This is an archive of past discussions about Climate change. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
LEAD: IPCC only 66% sure temps won't be lower ...... or even higher ..... than stated ranges
In the lead, we use IPCC's word "likely" regarding projected ranges of warming for different emissions scenarios. Just like the prior paragraph, which says they are "more than 90% certain" based on their use of "very likely" and their explicit definition of that term, use of the word "likely" for temp projections is also explicitly defined in our RSs. (same one that defined the 90% bit)
In short, IPCC would only say they are more than 66% sure temps will rise somewhere in the stated range for each emissions scenario. That means they are only "more than 66% certain" it won't be less (I can hear all the pro-fossil fuel people ready to pounce on this) but it also means IPCC is only "more than 66% certain" it won't be even more.
One more point. In a recent thread Enescot and I were discussing uncertainty, and I pointed out that AR4 WG1 came up with a best guess for each SRES, and then IPCC added the lower and upper bounds to create the ranges. They added more to the upper boundary, for more uncertainty on the higher end of the spectrum.
But the main thing I want to discuss is whether, and how, the article could be improved by explaining that "likely" in the sentence with temp ranges means IPCC only said they are "more than 66% certain" it won't be lower (which has been all over the media to a greater or lesser degree at different times), or or higher (which is essentially absent from mainstream media) than the projected ranges we report in the lead. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't have a problem with adding "more than 66% certain" to the "likely" statement. My own preference would be to drop "likely" in favour of "could". I don't think that the existing revision of the lede is clear enough in explaining why the word "likely" is used.
I think that the issue you raise has to set against other sources of uncertainty. As I've said before, I think that abrupt/large-scale/climate "surprises" should be briefly mentioned in the lede. I agree that uncertainty in the tails of the distributions is important, but there are many important impacts in the centre of the distribution as well.
I think that because of the limited space available, it is difficult to explain these uncertainties in the lede. I would prefer it if these uncertainties are described in the main part of the article, rather than the lede. If "high-end" risks are to be mentioned, then I think it would only be fair to mention the probability of small changes in climate. For example, the IPCC say that a climate sensitivity less than 1.5 degrees C is "very unlikely", i.e., less than a 10% chance. Enescot (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
As others have noted, the problem with the phrasing "more than 66% certain" is that it applies to a range of temperatures, not to climate change itself. It is likely to be understood by some casual readers as meaning there is a 44% chance of no climate change at all, which isn't the case. I agree with Enescot that if this belongs in the article at all, it should not be in the lead. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I've had an idea over how this issue might be partially addressed. MIT (p51 of PDF) and the Hadley Centre (Excel spreadsheet) have produced probabilistic temperature projections for mitigation and baseline emissions scenarios. These data could be plotted as a graph and added to the article.
I'd also repeat my previous suggestion of moving the quantitative temperature projections from the lead to a later section of the article. In the lead, they could be replaced with a more qualitative statement, e.g., "Projections suggest that the future rate/rapidity of global warming might be unprecedented in the last 10,000 years [3]." Enescot (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this has been mentioned before but I believe that the Farenheit measurements are incorrect.
The formula for Farenheit is:
(Celcius * 1.8) + 32 = Farenheit
The temperature values are temperature increase values: mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) (note the {{convert|0.8|C-change|F-change|1}} template used to convert) rather than actual temperature values. Vsmith (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Global warming "standstill"
Santamoly recently added this to the article:
"In a paper published by Columbia University on January 15 2013, NASA's James Hansen acknowledged that global warming has reached a standstill that has lasted for more than a decade[1]."
I believe that this statement is misleading. Other reliable sources [4][5] explain how internal climate variability can affect global warming trends. Indeed, the cited source [6] states (p1):
"The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing (...)
The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases2, which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century"
In the section on "Observed temperature changes", the article already mentions this issue:
"Global temperature is subject to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. The relative stability in temperature from 2002 to 2009 is consistent with such an episode"
I've previously reverted Santamoly's edit, as has KimDabelsteinPetersen. Both Kim and I have explained why we reverted Santamoly's edit.
In my opinion, Santamoly's edit does not accurately reflect the views of Hansen or of the wider scientific community. In my opinion, the edit should be removed. Enescot (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I've appended Santamoly's edit with this:
Hansen and others state: "The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing (...) The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases (...), which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century."
Taken together, I believe that Santamoly's and my edit are unnecessary additions to the article. However, I think that my edit provides an accurate context for the Hansen et al source. Enescot (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the paper, the excerpts stopped short of the conclusions. To add some quotes: In a paper published by Columbia University on January 15 2013, NASA's James Hansen acknowledged that global warming has reached a standstill that has lasted for more than a decade[1]. Hansen and others state: "Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing (...) The long-term warming trend, including continual warming since the mid-1970s, has been conclusively associated with the predominant global climate forcing, human-made greenhouse gases (...), which began to grow substantially early in the 20th century. (...) The annual increment in the greenhouse gas forcing (Fig. 5) has declined (...) primarily a consequence of successful phase- out of ozone-depleting gases and reduction of the growth rate of methane. (...) A slower growth rate of the net climate forcing may have contributed to the standstill of global temperature in the past decade, but it cannot explain the standstill, because it is known that the planet has been out of energy balance, more energy coming in from the sun than energy being radiated to space. The planetary energy imbalance is due largely to the increase of climate forcings in prior decades and the great thermal inertia of the ocean. The more important factor in the standstill is probably unforced dynamical variability, essentially climatic 'noise'. (...) Indeed, the current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominately El Nino conditions, while the second half had predominately La Nina conditions (...) We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature." Too long for a quote, and as noted above it's not an "other view", it confirms what we cover elsewhere. The main points are climate variability associated with La Nina–El Nino, phase- out of ozone-depleting gases and reduction of the growth rate of methane, and uncertain changes in aerosols. A brief paraphrase would be useful in these sections. . dave souza, talk08:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
On the issue of understanding the paper (per NAEG's comment below at 09:44, 26 March) Hansen et al.'s section intro clarifies their intent, "Global Warming Standstill. The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade. It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that "global warming has stopped". Examination of this matter requires consideration of the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability." His attempt to clarify has unsurprisingly been met with widespread quote-mining. The "paper" seems to be an opinion piece published on his university website, not a peer reviewed paper, and as such is due less weight. . dave souza, talk10:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
If I understood Hansen's paper, he was (foolishly?) only talking about surface temps, even as he acknowledged "the great thermal inertia of the ocean" where most of the BTUs of global warming end up. A just-published analysis that includes temp measurements from various ocean depths paints a very different picture... global warming has accelerated NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Will colder Winters/Springs in the Northern hemisphere accelerate global warming?
The cold snaps that can last into spring like right now in Europe and the US are thought to be caused by climate change. However, I haven't read about the effect this in turn has on global warming. If the cold air that is normally confined to Northern lattitudes moves much further South, then the energy balance at those Southern lattitudes changes. The flux of solar energy stays the same, but less is radiated into space. Count Iblis (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, we have significant snow cover in Germany at the end of March. This has been very rare in the last few years, and changes albedo. So it's not obvious either way. I'm not aware of any paper that discusses the effect so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Which cold snaps? For all that the northeastern U.S. has had some unusually cold spells, it was warmer than usual in the Pacific Northwest. For all that some particular weather catches the public's attention, there is a lot of weather that does not, so there is a sampling problem. That's why we measure. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a helpful article for the patterns, but doesn't really address the effect on GW: in that, its seen purely as an effect of GW. And I haven't seen anyone else discuss it either William M. Connolley (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The point that jumped out at me was that when the patterns were "Averaged over the northern hemisphere the anomaly disappears - the average is close to the long-term average." The implication being no obvious effect on GW. However, Neven helpfully highlights an explanation by R. Gates that weird is the new norm, and sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) events are behind much of the fun. The Beeb relates this to lots of spaghetti, bringing FSM theory to mind as well as von S's noodly commentary on hockey sticks. In other words, it looks complicated. . dave souza, talk10:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The arctic oscillation is a major contributor of month to month variability in the global temperature, during the negative phase warm oceanic air advection over NH landmasses is reduced and thus global temperature, however over longer time period the effect is quite small because it is seasonal(larger during boreal winter) and the index isn't locked for long time into the negative or positive phase.
Thompson et al. estimated that the dynamical induced changes in global temperature ranges from ~-0.2 to ~+0.2 but the long term trend and variability is quite small compared to global warming(~0.04°C).(although the pattern that maximize the land-ocean temperature contrast isn't exactly the same of the arctic oscillation but it's very similar):
http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy_JClimate2009.pdf
Global warming has been debunked by emails from the very people who colluded to falsify their data to show results that weren't happening. Can we get this article updated so it's factually correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.154.242 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Inclusion of a Section About What Those Who Don't Believe in Global Warming Say
This bit of soapish commercial marketing for a book lacks any specific article improvement suggestions such as draft text; click show to read anyway
This article is not neutral in any way. It comes entirely from a pro-Global Warming perspective. It doesn't even consider that it could be wrong or that their information is wrong and anti-Global Warmists could have the correct information. Also even if there is a scientific consensus, which I am not sure there is, since when has that meant it must be true. There have been many occasions, throughout history, when popular belief among SCIENTISTS was proven to wrong .An example of a NATIONAL science group that believes that Global Warming is a fraud is found in "Exploring Creation With Physical Science" by J. W. Wile. Making the assumption that Global Warming is fact is against scientific methods and violates Wikipedia's neutrality rule. The least they could do is add a few sections made by those who don't believe in Global Warming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.107.77 (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Soooo..... your source for why 120 years of climate science needs to be downplayed is a textbook that teaches creationism as science. I don't believe your source passes our reliable source requirement for use in articles in general and falls further short for use in a science article. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Section on natural systems
I'm interested in discussing improvements to the section of the article on "natural systems." In my opinion, the section presents a good summary of the subject, but I have some criticisms.
The section states that the Arctic will be largely ice-free by 2037. There are, however, other estimates. In IPCC AR4, some models using the SRES A2 emissions scenario projected ice-free summers by the end of the 21st century [7]. According the UK Met Office, recent models project an early "plausible" date of 2025-2030 [8].
I do not agree with how the section covers attribution of climate change. In my view, there is an undue focus on the study by Hansen et al. The section should provide a summary of the literature on attribution, rather than focussing on individual studies. AR4 contains a number of attributions which aren't mentioned, including the contribution of anthropogenic forcing to sea level rise and loss of Arctic sea ice [9].
Hansen et al's work on this issue does not appear to reflect a consensus view (Seneviratne et al., 2012:127). Kevin Trenberth has stated that "James Hansen and I are pushing to get scientists to think about and do statistics on this rather differently, and now we are not part of mainstream in this regard" [10].
The section's summary of extreme events is not consistent with the recent IPCC SREX report. The section states that in the future, there will be more intense droughts and floods. No caveats are given. By contrast, the SREX report is far more cautious in its projections of changes in droughts and floods (IPCC, 2012:11). A number of projected changes in extremes described in the SREX are not mentioned, e.g., increased intensity, duration and frequency of heat waves. Enescot (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I've prepared a draft revision of the "natural systems" section that I would like to discuss. New or revised sentences are italicized:
"Global warming has been detected in a number of natural systems. Some of these changes are described in the section on observed temperature changes, e.g., sea level rise and widespread decreases in snow and ice extent. Anthropogenic forcing has likely contributed to some of the observed changes, including sea level rise, changes in climate extremes (such as the number of warm and cold days), declines in Arctic sea ice extent, and to glacier retreat (Hegerl et al 2007).
(as current revision) In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, across a range of future emission scenarios, (as current revision...) contribute 4–6 metres (13 to 20 ft) or more to sea level rise.[125]
Changes in regional climate are expected to include greater warming over land, with most warming at high northern latitudes, and least warming over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean.[123] During the 21st century, glaciers and snow cover are projected to continue their retreat (Meehl et al 2007). Projections of declines in Arctic sea ice vary (Meehl et al 2007). Recent models suggest that Arctic summers could be ice-free (defined as ice extent less than 1 million square km) as early as 2025-2030 (UK Met Office 2012).
Future changes in precipitation are expected to follow existing trends, with reduced precipitation over subtropical land areas, and increased precipitation at subpolar latitudes and some equatorial regions (NOAA GFDL, 2007, p.1). Projections suggest a probable increase in the frequency and severity of some extreme weather events, such as heat waves (IPCC 2012, pp9-13).
In view of the discussion below ("IPCC projection underestimations"), I was thinking of revising the "natural systems" section to include a summary of more recent global sea level rise projections. At present, the section only mentions the 2007 projections from the IPCC 4th Assessment (AR4). A recent (2012) literature assessment was conducted by the US National Research Council. The NRC study includes their own projections of sea level rise and cites projections by Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009) [11][12]. I was thinking that these two projections could be cited in the section alongside those from AR4. It would probably only require one or two sentences. Alternatively, a graph of the projections could be added. Enescot (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The image for sea level rise mis-states the IPCC AR4 (2007) because it suggests IPCC stated an upper bound for their projection. That's false. The SPM says "Because understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise". Also, trying to put all the info in one table instead of breaking the tables into three with a header for the year makes it confusing. I was familiar with the numbers but took several seconds to orient myself. A newbie could easily miss the years on the right hand border. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. If you want to draw a new graph, then the current graph could be replaced. Alternatively, I'd be pleased to redraw the graph in view of your comments. However, I'm not entirely clear on what you have in mind. If the graph is to be broken up into three graphs, then I presume that each graph would have its own set of axes. In my view, it might be more straightforward to omit the 2030 and 2050 projections.
The image description does mention the limitations of the IPCC projections:
"The IPCC (2007) estimates do not include all of the possible contributions from ice sheets (US NRC, 2012, pp.84-85). According to US NRC (2012, p.88), "the IPCC (2007) projections are likely underestimates because they do not account fully for cryospheric processes"."
I've added the SPM text you've quoted to the image description. The comment could also be added to the graph itself. I should note that the other projections shown in the graph are much higher than the IPCC's. Therefore, I think it should be fairly obvious that the high-end IPCC projection is not an upper-bound estimate.
Another point is that graphs often do not include the full range of possible outcomes. An example is the IPCC's graph of temperature projections [13]. Enescot (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I've found a sea level rise graph by NOAA which could be used to replace the existing graph [14]. The graph's on p.3 of the report. Enescot (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Sea level rise projections for 2100.
I've prepared a new graph of projected sea level rise, shown above. It is based on several studies. Enescot (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Ecological systems
I've had a look at the section of the article on "ecological systems". In my opinion, the section should be revised. I don't agree with how ocean acidification is described. I find the existing text alarmist. I'm comparing it to an assessment by the US National Research Council (US NRC, 2010), and a 2009 joint-statement made by 105 science academies (the Interacademy Panel). I recognize that the impacts of ocean acidification could be highly significant, but scientific understanding of these impacts is limited. US NRC (2010, p.5) state:
"Unless anthropogenic CO2 emissions are substantially curbed, or atmospheric CO2 is controlled by some other means, the average pH of the ocean will continue to fall. Ocean acidification has demonstrated impacts on many marine organisms. While the ultimate consequences are still unknown, there is a risk of ecosystem changes that threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources of value to society"
?? I don't follow. The link you point to is from 2010, but the current image is from 2012? And they both show broadly the same patterns (although the 2012 one seems to show slightly worse drought conditions). Could you please elaborate on how our current maps are out of date? Sailsbystars (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, wait, I see! The original maps contained a serious error and overprediction, as indicated by the update in the post. We should probably replace the map then.... Sailsbystars (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Pardon?
This bit of uncivil WP:SOAP lacks specific article improvement suggestions such as draft text. Click show to read anyway.
Its the std IPCC attempt at quantification of the uncertainty, isn't it? You can argue about how meaningful it is perhaps, though it seems about right to me; perhaps a little on the low side William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Connolley - how did you get out of biased editing jail so quick ? Anyway, with Co2 going up and temps going down the 90% "certainty" doesn't square (that's a nice way of saying its a lie). Your defense of that term in the article defies logic. Mk 2600:1006:B116:EF05:2CB2:A26F:E985:7D20 (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Global Warming in the U.S.-- Something Seems Missing
While there are graphs here for overall warming (from NOAA and other sources), there seems to be nothing for the U.S.-- as shown in Climate change in the United States. My understanding is that Wikipedia users here have made graphs showing U.S. temperature changes. But where are they? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Keeping on my lovely pattern of talking to myself (which I must admit, I do far too often for my own good, alas), I'd like to link to this and that, which I pulled from / made with help from the NOAA publication (respectively). Maybe something could be made out of those. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
What's missing for me is more emphasis on the implications of having broken through the milestone of 400 PPM.
There should also be more emphasis on the implications of rising sea levels for East Coast cities in the US increasing at an increasing rate or accelerating. There are more than 100 coastal cities with populations over 100,000 people for whom the 2010 interim report of the 1st group of the IPCC on rising sea levels strongly indicates the possibility of a rise sufficient to make sea walls and levels impractical to safeguard the BosWash corridor, a rise measured in multiple meters rather than multiple feet, possibly occurring sooner than 2100 but definitely occurring. The cost of relocating coastal cities can be estimated by the cost of repairing New Orleans and the Gulf Coast after Katrina and Staten Island after Sandy as somewhere in the range of $150 Billion dollars a year for the next twenty five years per each city involved. That's aside from all the other problems such as would occur with abandoning in place Nuclear power plants, hazardous waste encapsulations, water treatment plants and sewer treatment plants; harbor facilities and urban high rises which would collapse to clog shipping lanes once their foundations were undermined. 12.187.95.227 (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
{update} Alright, well I went ahead and transferred over the image, edited it, and here we are. I don't really know for sure if it should be included in this article per se, but it's great for the U.S.' own article.
