration as such although biases due to urbanization are taken into account. You can read this for details of the analysis procedure for the Hadley Centre / CRU dataset. Raymond Arritt 12:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. That was what I was looking for. Averages within a grid would be the only way it would work. IT seems they add and remove stations within the grid that could affect things but not as much as a whole hemisphere. My comment about air conditioning was simply that in the last 50 years, air conditioning has helped increase populations in deserts and other warm climates. At least in the U.S. Adding a desert station would skew results even if done in a grid. Do you have the raw data for the predictions? The measurement data is easy to find and I would like to renormalize the prediction data to the same scale as HadCRUT3 so they can be overlaid.--DHeyward 16:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You can get the monthly gridpoint time series in netCDF format here. I suspect that's more "raw" than you have in mind. There ought to be time series of global means for each model available somewhere, but I don't know where. Raymond Arritt 00:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Temperature Error on Page

In the article: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.163.212 (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere Main article: Greenhouse effect The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warms a planet's atmosphere and surface.

Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F)... 33 Celcius is 91.4 Fahrenheit NOT 59, 59 Fahrenheit is 15 Celcius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.163.212 (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for highlighting this. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If the air temperature were 33 C, then yes it would be 91 F. But if you warm the air by 33 C, you're warming it by 59.4 F. There's a difference. The naturally occurring ghe adds about 33 C to what would otherwise be a frigid Earth. The sentence in the article could probably be written better. ~ UBeR 05:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This was explained last week in #Temperature vs Change in Temperature above. Q Science 06:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Hopefully, it is the same anon. I hope it is not generally confusing (I dont think it is, but if more people get confused, we may have to try to clarify it somehow...) Brusegadi 07:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a footnote to the main article explaining this. Q Science 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was disinclined to add an explanation that would interfere with the flow of the text, but putting it in a footnote is brilliant. Raymond Arritt 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC on listing notable alternative theories

Should the global warming article state there are alternative hypotheses not widely held to be the cause of global warming in lieu of supportive and reliable references?

For the record, I say absolutely not. If you are going to treat the topic of global warming as a matter of scientific study and research, then "alternative theories" should only be listed if they have some degree (so to speak) of current scientific support. For instance solar activity was once considered as another possible cause for this recent global warming period, but new data and research has shown that this is very, very unlikely the case, to the point that it's no longer considered a valid alternative hypothesis among scientists engaged in global climate research -- just try to find a a recent scientific paper treating it as such. So why give it a mention as though it is still a legitimate hypothesis actively being looked at? It would be OK to list this and other now discredited hypotheses under something like a "History of Research" section, but not in the general Wiki article as being somehow a legitimate scientific alternative to the much, MUCH more legitimate theory that has human activity as being the primary cause. -BC aka Callmebc 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If the comenter who states the Antarctic ice is increasing and others say the Arctic is decreasing then we have a QAGMA here. I have been to the Arctic recently and observed Glacier melting and spoke with the locals. there may be a new theory I can offer based on my readings that we are on the verge of discovering an ice age in the Southern Hemisphere (reasearch that)! Perhaps we are not out of the woods as www.polarbearsos.org references declining Polar Bear populations to come. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HAZWOPER On the otherside of the world observed was Jeepne Desiel in Manila and Cebu City in extreme while Arnold Governor of California USA pushed stopping hydrocarbons. We still are left with the delima of facts that yes this could be very dangerous so everyon must get on the ball to SAVE THE PLANET that don't mean drinks at some Chain in Chicago Dallas and Paris for Rock N Roll DMHCHICAGO —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMHCHICAGO (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can climatologist say for sure what the weather patterns will be like in 20,30,50, even 100 years later and yet they still screw up the 5 day forecast pretty much everyday? The climate is vastly complex and even the most sophisticated computer models get it wrong almost every time. We should say we are in a warming period. GHG do effect the weather, to an extent that has yet to be quantified. There is evidence that humans may be effecting the global weather system in ways we are just beginning to understand. Science is an ever changing being, and when people say that this theory is true and ridicule people for saying there may be something wrong with this becomes something that is not science.

I believe decline of polar bear population is no indication of climate change by itself, it can be attributed to hunting and conversely melting ice caps should be good for warm blooded mammals. It still gets plenty cold in winter to provide habitat, moreover the longer hunting season and easier access through broken ice to their food staples of seals, walrus and other wildlife is a no brainer. Just throwing a point of thought at you. Batvette 07:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The RFC are for comments from editors not already involved in the matter. So far, you're the only person of the many who thinks this. The consensus is clear; there's really no reason for an RFC other than for you to finally drop the matter. ~ UBeR 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Should an article on Jesus mention the alternative view that he wasn't the son of god even though most of those who want to comment have preconceived ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.106.250 (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should, and in fact does. Likewise, this article should include the prominent solar variability hypothesis, paying strict accordance to WP:WEIGHT. It does this, and gives a good summation both of the hypothesis and of recent research suggesting that this is unlikely to be the cause of most of the current warming. I'm not certain "in lieu of" is necessary, though, as the references cited seem to support that solar variability/cloud cover is both an alternative hypothesis and one that is not widely regarded as explaining most current warming. Hal peridol 17:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that they should at least be included in there own small section. For example, there is still quite a bit of legitimate scientific investigation into the solar activity question. Tons of papers have been published. Unfortunately anything published that even questions human caused global warming is automatically dismissed as being from an unreliable source. There is also a grown number of scientists who's material was used for the UN report that are now upset the way there work was "mischaracterized". The idea that not a single legitimate scientist questions the human caused theory is just silly. Basically an article about Global Warming shouldn't only include 1 view point. If there is a source that states there are scientists and researchers working on altnernate theories then there are obviously alternate theories and they shouldn't be dismissed. Elhector 21:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would say definitely no. Having just met someone on the street who refused to believe that global warming exists because they had heard that it was just solar flares. It is absolutely irresponsible to lend credence to their ignorance. Having just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and seen how deliberate campaigns to cast doubt exist, as witnessed by 0% of scientific disagreement and over 50% of the popular press having doubt about global warming. People are too easily confused. Don't do it. Oh and does the article on earth say that it might be flat and held up by a tortoise? No. At the very end of the article it says that was an ancient belief that was discounted many years ago. Why should this article be any different? The sentence "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC" has no place being anywhere in the first 90% of the article. The earth has about $100 Trillion of oil reserves, and the oil companies want to cash in, and don't care if no one survives because of burning it as fuel, instead of using it as petrochemicals, which would net them even more profits by the way. Ditto for the coal companies. 199.125.109.134 08:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, the article on Earth does indeed mention that "In the ancient past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth." If we exclude any mention of widely-held misconceptions, then we both deny ourselves the opportunity to refute them and degrade Wikipedia's reputation as a thorough, neutral source. johnpseudo 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe per WP:WEIGHT that tiny minorities do not need to be mentioned. If we examine the scientific community, as opposed to general media, I don't believe there is enough support to mention it here. Global Warming Controversy seems a much better place. --Skyemoor 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by editor from RfC. The current subsection on solar activity looks very good indeed. The possibility of a solar cause of global warming is much discussed in popular accounts criticizing global warming, and the current section lays out the current scientific consensus that the sun isn't the cause of the observed increase in temperature. Taking out this subsection would feel very false to readers skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, and would deny them both the good current summary and the prominent link to the article on solar variation. Science doesn't give us an edifice of truth; it gives us theories that there is evidence against and theories that there is not evidence against. Giving interesting alternative hypotheses along with the data that discredits them is probably the best way to present science. Enuja (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The section on solar activity should be removed. It is already covered in the global warming debate, and is not a factor in causing global warming. If you want the people of low intelligence to learn something, you don't put in their wrong ideas so that they can say, oh yes, the earth really is flat just like I heard on talk radio. You put in right ideas so they can find out that what they were told is bunk. And you don't put it in the beginning or even in the middle of the article that what they were told is bunk, you put it at the end, so that you don't waste anyone elses time. Global warming isn't a debate. The snows of Kilimanjaro are almost gone. Every winter where I grew up there was always a meter of snow cover, now there is little to none every winter. The reason for that happening needs to be explained correctly in this article, and without any nonsense that just isn't true. 199.125.109.41 19:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, don't imply an alternative theory is held by people of low intelligence while in the same reply you cite personal observations of snowpack levels in your backyard as a small child. Such was the case with a recent congressional junket where a number of politicians took chartered jets to Greenland the last week of May, saw melting ice, and promptly declared this as "firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality – there is just no denying it.". I guess the fact that it recently snowed for the first time ever in United Arab Emirates indicated an ice age ahead? The comment by Enuja was responsible, rational, and is dead on because it heads off a misconception by addressing it. Ignoring it allows it to perpetuate without sound opposition, or worse, dissenters might just ignore the whole article. Batvette 07:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a good article overall. You have a section Issue debate, political processes and laws. Any disputes should go there. It seems to me that the NPOV policy works best if the main article is concerned with the topic, and dissenters have a chance to air their views in a different section (Criticism etc.) cf Sigmund Freud, Lacan, Charles Darwin, Fashionable Nonsense, psychoanalysis. The job of an encyclopaedia is to present the facts, not debate the issues. While it seems to me that human induced global warming is pretty much an open and such case, the fact is that there is debate over this issue. Let the dissenters link off to whatever place they want (cf you can find your way to Intelligent Design from Darwin). On that note, while I think ID is patent nonsense, it is a fact that some people hold this view and it is important to be able to read the arguments they put forward, if only to arm yourself against such loonies should you happen to meet one.MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be supportive of adding the proposed information if, as already mentioned by others in the RfC, it were for historical reasons (and stated as such, including that such theories have been fairly well debunked), but there are some issues that would need to be addressed first. There is a problem in defining what counts as "notable." I doubt that WP:WEIGHT can nor would be followed. Also, the Global Warming FAQ already takes care of a lot of information that would be needed for adding the information proposed. If there were a way to guide casual readers that could care less about the Talk page to the FAQ, this duplication would not be needed. Then again, a FAQ isn't really dictionary material. So to conclude, I am of the opinion that more commentary is needed to address the issues of notability and information duplication. Inclusion of alt. theories, even if for historical means, may bring more even more controversy to the article if these issues are not thoroughly addressed. Jason Patton 06:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that in some ways the article already handles these -- though not as well it should. I am not ad advocate of overly long articles and I think that if we were to put all the ideas that object to Global Warming in this article, it would be unweldy. Plus, I think it would lead to an article that reads badly. I think that linking in the article to other articles that handle these issues is probably best. So I tend to think the article does "OK" or perhaps almost OK in this area, even if it does not do "Great". --Blue Tie 06:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IPCC representing one viewpoint

Saying that the IPCC represents one viewpoint is a bit misleading. The way I see it is that the IPCC is the intersectaion of the views of many, many climate scientists. So, whats in the IPCC is the communality of the views of the majority of climate scientists. Brusegadi 01:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You've obviously never served on a scientific committee. The "intersection of many views" in actuality is the view of a few senior committee leads, with the rubber stamp of all the other junior members who are too afraid to go against the prevailing view (read: not get tenure, other committee assignments, etc.). The way the article is written, it sounds as though the IPCC has declared global warming is occurring, therefore it is true. The facts should first be emphasized in the article, with the appeal to authority coming later. Alternate viewpoints should be given a fair hearing--and there are many respected scientists who disagree with the global warming viewpoint espoused by the IPCC. This is the way science progresses. This article does not convey in any way how science proceeds. But, the Denver Post has given their imprimatur to this article, so I suppose any criticism is out of line. Obedium 04:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In your dreamland, maybe. I've been on a number of such commitees (in fact, I'm still on one), and I've never see people being afraid to speak their mind. And in the case of the IPCC, that vast majority of university contributors does have tenure, anyways. --Stephan Schulz 07:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that makes much sense. If there are so few seniors and so many juniors then there is only so much control that seniors can exert on the juniors when it comes to tenure in their respective academic institutions. Suppose the worst case; where there is only one senior member in the committee leads. Then the IPCC reports his perception because he has control over the many junior members. However, these junior members cannot all belong to the same academic institutions or government institutions as that one single senior member. So, many of the juniors will have much freedom. When there are a few more seniors it works the same way. Even if you assume that each senior has veto power over the privileges of those juniors to which he is linked; if the number of seniors is as low as you make it to be then there are only so many juniors who will fear. Note that there is more fear amongst the juniors as the number of seniors grows but then your assertion of "a few seniors" becomes false. What I mean to say is that not many juniors will be linked to some senior. Reading this document I get the impression that the reports are prepared by people from all over the world. Brusegadi 08:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is patently absurd on so many different levels that it's hard to know where to begin. First, IPCC authors are from many different institutions around the world, so there's almost no case where an author has any authority at all over the career of another author. Second, the vast majority of IPCC authors are senior scientists who are tenured or otherwise established in their careers. Third, scientists are by nature an independent-minded, somewhat contentious lot who are unafraid to speak out if they disagree. Fourth... Raymond Arritt 02:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As I understand the process, there is the "report" and then there are "policy summaries." The summaries are written by collaborating lead authors, and not necessarily the scientific opinion of the panel. It's quite possible that the summaries are not agreed to by persons on the panel. This has come up in previous criticism of IPCC but I am not sure this is still the process. --DHeyward 04:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the coordinating (not collaborating) lead authors are the ones who are in on the summary for policymakers. But the CLAs are just regular guys (or gals); i.e., they're practicing scientists like the lead and contributing authors and not bureaucrats or politicians. So they do reflect the scientific opinion of the panel. Of course that's not to say that every author on the report agrees with every single word that is written. I doubt such perfect agreement is possible for any document authored by a large group of people. Raymond Arritt 04:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not "absurd" or in my "dreamland," it is reality. Scientists (particularly professors) fancy themselves as independent, yet they are just as susceptible to fads as a classroom of high school students. This is how we get Nanotechnology, Water/Life hypothesis on Mars, Global Cooling (then global warming), etc. DOE, DARPA, NSF, NOAA etc. hand out grants based on key emphasis areas/themes set by the agency program managers, and if your research doesn't fall into one of these themes (i.e. fads), well...you won't be hiring many graduate students. This is the problem with the article emphasizing the IPCC up front. Facts are paramount, not committees. Obedium 04:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really in Wikipedia, sorry Obedium. What most people consider "facts" are a mixture of original research and their own POV. Here we have to go by a consensus of reliable sources and on that score, whether you be right or wrong, your personal views cannot be reflected. --BozMo talk 12:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact the last comments have nothing to do with my previous comments, I think this line of discussion has finally petered out. Obedium 14:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Temperature vs Change in Temperature

A temperature of 30C is equivalent to 86F, but a change in temperature of 30C is equivalent to a change of 54F. The difference of 32F is because 0C is equivalent to 32F. Q Science 01:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Related to this change, reference [16] in the main article is a fluff piece having nothing to do with the sentence it is associated with. Should I just delete the reference or would someone else like to handle this? I don't want to start a war. Q Science 01:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That bit is all screwed up. The natural greenhouse effect is actually 33 C (59 F). I don't have access to my references right now but will fix it in a day or two. Raymond Arritt 02:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So much for the Australian government! ~ UBeR 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Peixoto and Oort (1992) substantiate what the IPCC state. ~ UBeR 03:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, i think we need to discuss it in school with our teacher just to be sure of our answer.Pamnardalez 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

US as largest greenhouse gas emitter descriptive in Adaptation and Mitigation.

