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.
I believe that the role of alage in the ocean naturally combating the effects of excess CO2 in the environment is a vital point that is given short shrift in this article. Read up on algae and how rapidly it expands in the presence of high levels of CO2. There is no reason the think that the symbiotic relationship between algae in the ocean and humans will not balance itself out as it always does. More CO2 means more algae, and more algae sinks the CO2 levels amd the algae die off and the process starts over again and again. It's the cycle of life!
So why all the hysteria over a warming that will naturally correct iteself?
Warmer water equals more acidic in the water and more importantly less nutrients in the upper part of the ocean where algae and photophyton grow.
Clearly Biased Language
The line "a few individual scientists also disagree with parts of it" should read "several individual scientists also disagree with parts of it", because the very article linked lists "several" rather than "a few." Since Wikipedia is apparently no longer a collaborative effort, and I cannot therefore remedy this obvious error, would the article owner (whoever that is) please do so? Thank you. --64.222.222.2506:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I've considered registering, but as this article so clearly demonstrates, bad things happen when people make Wikipedia their home. IMHO, the spirit of Wikipedia would be better served if we were all merely IP addresses. Wikipedia isn't about us, it's about content. --64.222.222.2506:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we have the percentage of climate scientists instead of these vague few/several/many/etc. words? James S.12:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that it is a minority of scientists who hold contrary views. At least, it seems it is a minority of scientists who are concerned with climate enough to make it their occupation who do. But I see no way to confirm whether it is a countable minority or not. And I believe to reduce edit wars, the article should entirely get rid of weasel words. So, I think that a good way to handle such things is to describe what we believe to be the mainstream or consensus or whatever point of view first, establishing it, as far as reasonable and supportable (without going overboard), as the dominant view. Then follow it up with a statement that does not count or weasel word the quantity of the opposition but simply says that the opposition exists, perhaps (but not necessarily) in just one sentence so as not to give undue weight. To me, this is a compromise position that could help reduce edit wars on the matter. --Blue Tie14:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Some people would argue that still gives undue weight. Of course, I disagree completely. However, they (and I) seem content with "debate by proxy" (i.e. weasel words like few, several, etc. that are sourced). ~ UBeR19:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, to simply mention an "opposition" would give undue weight. So we are left with using weasel words or no mention at all--Skyemoor03:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I am opposed to weasel words. If for no other reason than this: It requires diligent reversion of contributions by honest editors who are following wikipedia policy. This is already a bad habit on this page and we should not leave opportunities for edit wars to continue. It is a bad idea to leave such weak things in the article. (Also, if a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view). At the very least, the inclusion of weasel words requires the template and that is not desirable. --Blue Tie15:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
And I agree with you Blue Tie, to say the least. But there remain a few who wish to use weasel words, so I see this as the only way to compromise. ~ UBeR17:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Then the article should wear the tag.
In the NPOV guidelines, one idea really stands out to me: Let the facts speak for themselves. If we use weasel words, we are not doing that. --Blue Tie17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I accept that we disagree. But you are also disagreeing with wikipedia guidelines -- guidelines that were fashioned to help prevent NPOV problems, something the page has been accused of a great deal. I understand why people would not want wikipedia standards to apply to articles... they can be annoying. But they help things work better. --Blue Tie18:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, reading over the policy again, what we have is allowed by the guideline. It reads, "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources . . . Either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed." So clearly, sourcing opinionated language is fine, given the caveat that "where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." ~ UBeR19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That is also how I read the policy in connection with NPOV. That type of discussion -- quoting an opinion with a cite, is debate by proxy in many instances, but it is allowed. I believe that the whole area of "opinion" on wikipedia is mine field but particularly with articles about living people, culture, and unresolved history/current events. This one is in the latter category. I also think that where we can get away from weasel words, the better off we are. In most cases, just saying "there are" instead of saying "Some" or "Many" or "Few" avoids the weasel word. I would also point out instances where a word only appears to be weasel-like but is not. For example "most" countries signing the Kyoto accords is actually verifiable by a poll. There are just so many countries in the world and we can count them all and the number who signed. --Blue Tie21:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, especially pertaining to this article, what's here is allowed (though the statement probably should be attributed to AMQUA). And I don't think the dissenters will budge, no matter how vehement you opinion. ~ UBeR21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the statement I had a big problem with ("tiny") is no longer in there. The article is much better in that regard. But look at my last two edits. I think that they just strip all POV out of those parts of the article. Whatever pov you might have, it is neither supported nor denied by those edits. To me that enhances the defendable stability of the article. Say for example, some new editor comes along and wants to add some modifier in there. Well, I would not first revert and ask questions later, I would say "Your modifier needs to be validated and avoid weasel words". If they can do that, then probably they can also produce something better than a vague or imprecise modifier. If they can't then the revert has substance and is not just a knee-jerk. This enhances the stability and value of the article. I have doubts my recent edits will survive because they do not support one pov or the other sufficiently, but let's see.--Blue Tie21:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Note POV can also be pushed by absence of a qualifier; e.g., stating "there are biologists who accept the theory of evolution and biologists who reject it" gives the impression that there are two comparable groups, when the reality is more like 99:1. Raymond Arritt22:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I said, a completely neutral pov will not support one pov or the other. And thus, someone will feel slighted. If 99 out of 100 individual scientists accept the consensus of global warming, lets cite the poll. Otherwise your edit includes an unsubstantiated weasel word. --Blue Tie22:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
(Unindent) I think Dr. Arritt is correct here. But I think we shuold go back to the original wording, per the source, if that is fine. There is also a problem with not using adjectives at all in an article. For example, your removal of "slight" in the explaining of feedbacks. But when a reader comes along and sees "X amount of C will result in warming, which leads to more warming," the reader will be left asking, "How much?" ~ UBeR22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
What is Raymond correct about> What source is there that credibly describes the number of individual scientists that disagree? Has there ever been a poll? As for the reader asking the question "How much? that is exactly the point. If we say "a slight amount" of warming.. whose idea of "slight" is it? And why do they think it is "slight"? Much better to measure. At the very least, the footnote should explain why it is "slight". But when we just say it, then it is wikipedia's unsubstantiated opinion. How is that right? What does wikipedia "know"? --Blue Tie22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you be comfortable stating "some physicists accept Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and some do not"? Would you be comfortable stating "some physicians believe HIV causes AIDS, and some do not?" Would you be comfortable stating "some scientists accept that telekinesis is a proven capability, and some do not"? There are no polls in any of these cases, so far as I know. Raymond Arritt22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
UBeR, your last edit that restores "few" no better. I have already outlined why an editorial should not be used as a source for a disputed weasel word. However, if it is "debate by proxy" then if another source says many, they must both be presented per NPOV. I seriously do not understand the need to add weakly supported, pov adjectives to the article. Why not just stay purely neutral? --Blue Tie22:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
And the "editorial" is not an editorial! It is neither commisioned nor written by the editors or publishers of Eon. Instead, it is a formal declaration of the council of a well-known scientific society. --Stephan Schulz22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I am now convinced that this article is controlled by a select group of editors, with no room for influence outside that group. I trust that anyone who reads this article, along with the reams of accompanying talk archives, will come to the same conclusion. If we cannot agree when a linked article is clearly referred to incorrectly, there can be little hope for broader input. After reading the responses to my initial request, I could scarcely determine who was for it and who against. Yet the edit seemed so benign and proper to me. I am astonished, to say the least. What makes this all the more astonishing is that Wiktionary defines "several" as:
This could be construed as being synonymous with "a few." It's not as though I'd asked the article to read "a lot," but only to use a word which most readers would probably interpret as slightly more than "a few." This should be perfectly acceptable and even obvious to anyone clicking the link. So, why all the fuss? --64.222.222.2506:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I find it telling that nobody has responded to my above critique. Let's try again: how about "a number ofindividual scientists also disagree with parts of it" -- would that be acceptable? It would be the least biased wording possible, as it implies neither a small number, nor a large one. Although I feel silly trying to compromise to get a change that every honest editor should be lining up to endorse, especially since my initial request of "several" was a compromise in itself (because, as Wiktionary defines it, "several" is generally no more than seven, which is clearly not an accurate description of said list -- but I compromised, in light of the atmosphere surrounding this article). What kind of editor would click a link referred to as containing a list of "a few" scientists, see that it in fact contains a list of many, yet not only not fix the error, but fight to keep it from being fixed? Please explain to me how this is not a clear example of bias. Thank you. --64.222.222.2515:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You're bored because I've called you to task and you cannot rebuff what I've said. "A few" is poor wording, the defense of which can therefore only be due to bias. --64.222.222.2516:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not amused. Some of you are quite obviously engaged in a vendetta. For example, since Mr. Connolley cannot defend the misleading wording "a few," he's decided to alter the linked article to fit that description[2]. This is shocking, even juvenile behavior. Some of you are suitable candidates for banning, on the grounds that you are engaging in a prolonged, focused campaign to influence the direction of this collaborative website. --64.222.222.2516:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A couple of things seem to have been neglected in this debate. It is important to make a distinction between "scientists", who come in all shapes and sizes, and "climate scientists", of whom the vast majority regards the evidence for anthropogenic climate change as highly likely. There are indeed a few climate scientists who are skeptics, and this is legitimate to note. However, I would suggest that first of all, this fact should be viewed in the context of h!ow science works (X and Z battle it out and one or the other eventually proves their case [i.e. successfully refutes the claims/objections of the other]), which is different than how, for example, a policy discussion works (X and Z battle it out for a "truth" Y that lies in the middle). There