Jump to content

Talk:Climate change/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

W. M. Connolley's parole

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

let me remind you that user William M. Connolley is under parole, and he is not allowed to revert pages about the climate unless he writes a justification including sources on the Talk page. If he happens to violate this rule, you may complain on [[1]]. All the best, Lubos --Lumidek 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Lubos, your pointless trouble making is going to get you RFC'd unless you start behaving yourself. William M. Connolley 13:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC).
Lumidek, you are trolling. Please stop it. Remember, Wikipedia works by consensus. Your edit was pointless and provocative and William's edit summary was fully adequate. We have been over this over and over again, and you know it. --Stephan Schulz 14:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Albedo changes due to North Pole melting

If the North Pole melts then much more energy from the Sun will be absorbed. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article. Recent studies have indicated that the North Pole could be gone within a few decades. Count Iblis 14:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The North Pole is a location, by definition it can't melt. I presume you mean to talk about the [worrying] recent retreat of the Acrtic Polar Sheet. Facts aside, it is a valid point and would be worth including. NigelHorne 15:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the good Count is probably thinking about the Arctic sea ice rather than the Arctic (Greenland, I presume) ice sheet. "A few decades is probably on the short side". The seaice-albedo feedback is important, yes. This might be better elsewhere though... it belongs in some "mechanisms of GW type article" which we don't have yet... William M. Connolley 16:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC).

however variations in solar output measured by satellite show negligible trend since 1980

WMC, it is inappropriate to add the dismissive statement above, when the very result just reported was based on a positive post-1980 solar activity trend measured by satellite. Here is the quote from the article:

"Contrariwise, ACRIM presents a significant upward trend (+0.047%/decade trend of the minima) during solar cycles 21–23 (1980–2002) [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003]."

Surely, if you are going to directly dismiss a result based on a satellite trend, you should at least cite how you can contradict such a recent peer reviewed result. Also, it is important that the solar detail be present here, and not just shoved off to the solar variation article.--Silverback 22:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I did support it - there is a link to the solar var page doing just that. Your quote is selective: PMOD has been widely used in geophysical research. According to this composite, TSI has been almost stationary (�-0.009%/decade trend of the 21–23 solar minima [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003]) continues that very paper. Noticeably, it provides no explanation whatsoever for preferring the increasing one, other than that the paper would be rather boring otherwise. "The solar detail here" is the old Cortonin bloat-the-page argument; I don't accept it.
It will take further research to resolve the discrepant solar activity data. But the new result is more consistent with the two post TAR papers out the major climate centers that also found that a greater climate response to solar activity was required. Also I believe they explain their preference for the increasing one, was due to a gap in the data, that was poorly bridged in other work. Solar activity and climate commitment both need to stay well represented here, to balance the underqualified, overstated summary statements of the now outdated IPCC TAR, which you would not even allow to be qualified with a date.--Silverback 08:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

page bloat/solar again

We're back at the bloating solar section, again. See [2].

I consider the extensive quote from Lean definitely inappropriate. Also, Scafetta and West, and other independent approaches, derive climate sensitivities to solar variation that are 1.5 to 3 times greater than models predict. is misleading (and unsourced, since SB hasn't provided the others). But its misleading because it fails to include the idea that solar forcing may simply be exactly as it seems (and nothing to do with models).

And its not really true that at least one satellite reconstruction does show a post 1980 positive trend (and even if it was, that ignores the ones showing not). Even the ACRIM version doesn't show an overall trend.

William M. Connolley 22:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC).

They detect the trend at a 22 year period and two year lag, using wavelet analysis.--Silverback 08:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Look at the data... William M. Connolley 22:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC).

Attempting a compromise text.

I've taken it upon myself to attempt to draft a compromise text before there are any more reverts on the solar section. I kept Silverbacks paragraphination, on the grounds that in my opinion it flows better that way. I kept WmCs wording "has reassessed" over "has revised the assessment" on grounds of avoiding unecessary wordiness. I kept WmCs wording "one estimate of the solar contribution" over "the solar contribution one estimate" on the grounds it's proper English and the alternate must have been an inadvertant error. I kept the link to the PDF rather than the bare journal citation, on the grounds that it's much more useful to most readers that way. I removed "and other independent approaches" for the time being on the grounds that, after checking the talk page, it appears this line has been challenged and no other independent confirmation has, to this date, been cited. I also removed the 'However' at the beginning of the next paragraph on the grounds that there are too many blamed 'however's in this paper already and it annoyed me. I sincerely hope that my work here is acceptable to all. Arker 02:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanx. The new result shows good consistency with the Stott,et al, and Meehl, et al, results discussed above that also found that greater solar sensitivity in the climate than in the models. Both those papers were out of major climate centers, NCAR and Hadley, and they attributed up to 35% of post 1950 warming to solar activity, even accepting the satellite data that did not show a trend. If the data with a positive trend ends up more accepted, it will be interesting to see what the impact on their work would be. It looks like WMC has gotten rid of the Meehl paper, despite its importance, probably because it didn't make an estimate of contribution like the Stott paper.--Silverback 08:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
What Meehl paper? I've re-removed the excess detail of Lean-quoting. Put it in the solar var article, if it isn't there already. William M. Connolley 22:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC).