I removed the comment that the U.S. is the largest emitter from this section for two reasons:

1. This is now contested. The article itself references the contradicting report in the Politics section. Since this is discussed later, there is no need to include it here in such simplified form.

2. This is uncited and should be if it were to remain. However, even if cited, this is again discussed more thoroughly and appropriately in the politics section. Leaving such a simple, parenthesized comment would be misleading considering the facts of the situation.

In the end, I just felt that removing this kept the article factural and up to date. Overall, guys, the article is great! --Jdcaust 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You omitted reference to one very important word: the material said the U.S. is "historically the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter." As such the sentence remains true even if China has now become the largest emitter. Given the long atmospheric lifetime of CO2, it's cumulative emissions over time that are important, not emissions in any given year. Raymond Arritt 16:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's better to keep this statement out. Despite the fact that the word "historically" technically makes it accurate, it could easily be misconstrued to read that the US currently leads the world in GHG emissions. In any case, it's a bit confusing. Its place in the section is rather unnecessary anyways, so when coupled with the potential for confusion, it's better to leave it out. Zoomwsu 23:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely the oceans are the largest greenhouse gas (water vapour) emitter? ^rossnixon 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oceans are not nations and therefore cannot form policies. ~ UBeR 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - can we reformulate it so that the factual accuracy is kept - without being misconstrued? Actually i think that when using historically, its rather clear that it has changed...? --Kim D. Petersen 22:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

per the couple of reversions that have taken place, and the edit summary of my last: the reason it is POV to add this tidbit of information is the location in the article it is being inserted. there is no controversy or dispute that the US is historically the largest (anthropogenic) greenhouse gas emitter. why, however, is that tidbit being inserted immediately where it is pointed out that the US is not a signatory to kyoto? because it implies that the US position as largest historical anthro greenhouse emitter is the reason we are not a signatory. the veracity of that implication is a matter of debate. it is not, however, encyclopedic. Anastrophe 22:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The "tidbit" has been in that location for quite a long time - before historically was put in - it read: "The United States, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter; Australia; and Kazakhstan have refused to ratify the treaty" - there is nothing new under the Sun. --Kim D. Petersen 23:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

in what way does that alter the point i made? Anastrophe 23:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

another editor has reverted it again, with the summary "clearly its relevant that such a large producer hasn't signed rv". is kazakhstan a large producer of greenhouse gases? one would surmise so, if the basis is that it is relevant due to output. by the same token, china - which may or may not be the new top emitter, is a signatory. what does that tell us - again, with this manner of relevancy imposed? Anastrophe 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No but clearly it is relevant, amongst other reasons to the effectiveness of the protocol, that the US, which is the largest historical contributor hasn't ratified the protocol. --Kim D. Petersen 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

can the relevance be cited? if not....Anastrophe 00:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes [16]. And i can find quite a few others if this quote [The U.S.'s] " ... sheer contribution to accumulated GHG, ... indispensable in any viable international enterprise to confront the challenges posed by climate change" isn't enough for you. --Kim D. Petersen 01:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How about adding a ref to the next line, which already touches upon US politics?

Currently:

In the absence of clear concerted action by the U.S. Federal government, various state, local, and regional governments have begun their own initiatives to indicate support and compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, on a local basis.

Recommended:

In the absence of clear concerted action by the U.S. Federal government, despite the United States until very recently being the largest emitter of greenhouse gases[stick in ref], various state, local, and regional governments have begun their own initiatives to indicate support and compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, on a local basis.

That should make people happy, no? -BC aka Callmebc 13:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You failed to mention the accumulated GHG emissions. --Kim D. Petersen 14:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of the historic emitter point here is quite clunky and distracting. Zoomwsu 19:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the reference to the US being the historic top emitter, nor the reference to China having possibly passed the US belong in this section. Both statements carry a lot of implication with them and have the potential to mislead reader as to the justifications for those nations' positions (particularly the US). The parenthesis about the US implies that its historic role as the leader in GHG emissions is the reason it has not signed the Kyoto protocol, which is not the case (or at best a gross mischaracterization). Zoomwsu 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then find a way to formulate it so that the nuances can be captured. That the (former) largest emitter, and the historically largest contributer, hasn't signed the treaty is a rather important point. See the Forbes article linked above. --Kim D. Petersen 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe add a sentence that clarifies the US position on Kyoto? Something like "Citing the irreparable harm to the US economy and the exemption of developing nations from the protocols, the United States has demonstrated a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomwsu (talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just add that the US's attitude under George Bush towards Global Warming and doing a lick about it, never mind admitting to anything, has been "flaticular"? -BC aka Callmebc 19:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this comment is a good faith attempt at resolving the issue and/or improving the article. Take your childish partisanship elsewhere and leave the improvement of this article to the adults. Zoomwsu 19:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take your own advice William M. Connolley 18:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was such a nice "good faith attempt" on his part to go ahead and weaselly insert that crackpotty Whitehouse quote. Because of this, I'm thinking now that article needs some beefing up under "Issue debate, political processes and laws" to include a line or two about the poor and confusing "coverage" of the global warming issue by the US media [17]. Maybe I can get a release for using that rather insightful cartoon....hmmm.... -BC aka Callmebc 20:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think references to the US media are highly inappropriate in this article. And what is this "crackpotty" business? I cited a press release from the President of the United States, discussing his nation's policy on Global Warming. How, exactly, does that make it "crackpotty?" Zoomwsu 05:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My addition should not have been deleted. Per the discussion in this section, it was clear that the United States' justification needed to be included to avoid the possibility of confusion arising out of the "historical emitter" remark. I referenced a clear statement from the President (who I may remind you Callmebc is the head of State and Government in the US) that also cited a unanimous vote by the US Senate against ratification. The US has clearly demonstrated a consensus at the Federal level that the Kyoto Protocols would harm the US economy and, considering developing nation exemption, would do little to offset GHG emissions. This statement is a fact and its removal is inappropriate. The sentence also has the benefit of thematically connecting the first sentence with the sentence on state and local actions on the issue. In other words, it's a good transition to flow from the international level to the national level to the state and local level. Why it should be deleted for the life of me I don't understand! Zoomwsu 05:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and deleted the section. As written it simply parrots the value judgments of the White House, right down to the choice of words. Simply because the US president says it does not mean it is true, neutral, or even representative of the national position. While I don't really see the argument for any discussion of why the US did not sign Kyoto, this specific section simply restates as fact a claim made by the government (that they "demonstrated consensus"). Even with the formally neutral language--"the White House claims that it has demonstrated consensus..."--the section is still highly questionable. --TeaDrinker 06:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What the heck, user:TeaDrinker? Not even a comment on this page? What do you mean "uncritical"? The link explains the position of the US Government. I fail to see what purpose criticism has in this. Please follow Wikipedia policy and discuss changes before you revert them. Zoomwsu 05:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This point of view is best discussed, and in fact is discussed, in Politics of global warming. Your edit was rightly deleted because it presented the White House view as fact, without qualification as to it's status. --Michael Johnson 06:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it not a fact? Is it not legitimate to use a statement from the head of state and government, supported by the upper legislative body, to describe a nation's policy? Zoomwsu 14:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion Zoomwsu, I believe I was writing that comment when you posted yours. --TeaDrinker 06:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I have been burned by people who revert without talking about it. Zoomwsu 14:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's politics we're worried about, I suggest removing the statement that talks about the US being the historic emitter. If we can't explain the US position in that paragraph, we should not allow readers to be misled by that unnecessary remark. Zoomwsu 14:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

user:Raymond arritt, we shouldn't leave out facts because of your distaste for politics. I make my justification for the edit above. Perhaps you'd like to follow Wikipedia policy and let an edit stand until it is discussed and consensus reached on the talk page. You're an experienced Wikipedia user, and I don't think I need to reference the relevant policies. In any case, please take it to the talk page before reverting. Zoomwsu 01:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a bit of departure from the subject at hand, but I would like to propose the following:

Only the United States, Australia, and Kazakhstan have not ratified the treaty, with the United States historically being the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gas. Still, various state, local, and regional governments within these countries have begun their own initiatives to indicate support and compliance with the Kyoto Protocol on a local basis. For example, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a state-level emissions capping and trading program involving eight Northeastern states, which was founded on December 20, 2005.

China and India, though exempt from its provisions as developing countries, have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, although China may have passed the U.S. in total annual greenhouse gas emissions according to some recent studies. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has called on the nation to redouble its efforts to tackle pollution and global warming.

I'm generally opposed to the use of parenthesis in the middle of a sentence, and I thought this would be a way to restructure the present section without loss of meaning. Thoughts? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Good changes. I share some of your opinion on parentheses. Zoomwsu 03:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've been busy, but I wanted to endorse Jc-S0CO's edit. Its a good, lucid compromise. --Jdcaust 03:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

US Kyoto response

There is nothing wrong with including a quote from a White House press release, explaining why the US did not ratify Kyoto. The consensus is that it is OK to emphasize that the US is "historically" the largest emitter and was one of few countries not to sign on to the treaty. In the US government, it is the role of the Executive Branch (i.e., the President) to negotiate and sign treaties with foreign governments. Thus, there is nothing inherently political about referencing a statment from the offical branch of government responsible for this decision. There is no reason to continue to delete this passage. Obedium 04:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is also no reason to include the paragraph, in that the reasons for the US not ratifying are referenced again in the next section, and are fully explored in Kyoto Protocol and Politics of global warming. There is simply no reason why an article about the science of global warming should be littered with extracts from the press releases of a US president. And it is also somewhat disingenuous to claim that somehow the US president is not political. --Michael Johnson 04:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Littered? Quit with the hyperbole. Zoomwsu 05:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I quite liked that. Sorry you didn't. --Michael Johnson 06:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Then there is no reason to include anything on Kyoto Protocol especially if it can't be presented neutrally. Kyoto is an attempt at a political solution, not science. --DHeyward 05:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If the Kyoto Treaty is discussed, and it is pointed out that the US has not signed the accord, it is only fair and legitimate that the US position be explained. See my above comments on the section. Zoomwsu 05:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we should also discuss why Australia and Kazakhstan have not signed, and contrast that with the other 150 odd nations have signed, especially the reasons of those that would have had similar "disadvantages" to the USA. Actually I don't particularly care if the quote was included, it hardly puts either Bush or the US in an attractive light. But it does clog up an article which is not about this topic, take it to Kyoto Protocol or Politics of global warming where it belongs. --Michael Johnson 06:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed here with Mr. Johnson. ~ UBeR 07:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So do I. --BozMo talk 13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And me. Well put. Raymond Arritt 13:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If the US is notable enough it gets its own special mention that it is the historic emitter, It's certainly legitimate to point out its justification for its refusal to ratify the treaty. Nobody is suggesting that we explain every nation's position, but as the historic top emitter, the US can lead the way in terms of citing a rationale against the Kyoto accords. I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water, either. The Kyoto Protocols are an important part of the GW issue and should be mentioned on this page. Zoomwsu 14:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I think we have a consensus. Let's take out all references to the Kyoto Protocol from the Global Warming article, and put them in the Kyoto article. Who wants to handle this? Obedium 14:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that wasn't what the consensus was. You're stretching the limits of WP:AGF here. Raymond Arritt 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't have both. You can't have the U.S. decision portrayed with a negative tone without either a counterpoint to make it neutral or moving it all out of the article. --DHeyward 16:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a neutral portrayal: See also kyoto, mitigation, adaptation. "A number of international climate initiatives have been proposed to reduce, reverse, or mitigate the effects of Global Warming. The Kyoto Protocol has been the primary treaty as an ammendment to UNFCCC. It was negotiated in 1997 and it expires in 2012.

Mitigation is when ... etc, etc

Adaptation is when ... etc, etc" --DHeyward 16:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Something on those general lines would suit. It mentions Kyoto without veering off into politics. Raymond Arritt 16:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with mentioning in a general article that the US did not ratify the Kyoto treaty, just like there is nothing wrong with mentioning in a general article that the US did not join the League of Nations. The U.S. is a major superpower, and its decisions are more influential than those of some other nations. This can either appear positive or negative, but it is a historical fact. I suggest we simply get used to it. --Steve, Sm8900 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think more important is whether the fact is relevant or not. ~ UBeR 16:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My comment above was meant as an expression of reasons that I do feel it is relevant. --Steve, Sm8900 18:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is where do you stop? We have an article on Kyoto. There are lots of things that are relevant about Kyoto. Ratification is one. Failure to meet goals by the nations that did ratify it is another. Country exemptions is also relevant. Whether Kyoto goes far enough to mitigiate the problem is relevant and how the goals were arrived at is relevant. The reasoning behind each of these items is relevant. It would be just as problematic to list the countries that ratified but failed to meet Kyoto goals without exploring the reasons why. The problem is to treat all of these neutrally by providing all relevant points of view creates a huge section. Cherry picking which pieces editors think are particularly relevant will create NPOV problems. Therefore, a simple summary of what Kyoto is and a link to the main article is the best course of action. It needs to be neutral in both tone and content. --DHeyward 19:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that all those are relevant, you are free to add them as well. If you feel the statement on the U.S. is not relevant, you should simply state your reasons for that directly. There is nothing wrong with you adding further relevant materials if you feel doing so is valid. If your underlying point is that the US statement is not relevant, then please give us your reasons for feeling that way. let's find reasons to include useful material, not to leave it out. --Steve, Sm8900 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I only want balance. IT is not okay to add material that the U.S. didn't ratify it while leaving out why or how it wasn't ratified. All in, or all out. Since there are other articles where this material can go and other editors oppose adding certain material, all out seems to be a better choice. --DHeyward 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Obviously, I assume that others will also express their opinions here on this, so that we can get a sense of how others feel, and what the general opinion on this might be. --Steve, Sm8900 21:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Kyoto Protocol already covers the points raised in the proposed amendment, in fuller detail, and in correct chronological sequence. Reference to the United States position as a greenhouse gas emitter is important in this context because it reflects on the effectiveness of treaty. If it were Kiribati that had not signed the treaty that would not have been a relevant point, although it might still have deserved a comment, as the entire nation faces the prospect of disappearing because of global warming. --Michael Johnson 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with your point here, which is why it is legitimate to explain the US position on Kyoto. Without said explanation, there is nothing to indicate why the US did not ratify the treaty. Zoomwsu 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is does there need to be anything to explain "why"? Given there is a full explanation here at Kyoto Protocol, and that this is primarily an article on the science, I would argue there doesn't. At present I would say the consensus supports that view. --Michael Johnson 03:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is an overwhelmingly negative tone to highlight that the U.S. didn't ratify it. That is not acceptable for NPOV and NPOV is not negotiable. Either fully explore the vote or don't mention it. --04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure how explaining the facts of the vote put the US in any better light. --Michael Johnson 04:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It may not. The vote also doesn't put them in a negative light either. But it's required to be neutral and that means exploring that point of view if ratification details are going to be presented. I don't think ratification needs to be mentioned at all but if it is mentioned, it needs to be presented neutrally. --DHeyward 05:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Johnson does not seem to not understand this is Wikipedia. The goal is not to put things in a good light or a bad light, it is to present facts. If you are going to mention Kyoto in general, and then add details singling out specific countries that did not sign on, there is nothing good/bad with respect to adding some explantory text as to why the countries did not sign on. Editors are getting so tied up in knots about straightforward additions that they cannot see straight with regard to simple editing principles. Obedium 05:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Johnson does understand Wikipedia, and clearly understands that in is an encyclopaedia with discrete articles about discrete topics. There has to be a limit within each article as to what associated topics are included. The reasons for the US not ratifying the treaty are fully covered in other, more appropiate articles, and are certainly not hidden away. And where do we stop? Do we then go into the politics behind the vote? The role of the energy lobby? And what about Australia? Then what about the politics behind the Canadians signing the treaty? The Mexicans? and so on and so on... The consensus is that we have reached the limit for this topic. --Michael Johnson 06:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Michael Johnson, Raymond Arritt and a couple others think we have reached the limit for this topic. Obedium, Sm300 and I think otherwise. This is hardly a consensus. It seems this word gets bandied about too easily these days. Zoomwsu 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Having an explanation for the US is just begging to have an explanation for Australia. They also have the bad fame of big time emitters who have not ratified. Then curiosity begs for the third country (why have they not ratified, I read that, along with Argentina, they volunteered for restrictions...) On the other hand, many editors feel that the US is being singled out as the evil polluter that does not want to ratify the treaty. My rationale for exclusion is that being the historical #1 is notable in the context, and it is easy fact. Getting into the reasons the US did not sign the treaty might bring forth issues of weight and pov. Weight in the standard sense; is this relevant enough to GW? POV since we are only stating the stated reason the government gave and in politics the stated reason is not always the one worth discussing. I know that there are people in the US who had like ratification, so, where are their views explored? Why not provide a wiki link within the sentence to a detailed discussion of the US in the relevant wikipedia article? By only citing the government's issues, we take their POV and exclude other non-stated reasons. Finally, it gives the wrong impression that the US does not care about the environment because no other view of the US is presented. I do not feel strongly about this so feel free to ignore me. Brusegadi 05:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with POV--it has to do with proper editing. From a "POV" stand, it is a badge of honor that the U.S. is the number #1 emitter, and that they did not sign on to the treaty. This is the burden that comes with being the greatest producer of knowledge and technology in the world. From a content viewpoint, however, it is poor editing not to add a comment as to why the U.S. did not ratify. I suppose there is a desire to not delve into the issues of exemptions for smaller countries. Obedium 06:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The US is #1 in a lot of things. it has the highest GDP, biggest military, biggest space program, biggest emitter, biggest role in the internet, biggest role in NATO, biggest role in IMF, biggest nuclear arsenal, etc etc etc. Its actions are significant. It belongs in this article. keep it there.--Steve, Sm8900 13:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Few, many, some scientists, yet again