are still a few (otherwise legitimate) physicians and medical researchers who dispute the fact that HIV causes AIDS -- does this skeptical view merit the same weight as the consensus position on HIV that is surely correct (especially given that lives are literally at stake)? Surely not. Second, many of the skeptics brought out in the media to challenge the climate consensus are not actually climate scientists, but rather geologists, meteorologists (some of whom only hold a certificate in meteorology, not even an academic degree), paleontologists, and the like. They are certainly entitled to hold their views, and the fact that they are not climate scientists does not mean thay may not have valid points. But the view that simply "as scientists" their skepticism is of equal merit to the professional assessments of researchers who specialize in climate topics is simple minded and does a disservice to an understanding of how science properly works. Anyhow -- my two cents. Arjuna01:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't buy it. One can just as easily argue that the climate scientists have self interest clouding their judgement, because their research funding benefits from the extreme rhetoric. Climatology is just not one of the more difficult sciences, there is little that physicists reading the papers would not understand. Remember is was the physicists that challenged the electrochemists on their cold fusion calorimetry. The only climate papers I have had a hard time reading were the ones that weren't well written or had mistakes that made it difficult to find their data or follow their methodology. --Africangenesis04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between "reading" and "understanding." You've certainly shown no evidence that you understand the implications of the Roesch paper that you've so often referred to. Raymond Arritt04:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Do I correctly surmise that Africangenesis is a physicist? (Ah, "the Queen of the Sciences"!) Apparently I was not aware that climate scientists -- unlike physicists, who must somehow be self-funded and thus immune from the tendentious real-world implications of their scientific research -- are singularly prone to dishonest science given that they are engaged in the sinister promulgation and pernicious dissemination of "extreme rhetoric". Funny though, I wasn't aware that climate science was "not difficult". Arjuna04:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider impuning of the motives by the source of the funding a valid argument, I just noted that one could argue that, since that argument seems common here. No matter who does the funding, the substance should be judged on the merits. Now at least you know that climate science is "not difficult".--Africangenesis05:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, so you have noted that you "don't buy" the argument, but you fail to specify what specifically you don't find compelling, other than a prima fascie case that a physicist's understanding of science is evidently superior to that of a scientist in any other discipline. You take others to task for the same thing, so your consistency is requested. Arjuna05:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, what I didn't buy above, is the idea that the non-climatologists criticisms were not of equal merit with the climatologists. This is ad hominem, the points should be considered on their merits. The claims of the climatologists have implications for other sciences that are well within the expertise of those other sciences, in fact, arguably sometimes more so. It is analogous, to when the electrochemists were making claims of cold fusion, they trangressed into an area where others had equal if not more expertise. When climatologists claim to be able to attribute and project a complex nonlinear dynamic system, they are making claims that others with expertise in this area of mathamatics are justifiably skeptical of. Physicists, mathmaticians, astronomers, and even just the scientifically literate know something of the difficulties represented by mere multi-body problems. Imagine their skepticism when the climate modelers claim their models "agree", while simultaneously reporting that the model climate sensitivities vary by more than a factor of two. Then when the modelers claim their models are validated because they reproduce the 20th century climate well, when unfortunately they have serious discrepencies regionally, and have had to do it with very little information about the state of the ocean at the beginning of their simulations, not to mention spotty surface temperature data, and when they admit that the variation in solar forcing is poorly understood. Add to that the information that the energy imbalance responsible for the recent warming is under 1W/m^2, while diagnostic studies show the models have errors several times that, and that some of that error has been showed to a correlated bias shared by all the models. Should the non-climatologists just defer to the climate modelers when they claim to be able to attribute and project despite these model deficiencies? When/if climatologists make this claim, they are no longer talking climatology, they are claiming new mathmatics, something others are just as qualified to weigh in on, and be skeptical of. Frankly, it would be quite exciting if the climatologists could make the rigorous mathmatical case this would require, and we would all eagerly examine it. Until then, there needs to be better agreement between the models and the data, more resolution of discrepecies between the models, more realistic coupling of the forcings to the components of the climate system, etc. so that the models can earn some credibility.--Africangenesis06:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this shows the problem rather well. To do thermodynamics "properly", one would have to deal with the multi-body interactions of all the individual molecules involved. And yet, if a specialist in mechanics challenges statistical thermodynamics, he will not show how it is all wrong, he will just display that he has no idea what he is talking about. Of course climate science is hard. Of course we do not have models that are exact at the molecular level, or even the local level. That does in no way imply that they are useless and climate scientists don't know what they are doing, it just means that you as a layperson in the field don't understand their toolbox (and the limitations of it).--Stephan Schulz08:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
There you go, an ad hominem attack. You don't know what I understand or don't understand. I didn't raise molecular level issues. I only raised issues of the same order magnitude as the phenomena the models are trying to represent and attribute. Rather, than attack, if you understand how models with the issues I did raise and that are documented in the literature, can be capable of the robustness and skill claimed for them, then explain it, that would be a more evidence based demonstration of something you or they understand that I and others "outside" the field don't. I implied only that the models are useless for attribution and projection, not that they are useless overall. I think they have achieved some remarkable climate behaviors and offered qualitative insights into different climate modes, they just aren't up to this quantitative task. You know there is a big difference between the local or regional level and the molecular level. That is a red herring. The Roesch paper demonstrates the significance of regional issues, and that these particular temperate zone snow cover and snow melt issues are significant even when averaged globally. He points out several specific issues in enough detail that the modelers should be able to fix them, or at least get a lot closer the next iteration. The correlated issues he documents, just show that the current models are not up to the task not just individually but also as meta-ensembles. The models have got even greater issues in cloud physics and aerosols. But that doesn't mean the problems are as intractable as your molecular hyperbole implies, but that they need a lot more improvement before they are quantitatively credible. Yes, I'm implying it would be new mathmatics if models this rough could achieve the robustness needed for attribution and projection of this small global energy imbalance. But I am not closed to the idea that skill could be achieved and credibility earned with enough further refinements. BTW, I am not denying that doing climate science is hard, these models are complex achievements. But what is not hard is understanding the techniques and theory that are published. The colloquialism would be "It ain't rocket science." And it ain't string theory either. Fortunately, most science isn't. Instead of a personal attack, why don't you defend the models or reference a cogent defense of the models, instead of assuming that the modelers have some mystical inside knowledge incomprehensible to the rest of us.--Africangenesis08:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Without getting into substance: Africangenesis, clearly you have some very interesting if somewhat arcane points to make -- so why are you making it here? 1. Wikipedia is not the place for original research; 2. much of what you say would be more appropriate on the Global warming controversy article; 3. you will have better arguing partners over at http://www.realclimate.org (unless you're here mainly to impress the rest of us); and/or 4. why don't you get your analysis to a journal for publication and have it tested in the crucible of science? I'm not being (completely) sarcastic; I genuinely think much of what you have to say is probably very legit, relevant, and intended to be constructive. I just wonder why you feel it's important to make your points in this venue rather than elsewhere. Cheers, Arjuna11:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are getting at. My comments have been directly responsive to others in the discussion, the mathmatical nature of the climate system is well known, not original research and not being familiar with you, I don't know whether to be surprised that you didn't know it. Discussions of the mathmatics and the literature are relevant on the talk page at least. Note that I did not originate this thread.--Africangenesis11:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Increasing severe weather is caused by increasing severe weather... huh?
This sentence still doesn't make any sense because it is basically circular reasoning:
Increasing extreme weather catastrophes are primarily due to an increase in population, and are partly due to increasing severe weather.
This sentence needs a rewrite because it's fairly given that increasing severe weather correlates with increasing severe weather... but that doesn't have anything to do with the cause of severe weather. --Tjsynkral22:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Could do with a bit of clarification. The population bit refers to more human suffering caused by increased population in areas prone to severe weather even if the number of weather events doesn't change. But that probably wasn't very clear either :-) Vsmith23:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it could probably be clearer if written, "Catastrophes resulting from extreme weather are primarily due to an increase in population, and are partly due to increasing severe weather." Nothing wrong with Mr. Arritt's version, if not a little verbose. ~ UBeR01:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend rewording the context around the sentence so that you could say something like "The increase in such catastrophes is primarily due to population increases, but partly due to increasing severe weather". Then the repetitive and confusing "severe weather" can be avoided. —AySz88\^-^06:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
An increase in intensity and severity of extreme weather is already mentioned in the previous paragraph. I'm assuming that this sentence is a segue from that statement to the discussion of tropical cyclones, in which case a better wording might be Damage caused by increases in extreme weather attributed to global warming may be exacerbated by increased population in areas affected by such weather. This is noted particularly in the case of tropical cyclones., and cite Pielke's study. Hal peridol23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
One more refinement, Increasing deaths, displacements, and economic losses caused by extreme weather attributed to global warming may be exacerbated by growing population densities in affected areas. Since the extreme weather will include heavy rains, high winds, drought, and other such phenomenon, we don't need to call out cyclones in particular. 'Damage' on its own is too vague. The damage to ecosystems is not related to population growth combined with extreme weather (though both play a role independently). And we can cite the ARM, Pielke is outside the consensus (such a suggestion shows too much POV).. --Skyemoor00:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I like it - it seems to have been overtaken by events, though, judging by the section below. I prefer your sentence, but I'm happy enough with Raymond's change to the original. Thanks, Hal peridol02:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Parsing of sentence on losses from severe weather
The sentence in question is
Increased losses resulting from extreme weather are primarily due to an increase in population, and are partly due to increasing severe weather.