The Economics of Global Warming Reduction

The flags I added to the above-named recently-added section are predicated on the assumption that the text is not in violation of WP:NOR - I am not a subject-matter expert, so I can't judge this for myself, else I would just be bold. If I'm wrong and this is original research (regarding which the author of teh section has been warned elsewhere), then someone who knows better can just rip it out and WP:AFD the accompanying article (which is what the header links to). --Kgf0 22:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The text is dubious. Also it doesn't belong in GW (sorry) but in Mitigation of global warming if it belongs anywhere. So I've cut it from GW. Discuss at the The Economics of Global Warming Reduction? William M. Connolley 22:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC).
I think any discussion of GW necessarily involves what can be done about it? I understand that whether GW is happening or not and what is impact is, are controversial. However the article is not titled "Is GW Happening?" or "What is the Impact of GW?" but simply "GW". So in my opinion it is justifiable to include "What can be done to reduce GW?" in the article.
I am not sure why the text has been labelled "dubious" without pointing out where exactly it is wrong. The optimal tariff argument has been around for over 150 years, so it is not really new or controversial. It is just standard economic analysis.Jayanta Sen 22:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The article is about the *science* of global warming. The politics is another matter entirely, which is why there is a separate article for it. The article is also big enough already: growing it with material that belongs elsewhere is not good.
There is no way that It is widely but mistakenly believed that economic measures to reduce global warming would harm economies. can be considered neutral. You appear to be suggesting that it is so obvious as to be uncontroversial. Come on! Its statements like that that made me describe it as dubious. Silverback, SEW: where are the skeptics when you need them? William M. Connolley 22:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC).
Agreed. The text is one-sided, and unsourced. I personally don't think greenhouse gas reduction will have a negative effect on the economy, but this article/paragraph is unconvincing and not NPOV. At least, the article should start with a neutral "Opinions on the economic effects of reducing greenhouse gasses are divided..." or something similar, and then describe the different exisiting positions.--Stephan Schulz 23:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I did mention sources for the optimal tariff argument, for example [3]. I can understand why the argument may seem unobvious to non-economists, but to economists it is obvious. Basically we need someone with economics training to participate in this discussion. I can keep repeating the argument is right and you can keep repeating that it is "one-sided and unsourced", and that won't get us very far. I would love to cite a opinion contrary to the optimal tariff argument, unfortunately I cannot find it, probably because it is accepted economics theory. If you are able to find a cite that shows how a tax on US crude imports WILL NOT reduce the wealth transfer from US citizens to the Saudi government I would happily include it as the contrary opinion.
One thing that should be obvious is that this argument makes at least two unwarranted assumptions, the argument assumes perfect competition and that the tariff-setting agency is able to determine the optimal level and to change the tariff level as quickly as conditions change. These assumptions seem quite dubious, and the argument thus seems to rest on some very shaky and hypothetical foundations. The IPCCs own projections indicate a loss of up to 2% of GDP for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the US. Arker 16:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course there is no perfect competition in the world, however that does not mean that markets cannot be approximated to perfect competition. The way perfect competition would work against my argument would be in producers acted together to reduce production. That is unlikely for 2 reasons 1) only 40% of production comes from OPEC 2) falling revenues give OPEC members individual incentive to cheat on quotas.
I am not sure where you got the idea that I calculated any sort of optimal tariff or my argument depended upon it. The calculations were made for a 200% tax, nowhere does it say it is the optimal amount. I am going to write a paper in the future discussing an optimal tariff, but currently that is not available.
Nor do I understand why you believe the tariff-setting agency has to change the tariff level "quickly". Where in the paper did you find a discussion of changing tariffs after they have been set at 200%?
As for IPCCs projections, my guess is that they considered non-revenue-neutral taxes. Standard economic analysis shows that a revenue-neutral tax would give a huge economic boost to crude-importing country like the US, while having a negative impact on crude-exporting countries like Canada and Saudi Arabia.
Jayanta Sen 18:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I also cannot agree that the article is exclusively about the science of GW or that the title GW would suggest that. Mention GW to a man on the street and they will usually think about the controversy of whether it is actually happening (science) but also what can be and should be done about it.Jayanta Sen 23:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