There has been a bunch of back and fourth today about the sentence "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." The qualifier "few" has been changed to "many," "some," and deleted entirely. This has been discussed several times previously on talk, if memory serves, with "few" being acceptable. My own view on this, the purpose of the sentence is to charaterize the degree of acceptance of the IPCC conclusions. Not including this sentence would be unacceptable, since it would give the reader the impression that IPCC conclusions are universally accepted. Likewise, without a quantification, it would give the impression the IPCC conclusions are disputed by a substantial faction of scientists. Both would be misleading. I think few is a good word to use there; It acknowledges disagreement while noting widespread acceptance. The source does use "few" as well and I tend to think it is in line with the spirit of avoid weasel words. --TeaDrinker 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care if it says "few" or "some", but I find "many" misleading. That the source says "few" is a good reason to use "few", but presumably those in support of the other words could probably find other sources. Just my 2 cents. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "many" would be misleading. However, the problem is that the source provided to justify the use of "few" is an editorial complaining about Michael Crichton's "State of Fear." It was published by an organization so obscure it does not even have its own article on Wikipedia. Even if one were to dismiss these issues, the source is completely irrelevant in the context of the sentence in question. The article presents one organization's criticism of another on political, rather than scientific grounds. It fails RS, it fails NPOV, and it's a weasel word to boot. Simply put, this "source" is an attack piece, no more and no less, and the stubbornness of its continued use in light of these violations of WP policy would suggest a simple attempt to marginalize any opinion dissenting from the IPCC consensus. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The source might be a problem, but more importantly there is WP:WEASEL. ~ UBeR 17:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How does one avoid this, though? As TeaDrinker correctly points out, omitting the qualifier is even more misleading. (Also, I notice that "few" is not listed as a weasel word.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WTA. Needless to say, a good way to avoid this is to find a good source stating a fact. Of course, no one can find one. ~ UBeR 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "few" isn't in that list, either. Granted, it seems to go with the spirit of the guidelines. That said, a good, non-editorial source could be a way out of this quagmire. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

See the latter part of my reply. ~ UBeR 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If I understand that comment, the latter part of my post was meant to agree with the latter part of yours. Perhaps I didn't make that clear? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that nobody can find one. It's been on the table for quite a while to find a good source stating the fact, but no one can find one. ~ UBeR 19:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A simple way to solve this would be to just drop the whole sentence "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." Apart from the AMQUA, there are not to many sources dicussing this. There are many reliable sources for the existence of consensus in scientific opinion on climate change, but I'm not aware of any reliable sources (i.e. not OISM or a republican congressperson) denying the consensus. If describing the number of dissenters is OR, and adding individual scientists is definitely a WP:WEIGHT problem, we could just drop the whole sentence. We will lose the link to the list in that case, so it should go e.g. into "see also". --Stephan Schulz 19:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a reasonable solution, although I suspect there'll be a few complaints about it. (Maybe not, though. You did mention keeping the link in the "see also", which sounds like a good compromise.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What about this source that was beat down in the Scientific opinion on climate change article: [18]? According to that study, approximately 40% of scientists disagree with the IPCC WG1 report. Zoomwsu 02:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It has a couple of problems (e.g. self-selection, no peer review), but your interpretation is more problematic. As I read the report, 100% of the scientist say the warming is real and the data robust enough to unequivocally say so, and 97% agree with the core findings of the IPCC. Your 40% seems to be rounded up from the 17% and 18% that say that the impact of CO2 is underestimated or overestimated relative to other forcings. But this is not complete deviation from the consensus. --Stephan Schulz 05:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Many" isn't misleading, its vandalism/POV-pushing. As for "a few"... we've done all this before. Unless anyone is going to change their minds, or has any new arguments (none so far), this discussion is going nowhere, probably at great length :-) William M. Connolley 17:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, "many" has no place in this sentence, but the issue with the source being weasel words used in an editorial attack piece cannot and should not be ignored. If such a source were provided by the AAPG or another skeptical group substituting "many" for "few", would we even be questioning the need for a change? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of the ten thousand or so climatologists in the world, a few dozen contrarians - many if not most of which are directly or indirectly supported by the oil industry and ipso facto have no credibility - is a negligible minority. It shouldn't say "few" - it should call them what they really are - a negligible but very vocal minority. Raul654 17:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Would there happen to be a source to back up any of those numbers? Or the assertion about widespread present-day support from big oil? The issue at stake is the source's complete lack of impartiality or relevance in the context of the article, and (dare I say) attempts by Wikipedia editors to marginalize and discredit a position that they happen to disagree with. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC alone has over 3,000 combined reviewers and authors. 10,000 is conservative estimate of the total in the field. The "few dozen" contrarians is from List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and my funded by the oil industry comment comes from that fact that off the top of my head, I recognize a number of the ones listed on that page as being tied to the oil industry (including Singer, Seitz, and Legates). And as far as what is at stake here - this is not a he-said-she-said. We do not give equal time, and we do not make misleading statements like "many" when there are in fact very few relative to the size of the field. The fact is that the contrarians are a tiny {vocal, oil-funded} minority, and that's the weight we are going to give ot their position. Raul654 18:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

They're not all tied to the oil industry. Pat Michaels is being paid by the coal industry. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to being supported by the OSI? ~ UBeR 19:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Also a small fraction, right? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. ~ UBeR 19:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's many scientists, without question:

• "Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position."[19]
• "A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities."[20] 74.77.222.188 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was meant to be humorous, but it does prove the point that perhaps this sentence should be removed altogether (per Stephan's suggestion above). Now I'm just waiting for someone to find the source that uses the word "some". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, the Oregon Petition is not anywhere near a reputable represntation of the Climatology community. Not only did their lists of PhD include a fictional lawyer and a spice girl, but as Scientific American pointed out based on their sampling of the list, Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community Raul654 20:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your cite says nothing of a fictional lawyer and a spice girl, who are hardly going to dilute a poll of 17,600, regardless. Your cite says they questioned only 30 of those who signed. Also, you have completely ignored the 2006 poll of 12,000 of whom 41% do not think human activities are largely responsible for global warming. That's not "a few" by any stretch. Clashwho 20:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) [The Oregon Petition] was touted as a collection of thousands of scientists debunking global warming. So was that Perry Mason on the list? And John Grisham? What about that Spice Girl? - The Seattle Times. (2) Yes, that's called sampling. It's the basis of most statistics. You don't have to ask everyone on the list to get an accurate view of the total population distribution. (3) I suggest you read this - which is a peer reviewed, reputable paper that found no scientific support for contrarians amoung peer reviewed literature. Literally, not one paper. Orestes' paper and findings have survived numerous oil-industry back attempts to debunk it, most famously by Benny Peiser (whose work he himself has retracted). Raul654 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Their "sample" was crap, as they somewhat acknowledge by calling their extrapolation "crude." You're still ignoring the 2006 poll of 12,000. Why is that? Clashwho 20:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

0% opposed it, but less than 2% supported it. Wow. ~ UBeR 21:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As Orestes herself has said on numerous occasions, less than 2% explicitely supported it for the same reason that only a tiny minority of papers in biology explitely support evolution - the vast majority of papers simply assume it to be true. Something like 25% of the papers sampled supported it implictely. Raul654 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting twist on the 2%/25% figure—it effectively refutes the claim that climatologists are only supporting global warming because that's how they get their funding. Evidently, around 75% of climatology studies have virtually nothing to do with global warming. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Oregon Petition article contains a lot more detail on that document -- I'd never heard the Spice Girl bit before, that was pretty funny. The Sci Am research is about the best followup we have on that.

As for the National Registry of Environmental Professionals, that's hardly a list of climatologists, but a pretty random set of "environmental" "professionals" of all stripes. Calling it a survey of 12,000 environmental professionals is rather misleading, too, considering there were 793 responses. [21] 71% of respondants hold the REM (Registered Environmental Manager) accreditation -- these are unlikely to be climate scientists. 62% of respondents are in the private sector -- these, too, are unlikely to be climate scientists. All in all, that's a pretty hopeless survey if you're looking for scientists with expertise. bikeable (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you quantify exactly how much or little some random small number of people with exactly what qualifications in the fields related to or involved with climate disagree with aspects of various findings to various degrees? You call them "a few" and that they "don't totally agree" with various aspects of the findings. A geologist or statistican or modeler working for an oil company doesn't inherently have any more or less credibility than a state climatologist or the head of the NOAA or some medical doctor. Don't you want to be able to drive your car? Somebody's got to find and gather and process energy. "directly or indirectly supported by the oil industry and ipso facto have no credibility" is an unfair, incredibly biased, illogical and ridiculous statement. Governments make more money on energy than all the energy companies put together, so does that mean NASA, the EPA or the Department of Agriculture are "in the pockets of big oil"? That statement is like saying that iceberg researchers paid by Greenpeace or the Sierra Club are ipso facto communists out to destroy Western civilization and put us back in the Dark Ages. Silly.

Regardless, the fact is there is near perfect publicily stated agreement by "scientists" that there's some warming going on, the debate is on how much, to what effect, and what should be done about it. So why not "a few" ("individual" is redundant). This is pointless. Sln3412 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not change the entire sentence to say something more like "GW is a theory and the opinion of a majority of scientists, however their is still debate inside the scientific and public communities about it's legitimacy and other minor details." This way we don't argue about a tiny word and basically say the same thing, not all the scientist agree. Feel free to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.165.122 (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the real issue here is that skeptics want there to be more language on how they feel, hence stronger words like 'many'. The believers believe so much that they just brush aside any skeptic or skeptic remark. Then there are people caught in the middle that want to make an truly informed decicion meaning listening to both sides. The problem is that there are scientists on both sides of this issue, a fact that shouldn't be ignored and isn't being ignored totally on this site. Argueing about if it should be few, many, lots, or tons what ever, doesn't answer anything at all.

American Quaternary Association

To get back to the original topic, who here can give a legitimate reason to keep this as a citation for the sentence?

"Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution."

This is the sentence for which the article was selected as a source; but the article itself, which is primarily focused on criticizing Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," is clearly an opinion/attack piece which respectively fails both WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Given these conflicts with policy, and the lack of relevance to the sentence it is cited to support, and the lack of any evidence in the article which bolsters this claim, is there any legitimate reason to leave the citation where it is? I will emphasize that I do not suggest the sentence itself be changed at this time, merely that this ridiculously inappropriate citation be removed. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously contending that Eos lacks the editorial oversight to qualify as a WP:RS? Raymond Arritt 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. But the AMQUA article in which the above sentence is found certainly does not. The second page of the document includes reactions to the AMQUA article and a note by the editor-in-chief. In the note, the editor says that the AMQUA piece was not solicited and that articles published in the journal do not represent its view unless otherwise stated. In effect, Eos disassociates itself from the views presented in the AMQUA article, which by virtue of being an opinion piece which focuses on a wholly unrelated topic does not qualify as a valid source in the context of this wikipedia article. If the focus of the AMQUA piece had been on something other than State of Fear, or evidence of some kind had been provided by AMQUA to support the statement, then there might be a case to include it. But an off-color remark in a piece where one scientific society criticizes the actions of another for something that is not even related to the topic of this article certainly does not qualify for notability or relevance. The reason that this article does not meet RS (for this purpose) is because there is no evidence provided to support the claim. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of AMQUA, personally. ~ UBeR 07:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They're so obscure that they don't even have their own article here. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They are so obscure that they are listed on this page at the National Academy of Science webpage. They organize a biennial conference, and their Web site is here. Wikipedia coverage is far from universal. --Stephan Schulz 06:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone should make a page for them, then, if they are notable enough. But that still does not make the unsupported remark on which the citation is based any more relevant. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Maybe someone should make a page for them, then, if they are notable enough." Done, for what it's worth. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Soco is absolutely right, mainly for his second reason. The statement "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution." simply does not support the statement "a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC". The two are completely different statements. The first is true, the second is false. This needs to be changed or removed. Paul Matthews 08:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And the Eos source is an editorial, a "Forum" piece: "Neither the AMQUA piece nor the Corbett piece reflects or promotes an AGU position." Surely a better source can be found. Acct4 12:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been four days, and nobody seems to be able to present a reason why the citation should remain where it is. Given this development, I will remove it from the article (please note that I will NOT change the wording of the sentence itself in any way). If somebody takes issue with this, please provide a reason why it should stay. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The current text reads:

There are a relative few individual scientists [...]