The noun is losses; that is the subject of the sentence. The noun is modified by the phrase "resulting from extreme weather." Here "extreme weather" does not function as a noun or the subject of the sentence, so your insistence on interpreting it as "extreme weather is due to extreme weather" is unfounded (as you of course know). To write it more verbosely,
There are increased losses due to severe weather. These increased losses are primarily due to an increase in population. But the increased losses are also due in part to an increase in the incidence of severe weather itself.
Okay, say I give you everything you just said. Where exactly in the source is population mentioned, or losses? Some of us actually check sources to ensure they back up the text... and this one seems not to. --Tjsynkral04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
So, where do you find support for this sentence? I don't see it, so as far as I'm concerned the sentence should go. --Tjsynkral00:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If you have a source saying that losses from severe weather are caused by severe weather (no matter how dumbfoundingly obvious and circular that may be) please give me a cite and page number on it. --Tjsynkral04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
That was just a quick skim of the report, BTW. Haven't read it in full yet. Nevertheless, I don't think it's saying losses from severe weather are caused by sever weather. Well it is, but it's being modified by "increasing." That is, losses from extreme weather are partly due to increase incidence of severe weather, but mostly population changes. So if a researcher is seeing there are ever increasing losses coming from severe weather, he might ask, "why?" Well it's partly due because of an increase in severe weather, but mostly population fluxes (to reiterate). I hope this clarifies. ~ UBeR04:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then we have to source the claim that severe weather is, in fact, increasing, and that losses are increasing. I found one thing that Raymond might have misunderstood, where it says that projected losses may be caused by a projected increase in severe weather. And even if we do that we need to reword the sentence so it isn't saying that increased losses from severe weather are due to increased severe weather. And I am still at a loss as to what increased losses due to severe weather has to do with global warming. --Tjsynkral04:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a rather daft sentence. What are 'losses'? If they are primarily due to population why are they in the gw article? And it is circular. Why not just delete it? Paul Matthews15:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This statement from the intro "Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950"' is unsupported by the provided reference number 1. There is no evidence that solar activity has had a cooling effect since 1950. Given the climate commitment studies showing much longer equilibration times, it is probable that the earlier increases in solar forcing are still contributing to the current warming. Why the strange and misleading conjunction of volcanic and solar in this statement? Is there any peer review literature supporting a cooling effect for solar activity in recent decades? --68.35.43.8214:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've read it now. There are more problems with the statement than can be resolved with a "combined". The volcanic influence is neither continuous, nor periodic. Combining the two to argue that the net natural contribution is negative, makes the truth of the above statement dependent on the level of volcanic activity and probably false at this particular time. --68.35.43.8217:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
IPCC diagnostic studies show that the models have errors much larger than the net energy imbalance. Roesch showed that all the AR4 models had a positive surface albedo bias against solar that is arguably larger than this energy imbalance. The models are good for providing insight into climate behaviors but are not yet up to the task of attribution and projection.--68.35.43.8217:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The diagnostic studies have already been published. Can they be responded to with any evidence of how the models can somehow be useful for attributing less than a 1W/m^2 of global energy imbalance? Consensus and faith are not evidence or science.--68.35.43.8212:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
But as you know, the diag papers say nothing about attribution. If, in *your personal opinion* the diag studies invalidate the IPCC spm results, then that is very interesting for you but not for wiki, unless those opinions have been published. Which they haven't been William M. Connolley12:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the diagnostic studies say nothing about attribution explicitly. They do say things about the models, and they are published after the key model studies relied upon for the WG1 work, since those model studies take months to years to run. When a study such as Roesch finds that all of the models have too much snow cover area and a delayed spring snow melt, that is significant its its impact on the global averages, that means that the models must be replacing that missing reflected solar energy elsewhere, in order to have matched the recent warming and energy imbalance. Roesch himself calls it a "bias", a positive surface albedo bias. It is present in all the AR4 models, with some also having a positive albedo bias in the tropical deserts also. If all the models are shown to be reflecting too much solar, then they must be miss attributing the warming they reproduce. You can claim that the diag papers say nothing about attribution, only if you refuse to think about them. However, back to the topic, no source has been provided for the statement at issue as phrased, and since the statement is incorrect, if we are to reproduce it anyway, it should be attributed to the proper opinion holder.--68.35.43.8213:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"Is there any peer review literature supporting a cooling effect for solar activity in recent decades?" None that I've seen. Actually there is a general increase in insolation at the canonical 65N for the last three hundred (five hundred?) or so years. But many studies (e.g Robertson et al JGR 2000 Hypothesized climate forcing time series for the last 500 Years) have used the combination of solar and volcanic forcings together as indicative of the natural forcings in the system so it is not surprising to see the refered to together like this.Ken14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me coming into the middle of this. I'm not entirely up on the specific details and nuances of this debate (particularly the stuff about volcanic activity; is this in reference to volcanic CO2 emissions or volcanic dust/aerosols?), but... For the record, the new IPCC WG1 Summary (http://www.ipcc.ch/WG1_SPM_17Apr07.pdf) indicates that solar forcing does make a small but significant contribution to current observed warming (see p. 4 of the summary). In any case, the article already mentions this, so what's all the hubub? Arjuna09:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This is about the radiative forcing during the last 50 years or so. Volcanic CO2 is nearly negligible on a non-geological timescale (though volcanic aerosols, as you rightly pointed out, are not). The SPM.2 figure you refer to has forcings compared to 1750 ("pre-industrial"). There is little doubt that a significant part of the 1900-1950 warming was due to solar, but it is unclear what influence changes in solar activity had since. Either way, they are small compared to sulfate aerosols, volcanos, and greenhouse gases.--Stephan Schulz09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
If you admit the solar significance prior to 1950, and not since, then you reject the climate commitment studies which show that the oceans take centuries to respond. No further increase in solar activity is required for the climate to continue warming.--68.35.43.8212:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. No skeptic am I. My only point was that an element of solar forcing does exist -- but as you rightly point out it is small relative to other anthropogenic causes. Arjuna09:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Radiative forcings are coupled to the climate system in different ways. You can't just compare their absolute values or sum them in a non-linear system. The current level of solar activity is at one of its highest levels in the last 7000 years, per Solanki, and these size changes in solar activity have been large enough to apparently trigger past climate changes, hypothesized to be natural and not anthropogenic.--68.35.43.8212:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
68.35.43.82 - please get a wikipedia id and join the debate. It seems like you know what you are talking about. It is a rather bizarre statement and not properly supported by ref [1], as I argued above. In fact fig SPM2 in [1] shows solar as positive. I suggest we use Arjuna's wording. Paul Matthews13:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe a more correct statement of the SPM position would be that "the contribution of solar forcing is poorly understood and thought to be small". In this complex non-linear system, we need models, better ones than we have, to assess whether the "effect" is "small". A small forcing does not necessarily imply a small effect. Given the "small" increase in temperature over the 20th century, even a "small" effect might be significant, especially if the models are attributing that effect to GHGs, and are managing to reproduce warming in the face of excessive snow cover. In projections, the errors will be magnified, as further warming eventually eliminates the snow cover restraint, leading to more extreme temperature excursions. I'm interested in a more proper representation of the state of the science. It is probably best for me to continue to pursue that elsewhere. I just occasionally get sucked in by how wrong some of the statements are, even by wikipedia's regurgitative standards. Even if statements dismissive of a combined solar and volcanic net impact can be found, the combination will still not be relevant to solar as a viable competing hypothesis for some of the attribution. --68.35.43.8213:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Good stuff. If you had a wiki account you could fix the incorrect statements yourself. The page could do with some more editors who know the science. I have edited the disputed sentence to "Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have probably had a relatively small effect.[1]" in the lead (where things need to be kept short and simple) and "Solar variation has probably had a relatively small effect on recent global warming, compared with anthropogenic effects" in the solar section. I hope that should be acceptable to most people. Paul Matthews14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example of the problematic atmosphere surrounding this article. Gentlemen such as Mr. Connolley feel that they own it, but they do not. I would invite these editors to retreat back to their personal webspace, and let Wikipedia get back to being a collaborative endeavor. "I can live with it," he says. Can you? "For the moment," he says. Indeed! --64.222.222.2516:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
68.35.43.82, are you the same person as 64.222.222.25? If so, this illustrates the need for you to get a Wiki account and to sign your name to your contributions to the debate. As for your concern as to whether the article as currently written is a "proper representation of the state of the science", I fail to see what your point is. (Pardon if I'm wrongly conflating the two IP addresses.) The fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour is not license for editors with a tendentious POV to present facts in a misleading fashion. It sounds as though many of the points you wish to make would be better suited to the separate article on Global warming controversy. Arjuna21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
And even if they were, it doesn't "illustrate" any such need. As I've said earlier on this page, Wikipedia is about the content, not the editors. I'm not going to make an account just so Mr. Connolley's fan club can more easily ignore my rather trivial yet completely logical concerns -- it seems they've done so quite effectively anyway. Just think, if I had a name, you could immediately skip past my comments, without double-checking the IP first. My request to change one small, misleading phrase does not equate to "tendentious POV," but the insistence on keeping that phrase certainly does. See the disussion above, under "Clearly Biased Language," where Mr. Connolley's attack dogs spin a page-long web of mumbo-jumbo in order to justify the total dismissal of a seemingly insignificant edit request. --64.222.222.2501:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
About section 2.3 Solar variation
End of first paragraph reads:
Stratospheric warming has not been observed. when in fact it should read Stratospheric cooling has been observed. or something akin to that. Citation: Science 24 November 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5803, pp. 1253 - 1254 DOI: 10.1126/science.1135134 [3]Ken21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it should read that, but it is related to GHGs or ozone, not solar, so it is in the wrong section, and properly presented doesn't add much to the article.--Africangenesis06:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Request
Under "Attributed and expected effects", the paraphrasing of reference #37[4] fails to mention the positive effects which are spoken of in the very same section being referenced. Please don't refer me to Effects of global warming; if Global warming is going to make the reference, it should do so accurately and completely. A short sentence should suffice, so long as it alludes to the projected benefits of climate change in some areas, and the fact that these are expected to lead to fewer deaths. I'll leave the wording to the article ownership, but would like to see the phrase "fewer deaths" included, to balance that of "increasing deaths," as the referenced material so carefully does. Thank you. --64.222.222.2502:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Posing a question: is the chart on pages 14 and 15 of the WG2 summary[5] public domain, and if so would it be appropriate to reproduce it in part? Mentioning the fact that fewer deaths are expected due to decreased cold nights is legit, but not if it is out of context with the (perhaps) greater number of increased deaths due to other projected effects. In other words, the whole picture should be presented, not simply that "increased deaths due to heat waves is balanced by reduced deaths due to fewer cold waves". I'm simplifying, but you get my point. Arjuna03:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking for an out of context addition, I'm asking for the inclusion of a statement which was omitted. It is this omission which creates a contextual problem. --64.222.222.2505:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Why put off till four days from now what can be done today? Or better yet, why not assume good faith by unprotecting the article? The alternative involves me creating an account, waiting four days, making the edit, and crossing my fingers that it doesn't get reverted. Instead, I made an edit request, hoping that someone who agrees with the request and who already has a 4-day-old account might do it. --64.222.222.2505:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Well getting an account was pretty useless.