Thinking over the matter again, I am more sympathetic to William and Stephan's arguments. I will give a broader description of the position of economists on the effect of gas taxes on the economy. It will take me a while to write that out though, maybe as long as a couple of weeks.Jayanta Sen 00:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Very good. Thinking things over, here are a few more things I should should go in:
*Which (serious, published) positions exist? Who publishes them? (Remember, Wikipedia:No original research). Honestly, I follow these things somwhat, and this is the first time I heard the optimal tarrifs thing. It is not foremost in the public discussion -"Uuuuh, its gonna cost so much, it will kill us!" seems to be the official White House position.
*Does it deal with national or world economy (is the projected benefit to the US at the cost of e.g. Saudi Arabia)?
--Stephan Schulz 08:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Stephan, To answer your questions, Optimal Tariffs follow pretty much from standard Neo-Classical economic analysis of supply, demand and surplus. If you do a search on the web, you will get quite a few cites. You may not get many cites on the specific application of Optimal Tariffs to the oil market. There is some discussion on taxes that I have found that I will incorporate in the re-write. The tariff would create a large wealth transfer from the producers to the consumers. Hence it would benefit the US consumer at the cost of the Saudi goverment. I have made more clarifications in my conversation with SEWilco [4]. You can also check out a easy-to-read version at [5].
Jayanta Sen 19:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok. I can see a couple of problem with your write-up. One thing is that the average price of oil production is irrelevant if the consumption is fairly inflexible. What is relevant is the cost of the most expensive barrel produced (if prices are below that, it will not be produced at all). Oil is a limited natural resource, so supply is limited. There are several other questionable assumptions and unjustified (at least in your write-up) calculations and results. All in all, in this form, it does constitute original research. If you can find reputable sources that published it, it can form one valid POV. Or make a careful writeup and publish it yourself (you have a PhD in economics, so you now about how to get a research paper published, right?). --Stephan Schulz 13:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Stephan, What is important is the relative elasticities of supply and demand. Yes, it is true that some oil may cost more than $15 to produce and it is the marignal cost of production that will determine supply. If you wish to be so precise then you also have to realize that there are two parts of cost, exploration and extraction. As for existing oil the exploration costs have already been paid, it is only the extraction costs that should be considered (as exploration costs are "sunk" costs), which are about $7 at an average. You can see that prices in the market are so far above average costs, that it will take a very large fall in prices till any significant amount of extraction is stopped. I do have a PhD in Finance/Economics, so I do know how to get a research paper published. It also does take time.
Jayanta Sen 19:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Janayta's analysis is essentially correct as far as it goes. A revenue neutral tax would have that benefit of transfering wealth from producing nations to consuming nations and incentivising conservation at the same time. Where it gets complicated is how to avoid making certain businesses non-competitive with businesses that do not have the increased costs associated with the taxes, because whatever technique is used to make the proposal revenue neutral overall, usually does not make it exactly revenue neutral for every consumer and business. Since this is oriented towards energy policy and not global warming specifically, like a CO2 emissions tax would be for instance, I don't see this article as the appropriate one, if we were going to consider economics here at all. Stephan is also correct that it probably would also be considered original research under wikipedia's current policy. I don't think it would necessarily have to be published in a peer reviewed journal. Experts in positions of authority can be cited for instance, a professor's statements on web sites or non-peer reviewed articles have been cited. But this still does not seem the appropriate article. BTW, economists were surprised at how elastic the short term demand was in response to the higher gas prices. We'll have to see if that also extends to the heating season.--Silverback 14:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Silverback, thanks for your post. Your points are correct and questions important. Here are a few clarifications:
Yes, indeed a gas tax would cause redistribution within the economy, effectively making some goods more expensive and others cheaper. However there should not be any major disruption or distortion. After all over the last 7 years the price of gas at the pump went up 200% (threefold) but it was not the distortion but rather the income effect that people were complaining about. A tax on crude would of course have a net positive average income effect. It would be like, owners of SUVs get a small net positive income effect (as wealth is being transferred from Saudi Arabia and Russia to the US consumer) while owners of hybrids get a large positive income effect. If you really wish to avoid redistribution you can always make lump sum payments to existing owners of SUVs.
Businesses do not get die because of the rise of a particular input, if their product is valuable to consumers they simply raise their prices. There is less consumption of their product though. Think of the airlines industry over the last seven years as prices of a major input has tripled.
The idea of optimal tariff's applied to the oil market can be seen in two ways:
1) We really need to do something about this wealth transfer of $150+ billion a year to foreign governments. Let's impose a gas tax. Oh, by the way it also cuts back crude consumption and CO2 production thus reducing GW, nice!
2) We really need to do something about GW. So let's tax crude imports to cut back on gas cosumption and the resulting CO2 production. A side effect is that we transfer wealth from the Saudi government to the US consumer? Great!
Both the above are valid, and I was approaching the matter as 2) when I posted here.
Yes, demand for gas is elastic (I have actually reduced consumption) and importantly we can expect supply to be inelastic. In fact a fall in prices may get OPEC producers to cheat on quotas and increase production as they have fixed budget needs (this has happened before).
I do meet your criteria of being a professor.
Jayanta Sen 18:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
If you want to rely upon your notability/expertise as a professor to get this information into the appropriate article, it would probably help if the reference web site cited, were an actual university department or prefessor's web site. Professors statements on such sites as well as even class notes, slides from class room powerpoint files, are often accepted here on wikipedia.
On the business competitiveness issue, I was more concerned with competitiveness regarding foreign competition who are not subject to the gas tax. Imperfect revenue neutrality for those businesses might cause them to lose business to those foreign competitors. Not all such lack of neutrality is related to their direct costs either, some may be passed through as increased costs from their supply chain. I'd prefer a revenue neutral carbon tax to a revenue neutral gasoline tax, because I am more focused on emissions, than just correcting the wealth transfer to other nations, but a carbon tax would also have that benefit. Regards. --Silverback 14:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Silverback and thanks for your comments. Your point about the competitiveness of American firms is quite interesting, something I had not thought about earlier. On reflection I think a revenue-neutral tax on crude imports would actually increase the competitiveness of American firms. The analysis is similar to that for American consumers, the revenue-neutral tax would transfer wealth from foreign crude producers to American firms. Suppose the "average" American firm pays an extra $100 in gas taxes but gets back $300 in tax reductions (the excess due to the wealth transfer), then the costs for this firm have gone down by $200 making it more globally competitive.
As for particular (rather than the "average") firms, the ones that use crude intensively as an input may suffer if the tax reductions are uniform rather than directed towards them. If the desire is to help all firms be more competitive then the tax reductions can be made to depend upon the use intensity of crude for industries (though not for actual consumption). The major US exporters apparently are service firms (Microsoft, IBM, Google), Hollywood, Boeing etc. so we could probably get away without directed reductions.
Taxes are not really my area of work or teaching, this is something that I have observed and follows from standard economic ideas. I do not have any website discussing these issues (besides having these papers posted on www.idonate). I currently teach at Nevada State College and have taught at Ohio State University and Ohio University, as can be easily verified by doing a web search on my name. Jayanta Sen 17:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Reset indent The savings in wealth transfer that benefits the american firms is due to the lower price of oil, however, the foreign firms get a free ride, because they benefit from the lower price of crude also, without paying the tax and the possible lack of compensating revenue neutrality.--Silverback 18:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Some (not all) foreign firms will get an advantage compared to US firms. However "on the whole" US firms will still benefit in competitiveness. Consider:
1) An increase in taxes should be coordinated with other major oil-importing economies like Germany, India, China, Japan. The wealth-transfer reductions are also beneficial to them as they are to the US. If these countries also increase taxes then firms in these countries should not have any advantage vis-a-vis the US firms.
2) Suppose a oil-importing country XYZ actually does not levy the tax and the firms in this country enjoy the benefit of lower crude prices without paying new taxes. However the extra amount (in new taxes) paid by firms in the US compared to firms of XYZ is the extra tax which the US government gets. If the US government returns this to US firms then (at an average) the US firms are no worse off than the firms of XYZ.
3) Firms in oil-exporting countries would certainly lose out compared to US firms if you hold the level of their governments expenditures constant. This is because these governments will have to increase taxes to make up the shortfall in revenues from the sale of crude. (Of course if government expenditures are reduced than it may be argued that firms have an advantage, but that is another story that I do not want to deal with here.)
4) Finally it may be helpful to see this as the US and the rest of the world (ROW). The US imports crude from ROW. The tax generates a wealth transfer from the ROW to the US firms (and consumers). Hence US firms must be more competitive (at an average) with ROW firms post-tax.
Jayanta Sen 22:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Disliking the new polls bit

JS reinserted [6]:

A poll of the American public in November 2005 by Opinion Dynamics (Fox News PDF & webpage) found that:

  1. 77% believed that Global Warming exists.
  2. 75% believed that they understood the issue of Global Warming "Very Well" or "Somewhat Well".
  3. 50% believed that Global Warming was a "Crisis" or a "Major Problem"

Both the terms global warming and the supposedly more politically neutral climate change were listed in the "Top Five Political Buzzwords" for the third quarter of 2005, according to The Global Language Monitor.

I dislike this. We have an entire article (GWC) for the politicky bits of GW. This article is long enough.

JS asserted Public opinions about global warming do belong to "Global Warming". The article is not titled "Science of Global Warming" and does not exclude such issues..