Anonymous' comment about the affect of sea level changes is interesting. I don't really know how to respond because I don't know that much about the issue. I do know that the IPCC said in its 2007 report that global sea levels would increase by 39cm by 2100 (using their "most likely" emissions scenario). That's about a foot, which is approximately the same as the increase in sea level from 1860 to 2000. That's global data, though, which is different than what could happen in the U.S. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
IPCC 2007 AR4 explicitly says they were not putting an upper boundary on sea level rise due in large part to uncertainties with the ice sheets. Their projections are minimum numbers only. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course, there are uncertainties either way. We do see for the past years data being on the least warming, least climate sensitive side, which might seem to indicate that the IPCC values are too high, but they're still well worth looking at. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
It's useful that our editors are collapsing any discussions that run contrary to our in-house expert opinions. Should we not delete those discussions so that readers don't get the idea that there is some significant disagreement on the Global Warming issue? Providing a forum for disagreement surely must weaken our cause. Santamoly (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Where there is discussion about how to improve the article based on RSs given appropriate WEIGHT, then such threads should be preserved not collapsed. That includes coverage of disagreements found in RSs of appropriate weight. On the other hand, threads which advance a POV (either way) and which lack article improvement suggestions based on RSs are most likely WP:SOAP and/or WP:FORUM lying outside the scope of our talk page guidelines. Threads such as this one which rely primarily on sarcasm instead of RSs usually belong in the latter group. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM, thread lacks suggestions such as draft text for improving the article based on WP:RS; click show to read anyway
This has become a non-falsifiable theory. Global Warming now causes everything, cold, heat, floods, drought, snow, snow melt etc. Observations are now being hand-waved away, flat out ignored, or "explained" in ridiculously complex fashions to fit the catastrophic version of the theory (and the dreaded broken models).
The new popular thing to do is to try and get people superstitious about the weather, when we were told that "weather is not climate" a few years ago by the same scientists.
So many people want this theory to be true, and you may have to ask yourself why that is one day. It has not warmed in over 15 years, why isn't this good news? Why is the theory getting more and more complex to try and compensate for observations that seem to disagree with the computer models and their catastrophic predictions?
There isn't even an atmospheric hot-spot, which is central to the entire theory. It's not there.
For people who are legitimately worried about this subject but do not have the time to research it themselves, there is a lot of really good news coming out that it might not be nearly as bad as the computers predict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.31.75 (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I've glanced at that paper and it is interesting, but I'm not going to put all my chips down on the possibility that we are entering something like a Maunder Minimum, it really could go either way as the climate has always changed, but the observations are saying what they are saying regarding this AGW theory; this pause should not have happened, the increase in outgoing radiation into space shouldn't have happened, the lack of a hot-spot shouldn't have happened, the lack of heat buildup in the oceans shouldn't have happened...I could go on and on, it couldn't have according to the central tenants of the theory....but the goalposts seem to keep moving. All that's left really is the arctic which is doing the same thing it did around 70 years ago according to first hand reports (we've only been paying attention to it with satellites and major expeditions for a hand-full of years). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.120.175 (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
What's your source for the "increase in outgoing radiation"? This is a new talking point that I haven't seen before and I'm curious about its origins. Directly measuring the energy balance is a notoriously challenging problem with large error bars, so I'm curious as to how someone is able to claim that they've detected an increase, and the frequency dependence of said increase. Sailsbystars (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Data from the NASA ERBE satellite showed a definitive increase in outgoing long-wave radiation (thus demonstrating a negative feedback) over a decadal time scale, within the frame of the most recent warming period. The models predicted the opposite, they trap heat too aggressively. I don't have the exact paper on this computer that showed the comparison of the observations gathered by ERBE compared to the model predictions, but the difference is stark. I could get back to you on this if I get the time to find it again (or you could graph the data yourself if you have the software and spare time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.120.175 (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Is this a Lindzen and Choi paper? A search comes up with Lindzen and Choi 2009 as the first result and the abstract seems to be what you're referring to. That paper has not aged well, and even if it did, only applies to tropical areas under certain conditions. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Recent atmospheric measurement of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million in Hawaii
It is not my expertise nor is this area of the encyclopedia my focus as an editor, but I'm curious...where is the discussion regarding the measurement of CO2 exceeding 400 ppm? My nderstanding is that "achievement" is "game over" in terms of our ability, let alone willingness, to reverse damage/warming attributed to human causes. Furthermore, my understanding is that now all "we" can do is "mitigate" the damage we now (at present) have no technological capacity to "fix" going forward even if we now try to reverse the staggering levels of CO2going into the atmosphere, which are still steeply increasing. I understand these are fighting worlds for some, but am curious where the discussion of this phenomenon is, despite my own understanding (or bias), in the Wiki. Regards, Norcalal (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
400 ppm is only a symbolic level, not some hard physical boundary substantially different from 399.8 ppm or 401.2 ppm. In general, the higher the CO2 level rises, the higher the environmental impact will be. As a result, we will be forced to to do more mitigation in the future. But each further increment in CO2 will further exacerbate the problem, so it's not "only" mitigation from now on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Recent addition of 400ppm - last time this high
In this edit, which was part of the discussion in this thread, an editor added the opinion Professor Hoskins as to when CO2 ppm was this high. After looking at some sources, I question whether this is undue weight. Certainly it has been a really long time, longer than we've been around. But was it 800K yrs, 3M yrs, 15M yrs.... I'm not suggesting we use ClimateCentral as an RS.... it might qualify under a BLOG exception but it is still a BLOG and I don't want to bog down debating whether it qualifies (or maybe I don't want to "blog" down debating that). However, I find that blog to be a good source for reporting other background sources and they have a post on this very subject. In "The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist", Andrew Freedman writes,
" The news that CO2 is near 400 ppm for the first time highlights a question that scientists have been investigating using a variety of methods: when was the last time that CO2 levels were this high, and what was the climate like back then? There is no single, agreed-upon answer to those questions as studies show a wide date range from between 800,000 to 15 million years ago."
After comparing different estimates, he wraps up saying
"Regardless of which estimate is correct, it is clear that CO2 levels are now higher than they have ever been in mankind’s history."
Methinks the stand-alone opinion of Prof Haskins is sort of weak and needs to be replaced with the point that its much higher than any time during human history. I haven't found a heavy hitting RS for that distillation yet, but I'm sure they are out there.
Thanks for helping to show that relative levels of CO2 millions of years ago is not a straightforward fact. I can't agree the Professor's statement is week. His estimate is centrist and he has impeccable credentials on this matter, unlike Freedman who doesn't have a science degree. Saying CO2 levels are now higher than they've ever been in human history wouldn't be a distillation, but a dilution. It would hugely understate the likely state of affairs. On the other hand, Freedman would be an excellent source for updating the politics section, which again badly needs updating. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Good article, but needs updating
Congratulations for all the good science here and NPOV treatment of this very important topic. There is room for improvement though, in that some of the info lacks context to help the layman understand its significance. And a great many of the sources seem to be over 5 or even 10 years old. I dont usually like to advocate overwriting previous editors work, but it seems warranted in this case. I'll make an update to the article along these lines, hope it's acceptable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
We don't just randomly require sources written in the last X years. If you can find something which you think has been invalidated by more recent work, then bring that issue up but otherwise change for the sake of change is pointless. For example, in Quantum mechanics articles there is a reason we can use a source that is 30 years old; the pertinent information is not time sensitive like medical claims. Likewise, the general thrust and historical coverage of global warming is the same in older sources as it would be in later ones. Global warming is about long term trends, and so we should not engage in excessive recentism, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Wolfie, there's never anything random about an edit from an ARS squad member.
Global warming isn't all that comparable to QM. QM is a pure science topic about trying to find static laws, and for those articles you'd be right there's no need to update unless there were substantial changes in consensus or new experiments invalidating older work. GW on the other hand is an ongoing process. It falls into the domain of applied science with huge political and social dimension. It seems rather unhelpful to our readers to prefer older estimates and findings. Its not a question of the older claims being invalidated, but outdated. Anyway, would you be happy with the new material being added without removing any of the older work? I do agree it's generally not good to delete other folk's work. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Climatology is science in the same way that quantum mechanics is science. Much of the material is fairly static and does not need "updating" for no reason. I am just saying your initial assumption is wrong. You added "Without the warming caused by natural level of greenhouse gasses, the temperature across almost the entire surface of the earth would be below freezing", where is the source? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
You may be saying that Wolfie, but you've not in anyway convinced me that updating wouldn't be an improvement. This article is about global warming, surely no one denies GW is much better charaterised as a dynamic process rather than a static state of affairs? No one's saying we should update for no reason. It was implicit in my update that the reasons include new estimates on quantities like CO2 levels supercedeing old ones, and new meta studies better quantifying the level of support for the AGW concensus.
Unlike the rest of my edit, the part about natural levels was unsourced. IMO no competent scientist would find it in the least bit controversial, but it will be helpful to the layman for understanding the topic. If anyone challenges it, finding a source ought to be trivial. Anyway, there's lots of other articles needing improvement, and the conversation to constructive improvement ratio here is a little high for my liking. I stand by my statements about the need for updates, perhaps your or others will eventually agree to allow improvements. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The main reason I stuck with wikipedia after the Missippi Floods that first drew me in was because I thought this article could stand a great deal of improvement. Not much has changed. Feyd, IRWolfie has a lot of respect from me for being a level headed ed. My money says we could try harder to identify areas of agreement, and do some good here. That said, it isn't at all clear to me that earth would freeze without greenhouse gases. The other three inner planets are all mighty toasty on the side that faces the sun. Unless its truly a WP:SKYISBLUE sort of thing, it all needs RSs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It is a sky is blue sort of thing I'm afraid. See our article on Planetary equilibrium temperature. Equilibrium temperature for venus is 260K, and equilibrium for earth is more like 220-230K. Water freezes at 273..... This is very basic astronomy/planetary science. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's immediately clear how close to the planetary equilibrium temperature we would be if there were no greenhouse gases but we still had an atmosphere, and our geothermal activity. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
With a 370K max temp on the moon, it isn't utterly unambiguously obvious in the same way that the sky is blue. Of course even that is questionable.... how do blind or color blind people know what we're talking about? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The atmosphere doesn't matter unless it has GHGs. See for example, Mars which has an atmosphere without substantial GHGs and temps close to equilibrium. The reason the moon is so hot and cold is because it's a slow rotator. If the moon were spinning at asteroid rates, it would be pretty close to equilibrium temperature. This is why asteroid folks use the thrice-damned "beaming factor" when describing the temperature of an asteroid to account for the fact that the temperature has a variable distribution across the surface related to rotation rate and other factors. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
An excellent explanation, thanks. However, the necessity of this explanation proves my point, namely, that this tidbit is not so blindingly obvious that it doesn't need an RS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
You didn't appear to mention geothermal energy and it's contribution if significant. It may very well be as you say, but I don't think it should be assumed as a given. For example the mid latitudes of Mars are -50 to -60 Celsius (presumably the equator even more, which apparently peaks at 20 Celsius during the summer according to google), which is in the range of what you say the PET for earth is, yet Mars is further away, and has less geothermal energy. Reality is rarely as simple as a spherical cow model might suggest. I'm merely saying this so that we don't take things as a given. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou.
@NewsAndEventsGuy Again it's not all that good a comparison to compare with the other 3 inner planets. Mercury and Venus are much closer, while the surface temp. on Mars is generally well below freezing, including on the side facing the sun. As expected, the claim is trivial to source, I googled "natural level of greenhoue gases" and got this article as the no 1 result , a very good explanation for the layman, phrasing it the same way I did. If you want more scholarly sources or a more quantitative introduction, they're on offer in the lede of our Greenhouse gas article. For more in depth treatment, see the article Sailsbystars linked you to. Ironically, the science relating to the NGHE is one of the few parts of article that are largely static.
GW is a process that according to many sources, is already degrading the lives of millions of people. This article averages over 10K hits a day, and helps shape the media coverage which in turn influences policy responses that could potentially slow the process. I guess we could find common groud, but Im finding it a little too frustrating that editors are having to explain schoolboy science to try and get some simple updates accepted. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Some of those 10,000 daily hits are from schoolboys, I'm afraid. If you won't talk RSs, you won't be able to make improvements here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the article to reflect what the source says; specifically without the atmosphere rather than without greenhouse gases. You might think that makes no difference, but I don't think it is necessarily clear what the average temperature would be if there where just non-natural causes of greenhouse gases and the rest of the atmosphere; a simple blackbody model does not apply. With a featured article care should be taken to avoid any original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
That's great. There's still a general need for updated information IMO. Specifically, can I please be allowed to re-add my updates concerning the latest updates for CO2 levels, and the metastudy released this month quantifying the consensus for AGW (this time without removing any of the older work)? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Well because the sources there again seem to be about 5 - 10 years old. This is a fast moving and topical field, though I admit the concensus has been relatively static. Also, the new meta study uses by far the most rigorous methodology for quantifying the consensus.
Just to further justify why updates are needed, the article currently has a claim that CO2 levels have increased by 35% since 1750. That seems to be based on work from 2004. Unless we add qualification, the passage of time has made that claim plain wrong. If there's one thing Im confident we can agree on, it's that care should be taken to avoid this sort of inaccuracy in any article, let alone a featured one of this importance.
Anyway, Im going to re add the updates. If you or others sincerely think the change dosnt help our reader, Im sure you'll revert. I agree having a short dedicated subsection on the scientific consensus is a great idea, with two or three of the older well cited papers.FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I like the 2nd "update" though it would have been better to get explicit consensus before reposting to avert appearance of EW.
Peacemaking attempt..... IRWolfie, when you reverted the 1st time you mentioned in the edit summary you werent' sure why stuff was removed. I wonder if there was a miscommunication? Paragraphs were certainly rearranged, somehow appearing on the left with (-) marked, and elsewhere on the right with (+) marked. Beats me why the algorithms depict static text as though it were subtracted AND added in the same edit. Anyway, IRWolfie, I thought something was substracted the first time too, but I was mistaken. Maybe we got off on the wrong foot here?
Comments.... The DIFF for the 2nd attempt is depicted cleaner, and I do think its a small improvement. There is indeed an issue when we say "X is happening" when X is in fact changing. In such cases its better to say "As of Y, X was happening." While this is good fine tuning, it isn't all that radical a change.
The material cited to pearson here: [15] disappeared. I think citing the opinion of a single professor sourced to a newspaper [16] is a bad idea since it opens the doors to people using newspapers to push fringe views, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Professor Hoskins is a well established and regarded main stream professor. Id say it best to evaluate each source on a case by case bases, you know as well as I do there are abundant "accademic" papers that push fringe views (admittedly not often ones that appear in the L2 journals). The FT is more reliable than many journals and text books, IMO. PS - looks much better now you added a dedicated climatologists section.
@NewsAndEventsGuy Thanks very much for the peacemaking; especially appreciated considering my less than perfectly collegiate remarks! As Wolfie says, I did remove some of the earlier work, including a source over 10 years old. Probably my fault it wasnt clear from the diff, guess I tried to do too much in one edit. IMO improving this article will work best if some of the older and (arguably) outdated info is removed, as otherwise it will get too cluttered to be ideal for the reader. I do agree that sourced content ought not be removed if there's no consensus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a helpful change. With the Hoskins quote, I attributed the statement to the good professor rather than using the encyclopedia's voice, and used the qualifier "likely." So IMO the edit was WP:YESPOV compliant. And a lot better than many recent RSs, which simply say CO2 is now the higher than its been for millions of years without indicating there's doubt in the matter. I dont think it will be easy to find a more encyclopedic way to make the statement which also gives clear info and context for our readers, but would be happy to be proved wrong. FeydHuxtable (talk)
I think we are looking at this cross-ways. I am saying that it appears to be a straight forward fact that it's now at the highest in millions of years. Attributing this as an opinion of one man is presenting a fact as an opinion, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah sorry, that makes more sense. I wouldnt class it as a straightforward fact, due to the guestimates involves in quantifying Co2 levels prior to the 2nd half of the 20th century. But I'd agree it seems very close to certain, and would not object to anyone removing reference to the good professor. If thats done, I guess even the word "likely" could be removed, though then you might want a different source to avoid any risk of OR. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
FeydHuxtable, a word of advice. Like you around 2005 I came here with the same good intentions as you to improve the article. Like you I met a wall of denial that anything should change. Like you I tried to argue sensibly and like you will too, I eventually went to look at the real science and realised that this is not a NPOV article but a bunch of baseless propaganda and I became a sceptic. It happens to everyone who tries to change this article ... that is why we don't fuss ourselves over its contents. All the great sceptics have been here, said what you have said and gone onto better things! The big mistake is to believe that anyone outside a few school kids who haven't learnt how to google are ever going to be influenced by this article. So, don't waste your time trying to change their minds, the editors here will not change their mind of global warming even if there were glaciers enveloping their homes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I changed my mind about the addition of Hoskins' opinion. I think we should address how high it is today, but I don't like the way this has been done so far. I'm interested in RSs, and it's not OBVIOUS to me that its higher than it has been in MILLIONS of years. What I found is that the RSs apparently do not all agree, and the range of possible "last time it was this high" spans 800k - 15mil years. There's no debate that the last time was "before us" and that is the tack we should take, in my view. Since we've talked about an amalgam of issues in this thread, and there is already a thread specifically about 400 ppm, I suggest we move the 400ppm part of this discussion to the pre-existing thread. FYI I have already posted my more detailed reply under that pre-existing thread including a link to a ClimateCentral post on this very topic . Please followup there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
@ x.206.26 - thanks for the advice. Very sorry to hear your editing experience here helped set you on the path to becoming a skeptic! You make some good points, especially that this article in its current state is likely to be far less helpful than it could be, except perhaps to those with a purely academic interest in climatology. You're right some AGW proponents use propaganda and other low tactics. As you know, these have backfired, and are part of the reason why you climate skeptics have been winning the political battle. Not that one would know it from the article, but the very promising global collaboration for effective policy responses that was gathering until late 2009 has largely evaporated. I think you're right that it will be a waste of time to attempt further improvements at this point, though perhaps the next editor who attempts it might fare better. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
On no-CO2 equilibrium temperature
There was a request above for sources to explain why the no-CO2 equilibrium temperature of Earth was far below freezing. A thorough (washing a puppy with a firehose), recent source for this would be Lacis et al. 2010, Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature, which I'm rather surprised we didn't already cite. "To this end, we performed a simple climate experiment with the GISS 2° × 2.5° AR5 version of ModelE, using the Q-flux ocean with a mixed-layer depth of 250 m, zeroing out all the noncondensing GHGs and aerosols. ... The scope of the climate impact becomes apparent in just 10 years. During the first year alone, global mean surface temperature falls by 4.6°C. After 50 years, the global temperature stands at –21°C, a decrease of 34.8°C." Here's the press release. This is rather overkill for the conclusion (which is textbook-level knowledge), but should suffice. There's also a synthesis article at Skeptical Science. - Parejkoj (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
From a quick glance these sources appear to be about what would happen if we reduced CO2 emissions, and the various feedback mechanisms that kick in. What was being discussed above is what would happen if there were no natural greenhouse gases in the first place (i.e not like on earth). Nonetheless an interesting paper. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Greenhouse gas emissions icrease 1992-2013
This deserves place. Do you know other source? [17]
It's an opinion piece (albeit the factual claim is fairly uncontroversial). We already have a paragraph on the increase of emissions in the very section - we could add a half-sentence about the degree there if we find a better source. But see WP:SUMMARY - it should probably go into Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere first (and that article could use some work, anyways). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect logic in text
"These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth. "
The logic in the article is based upon the high quality scientific literature cited in the references. If you think you have better logic than all these scientists, you either need to get it published in a peer reviewed journal, or find places where it already has been. We don't tend to base article text in a top-level article such as this upon any one paper either, it is based on scientific consensus as summarised in review documents. The reference for the sentence you quote says "During the same period, the Sun’s energy output (as measured by satellites since 1979) has followed its historical 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase",[18] which seems fine to me, and agrees with the graph too. --Nigelj (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure what the IP is looking at from the Sunspots graph to say anything about being in an elevated state, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles might be correct, the statement as is is false and deceptive, trying to present absence of evidence as evidence of absence by completely ignoring the possibility of alleviated output in 1978 and after. As for sunspot graphs, those same measurements proved that there is some, although minor (~0.1%), correlation between sunspot activity and solar output. If there is some evidence that solar output wasn't in an increased state in 1978, it should be mentioned, otherwise it only proves that there was no increase since 1978 and nothing else, leaving the possibility of increased solar output as the main culprit of global warming. 95.27.58.150 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Without commenting on whether the underlying point is fringe, flawed or on target, the inference in the article:
Since 1978, output from the Sun has been precisely measured by satellites.[99] These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth.
is incorrect. One cannot draw the conclusion "so the warming .. cannot be attributed" from the premise "the Sun's output has not increased since 1978". A few seconds reflection on how radiation transfer works should suffice to understand the problem.