Looks like I am not allowed to edit. The first change I wanted to make was to change "predict" to "project". Next, I'm not sure why the model projections are in the introductory paragraphs, but if we are going to note that the IPCC used models which made these projections, we should also note that the IPCC used models which had a positive surface albedo bias relative to the satelite data. There is no particular reason to cite one fact about the models that the IPCC used and not the other, when reporting the state of the science--Africangenesis06:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
New accounts can only work on semi-protected articles after about 4 yearsdays. And including one article which talks about only one aspect without evaluating it's overall effect is both a violation of WP:WEIGHT and, if its used to imply unreliability not explicitely stated in the paper, WP:SYN. --Stephan Schulz06:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The weight is left to the reader, as it should be. The Roesch paper is an IPCC diagnostic subproject published after the papers that made the projections. It very clearly states that the models do not reproduce the surface albedo, due to several explicitly detailed factors relative to both ground and satelite data, and that all the models are biased in the same direction. The reason that there haven't been any articles in response that state that the models were able to reproduce the 1990 to 2000 snow cover area and snow melt timing, is that the community knows that they didn't, and they knew it before the Roesch study to diagnose the issue in detail was done. Is the fact that the IPCC used these models intended to imply reliability that they did not explicitly state? --Africangenesis06:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"This reflects the long average atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide (CO2).". The continuing sea level rise reflects the large heat capacity of the ocean, which takes centuries to respond to a new level of forcing.--Africangenesis06:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It is an explanation informed by general principles of physics and the climate commitment studies such as those by Wigley, et al, and Meehl, et al. --Africangenesis11:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there anyplace in the provided document where it states that volcanoes and solar had a "small effect"? I can't find any. This statement is apparently being used to imply that solar made only a small contribution to the recent warming, when that is not explicity stated in the summary for policy makers. The closest it comes is the statement that "most" is due to the anthro GHGs, but that does not mean that the remainder is "small". The model runs cited based on solar and volcanic does not explicitly address the issue. The correct way to address this issue, which SPM does not address, would be for there to be model runs which do not include the anthro GHG increases, but do include the other human forcings, aerosols, etc. Those model runs with solar would be tuned quite differently from the beginning and might reproduce more of the recent warming. But the SPM is silent on this issue as well as on the "small effect" statement. Of course, in light of more recent work, also available to the IPCC, it would be better if the runs were made with models without a positive surface albedo bias several times larger than the global energy imbalance.--Africangenesis07:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, it is just easy for a fresh pair of eyes to spot these issues. Why are you uncomfortable with any of the points raised? I assume it is good practice to check the supporting documents to see if they really do support the statements, and to make sure the statements fairly represent the evidence.--Africangenesis10:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It is good practice. You just picked the wrong article to try to edit. Check out the talk history and you'll see what I mean. It's hard to believe this article is part of wikipedia, because of issues with civility and ownership issues. Thegreatdr10:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Uncalled for. If I were able to issue a warning, or knew how, I would do so here. Please remain civil and assume good faith, just like I will assume that you're not really sad. Also, I would have to say that insisting on describing an article-length list of names as "a few," then hacking away at said list in an attempt to actually turn it into "a few," would better describe the deeds of an "obsessed editor." --64.222.222.2509:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I cant assess who's right or wrong, but I certainly can assess how disturbing it seems for William Connolley, Stephan Shultz and als. that this new editor, who seems knowledgeable in the topic, can be allowed to edit "their" article after only four days. --Childhood's End12:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason you focus on just this one paper? Have you read it, do you have specific issues with it, assuming you mean Roesch? It is a paper solidly within the mainstream, why be particularly sensitive to it? As Pons and Fleischman found out, calorimetry is hard. Modeling the recent global warming is essentially doing calorimetry of the whole earth surface, ocean, atmosphere system to reproduce and attribute an energy imbalance of less than 1 W/m^2 when averaged over the whole surface and year. There are many diagnositc subprojects, do you doubt that others also document errors larger than this 1 W/m^2? Your reaction to this paper would seem to confirm rather than contest that one paper is enough, just as one scientist with a valid point is enough. However, single papers seldom stand alone, they derive strength or power from their context. The Roesch paper merely quantifies known issues with the models, and suggests specific improvements. Do you really suggest that modelers would or should ignore it, rather than making those improvements? Rest assured, that I will also be citing work by Wigley, Meehl, Solanki, Pierrehumbert, Hansen, etc, but if we dismiss any one paper, I hope it will be based on a discussion of the substance, not a mere count. If "weight" is an issue as suggested by Schulz, then hopefully it is also based on an issue found with the substance, and not on a mere paper count. Fortunately, it is rare that a paper stands alone, the Roesch paper stands in a context of documented model problems at the higher latitudes, adding confirmation and quantification based on satellite and other data sets, and in the context of Roesch's own prior work. You will find it a nice read that does not appear at all anamolous.--Africangenesis16:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
William criticizes for using one paper when he relies on one paper more than any other, with the reference name of grida7. ~ UBeR22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Oooohhh that was constructive. But no, you are missing the point. Poodleboy is indulging in OR based on the one paper, and we all know how much you dislike OR, so I look forward to you restraining him - just as you're doing here William M. Connolley09:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I dont know and I did not take position about this. What I noticed is that Stephan was openly enthusiastic about this editor being limited in his edits, and that you accused him if being obsessed. That didnt seem fair to me. --Childhood's End13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I was what? I tried to be helpful and pointed out why he was unable to edit just now (admittedly with a thinko in the time unit used). How can that possibly give the impression I was enthusiastic about his inability to edit? For the record, I neither felt nor expressed such enthusiasm. The 4 day lockout is to prevent spontaneous acts of vandalism from unregistered users. The fact that it restricts serious new editors is an unavoidable side effect.--Stephan Schulz13:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A section header plus one sentence isn't summary style. It's an abbreviated list. I'm thinking of turning the whole related issues section into two prose paragraphs. Marskell09:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, done. I basically copied descriptions from the sub-articles to fill out the section. I threw a fact tag on ozone depletion. Refs can be got from the article itself, but I wouldn't know which ones.
That leaves Economics, Mitigation, and Controversy, all of which strike me as somewhat underweight. I know we need to let blue links do their work, but we should still provide sufficient descriptions here. We have a one sentence intro to the Kyoto Protocol, for instance; a couple more sentences on its reception and (lack of) implementation would be appropriate. Marskell09:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I expanded Mitigation. Kyoto is now a short paragraph rather than one sentence. I don't think this is excessively long. Also, emissions trading deserves a mention IMO. Marskell14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
As I have mentioned before in my edit summaries, but not in the talk page, I still believe Ozone and ocean acidification should be in the effects section. Very simple concept. ~ UBeR22:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
In the case of ozone there's not a clear cause-effect dichotomy, because ozone has a role in the radiation balance. See the section "Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." Raymond Arritt22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Duly noted. My reason being is that if we're going to write "Additional anticipated effects include . . . reductions in the ozone layer," in the Effects section, we ought to explain in more detail what's going on here. Of course, ocean acidification is self-explanatory, I believe. ~ UBeR22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Economics and controversy
The controversy section seems very odd to me. It's too short, but at the same time it's naming names, which seems over-specific. Any suggestions on something fuller?
Economics is also a very short section. Can we give two sentences to the Stern report? And perhaps one or two on how the economics of the issue is often politicized? We ought to mention what gets mentioned a lot elsewhere.