But:

  • this article *is* about the science (or at least it was before JS reinserted this bit)
  • if public opinions *do* belong, why select this particular survey? there are any number. we would get snowed under by surveys.
  • ditto the buzzwords stuff

So I say: take it out again. [[User:|William M. Connolley]] 23:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC).

I don't agree that the article was *only* about science before I changed it
Well thats an issue of fact, and you're wrong: just read the thing. 99% of it is science. It can be difficult keeping it that way, but I think we should: there are other articles for the politics. William M. Connolley 17:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC).
In Wikipedia victory apparently goes to the person (group) who (which) has most time to spend on it, congratulations and goodbye. Jayanta Sen 00:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
or that I am the only one who thinks it should include issues other than science. For example EricN on October 5 discussed "Explanation of why Global Warming is also a political issue". As EricN further noted a Google search on "Global Warming" (which may be considered what those words mean to the public at large) produces all kinds of articles besides scientific articles (which are in a minority). Hence I would argue that sections on public opinion of GW, the economics of GW, what may be done about GW, etc. etc. do belong here. Specific articles covering aspects of GW are fine, but the prime article that is titled GW should give equal importance to all these issues rather than be focussed on the science of GW.
William M. Connolley wrote "why select this particular survey? there are any number. we would get snowed under by surveys." By this logic, surveys on all important issues should not be included in Wikipedia as there could be many such surveys.
Jayanta Sen 23:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
You didn't answer: Why this poll? as opposed to thousands of other such trivia we could flood the page with. Put it in Global warming controversy or some such, spare us the trivial blather here. Vsmith 01:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I cited one poll, without preferring it to any other possible polls. If you are aware of any other polls you are welcome to cite them. I merely pointed out that because there may be many polls is not sufficient reason for including none. As for "spare us the trivial blather here", I have found often found uncivility accompanies (is used to compensate for) lack of reason.
Jayanta Sen 02:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, and opinion polls are such bastions of reason. Sorry 'bout the incivility. Smile and roll on - trying to keep focussed on the real issues. Vsmith 02:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Important undisputed hard facts must be mentioned earlier in the article

One important paragraph is buried deep inside the article:

Atmospheric scientists know that adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to an atmosphere, with no other changes, will tend to make a planet's surface warmer. Indeed, greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be 30°C lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding CO2 or CH4 to the Earth's atmosphere will result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth, on average. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of CO2 and CH4 will be, and whether changes in water vapor, clouds, the biosphere and various other climate factors will cancel out its warming effect. The observed warming of the Earth over the past 50 years appears to be at odds with the skeptics' theory that climate feedbacks will cancel out the warming.

Currently the article starts with what the scientific consensus is and that there are some scientist who dispute global warming etc. I think that these things should be mentioned later on in the article. It is important that people reading the article get some sense of the relevant order of magnitudes that underly this problem. The fact that without any greenhouse gasses temperatures would be 30°C lower and that human emissions are significantly changing the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gasses should be mentioned early on in the article. Then you mention the observed warming and results of detailed climate studies etc.Count Iblis 15:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and have tried to do this, briefly (the article is already too long). William M. Connolley 17:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC).

the risible crichton

i removed him. he has nothing to say. William M. Connolley 18:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC).

On the contrary, I think he has plenty to say, especially since he had a poor, but notable, best-selling book on the subject. He's listed in the skeptical area, nothing else is really noted on the subject in the article, I'd say the removal is without much merit in this case. --badlydrawnjeff 18:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe in global warming controversy, but he has nothing useful to say about the science. Guettarda 18:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd also disagree with that. He has valid protests regarding the idea of scientific consensus and the reliance on climate models used to predict such things. It's useful for where it sits and what it's meant to do, whether you agree with it or not. --badlydrawnjeff 19:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
If that's the criterion, we should throw out SEPP and the Cooler Heads coalition as well. Seriously, I'd prefer Cichton to stay out, but it's not a big concern if people want him in...--Stephan Schulz 19:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Crichton has nothing to say. The proof of that (apart from reading them, which makes it abundantly clear) is, none of his views are in any of the articles. I would object less if they were in GWC, as G suggests. They don't belong here. William M. Connolley 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC).

Well, perhaps that's the fault of the articles and not Crichton? --badlydrawnjeff 20:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean? It seems to me that you are either saying (i) that the GW article should largely repeat what's in the GWC article, or (ii) that the articles should be merged. The former would not be in keeping with policy, the latter would make the article longer than guidelines recommend. Guettarda 20:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
You probably shouldn't remove it when the "case in talk" has only really been attempted to be made over a two hour period. To say that "crichton has nothing to say" is patently false, and to dismiss it based on the fact that it was chosen, or perhaps outright exorcised one way or the other, is poor logic. The case is being made here, and pay attention to it before you dismiss it outright. He criticises the science, he criticises the collection abilities, and it's a link that's worth noting, especially given his prominence recently, like him or not. "He has nothing to say" isn't a valid reason. --badlydrawnjeff 20:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if it was premature. What case? "Perhaps it's the fault of the article"? What specifically in Crichton's speech is relevant here? He spends >3/4 of it documenting the fact that people tend to arm-wave when they don't have data, and then arm-waves himself to dismiss climate modelling. It might be a notable link in an article about logically flawed rhetorical devices, but it says nothing about the specific issue he claims to debunk. So, to put it simply, he has nothing to say. He says nothing germane to GW. While it may be relevant in the GWC article (be a good place to point out the logical flaws in his argument), he doesn't address GW. Guettarda 21:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I maintain that Michael Crichton has nothing of value to say about GW. He wrote a crappy book that purported to be about GW; thats about it. The links on the main GW page should be there for people or links who have something of value to say. Also, there are far too many links at the bottom of the page... people just dump stuff in there. Just to demonstrate that, I've removed a pile of CO2 emission links that sit better on the GHE page.