There certainly are fewer scientistics who publically oppose the IPCC's main conclusions than scientists who publically endorse it, but however that (important) fact is worded it should be in English which doesn't seem archaic or ungrammatical. (My suggestion: "Comparitively fewer individual scientists [...]".) --Wragge 19:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Easier to just say "a few", to which I've changed it William M. Connolley 20:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of view

I commented on this a while back ago, why this was one of the only articles that does not have a opposing view, controversy, criticism section. I see nothing has been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.190.62.54 (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not really see anything about the scientist that dispute global warming. This article is biased.Chessmaster3 18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not even However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC., and see the linked article? Or the links in the causes section? Mind you, its nice to see that only one scientist disputes GW! William M. Connolley 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's my point. That sentence needs to be removed.199.125.109.41 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad when you rely on Wikipedia for information. Ball doesn't deny GW. ~ UBeR 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have some evidence to support your claim? The article cites Ball's statement that "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." I didn't think so. Raul654 20:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here he clearly says the world has warmed. --DHeyward 03:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in that article, he explicitly says he thinks the world is cooling: It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. Raul654 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this wasn't the warmest year on record, doesn't that imply that it has cooled since the warmest year on record? It sounds like he's claiming there is an inflection point happening much like in the 40s and 70s. --DHeyward 06:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

doesn't that imply that it has cooled since the warmest year on record - no, it does not. Temperature data is very noisy. Saying that the world is cooling based on the fact that this year is colder than last year is not something any reputable scientist would say. (That's the kind if lunacy you would expect to see in an Inhofe press release) When Ball says cooling, he's talking about a long term trend, not a year-to-year thing - and in the context of what he's saying ("major mechanisms and the global temperature trends") makes this very clear. Raul654 07:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, inflection points and changes in trends start out as changes below the peak. It also doesn't change the fact taht he says the earth has warmed as the data indicates. I would also argue that it's not very noisy as it hasn't varied more than +/- 1C (closer to +/- 0.5C) either in year over year, 5 year, or 150 year rolling average temperature. It would be interesting to know what the measurement error standard deviation is due to systemic variation (I suspect random variation is averaged our over the rather large number of stations) and comare it to +/- 1C. --DHeyward 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Answer is here. Error bars seem to have gotton larger in this decade which is strange. Annual and monthly chart don't show significant warming trend in this decade. Binomial smoothed graph shows flattening. Are Crown copyrights allowed to be reporduced? HTis seems to be better data than what is presented. --DHeyward 23:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Making sense out of anything Ball says is a challenge best not dealt with here. Raymond Arritt 03:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of CO2" indicates he believes there is in fact a GW, but not due to CO2, which applies to multiple other scientists. "Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since [the LIA] . . . These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on." Again, blaming warming on the sun. ~ UBeR 03:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ball? What's Ball? Is that the one scientist who disagrees? And who is relying on Wikipedia? School kids aren't allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference in papers. Until Wikipedia gets a lot more mature, it is generally used just as a first look at a subject. 199.125.109.41 20:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And as such, a comprehensive view requires the mention that such dissent exists. But rather than give undue weight to the minority persuasion in this article, a link to the separate topic has been provided which a reader may investigate if they so choose. And the scientists listed are no crackpots; the qualifications for verifiability and notability which must be met to be included in the list are very strictly enforced. Disagree with these dissenters all you want, but removing any mention of their dissent in light of their qualifications would be POV in the same right. Replacing one perceived bias with another does nothing to improve the article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also we have that RFC thing still cooking in regards to including alternate theories that aren't really alternate theories anymore, scientifically speaking, regardless of how widespread or how passionate "alternate" notions may be. Which reminds me, I still have to write up a little thing regarding giving the polar/arctic business its due mention, and submit it for everyone's consideration. Sorry, I've been a little distracted.... -BC aka Callmebc 01:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding above comments, we both all knows the effects of global warming so we better think or find a solution than to arguing each others.--Pamnardalez 17:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

a few individual scientists disagree?

In the lead there is a sentence that reads, "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." When I go to this article, there is much more than a "few". Perhaps this should read "several" or "some" individual scientists - something more accurate. I know very little of the article or the disputes. I'm just reading through some of it for the first time but this statement came accross as bias by understating the number (I was expecting 3 or so but it lists like 40 scientists). Morphh ^(talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "I go to this article"? Do you mean List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? The answer is, that list contains many people with no qualifications to talk about GW, so its not usable as anything. But the skeptics resist pruning it back to usefulness. Look in the archives for endless discussions about "few" William M. Connolley 20:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And, to reiterate previous discussions, calling one or two dozen out of 10,000+ "a few" gives far too much weight to a tiny oil-sponsored fringe. Raul654 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And that comment just reinforces the bias he complains about. Believing that the small amount of warming the earth has experienced over the last 100 years might not be entirely anthropogenic makes one neither fringe nor oil-sponsored. William Gray comes to mind. --DHeyward 02:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to say "some" instead of "a few"? Otherwise, you and I interpret "few" a bit differently. (Although, in this particular context, I do find "few" to be somewhat vague.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant few, as in (according to the Oxford english dictionary): "a small number of, not many, a select minority" Raul654 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then, how is that giving "far too much weight" to the scientists? Is there a word that means less than "a few" that you'd rather use? I'm not sure what you're driving at unless one part or the other of your sentence was poorly worded (or I'm completely misunderstanding it). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For some reason this reminded me of the Continuum hypothesis... Brusegadi 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that article is quite limited. Limited by a campaign to enforce nonexistent policies that require a Wikipedia biography for mention in the article. The result is that we end up with unsubstantiated, subjective adjectives that seem to go against Wikipedia's standards. ~ UBeR 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note the rules for this discussion page, which indicate "This is not a forum for general discussion of editors' personal beliefs about global warming. Talk page guidelines are vigorously enforced on this page, as per this consensus. Any such messages will be deleted." Under these guidelines, most of the previous discussion should be deleted. Obedium 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the discussion is around my question regarding the article content. I don't see that it violates policy. I'm fine with the arguments presented. I normally read a few as 3 and a couple as 2. So this is probably just lack of vocab on my part. I do think "some" would be a better word but I'm sure this article has been debated heavily due to the nature. Just thought I would comment. Morphh ^(talk) 0:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That entire sentence needs to be deleted (the one beginning with "However"). 199.125.109.41 03:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree: "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." is not cited or ref'd. You can probably count on a maimed hand now the number of legitimate, active climate researchers who actually disagree in any significant way with the IPCC. If anything, you'll find more who think the IPCC is being way too conservative. If the "However..." it can't be properly ref'd (and that doesn't include links to sites like this with massive listings of virtually nobody actually directly and actively involved in climate research), it should be removed. -BC aka Callmebc 12:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess this definition would also depend on the other number of scientists as well. So we have a "few" (very small number) that disagree with the main conclusions of the IPCC and the super majority agree with the main conclusions of the IPCC. Any source for this? Raul654 said 10,000+ compared with two dozen... is this true? Does this step into POV, OR, or weasel word area or are we on solid ground? What about the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that claims around 20,000 signatures - why is this dismissed (is it our place to dismiss). Morphh ^(talk) 12:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are examples of the "massive listings of virtually nobody actually directly and actively involved in climate research" I mentioned. They are not credible lists in any way. -BC aka Callmebc 14:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PS- I forgot I had a little "discussion" of the "Oregon Petition" on Usenet a while back where I dissected the first 10 names on the list. It's messy, but go see. -BC aka Callmebc 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

On this issue, there is truly no way to please everyone. This battle has been fought a hundred times, and once again, there will be no significant changes because of it. I used to think that it would be a worthwhile effort to change "few" to "some," but in the whole scheme of the article, there is really no point in doing so. As with the prior half-dozen debates over this troublesome word, there are hard-liners on both sides who will not see compromise; ranging from those who believe "many" is an appropriate descriptor, to those who think the sentence should be removed entirely. Scientists who are skeptical of global warming are clearly a small minority, and due to weight considerations, they should be acknowledged as such (hence not "many"). Only one scientific organization, the AAPG, has openly declared itself skeptical of AGW, and even they have expressed doubts on the position in recent months (hence "individual"). But at the same time, there are some scientists with respectable credentials and reputations who remain skeptical of aspects of the IPCC consensus opinion, and to erase all mention of their dissent would be utterly unacceptable. Since nobody seems able to find reliable statistics about the true number of qualified scientists who contest the IPCC's position (partially due to disagreement over the definition of who can be considered a climate scientist), we cannot assume a large number, but at the same time, in light of counterexamples, it would be demonstrative of prejudice and borderline libelous to dismiss them all as bought and paid for by energy interests. Given these uncertainties, and the unavoidable political mess that change has been repeatedly shown to create, the best solution would be to simply leave the sentence the way it is. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand and I really don't want to get into any large debate on it. The statement just seemed unclear. I've read a couple of times here that we're talking about climate scientists. So why don't you write that? Instead of "individual scientists" put "climate scientists", this certainly changes the sample and may excuse the POV in excluding groups that have been deemed "non-climate researchers". Other words could also be used to get across the same point as "few", without the confusion (related normal use of the word few in describing small groups - not relationships of 10,000+). What about "small number" or "small minority"? It seems to me that the statement "a small number of climate scientists disagree" is less pov and avoids confusion. Also I don't see anything about Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab's recent research that is stated as "Overturning IPCC consensus ‘in one fell swoop’".[22] I don't see anything on the Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works that global warming has stopped. As someone coming in with little knowledge on the topic, I'm just a little concerned and thought I would comment. Morphh ^(talk) 14:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't see Schwatrz because he is wrong. Inhofe is a totally biased source, dont use it (here or in your personal research). Carter is wrong too; you might pause to wonder, given that you wanted to give him credentials by calling him a "Paleoclimate scientist", what those have to do with recent changes? Not that he is a palaeoclimatologist anyway - he is a geologist William M. Connolley 14:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Inhofe is a politician so that's a no brainer. I am not sure who Carter is. But Schwartz is a noted scientist from Brookhaven. His paper referenced here was peer reviewed and accepted to the Journal of Geophysical Research. Dismissing it based on analysis on a blog or from a political organization would seem to be just as bad as accepting Inhofe as a scientist or dismissing global warming based on a blog entry. Find a reliable source in a peer reviewed journal that disputes his analysis or refines it. But essentially dismissing the Journal of Geophysical Research and Brookhaven National Labs as "wrong" is just not acceptable for scientific analysis. --DHeyward 05:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't give him credentials. I was quoting the source provided, which was the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment. It is not Wikipedia's place to suggest who is write or wrong. It should only provide other sources or research that claim to disprove said other research. In any event, them being "wrong" in your opinion does not negate inclusion as someone that has disagreement with the IPCC. It appears they are significant enough to deserve some weight as they were the first thing I found in a Google search and under discussion by the U.S. Senate. I'm not looking at a blog for reliable information, and neither does Wikipedia. If I don't see Schwatrz because he is "wrong", then I have to wonder about the balance and POV of the article. Morphh ^(talk) 15:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Then the same applies to the env ctte. We don't use that as a source for people credentials. On S, if you want knock about, go to Global warming controversy where you'll find Schwartz. This page doesn't give individual estimates for CS, even the reliable ones, so why would it list S? Climate sensitivity discusses CS and is linked William M. Connolley 15:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize their were so many articles on it. I was refering to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. My main question was with regard to the one sentence discussed above with regard to clarification on the word few and adding what type of scientists. Morphh ^(talk) 16:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, after discussion I thought I would be bold and make a good faith change to improve the sentence. I changed the word "few" to the definition of few, which is "a small number" (Webster). I think this says the same thing without the confusion of common small group usage of the word few. I also added the word "climate" to describe the scientists as from the discussion here, it appears that many are excluded if deemed non-climate scientists. Without this clarification, the statement appears to be false. I split them into two edits due to the aggressive nature of this article, hoping each change will be considered on its own merit and not suffer from a quick revert. Morphh ^(talk) 11:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the first. We had this text "a small number" ages back, but some people insisted on something matched exactly by a source. The second change is plain wrong. Read list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Anybody notable with at least one publication in the natural sciences potentially qualifies. Bellamy, Chilingar, Plimer and Seitz are clearly not climate scientist by any plausible definition, and many of the others are at best borderline. --Stephan Schulz 12:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess the term "few" that has other uses is somehow better then using the actual definition intended, which was label as a weasel word and reverted. So I'm going to try again, this time I'll leave the word "few" but qualify it with the term "relatively" as to clarify the use with large groups instead of the common small group usage. This should not be a big deal as everyone here has just stated that the word few is used relative to the large group size. Morphh ^(talk) 12:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think both "relatively few" and "a small number" are preferable to just "few". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are weasel-words too. Call a spade a spade. Use the word "minority". It's accurate: a minority of scientists. -Amatulic 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Minority" is misleading, as it implies the fraction could be as great as 49.999%. Raymond Arritt 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggested "small minority" above. I see it was changed back to few. Not sure why few is ok but defining it as relative to the group is not, unless the intent here is to actually mislead the reader, which presents itself as bias. I only brought it up as I thought it was misleading and came across as bias. Few is most commonly used in small groups, not in large groups like 10,000. It is akin to using the word "couple" to describe two, with "few" being three or close to. Few seems to be more of a weasel word then the more specific examples presented here, so I'm not sure what the issue is. If there has been endless discussion around this word, then there is clearly a problem with the word that needs to be resolved or your going to countinue to have discussions about it. Concensus is not in itself a be all stamp for no change - see the policy. Morphh ^(talk) 18:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Arctic Ice Melt and Polar Amplification Subsection

I haven't had any time to work on this, but I wanted to get at least post a rough draft of what I'm thinking of for a new subsection covering the Arctic ice melt and its overall effect:

The Arctic Ice Melt and Amplification

The effects of global warming have been the most dramatic in the Arctic where sea ice coverage, also called the "extent," shrank to the smallest area on record in 2007. Climate scientists have long regarded the highly sensitive Arctic as global warming's early warning system: through a process called the "ice-albedo feedback mechanism," the rate of warming in the Arctic is roughly twice that of the global average. Ice is inherently reflective of sunlight, so as the ice sheets melt, the less reflective exposed ocean water absorbs more sunlight and changes the Earth's "albedo" -- the fraction of solar energy reflected away from the planet. This "polar amplification" of the sun's warmth in turn accelerates the overall rate of global warming, which again even further accelerates the Arctic ice melt.

So am I heading in the right direction at least with this? -BC aka Callmebc 04:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In the right direction, yes. But it needs to be less verbose. Notice ice-albedo feedback already is discussed in the article, so you can trim that part down quite a bit. Raymond Arritt 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know -- it started out as just "The Arctic Ice Melt" and then I thought to add Amplification for obvious reasons. There should be some graceful way to ref or connect to the other. Maybe also ephasize more of the "canary in a coal mine" aspect of the Arctic situation? It twas a rough draft, as I said, in more ways than one.... -BC aka Callmebc 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A subsection? This, considering there's not even a subsection in effects of global warming, where this would be more appropriate? Again, this is a macrolevel article. It would be best to discuss these specifics in the article I just linked to above. ~ UBeR 05:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We already had that discussion about how neither "polar" not "arctic" gets even a mention in the content of the main article -- remember? Whilst the scientifically highly marginal "solar variation" bit....