All attempts to get "a few" replaced with something more descriptive of the linked article have been shot down based on reference #4[6]. I would suggest that this reference be removed from its current location, on the grounds that the source is being improperly referenced to begin with.
The source reads "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Indestrial Revolution", which is being used to justify the word "few" in the line "...and a few individual scientists also disagree with parts of [the IPCC's conclusions]."
The only connection between the source and the quote from the article is the word "few"; the source does not list any names, as the placement of reference #4, at the end of the sentence, implies that it should.
The article should be altered so that reference #4 is either removed, or placed directly after #'s 2 and 3 (where it is actually somewhat relevant, in that it confirms the AAPG's stance on AGW). This would allow for "a few" to be finally (and appropriately) edited to reflect the link in question (I would again suggest "several"). --64.222.222.2510:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Your premise, "the source does not list any names, as the placement of reference #4, at the end of the sentence, implies that it should." is unsupported, hence I cannot embrace your conclusion or recommended course of action. --Skyemoor11:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Unsupported? I don't understand. Have you read the source? It in no way justifies the insistence on the term "a few" as used in this article. Please read the relevant portion of the source, immediately followed by that of the article. It should then become quite clear to you. --64.222.222.2511:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the correct term here is comparatively few. Of course, you can come up with a list. You can probably increase the one you've got. But it would still be dwarfed by "all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries".[8]Marskell12:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Few," as used in the source, is wholly negative (e.g., "there are only a few who disagree"), yet it is being referenced as justification for insisting on the term "a few" in the article, where the word is used in a grudgingly positive light (e.g., "there are a few who disagree").
The placement of the reference number at the end of the sentence implies that the source substantiates the entire sentence, which it clearly does not, since the latter half of the sentence exists to not only mention the fact that there are dissenters, but to link to a list of [several / many / some / a number of / comparatively few / insert a descriptor we can all agree on here] of them. If the source could be properly used to justify the insistence on using the word "few," that would be the place to reference it (directly after that word). But this is not the case, as outlined above.
I again suggest that reference #4 be placed after #3 (if anywhere), as it [briefly] touches on the claim made by the first half of the sentence, and that "a few" be replaced with a proper descriptor of the linked article. --64.222.222.2512:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with you. By the way, as a friendly suggestion, I also hope you get a user ID, so that you can really jump into this discussion, and the editing process, as a full user. Thanks for your great input. --Sm890014:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! None of the account benefits appeal to me, however. Editing this article might be nice, but waiting four days to do so, only to be insta-reverted, would be like counting the days till Christmas only to find a lump of coal in my stocking. My IP only changes if I power-down my modem, which I rarely do. And I'm sure I'll have lost the will to go on by the time the next power outage changes it involuntarily. So until then, I am very sincerely, --64.222.222.2514:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there are other areas (besides the Global Warming controversy) where you can contribute to the encyclopeia? After all, at any given time, only a very small percentage of our content is protected or even semi-protected?
I would encourage 64 to rethink getting an account. It's minimal effort (expended just once), and the Watchlist alone is worth it. But it is, of course, your decision. --Stephan Schulz14:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I am of the same view. You only have to wait the delay once. Further, I feel that editing with an account name is usually seen as more credible than editing with an IP, which are more than often regarded with some "skepticism". --Childhood's End18:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
But this is the fault of those who place undo weight on e-rep and tenure @ Wikipedia. The content of words is greater than the alias behind them. --64.222.222.2523:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, having a user name doesn't mean you have to use it. it just means that when you wish to, you can log in. you can still use your IP address to your heart's content. it simply menas that once you obtain an ID, after 4 days, you can do edits should the neeed arise at all. thanks. --Sm890018:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a fair enough point, and I really can't argue with it. I have a feeling that I'm being baited into witnessing a firsthand demonstration of who's in charge here (not by you, but by others who clearly will not like my edits and want to put me in my place officially), but I'll assume good faith and register an account. See you in four days! --64.222.222.2523:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe that's a misunderstanding. You can edit with the same rights and priviledges than now during the waiting period. Only the additional power to edit semi-protected items will take (about) 4 days. --Stephan Schulz00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Argumentative statement? "Stratospheric warming has not been observed."
In the solar variation section these sentences appear, which are apparently intended to be an argument to support a conclusion:
"A difference between this mechanism and greenhouse warming is that an increase in solar activity should produce a warming of the stratosphere while greenhouse warming should produce a cooling of the stratosphere. Stratospheric warming has not been observed."
However, the Haigh does not assert or argue that a lack of warming in the stratosphere would argue against a solar contribution to the recent warming. In fact, the paper does not even cover the first half of a century when the rise in solar activity to the current plateau would have occurred. The stratosphere responds quickly to increases in solar activity, and the little variation in solar activity in the last half century would probably have been dominated by other influences. Further warming of the stratosphere would not have been expected. The two statements above are manufacturing an argument that the author (Haigh) is not making on an issue she is not addressing. These are at least partially unsupported statements and partially original research. Is there another reference that can support the above statements?--Africangenesis11:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Another diagnostic study
An "Intercomparison of the northern hemisphere winter mid-latitude atmospheric variability of the IPCC models" by Lucarini, et al, appears to have found serious problems with the AR4 models. Here is the final line of the abstract, and the full text article:
"This study suggests serious caveats with respect to the ability of most of the presently available climate models in representing the statistical properties of the global scale atmospheric dynamics of the present climate and, a fortiori, in the perspective of modelling climate change. "[9]
And this excerpt from the conclusion:
" In particular, when considering the total variability of the wave fields of the GCMs, we have that the biases on the intraseasonal and interannual variability are positively linearly correlated: for larger average signals the variability tend to be larger. When considering the process-oriented metrics, we have that the baroclinic waves are typically overestimated by the climate models, while the planetary waves are usually underestimated. This closely resembles the results of many diagnostic studies performed in the past on global weather forecasting models (Tibaldi, 1986). The climatologies of the wave activity of only two models – GFDL-CM2.1 and MIROC(hires) - are statistically consistent with that of the reanalyses both for the global and process-oriented metrics."
Note, that once again correlated error has been found, that results in a bias, even in the meta-ensembles. The good news is that two of the models have done well. Elsewhere in the paper, the model used by Hansen, et al, in his 2005 Science paper, GISS-ER, did not fare very well.--Africangenesis14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Followup, it looks like it has been accepted for publication in Climate Dynamics, but I can't tell if it has been officially published yet. I guess I didn't discover this paper, it is all over the internet. Roesch could have made statements as strong or stronger, but didn't, at least in the abstract or conclusion, leaving the implications for the credibility of the models to the reader.--Africangenesis15:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
FAR + link farm + "Contrasting with this view..."
The last issues on the FA review are slowly being worked through. UBER's ref formatting tidy-up is especially good. I have just cut the See also to the glossary alone. I think this is a simple solution—nothing left to revert war over. With a global warming Cat, template, and glossary, we don't need a link farm here. The same should also be done for the external links section.
There are two cite requests and one clarify in the article. The one that absolutely must be cited in my opinion is:
"Contrasting with this view, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain some of the observed increase in global temperatures, including: the warming is within the range of natural variation; the warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period, namely the Little Ice Age; or the warming is primarily a result of variances in solar radiation."
Marskell, the proposed statement itself violates WP:NPOV in giving undue weight to a tiny minority scientific opinion. How many notable scientists support any one of those? At a minimum, the sentence should read;
' Contrasting with the scientific consensus, minority hypotheses have been proposed to explain some of the observed increase in global temperatures, including:
I agree with William Connelley, the best link for this is GWC. --Skyemoor
I'm not disputing that it gives undue weight and you can change the phrasing if you like. I'm only saying that if we list them we have to source them, and not just to an internal blue link. I'll look through GWC for refs. Good God, we have a lot of redundant pages around this topic. Marskell10:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh? So you're saying you feel there's too much inclusion of alternate views and topics? it's hard for me to get a read on where you are on this issue. differing with specific sub-topics is one thing, but now you seem to be generally against overly diverse sub-topics in general? I thought you felt differently on this? --Sm890013:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Is Global warming only about the last three decades, or about the whole last century to century and a half? If the latter, a natural and solar contribution to "some" of warming is not a minority or weight issue at all. There is no controversy about a solar/natural contribution at all. The amount might be in controversy, but there is also no controversy that the amount is poorly understood.
Are we limiting "Global warming" to the last three decades? The contribution of land use changes is not controversial. Although the publication of the analysis is recent, the idea that the albedo change from the restoration of the temperate evergreen forests make a warming contribution that exceeds the benefit from their sequestration of carbon is likely to be accepted, is it not entitled to "some" of the contribution? The slight recovery of solar output from the slight mid-century dip, also will be allowed by most scientists to have made a contribution, even if some other mechanism such as aerosols likely accounts for most of the midcentury dip or pause in the warming trend.