If MC had anything to say about GW, it would be on his page, and it isn't. If you think he has anything worth hearing, why not start with the MC page? William M. Connolley 22:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

hard to 'assume good faith' when people arbitrarily and capriciously decide for everyone else what is and isn't relevant, rather than relying upon consensus.Anastrophe 22:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
it's further worth noting that the article linked to is specifically addresssed on MC's page on WP. so the assertion above is without merit.Anastrophe 22:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
i have restored the crichton link. if alternative points of view are to be silenced, then remove the entire 'global warming skeptical' section, and declare the article POV.Anastrophe 00:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Out again, along with the gh gas links - as the consensus above demonstrates C had nothing to say - he was just hyping his book $$. Vsmith 00:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

removed 'global warming skeptical' as consensus is there are no credible skeptical opinions.Anastrophe 01:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps this was indeed your interpretation, but it looks like WP:POINT. In any case, I reverted your removal of all skeptical links. Rd232 talk 09:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject... there is no real criterion for links at the bottom. I'd like to trim it more. Specifically: anything on temperature data to the temperature record page; anything on mitigation to mitigation; errrm, etc. Comments? William M. Connolley 15:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

i would propose eliminating the 'global warming skeptical' links, and replace with a link to global warming controversy.Anastrophe 19:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Bring back the 'global warming skeptical' link! Why does it have to be in global warming controversy if it isn't political?69.239.178.179 05:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
GWC is not just about political issues. most of that article deals with questions regarding the science behind GW theory. Anastrophe 07:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Global mean surface temperatures 1856 to 2004 graph

is there a discussion somewhere where i might find an explanation for why global warming trends flatlined from about 1945 to about 1980 according to the cited graph? if global warming is anthropogenic, then what happened for those 35 or so years? that was an interval of one of the greatest industrial expansions in history. Anastrophe 20:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that nobody claims that all climate changes are anthropogenic - that is, anthropogenic sources are not the only sources for climate changes (so other inputs cause deviation). In other words, a short-term deviation or small dis-correlation from the general trend doesn't disprove global warming, since global warming is talking about the general trend. --AySz88^-^ 21:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a fair question; the answer is sulphate aerosol [7] figure 12.11c. I've added that to Instrumental temperature record and will add it here too, as soon as I find a sensible place to. AySz88 is right that natural variation plays a part, but it won't explain that bit alone. William M. Connolley 21:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC).
what specifically has caused the sulphate aerosols to drop so precipitously on a global scale? Anastrophe 22:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

SA == acid rain. So the answer is, clean air acts. William M. Connolley 23:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC).

clean air acts were largely here in the US and europe. globally, no - india, china, no reductions - dramatic increases in fact. this article *seems* to corroborate that: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/pollution02/d2_koch.html Anastrophe 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
i'm curious why there's been no response on the above. it seems a reasonable question. if SA is responsible for the flatline in warming for 1945 to about 1980, yet SA has been climbing steadily through the century to 1990, then how can the flatline be attributed to SA? Anastrophe 01:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe people are busy elsewhere. Anyways, as far as I can tell (WMC, correct me if I'm wrong), sulphate aerosols have a rather low lifetime in the atmosphere (minutes to weeks), while carbon dioxide has a very high lifetime (month to several centuries). So in the medium term (i.e. between weeks and centuries) sulphate concentration is proportional to current emission (with some lag), while carbon dioxide emission is accumulating (i.e. the atmospheric concentration is proportional to the total emitted so far (plus the pre-industrial base level) (this simplifies things, as we did not start to emit all at once, but I hope you get it). So in the end, carbon dioxide always wins. The clean air acts decoupled carbon dioxide emission and sulphate emissions, so that cabon dioxide emissions continued to increase (and remember, accumulate), while the emission of suphates took a dent. This significantly sped up the process. In a slightly later time frame, the collapse of the eastern European industries put a small dent in carbon dioxide emissions and a huge dent into sulphate aerosols (as they were among the major remaining producers of sulphate emissions). Yes, China and India are picking some of that up, but they also add carbon dioxide into the mix. --Stephan Schulz 08:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds right to me. There are (to this order) two forcings, one positive, one negative (and other effects too, and natural var). If you want to know the exact history of the relative balance then you need to hack through the relevant bits of the TAR and refs therein. William M. Connolley 11:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC).
none of these are really responsive i'm afraid. WMC said the clean air acts were responsible for sulphate reductions, thus the warming trend resumed after having stopped for some 35 years. Stephan Schulz says that the emission of sulphates too a dent. but the page i referenced shows no reduction in sulphate aerosols - they continued to climb through the 1990's. so the response that the clean air act reduced sulphate aerosols, thus causing the warming trend to resume, seems....not right. Anastrophe 22:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Check some more sources. Your source's methodology is unclear (at least as far as I can see), and the data stops at 1990 anyways. The IPCC TAR discusses the difficulty of assessing aerosols (due to their short lifetime, they don't mix well with the atmosphere and the effect is mostly local). However, ice cores in both Greenland and the Alps indeed show sulphates peaking around 1975-1980. Moreover, read my text again. Until the clean air acts, sulphate emission and CO2 emissions were coupled (but CO2 accumulates). After that, much CO2 has been produced without corresponging sulphate emissions. This has changed the balance in favour of warming faster. However, all these processes are complex and heavily buffered. So don't expect easy answers. --Stephan Schulz 23:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
the last thing i'm interested in is easy answers - there are far too many easy conclusions in GW theory. if that flatline can't be adequately explained, then it further adds to my skepticism of the science. again, suggesting that sulphate emissions and co2 emissions are significantly less coupled than before the clean air acts doesn't seem to be supported either by the data on this page:
http://capita.wustl.edu/CAPITA/CapitaReports/GlobSEmissions/GlobS1850_1990.htm , or by the temperature graph. at best one might hope for a slower rate of growth in the graph curve - a *flatline* for 35 years? doesn't add up. Anastrophe 01:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry - the fact that I cannot explain the "flatline" (there is no flatline, but rather a very irregular trough caused partially by a series of veryy warm years in the 30th and 40th) to your satisfaction in a 10 line comment on Wikipedia adds to your scepticisim? Wow. There is a reason why it usually takes at least 10 years from undergrad to PostDoc before you become an expert in any scientific field. Anyways, your source does show a marked decrease in sulphate emissions around 1980 (See Fig. 5). Also keep in mind that CO2 accumulates -any gap will only become bigger. Also keep in mind that sulfate emissions are not all the same - burning of coal for home heating in Europe in the first half of this century creates aerosols with a low lifetime (do to the small height of injection), and also produces a lot of soot, which partially compensates the effect. Burning coal in efficient industrial setting produces much less soot and typically injects the aerosols much higher since again, (early) clean air regulations required massive chimneys to keep the concentrated exhaust from cities. If you want a more detailed explanation, do a lot of reading or hire a scientst from the field...--Stephan Schulz 09:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
"There is a reason why it usually takes at least 10 years from undergrad to PostDoc before you become an expert in any scientific field." ad hominem. has nothing to do with the question, or the answer. please follow WP guidelines. Anastrophe 10:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw the charge of ad hominem. I misinterpreted/misunderstood Stephan Schulz's intention, and extend my apologies. Anastrophe 22:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Accepted.--Stephan Schulz 22:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, it was not intended as an ad hominem. I'm not an expert in climate science either (I'm a computer scientist working in automated reasoning). I just wanted to state that you cannot expect to get a full understanding of a complex scientific topic that is very much under current investigation without investing a significant amout of time to a) acquire the basic knowledge of the field and b) work in the field for a while. Unless you are an expert in climate science, there are things you have to accept at face value. Of course there are things you don't understand. But you cannot reasonably expect people to explain each and every individual facet one after the other - it would take forever. If you want to know, you have to learn. It's not somebody elses duty to teach you in this inefficient manner. The difficulty of obtaining experise in any scientific area is one of the reasons for Wikipedia: No original research. Checking original research is nearly impossible for non-experts. We (necessarily) trust the integrity of the scientific process and peer review. It's not optimal, but it's the best practical tool we have.--Stephan Schulz 12:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Page size, again