I suspect the IP's suggestion (that the level in 1978 is elevated beyond earlier years) is flawed, so we ought to either address it, or rethink the sentence construction so it doesn't make the flawed inference. As it currently reads it is not simply OR, it is flawed OR and unsupported by a reference.--SPhilbrick(Talk)01:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Footnotes to "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal..."
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation." Footnotes 3, 4 and 5 refer to the IPCC reports. Having Wikipedia use them for support of its Banner Statement in this article is to liken Wikipedia to the IPCC. To have Wikipedia embrace and point to the IPCC. I think we may agree that the IPCC has a mission statement, a track record, and some amount of politics associated with it. I'd expect Wikipedia to know what is Science and what is Science and Politics together. Footnote 6 is the one non-IPCC footnote. The link from the footnote leads to this: "The compelling case for these conclusions is provided in Advancing the Science of Climate Change, part of a 'congressionally requested' suite of studies known as America's Climate Choices." "Advancing the Science of Climate Change 'calls for a single federal entity' or program to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate change." Is that independence? Perhaps with its Banner Statement on this sometimes contentious issue, Wikipedia can lead us to independent Scientists as the basis for its content. A step in the right direction? A helpful thing maybe? I am not disagreeing with the Statement here. I am questioning the quality of the footnotes? Forgive me if this entry is in the wrong place. It's been quite awhile since I've done this. Nanabozho (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can kick in the dirt and flab their elbows. We deal here with specific suggestions for ways to improve articles based on the wikipedia meaning of "reliable sources". If you have a suggestion for article improvement based on such sources, then please state it. Vague kicking in the dirt just makes it dusty.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry for bringing up my point. To respond to IRWolfie, I am proposing better footnotes, 3-6 to better support the statement that precedes those footnotes. If the IPCC has as part of its mission, "the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." and that framework is a treaty, and if the objective of that treaty is to, "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." I am starting to see a non-independent source. You may not be following me here, but ask yourself is the IPCC independent enough? Can better support for the statement be found? You may conclude that the IPCC is a good enough source for the statement at issue. Thank you NewsAndEventsGuy. I looked at that reliable sources page. I couldn't find the part where governmental organizations were mentioned. I looked here: Wikipedia:Current science and technology sources, and didn't find the IPCC listed. Should it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanabozho (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't really understand your point. The quote - Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation - is either a direct quote, or a close paraphrase, from the IPCC report. So of course it is sourced to the IPCC - how could it not be?
As for is the IPCC independent enough? - you may (or you may not, who knows, I'll assume you are for the moment) be saying that in good faith, but you can hardly be unaware that its a common septic talking point. Using that kind of phraseology is going to get people's hackles up. However, I can answer your question, and the answer is Yes William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and sorry about forgetting to sign my comment. I wasn't able to track down the 90% part using the footnotes or numerous Google keyword searches. The IPCC does talk about various confidence level with 90% being one of them, but that's as close as I got. I think the 90% sight should be easily findable using the included footnotes. If it is a confidence interval and I am not saying that it must be, where's the information behind it? "...scientists are more than 90% certain.." I'd like to know was it a survey? A vote? A study of various peer-review papers and seeing which ones agreed with the statement? I called it a Banner Statement, I've seen it quoted. While we are sensing a bit of disagreement here I am still wondering if there's someway to improve on a Banner Statement on a sometimes contentious page? I recall some of the generalities as to how this is supposed to work, and I am trying to stay within the Wikipedia Guidelines. Nanabozho (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The IPCC quote is "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations."[19] This is from the third reference after the sentence. The conversion of the phrase very likely into "more than 90% certain" is due to information given in the second reference. I don't know how much clearer that can be, although you do have to click on the references and read what you see. Science does not proceed by surveys and votes, such percentages are estimates of the scientific and mathematical uncertainties in the data and the modelling, but we should not have to explain the whole scientific method in every science article. --Nigelj (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite following. Are you challenging the use or the IPCC as a reference, or are you questioning whether the quote in this article is a faithful representation of the IPCC report?--SPhilbrick(Talk)01:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Section on natural systems
I'm interested in discussing improvements to the section of the article on "natural systems." In my opinion, the section presents a good summary of the subject, but I have some criticisms.
The section states that the Arctic will be largely ice-free by 2037. There are, however, other estimates. In IPCC AR4, some models using the SRES A2 emissions scenario projected ice-free summers by the end of the 21st century [20]. According the UK Met Office, recent models project an early "plausible" date of 2025-2030 [21].
I do not agree with how the section covers attribution of climate change. In my view, there is an undue focus on the study by Hansen et al. The section should provide a summary of the literature on attribution, rather than focussing on individual studies. AR4 contains a number of attributions which aren't mentioned, including the contribution of anthropogenic forcing to sea level rise and loss of Arctic sea ice [22].
Hansen et al's work on this issue does not appear to reflect a consensus view (Seneviratne et al., 2012:127). Kevin Trenberth has stated that "James Hansen and I are pushing to get scientists to think about and do statistics on this rather differently, and now we are not part of mainstream in this regard" [23].
The section's summary of extreme events is not consistent with the recent IPCC SREX report. The section states that in the future, there will be more intense droughts and floods. No caveats are given. By contrast, the SREX report is far more cautious in its projections of changes in droughts and floods (IPCC, 2012:11). A number of projected changes in extremes described in the SREX are not mentioned, e.g., increased intensity, duration and frequency of heat waves. Enescot (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I've prepared a draft revision of the "natural systems" section that I would like to discuss. New or revised sentences are italicized:
"Global warming has been detected in a number of natural systems. Some of these changes are described in the section on observed temperature changes, e.g., sea level rise and widespread decreases in snow and ice extent. Anthropogenic forcing has likely contributed to some of the observed changes, including sea level rise, changes in climate extremes (such as the number of warm and cold days), declines in Arctic sea ice extent, and to glacier retreat (Hegerl et al 2007).
(as current revision) In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, across a range of future emission scenarios, (as current revision...) contribute 4–6 metres (13 to 20 ft) or more to sea level rise.[125]
Changes in regional climate are expected to include greater warming over land, with most warming at high northern latitudes, and least warming over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean.[123] During the 21st century, glaciers and snow cover are projected to continue their retreat (Meehl et al 2007). Projections of declines in Arctic sea ice vary (Meehl et al 2007). Recent models suggest that Arctic summers could be ice-free (defined as ice extent less than 1 million square km) as early as 2025-2030 (UK Met Office 2012).
Future changes in precipitation are expected to follow existing trends, with reduced precipitation over subtropical land areas, and increased precipitation at subpolar latitudes and some equatorial regions (NOAA GFDL, 2007, p.1). Projections suggest a probable increase in the frequency and severity of some extreme weather events, such as heat waves (IPCC 2012, pp9-13).
In view of the discussion below ("IPCC projection underestimations"), I was thinking of revising the "natural systems" section to include a summary of more recent global sea level rise projections. At present, the section only mentions the 2007 projections from the IPCC 4th Assessment (AR4). A recent (2012) literature assessment was conducted by the US National Research Council. The NRC study includes their own projections of sea level rise and cites projections by Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009) [24][25]. I was thinking that these two projections could be cited in the section alongside those from AR4. It would probably only require one or two sentences. Alternatively, a graph of the projections could be added. Enescot (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The image for sea level rise mis-states the IPCC AR4 (2007) because it suggests IPCC stated an upper bound for their projection. That's false. The SPM says "Because understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise". Also, trying to put all the info in one table instead of breaking the tables into three with a header for the year makes it confusing. I was familiar with the numbers but took several seconds to orient myself. A newbie could easily miss the years on the right hand border. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. If you want to draw a new graph, then the current graph could be replaced. Alternatively, I'd be pleased to redraw the graph in view of your comments. However, I'm not entirely clear on what you have in mind. If the graph is to be broken up into three graphs, then I presume that each graph would have its own set of axes. In my view, it might be more straightforward to omit the 2030 and 2050 projections.
The image description does mention the limitations of the IPCC projections:
"The IPCC (2007) estimates do not include all of the possible contributions from ice sheets (US NRC, 2012, pp.84-85). According to US NRC (2012, p.88), "the IPCC (2007) projections are likely underestimates because they do not account fully for cryospheric processes"."
I've added the SPM text you've quoted to the image description. The comment could also be added to the graph itself. I should note that the other projections shown in the graph are much higher than the IPCC's. Therefore, I think it should be fairly obvious that the high-end IPCC projection is not an upper-bound estimate.
Another point is that graphs often do not include the full range of possible outcomes. An example is the IPCC's graph of temperature projections [26]. Enescot (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I've found a sea level rise graph by NOAA which could be used to replace the existing graph [27]. The graph's on p.3 of the report. Enescot (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Sea level rise projections for 2100.
I've prepared a new graph of projected sea level rise, shown above. It is based on several studies. Enescot (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
SPhilbrick - problem with citations: On the graph's description page, a few of the Harvard citations did not work. I've corrected them.
NewsAndEventsGuy - AR4 projections: I've responded to comments on the IPCC projections (see above). The image description explains that the IPCC did not project an upper-bound for sea-level rise. I've tried to make my graph similar to others produced by US NRC (figure 5.6, p.94) and NOAA (figure 9, p.11). As I've already stated, many projections do not include an upper-bound estimate. For example, refer to the studies cited in the graph. To repeat an earlier point, it's hard for me to see how AR4's projections could be misinterpreted. The graph shows several studies that project greater sea-level rise than AR4 does. Enescot (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Where an RS gives no upper boundary, I'm opposed to a picture that looks like it does because I do not trust the reader to read the text that says the picture does not actually say what it appears to say at a simple glance. One way to solve this in pictorial form is to give each projection a solid outline, except for those RSs that do not express an upper boundary make that part of the border a dashed line, topped by an arrow and above the arrow add a question mark. That way, the reader instantly sees what the RS says even if the reader, like the preschoolers I know, "just looks at the pictures". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with your interpretation of the graph. I believe that my graph is consistent with graphs produced by reliable sources (see my previous post). As I've stated, all the SLR graphs I've looked at do not show the full range of uncertainty. In my experience, uncertainty is usually discussed in the accompanying text.
I agree that using dotted outlines on the graph instead of solid outlines would be an improvement. As for adding arrows, I disagree. I'm not aware of any graphs in reliable sources that are presented like this. Enescot (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Dotted/pink/polkadotted..... the border is irrelevant unless it communicates information. In this case, any border across the top of a bar for IPCC AR4's sea level rise projections is likely to misrepresent what they said, i.e., they explicitly said the numbers they were giving were for only some factors affecting sea level, and did not include other factors, and their numbers did not express an upper limit. You can wrap the bar in roses, but it still needs something to graphically communicate that the RS explicitly says we should not read the top of the bar as an upper limit. I have suggested an arrow and a question mark to graphically depict the text in this RS. Your rebuttal that you have not seen a graph showing this textual info in this manner doesn't really address the issue we have to meet for graphics here. The top question we have to ask is whether our picture accurately explains the RS text. An up arrow and a question mark would do that, IMO. There are probably other ways but a simple bar that misleads folks into thinking IPCC AR4's numbers were intended as an upper limit will not. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I've already said that I disagree with your interpretation of the graph. However, I have prepared a new graph and draft text for discussion:
Revised graph.
revised article text:
"Over the 21st century, the IPCC projects sea level rise of between 18-59 cm. The IPCC do not provide a best estimate of sea level rise, and their upper estimate of 59 cm is not an upper-bound, i.e., by 2100, global mean sea level could rise by more than 59 cm. The IPCC's projections are conservative, and may underestimate future sea level rise (see graph opposite) (US National Research Council, 2010, p.243)."
We appear to be in an infinite loop. Our rules say pics have to show what the RS text shows; your legend has a type of marking for the upper bounds of an estimate; that marking appears in association with AR4; AR4 explicitly says its numbers do not provide an upper boundary. Er go, the pic does not show what the AR4 RS text says. Only a picture that graphically depicts the *lack* of an upper estimate from AR4 will align with that particular RS. I have already suggested various ways to do that. Your only reason for rejecting one of the ideas I proposed is that you have not seen anyone else do that. But our policies do not exclude images for that reason. Rather, our policies say pics should communicate RS text effectively. We seem to be at an impasse. We need a picture that shows no upper limit being expressed in AR4.
As I've said, the graph that I've produced is entirely consistent with two reliable sources: US NRC (2012, figure 5.6, p.94) and NOAA (figure 9, p.11). You may not be satisfied with these graphs, but they still are reliable sources.
Earlier on, I did suggest that the existing graph could be replaced with one by NOAA (Figure ES 1, p.3). This graph does not include the IPCC projections. It is, however, representative of the literature, with projections ranging from 0.2-2.0 m by 2100, relative to 1992. NOAA state: "We have very high confidence (greater than 9 in 10 chances) that global mean sea level (based on mean sea level in 1992) will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meters) and no more than 6.6 feet (2 meters) by 2100".
PROPOSAL; just omit IPCC AR4 from the image and inclusion of all this more recent work you wish to include will make a great improvement to the article.
DETAILED RESPONSE; Our images have to accurately reflect the source. With respect to our point of disagreement (how to graphically depict IPCC AR 2007 WG1 sea level rise projections), the source to be "reflected" is IPCC AR 2007 WG1. The trouble we're having is that IPCC explicitly said that they were not projecting an upper boundary due in part to what was, at the time, poorly constrained ice sheet behavior.
Your first reference in your last comment appears to deal with the "AR4 no-upper boundary" problem by retroactively calculating an upper boundary. They showed IPCC's numbers, which omitted "rapid dynamical changes in ice flow" and then added what I think is their own number for such rapid changes (17cm). In effect, this image supports my point that we should not just draw out a bar that appears to say IPCC projected an upper boundary at 59cm, because the RSs all agree that is untrue. The way your first reference tried to graphically depict the lack of an upper boundary is not an RS for us to use no approach at all.
Your second link does indeed graphically show IPCC's numbers as though they included an upper boundary for their projection. But the text of that full reference admits "IPCC AR4 estimates did not include, however, potential rapid dynamic response of Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets as reflected in our Highest Scenario." So what is this second source an RS for? For one thing, it is an RS for how they dealt with this very problem. But so what? Our rules still say our images have to reasonably represent what is stated in the source. IPCC explicitly refrained from stating an upper boundary on their projection. Even if NOAA did not choose to graphically depict the lack of an upper boundary, if we make a picture of IPCC numbers, we still have to follow our rules, not just blindly endorse NOAA's technical editing decisions.
An up arrow and a question mark is one of the few alternative methods I have suggested. A new idea is to simply omit IPCC from the graphic, and instead deal with IPCC's numbers in text only.
Thanks for caring about adding the more recent research. On the need to do that, I definitely agree!
I still disagree with your idea of adding arrows to the graph. I also do not agree with your suggestion of omitting the IPCC estimates. The IPCC's estimates are included in both the US NRC and NOAA graphs (figure 9, p.11).
In my opinion, you are placing too much emphasis on the higher end projections of sea level rise. My understanding is that all SLR projections are highly uncertain, including those that project SLR greater than that in AR4. This is discussed in the US NRC and NOAA reports, as well as a literature review by Good et al. For instance, Good et al (p.12) state: "Although there are predictions of sea level rise in excess of IPCC AR4 values, these typically use semi-empirical methods that suffer from limited physical validity".
In my opinion, the NOAA graph (Figure ES 1, p.3) that I suggested previously would be a suitable replacement for the existing graph. It broadly reflects the literature, with each projection assuming a different contribution to SLR from ice sheets. This is discussed in pp.10-14 of the report.
And I am happy to use a modified version of that image, one which includes some manner of graphically depicting IPCC's explicit statement that the largest number in their range did not represent an upper boundary. I am not a graphics guy or I would modify it and post to the article myself. I appreciate your desire to add more recent research to the graph, but not at the expense of an image that casts a false representation of the text in the IPCC RS. Since we've come full circle several times, I would appreciate your taking the next step of DR instead of rehashing the argument for an 7th or 8th time. Even better, maybe others would express an opinion, please? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't read all the above, sorry. My understanding from memory is that the AR4 numbers given in the figure aren't really SLR projections, because they exclude some unknown components [28]. Perhaps they should just be omitted William M. Connolley (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Omitting AR4 isn't something I'd do lightly, normally its the wrong thing to do. In the case of SLR, though, I think they came in for a certain amount of (justified) stick for omitting important elements. There's also the problem that their estimates are entirely model based - models are fine, of course, but there's a literature on empirical scaling (which some of the other estimates of the figure use, so I'm not complaining that we're ignoring that) which the AR4 ignores. And (although I wouldn't suggest we say this) its clear that the AR4 lower bound is ridiculous - there's no way that anything less than, say, 3mm/yr is believable William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think we have our wires crossed. The graph that I've suggested as a replacement (figure 10 on p.12 of the NOAA report)does not include AR4's projections. The projections are by Paris et al, and are based on a literature assessment that includes AR4 projections. The projections by Paris et al range from 0.2-2.0 m by 2100, relative to mean sea level in 1992.