Perhaps also, the IPCC can be used as a supporting citation, or is it original research to note that "Most...very likely", leaves room for "some". --Africangenesis14:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
While we're all talking here, does anyone have a better section for Controversy and politics? I'll just repeat that it seems much too brief and over-specific at the same time. I'd suggest a sentence or two on developing versus developed world debate. Marskell20:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest we allow this article to evolve through the inclusion of many diverse contributions, and topics. That is the best way to see it flourish, no matter how bumpy that process may occasionally be sometimes. --Sm890013:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with adding much to the controversy section is that most of the controversy is in the US and Canada; the other industrialized nations, now including Australia, are taking steps, with the latter not yet part of a larger accord like Kyoto but charting mitigation solutions. While there is alway some political disagreement on the details, the EU has for the most part settled the direction they are taking, with any 'controversy' centered around how far to go (i.e., 80% cuts? 60% cuts?). If there was an article on US and Canadian controversy, then you would have a point, though there would still be the issue of globalization in the GW article summary. --Skyemoor12:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sm, thats an insightful comment. I look forward to you chiding people for worrying too much about "small" and so on. Oh look - you have a chance to do so just below. Have at 'em William M. Connolley12:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Small again
Uber removed "small" [11] on the grounds that "A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphereinterdecadal temperature variability [from pre-Idustrial to 1950] is very likely attributable to . . ." vol/sol". There are two probs with this: first, "sig" probably means stat sig, not sig in the everyday sense of large. Secondly, its "sig frac" - so even if you use "sig" to mean "large" its only a "large fraction" - no comment is made as to the size of the change itself. And third, "pre-ind to present" (or 1950) (as used in the GW intro) means the 1750/1860 type times to PD - for which the SPM table-2 shows solar forcing as about 1/10 of GHG forcing William M. Connolley21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this solved with an adverb? "Comparatively small"? Or perhaps "statistically significant...but comparatively small..." Marskell22:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. I was misunderstanding. But then again, as you say, if there's no mention of size change, then perhaps we shouldn't mention it either. ~ UBeR22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A single adverb isn't excess qualification. As I read it, people are saying it's not absolutely "small." But it's small in comparison to anthropogenic change. So put an adverb in. I don't like "relatively", because people misuse it so often. Marskell22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie has added a reference to an NREP poll, i have a question about that:
Where exactly in this poll does it say that "Polling shows that 41% of Accredited Environmental Professionals ... disagree with parts of them"? I've searched the text for all occurances of "41" and the 2 hits that do show up doesn't fit. How are you getting to this conclusion? --Kim D. Petersen08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, if I erred, I am willing to correct it. Here is what I read:
The causes of global warming
59 percent respond that current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Blue Tie (talk • contribs).
Then you are conducting WP:OR here (and i expect you to self-revert) - the 41% would include people who are answering blank (ie. have no opinion). In effect you are citing soemthing that the survey doesn't say. --Kim D. Petersen08:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
To point out one obvious problem with your method, you are inferring the negative result with out a complete breakdown. It might be, for instance, 59% yes, 20% no, and 21% uncertain. In any case, it's obvious statistical cherry-picking. Marskell08:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think I might see what you mean. Give me a bit to review first, because I think I read somewhere else where your view would not be the case. --Blue Tie08:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here's a coincidence. I have just discovered this on the talk page after adding in the "59%" quote! I had seen that the original quote did not match the reference, but that the reference was a good poll source. I still do not see how the 59% quote is invalid though.
Sigh. Its blatantly undue weight, as well as an inaccurate summary of the poll. We cannot fill the lead of the article up with this stuff. I forsee a tedious edit war over this, followed by the skeptics going to the FARC and saying "see! its not stable! we keep starting edit wars!" William M. Connolley10:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
We still don't know the breakdown (it's unfortunate they would only publish one figure on that statistic). If you don't know the % DK/Neutral responses, whether it was scale or list etc., it is indeed misleading; and that 82% consider "global warming a real, measurable, climatic trend currently in effect" is elided in your sentence. Further, it's self-published, not journal submitted. And finally, the whole thing serves to reinforce American systemic bias, which is already a problem with this article: it's not 59% of "Accredited Environmental Professionals" but 59% of American Accredited Environmental Professionals out of not quite 800 surveyed. Marskell11:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oversimplifying just a little, they fill in forms. They mostly deal with applying for permits, keeping records, and the like. See the sample question on their FAQ. Raymond Arritt12:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This poll could perhaps go in somewhere, but certainly not in the lead. There is also an interesting article in the latest New Statesman, of a MORI opinion poll: "Of those who had heard of it, half thought it was at least partly a natural process". "There is growing scepticism that any of it is true, and the dissenting voices are getting louder". Again I dont think this belongs in this article but perhaps it could go in one of the related ones. Paul Matthews13:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
A few individual scientists
The quote that "A few individual scientists" in the first section, should probably go. The reference is unattributed and does not quantify "a few". Someone should be able to find a better quality reference perhaps? rossnixon09:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree and have agreed for a while. The reference is to the editorial (proponents refuse to accept that a statement is an editorial) which inexplicably says "few". --Blue Tie10:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As discussed above by 64.222..., the citation is entirely bogus, since the statement here in the wiki article is " a few disagree with part of it" while the citation says "few doubt that humans have influenced". These are quite different statements. For example, I myself have no doubt that human activity has influenced the rise in temperature, but I disagree with parts of the IPCC report. This is only one of many completely bogus citations that discredit this article. Paul Matthews13:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
William, it is said, over and over again, by different people because it is a problem. It does not meet wikipedia standards. Saying that it has been discussed before is not the same thing as recognizing the problem or working to fix it. Indeed, you seem to aggressively work to retain the problem. --Blue Tie11:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
William, here's another one: I agree with Blue Tie, as usual. I suggest we try to keep this somewhat serious, and respectful of each other's statements, shall we? Thanks. --Sm890013:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question, there's nothing wrong with going on the record occasionally, just to restate that an existing issue is still in dispute, even if it was already covered previously. I take your point about repeating discussion, and I see nothing wrong with you making that point, of course, but I feel there is a legitimate reason for raising topics in this manner. --Sm890014:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The point is that WP:CON describes discussion as the mechanism for consensus. So it is part of wikipedia policy to discuss these issues. That it keeps coming up, over and over, is an indication that it is a problem and should change. In my opinion, when you have such problems, it is often over adjectives and adverbs. These may make writing colorful, but removing them can improve neutrality. Just remove the word "few" from the sentence and the problem goes away without giving undue support to any position. I have recommended this previously, but some people think that neutrality gives too much credibility to one pov or the other. To me, this is the fundamental problem with this and many other climate change articles: The widespread opposition to neutrality based upon the weird claim that it lends too much weight in one direction.
What William appears to be saying here and many other similar posts is that he supports that view and his mind is made up and he cannot see any benefit to engaging in a conversation where there is no chance that he will change his views. I have to agree that in the face of intransigence, discussion is not useful.--Blue Tie14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The statement is somewhat contradictory to the citation. And "few" is both vague and relative. As we saw in previous discussion, many people have thought this language biased. I agree, it should be changed. I also find it amusing the Connolley wants to ignore further discussion simply because this has been discussed before. The previous discussion didn't bring about a definite result, and if it did, please direct me to it. As far as I see, "few" is an indefinite term that can vary quite a bit. I also agree with something stated much earlier on this page. There needs to be more discernment between 'scientists' and scientists who are actually qualified to speak on the matter. For instance, if these scientists who disagree are zoologists, their opinion hardly deserves to even be mentioned. --124.157.168.813:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Some discernment should also be made between scientists who support the whole IPCC reports and those who simply not oppose them. It is easily forgotten that there may be no scientist in the world who is scientifically knowledgeable about all the areas covered by the IPCC reports, which means that none can actually support them in whole. --Childhood's End14:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
"almost all of whom are not climate scientists"
This statement appears to be original research, perhaps based upon a personal analysis. Climate science is a multidisciplinary field, with physicists, chemists, geologists, oceanography, astronomy, biologists, etc, all publishing research in the area. What definition of "climate scientist" is being used? --Africangenesis14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
People who regularly publish articles on climate science in the leading peer reviewed journals. If you had thirty or more dissenting climate scientists instead of the two or three, you would have a steady stream of skeptical peer reviewed articles in journals like Science and Nature. The study by Oreskes rules this out. Count Iblis14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So your definition of a climate scientist is someone that includes "climate change" in their abstract, and they only question global warming, if they comment upon it in their abstract. Adapting these Oreiskes criteria to become a new definition of "climate scientist", would still appear to be original research.--Africangenesis15:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That's your basis for adding this information to the article? An assumption relying on the fact that you haven't seen many articles about the matter. I'm sorry, but if that's how you conduct your editing, you don't belong here. --124.157.168.815:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
124.157.168.8, Africangenesis, there aren't that many peer reviewed studies about climate science research. But it is rather trivial to see that there is almost no dissent to the consensus position in the climate science community. If there are a few physicists who think that Einstein was wrong about special relativity, then how would we mention that fact in the Special Relativity article? That there are "some" physicists who dispute this theory, just because no one actually did a peer reviewed study to actually verify that there are only a few? Count Iblis15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
And General Relativity also doesn't bother with mentioning how "some scientists disagree" (and there are scientists who disagree). At times I feel the best cure for this edit warring over "few" could be best resolved by simply dropping any sentences trying to quantify acceptance one way or the other (since however it is done it is apparently contentious). If you can't say it in a manner that is reasonable, don't say it at all. -- Leland McInnes15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the evidence for alternative hypotheses, and the problems with the arriving at a proportion of anthropogenic attribution, should just be presented on their merits. Problematic model based future projections should not be in the introduction.--Africangenesis15:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Reset indent. It has to do with focusing on using evidence, rather than numbers and kinds of scientists to assess the weight to be given to particular points. For instance, just because the IPCC used model results in their reports does not negate evidence that the models have errors larger than the warming they are being used to attribute and project. Such evidence will allow the reader to assess the weight to be given to model results on their merits.--Africangenesis16:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, yet another circle recurs. So I get to say all over again: And when that appears in attribution papers, it will be interesting and reportable. While it remains your pet hobbyhorse, it won't belong here William M. Connolley17:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The it ain't "in attribution papers" criteria, looks more like a pledge to edit war than a legit wikipedia objection. There are several diagnostic subproject papers confirming the surface albedo issue, the Roesch paper quantifies it. Yes, they won't be attribution papers, who would do attribution knowing there were such errors in the models? Hopefully the next attribution papers will be based upon improved models. The papers used won't be cloud physics papers, sea ice papers or aerosol papers, either, but they will be papers supporting the statements giving proper weight to the evidence, there is nothing special about attribution papers, except perhaps they are unusually dependent on model credibility, a dependence you can perhaps edit war about, but not contrary evidence, that I can find. I will be happy to consider any evidence you find.--Africangenesis18:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Definition of "climate scientists"
Coming back to Africangenesis's first concern with the above-mentioned statement, it has been shown previously that "climate scientists" is weasel wording and should be avoided (see this discussion). As it has been pointed out, there is no precise definition of 'climate scientist'. This vague phrase is spin used to give a false sense of authority to some climate-related statements, while avoiding to attribute the opinion to any identifiable source. As of now, any geologist, ecologist, physicist and so on, who's work brings him to study some aspect of the climate is a "climate scientist" and included in the "authority". This is obviously misleading.