By the way, what's the deal with the RFC? It looks as though the feeling is that things like solar variation, now regarded as having little if anything to do with the current round of global warming, should be moved out of the main article and into its own little section. Yes or no? -BC aka Callmebc 16:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. Also, everyone else tended agree that your news story didn't warrant a subsection--at least not in this article. Again, try your luck at effects of global warming first, where it belongs. ~ UBeR 18:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, the RFC was about including "Alternate Theories" like "solar variation" in the main article if it's not, or no longer considered, a significant factor in global warming. Does that ring a bell? See: [23]. The Arctic/Polar thing was a whole separate thing that I was given the go ahead to write something about the arctic ice, just as long as you don't complain if it doesn't survive the usual review -- doesn't that ring a bell as well? -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote the RFC. I know. Also, no one gives you permission to write anything. Neither Connolley or I or anyone else can give you permission to write anything or not give permission to write something. You can write whatever you want, but if it doesn't adhere to policies like WP:WEIGHT for example, then it will be promptly reverted. ~ UBeR 01:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong direction. The connection between the arctic ice melt and global warming is tenuous at best, and certainly does not rise to the level of inclusion in this article. I have yet to see a RS definitively declare the record lows in the arctic are caused by global warming. Unexplained in the midst of all of this are record maximums in the antarctic ice sheet. Is that because of global warming too? Zoomwsu 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it isn't tenuous at all -- it's mainstream theory. Anyway that's just an adjunct to the Arctic situation, which of course is seriously undermentioned in the main article, especially in relation to solar variation. -BC aka Callmebc

It could be (and has been) conjectured that yes, increases in the Antarctic ice sheet could be due to global warming because the higher temperatures allow for greater moisture content in the air and, therefore, more (frozen) precipitation. Jason Patton 20:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See my previous reply. You might want to Google ""albedo" and "Arctic" for some background info. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to guess why I find this subject so interesting. Global warming causes record ice loss and record ice growth! Seriously though, the links between the situations in the arctic and antarctic and the issue of global warming are, as you put it, conjecture. Until verifiable, peer-reviewed research definitively links the changes in the polar regions with AGW, the only thing that should be stated in this article on this issue is that the connections are unverified and simply conjecture at this point. Zoomwsu 20:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Me thinks you have been getting your "science" from the wrong sources. See my previous answer. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're the one trying to make the link between the two poles, which have incredibly different properties, here. Callmebc's proposed addition explains how global warming links to changes in the Arctic ice extent, not what is happening in the Antarctic. Jason Patton 20:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to say there isn't a link? It goes without saying that polar climate systems are highly complex, and and involve both significant similarities and differences. That said, it seems we're jumping into this arctic ice thing waaaayyy too soon. Until some solid knowledge is produced on the causes of the lows in arctic sea ice, and the involvement of AGW therein, it deserves no place in this article. As I said before, the connection between arctic sea ice loss and AGW is simply conjecture at this point.

As far as the antarctic is concerned, I think if anything, it should urge caution about jumping to conclusions that conveniently fit the preconceived model. The fact that the ice sheet is at record levels there indicates we don't really understand the system to the point that we can draw any definitive conclusions about how global climate is affecting the polar regions, much less how human-induced factors affect the poles. Zoomwsu 22:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The related theory and scientific models have always had this as an Arctic effect, not an Antarctic one. But I intend to mention the observed and predicted Antarctic effects in the next draft. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And the "it's to complex for me to undertand, so it must be wrong" argument is not really flying well even for creationsist. --Stephan Schulz 21:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll endeavor to try to make it simple with both very introductory refs as well as more complete ones in later drafts. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this statement? Who claimed this? Zoomwsu 22:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that was just summary of sorts regarding most of the comments so far. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please not interject your comments. It's annoying. ~ UBeR 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, BC - I'd like to echo UBeR's request concerning the effects of global warming page. I'd prefer to see this there first more completely, and a summary extracted from that for this article. Just my two cents - Hal peridol 02:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Statements like "The effects of global warming have been the most dramatic in the Arctic" and "Climate scientists have long regarded the highly sensitive Arctic as global warming's early warning system" are so qualitative, over-the-top and in need of extensive qualification there is no way this discussion can rightly be included in this article. To include such speculation would seriously undermine any hope of maintaining neutrality. Obedium 03:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, those are actually what the models indicate and what climate scientists believe. Don't worry, there will be plenty of ref's and cites -- trust me. -BC aka Callmebc 06:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is sourced with papers it should be fine to give it a few lines. Yet, it may help your cause to take it to the effects page first. Brusegadi 04:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the Effects page in regards to the Arctic stuff -- that needs some work as well. I'll write up two versions. -BC aka Callmebc 06:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why my previous comments were deleted? Zoomwsu 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed your edit summary mentioning me -- I had nothing to do with that. I did check the history and the diff does seem odd: [24] -- it "looks" like your comment disappears in the course of a long reply of mine to multiple comments, including yours. And something odd happened yesterday as well: [25] -- it looks as though both the tail end of my comment and one of yours were deleted by an anonymous IP and then mine put back (Raymond arritt then put yours back). While I frankly consider your comments and suggestions not exactly to be in the best interest of improving the article, I find this odd deletion stuff more problematic in the context of other things going on. Might I suggest that whoever's been doing this, stop? -BC aka Callmebc 12:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Projections of warming

I recently made a change to lead about the IPCC's projection of temperature increases by the end of the 21st century. In the given source (SPM), it states the likely range of temperatures will be between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees centigrade. The given source states this is the range for the globally-averaged surface warming for the end of the 21st century, which they define as the last 10 years of the century (2090-2099), relative to the 20 year average of 1980-1999. (It clearly states on Table 3, "°C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999"). This isn't a "graph" as Callmebc states, nor is it out of context, in my opinion. Furthermore, no where in the given source does this state this is the projected increase of temperature between 1990 and 2100, as it currently states in this article.

I won't revert Callmebc, but I hope someone else does. ~ UBeR 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting measured values of 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) over a 100 year time frame is acceptable. Quoting "Climate models cited by the IPCC" with a predicted temperature delta of 600% over a 110 year time frame is not. Also "thanks to the large heat capacity of the oceans" is not language one would expect in an encyclopedia entry. This has been reverted. Obedium 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The "thanks to" language indeed is weird so I've refined it. The projections obviously must be restored, and I have done so. They're one of the first things a reader will expect to find. I've also made a few other wording changes. Raymond Arritt 04:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, RA's edit addressed your concern. I don't see mention of "a predicted temperature delta of 600% over a 110 year time frame" in the restored text. Could you explain further what your complaint is? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Dr. Arritt included it once again after it was deleted by Obedium, I'm curious as to where the 1990-2100 figure comes from. Both the SPM and the AR4 state, "Projected globally-averaged surface warmings for the end of the 21st century (2090–2099) relative to 1980–1999 are" 1.1 to 6.4 degrees centigrade. ~ UBeR 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're "curious," eh? Well, I'm not so adverse either being curious about the nature of certain edit patterns [26]. But in the regards to the matter more immediately at hand, the referenced IPCC document, Summary for Policymakers, is frankly not a very well-written "summary" for its intended, um, not so aware audience. It makes all sorts of refs to particular time periods, like 1980-1999 (the reference period), 2020-2029, and 2090-2099, but in terms of projection, it does very clearly single out 2100, as in the graph, SPM-5 on page 14, and especially in this highlighted summary box on page 12:

PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE CHANGES IN CLIMATE

A major advance of this assessment of climate change projections compared with the TAR is the large number of simulations available from a broader range of models. Taken together with additional information from observations, these provide a quantitative basis for estimating likelihoods for many aspects of future climate change. Model simulations cover a range of possible futures including idealised emission or concentration assumptions. These include 14 SRES illustrative marker scenarios for the 2000–2100 period and model experiments with greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations held constant after year 2000 or 2100.

By the way, you never answered my last question about moving "Solar Variation." -BC aka Callmebc 12:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...may I suggest that you check the original document (one click away from your GreenFacts page). GreenFacts tries to be a simplified version of this original report. The SPM proper (page 14) makes it clear that the temperature increases are relative to the average of 1980-1999. It also explains that the numerical projections are for the average of 2090-2099, as opposed to just one year (2100) in the TAR. The difference is not significant numerically, but represents a methodological advance in that it makes the influence of freak events (in either direction) less significant.--Stephan Schulz 13:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

?? I did reference page 14 of the original report in my reply -- I only used the Green Facts ref because it had the SPM-5 chart separated out from the IPCC report as a direct link, negating the need to load the entire PDF and then go to page 14. And I did mention 1980-1999 as being used for reference. Like I also said, it's not a very well-written "summary" for its intended audience. Maybe we should add a somewhat less ambiguous ref for better clarity. -BC aka Callmebc 13:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has the chart, but the caption has been rewritten ("dumbed down"). Your other source is probably a good one, but not for the overall range of climate projections, as it only deals with the A1B acenario. --Stephan Schulz 13:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the paragraph to match the SPM. It's slightly more confusing, IMO, but more accurate. I'm not overly attached to my edit, but I figured it was a start. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That didn't help -- it's basically a misleading paraphase of the main point of the projections in the report: if we do such and such about CO2 emissions, from nothing to a lot, these are the likely temperature consequences projected to the year 2100. What is wrong with basing an edit on the summary excerpt from page 12 I quoted above? -BC aka Callmebc 13:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it misleading? A paraphrasing of your excerpt, as far as I can tell, is already in the next sentence. I.e., the amount of heating will depend on how much our CO₂ emissions increase or decrease, and there are several scenarios based off various assumptions about human behavior. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

BC's excerpt is not talking about the climate projection, but about the SRES emission scenarios (which go to 2100). The temperature projections are in Table SPM-3, page 13, and clearly show the increase of the average temperature for the period 2090-2099 over 1980-1999. The IPCC uses the phrase "the end of the 21st century" - should we adopt this less precise, but more convenient meaning? I think along something like "Global temperature is expected to rise a further 1.1-6.4 degrees centigrade in the course of the 21st century". --Stephan Schulz 13:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're Joe or Mary Public and you come to the Wikipedia entry on Global Warming because you're trying to make sense of all the conflicting info you hear about it, and you read this: Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperatures from 2090-2099 are likely to be 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) hotter than the average temperatures from 1980-1999.[1]-- it reads like the temperature from the year 2090 to the year 2099 will rise "1.1 to 6.4 °C " higher than it did from the year 1980 to the year 1999. I know what's actually being said, you know what's being said, but it's phrased really confusingly and awkwardly, and it totally detracts from the basic IPCC point, which is concerned with temperature projections to the year 2100.

And the SPM-5 chart I referenced clearly refers to "Global Surface Warming" in degrees Celsius in relation to the different emission scenarios. -BC aka Callmebc 14:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll note that I said I wasn't overly attached to my edit. Personally, I like Stephan's simplification. What do y'all think Callmebc, UBeR, and Raymond Arritt? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I only get half of what BC is talking about. Maybe we need to find a common base first. What does "Global Surface Warming" in degrees Celsius in relation to the different emission scenarios" mean? The figure shows different projections, which each colour showing the range of results for one particular emission scenario. And I'm all for reasonable simplification (see my suggestion above), but not to the degree of falsification. Yes, the IPCC report deals with climate projections up to 2100, but the number we cite are not for 2100. --Stephan Schulz 14:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Emission scenarios" are basically a series of probable CO2 emission projections that are based on "what ifs" regarding what we do or don't do in cutting back on them, from business as usual to more extreme measures, as well as the consequences of certain types of industrial and land-use development world wide. As you can gather from the chart pictured here from the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, there are a lot of scenarios. A summary of the major scenarios are here. That Hadley Centre projection I referenced earlier used the midrange scenario "A1B". Simple, no? -BC aka Callmebc 14:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what an emission scenario is, thank you. I don't understand what you mean by "Global Surface Warming in degrees Celsius in relation to the different emission scenarios". The diagram shows the range of outcomes for each scenario independently. The "relation" is that for each of the coloured graphs a different scenario is assumed. Anyways, with William and Ben both happy with a simpler version, we seem to converge on some sort of consensus. --Stephan Schulz 15:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as snide. Go back to that SPM-5 graph again, and look at say, the "A1B" scenario that Hadley used. That's the green line and the Global Warming Temperature is projected to go up by about 2.8 degrees C by the year 2100 relative to that emissions scenario. That's what I meant. -BC aka Callmebc 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. But still, that is an unfortunate turn of words. Temperatures are projected to go up relative to a baseline, and under the assumption of a given emission scenario. Your use of relative is at least confusing. Anyways, do you have an opinion on my last version? --Stephan Schulz 15:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Global temperature is expected to rise a further 1.1-6.4 degrees centigrade in the course of the 21st century"? Hmmm, it's acceptible I guess, but for an encyclopedia audience, I would reword somewhere along the lines of "The global temperature average is projected to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by the year 2100". -BC aka Callmebc 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, that your version is not technically true, as it does not take into account that the year 2100 could be an anomalous year—hence the reason for the average over 2090-2099, which we're simplifying to "in the course of the 21st century". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do believe I wrote "By the year 2100," which does make it technically correct. For nitpicking purposes, I would mildly expand it to "Relative to the 1980-1999 baseline, the global temperature average is projected to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by the year 2100". Better? -BC aka Callmebc 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc, were you calling me a spade? In any regard, you are simply wrong about the projections. As Dr. Schulz pointed out for you, TAR used 1990-2100--but that report has become mostly deprecated. The AR4 and SPM, which is being linked to, clearly used the same wording I did. ~ UBeR 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. See also this. -BC aka Callmebc 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does. It says it in plain writing as well as on top of the table giving the specific ranges. It's helpful if you look at the actual source linked to. ~ UBeR 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I really, really hate the spade label, but what's really odd (in the context of you being called a spade) is that you're actually advocating a slightly stronger warming, as if you look at the median points of the AR4 it's from 1990 to 2095, 5 years sooner than 2100 and hence a slightly faster warming. Not exactly the WP:SPADE that you were accused of. There are legitimate concerns on both sides here, and it's important we all realize that. On one side is the issue of accuracy (UBeR's primary point, I believe), and on the other side is the issue of accessibility to the layperson (BC's primary point, I believe). There is a tension between these two admirable goals, and I think if we work together and assume good faith we can come up with a wording that's good for everyone. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a tip -- things are worse than how they're portrayed in the article, and the upcoming November IPCC update should show that. Any edits that diminish either the clarity of the evidence or the seriousness of the situation also diminish the quality of the article, no if's or but's. -BC aka Callmebc 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So, then, you've changed your mind about the edit you recommended? (Because it does diminish the clarity of the evidence as well as (very slightly) the seriousness of the situation.) Please don't "draw a line in the sand". There's a compromise to be found here if you're willing to help us look for it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm rapidly losing interest in this discussion. Also there is nothing I "changed" my mind about. Uber made an undiscussed, very poorly worded and hence misleading change to the main that I reverted, which caused him to start this discussion. My last suggestion for the wording was, "Relative to the 1980-1999 baseline, the global temperature average is projected to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by the year 2100". To me, that's clearer and more accurately informative than the alternatives I've seen so far. You and the others may feel otherwise, but that's my opinion for what it's worth. I have other things of greater concern so I'm not going to make an issue of this particular point. -BC aka Callmebc 20:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not bad, but I'd probably change it to "Relative to the 1980-1999 baseline, the global temperature average is projected to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by the end of the 21st century" or "Relative to the 1980-1999 baseline, the global temperature average is projected to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by 2090-2099", as those are slightly more accurate. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It was undiscussed because it was wrong. I changed it to reflect how the AR4 and the linked SPM represent their projections. If you don't, you're misrepresenting your source and you're also giving readers false information--both gross misuses of a source. Once you reverted it, I did explain my reasoning on the talk page, so please refrain from calling me a spade in the future. Thank you. ~ UBeR 21:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You did no such thing -- you parsed out some random wording from just one IPCC report, and created a confusing and misleasing edit that did not in any way accurately reflect the main thrust of the report. -BC aka Callmebc 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? It's neither random or "just 1 report." It's neither confusing or misleading. Your statements are becoming more and more preposterous and without regard for factual accuracy. If you are going to attack my edits in such a matter, at least make sure you can support your arguments with facts. ~ UBeR 22:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What "November IPCC update"? November will see release of the AR4 synthesis report, an integrated version of the existing WG reports, not something that covers new ground. Am I missing something? --Stephan Schulz 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've been nitpicking over wording in a February, 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers, so perhaps the November 2007 "Synthesis" report will be worded differently. I don't know what brought on this unproductive nitpicking session, but I'm done with this topic for the time being. -BC aka Callmebc 20:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. You are wrong. The AR4 uses the 2090-2099 (end of the 21st century) period relative to 1980-1999. This is why you see it represented in the AR4 WGI SPM and that's why you'll see it like that in the synthesis report. It's just that simple. ~ UBeR 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer it to say "the temperature rise over the 21st century is likely to be..."; its close enough for the intro and much easier to understand William M. Connolley 15:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer the version I originally wrote, which is that the average temperatures for the end of the 21st century will be 1.1-6.4 C warmer, relative to 1980-1999. However, the edit previous to Dr. Schulz's "simplification" is also good. ~ UBeR 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's poorly worded and hence confusing. -BC aka Callmebc 19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not poorly worded. It's the same wording the source uses (or better even). "Climate models cited by the IPCC project that averaged global surface temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by the end of the century, relative to 1980–1999." Tell me now, what's difficult to understand about this? In fact, I also like the version last used by William M. Connolley's edit: "Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that global surface temperatures averaged over 2090-2099 are likely to be 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) hotter than the average temperatures from 1980-1999." Tell me, what is hard for you to understand there?