I've trimmed the solar section. I'd like to think the page is now stable enough to be worked up a bit more. Currently the TOC irritates me - there is too much of it! The reference links extend to 10 sections! I intend to greatly trim these (I've said this before but unless anyone strongly objects tomorrow I'm going to actually do it). William M. Connolley 23:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC).

OK, I've had a go and probably got carried away. Example: I took out http://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming.htm. Its fair enough, but why are we bothering to link to it? It contains nothing that isn't better done in wiki. Ditto for several others I removed. Also... the "ext links" section tends to accrete links as news items come in... maybe a page called "global warming news"? to put these in? William M. Connolley 00:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Good move, link weeding was long overdue. Wiki is not just a list of everyone's favorite links - the elimination of the link bloat is an improvement of the article. Though some may not agree - see below :-) Vsmith 01:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

"Holocaust" undone

I am confident that the majority of us disagree with "holocaust" - a massive eradication of links by William Connolley ("holocaust" is his own description of his acts) without including any alternative anywhere. I have also looked at William's censorship of many paragraphs about the solar variations and found his reductions undesirable - which is why I returned the article to the last version of Dragons flight whose edits seem to be improvements most of the time - at least to me. Thanks, Dragons flight. --Lumidek 01:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be wrong on this, as on some much else about GW. William M. Connolley 11:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The public controversy bit

A-W has [8] changed has to is believed to have been in Over the past 1-2 thousand years before 1850 the temperature is believed to have been relatively stable. Its a minor point, and the new version is probably more words than are needed; after all the graph is just nearby. However his edit summary no instrumentation before 1850 - all models are just that, models, not data. is simply wrong, and pointlessly provocative. There *are* instruments pre-1850 (of course) and the data comes from proxies, not models.

But her edits to the Public Controversy section are unacceptable. This section is *about* the public controversy; the small minority sci disagreement is already mentioned in the intro. A-W seems to be trying to turn this section into a repeat of material elsewhere. William M. Connolley 11:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC).

sorry, patent nonsense on both counts. "1 - 2 thousand years" is absurdely vague. were temperatures relatively stable for 1000 years, or for 2000 years? if 'soft' data is acceptable, then i guess one or two thousand years is no big deal. close enough, i suppose? is that the scientific rigor we expect? regarding public controversy, the previous text was no more than a cut and paste of the first paragraph of the GWC article, and that is about the sum of the discussion of public policy matters dealt with in the article. the majority of the GWC article deals with questions and problems people see in methodologies, data, and conclusions drawn from same. the opening statement "leaving the realm of scientific journals" is "pointlessly provocative" to coin a phrase. are we to understand that not one, single study has ever been published that comes to conclusions different from those of the global warming proponents? if even a single published study contradicts the GW party line, then you cannot say "leaving the realm of scientific journals". the fact is, this is arguing an appeal to authority - verecundiam -which implicitly biasing to a point of view. Anastrophe 01:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
oh, another point. if, again, we are to understand that global temperatures over the last 1 - 2 thousand years have been relatively stable - what does that mean for 3,000 years ago? 4,000? 5,000? were they not relatively stable then? if the proxy records are reliable, then it should be easy enough to clear that up. Anastrophe 01:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. You seem determined to be pointlessly impolite. 1-2 kyr reflects the temperature record of the past 1000 years page. Proxies past that are fewer. And... volcanoes don't emit much CO2. William M. Connolley 10:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
GW is the "science" article. mentions of disagreement with the science seem to be systematically limited. that's fine. however, if you intend to keep this article strictly science, then it demands rigor. imprecision is not rigorous. that the "temperature record of the past 1000 years" article contains precisely one mention of one reconstruction by one researcher of the temperature record out to 2000 years is certainly not a firm basis for claiming "1 - 2 thousand years" in this article. if it were, then perhaps the source article might need to be renamed "temperature record of the past 2000 years".Anastrophe 21:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, here are the links: I'm going to note their fate... some done, some not. William M. Connolley 19:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC).

Data - all done

Scientific

Educational

Environmentalist

BBC articles

News clippings of events which may have been caused by global warming

Global warming-skeptical

Industry-sponsored

Independent

Sites which are considered to be independent or receive too little support to be considered influential sponsorship