Also, as Africangenesis pointed it out, "climate science" (another weasel-word, imho) is a multidisciplinary field. There is no science of climate, unless by this you mean climatology (then that's the right word and it should be used). A geologist is a geologist is a geologist, no matter if his work brings him to study some aspect of the climate or not. A gelogist does not become, like this, a scientist specialized in climate as a whole like this, as this weasel-wording can imply, and he cannot support the IPCC reports in whole. --Childhood's End14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I would offer a NASA definition of climatology[14];
"This term has two meanings. The basic meaning is the science or study of the climate. The second meaning, which is used within the MY NASA DATA project, is a long-term average of a variable in the Earth system. For weather-related information, at least a 30-year average is preferred."
To resolve the issue of 'climate scientist', a more appropriate term would be 'scientists engaged in climate research'. --Skyemoor15:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Proposed first sentence change
The current first sentence is:
"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."
I propose to change it to:
"Global warming is the increasing average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and the hypothesis that it will continue."
The main change is to reduce this sentence's dependence on the models. Presumably there is a hypothesis of continued global warming inspired by the recent trend, and the continuing increases in GHGs, whether we currently have models capable of credibly projecting it or not. Given the complexity of the climate system, specific projections are usually model based.--Africangenesis17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with either "increase in" or "increasing," as I don't see much a difference. I think, given the the expected continuation of GHG emissions, it is assumed temperatures will continue to rise. So you got an assumptions based off an expectation, which is overall pretty intuitive, and not necessarily dependent on models. That's my view. ~ UBeR17:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with this edit candidate. Climatology uses modeling as a primary projection tool, so any attempt to separate modeling from climatology is puzzling, to say the least. If you are looking for an acknowledgement of uncertainty, 'projection' is inherently so. --Skyemoor17:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
My proposal might be too generic, since the significant solar forcing hypothesis also has the warming continuing for another cycle or more, although perhaps less unidirectional with more allowance for internal variation than the IPCC. The global warming movement hypothesis might be better stated: "The anthropogenic component of the warming is so dominent over other influences that the warming trend will continue unabated reaching levels of serious concern, unless mankind takes significant measures, or unless unusual levels of volcanic and solar activity intervene." The solar hypothesis would be "The anthropogenic component of the warming is overweighted in the models, internal variation and solar activity may account for enough of the warming, that the warming is likely to reverse or significantly moderate relative to current model projections when the current plateau of solar activity subsides."--Africangenesis19:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Africangenesis' edit seems a bit wordy, but otherwise, I think it is more precise. I think that the sentence needs more work than that though.--Blue Tie11:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The prior effort to define the lead sentence took quite a bit of time and involvement to resolve. Unless there are significantly more editors that establish a consensus of the above, the current language should remain. --Skyemoor15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh, enough talk about prior consensuses, and "how long the section is getting." here's a radical idea: how abouyt if someone wants to add new valid information, we just let it be. How does that sound? And I suggest we stop suppressing and removing others' ideas just because we deem a section to be too long. We need to try being respectful of others' ideas here. --Sm890017:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Longevity of CO2
I restored text that mentioned the well known fact that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries (unless consumed by plant life). Methane is another matter, of course. --Skyemoor11:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Commitment stuff
Re recent small changes and revert [15] - I think the problem here is that future warming reflects *both* the long lifetime of CO2 and the large effective heat capacity of the ocean. I'm reluctant to see this section get too long though... however the link to the long atmos lifetime of CO2 is useful William M. Connolley11:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that future warming reflects both, but the statement was about future sea level rise even with *stabilized* GHGs, according to the supporting IPCC SPM reference. There should be someplace in the article for the longer lifetime of CO2, which is a legitimate contibuter to concerns arising from the AGW hypothesis. It just wasn't relevant in the context of stabilized GHGs. --Africangenesis15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the original statement was completely unsupported. At no place in the document is there discussion of the scenerio where *no further greenhouse gases are released*, i.e., only sinks for GHGs and no further sources. Both methane and CO2 levels will start declining, admittedly methane faster than CO2 due to CO2s longer lifetime. Are you aware of projections of sea level rise under this unlikely scenerio? I am not aware of this scenerio being explored even in other literature.--Africangenesis16:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Africangenesis - I believe the SPM statement is stronger than just for stabilized GHGs, i.e. "Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere. {7.3, 10.3}" (p.17), which seems to have the meaning that even for zero future emissions, the past emissions will continue to contribute... Hal peridol16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The statement is in the context of further emissions, not *no further...emissions*. This scenerio is one rapid trip to an ice age.--Africangenesis16:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The statement that past emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise seems plain. How is it that you are reading this in the opposite manner? It's analogous to taking your foot of the gas of a car; it will continue rolling to a stop, it will not stop abruptly.Hal peridol16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem is that we have not yet reached equilibrium with respect to current CO2 levels. So if we stop anthropogenic emissions now, CO2 levels will drop slowly, while the Earth will keep up warming. At some future point, temperature equilibrium will be reached. CO2 will continue to fall, and there will be a negative radiative forcing, so that temperature will then start to fall again. --Stephan Schulz16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Reset indent. It depends one what one means by a long time. The half life of methane in the atmosphere is on the order of a decade. It is more akin to turning off the water faucet in a tub with an open drain. The water level starts droppng immediately. Yes, Stephan, temperatures may rise for a few years yet, but the methane drop will quickly drop net GHG effects below equilibrium levels. But this is hardly a scenerio where the sea level rise continues for centuries, which is text unders discussion. Methanes contribution, while less than CO2s is still significant, there is not unrealized climate commitment without it.--Africangenesis17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe my latest text should satisfy, since the lifetime reference is retained, and is correct in its new location.--Africangenesis18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
We need to clean up the intro. The ad hominem appeals to authority, to the extent there is any validity to it, can be elsewhere in the article, perhaps just as other pages to check out. There is no evidence that the other societies endorsing the IPCC position, did so based on consideration of any different evidence. While it is also good to know that some (a few?) scientists have stated reasons to disagree with the IPCC conclusions, perhaps the reasoning and evidence they put forward can be handled in the appropriate sections.--Africangenesis22:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, I have read ad hominem. The appeal to authority is the one of the argument in favor forms of the fallacy. You state that we need it. Do we need it in the intro, it gives this scientific article a very POV pusher feel. Why not mention some evidence instead, unless that is weak? --Africangenesis22:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the 30 societies endorsed the TAR statement and not the conclusions, they are being cited for here.--Africangenesis22:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflicted) I think you're actually thinking of the appeal to authority (ad hominem is an argument by personal attack). We could debate the status of expert opinions in argument (most argument, in fact, is not strict deduction), but that is not immediately relevant. Since Wikipedia reports on the views of authorities on a topic, I see nothing wrong with it. --TeaDrinker22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No the fallacy has forms that have nothing to do with personal attack. Consider the ad hominem argument that one should use a product because a celebrity has endorsed it. It is an argument by appeal to persons rather than to the merits.--Africangenesis23:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Just for the general interest, an argument by "by appeal to persons rather than to the merits" is called an appeal to authority. The ad hominem argument is different. But the terminology is not what is at issue. I think it is perfectly valid for Wikipedia to indicate the views of experts, that is more or less what we do. --TeaDrinker23:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I see my generalization of ad hominem was incorrect, the favorable ad hominem fallacies, go by the own names "appeal to authority", "appeal to celebrity", my bad.--Africangenesis23:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Stephan. This information is among the first and most fundamental sought by the general reader, and it does a disservice to stick it somewhere else. I know A is of a different opinion as to the value of a scientific consensus (and indeed is trying to problematize the very concept), but what "most" scientists who are studying the issue think about GW is of great interest to the general reader. The article should serve their needs as well, not merely those of scientists. I think this disconnect reflects a different conception of what the value of "consensus" is; the term has a different value in terms of the scientific debate, but in terms of how science gets translated into policy, consensus is highly relevant and appropriate. A is also going overboard with the adhominem thing -- this is used, with justification all the time in the "real world" (not to make an invidious comparison, but eg., criminal witnesses are not accorded the same credibility as in giving legal testimony). Don't take this the wrong way, this is not a personal attack, just pointing out the limited utility of ad hominem/appeal to authority. TD is right. Arjuna23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Your right, but "expert testimony" might be a better analogy. Still, does this need need to be in the intro? Doesn't the misuse of the statements of the societies in support of the TAR by applying them to the FAR SPM statement need correction?--Africangenesis23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
A feeble point, but a point. I've changed it to "basic conclusions", which, at the level of abstraction we are talking, have been stable since before the TAR. --Stephan Schulz23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously Wikipedia allows for such fallacies, and I don't argue against them. (Almost anything from a reliable source is allowed, given there aren't ownership issues.) Perhaps though, it shouldn't be in the intro. I don't know. "It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition." ~ UBeR00:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Slight expansion of Controversy, politics
I have added a para on the global emissions debate to make for a fuller section. I understand the desire to keep focused on the science; this is a small addition and covers one base that a reader would expect to find in our intro to the topic. I'm pleased with the last four sections now—much less stubbish. Marskell08:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Increased awareness of the scientific findings surrounding global warming has precipitated much political, economic, and academic debate. Very vague and overly encompassing. Where is the 'much debate'? U.S. and Canada, primarily, since Australia is now reeling in drought and has dropped it's intransigent anti-AGW stance. And the insertion of academic debate is misleading; the consensus is clear. This section is primarily focused on the US and Canada, and need globalization.