"Our Intermediate-Low [0.5 m] and Lowest Scenarios [0.2 m] are optimistic scenarios of future environmental change assuming rates of ice sheet loss and ocean warming slightly higher or similar to recent observations" – p.13 of report
An alternative would be to have no graph and simply describe projections in text. For example:
"Over the 21st century, the IPCC projects that global mean sea level could rise by 18-59 cm. The IPCC do not provide a best estimate of global mean sea level rise, and their upper estimate of 59 cm is not an upper-bound, i.e., global mean sea level could rise by more than 59 cm by 2100. The IPCC's projections are conservative, and may underestimate future sea level rise [29]. Projections by Paris and others suggest that global mean sea level could rise by 0.2 to 2.0 m by 2100, relative to mean sea level in 1992"
Thanks for the the back and forth. If I understand correctly, the proposal in this thread has zeroed in on the suggestion to use this image (figure 10 on p.12 of the NOAA report) in place of something. If we do that we will be displaying someone else's graphically misleading IPCC number, but as no one else appears to object, I will at least say this graphic mis-statement softens the misleading impact compared to others we have discussed, so I will probably go along to get along. Before I commit to that, please help me distill the discussion to its essentials.
Q1 Remind me please what image you want to take out when this one is put in?
Q2 Besides image replacement, are there other open items in this thread?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
As I've said, the graph by Paris et al does not include the IPCC's projections. Their low-end projections are their own:
"Our Intermediate-Low [0.5 m] and Lowest Scenarios [0.2 m] are optimistic scenarios of future environmental change assuming rates of ice sheet loss and ocean warming slightly higher or similar to recent observations" – p.13 of report
I do not agree that the graph by Paris et al is misleading. There is nothing unusual about producing projections that span the range in the literature. The IPCC did the same thing when they produced the SRES scenarios.
Q1: The following image would be replaced:
Sea level rise projections for 2100.
I've also suggested an alternative where the graph above would be removed and replaced with the following text:
"Over the 21st century, the IPCC projects that global mean sea level could rise by 18-59 cm. The IPCC do not provide a best estimate of global mean sea level rise, and their upper estimate of 59 cm is not an upper-bound, i.e., global mean sea level could rise by more than 59 cm by 2100. The IPCC's projections are conservative, and may underestimate future sea level rise [22]. Over the 21st century, Paris and others suggest that global mean sea level could rise by 0.2 to 2.0 m, relative to mean sea level in 1992"
Since my last post, I've altered the text above slightly.
I can live with the NOAA graph, though I note that the intermediate range NOAA used was simply imported from IPCC ("Our Intermediate-Low Scenario is based on the upper end of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) global SLR projections resulting from climate models using the B1 emissions scenarios." NOAA report, p 12). In so doing NOAA blatantly ignored IPCC's explicit statement that it was not to be used as an upper bound, nor a best estimate. While I agree that it is common to summarize the range of the literature, I remain steadfast in my belief that it is uncommon and improper to summarize it falsely, which is what people do when they say or imply IPCC projected only around 59cm +/-, as though that were an IPCC AR4 best estimate or IPCC AR4 upper boundary, because that is misrepresentation of what IPCC AR4 said. NOAA made that error. Using this graph we import that error, but in a blunted way with which I can live if it is only you and me trying to resolve this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with your criticism of the NOAA report. Their scenarios are intended for the purposes of risk assessment. The authors of the report state that "specific probabilities or likelihoods are not assigned to individual scenarios in this report, and none of these scenarios should be used in isolation" (p.1).
My suggested revision is below. New text is in italics. I haven't uploaded the NOAA graph yet:
"... declines in Arctic sea ice extent, and to glacier retreat.[132]
[NOAA graph. Caption: Projections of global mean sea level rise by Paris and others. None of these scenarios is a best estimate of future sea level rise.]
[new text] Over the 21st century, the IPCC projects that global mean sea level could rise by 18-59 cm. The IPCC do not provide a best estimate of global mean sea level rise, and their upper estimate of 59 cm is not an upper-bound, i.e., global mean sea level could rise by more than 59 cm by 2100. The IPCC's projections are conservative, and may underestimate future sea level rise [22]. Over the 21st century, Paris and others suggest that global mean sea level could rise by 0.2 to 2.0 m, relative to mean sea level in 1992 (refer to graph opposite)
On the timescale of centuries to millennia, the melting of..."
Reconsidering.... If I understand right, your proposed RS (a 2012 NOAA report, see link under the subsection heading above) includes a "low" value for sea level rise based on ice sheet behavior holding steady and past SLR rates holding steady, to yield what even the authors called an "optimistic" low-end projection 20cm above 1992 levels. Besides Enescot does anyone think 20cm on top of 1992 levels reflects the bulk of the literature for low estimates? For one thing, see this press coverage of a new PNAS paper. To be fair, I haven't seen the original PNAS paper, and I don't know if they discuss low estimates. I'd just like to know what those more knowledgeable than myself have seen in other current RSs for low projections? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Since no one else has climbed on board, I defer to the silence and change my "object" to "no contest". Go ahead and make your desired change Enescot (talk·contribs), and I will renew my objection, maybe, if the edit inspires other resistance. Thanks for your patience during an extended yet constructive back and forth. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'd just like to further respond to some of your comments. I have never suggested that slr of 20 cm is reflective of recent low estimates. I have said that the range of 0.2-2.0 m is comparable to the range in the literature. This is explained in the NOAA report. The IPCC's estimates were subject to a very rigorous process of review, so they are robust estimates. My suggested revision includes the IPCC's own caveats, as well as the more recent comment by the US NRC: "The IPCC's projections are conservative, and may underestimate future sea level rise [30]".
I've previously referred to a review by Good et al (p.12), which states that: "Although there are predictions of sea level rise in excess of IPCC AR4 values, these typically use semi-empirical methods that suffer from limited physical validity"
I believe that this is the relevant PNAS paper [31], which I obtained from [32]. I haven't fully read the paper, but it seems to focus on long-term, multi-century estimates of slr.
The existing revision of the article does mention long-term slr, but it could be improved. At present, it does not mention the commitment to slr from thermal expansion alone. I've put together a draft revision based on US NRC (2011):
"Widespread coastal flooding would be expected if several degrees of warming is sustained for millennia. 2 C of warming (relative to pre-industrial levels) could lead to eventual sea level rise of around 1 to 4 m due to thermal expansion of sea water and the melting of glaciers and small ice caps. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet could contribute an additional 4 to 7.5 m over many thousands of years."
In this well-written and good faith series of edits, Watti Renew (talk·contribs) added a paragraph on GHG emissions related to travel. It is well sourced, but travel is just one slice of the emissions pie. I propose this paragraph be relocated to a sub article focused on GHGs or emission sources or mitigation (or a combination). We should talk about the biggest slices of the pie in a few sentences and have an overview paragraph that briefly reviews the colleciton of smaller slices for navigation purposes.
Attribution AGW to nuclear & geothermal heat sources
This thread fails to cite any RSs or suggest improvements based on them, in contradiction of WP:NOTFORUM. Click show to read anyway
Many sources consider Nuclear Electrical Power Generation and Geothermal Heating as NOT contributing to Global Warming. Maybe, indirectly?
Do not Nuclear Reactors intensify and increase the rate of exothermic decay of their fuel? They also depend on the ancient Rankine System Steam cycle. Two thirds of the heat is dumped into the environment directly - and all eventually(?).
Does not Geothermal Heating increase the rate of heat transfer from the Earth's Core to the Atmosphere (eventually)?
Thus all of this excess heat has to be dissipated by radiant cooling from the earth. The main benefit from these energy alternatives is the amount of GHG's that they displace, thus improving the earth's ability to rid itself of the excess heat (or heat transfer)- some of which they are responsible for. Then again there would probably have to be a great deal more geothermal heating to compete with an active volcano season?
Essentially this is an issue for the Climate change mitigation article which is briefly summarised in this article. I have not gone into this topic, but would understand that nuclear and geothermal cause some GHG addition: for example, steel and concrete are both carbon intensive. In the longer run they can replace fossil fuels, which are the main contribution to global warming. In my limited understanding, the actual heat contribution is relatively small. Anyway, the topic is covered in this main article, appropriately briefly. If you find good reliable sources which support significant change, they should first be used to update the sub-article. . dave souza, talk19:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Waste heat is much much smaller than heat trapped by CO2 over long time scales, but comparable over short timescales . this study finds that the annual global heating from waste heat from coal power plants is roughly equivalent to the heating caused by CO2 over that year. However, over the long term (fifty years of operation plus fifty years afterwards) the CO2 proviles 92% of the warming. Think of it like this. In year one, waste heat and CO2 each add one unit. In year 2, waste heat adds one unit, but CO2 adds two units because the first unit of CO2 is still trapping heat. At three years, it's 3 units from CO2 vs. one from waste heat, etc., etc. And then once the plant goes offline most of that CO2 is still contributing to heating the planet! Nuke plants are comparable in waste heat to coal plants (maybe a bit more) but have zero from CO2 so overall nuclear "wins" in terms of limiting global warming. This is a good question though, and the study I linked here might be worth putting into our articles somewhere, because the information wasn't easy to find with real numbers. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
As I understand the matter..... (bear with me for a minute with my simplifications)....
Global Warming is a matter of planetary heat transfer. Climate change is largely a secondary consequence.
Solar energy in > energy stored in energy sinks > heat released from energy sinks > heat radiated from the planet.
Carbon enters the equation two ways: (1)carbon based greenhouse gases released to the atmosphere changes the radient/thermal properties of the atmosphere lessening the ability of the planet to cool AND (2) by releasing not only stored energy but stored carbon from fossil fuel sinks.
Extensive (to be quantified) Geothermal energy systems increase the rate of heat transfer from one of the thermal sinks - the molten core of the planet.
Nuclear power, as I understand the process, accelerates and concentrates the rate of decay with a natural ore/fuel. It contributes to Global Warming and hence Climate Change arising from that phenomena by (a) the greenhouse gases emitted by the manufacturing, construction and maintainance activities associated with power stations AND (b) increasing the rate of heat from a controlled nuclear reaction.
The theory is that all energy generated from a power plant ends up in the environment directly or indirectly eventually. Waste heat from steam cycles contribute much more immediately.
Global Warming could be a problem without an increase in CO2 if the Earth's Core cooled faster (more volcanic activity) or all of our energy came from nuclear powered steam systems. The CO2 from fossil fuel Power Plants complicates matters by inhibiting the thermal cooling properties of the planet.
The fact that society is burning and metabolizing too much carbon is one matter, the increasing amount of energy that an increasing population is using since the industrial revolution is another.
A caption for a photograph from the Wiki Article "Nuclear Power" states: "....Unlike fossil fuel power plants, the only substance leaving the cooling towers of nuclear power plants is water vapour and thus does not pollute the air or cause global warming.....".
First, water vapour (the vapour condensate is the visible emission from a cooling tower) is a greenhouse gas - albeit a mild one. The condensing vapour adds to the heat load of the atmosphere. It all has to be radiated from the earth sometime. Nuclear Power Plants contribute much less to greenhouse gas emissions, but do contribute (IMHO) to global warming. Does the former offset the latter - a difficult perspective to quantify?
These cooling towers that emit H2O may contribute to cloud formation and reflect some incoming solar radiation, but I suspect that this is also difficult to quantify.
I don't mean to clutter this Talk page, but why clutter the the others (Climate Change Mitigation, Nuclear Power etc.) as well. maybe the matter can be sorted out here - if need be at all?
No, I think dave souza, Sailsbystars, NewsAndEventsGuy and William M. Connolley had it about right. This latest post, Pete318, is full of muddles and strange ideas that don't fit in with normal usage of the terms, or are not consistent with the scientific literature on the subjects. This isn't a help desk, so there are too many points to go through them in detail here. Suffice to say that if any of this was relevant to improving the article, it would have to be accompanied by an impressive list of new references that say it is. --Nigelj (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The Talk page is not the Article - a discussion of the logic of the content is not out of place. I enjoy the criticism but comments such as ".....muddles and strange ideas that don't fit in with normal usage of the terms, or are not consistent with the scientific literature on the subjects......" do not address ANY of the points and makes no contribution whatever and clutters the page even more. If there are several points - pick just one at a time? Help Desk???? - Please!
Nothing worse than Academic trash talking - delete the entire section and I will discuss elsewhere.
Hi, In reply to your comments at TALK:Global warming, the talk page is not an acceptable place for a general discussion of the topic. See WP:NOTFORUM. Instead we have specific talk page guidelines that say article talk pages are for exploring specific ideas to improve articles on the basis of what wikipedia definese as reliable sources. I agree with Nigelj's feedback posted after your comment at the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
A reliable source means more than just a footnote. The citer has to quote the article and discuss the logic of the content. These days, it seems, many contributers appear to just search the internet and find some page or ".pdf" document that agrees with their point and appears credible.
In the old days when a publisher would plan for a printing of a text - especially an encyclopedia - the investor would have to set aside a great deal of money before printing. Whether the content was biased or reliable or not, at least the editors had to make sure that it was exactly what they wanted to say - spelling, syntax and grammer included. Many readers may not follow the logic behind the text anyway - make it readable to as many as possible - sell the books!
Wiki - aims(?) to do this but how can it without discussion. The Talk Page is the only utility that facilitates this - rules or not? All of my comments were thought out and challenged the logic of the section of the article. "Green" sources of energy may not contribute to Greenhouses Gases in the atmosphere but do(apparently) artifically generate more heat transfer which, logically, would contribute to global warming - not as much a those that produce CO2 as well (obviously! - footnote or not) but still some.
If my logic had any basis, then say - politely - ".... interesting point Pete318 - can you track down a specific reference for that point. Check back maybe another poster can find one...." The rebuttal comment was simply ignorant. If the poster had actually read it he/she may have noted - "....that the caption cited from the Nuclear Power article is not referenced!!! and - horrors - it is in the ARTICLE not the TALK Page!!!.....".
Most of my other points come from standard principles in textbooks, but it is a discussion of logic. This ("your"(plural)) page has a flaw in logic with both the Geothermal and Nuclear Power context! Thank you for taking the time to politely reply.
However I am learning from my experience with wiki that logic is not absolute. If a participant becomes abrupt or rude that is worse than being them being inaccurate - bail out of the Talk page! Nice of you, but you cannot repair the insult by proxy. Let the posters jealous of their cyper-turf have their day. He/she probably meant no offence, none taken - just annoyed.
Thanks again. [Maybe have a new format: ARTICLE TALK FORUM - go to a forum with your point first - if it makes it past there go to Talk with the cited details - then agree on the ARTICLE content?] Pete318 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The links get a 500 server error, and have been doing so since March. Should the links to them in the FAQ be removed? Sorry if this has already been discussed. 74.128.43.180 (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Tone of this article
This expression of editor opinion is WP:SOAP lacking suggestion for improving the article such as draft text with citations. click show to read anyway
I'm interested in going through this article and toning down some of the writing into a more scientific style, but I'm afraid of having it be converted. I tried yesterday (August 13, 2013) and was denied. How can I get some sort of agreement among editors that this article has a little too much, can I call it, enthusiasm? Rigorous science merely discusses the facts, the math, the data, and the evidence, without exhibiting the emotional content of the writer. I have found, when discussing global warming with the general public, that many people are turned off by the whole issue because of "alarmism" they hear from political activists, etc., and I think they might be comparing it with Chicken Little or the boy who cried wolf. If this article were more encyclopedically written, it might be an improvement. Do we need to say "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by..." when we can just say "Climatologists believe..."? Other articles on other subjects merely present the facts, and tells what the leading experts believe. Why does this article have to be so over-written with hyperbole? DigbyDalton (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but it isn't about what climatologists believe..., rather it is about the science and the level of certainty of that science. Vsmith (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Articles on evolution do not say "biologists believe," articles on carbonyl reactions do not say "chemists believe." We are presenting the facts. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I think though, that having the "unequivocal" bit, counter-intuitively, actually weakens the strength of the evidence. Let's compare "recent warming is unequivocal, and 90 %....." with "As of xxxx the Earth has warmed 0.5 C and this warming has been attributed, with 90% certainty, to human activity." Having "unequivocal" in there makes it sound like we're trying too hard to convince people this is real. It simply is real, so don't try to act llke there's a debate you need to win on it. Just my 2 pence but that wording has always bothered me so I thought I'd chime in. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
How can I get some sort of agreement among editors - well, the obvious method would be to talk *before* editing. I have found, when discussing global warming with the general public - why would we be interested in your discussions? "alarmism" they hear from political activists - fascinating. But there is none of that here, so the relevance is quite obscure. Do you think you could stick to the point? Do we need to say - absolutely not. We don't *need* to say anything specific. But your question is bad. It should be "Is it desirable to say..." or "Is it sensible to say..."? In this case, since "unequivocal" is a direct quote from the IPCC, the answer is "yes, it does make sense to include that" William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
@ DigbyDalton, since you want "a more scientific style", why not use the wording produced as a consensus statement by scientists: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (see Figure SPM.3). {3.2, 4.2, 5.5}"AR4 WG1. Any paraphrasing of that in our own words should be no less direct. It will of course be interesting to see the AR5 wording when that's published. . dave souza, talk16:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The IPCC summary may well be the best choice for summary wording, but it is incorrect to characterize it as a statement of scientists. The process starts with working groups of qualified scientists, but the final wording is the product of politicians, who are not necessarily, and often not, scientists. --SPhilbrick(Talk)17:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
That's why I chose WG1, which is written by scientists. SPhilbrick, you've not got it quite right: the wording of the synthesis statements is negotiated with government representatives (not politicians as such) and the summaries have to be brought in line with the synthesis, but always subject to agreement with scientists. As I understand it. . dave souza, talk18:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Yup, maybe there's a case for citing WG1 rather than the synthesis report statement as reference [3] in the article. Worthwhile changing? . . dave souza, talk19:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Sailsbystars and rephrased the "unequivocal" line because it's not about whether global warming is unequivocal or not, it's an article about global warming, of course it's unequivocal. It's like having an article about pianos and saying that the existence of pianos is unequivocal. I also deleted one line that was an example of profound hyperbole, something about how the probability of spring coming early was almost zero or some such. Not worth remembering the line. Spring doesn't come by probability and "almost zero"? Really? The reference didn't say anything about the probability of spring flowers blooming early anyway. Good grief. This article is full of lines with a similar argumentative tone. Let's just present the facts.DigbyDalton (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
But the opening sentence of the article would be "A leprechaun is a fictional character. The fact that it is fictional is unequivocal" and I would unequivocally edit out that hyperbole as well.DigbyDalton (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Warming of the climate system exists, but a surprisingly large number of people deny it exists or equivocate about it. Hence the need for clarity, as expressed by the consensus of scientists. . dave souza, talk08:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not hyperbolic to say that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" since it scientifically is. DigbyDalton if your issue is a grammatical one, then I disagree with you as most editors here apparently also do. Please don't engage in edits for which you know you have no consensus for. Thanks. Regards, Gaba(talk)12:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This talking point is not about the use of the word "unequivocal", it's about the extreme hyperbole in this article and the need to tone it down. I started this talking point and titled it "hyperbole" so please don't change it back. If anybody wants to start a talking point about "unequivocal" then feel free but this is not that place. Hyperbole is rampant throughout this article. For example I will quote some text from the article.