Other


This really scared me for a moment. I nearly thought I had posted a comment in the main article space! -- Natalinasmpf 14:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

public controversy section

Well I just noticed it, and I think "please see [article name here]" is frankly jarring to the flow and not too professional; ie. an excuse not to put it in short context for the reader...I've always hated it whenever I see it on Wiki....personally I think a short paragraph as an introduction, then a "main article" link, would do better, especially since the reaction of the public is such a major issue. Any other opinions? -- Natalinasmpf 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have an opinion :-). I agree. I've reverted back to the "old" version. This throws away a few minor edits (but I don't see that "atmosphere and oceans" is an improvement over just "earth" - its longer, and it neglects borehole thermometry anyway). A-W also added natural to Other greenhouse gas emissions have also increased. Future CO2 levels cannot be predicted with any precision, since they depend on uncertain natural, economic, sociological and technological developments. This is dubious/bad: natural certainly shouldn't be first; since GHG's were largely constant pre-ind-rev there is no reason to expect fluctutions for "natural" reasons; A-W's stated reason - Kratatoa - is just wrong. And as for the PC section: what is there has been stable for some time; A-W's version certainly was worse and twisted the section out of shape. William M. Connolley 16:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
'atmosphere and oceans' is more accurate, and more precise, and conforms with the very first sentence of the article. if your claim is that this edit neglects borehole thermometry, then that means the opening sentence of the article is imprecise as well, and that is what should be updated. generally speaking, if one wishes to employ shorthand, one inserts a notation for same - "Earth's atmosphere and oceans" (hereinafter "Earth"). tedious? yes. this is an encyclopedia, accuracy is the sine qua non. regarding "natural". it seems dubiously rigorous to me, at best, to presume that there is no uncertainty to natural fluctuations of CO2. there are a multitude of feedback systems; suggesting that the increase in anthropogenic CO2 *will not* alter natural feedback mechanisms wrt CO2 is, well, arrogant.
If its natural systems being affected by human effects, that doesn't count as a natural source. William M. Connolley 19:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
where did i say "source"? we're talking about *uncertainty*. suggesting there is no uncertainty to natural effects is, i repeat, arrogant. Anastrophe 19:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
volcanoes do indeed inject CO2 into the atmosphere. is this in dispute?
Volcanoes aren't an important source of variations in atmos CO2. Of course. Look, you've got it wrong, stop wriggling.(PLEASE SIGN ALL INSERTED EDITS)
i have used volcanoes as possible *EXAMPLE*. you cannot state with certainty that there will not be a volcanic eruption that *does* spew significant CO2. can you? i'm sure volcanologists would be very interested in your findings. Anastrophe 19:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Its a rubbish example. You're down to trolling now. Leave it out. William M. Connolley 20:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
i am not trolling. no reasonable scientist would claim that there is zero uncertainty to natural mechanisms that may alter global CO2 levels. it is a reasonable addition to the sentence.Anastrophe 20:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
are volcanic eruptions predictable? no, they are not. volcanic eruptions are *uncertain*. we don't know whether the coming year will have zero volcanoes erupting, or 10 massive eruptions. do all volcanoes inject precisely the same volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere? no, they do not. Do we know in advance what the next volcanoes CO2 volume will be? no, we do not. as to having natural "first", it was not at all my suggestion that it is the greatest uncertainty. furthermore, there was no suggestion in the formulation of the sentence that it was an ordered list. therefore, its position in the list is irrelevant. put it last if you like. one more thing - my example of krakatoa was not to suggest that krakatoa itself significantly altered CO2 value. the example was to suggest that there *are natural uncertainties*. regarding the public controversy section: 'stability' of a section is not a guideline that i'm aware of for limiting edits. if a section can use improvement, then it should be improved. the public controversy is *not* limited to public policy. i personally see nothing 'jarring' about redirecting people with a much shorter entry. i quick review of some random articles suggests it's not at all unusual, or out of the mainstream. my first version was too long. the existing edit dismisses most of what the GWC article is about. Anastrophe 18:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I think your recent changes are bad, and will revert them once I can, unless someone does first (thats an invitation BTW...). You seem determined to add in "Global warming is not universally accepted." which is silly. There is room for skepticism, but not unreasonable septicism. William M. Connolley 19:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
"unreasonable skepticism"? you're joking, right? who is the arbiter of what is unreasonable? "global warming is not universally accepted" is incontrovertible. you seem determined to maintain your 'ownership' or control of this article, to the exclusion of all others. that's bad policy. Anastrophe 19:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Nope. We've had unreasonable skeptics here in the past. "GW is not universally accepted" is indeed incontrovertable: so what? It doesn't mean every other sentence should say that. Its already in the intro. Stop wasting everyones time. William M. Connolley 20:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
who is suggesting that every other sentence should say that? it may indeed be in the intro; much of the rest of the article is mentioned in the intro. i am not trying to 'waste everyone's time'. this is a reasonable change to the *PUBLIC CONTROVERSY* text. if you can provide a reasonable claim to the contrary - the fact that GW is not universally accepted is *foundational* to the public controversy.Anastrophe 20:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Several issues. First, the existing public controversy section, like several other sections, was a fairly poor summary of the relevant material availble elsewhere on Wikipedia, so attempts to update/improve are welcome. Second, global warming controversy is not about the "public controversy", it's about the scientific issues. There are other articles like politics of global warming and business action on climate change which (though half-written) have more on this. Third, "Global warming is not universally accepted." is not only unnecessarily confrontational as an opening sentence, but misleading in its abrupt ambiguity - it could mean quite a number of different things, none of them really very illuminating for the reader. Fourth, Anastrophe needs to calm down; we're all ultimately trying to make a better article. Rd232 talk 22:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