We've already gotten past the fact that you're wrong. I didn't take any graph out of context, mostly because there isn't a graph I was referring to. The TAR uses 1990-2100, but the AR4 uses 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999, which is different. We link to the AR4 SPM, not TAR. So now that we know I was right, we have to come up with some good wording. Which of those two choices above do you most prefer? ~ UBeR 21:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I had already posted the core bit of that IPCC report:

PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE CHANGES IN CLIMATE

A major advance of this assessment of climate change projections compared with the TAR is the large number of simulations available from a broader range of models. Taken together with additional information from observations, these provide a quantitative basis for estimating likelihoods for many aspects of future climate change. Model simulations cover a range of possible futures including idealised emission or concentration assumptions. These include 14 SRES illustrative marker scenarios for the 2000–2100 period and model experiments with greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations held constant after year 2000 or 2100.

You're only being difficult. Is it time to call a spade a spade yet? -BC aka Callmebc 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your first mistake is that you're quoting a section about greenhouse concentrations. We're talking about temperature. Try again with quoting from the temperature projection section. You'll find they use the same wording I have been using. Edit: And actually, Dr. Schulz already pointed out to you that you're looking at the wrong sections. (Can you also please watch what you write in your edit summaries.) ~ UBeR 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the simplest possible wording, along the lines of what William and Stephan have suggested. Exact years are not meaningful in this context. Raymond Arritt 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to point out it's relative to a 20 year average (rather than erroneously saying it's going to increase that much from 1990 to 2100). But I refrained from using 2090-2099 numbers and instead used "end of the century," which is consistent with the SPM (sort of like saying "very likely" rather than "90%"). ~ UBeR 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. "End of the century" gets the point across effectively to the average reader. Raymond Arritt 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this fruitful and bountiful discussion with yet one more reiteration of my last and, I do believe, somewhat more true to the IPCC suggestion: "Relative to the 1980-1999 baseline, the global temperature average is projected to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by the year 2100". But I also do believe that this issue might be revisited after the upcoming November "Sythesis" report comes out. We wouldn't want to use misleading wording in lieu of the most current statements, would we? -BC aka Callmebc 22:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've already explained, the synthesis will use the same projections that are used in the report they're synthesizing. ~ UBeR 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you are referring to "wording," not projections, because the IPCC actually "projects" stuff like this. Hmmm....I just noticed that this graph, from the last "Synthesis" report in 2001, kind of looks like, um, what's that thing Canadians play with...oh, a hockey stick -- anybody else ever notice that? Maybe that will change with the next version -- ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Make that "3.2 to 7.1 degrees by the end of the century"

See this, this, and this for starters. Isn't it well past the time we stop allowing politics to mess with the main article, as well as provoke time wasting and torturous "debates" on the Talk page, and let the science dictate what gets put where and emphasized how, and with truly proper weight? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to put this more politely. Please try to read for comprehension, not for soundbites. Please also try to be reasonably precise - if I nitpick, it's because a certain degree of precision is necessary in science. The 3.2 to 7.1 degrees you cite is the (well, one) currently predicted range, according to your sources, not a new, higher prediction. Or, in other words, the upper limit is the 6.4 degree upper limit predicted plus the 0.7 degrees we already have, both plus or minus a few rounded decimals. All three articles are based on a single PNAS paper (or, I would bet, on the AP wire message and the press kit here). The result is certainly cause for concern, but so is your readiness to cite USA Today as a source on a scientific topic. Our aim here is to give the best possible description of the state of knowledge on global warming. It is not to convince "Joe and Jane Public" to vote green or reduce emissions, except in so far as a better understanding of the issue may naturally lead to corrective action. Most of us do not need extra motivation write the best possible article - we have been doing it for years. --Stephan Schulz 14:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

More broadly, using the popular press as a source for scientific information is fraught with peril. Raymond Arritt 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The numbers were in a quote by Josep Canadell, executive director of the Global Carbon Project, and he also said that "we're well on the way to the higher temperature increase if the emissions keep going up at this rate." And my third link included separate comments from members of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), including this one by Corinne Le Quéré in regards to the IPCC's current predictions: "There’s quite a significant difference from what was forecast," she said. "It’s rather scary and the IPCC scenarios are, therefore, rather too optimistic — as if they weren’t bleak enough already. The whole thing is likely to mean mitigation is rather more difficult than was thought." I do believe there is little wrong with my "comprehension".... -BC aka Callmebc 16:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, working for BAS does not confer infallibility. CLQ is *wrong*. Current GHG inc is *lower* that the SRES rates, not higher William M. Connolley 16:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading the CLQ quote and context, I should really say that its impossible to tell what she is talking about there. But my comment re SRES remains. The BAS press release doesn't clarify the situation William M. Connolley 16:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It helps to read the full quote: Canadell says that while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts "we will have temperature increases of 3.2 to 7.1 degrees' by the end of the century, … we're well on the way to the higher temperature increase if the emissions keep going up at this rate.". In other words, Canadell is speaking about the current IPCC projection. And the highlighted "the" refers to the higher end of that interval - notice the use of a definitive article. As William point out, the increase is worse than the middle-of-the-road estimate, but actually still below the worst case SRES scenario. --Stephan Schulz 16:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

An outstanding argument about why "time wasting and torturous 'debates' on the Talk page" can be very, very useful. BC, you do realize that the vast majority of us here (e.g., RA, SS, WMC, and myself) have more or less the same POV as you. Any disagreement with you is because we genuinely see the facts differently than you do. As I hope you respect our intelligence, you should ask yourself why so many people who have no ulterior motive to disagree with you are disagreeing with you. Sure, consider the possibility that we're wrong and you're right, but also consider the possibility that you're wrong and we're right. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just say that past experiences with Wikipedia have made me a little quick on the draw when I detect certain types of edits. I will say though, thankfully, most of the people here seem legit (if a trival conservative in my opinion) and I should try not to be so abrasive. The bottom line, though, is that the predicted warming trends keep going up, "Solar Variation" has squat to do with it, and there is still a massive disinformation campaign still going on -- so what would be the best course of action for those who might be considered "Guardians of NPOV, Accuracy, and Verifibility"? -BC aka Callmebc 16:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to quote from scientific papers rather than press releases about them. This is about a thing in PNAS not even published yet - I think it will be tomorrow William M. Connolley 16:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would consider the best course of action to be:

1. Make sure Wikipedia's articles are as accurate and unbiased as possible. Any perceived bias (even if it's "good" bias) is more likely to do harm than good.
2. Don't depend on Wikipedia to be the solution to that particular problem. Drive less (if at all), use less electricity, contact your representatives, vote in all elections—especially the primaries, etc.

Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, its worth noting that the "alarming rate" the usatoday talks about would indeed be alarming if the rate of increase were to continue. But at the moment, even the latest values are significantly less than 1%/y, which is the SRES a1b rates William M. Connolley 15:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm replacing a collaborative scientific report for some news articles--luckily I'm not the only one who quarrels with that idea. ~ UBeR 19:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainty in modeling

As I see this possibly becoming an edit war, I'd like to head this off. Iceage77 was concerned by this: "Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will rise a further", because the use of the word will "implies certainty". Of course, there is no certainty, but the question is do the "projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that ... temperature will rise..."? I would argue that they do, although hopefully everyone realizes that any projection is subject to uncertainty. (The edit to "will likely" is fine as well.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. We are giving a lot of prominence here to educated guesswork. The GCMs are just a set of equations which do not replicate all climate processes. I understand that although they do now include clouds, their role is not properly understood. Recent research by Christy and Spencer indicates an important source of negative feedback. Iceage77 18:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The words "projections" and "indicate" make it clear that we're allowing uncertainty -- not to mention the fact that a range of temperatures is given! I don't see how anyone reasonable could mistake this for certainty. (Oh, and by the way, the statement that GCMs "now include clouds" is a bit misleading, since GCMs have included clouds for over three decades.) Raymond Arritt 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a range is given doesn't mean that the temp will certainly fall within that range, does it? Compared to the empirical evidence ie. 0.6C/100ppm over 20thC, it looks distinctly alarmist. Iceage77 18:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Past performance is no indication of the future. It's arguably alarming, but I have problems with calling it alarmist. As for your main point, the model itself allows for the possibility that it will be outside that range (hence, "will likely" is possibly a better wording), and, although the models could theoretically be wrong, we're talking about what the models indicate and this is what they indicate. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Will likely" used by Dr. Schulz works well, especially because it's the same wording used in the source (wherein likely signifies >66% likelihood). However, I think the sentence should still be signifying the temperature range is relative to the 1980-1999 period. ~ UBeR 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving and/or depreciating the "Solar Variation" subsection

I think it's well, well past the time for "Solar Variation" to be moved from "Causes". Aside from the RFC, the section itself is actually already pretty confusing and self-contradictory, starting with it ref'ing two variations of Henrik Svensmark's "Cosmic Ray" cloud seeding theory [27] and [28]. For one, it's not really a solar related, since Svenmark is referring to "galactic" cosmic rays (aka "GCR") coming from outside the solar system that would do his hypothetical (very much so) cloud seeding. The only solar connection with his hypothesis is that the amount of GCR reaching the Earth might be modified by interference by the "solar wind". That leaves the paper by Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West of Duke [29] as the only semi-serious, at least, scientific paper promoting solar activity as a possible significant factor in global warming. However, the paper is based on a previous 2003 study by a group headed by Richard Willson, who thought that problems with satellite measurements may have underestimated the amount of solar radiance [30]. It's turned out, though, that Willson, and hence Scafetta and West, was mistaken: [31] [32]. Additionally, stuck incongruously in between the Svensmark stuff is this: Cooling in the lower stratosphere has been observed since at least 1960,[29] which would not be expected if solar activity were the main contributor to recent warming. Not exactly a good flow of thought in any case.

The last paragraph in the section really just debunks the whole idea. Given all this, is there really a single good reason to keep "solar variation" included under "Causes"? -BC aka Callmebc 14:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to a NASA report the solidly links climate to solar activity would help. Q Science 15:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, that has zilch to do with the current global warming. There's been little doubt that solar cycles in the past have influenced climate [33], but so did asteroid crashes and volcanic activity. The topic of Global Warming in the current context is in regards to what's the deal with the current "cycle". Just because your car a few years ago stalled out after hitting a deep puddle doesn't quite explain why it did it this morning at a red light on dry land, with your fuel gauge needle dropped below the "E" mark. -BC aka Callmebc 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We've already discussed this (there and elsewhere). Really, no one agrees with you. ~ UBeR 18:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya think?

Should the global warming article state there are alternative hypotheses not widely held to be the cause of global warming in lieu of supportive and reliable references?

Yes: UBer, Blue Tie, Hal peridol, Zoomwsu (see below)

No: Jason Patton, Skyemoor

Absolutely not: Callmebc, 199.125.109.134

Move to another section: MarkAnthonyBoyle, Elhector (I think...)

Unclear Answers: 88.110.106.250, DMHCHICAGO

It would appear that the Nay's outweigh the Yay's. Care to dispute? -BC aka Callmebc 18:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a start I don't understand the question so I don't know whether to dispute it or not. Raymond Arritt 18:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion of the alternative hypotheses, they are in the common dialog about the issue so much that it would be helpful to readers to see. I have trouble with the "supportive and reliable references" phrase, but if taken to mean not the mainstream literature, but still scientific theories, then I vote yes. Zoomwsu 05:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That was UBeR's wording. Basically, should something like "solar variation" be listed in the main article as an "alternative hypothesis" if there is no current scientific support for it? -BC aka Callmebc 19:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a relevant avenue of research on which competent people have worked, so I'd say yes. Showing the range of processes that have been explored helps the reader understand how we reached the present consensus, just as mentioning the Ptolemaic system is appropriate background when discussing the development of modern astronomy. Raymond Arritt 19:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

But represented as a current Cause or in a historical context? I personally wouldn't mind putting it somewhere else as Background/Historical stuff. -BC aka Callmebc 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing "historical" about solar forcing.[34] Iceage77 22:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just more of Svensmark's nonsense -- already dismissed above with this. -BC aka Callmebc 23:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That's from 2004. The paper I referenced was from 2007. Do try and keep up. Iceage77 23:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't reference a "paper", you referenced a non-peer reviewed essay. Raymond Arritt 00:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidence regarding solar sunspot variance and precipitation goes back thousands of years.

This information appears to support GCR's role in cloud formation.

For recent changes in solar activity see: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6591.html

For a presentation of tree ring data see: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041025/sunspot.html

For a description in how this data varies see: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1941JRASC..35..376M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.13.68 (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

None of those articles make any case for a link between cloud formation and cosmic rays. The first two describe changes in solar activity and even state in them that these changes have little or nothing to do with the current warming. Jason Patton 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since we last discussed this William M. Connolley 09:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And it's getting away from the point of this section, and can we use the RFC results to justify moving or depreciating "Solar Variation" as a currently held "Cause" of global warming? -BC aka Callmebc 16:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. ~ UBeR 18:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps expand on your reasoning for that comment? It looks to me that the RFC indicates that it should be moved someplace else at the least. It's not a scientifically viable current "alternative theory" in any case, so....? -BC aka Callmebc 23:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Because we've already come to the settled conclusion that the solar variation section shall stay in the article as it is. ~ UBeR 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"We've"? Who is the "we" here? As I indicated above, the majority of the RFC comments seem to indicate it gets moved at the least from its current position in the article, so who is this "we" dost thou speak of? -BC aka Callmebc 22:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We is we the people who contribute to the article and the people who responded to the request for comments. We have come to a settled consensus. You disagree with it. That's your own problem.