The current rate of ocean acidification is many times faster than at least the past 300 million years, which included four mass extinctions that involved rising ocean acidity, such as the Permian mass extinction, which killed 95% of marine species. By the end of the century, acidity changes since the industrial revolution would match the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred over 5000 years and killed 35–50% of benthic foraminifera.
This text states that the rate of ocean acidification is faster than it was during 4 mass extinctions. Really? These extinctions were caused by an asteroid 65 million yrs ago, the Siberian Traps 251 million years ago, the other 2 are unknown, but the text says these extinctions involved rising ocean acidity, which implies that rising ocean acidity was somehow responsible for them or associated with them in some way relevant to current global warming. This is an absurdity. Dave Sousa mentions that there are a surprisingly large number of people who deny that global warming exists. Well, it is exactly this sort of alarmism and hyperbole which makes them deny it, because people are turned off by hype. So lets remove the hype so people don't read this wikipedia article and get turned off even more than they already are. DigbyDalton (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Ocean acidification may have severe consequences for marine ecosystems; however, assessing its future impact is difficult because laboratory experiments and field observations are limited by their reduced ecologic complexity and sample period, respectively. In contrast, the geological record contains long-term evidence for a variety of global environmental perturbations, including ocean acidification plus their associated biotic responses. We review events exhibiting evidence for elevated atmospheric CO2, global warming, and ocean acidification over the past ~300 million years of Earth’s history, some with contemporaneous extinction or evolutionary turnover among marine calcifiers. Although similarities exist, no past event perfectly parallels future projections in terms of disrupting the balance of ocean carbonate chemistry—a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place.
— Honisch, B.; Ridgwell, A.; Schmidt, D. N.; Thomas, E.; Gibbs, S. J.; Sluijs, A.; Zeebe, R.; Kump, L.; Martindale, R. C.; Greene, S. E.; Kiessling, W.; Ries, J.; Zachos, J. C.; Royer, D. L.; Barker, S.; Marchitto Jr, T. M.; Moyer, R.; Pelejero, C.; Ziveri, P.; Foster, G. L.; Williams, B. (2012). "The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification". Science. 335 (6072): 1058–1063. doi:10.1126/science.1208277. PMID22383840..
Dave, that Science Magazine article certainly doesn't support the text in our Wikipedia that I cited. NewsAndEventsGuy thanks but I can see that the Global Warming article is closely monitored by watch dogs so you won't see me here again. Another reason Wikipedia will never approach Britannica in authority DigbyDalton (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite, but no thanks. The article will remain without my help. People will continue to read that human are causing the most rapid ocean acidification, "many times faster than any in at least the past 300,000,000 years." Thanks though. Oh by the way, did you know that the event responsible for the Siberian Traps released over 100,000 gigatons of carbon? Humans release 8 gigatons a year. Siberian Traps may have been an asteroid, which means all that carbon was emitted virtually overnight. If it wasn't, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was, and released comparable amounts of carbon. Thousands of gigatons in a few minutes. The wikipedia article in not accurate. Fix it. DigbyDalton (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure try SUNY Orange [2] but i'm still done here, not going to help edit this article due to the history of political warfare here. Sorry. Would have loved to play, but good bye. DigbyDalton (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Digbydalton: "I'm interested in going through this article and toning down some of the writing into a more scientific style". I was going to write something about POV facts need POV tone to signal the POVness ... then I remembered what my son said: "no one cares about that stuff any longer". And looking at the feedback comments, we sceptics clearly achieved our ambition: the article is too long, too complex in its wording and too one sided to be read by most people. But as not even the warmists seem interested in editing this article any longer there's no harm pointing this out as I can't see anyone bothering to do the necessary edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.206.26 (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Some charts are really old with data only up to 2004, so almost 10 years old - for this topic there should be newer, current data available. It's especially interesting to see the current development over the past few years; this is really crucial and I'm sure the data is available...
I agree that some of the charts could be updated. The lead section of the article already contains an up-to-date graph of global mean temperature. I have some more recent data on Earth's energy imbalance [34]. I also know of some other sources of more recent data (e.g., of greenhouse gas emissions by sector and cumulative CO2 emissions by region) but I'll have to dig around for these. Enescot (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The first is a pie chart (figure 1, public-domain) that shows more recent data in %. Alternatively there is a bar chart in Hansen et al (2011: p.13,433, figure 10b) that shows changes measured in watts per square metre. The bar chart is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. My own preference is for the pie chart.
I've had a look at the section of the article on "ecological systems". In my opinion, the section should be revised. I don't agree with how ocean acidification is described. I find the existing text alarmist. I'm comparing it to an assessment by the US National Research Council (US NRC, 2010), and a 2009 joint-statement made by 105 science academies (the Interacademy Panel). I recognize that the impacts of ocean acidification could be highly significant, but scientific understanding of these impacts is limited. US NRC (2010, p.5) state:
"Unless anthropogenic CO2 emissions are substantially curbed, or atmospheric CO2 is controlled by some other means, the average pH of the ocean will continue to fall. Ocean acidification has demonstrated impacts on many marine organisms. While the ultimate consequences are still unknown, there is a risk of ecosystem changes that threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources of value to society"
To address the concerns that I've raised, I've written a draft revision of the section of the article that deals with ocean acidification:
"Increases in atmospheric co2 concentrations have lead to an increase in ocean acidity. Dissolved CO2 increases ocean acidity, which is measured by lower pH values. The oceans have taken up approximately one-third of anthropogenic CO2 emissions between 1750 to 2000.[3] Over this time period, surface-ocean pH has decreased by ~0.1, from ~8.2 to ~8.1.[3] Surface-ocean pH has probably not been below ~8.1 during the past 2 million years.[3] Projections suggest that surface-ocean pH could decrease by an additional 0.3-0.4 units by 2100.[4]
Increases in acidity reduces the availability of minerals such as aragonite, which is a form of calcium carbonate that corals, some types of plankton, and other creatures rely on to produce their hard skeletons and shells.[5] The ecosystems affected by ocean acidification play a role in the marine food web (UNEP, 2010, pp.1, 4-8).[6] Changes in these ecosystems could, in turn, affect a number of economic sectors, including fisheries, aquaculture, and tourism (UNEP, 2010, pp.1, 4-8).[6] Fish, including shellfish, contribute 15% of animal protein for three billion people worldwide (UNEP, 2010, p.4).[6] A further one billion people rely on fisheries for their primary source of protein (UNEP, 2010, p.4).[6] Ocean acidification puts this important resource at risk (UNEP, 2010, p.8)."[6]
Would it not be better to have only a brief reference to ocean acidification here? The article is on Global Warming, not bad things that happen because of increasing carbon dioxide? Detailed, accurate treatment of the subject would be left to the ocean acidification page. N p holmes (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I've tried to be as brief as possible. I've re-drafted my suggested revision to make it shorter:
"Increases in atmospheric co2 concentrations have lead to an increase in ocean acidity. Dissolved CO2 increases ocean acidity, which is measured by lower pH values. Between 1750 to 2000, surface-ocean pH has decreased by ~0.1, from ~8.2 to ~8.1. Surface-ocean pH has probably not been below ~8.1 during the past 2 million years. Projections suggest that surface-ocean pH could decrease by an additional 0.3-0.4 units by 2100. Future ocean acidification could threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources of value to society."
Agreed (by OP) that the focus of the article in on the scientific aspects of global warming, which Moore does not address. Accordingly, Moore will not be added to further reading section. (Discussion closed by OP.)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This addition: Moore, Thomas Gale (2008). "Global Warming: A Balance Sheet". In David R. Henderson (ed.) (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Library of Economics and Liberty. ISBN978-0865976658. OCLC237794267. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |editor= has generic name (help) to the further reading section was added by me and reverted twice. First revert based on RS, second because editor was not convinced that Moore (or CEE?) is RS. Moore himself is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and former member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. CEE itself is composed of articles written by many high quality authors, including NoBull Prize winners. The article itself is balanced and well sourced. It does not deny global warming, but takes a brief look at the economics involved with global warming. Comments are welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Moore's essay reads more like a poorly-supported opinion piece, consistent with his own role in Cato Institute See CATO's "Global-warming-try-it-you-might-it" and Moore's position on the board of Koch-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute. Not an RS, and fact that the Liberty Fund's Concise Encyclopedia chose to feature Moore's op-ed on Global Warming as their complete coverage of the Global warming topic (as indexd) is a black mark as we evaluate the editorial control and reputation for fact checking underlying that entire online collection of Libertarian free-market essays. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
We have had a long-standing consensus that this article should concentrate on the science of global warming. But quite independently of that, Moore's piece does not show any sign of deep analysis or research. It's all unsupported fluff, with references to sources that are either also think tank fluff, or 20 years out of date. Publications by so-called think tanks are, as a rule, not RS - they serve to sell certain political points, not to do fundamental independent research. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
"I am not satisfied that the above source (Moore, 2008) offers a balanced overview of the economics of global warming. It might be an appropriate addition to the further reading section of economics of global warming. There, at least, alternative assessments are referred to, e.g., the report by UN DESA.
There are numerous criticisms that can be made of economic assessments of climate change, e.g., see Economics of global warming, [36][37], and [38]. Unfortunately, Moore (2008) does not properly explain these issues. Nor does it explain alternative methods of climate impact assessment, e.g., a risk-based approach based on a disaggregated analysis of climate change impacts [39]."
I see that Srich32977 (talk·contribs) has been adding lots of copy-and-paste links and citations to a few webpages at the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics into this and several other articles related to global warming. That is a website published by the Library of Economics and Liberty, which itself appears to be entirely run by a small but well funded right-wing organisation called Liberty Fund Inc., based in Indianapolis, USA. Clearly this is a WP:PRIMARY SOURCE with quite unusual and extreme views about global warming. It should not be introduced into articles without reliable secondary source commentary to provide context. Unfortunately, it is such an obscure website run by this organisation that it is unlikely that the scholarly literature has put much effort into anaylsing and debunking the strange points they make. It is also unfortunate that Srich32977 appears more prepared to edit war rather than discuss to keep these links in place.[40][41][42] --Nigelj (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Note, I opened a discussion above (at the suggestion of William M. Connolley) – which is hardly edit warring. The 3 reverts in the 3 articles were based on an edit summary of "not-RS", which is not the case. In any event, the arguments above are very WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (Since the discussion is hot and heavy I will wait awhile before commenting further.) I won't mind if discussions are opened on the other pages, but suggest that we hash things out here for the time being. – S. Rich (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
You need to read WP:BRD. If someone reverts you - whatever their reason - you do not revert back. That is how to start an edit war. While you're at it, please note at the top of the talk pages that these articles are subject to WP:General sanctionsWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. It is very unlikely that you're going to get personal opinion pieces published by a right-wing think tank to feature very highly in these articles. Perhaps if you could find some peer reviewed journal articles or other scholarly sources that explain why these views are considered notable in academia or elsewhere it would help. --Nigelj (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a good way of putting it Nigelj. Srich, a good scientist may have a hypothesis before beginning research. However, this can be contradicted by the findings. A think-tank generally makes a hypothesis (or even decides that they have a certain "fact") and continues researching until only supporting evidence is found, ignoring any other evidence to the contrary. In some cases, the evidence is fraudulent, incorrect or simply invented. Sometimes it is genuine but it has been given undue weight or discussed incorrectly.
This is why think-tanks are not regarded as reliable sources. The correct scientific approach is to report all findings and comment on the significance of all the findings. In the case of global warming, there is not much evidence that could be regarded as disproving it, so it is not given much attention. There is a huge amount of supporting evidence, so it tends to get more attention. Which is how it should be, since global warming is NOT a matter of opinion. Given the proposed citations you've suggested stem from what is an opinion piece more than a scientific piece, it doesn't belong in this article. That would also apply to an opinion piece proving global warming (even though such an article would have a more sound factual basis). Vision Insider (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I and others have been editing the CEE & Liberty Fund pages. One thing I note is that Liberty Fund is a non-profit educational foundation. So far I don't see stuff that calls it a think tank. In any event, I see 4 Nobel Econ Prize winners are amongst the CEE authors. At least 2 authors are connected with Democratic administrations. Also I take issue with the statement that think tanks are not RS. No WP guidance supports this idea because we look at material in the context of how it is used. There are multiple issues involved with global warming. The scientific aspect is one of them, and the economic impact of global warming is another. Hopefully editors are not taking a WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude with this particular addition. Also, I hope editors will note that I simply added the CEE piece as a further reading item. Nothing from it was added to the article. This particular author is a Hoover Institution Fellow with Council of Economic Advisors creditentials. Hopefully (and I trust) censorship is not taking place in an effort to keep the CEE out. – S. Rich (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, we called it a think tank until you changed that. But regardless of its classification, it's a political pressure group with a well-defined agenda. Reliability does nor rub off - just because someone reliable has published something in a given venue does not imply that everything published there is good. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
If I had found RS that called Liberty Fund a think tank, I would have added it. Since I have not found such material, I hope editors are disabused as to what Liberty Fund is. (Even so, material from think tanks is RS as long as we consider the context of how it is used.) Stephan, your observation about the focus of this article on the science of the global warming is the most pertinent. Because Moore's contribution is not a scientific one, I concede. – S. Rich (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Presentation of current state of knowledge
This thread fails to cite any RSs or suggest improvements based on them, in contradiction of WP:NOTFORUM. Click show to read anyway
Disclaimer: I agree that CO2 likely is raising average global temperature.
On the other hand, this article does an absolutely awful job of presenting the current state of knowledge. The average temperature has remained flat for almost 2 decades now, according to several peer reviewed analyses. Why is that not a prominent part of this? The only reason I can see, is that the editors of this piece are biased and unwilling to consider that their beliefs are wrong. By definition, this is not rational. My conclusion is that the editors would rather ignore inconsistencies rather than admit that if our models are inadequate in dealing with them, then obviously the models are wrong (or, at minimum, incomplete and inadequate). This is a hugely controversial issue, mostly because of the policy & economic implications. Because it affects all of us, it lends itself to advocacy on both sides. It may be true that 90% of the people employed to study the effect believe the effect is real, but when you state it that way, why would anyone be surprised? What is the criteria for inclusion here? That a paper is published in a peer reviewed journal or that the wiki-editors have decided that the paper or journal don't meet their demands for structure, content, editorial quality, or number of supporting documents. If you read this Talk page, it is obviously the latter, and there is more that one person (hopefully not a scientist) who should be deeply embarrassed by his prejudicial and irrational censorship. Anyway, my main point is that the majority do not now and never have determined what is scientifically correct, that there is a significant "fringe" of scientists who do not accept that our models have sufficient accuracy to be labeled as "almost certain", and that therefore the failures of the theory should be given prominence rather than censored. The controversial and unknown science and the failures of our models to accurately have predicted the last 17 years should have their own sections and should be one of the first sections. Particulates, tundra, and deep oceans (among others) all are poorly understood contributors to the physics and we do not now adequately model them.216.96.76.228 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Projections of future warming
There is nothing in this article about the degree of climate change expected, all this article states is universal scientific consensus for some warming to occur, there is nothing about various scientific views on the degree of warming except for once sentence on the IPCC from 6 years ago, or the various policy implications and debates in responses to these conclusions. --J intela (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe somebody will find them useful and integrate them where they might belong. I'm a climate noob and don't have the overview over the Wiki articles concerning climate change.
I hope someone can help out here. Best, --DrLee (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, they can certainly go on a US-related page. Since this top level article tries to take a global view, if we use video at all seems like a global depiction would work better. But I'm concerned about adding a lot of bytes to the file. Not everyone tries to read this on high speed internet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Borenstein's article
I've unsure about this addition [43] to the lead (a note) by Attleboro:
WMC and Trödel have removed the addition, which Attleboro then restored (see User talk:William M. Connolley#Global warming). In my opinion, the content of the cited article is better suited to global warming controversy than this article. The note itself could be moved to the global warming#Global warming controversy section of the article. In my view, Borenstein's article isn't too bad, but I think that it is too rhetorical to use in the lead. In my opinion, there are alternative sources that present a more objective discussion of decision-making under uncertainty than Borenstein does, e.g., [44][45].
(A) Agree it is an unsuitable article for the lead of this article;
(B) Don't see how it would be an improvement over what is there already anyway;
(C) When it was first added, the cite was poorly formatted and included the wiki ed's personal characterization of the article masquerading as a quote from the article. I have now removed that. What is left is just a naked cite with metadata, and quite useless in terms of measuring article-improvement.
If it stays - here or elsewhere - I am troubled by how Attleboro (talk·contribs) has disregarded the DISCUSS portion of WP:BRD by restoring text I had reverted. Attleboro included the following language in the reference itself
"Scientists from many fields are as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill"
This text is not wikipedia article text, since it is in the reference and not the wikipedia article. Nor is it a direct quote from the RS. Appearing in the reference footnote this text looks like Attleboro's own words characterizing the article. In addition, when you read the article you find that the statement is based on informal interviews by unnamed AP people with a measly 12 scientists, only one of whom was identified by name. It might be reasonable to cover what the named scientist said to illustrate the 95% certainty thing, but not here and not in this manner. Somebody please undo Attleboro's revert of my revert.
NewsAndEventsGuy I added a better (I thought) source for Attleboro's edit in an attempt to make it more reliable. I agree though that since it was reverted previously the edit should be discussed here before attempting to insert it back again, so I've restored the previous version of the article. Personally I think the quote is a good metaphore of how certain global warming is to scientists but I also understand your concern about the reliability of the reference, so I could go either way. Let's hear from other editors. Regards. Gaba(talk)00:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Except it is not a quote; it was Attleboro's characterization of what the article said; I'm unpersuaded the opinions of 12 scientists is sufficient to support the claim that "scientists say..."; and even if others think otherwise, the phrase is more like article text and should be in an article, not embedded inside a reference. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed that 12 scientists is not enough to back such a broad statement as scientists say. That said, it is very nearly a literal quote. This is what the edit said:
Scientists from many fields are as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.