ahem. i am exceedingly calm; please don't judge my emotional state. "global warming is not universally accepted" is explicitly not confrontational. it is a simple, neutrally stated fact. it is NPOV. remove the word "not" from the sentence: "global warming is universally accepted". is that true?Anastrophe 22:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Wrong dichtonomy. In a strictly logical sense, very few absolute statements outside the realm of mathematics are true. There is no serious debate that the climate is warming anymore. There is very little doubt among scientists that anthropogenic CO2 is the reason (this is even true for most non-scientists at least in Europe - in Germany, e.g., this is accepted as a fact accross the political spectrum). There is a lot of debate about details and exact mechanisms. "Global warming is not universally accepted" is a trivial truth. By explicitly stating it despite this triviality you elevate it to something worth saying (compare, e.g. "As far as I know, George Bush is not currently beating his wife"). A collection of strict logical truths can still be a lie by misleading the reader. --Stephan Schulz 23:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Anastrophe, please read again what I wrote, including the subclause "as an opening sentence". It seems I also have to spell out the ambiguity: "global warming" can be either "the warming of the planet" or "anthropogenic warming of the planet" or even "problematic anthropogenic warming of the planet which can and should be remedied/mitigated by human action". In any case, the statement is meaningless (as Stephan Schulz points out above). I can say "it is not universally accepted that the Earth is flat" or "it is not universally accepted that Friday is purple". It is not a helpful form of words - it is virtually meaningless. There are many more specific things that could be said on what public opinion on GW is, and this will be much more helpful to the reader (and avoid the POV issue you don't seem to see). See also Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, which is vaguely relevant (concrete is better than vague). Rd232 talk 23:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
as i have pointed out elsewhere, the former text, which opens with "leaving the realm of scientific journals" is similarly weasely wording; the implication is that there is *no* scientific disagreement with GW, which is false. i realize that's the opening text of the GWC article; it should be changed there too. there may not be serious debate that the climate is warming; there is considerable debate as to how much of it is anthropogenic - again, there would be no controversy if GW were universally accepted (using "GW" or even "global warming" as shorthand for the various formulations noted by rd232 seems to be acceptable within the GW article; if you want greater precision as intro text to the 'public controversy' section, then perhaps "global warming resulting from anthropogenic activities/sources is not universally accepted" would be better. ) Anastrophe 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Has nobody noticed my second point in my para above (global warming controversy isn't - despite the remarks in the Overview section of that article - about the public controversy)? I don't think GWC should be the "main article" for this section. Rd232 talk 09:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, its a fair point. Well spotted :-). As for "natural" - I've re-rm'd it. There is no reason to think (AFAIK) that natural var would significantly affect CO2 levels, sig being measured relative to human pert. William M. Connolley 17:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC).
let's see. the addition of 'natural' in that sentence is specifically in regard to uncertainty. here, you've stated "there is no reason to think (As Far As I Know) [...]". which is another way of saying you are uncertain. please clarify: do we know, *with certainty*, that there will be no natural variations in CO2 levels? i'm looking now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png . interestingly, CO2 levels are shown to have varied from below 200ppmv to nearly 300ppmv. naturally. are we to understand that these variations are 100% understood, predictable, and can be fully accomodated in any future models? well, even i know the answer to that. i'm restoring 'natural' to the sentence. there is no scientific certainty regarding natural variations in CO2 levels which may affect future measurements.

This remains as silly as it was. Those 200/300 variations are called the "ice age" cycles. Oooh look, the picture even says so. What you want is the inset graph, which shows the variation recently. Look at 1000-1800. See how small the changes are? So small as to be negligible. Putting in "natural" into the article contains the false implication that natural var is plausibly large enough to notice over the next few centuries. All the evidence - the very picture you found and so partially interpreted - shows otherwise. You say there is no scientific certainty regarding natural variations in CO2 levels which may affect future measurements. - this is junk. You made it up (apart from the void sense in which there is no sci cert about anything). William M. Connolley 19:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC).

dismissing as "silly" or "junk" is not a scientific refutation. you seem to *think* i have not appropriately interpreted the graph. not so. anyone can see the larger fluctations - i am talking about the smaller fluctations, which take place over *smaller timeframes, timeframes consistent with the final part of the graph*. if you will direct your attention to the graph again, and look rather at the finer fluctations, rather than the obvious large, 'staircase' fluctations, you will see an interval, approximately 50,000 years ago, where the concentration rose from what would appear to be about 190 to about 210ppmv and back down again to about the same level, over an interval barely longer than that represented by 1000-2000AD. that's a *natural* variation in CO2 volume. such natural variation *add to the uncertainty of future variations*. your argument in no way invalidates the sentence as currently framed: "Future CO2 levels cannot be predicted with any precision, since they depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments." stop dismissing what you have no scientific basis to dismiss. future variations in CO2 levels *cannot be predicted with precision*, and that uncertainty includes natural variations. your reversions are without merit. Anastrophe 19:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have editted the overview section to replace the "cannot be predicted with any precision", which seemed unneccesarily negative to me. I also changed the comparison at the end to be in ppmv so it can be directly compared to the modern values used at the start of the paragraph. Lastly, I left in the "natural" part at the end of the uncertainties list, as I believe this is appropriate. The response of the carbon cycle to man's perturbations is important to determining the future carbon concentrations, and those are fundementally natural factors for which we do only have a partial understanding. Right now, natural factors are a negative feedback sequestering ~40% of the carbon emissions man is making per year. As carbon emissions accelerate will that fraction increase, decrease, or stay the same? This is an important questions focusing on natural uncertainties. Dragons flight 20:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

a question

i realize that WP discussion is not a 'chat' area, but since there are climate experts here, perhaps someone can point me in the right direction. i've done some googling, but i suspect i'm just not using the right terms. i'm trying to find the following, any assistance would be appreciated: 1. i presume there are standard methods for gathering temperature readings from which the vast data is accumulated that shows global warming. where are these methods codified? i'd like to learn more about them. 2. i'd also like to review some of this actual temperature data, but can't find any online source. how does one go about reviewing this data? thanks. Anastrophe 07:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

On point 2, I would suggest that http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ is a good place to start. In particular, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ will allow you to examine and download data from individual stations if you so desire. Dragons flight 07:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
outstanding, thank you. Anastrophe 08:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

bias tag

Just noting that an anonymous user has added the {{bias}} template to this article. no comment on the issue.--Alhutch 20:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Since no reason seems to be forecoming, I'll remove it again. Whoever added it: Please discuss first! --Stephan Schulz 20:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
good good. Definitely needs to be discussed first.--Alhutch 21:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

650,000 years

An anon changed 420,000 years to 650,000 years in the article [12], with this source BBC - CO2 'highest for 650,000 years' added above on the Talk page in the list of external links. If we're done processing those links, it would be helpful to archive them (and other things on this over-long talk page) to avoid confusing people. And possibly that or another source for 650k should be in the article or a related article. Rd232 talk 07:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the talk page is overly long. On a controversial article, it is helpful to have a long talk page, so that new comers know that what they think of as "news", is unlikely to have been missed, and so that they can see the level of review that has already gone into the current text, and they type of objections that are likely to be raised and the type of sources that are respected. I think this page should be allowed to grow to twice this length or so.--Silverback 08:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
That can be achieved better by writing an explicit notice above the TOC telling newcomers what we want them to know, instead of expecting them to get it by looking at outdated discussions. 79kb (never mind 160kb) is long for a page (server load, digestibillity, people on dialup), and most of the material is no longer current. Rd232 talk 14:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, when/why was the intro revised? I don't like this opening para, particularly "the question is how much?" seems quite inappropriate for an intro. Rd232 talk 14:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change/Archive_9&oldid=1136616512"