If you don't believe me, we can do a simple head count from this thread, the RFC, and the thread pror to the RFC:

For: UBeR, Hal peridol, Elhector, johnpseudo, Enuja, Batvette, MarkAnthonyBoyle, Q Science, Zoomwsu, Raymond Arritt, Iceage77 (assumption), William M. Connolley, Brusegadi, Stephan Schulz, Kim D. Petersen, Blue Tie.

Against: Callmebc, 199.125.109.134, Skyemoor

Put simply, the numbers are not on your side. ~ UBeR 23:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....your math looks a little funny, cuz I have, from the RFC:

Yes: UBer, Blue Tie, Hal peridol, Zoomwsu, Enuja (Keep but discredit?), Batvette (agrees w/Enuja)

No: Jason Patton, Skyemoor, 199.125.109.41

Absolutely not: Callmebc, 199.125.109.134

Move to another section: MarkAnthonyBoyle, johnpseudo (compares to Flat Earth), Elhector (I think...)

Unclear Answers: 88.110.106.250, DMHCHICAGO

More simply put, your math seems a little faulty. Also, should we count a probable sockpuppet like Zoomwsu? -BC aka Callmebc 23:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Now wait just a minute! Who are you calling a sockpuppet? Zoomwsu 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

One, Jason Patton wasn't against inclusion of alternative theories, and actually supported the inclusion given historical context. Two, you counted the same anon twice. Three, this is not the place to bring sockpuppet accusations. ~ UBeR 00:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Patton wrote "Inclusion of alt. theories, even if for historical means, may bring more even more controversy to the article if these issues are not thoroughly addressed." And "99.125.109.41" is not the same as "199.125.109.134" (neighbors or same company, but....) I do admit, though, this is not the best time to discuss possible sockpuppets.

Might I ask you a question? Why do you personally want to keep Solar Variation listed prominently as a Global Warming "Cause" in an encyclopedia supposedly striving for excellence if it has essentially no credible current scientific support? -BC aka Callmebc 00:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, including it recognizes that many people believe it is a cause, and thus warrants coverage in a comprehensive article. Zoomwsu 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jason Patton wrote, "I would be supportive of adding the proposed information if ..." going on to list certain criteria would like to see met for inclusion. He concluded, writing, "Inclusion ... even if for historical means, may bring more even more controversy to the article if these" criteria are not met. The two anons are obviously the same people (see dynamic IP). Reasons for inclusion of the theory have already been discussed (many times), most notably here. ~ UBeR 00:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just ask Jason Patton directly what he meant, shall we? And if I can't discuss sockpuppets, you can't glibly assume two closely related IP addresses are the same. And as far as that "inclusion of the theory" bit involving Solar Variation goes, that discussion you linked to started with whether Keeling work was when direct measurements of CO2 levels started, and then Solar Variation came up. But the ensuing discussion showed that the only semi-notable solar-related hypothesis of recent decades all involved Svensmark's work, which is now pretty much entirely discredited. Which brings us back to why include Solar Variation in its own highly misleading position under Causes when there is no current scientific support for it? All the attempts so far to justify it have involved irrelevant links or just rehashes of Svensmark's work. It is not a current scientific "theory" regarding what we are calling Global Warming. And I note that you didn't answer my question -- why not? If you personally believe that Solar Variation is a viable current "theory," I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to hear your own rationale or reasoning for that. -BC aka Callmebc 02:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The RFC was Should the global warming article state there are alternative hypotheses not widely held to be the cause of global warming in lieu of supportive and reliable references? If I had to say directly yes or no, I would say no. How does one tell if an alternative theory is significant enough to mention? How much space should be devoted to each alt. theory? That's my main argument against adding these hypotheses.

The article currently mentions how solar variations may have affected global temperatures pre and post 1950, which is good. The article also briefly mentions the cosmic ray theory, which I personally don't believe is a theory with enough research and/or expert backing to put in the main article yet. The article then goes on to say that the sun's contribution might be more than the IPCC estimated, but that these statements are based off a very small amount of research, and that these research articles still conclude that the enhanced greenhouse effect is the primary contributor to recent warming. I don't see the importance of including in the main article all of the fuss over the possibility that the sun's contribution is underestimated since it is based off a small amount of research and doesn't deviate terribly from the consensus view of the cause of the current trend. It's unnecessary information for someone that just wants to get some background on the topic of global warming, and better left for Solar variation. It would be better to say (with better wording) that there have been other theories proposed and research, but none have shown to be of much importance so far, see Solar Variation and Global Warming. That way you convey the fact that other theories exist and point those interested in the right direction without unnecessarily going through each alternative theory. Jason Patton 06:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"How does one tell if an alternative theory is significant enough to mention?" From the amount of discussion in the scientific research. (See WP:WEIGHT.) Obviously, the solar variation theory is by far the largest alternative theory.

Well, I really thought the RFC was more about adding more alternative theories to the article. Maybe that clears up my response to it. I definitely agree that solar variation is the largest alt. theory, and it deserves some mention per WP:WEIGHT in the article along with the note and reference that it's unlikely to be a significant cause. But I think a discussion of three papers on the topic in the main article is unnecessary and disruptive. That's a lot of detail for what really should just be a summary of Solar variation#Global warming. Jason Patton 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The central issue is that "Solar Radiation" is no longer considered even a possibly significant factor in the current round of global warming. In terms of ancient climatic variations, probably, but in the face of this stuff, no. Currently Solar Variation is positioned in a prominent place in the article under "Causes," which is highly, highly misleading at best:

2 Causes

2.1 Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

2.2 Feedbacks

2.3 Solar variation

Leaving it there in the face of current science is a gross disservice to anyone coming to the Wikipedia trying to sort out all the conflicting info, most of it politically based, regarding the topic of Global Warming. I think. You think? -BC aka Callmebc 12:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between recognizing a (slightly) dynamic IP and accusing someone of sockpuppetry. And note that someone actually has to have a registered account, per WP:SOCK, to be a sockpuppet in the first place. Bottom line, no one really agrees with you, because, simply, it's your word against the qualified researchers (Bard and Frank, e.g.). ~ UBeR 08:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My "word" against "qualified researchers," you say? Isn't it really slightly more the case of the words, plural, of truly genuine research like this and this, along with the words, again plural, by the likes of these guys against those emanating from politically based disinformation campaigns? Yes? No? Maybe? -BC aka Callmebc 12:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's more like your word that no more scientists believe in the solar variation theory against the scientists who say otherwise in published works. ~ UBeR 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And what "scientists who say otherwise in published works" would these be, now? Habibullo Abdussamatov? Henrik Svensmark? Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West, who based their work on a 2003 study headed by Richard Willson, but which turned out to be mistaken [35][36]? Also, you've been dodging answering my question: why do you personally want to keep Solar Variation listed prominently as a Global Warming "Cause" in an encyclopedia supposedly striving for excellence if it has essentially no credible current scientific support? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 23:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One example would be Bard & Frank, who are referenced. William M. Connolley and I have already explained this to you in the past. You don't seem to retain it very well though. Bottom line, the scientific research discusses the solar variation and other natural forces and their role on current climate. We therefore have the same obligation. You seem to think no one holds the theory to be true (or varying degrees to its role in climate) or that it's not discussed, which is simply not the case. No one is going to take your word over a published researcher's. I suggest you drop the case because, as I pointed out above, no reasonable person here agrees with you. ~ UBeR 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"One example would be Bard & Frank"? You mean the guys who wrote "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.)" and "So far, the analysis of Willson is based solely on a comparison of the two minima of 1986 and 1997. We should also note that the various available databases are rather fragmentary and that they need to be homogenized and corrected for several biases, some of which are related to the deterioration of the sensors in space. Currently, there are essentially two reconstructions: one suggests an annual increase of 0.005% in irradiance since the mid 1980s [17], while another study indicates that there has been no long-term trend[18]. We will have to wait a few more years for the next minimum to be fully documented before being able to decide between these two interpretations."? Those guys? They don't sound very supportive of the sun being a factor in the current round of global warming, do they? But let us return to my question that you've been overtly dodging, shall we -- why do you personally want to keep Solar Variation listed prominently as a Global Warming "Cause" in an encyclopedia supposedly striving for excellence if it has essentially no credible current scientific support? Again, well? -BC aka Callmebc 12:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't help to feel that you are close to a WP:NPA violation. Comment on contributions, not contributors - your repeated request for a "personal reason" is neither constructive nor warranted. As for your question: We have solar variation in the article because it is a notable theory, and because several serious papers discuss its role in global warming - including the IPCC. See e.g. Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png for a source (Meehl et al. (2004)), that finds a forcing corresponding to a 0.2 degree temperature increase due to solar variations since 1900. And this is entirely compatible with Figure SPM.2 on page 4 of the AR4 SPM, which has an interval from 0.06 to 0.3, with a "best guess" of 0.12 degrees. We also mention the more extreme views for the same reason we have an article on Creationism or Holocaust denial: Not to propose the view, but to describe (and even refute) it. --Stephan Schulz 12:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bard and Frank has already been explained to you here. ~ UBeR 21:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, again correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't UBeR's edit history in regards to the Global Warming wiki kinda, sorta have, shall we say, a certain political slant to it? I may get abrasive at times, but do I or do I not go to extremes to back up every single contention of mine with what are considered rather reliable and relevant sources? And when I disagree with someone, do I also not likewise also go to extremes in presenting and detailing refuting evidence? I do try to play by the rules, even when I get confronted by an army of sockpuppets, meatpuppets and anonymous IP's, as has been the case in other "politically sensitive" wikis. I've been doing some "poking around" at some curious stuff, and there seems to be some systematic POV gaming of politically touchy articles all through the Wikipedia. We all have our POV's based on both knowledge and personal philosophy, and I personally have been pretty up front about how I think the current article is too conservative and that it gives way too much weight to stuff like "Solar Variation," and I think it's fair to say that every new bit of research tends to support that view, no? But it is still nevertheless a view that can be disagreed with on merit to some extent, and I've been mostly content with hashing all this out on the Talk page -- I really haven't been touching the main page a whole lot, except maybe to revert a questionable, undiscussed edit or two. This has not exactly been the case with some other editors. Given the, um, heated politics surrounding the topic of Global Warming and the Wikipedia article's prominence in Google searches, I think that it's not entirely unfair to ask certain editors if they are truly here to help improve the article. That's what I was trying to get at. If this is wrong, fine, I'll stop. But if we are really intent on making the article as best and as informative as it can be, I think that the existence of opposing if not outrightly obstructive political "pressure" needs to be factored in and dealt with in some fashion. But that is again my POV.... -BC aka Callmebc 14:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No. They don't at all. Your comments are completely without merit. If you want to accuse me of anything, accuse me of following Wikipedia policies. But if you want to continue your baseless attacks, you should know by now where to do that. That said, I ask you to retract your statements, or it will be me who is requesting the comments. ~ UBeR 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, you would really save a lot of trouble if you would just answer that little question of mine. I would think that if you truly believed in your edits, you would have no trouble clearly stating you think you are genuinely helping to make the article better by your intractible insistence in keeping Solar Variation as a notable cause in the face of ever increasing contradictory scientific evidence, obstructing much if any mention of the much more scientifically notable Polar/Arctic ice decay, and doing things like defending "friendsofscience.org" and chronically ignoring my detailed refutes, and so on. But....Stephan Schultz thinks my insistence on it might constitute a violation of WP:NPA. And what "statements" should I be retracting, by the way? -BC aka Callmebc 22:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I and others have already explained ourselves to you elsewhere. I do not feel obliged to keep repeating things for you if you're not listening the first time around. Also, claims like I defend friendsofscience.org or that I chronically ignore your your detailed refutes are just tosh, and I suggest you stop making such ridiculous personal attacks, as Dr. Schulz duly warned. ~ UBeR 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The sun is an important factor which should not be relegated to the side. The article does a good job at stating what is the current mainstream belief (ghgs). I really feel no need to make a coffin and place the solar variation stuff in it under history. Also, I feel that there has been much discussion in very little time. I see things getting hostile. I would like to suggest to let some of this stuff sink in for a while. I just dont want to see people losing their civility towards one another. This may also give less active editors a chance to state their views and maybe contribute a fresh perspective. With arguments like this, sometimes the best thing to do is to wait a few hours and come back fresh. Brusegadi 03:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Whew, what a heated debate. It should be obvious that solar variation has an effect on climate change, and this obviousness is reflected in scientific literature. The literature also seems to demonstrate that it is still unclear the degree to which solar variations affect global temperature. I'm therefore quite baffled to see someone try to remove references to solar variation in the "causes" section. I strongly support mention of the solar hypothesis in the main article, because I think it contributes to the comprehensiveness and balance of the article. Look, Wikipedia is not a position paper, and it's important that we discuss topics in an encyclopedic manner. Solar variation is obviously important and is probably the strongest competing theory to AGW out there. On another note, I think I read somewhere on here that Svensmark's theories have been "discredited" or something like that. Can someone provide a few references to support this? I thought Svensmark is still publishing and active in GW research...Zoomwsu 23:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AGW

AGW redirects to global warming where it doesn't appear at all. If it means "anthropogenic global warming", this abbreviation should be mentioned in global warming#Terminology. --89.60.168.106 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Added. Thanks for the suggestion. Raymond Arritt 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I've had to explain my use of "AGW" in other arenas of discussion. Look what you guys are doing to me :-p Zoomwsu 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

King's College Bibliography

Hi, I am writing to discuss the issue of adding a link of our Global warming collection to wikipedia. Firstly, I apologise for the seeming stubborness but it is nothing like that, I didn't know someone was editing that quick, I thought my changes weren't saved, hence the repeated additions. But in all honesty, this link is to let people worldwide know of our comprehensive global warming collection that is free for anyone to read. King's college library is free and not for profit. Besides, there is no exhaustive literature search that includes and categorizes all the books about global warming such as our collection, which is still work in progress and growing. So we would greatly appreciate if you would re-post our link to the Global Warming page, with many thanks, Kings College Library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrium (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. Global warming and related articles are some of the most closely watched on all of Wikipedia. I'm going to move this discussion to Talk:Global warming#King's College Bibliography to generate further discussion. To my mind, the two questions are (i) should there be a traditional bibliography link and (ii) is this one in particular the best available. I am more or less ambivalent towards the first, however the second one is key. The list seems to be a hodge-podge of popular and academic books, tangentially related texts, and is entirely focused on books. I tend to think that without annotations or better organization, the list adds very little. --TeaDrinker 17:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the link in question Q Science 18:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A comprehensive Global Warming Bibliography at King's College Library, Cambridge

That's fine. But as I mentioned earlier this is still work in progress and will undergo re-structuring depending on people's feedback. One idea is to let experts rate each book, hence books will show in order of importance. Books are the first step, then comes manuscripts and papers. As far as we are aware of there is no comprehensive agreement on the literature review of global warming and we are trying to initiate a scientifically based agreement of what is relevant and what is not. But to do that we need to get feedback from people of what is good and what is not. That is why we need our link in wikipedia as well as wikipedians feedback. I would hence be grateful, again, if our link be re-added to wikipedia's global warming page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrium (talk • contribs) 18:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