And this is what the article says:
Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.
In any case, as I said before, I could go either way and have no issues with it not being included at all. Regards. Gaba(talk)02:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
That section of that high-impact essay talks about the use of quotations and alternatives to the use of quotations in the body of the article. That is not what you did. Instead, you put your paraphrasing statement between the <ref> and </ref> codes. When you do that, the text appears in the citation's entry in the reference section below the body of the wikipedia article. If we did that for all the citations, there would be little difference between the body of the article and the references section, because text and citation data would be all mushed together. If you think between the ref on and off codes is an appropriate place for such paraphrases, then please point to the WP:MOS or equivalent to support your statement. And in any case, informal AP query's to 12 scientists doesn't really support the paraphrased text "Scientists say..."NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The paraphrase is both grammatically and thematically correct. We are encouraged to use them. As for using one in the text part of a ref... what's not prohibited is allowed. The burden is upon you to "point to the WP:MOS or equivalent to support your statement." But, more importantly, we should be doing all we can to make this info intelligible. Attleboro (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy now I see what you were referring to, I hadn't noticed the paraphrasing was done in the reference rather than in the article. Attleboro NaEG is right, whatever we quote in a reference we must do so literally, the paraphrasing (which as you note is required in WP to avoid copyright issues) is left for the body of the article itself.
I have to agree with NaEG in that 12 scientists are not enough to support "Scientists say...". Given that the lede is quite well sourced already, there's really no need to add yet another source. Cheers. Gaba(talk)23:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, folks, but I wish someone would cite WP authority for "whatever we quote in a reference we must do so literally". Making this topic as accessible as possible, to as wide a readership as possible, is my main concern. Attleboro (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gaba_p, I went there and can't find anything banning paraphrasing from the text of a ref cite, and paraphrasing is something we're generally encouraged to do instead of quoting. Attleboro (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:CITE#What_information_to_include; there you will see subsections for the things that should be included. Original text summarizing the RS is not included in those subsections. That leaves the "Additional annotation" subsection. While that does mention making direct quotes, article-like text that paraphrases an RS' thesis is not listed. Before you come back with "what is not prohibited is allowed" in my view that would defy WP:COMMONSENSE, where the article body is for text summarizing an RS' thesis and the references section is for providing the material that supports article text. Your summary of the RS' thesis is a summary of the RS' thesis. It is not clear how your own personal words support text in the article. That is to say, if you have our own personal writing with which to try to change the article body, give it a WP:BRD shot. But leave the references section for info that supports specific text in the article body.- which is what it is meant for. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
NASA/IPCC model projections 2013 (video)
This video presents 21st century temperature and precipitation scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, RCPs) based on the four emissions scenarios from the IPCC's AR5. That modeling effort, called the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), includes dozens of climate models from institutions around the world, including NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The changes shown compare the model projections to the average temperature and precipitation benchmarks observed from 1971-2000. Source: NASA Center for Climate Simulation & NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio.
I am the 2nd editor to revert the addition of this video. I do so because (A) I'm opposed to edit warring and it was restored without any discussion, which is now happening so thanks for starting the thread. I also reverted because (B) I don't quibble with the IPCC's credentials as a WP:RS, but although I'm pretty familiar with their work compared to most people, I did not find the video to be highly impacting. Rather, I thought newbies to the subject could even find it confusing. I hope NASA or the Yale group on climate communication do some well-designed Usability testing on various ways to get this info across, and we can later include the most effective of the various approaches. But I seriously doubt this particular way of presenting the info will be at the top of the list. I'm also quite interested in seeing the graphics that accompany AR5 WG1's report when the final edited version is finally released in a few months. I suspect there will be engaging 2-d images to select from, and others will start generating their own presentation of IPCC data, both 2d and 3d. So.... the video strikes me as confusing for newbies and therefore not an article improvement. I'd love to see some useability testing data to support or debunk my opinion if anyone knows of any. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason to not include this video, especially since it is narrated. What exactly is confusing to you? And NASA is per WP:RS a reliable source. Prokaryotes (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
(1) I know what the colors mean, but they aren't really explained for newbies. (2) the clock resets without warning; I was quite lost until I watched it the second time; (3) the earth rotates around in a weird way, which at first viewing combines with my point #2 to confound first-time viewing confusion, which will be all the worse for newbies; and (4) Improvements might happen with static perspectives of the earth, and narration that explains what unfolds in that perspective. Also, yes this is IPCC but of course IPCC is conservative. Recall the graphic by Tobis & Ban. File:Distribution of professional opinion on anthropogenic climate change - by Tobis and Ban.jpg
Hmmmmm; I note the 3 min response time. When I notice your 3 min response time, I start to wonder whether *my* POV exists all by its lonesome? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
From an accessibility perspective, I would be reluctant to open a major article on an important topic with a video, particularly one which depends so heavily on narration to present and interpret its contents. (Even leaving aside the accessibility concerns, narration-heavy video is difficult for our readers who are not native speakers of English, who are reading the article in a location with a lot of background noise, or conversely who are reading in a location where they aren't allowed to make noise: libraries, some classrooms, open-concept workplaces, etc.)
In terms of the video itself, I am inclined to agree with NewsAndEventsGuys' concerns about the difficulties a first-time viewer is likely to encounter in interpreting the video. Consider that this is one of the first things a reader of our article will encounter; they won't necessarily have the background to fill in the assumed level of knowledge.
Finally, it's a relatively long video, particularly for an article lede. Four minutes is a pretty significant commitment of time, and it's a big interruption to our narrative. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I like the video but not only is it a bit on the long side, the WP:LEDE is already quite loaded with the three big images in place right now. Perhaps putting in in a section below would be more suited? Regards. Gaba(talk)01:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I am in full agreement with NewsAndEventsGuy. On the one hand, it appears to be a professional product, yet it has shortcomings. The color scales are almost incomprehensible, even on a large full-screen. The year resets are abrupt, which I'm sure a graphics 101 teacher would tell you is not good. Perhaps justifiable on an IPCC article, but not here, and definitely not in the lead.--SPhilbrick(Talk)13:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The YT video rating give a quick impression from the general audience which appears to like this video. Just wanted to highlight this for consideration. Further in the WP article comments user expressed that they want more up to date visuals and more graphs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Global_warming?ref=article&filter=featured This video might have some flaws when it comes to the presentation, but it illustrates emissions scenarios based on the latest science. As per Gaba i agree it doesn't have to be the lede, but somewhere in this article it belongs(as long there is no better animation). Cheers Prokaryotes (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is great evidence that this video is confusing: the main proponent in this thread doesn't understand what it represents. The caption placed under the video incorrectly says this video shows projected
"21st century temperature and precipitation scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways) based on the four emissions scenarios in AR5."
First, the RCPs in AR5 are not "based on four emissions scenarios" - rather, the RCP's are the emissions scenarios - that is to say, AR5 calls the emissions scenarios "Representativce Concentration Pathyways" or RCPs.
Second, the video does not show temp and precip patters based on all four of them - rather, this video shows the pattern just for RCP4.5
In addition to the fact the video is confusing, it also constrains the reader's education to just one of the four RCPs used by IPCC. There are two that projected less warming and one that projected much more. So that's yet another reason not to use it. Instead, when AR5 working group 1 releases the final edited report (in January I think), there will be a ton of graphics comparing all four RCPs. We should leave well enough alone until then.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I started writing a response, which I abandoned, but I was going to note that I wasn't sure which RCP was used. I guessed a weighting of all four, but if it is just one of them, then it means it isn't obvious. I agree with the suggestion, they are working on the final report, and are likely to produce useful material. We can wait for something decent.--SPhilbrick(Talk)18:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I had to figure it out. I followed the links provided until I got the original NASA page, and in that fine print it said this was for the one that brought greenhouse gas equiv to 650ppm by 2100. Armed with that info, I looked up diagrams of the 4 RCPS to see which one that was. I had a rough idea what I was doing and still took several minutes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason to include this video. The existing graphs are more information-dense. The new graph is glossy and shiny and suitable for people who prefer watching videos to reading: those people aren't our target audience William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
There is an element of glitz in the machine music, but that's no reason to ignore the detailed information the video does provide on temp and precip distribution changes, worldwide, over time. None of the static images do that as well. Do not sniff at "those people aren't our target audience," but put the video in the article body as a useful, alternative way of seeing the research results. First, however, shorten and correct the caption. Attleboro (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Conclusion
There are 3 users who agree to add the video to the article body, with updated info text. And there are 3 users who oppose the addition. Anyone else? Prokaryotes (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Prokaryotes, it's generally not a good idea to judge content disputes by straight up-and-down votes while ignoring the content of comments. It is problematic that you haven't really tried to address the reasonable concerns raised by the editors who are opposing the inclusion of this video. That said, even if we did go by a straight vote, you haven't counted correctly—there are 3 in favor (Prokaryotes and Attleboro, Gaba) and 4 opposed (NewsAndEventsGuy, TenOfAllTrades, Sphilbrick, and William M. Connolley). And what you're counting as Gaba's 'support' – "Perhaps putting in in a section below would be more suited?" – is tepid at best. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I pointed out that NASA and IPCC are reliable sources and that the general audience wants more visuals. I agree to make changes, which are moving the video to the body and updating the info. Prokaryotes (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
You're refuting an argument that no one is making, instead of responding to the specific criticisms offered; there hasn't been anyone who has said that the source isn't 'reliable'. (Indeed, the very first reply from N&EG above explicitly says that no one quibbles with the IPCC as a reliable source.) 'The audience wants more visuals' (and frankly, the quality and level of detail in the feedback posts you're relying on here don't inspire confidence) doesn't mean that the audience is benefitted by this visual. I'm not sure that you realize just how large a departure it would represent to include a four-minute video in a Wikipedia article's lede or body; this video does not rise to the level of exceptional quality and educational value that would justify such an unusual editorial choice on our part. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
What you call arguments are for the most part POV. However, because this is IPCC and NASA with the latest modelling on global warming, means it is part of the top data we have on global warming And presenting this with animation will be a great addition, because it helps to better understand our changing planet. Prokaryotes (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Once again, it's good data presented in a way that's not good for our article (for all the previously-enumerated reasons, yadda yadda yadda...). I think we're going around in circles, and I don't think either one of us is adding anything new. I'm going to step back and let other editors get some words in edgewise; I recommend that you do the same. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
So you agree to add the video to the body but have objections based on the video length? Not sure exactly what your problems are but maybe sum it up again, since you appeared above to agree to add the video to the body of the article. Prokaryotes (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Prokaryotes when did TenOfAllTrades agree to add the video to the body of the article? Look, editors here have raised valid points as to why the video might not be suited for the article, not even in the body of it and I'm inclined to agree. What would editors here think of adding it as a link in External links under Research? Cheers. Gaba(talk)15:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Per Gaba, for some reason it seems you're reading into my explicit statements the exact opposite of the plain meaning of the words. I don't know why, and I'm not planning on engaging further with your WP:IDHT behavior on this talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It might help to revisit some basics.... As it says in WP:Consensus "...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight."
With that said, pursuant to WP:WEIGHT I'm opposed to including this video anywhere in this article for the reason that this video is only one of multiple projections in the forthcoming AR5... there were two lower RPC/emission-scenarios and one higher. This video divorced from those other results would give a false picture of AR5s content. There are likely other guidelines one might quote addressing clarity and confusion problems also, but I have not looked for those.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it is not WP:UNDUE as public opinion is factually reporting poll numbers not exaggerating a less significant poll. It's also arelevant to Global Warming whereas opinions about it effect actions and results whereas your opinions about past Evolution cannot change the past. The section could use an entry or summary line as better than just spitting out three flavors of Michigan/Gallup/Pew poll, but to me the polls section does not seem needing a big fix. Markbassett (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I will reduce the public and popular media section slightly by moving the line about "In the scientific literature" to the scientific discussion section. Does anyone think the next two lines of 'think tanks' and 'libertarian' institute/Exxon fit better in political section or are they here as PR appeals ? Markbassett (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Climate change denialism is in relation to trying to influence the uneducated public through popular media, so it makes sense in the section it is in, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
rearrangement
I've done a slight rearrangement of the article sectioning positions; namely that the views section appeared to be a dumping ground for any content that could be construed as an opinion. I spun the global warming denialism material and the opinion polls into their own section and put the politics into the responses section since its about mitigation etc. Any objections/thoughts? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
My thought is that when an article has reached featured status, changes, other than typo-like changes, should be discussed at the talk page first. This isn't a policy, and not everyone agrees, but you asked for thoughts. That's mine.--SPhilbrick(Talk)23:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
changes, other than typo-like changes, should be discussed at the talk page first - I'd rather not adopt this as a rule. BRD by all means, but discuss-anything-substantive-first leads to paralysis and too high a barrier to change William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, you've undone my changes but haven't proposed why or what you disagree with in my original assessment. Particularly the politics seciton which you've taken out of the Proposed policy responses to global warming section (which is what the politics section I moved was all about). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I'll be happy to either self-revert or explain as appropriate, but please provide a diff and if it contains multiple tweaks by me, then please specify exactly which tweak(s) by me you are talking about? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is the combined diff: [46]. The first issue is at the edit around line Line 1,081, you added == Discourse about global warming == which moved the politics subsection from the section policy responses to global warming, to the section Discourse about global warming. I would have imagined that the political aspect is one of the most important parts of the responses to global warming and thus belongs in that section. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, ok, that helps.... As I understand the RSs there are 3 "possible policy responses" and they are: (1) mitigate, (2) adapt, (3) see what happens if we do nothing which is not currently included in the article. Meanwhile, the generic topic "politics" is not in and of itself a policy option. Rather, the subject of "politics" is a process by which we discuss and choose between those "possible policy options". For that reason, the "politics" subheading (by whatever exact words) does not fit lumped together with adaptation and mitigation under the "possible policy responses" level 1 section heading.
Question, your last edit and my last edit both placed "politcs" as a level two subheading. You seem to feel that my tweaks have somehow reduced the importance this article places on the political dialogue. I don't really see how you draw that conclusion. The changes simply make adjustments to the TOC, after all, and hopefully add some organization to all the random additions that have accrued since this article was polished for FA status. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
There may be three response options, but the political discussions which have been ongoing are of interest to that specific section, not the others which it is now grouped with. The politics section is specifically about policy responses and I see the parent even covers much of the politics content Climate_change_mitigation#Governmental_and_intergovernmental_action and is directly related to mitigation. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Well sure politics is related to adaptation and mitigation; but it is also directly related to the public and scientific discussions too. If the eggheads weren't telling the politicos to act, there would be no political discussion; and of course the politics is also closely tied to public discourse. Since it is closely related to all of these sub-topics, you haven't yet persuaded me that "politics" should be a sub-heading under "possible policy responses" alongside mitigation and alongside adaptation.
Possible food selections
Gumbo
Shrimp Creole
Ethnic styles
French
Carribean
Does "Southern" belong under "Possible food selections" or under "ethnic styles"? It is related to all of these but I submit it is an ethnic style, not a possible food selection. Same difference, I think.
Seems like some threads are stagnant longer than 21 days on this page. Would someone savvy with the syntax for those bots check to see if something is broken? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Proposal Let threads be archived after 21 days, on case-by-case basis. This will keep "real" threads active and let nonsense threads go to that happy resting place in the sky in timely way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
You mean remove the minimum number of threads to archive at once? That seems like a good idea, we just need to change the parameter minthreadstoarchive = 3 to 1 I guess. Should I go ahead and do it? Regards. Gaba(talk)14:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The increase in ocean heat content is much larger than any other store of energy in the Earth’s heat balance over the two periods 1961 to 2003 and 1993 to 2003, and accounts for more than 90% of the possible increase in heat content of the Earth system during these periods.[1]
The article says scientists say the heat has been going into the ocean, which is also part of the "climate system" that is subject to global warming. Moreover, water holds a lot more energy than air, as anyone who has been in an outdoor hottub in winter can tell you. So when the deep ocean warms, we should be a lot more worried about the longterm effects on the food we eat and the relative peace most wikipedia users enjoy than tunnel-vision obsession with the last few years of air temp readings at earth's surface would seem to suggest.
Or look at it this way. When you forget a frying pan on the stove -
(A) Is the handle or the cooking surface hotter?
(B) Which part's temperature are you more concerned about?
(B1)For smoke and the possible start of a fire, the temperature of the cooking surface is key.
(B2)When you go to pick it up, smart money cares more about the temperature of the handle.
Common sense tells us it is foolish to define temperature of multipart systems as being the temperature of just a single part. Myopic fixation on just the temp of the atmosphere at earth's surface since 1998 is like fixating on just the smoking cooking oil. The handle might be cooler, but when you rush to grab for it with no hotpot holder, guess what's gonna happen?
I don't think it is wise to be a denialist, but that's your call. On the graphic, I have two concerns, one of which is unlikely to be resolved in this forum, but there might be a shot at resolving my minor concern. My major concern is that it is misleading. While it is obviously true to anyone who paid attention in high school science that there is more heat content in solids and liquids that there are in gases, that doesn't explain why a liquid should warm while the gas does not, nor does it respond to a question I don't see asked much, why would there be differential warming in the ocean relative to the atmosphere, and that has changed materially over time? I don't expect an answer, but if someone has addressed these issues, and you know of a paper, please point it out.
My minor concern is that I cannot reproduce the percentages. The numbers come from here, apparently. The total value appears to be 8.9, the ocean number 8.11, but that ratio is 91.1%. Where do they get 93.4%.--SPhilbrick(Talk)13:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
If you tally the individual burgundy-colored line items in the IPCC graphic you get a total of 8.68, versus the total as printed on the IPCC graphic, 8.9, which you quite reasonably used in your validation efforts. If you run the numbers using the former you get the numbers shown in the graphic. The numbers are close, and I wonder if it might be due to Round-off error? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Good catch, the individual numbers do, indeed, add to 8.68. However, I don't follow your comment about rounding error. The maximum actual value of the sum, using the largest possible rounding error is 8.715, which is not near 8.9
8.68 rounds to 8.7, not 8.9.
Which means the underlying graphic is wrong. It doesn't change the graphic here, but it is surprisingly sloppy, assuming you have correctly identified the error, which seems likely.--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I was actually thinking that the source spreadsheet - the one(s) the IPCC author(s) used when they made the IPCC graphic - probably carried the numbers out the gazillionth decimal point. We don't have access to those, so we can't see how they rounded to the numbers on the individual line items. I speculate that they rounded each one off. But what about the total IPCC included in the graphic? What do you wanna bet that they tallied the original, non-rounded values (carried out the gazillionth decimal point) and then rounded the result? Don't know, just guessing. But its the exact way I made an error on my last tax return. I copied rounded values from my spreadsheet to the tax return, including the rounded value for total income. When I double checked the printed form before mailing it in, the math (based on the rounded entries) did not tally with my "total" and I tore my (little remaining) hair out before realizing my mistake. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
This article gives too much credibility to computer models...
... so I have added the following:
In 2007, the BBC reported that computer models showed that all of the summer Arctic ice would by gone the year 2013.[2] However, in 2013, it was reported that Arctic ice had actually increased by 60% compared to the previous year.[3]
Well, you misrepresented the BBC article in at least two ways. And it's one article in the popular press, not a peer-reviewed scientific article. Also see WP:SYNTH - if you think computer models are given too much credibility, the way to handle that is not to cherry-pick cases where they have been wrong, but to find reliable secondary sources that criticise "computer models". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Other sources are now publishing analyses of the 'story' in question.[47] This is why we should not try to be a news feed for the latest reports, and why we should not rely on Wikipedia editors' judgement as to the wp:weight and credibility that each press release deserves. --Nigelj (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The actual problem with the sea ice models is that they predict a slower decline than that observed. As for the 2013 increase - that's just natural variability William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
What's next? Headlines like "stock market up today, boom times for the year!".... oh wait, they have headlines like that almost every day.... it's almost like the mass media doesn't understand the difference between variability and trend. But yeah, what Stephan and Nigel said... Sailsbystars (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
In the wikipedia article "Climate change in the arctic" the following sentence can be found: Professor Peter Wadhams told the Guardian in September 2012 after the Arctic sea ice extent hit a record low that he predicts the Arctic will be ice free within the next four years (ref.50). This statement has been published in the Guardian. Thats the same news feed which some users in the statements above are criticizing. Apart from this it´s pure speculation and unscientific - I suggest to delete this sentence to avoid having double standards. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.229.15.9 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation."
The article currently cites the 90% certainty figure given by the IPCC based on their fourth assessment report. However the first citation for the statement links to a secondary source which gives a 95% certainty figure by the IPCC based on their fifth assessment report. Should this figure be updated? Is there a reason why it hasn't been? Are we waiting for the full finalized version of the fifth assessment report? BlackHades (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we've discussed it yet. The AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers that has already been released is certainly an RS for 95%. Personally I was waiting to look at the full report anyway. But I'm not opposed to someone making the change now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Only to the extent they can be cited via AR5 WG1's "Summary for Policymakers", because that's the only thing that has been officially published in final form so far. When more comes out, we may want to revise all over again. If there is something different and vitally important in the AR5 SPM than what we reported from TAR or AR4, then ok... otherwise, I don't see the insanely pressing need to rush ahead, since we may want to rehash it all in 3 months when the full WG1 report really is released, in final form, officially. That said, I won't oppose someone else investing the effort now based solely on the AR5 WG1 SPM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that this article should more strongly emphasize the long atmospheric lifetime of CO2 and its consequences for climate change impacts. This issue has been known about for some time, e.g., see reports by the IPCC (3rd assessment)(4th assessment) and US National Research Council. Solomon et al 2009 state:
"It is not generally appreciated that the atmospheric temperature increases caused by rising carbon dioxide concentrations are not expected to decrease significantly even if carbon emissions were to completely cease (5–7) (see Fig. 1). Future carbon dioxide emissions in the 21st century will hence lead to adverse climate changes on both short and long time scales that would be essentially irreversible"
The article does already mention that "Carbon dioxide has a lifetime of a century or more, and as such, changes in particulate concentrations will only delay climate changes due to carbon dioxide". However, it does not mention the consequences of CO2's long lifetime for climate change impacts.
Thanks. I've put together some draft text for discussion:
Long-term effects
On the timescale of centuries to millennia, the magnitude of global warming will be determined primarily by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. This is due to CO2's very long lifetime in the atmosphere. Stabilizing global average temperature would require anthropogenic CO2 emissions to be reduced by more than 80% relative to their peak level. Even if this were to be achieved, global average temperatures would remain close to their highest level for many centuries.
Since atmospheric methane degrades to CO2, I think we should make a mention of that, even though there's less CH4 than CO2. Not sure where though. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I was wondering if you have a source for this? I'm interested to know how significant this issue is. All the sources that I've looked at focus on the emissions reductions necessary to stabilize each of the different anthropogenic GHGs (see the sources that I've already cited). As far as I can tell, the issue of methane being converted into CO2 does not make it into top-level summaries.
In my view, it would be better to briefly mention that non-CO2 anthropogenic GHGs are also a significant contributor to global warming (e.g., see p.65 of US NRC 2011). I've added a sentence to my suggested text that I hope addresses this issue:
"On the timescale of centuries to millennia, the magnitude of global warming will be determined primarily by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. This is due to CO2's very long lifetime in the atmosphere. Limiting global warming would also require reductions in emissions of non-CO2 anthropogenic GHGs, such as methane and nitrous oxide.
Stabilizing global average temperature would require anthropogenic CO2 emissions to be reduced by more than 80% relative to their peak level. Even if this were to be achieved, global average temperatures would remain close to their highest level for many centuries."
I agree that we should "briefly mention that non-CO2 anthropogenic GHGs are also a significant contributor" and I'm happy with you going forward with your text thus far. Apologies for only implying that agreement before. The part I did say (that CH4 degrades to CO2) was intended as supplemental. I haven't studied "global warming potential" and lifetime contributions of gases and their derivatives, but David Archer's RealClimate blog post "Much ado about methane", Chris Colose's SkepticalScience post "Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate", and the associated reader comments may be helpful. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for those links and the clarification. I've revised my suggested draft text to make it clearer:
"On the timescale of centuries to millennia, the magnitude of global warming will be determined primarily by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. This is due to CO2's very long lifetime in the atmosphere.
Stabilizing global average temperature would require reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Emission reductions of non-CO2 anthropogenic GHGs (e.g., methane and nitrous oxide) would also be necessary. For CO2, emissions would need to be reduced by more than 80% relative to their peak level. Even if this were to be achieved, global average temperatures would remain close to their highest level for many centuries."
In the senate climate change hearing Dr. Roy Spencer made a claim that he is part of the 97% consensus, even though he is considered a skeptic (he also includes some other names). He claims this is because the 97% includes researchers who thinks humans have some influence on climate. If this is correct the phrase "97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made" should probably be changed. Can anyone prove or disprove his statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanKB (talk • contribs) 08:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we're interested in his statement. Our statement is 'A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made.[201]' which is well supported by its reference William M. Connolley (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is well supported by the reference. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but reading through the referenced document "Endorsement" is level 1-3 in table 2. That includes level 3 (Description: "Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause", Example: "...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change"). That this has been is a part of "is man made" seems misleading to me. If that phrase is to be used I would say that it should be the percentage of level 1 and 2. Of course the 97.2% is a result of the self rating, which was based on an e-mail sent to the authors. I can't find the e-mail sent for self-rating, but it seems the authors where given a choice between the levels of endorsement. Checking out the data (http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/self_vs_abstracts_private.txt) level 3 is the one most has chosen of the three. JanKB (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The reference clearly states Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. You are (of course) entitled to disagree with the methodology of the paper, or the way in which it drew its conclusions; if your views have merit, you should consider publishing them. But wikipedia doesn't publish WP:ORWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
FAQ, scientists and money
Since at least October 2009, our FAQ has included the following...
Do scientists support global warming just to get more money?
No,
Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly direct expenses.
Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, but only towards the cost of his or her scientific work.
In the U.S., global warming was seen as a politically sensitive topic under the Bush administration, which discouraged scientists from working on the topic.[4]
It could also be argued that more money lies in examining the policy debate on global warming.[5][6]
In gross 3RR and ARBCC violation, 205.131.188.5 (talk·contribs) has recently deleted the last two bullet points six different times. As I understand it, the IP deleted those bullet points on the IP's assertion that they do not address the FAQ question "Do scientists support global warming just to get more money?".
I think the last two items are within the scope of the question and should remain (as they have since 2009). Perhaps they could be improved and/or supplemented, but they should not be deleted.
For one thing, the question itself is phrased in a strange way. I know a lot of scientists. They don't "support" global warming. They research it, and try to quantify global warming, project it into the future, and provide information about it to government and the public, but they don't "support" it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess I didn't speak clearly. They don't "endorse" global warming per se any more than they "support" it. I think we're trying to talk about their tendency to endorse the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, not the phenomena itself. In addition, we're talking about scientists who get money related to global warming research and we are (apparently) not talking about any other scientists. So we should qualify which scientists also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the original question and the first two bullet points have originally been written by me, at a time when we were less nit-picking. Another, less incorrect version, would be: "Do scientists support the mainstream theory of anthropogenic global warming just to get more money?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Too complex for my taste, and does not really hit the spots. Scientific support for the AGW theory goes quite a bit beyond the literature - conferences, press statements, statements by academic societies, work for the IPCC, ... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Why not simplify the question as ":Do scientists investigate global warming just to get grant money?". Similar "no"s and the point could be added that in 1998 plans were revealed for "a campaign to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the [oil] industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases" . Cushman, John H., Jr. (26 April 1998), "Industrial Group Plans To Battle Climate Treaty", New York Times, retrieved 5 December 2013{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) . . dave souza, talk20:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've removed an offensive comment that, aming other things, accused other editors of this article of editing for money on behalf of advocacy groups. --TS01:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Better and more pictures showing also the temperature scale inside and time frame before
Lots of images interfering with page readability. Click to show.
NASA Global warming map showing main warming at northern hemisphere with most warming at arctis area with +2° and that is not explainable with greenhouse gases but streaming changes and also the base time frame not same comaprison time frame isn´t secured with satellite datas expleining also the difference between NASA-Goddard +0.73° & WMO/UNO +0.53° for middle value— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.151.206.2 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Global warming mapGlobal cooling map 1965-1975 vs 1937-1946Antarctica temps 1957-2006 showing warm upAntarctica temps 1982-2004 showing cool downArctis ice map for 2008 and 2006 showing much ice left and swimming ice is not inreasing the sea level if molten just the greenland ice shield could increase molten 6-7m but was just rising about +0.2mm/a means just 2cm in 100 years so it`s not dangerous because before to much molten CO2 sources are out and next ice time there and also there was much more temperature increase already than the global middle value increase means on more increese of middle value unclear any more increase there because of different reasons and also polar bears prefere warmer climate there & increased in number near forefold alreadyMethane Map 2011 shows more methane in northern hemisphere but much too less difference for temperature difference explanationNASA Methane Map showing high equatorial methane level in stratosphere carried up by up wind there at sahara desertification area since 1970 and surface near methane increase also in aral sea desertification areaNASA CO2 Map mid tropospheric (8km) from July 2003AIRS map showing CO2 high in northern hemisphere but much too less for explanation of temperature differences
There is no way that this is NOT a disputed topic. This is not about a flat earth, folks. Please do not collapse and push away this talk section. Allow discussion, (and see the talk on the Climate Change article neutrality) thank you.
This article is completely biased, if not bigoted in many sections. 'Climate Change' should not be marginalized to become a new synonym for Man-made Global Warming theories. Climate Change should address the dispute in some section, yet it should be objective and non-partisan in all general, and other sections that do not specifically address the AGW (man-made Global Warming theory).
Also, the FAQ section of the Talk page is completely disputable and very bigoted towards a pro-AGW (man-made global warming theory). It is inane to have such a FAQ, as well.
This is VERY important to correct, as it's a FEATURED article (somehow, without any dispute banner or sections on the counter theories and disputes).
The banner needs to be added at the top of the article (at the very least). There should not be a bigoted FAQ, as there are so many disputes, contradictions and ambiguity. The FAQ, at the least, should consider each side's rationale and should not be edited/filtered by those who have a bigoted point of view. It needs to be NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.131.188.5 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
How do we decide what is true? For most people, it depends on the media they listen to. Unless you are yourself a climate scientist (one of the tiny percentage of climate scientists who disagree with the idea that people are causing the climate to get warmer), then you listen to media that "doubt" global warming as part of their editorial stance. But when Wikipedia posts the "disputed" banner, they don't just mean that there is a dispute, but that there is disagreement among recognized authorities. That isn't the case with man-made global warming. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This clearly is a disputed topic, and the specific suggestion is that the article have the "infamous wiki banner: "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The article is extremely biased towards one point of view, and should at least mention critics, and not wrongly claim that some points are "unequivocal"... cwmacdougall23:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The "collapse" tag wrongly said there was no specific proposal, when there was, so clearly that tag should not be there; it was an appalling attempt to close down debate on the talk page. The WP:SOAP is the attempt to remove any hint of alternative views, which do exist among reputable scientists. Even the IPPC no longer believes what it argued several years ago, due to developing evidence, so that change should be mentioned. The article needs more work to meet the NPOV and quality standards of Wikipedia. cwmacdougall 1:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I have restored this Talk discussion of POV - the removal of an article talk discussion to suppress debate is one of the most offensive and disruptive editing practices I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Please desist in your offensive behaviour. I agree that the change 205.131.188.5 and I propose does require more evidence, but the purpose of a Talk page is to raise issues for further work. cwmacdougall 7:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
A “Neutrality in Dispute” tag would be appropriate because:
1 - Editors’ behaviour: Some of the most active editors display very biased activity, attempting to crush discussion on the Talk page. In particular TS has deleted whole sections of Talk on more than one occasion, while NewsAndEventsGuy tried to silence me with unjustified allegations of disruptive editing, while he also collapsed a whole section on the false claim that it lacked specific recommendations. This biased behaviour suggests there is a problem of systematic bias to the whole article.
2 - New data: when data changes, science changes; the pause in global warming is now over 15 years old, contrary to IPPC predictions. The initial response a few years ago was, rightly, to say more data were needed. The article claims "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”, but it must be equivocal if it hasn’t warmed for 15 years. Indeed the 2013 IPPC report, revised downward its forecasts of the speed and extent of warming in light of the new data. The article needs to be similarly revised, and is biased until it does.
3 - Extreme events: the article talks of forecasts of an "increase in the frequency and severity of some extreme weather events”. Yet the 2013 IPPC report says "confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low” and there are no "robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes”. Again the article needs to be revised in light of changing views of the IPPC.
4 - Biased sources: clearly biased advocacy groups like Greenpeace are cited.
5 - Reputable critics: there are a good number of reputable academics critical of the dominant view. There are many examples including for example Dr Edward Wegman, Dr. Robert M. Carter, and Dr. Richard Lindzen. While it is right that Wikipedia should reflect the scientific consensus, readers should be aware that there serious scientists with different views.
Re (1), alleged editorial misconduct is a strawman because even if true it is not one of the justifications for use of the POV tag described in the (usage notes for the tag)
Re (2), cwmacdougal makes the naked assertion that AGW "paused" for 15 years even though we have been begging for RSs to back up his statements. In any case, CW's premise (that global warming paused for 15 years) stands in contrast to what IPCC AR5 WG1 said when they officially released the "Summary for Policymakers" a couple months ago, "Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850".
Re(3), A. The full WG1 (science) report has not yet been released so arguments over what they might say are misplaced (unless you have a specific cite you have not yet shared with us) ; B. The draft still says there will be an increase in extreme events even if a signal in the current data is........ so far......... difficult to identify.
Re(4), without specifics this is handwaving and we'd be happy to discuss improvements instead of doing a WP:BATTLE over vague tag complaints; plus there are other approaches like the simple reversion approach you have been using for greenpeace references elsewhere.
1 - The non-neutral tag is appropriate when the article "does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources." Evidence of biased behaviour by editors trying to suppress alternative perspectives is certainly evidence of this.
4 - Greenpeace is an advocacy group, not an academic institution; I don't know how anyone could suggest it is ever RS.
5 - On Christmas Morning you asked for sources. I provided them on Boxing day. I don't think your complaint has a leg to stand on, especially as we are discussing my "I agree" comment on the Talk page, not the article itself.
The article is biased, and these are clear sourced examples; if I had good sources to counter all the biased points I would just edit the article. But the process will be a long one, and in the meantime, we need a warning to users that the article is biased. We should add a "neutrality disputed" tag to the article.
(1) You left out the part about how the tag is to be used as a "last resort" after trying to discuss, including discussing WP:RS, as we are (finally) now doing.
(2) The cite to the Met Office paper is the only meat in this thread; I'll comment on this later (and being the only substantive thing in this thread it should be broken out and discussed separately.)
(3) The final "draft" is moot because it is a draft and says on the bottom of each page (paraphrasing) "Don't quote or cite"
(5) You have provided a single proposed WP:RS (Paper #1 in a 3-paper series from the Met Office). So that we can do a proper review, were your earlier remarks based on any additional proposed WP:RSs, or have you subsequently found any to support your remarks that you would like to now cite in support?
You've made some spurious assertions without any clear proposals for improving the article, or adequate sources supporting your claims. . . dave souza, talk16:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You're the one making assertions; if you want to be taken seriously, add some evidence, as I've done, solidly. And the proposal is clear: add a "neutrality disputed" tag. cwmacdougall17:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
@ cwmacdougall, "The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort." You've not made any actionable proposals, and content policies require published sources which you've failed to provide: the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide detailed proposals backed by sources, and show that your proposals don't give WP:UNDUE weight to fringe commentators. . . dave souza, talk18:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Per the the usage guidelines the tag may be removed when the basis for the tag is vague; I have rebutted 4-out-of-5 of your numbered paragraphs (#1,3,4,&5) which did not contain citations to any viable proposed WP:RS. Your remaining item, paragraph #2, does reference an RS - a 2013 paper from the Met Office. I have broken that issue out for separate discussion in a new subsection. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Met Office paper and the last 15 years of global temps
2 - New data: when data changes, science changes; the pause in global warming is now over 15 years old, contrary to IPCC predictions. The initial response a few years ago was, rightly, to say more data were needed. The article claims "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”, but it must be equivocal if it hasn’t warmed for 15 years. Indeed the 2013 IPCC report, revised downward its forecasts of the speed and extent of warming in light of the new data. The article needs to be similarly revised, and is biased until it does.
and when he identified an WP:RS to support this argument he said:
In the quote chosen by CW is the pesky little word "surface", which is left out of CW's analysis. Recall that the climate system has five parts (in lay terms the air, land, water, icy places, and living things). The "surface" is the interface between the atmosphere and the other four parts (the "surface" of the lithosphere/cryosphere/bioshere/hyrosphere). Elsewhere in the Met's 3-paper series they talk about continued warming of the other parts of the system. Nowhere does the MET say warming of the climate system is "equivocal"; CW's extrapolation to arrive at that conclusion is pure editorial original research.