An annotated bibliography or similar resource could be helpful. But at the moment, the link is simply a list of books that can be checked out from the King's College library. Your project to create a comprehensive literature review sounds interesting, and you might consider offering the link again when the project has progressed further. Raymond Arritt 18:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point. To progress further we need the link in order to get experts help on deciding what is important. And experts are not all necessarily in Cambridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrium (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not an advertising board, regardless of how worthy the goal. --Stephan Schulz 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We do have a "Further reading" section, you know. ~ UBeR 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How could anyone brand our website as advertising. I don't know what is hard to grasp here, this is a platform for the establishment of a comprehensive collection of scientific global warming material, which -as far as I am aware of- does not yet exist. The community needs this bibliography, and everyone's help is more than appreciated. Cedrium 22:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How could anyone brand our website as advertising. Nobody has. Please read again. --Stephan Schulz 22:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I think you mean well, but have a fundamental misunderstanding about the goals of Wikipedia. Helping people develop new knowledge or resources is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia. To the contrary, there are strong proscriptions against synthesis and original research. I'd recommend setting up a web site at Cambridge where people could give suggestions and perhaps collaboratively work on the bibliography. Then, after it has developed into a noteworthy resource, it could be considered here. Raymond Arritt 22:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ on that. Our website fits the goals of wikipedia well. Our book collection is not intended to develop new knowledge but rather present the full scientific literature of GW so as to enhance our understanding of GW. I think the problem here is you definition of "noteworthy resource". I think our website is noteworthy because it is unique, innovative, objective, and inclusive. The outlook might need a facelift but that's just cosmetics; the bulk is there.Cedrium 23:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrium (talk • contribs) 23:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I think if wikipedia gives input into your website then we are violating the spirit of WP:OR. I agree with Raymond Arritt when he says that once you have a finished product, then it might be added. Brusegadi 01:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We are not asking wikipedia's input in anything, although you are more than welcome to help, if you so wish. All that we would like to see wikipedia do is just re-instate our link; very simple and the sooner the better. That's the biggest help we and the community at large can get. Cedrium 02:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that if wikipedia editors end up doing the bulk of the work at your site, then it would very much be like OR. Maybe I am being too picky. Anyways, read WP:EL. Links are included to help the articles. Your rationale goes against our guidelines. Sorry. Brusegadi 03:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this link should be included. There's nothing notable at the site. If the bibliography content could be accessed online, you might have a case. Zoomwsu 02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

educ link

i added a very good educational resource that i have found very useful in my classesEnergyadonis 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. But to be honest, I do not find that link to be terribly useful or educational. First of all, it's only about one project, which has a narrow scope. And second, it comes from a tertiary source. I won't remove it, but perhaps someone else will. ~ UBeR 18:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Northeastern U.S. states

I made this small change [37] because the section is referring to measures in the 3 countries but this is a US measure. While Australia may not have 8 Northeastern states and Kazahkstan doesn't have any states, I think it's still wise to make it clear we're referring to the US here. 09:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Making sure

Obedium seems to dislike this passage's lack of refs:

"Increasing global temperatures will cause sea level to rise, and is expected to increase the intensity of extreme weather events and to change the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors."

The editor removed it and I re-added it because I recall that we agreed the refs should be in the core of the article and not on the intro. I even have a diff where Uber removes refs added by Dr. Arrit and myself. I am ok with Uber's logic, but I wanted to make sure that everyone was ok with having the refs later on. Is that ok Obedium? Thanks, Brusegadi 05:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro should only refs in it if the specific information is not explained further down in the article. We already explain al these effects in the effects section. Further, the effects section is a summary of the effects article, so the main article is the place where the refs should be, and that's where they are. ~ UBeR 17:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the refs the first time something is brought up and see no harm in putting little footnotes in the intro. That said, this isn't high on my priority list. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there shouldn't be refs in the intro if the same information is in the body. There especially should not be redundant references stacked up on each other to make a point. The lead is just supposed to be a summary or overview of the body. WP:LEAD says it should be handled on a case-by-case basis for complex or contentious material, except for quotes and contentious biographies, which are always referenced. ~ UBeR 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the recent reply of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen to Lockwood and Fröhlich be referred to?

After a paper by Lockwood and Fröhlich which appeared this year in Proc. R. Soc. A, the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al. has been proclaimed dead. Recently I discovered a reply by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen on the Danish National Space Center web pages which presents a new analysis including data up to the year 2006 and which rebuts the arguments of Lockwood and Fröhlich comprehensively. Since Lockwood and Fröhlich are presented in the WP article as main argument against any solar link, I thought it appropriate to include a link to the (as yet unpublished) reply of Lockwood and Fröhlich and a description of its content. It immediately got censored with the following reason given:

From my Talk Page:

I deleted your Svensmark add -- his Galactic Cosmic Ray theory hypothesis for global warming is really just fringe stuff now and not considered a serious alternative explanation anymore, and you were comparing a unpublished paper to a peer-reviewed analysis. Plus he already has way too many refs already on the Global Warming article, and there has been a debate on the Talk page about moving/removing those. -BC aka Callmebc 23:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have undone your merciless deletion. If you read the reply of Svensmark & Friis-Christensen you will find that the Lockwood&Fröhlich article - which generally is quoted as a definite dismissal of Svensmark's Cosmic Ray theory as far as the last 20 years are concerned (it is not so much disputed for previous times) - is seriously rebutted. By looking at just one data set, Lockwood&Fröhlich conclude that there is no link between solar activity and climate. Since there is however a significant correlation in tropospheric temperature data, this link cannot be dismissed so easily. By the way, on top of the cosmic ray correlation there is a linear trend of global warming that could be either anthropogenic or a positive feedback effect, as Svensmark & Friis-Christensen explain. So this is certainly not fringe stuff - it is about real data, and about the care that is required to analyse and interpret them.

Note also that this as yet unpublished reply is a reply to a paper which has appeared only in October 2007. So it hardly could be published yet. (And the Lockwood&Fröhlich paper was certainly quoted before it was published!) Replies to published papers are part of the peer-reviewed publication process and we shall have to wait and see whether and when it gets published. However, since this reply is not just an expression of some outsider's opinion but about an analysis of relevant data by recognised scientists, I think an up-to-date source of information, which I want Wikipedia to be, would benefit from having this link to this rather relevant information - even if it might appear inconvenient to some.

And no, I'm not having vested interests here. I'm a scientist who is working in a completely different field, and I'm trying to keep an open mind about the global warming debate. N.Nahber 11:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure you're a "scientist". Svensmark's hypothesis may have had some merit for consideration 10 years ago, but now it's basically not only just fringe science, but outright crackpotty nonsense in the face of all the collected evidence and research since. And it's not just Lockwood & Fröhlich -- this paper clearly shows that there has been a lot of bogus curve-fitting going with claims of solar variation being a factor. I'm therefore going to again delete your add. If you again have an issue with that, present your case to the Global Warming Talk page instead of putting it in your edit summaries. If you are a real scientist, you should welcome a little "peer review," no? -BC aka Callmebc 15:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, someone else has already beaten me to removing it. -BC aka Callmebc 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Although it's not of importance, I happen to have some 80+ peer-reviewed publications in physics. I also don't doubt there has been a lot of bogus curve-fitting, but to characterise the recent preprint by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen as outright crackpotty nonsense proves that you are too involved emotionally for meaningful discussions. So I take up the suggestions to move to the Global Warming Talk page. N.Nahber 18:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

N.Nahber 18:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole Solar variation business is not just a discussion between "Lockwood & Fröhlich vs. Svensmark & Friis-Christensen". We either give a short summary of the scientific consensus on this matter, or we should discuss the issues in detail. It is a bit like saying that the Bullet Cluster proves that dark matter exists and then some preprint appears by the MOND people disputing this. Even if the MOND fans have some valid points, the Bullet Cluster is not the only evidence for dark matter... Count Iblis 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

We also need to consider parity of sources. Lockwood & Fröhlich is published in highly regarded a peer-reviewed venue (Proceedings of the Royal Society). The rebuttal is a self-published essay on their own web site. If S&F-C get their material published in the literature (and I would guess they likely have submitted it somewhere), we can include a reference to it here. Raymond Arritt 19:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPS says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." That criteria would be met, I guess. Given the significance that is usually attributed to Lockwood and Fröhlich, I think that a reference to their recent reply and their new data analysis would be of general interest. By the way, a paper with the title "Reply to ..." is usually submitted to the journal where the paper in question has appeared, so I'd have no doubt that it has been submitted to PRSA. N.Nahber 19:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that there might have been an undertone in the notes above that it was submitted but not accepted... Anyways, there is still a weight issue since much of the literature is at odds with this ONE result. I am just saying that the publication issue is not the only issue. Brusegadi 20:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they are at odds with much of the literature. They stick to well documented data, they don't question that there is global warming, they leave 0.14 K/decade unaccounted for (but point out that it could be just positive feedback from water vapor), but they do see a significant correlation with cosmic ray data by looking at tropospheric instead of surface air temperatures. So they are just at odds with Lockwood and Fröhlich who by using surface air temperature data have jumped to the conclusion that there cannot be any link and who got a lot of attention for that. So I believe it would be appropriate to add some qualifier to the reference to L&F at the very end of the solar section informing the reader that their sweeping conclusion is not undisputed. N.Nahber 20:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why S+F-C have any kind of "right of reply"; if they can get their stuff into a published journal then it can be considered for inclusion, otherwise no. This section is already about as long as it should be and is a fair reflection of the balance of opinion and papers William M. Connolley 21:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If S&F can get their paper through peer review, then it will have some weight. The WP:SPS exception you quote is ok for non-contentious material. If Knuth writes about Quicksort, fine. But this material is currently under dispute. As long as it is not properly pulished, it should not be accepted here. Evaluating the correctness and WP:WEIGHT of an unrefereed contentious paper is WP:OR. --Stephan Schulz 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point at least as far as the "Global warming" page is concerned, given that you do not want to make the section on solar activity any longer. However, you (Stephan Schulz) have removed an analogous contribution of mine to the "Global warming controversy" page. There the L&F article is not just briefly referred to but quoted literally to emphasize that the issue of solar activity is closed by now. With the reply of S+F-C this is certainly no longer the case, even if it will take some time that it gets through the peer-review process. The L&F paper was criticized for various reasons before, but the S+F-C reply does add a new analysis which is in fact consistent with L&F as far the latter goes (surface air temperature). Unless there is really an ongoing discussion that the new S+F-C analysis of tropospheric temperature was flawed, I think WP:SPS would permit its mention, and WP:WEIGHT seems to me to make it even indispensable to do so, at least in the Controversy page. N.Nahber 15:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with N.Nahber that (a) it's not appropriate here, but (b) (in appropriate context) it is appropriate on the Global warming controversy page. ("Appropriate context" being that a very brief mention that the reply has not yet been peer-reviewed, and/or that the reply being used to indicate chiefly that they disagree with the assessment of their work, which this is clearly a reliable indication of.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from this diff from before and after its deletion, my addition explicitly mentioned the fact that this reply has not been published in a peer-review journal so far. N.Nahber 15:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably advocate shortening it a bit, and altering the wording to make it slightly more neutral (an admittedly tricky task). We can discuss it over on that article in more detail if you like. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. As concerns the Solar Variation section in the Global Warming article, I would propose to augment the concluding sentence "A 2007 paper by Lockwood and Fröhlich found no relation between global warming and solar radiation since 1985, whether through variations in solar output or variations in cosmic rays.[35]" by something like: "but in particular the latter is still being debated in the continuing Global Warming Controversy", and thereby provide a link to the Controversy article. N.Nahber 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The vagueness of "still being debated" gives excessive weight to a tiny-minority position per WP:WEIGHT. It makes it sound like there's a general debate in the relevant scientific community, when in fact there isn't. Why not simply state "S&F-C dispute this refutation of their results"? Raymond Arritt 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I second Raymond's suggestion. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that belongs here. The case for the controversy article is stronger since this study has made it to the popular arena. Yet, it has not made it to the scientific world, at least for now, with enough momentum to warrant inclusion in this page. If it bothers you so much that we mention the paper to which they respond, maybe we can try to find another survey of the literature on this manner. Yet, I really see no grounds for any inclusion of them on this page until the paper gains more weight on the science community. Brusegadi 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, have no strong feelings on the subject. I feel that if the paper is mentioned, along with its refutation, then it makes sense to briefly mention the refutation of the refutation. I am not arguing for inclusion of the paper itself. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Raymond Arritt. In fact, a simple statement like this plus a link to the reply in question could be added to the content of Ref. 35, which now carries both the publication info and the punchline of L&F. N.Nahber 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now added "The recent as yet unpublished Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich - The persistent role of the Sun in climate forching by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen disputes this refutation of their results." to the content of Ref. 35. N.Nahber 23:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I, too, would agree. I, however, inserted a small sentence about the S+F-C dispute in the text with a reference to their reply to L+F. I personally prefer this slightly more than having two sources in a reference, but I'm OK with whatever most people prefer. ~ UBeR 23:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your version doesn't emphasize that this reply is not yet (properly) published. Since I do not see much of a problem with having 2 sources in one reference, I find my version a more elegant solution to all the issues that have been discussed. N.Nahber 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am therefore reverting to my version, but would not insist if others side with you. N.Nahber 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is published--by the DNSC. It is apart of their "scientific report series." If by "proper" you mean peer-reviewed, you may well be correct, but I can't be sure of that. More notably, it's not in a journal, which you might have meant by proper, so that may problem, though my sentence simply stated they refuted the findings, which is true in itself. I leave it up to you to reconsider. ~ UBeR 00:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they have not refuted the findings, but rather disputed some of them - and, after having read the thing, I'm not really impressed about the strength of this challenge, either. --Stephan Schulz 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that Brusegadi has promptly undone my reversion of UBeR's simplification to "Svensmark and Friis-Christensen dispute these findings." of my "The recent as yet unpublished Reply ... disputes this refutation of their results", which was only inserted in the references rather than the main text. This is kind of amusing, since I was trying to take into account the insistence of many participants in this discussion that this reply has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal and also that inclusion in the text would give it too much weight. Stephan Schulz should furthermore notice that my formulation did not say "refuted". I'm not going to revert once more - I'm getting the impression that I'm simply not sufficiently in-group to be allowed doing anything. N.Nahber 10:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not published. Brusegadi 23:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is. ~ UBeR 00:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, of course it is published, I've read it! I meant to say that it is not peer rvd. Brusegadi 01:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Appearing online as only basically "self-published" material (Svensmark a director there) doesn't quite, I think, qualifies as being truly "published" per se. -BC aka Callmebc 03:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, it's not published in a peer-reviewed journal. This is the information that you have deleted by rushing to undo my edit. Please take the time to read what you erase. N.Nahber 08:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when I say not published I meant it was not peer-reviewed and that is my grounds for excluding it. To make such claim merit, you will have to have a paper (or papers) that was published in a highly regarded journal; not a web-page. Brusegadi 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I did read it -- hence my deletions and my asking you to present your case here. Svensmark's hypothesis of cloud seeding being done by galactic cosmic rays, even if valid, would be tied to modulation of the heliosphere by cyclical solar cycles, and there is no significant correlation, if any, between that stuff and the global warming patterns of the past 100 years and beyond. And Svensmark's "reply" does nothing to change this. -BC aka Callmebc 13:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear! I was replying to Brusegadi above - about his quick undo of my reinserting the "not published" qualification that got lost by UBeR's edit of my addition to ref. 35. N.Nahber 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)