Since the only RS-supported reason that has been suggested as a basis for this tag rests on WP:OR following a mis-reading of the Met's paper, a POV tag, if existed, would be removable under the usage note's removal-justification #2, "no satisfactory explanation has been given."
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Do we cover this slowdown in surface temp increase elsewhere? Several interesting studies discuss this, including Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 and Cowtan and Way 2013 (link to RC report). There's also the question of whether the current temperatures actually do deviate from IPCC projections: Ars Technica cites studies snowing these projections have been on target so far, the Grauniad cites a more recent study reaching a similar conclusion. . dave souza, talk19:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I listed five well sourced arguments as to why there should be a POV tag. Let’s review them in light of the discussion so far:
1 - Editors’ behaviour: It has been demonstrated again that regular editors of this page edit in an extremely biased disruptive manner. NewsAndEventsGuy has yet again collapsed the discussion, on the false biased premise that only one of my five points was supported by RS, and in doing so hid crucial parts of my argument. Remember that TS deleted entire Talk discussions on at least two occasions. I have never seen such biased POV editing of Talk pages in Wikipedia before. It calls into question the neutrality of the entire article, and on its own is enough to justify a POV tag.
2 - New data: The Met reported no surface warming for 15 years. Perhaps the ocean depths or upper atmosphere have warmed, but with no surface warming you get no land ice melting, so no rise in water levels, and you get no movement North of dangerous insects, two of the alleged problems from "global warming”. It is a rather significant development, and leaving it and its potential implications out is a sign of POV.
3 - Extreme events: No one has contradicted my quotation from the IPCC draft saying they found no evidence of increased extreme weather events. The most anyone could say was that it was a draft, not the final report, and that they asked not to be quoted. But the fact that that is their preliminary conclusion is rather significant, and they can’t stop people from quoting it. Ignoring this RS point is again a sign of POV.
4 - Biased sources: No one has contradicted my point that the article cites biased advocacy groups. Their continued inclusion is a continued sign of POV.
5 - Reputable critics: No one has contradicted my point that there are reputable academics critical of the dominant view. Of course the conclusion should reflect the consensus, but to ignore respectable critical views on such an important and controversial subject is a sign of POV.
I have produced five examples of POV, well sourced. I’m sure, especially given point 1, that I could find many others. Readers need to be warned that the article is not neutral while we work to improve it. It needs the POV tag.
Perhaps you have a different definition of 'well sourced' than the rest of us because all you have presented above is a mishmash of assertion and the uncontested observation that various critics (mostly lay people with zero expertise) dispute the prevailing scientific understanding of global warming, a topic we devote multiple pages to. There is no evidence that your unwillingness to read and understand Wikipedia guidelines (notably WP:OR and WP:RS) infers editors are biased and our article is un-neutral. Unless you take the necessary time to read and understand what is being said, you are simply wasting everyone's time. — TPX11:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
You don't think the IPCC and the Met Office are good sources? You don't think deleting Talk discussions you don't like is proof of bias? Amazing... cwmacdougall12:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe you care for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the reason why you keep getting the IPCC acronym wrong. But to answer your question: Yes, both the IPCC and Met Office are perfectly good sources, however your personal interpretation of their work, to the exclusion of all other measurements, is in question. Editors are always happy to improve the article and discuss particulars with you, so be specific, avoid accusations of bias and politely engage in the areas already expanded upon. — TPX15:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Did you actually read my comments? I don't think I've added "personal" interpretations. Re accusations of bias, that is the whole point - how else is a POV tag justified? cwmacdougall13:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
cwmacdougall, thanks for correcting your earlier misspellings of IPCC, but did you actually read the sources you've suggested? If these aren't your personal interpretations, they look like the sort of quote-mining to be found on certain blogs. Like the ellipses in your bit from the Met Office, which misses the context that "Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation...." and evidently you're continuing such speculation while ignoring their summary conclusions that "The observations show that: • A wide range of climate quantities continue to show changes. For instance, we have observed a continued decline in Arctic sea ice and a rise in global sea level. These changes are consistent with our understanding of how the climate system responds to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases. • Global mean surface temperatures remain high, with the last decade being the warmest on record. •Although the rate of surface warming appears to have slowed considerably over the most recent decade, such slowing for a decade or so has been seen in the past in observations and is simulated in climate models, where they are temporary events." . . . dave souza, talk18:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Dave, your objection might make sense if I was some denier arguing that global warming had been "disproven". I'm not; I'm just saying that the article's coverage is not a neutral balanced assessment of the sources. cwmacdougall23:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
width=320
Not really. Compare how you interpret Paper#1 in the Met Office's 3-paper series.
You said (in your paragraph #2), "the pause in global warming is now over 15 years old, contrary to IPPC predictions" and according to you, this makes global warming "equivocal"
whereas the Met itself explains that the supposed "pause" just relates to surface temps and many other indicators in the climate system show ongoing warming.
The Met said ::"The first paper shows that a wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works."
You have given the paper a polar opposite reading.
width=320
Meanwhile,
you also said, "Readers need to be warned that the article is not neutral ..."
whereas
the POV tag rules say, "Do not use this template to 'warn' readers about the article."
We have made zero progress in either of these threads, and in my opinion, both of them were and remain WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM outside the scope of constructive dialogue envisioned by WP:ARBCC.
I agree that much fuller assessment would be required than what I wrote on the Talk page; that actually was my point - that failure even to mention the apparent surface warming pause, and cover it in a neutral fashion, is bias. Thank you for the correction about the purpose of the POV tag, which I should have noted: "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight." That is what is needed, and we have made progress. I presented five well sourced examples of bias, and they have not been contradicted. It should have the tag. cwmacdougall 0:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
(B) CW, would you be satisfied with text saying something like, "In the last 15 years the rate of surface warming has slowed producing an overall warming of surface temperatures that, in the words of the Met Office, was 'relatively flat', but multiple indicators elsewhere in the climate system have been consistent with continued warming. (cite Met Office Paper). In addition, studies have shown that instead of just warming the air at earth's surface, the majority of global warming goes into the ocean, and warming of the deep ocean (below 700m) has continued throughout this period. (cite one of the many RSs)". Would that satisfy you? If not, then please produce some sample text to explain the gist of how you think the so-called "pause" can be addressed in a neutral manner? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC) PS... notice in the 2nd image I added, total energy added to the earth's climate system did not "pause"!!!! You can click on the thumbs to get more info about the data presented. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I would not be satisfied with such an addition. Where are you suggesting to add it? Not to the over-burdened lede I hope. We know that there are blogs and other nexuses of disinformation out there that would prefer this article to appear to come to different conclusions. If we allow every contrarian thinker that turns up here to get another concession into the lede, all they have to do is increase the rate at which they are sent. I am of course not suggesting for a moment that any editor in this discussion is part of any such organised attempt to downplay anything, but am talking about the general principle of reflecting what the best RSs say, not what editors here would like to see. I don't see any need to introduce more than perhaps a mention that the Met Office has acknowledged that there has been an increase in speculation about 'flattening' and 'slow-downs' from those who do not understand the way that heat is distributed throughout the climate system. Even this is pretty tenuous, but could go into the Global warming#Discourse about global warming section if other RSs pick it up, IMHO. --Nigelj (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Nigel, but I wasn't proposing and am not (yet) proposing any article changes. Instead, I'm just asking cwmacdougall (talk·contribs) about his current thought about the Met Office paper he cited to support his desire to add the POV tag. In the thread below, TS seems to think there has been some progress in this thread. CW earlier alleged the MET said AGW "paused" and is therefore "equivocal". We then discussed that RS at some length, but has CW's opinion of what the RS says changed? To seek an answer, I presented some hypothetical text and request for alternative hypothetical text from CW. So my question to CW still stands - do you think, CW, that what I wrote in this comment is a reasonable NPOV description of the Met source you cited, and if not what hypothetical text do you think does a better NPOV job of reporting the Met's findings? (Barring substantive preliminary discussion that leads to an ultimate answer to this question, this thread is still soap.)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about a longer reply, but I see you weren't really making a serious proposal anyway, so let me briefly say: it would be better, but not enough, and doesn't deal with my other four pieces of evidence of bias anyway.
The POV tag rules says: "Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view." Re the first of my five points, what could be a more serious issue than evidence of censorship of the Talk discussion? The article should be tagged. cwmacdougall 1:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It appears that this user thinks I am (A) frivolous and (B) censoring. He won't participate in developing the discussion of the only RS he has proposed. He insists that editorial behavior is a reason to use the POV template. Frankly, I see no progress at all here and still think this thread is [[WP:SOAP] which deserves a hat. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I will weigh in as an outsider to this discussion (although not to climate change articles in general). I have just read through the lengthy discussion here. The claims made by cwmacdougall (talk·contribs) appear to be two-fold: firstly the editor raises claims about the content of the article, secondarily about treatment of discussion on the talk page. Points about the article appear to have been addressed quite satisfactorily. In my estimation, the points raised largely consist of using the POV tag to express cwmacdougall's opinion, which appears to be an original synthesis rather than views expressed in the sources cited. Indeed, the user appears to be drawing or implying conclusions in direct contradiction to the sources given. This is broadly an unacceptable use of the POV tag and should be eschewed as original research. The second matter, claims that the user's perceived treatment on the talk page should garner tagging the article as non-neutral, is to my experience a novel one, but one which is contrary to the purpose of the POV tag. I think using the POV tag (or any other tag) as a mark on articles of perceived treatment on the talk page is prima facie unreasonable and contrary to the intent of such tags, regardless of the veracity of such claims. Furthermore, I see in this discussion no validity to the claim that cwmacdougall was treated unfairly, nor evidence to that effect other than cwmacdougall's failure to gain consensus to add the tag to the article. My assessment is that this discussion should be hatted immediately and all editors should move on. I would suggest that if cwmacdougall wishes to change policy with regard to the POV tag (or indeed, any other tag), a policy discussion should be started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) rather than continuing it here. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you TeaDrinker (talk·contribs) for your comment. But, several of my five points have not been addressed at all, so how can you suggest they have been addressed satisfactorily? At most, of the five, it is only the warming pause issue that one could argue has had any significant discussion, but even on that the editor says he was not making a proposal, so what was he doing? And on that discussion, I did include some unsupported speculation on a Talk page as to why the issue might be important; I agree that actual changes to the article itself would require more, which is my point - if it was easy and quick I would just edit the article, not propose a tag. I agree my Talk page corruption argument for a POV tag is unusual, but it is rare only because I've never seen such appalling POV corruption (of several editors' contributions) of a Talk page before. It is solid evidence of more general POV problems with the article. cwmacdougall 3:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Conclusion: Eleven days ago I presented five well sourced arguments for a POV tag to the article, in support of a proposal by another editor. At most only one has been refuted (re the warming pause), and even there I think the response is insufficient. Note especially point 1 - censorship of the Talk page - and point 3 - re the draft IPCC conclusion that there has been no increase in extreme events, either of which is serious enough alone to justify the POV tag, while points 4 and 5, re biased sources and exclusion of minority scientific views, at least add support. Consequently I have now added the POV tag. We should work together to ensure the article is genuinely written from a fair and balanced view of the current science, and recent developments, while of course following the mainstream view. cwmacdougall12:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You mean five numbered paragraphs of SOAP, for which a flawed reading of a single RS was finally proposed after multiple requests and rebuttals on the other non-RS claims were made in numbered paragraphs, and now you are back to tag the article as a badge of shame because, in your words above, "Readers must be warned", even though we've already quoted the part of the template doc that forbids this use of the tag!
In my view, the terms SOAP and FORUM are now too mild, and we might need AE assistance. What do others think?
I had five RS points, and the reason for the tag, as discussed above is not as a "badge of shame" but is as described in our rules: "Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view." cwmacdougall12:69, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I can tell that your five points are not based on WP:RS evidence as there are no links to external sources - reliable or otherwise - in any of them. Taking the first one, 'Editors’ behaviour', if there was a link to a reliable source - a newspaper of note, a book of social analysis, a research paper - that said that editors’ behaviour on this Wikipedia article could be shown to be linked to errors in the article, then there would be something to discuss. Without quotes from and links to external sources, there's nothing new to look into, as the article itself is extremely well cited - not least of which is due to it being a featured article. --Nigelj (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The sources for 2 and 3 were clear external RS. The sources for the others were obvious internal evidence from the article or the talk page history. Re Editor's behaviour, when an editor behaves in an blatently biased fashion - deleting live Talk discussions he doesn't like - I would hope we could deal with the clear POV violation without waiting for it to reach the newspapers.
What is the specific change to the article that you are proposing? So far I don't see any coming from you. Without a concrete change proposal, you are just wasting everyone's time.--McSly (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
In this edit cw stated the following proposal. Uncollapsing the original SOAP, he said
"This clearly is a disputed topic, and the specific suggestion is that the article have the "infamous wiki banner: "The neutrality of this article is disputed." The article is extremely biased towards one point of view, and should at least mention critics, and not wrongly claim that some points are "unequivocal".. (underline added)
The two sources to which he refers were
an RS from the Met Office, which we discussed
a non-RS draft of AR5 from the IPCC, which he is tediously still talking about since we've already pointed out the bottom of each page says "do not quote or cite".
So what if the IPCC say at the bottom "do not quote or cite"? They permitted it to go into the public domain, and we are permitted under fair comment rules to quote small parts; it is certainly RS. You yourself cited it in another context in this Talk page. Re specific changes If I had one simple modification, I would just edit the article. But in light of the sourced examples I cited and the demonstrably biased editors' behaviour on the talk page, everything needs to be reviewed to be sure of neutrality. cwmacdougall14:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You neglect to mention that I cited the draft, which I explicitly said at the time was just for our talk page discussion, and this was in the context of a specific proposal for article text based on a real RS (AR5 WG1 SPM). Show me a specific RS-based proposal for article text that you have made, other than tagging the article because you say, "Readers must be warned" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
For the third time, my five sourced examples meet the requirement: "Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view." What else would you need to justify the tag? I long ago withdrew the suggestion about "warning readers". And there is no reason why a draft can't be an RS. My specific suggestion is to have the POV Tag, while we review the whole article for neutrality, given the bias that has been shown to exist. cwmacdougall16:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The main comment was re the article as a whole, rather than specific individuals, but you - NewsAndEventsGuy - on at least two occasions collapsed live Talk discussions hiding comments you disagreed with and TS on at least three occasions deleted entire Talk discussions (deleted not archived), the most appalling cases of blatant bias I have seen on Wikipedia. I will supply the links from the page history when I have time, as you appear to have forgotten. As you know, this was my example number one of bias requiring a POV tag. cwmacdougall21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
cwmacdougall, your main point seems to be trying to justify misuse of a POV tag. as has already been explained to you. As for collapsing or removing offtopic posts, as far as I've seen that complied fully with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Unlike your repeated and tendentious arguments which have failed to provide any adequately supported proposals for article improvements. . dave souza, talk21:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Dave, be specific; I don't see any place in the Talk page guidelines that permits the kind of hiding and deleting of live discussions of which I am complaining. If that and my other well sourced examples of bias don't justify a POV tag, I don't know what could. cwmacdougall21:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
What live discussion? You've raised one usable reliable source, and as discussed at length above you were misrepresenting it. Make properly sourced proposals for article improvement, and if you do want to keep discussing the POV tag, comply fully with Template:POV/doc#When to use requirements. Note the requirement to "explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies" – your complaining about conduct is irrelevant to content policies. . dave souza, talk00:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
You don't consider the IPCC to be a "usable reliable source"???? You don't consider internal evidence of underhand behaviour (the stopping of which is certainly actionable) to be an adequate source for a POV tag??? What would you consider justification for a POV tag? cwmacdougall04:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
What makes you think an IPCC draft which states "Confidential – This document is being made available in preparation of WGI-12 only and should not be cited, quoted, or distributed" is a usable source? But then you've already been told that. As for behaviour, you can go to WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE but frankly you're not likely to come out of it well. . dave souza, talk05:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. I still think my sources are good on all five points, but your comment and the issues you raise deserve a fuller response. I will post something next week, when I have more time. cwmacdougall10:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
No return to old, disreputable practice
This is an article about a well established scientific topic. As such, it's relatively easy to identify when people are being unencyclopedic in their approach to the material.
I've removed one discussion section which provided no credible and specific discussion of needed enhancements or emendations to the material or its structure. In particular, handwaving denunciations of scientific material are not welcome anywhere on Wikipedia.
Specific and well supported identification of problems, on the other hand, are welcome. Finally, a reminder is due: the editing on this article, and related conduct, are governed by ARBCC, which is basically Wikipedia policy with sharper teeth. --TS22:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The deletion of an entire talk section by TS is an act of vandalism, attempting to shut down debate, and should not be tolerated. I have restored the section. The old practice of discussion on the Talk page has served us well. cwmacdougall 7:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I think there is some progress here. The current scientific interpretation of some data has been discussed at more length. As a person reasonably aware of the scientific case, I sometimes overlook the fact that many people only encounter the topic in very misleading blog posts that misrepresent the science. I think this discussion may provide fruitful material for the FAQ, and at least one editor is learning something new, so let's continue as long as good faith disagreements on sources remain. --TS00:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's bring the discussion together under a single heading.
100%? Er, actually not. Tony Sidaway's edit isn't. One of your edits isn't. And most people assume that the active thread is at the bottom of the page, not several threads up. It's not worth fighting about, but it is hard follow the discussion as it stands. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Tony and I were talking process, not content, so those were not part of the 13 content-related posts in my tally. I've noticed that SOAP threads in my watchlist that are about to be archived have recently been getting "bumped" with last minute soapish posts on an increasing basis. That's how this current topic revived in a thread towards the top of the page. I've no objection to simply cutting and pasting the thread to the bottom of the page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
My only interest is in increased readability. Since "Why Isn't...continued" continued the same topic in a new thread, why not a "Why Isn't... III"?Rick Norwood (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I share that goal, but we appear to have different ideas about achieving it. How about the idea of just cutting and pasting the most current thread to the bottom of the page? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
_(PNG).png)
.png)