At the global level, the relative roles and responsibilities of the developing and developed areas of the world have been controversial. To which countries? This is redundant to the sentence At the same time, developing world exemptions from provisions of the Kyoto treaty have been criticized by the United States and been used as part of its justification for continued non-ratification and can be therefore be removed, especially since this is a summary. --Skyemoor12:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"Very vague and overly encompassing"—I'd call it a topic sentence. *Shrugs*. I added academic b/c I was considering the Oreskes call-and-response in the sub-article. I didn't add it, ultimately.
I would have thought that the better edit would have been to change "Canada and US" to "Worldwide". --Blue Tie13:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, vague and general. How could you support such a statement? This is supposed to be summary of GWC, and there is no support there for such a statement. --Skyemoor
Note the climate researcher's praise for keeping the political controversy out of most portions of the article. If anything, we need to cut more from this summary. --~~
There is a debate everywhere, but only in the US is the science itself a main subject of the debate. This is not the case in other parts of the world. There the debate is more focussed on what best to do about Global Warming. Count Iblis14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
How and why would you want to support such a statement. There are scientists participating in the debate on the science from several countries. Much of the scientific research is funded by the U.S., so it would be natural for most of the debate to take place there. Several of the realclimate.org authors are not based in the US, yet are still participants in the debate. I'm sure Connelley can confirm this. The fact that the web site is hosted in the U.S. would seem to be of minor import.--Africangenesis17:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this sentence for discussion here; One method to address this has been emission trading, in which a nation is permitted a certain level of industrial emissions; it can gain further allowances by buying them from countries with excess unused allowances. It explains one approach at mitigation, which intrinsically belongs in the mitigation subarticle. --Skyemoor17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What does "intrinsically belongs" mean in this context? Having it here or having it there is not an either/or. Anyhow, it has a sentence under mitigation, which is sufficient. Marskell17:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I agree with removing the bit about editing reports, warning off scientists etc. as over-specific here. But I think the Chinese government stance needs a sentence. It's set to be the largest emitter this year, apparently. And its per capita total is not a "fraction" (in the figure of speech sense) of the U.S.'s, but somewhere between a fifth and a quarter. Marskell17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
1/4 to 1/5 is a fraction, but I agree we should be more specific. I'll update this section, though the subarticle needs syncing with this reference. --Skyemoor18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Marksell. China expected exceed U.S. in total emissions of GHGs by 2010 and India soon after, I believe. ~ UBeR18:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. My thought was to provide basic information on the more fundamental prominent measures which shape the basic debate. emissions trading is the fundamental process which serves as a guidelline for emissions controls by most major international bodies. so that's why I included it. my goal is to provide basic data on the most prominent concepots which an average user might need to know. i agree that we should not try to list every single mitigation procedure or method. So I hope that that is helpful to the question. --Sm890018:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
When considering the effect of solar radiation the article Confuses two completly seperate solar effects those between solar heat radiation(solar luminosity) and solar winds effect on cosmic radiation
""Solar flares generate storms of solar-magnetic flux that partially shield the Earth from cosmic radiation. Evidence suggests that this cosmic radiation promotes cloud formation, either by ionizing the atmosphere, or by affecting the atmosphere’s electrical circuit. Thus high levels of solar wind have the effect of blowing away the cloud cover, giving the Earth a sunburn. Add that solar activity has been very high since the 1940's, and the slight global warming observed since the mid 70's could easily be due to this effect.
None of the global warming alarmists take this effect into account. All of the recent alarmist studies are based on the GCMs (General Circulation Models) employed by the IPCC (the International Panel on Climate Change). These IPCC GCMs have never included the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Back in 1996, at the time of the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report, this omission was marginally tenable. Sunspots generate a slight increase in solar luminosity (the relatively cool spots are surrounded by super-hot “faculae”) but this increase in radiance is not enough to create significant global warming. The correlation between sunspots and cloudiness was also known, but since no one had any idea what the causal link might be, they did not built it into their models. "" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.143.219.194 (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
And this is on the authority of whom? And the implications are what? I'm sure you can provide pointers to peer-reviewes articles discussing this issue.--Stephan Schulz12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This variation in cloud cover from cosmic ray variation could explain climate variations. Where as the variation in solar luminosity alone could not due to the lack of expected stratosphere temperature variations. So its an issue of stressing the first more likely possibility, rather than the latter.
Variations of cosmic ray flux and global cloud cover, Observations and Correlations, Scientific response on critics , Journal of atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics, 1997
Aha, this is Svensmark et al. Their work is rather tentative, and much of it has been refuted/disputed. While they have published a pop-sci book, not much has been accepted by the scientific community. See [17] for a discussion and additional references. In short, the claimed corellation is not there, and the mechanisms are unconvincing. --Stephan Schulz12:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
To try a more objective test than my own need to find Martin Scorsese's birthdate, The Denver Post asked five Colorado scholars to review the Wikipedia entries on Islam, Bill Clinton, global warming, China and evolution.
...
On the much-debated topic of global warming, Colorado State University's Scott Denning called the Wikipedia entry "a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia. Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen," said Denning, the Monfort Professor of Atmospheric Science.
Denning said he was pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy." Students who want to study up on the controversy, however, find plenty of links if they want them. Denning wishes Wikipedia offered better links to basic weather science. "Apparently there is still a role for real textbooks and professors!" he said.
This indeed confirms our approach to minimize political controversy in this article. --Skyemoor
Or, alternatively, that the small amount of politics and other topics which some finally did agree to include did not even slightly detract from the quality of the article. Anyway, whatever the result, glad to hear that we got some recognition. Good group effort, everyone. Thanks. --Sm890015:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Or, that those reviewing the articles agreed with the politics, and failed to recognize the statements as poorly supported by the evidence.--Africangenesis16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, Wikipedia! Where we can take lemonade and turn it back into lemons!
Citations, attributed and expected effects, and Africangenesis
Recently Africangenesis requested citation for dengue fever, and Dr. Arritt supplied one. Most recently, he requested a citation for malaria, but it appears to be in the linked-to article, effects of global warming. The given citation is here. Additionally, the citation Dr. Arritt provided appears at the end of the sentence, perhaps giving the illusions that the reference covers all of the effects listed, when it does not. I suggest that perhaps dengue fever be added to Effects of global warming (along with the ref), so that we may remove the ref from here (for no other reason than its location is deceiving). Additionally, it'd be pretty ridiculous to cite references for every effect listed there. Just read the effects of global warming article, and if there's still something you're not content with, discuss it here on the talk page (or there too). Thanks. ~ UBeR19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
When I added the dengue fever cite I moved the cn tag to follow malaria (since as you say the cite I provided only covers dengue fever) but somehow the tag got deleted. There were a bunch of edit conflicts while I was working, so I don't know if someone else removed it or if it got lost in one of the ECs. If anyone still thinks a cite is needed it's easy enough to find. Raymond Arritt19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If UBeR reads my edit summaries, the citation needed was not just for dengue fever. There also appears to be a problem with these same issues being redundantly discussed up above in what is presumably the attribution part of the section. The anticipation of the spread of disease, is poorly worded, diseases spread even when the climate is cooling, they're contagious. Presumably what is meant is that the range of certain diseases endemic to certain climates will increase, with the extension of that climate to higher latitudes. We need to get specific here so that this is not just vague fear mongering. This issue does not apply to the mainland US for instance, since tropical diseases are already controlled on the Gulf Coast, and mesquito control is already in place all the way up to New England for West Nile Virus and St. Louis Encephalitis.--Africangenesis20:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
A summarization that generalizes from specifics to something as non-specific as the "spread of disease", distorts the source. Additional, Stephan made the point in an edit summary accompanying a revert that *NOT* all the anticipated effects are model based directly or indirectly. Specific supporting citations would assist in deciding his point. If he knows which are model based, he could assist with clarifying language, rather, than a revert. --Africangenesis22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Right now, we have "Additional anticipated effects include . . . the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue fever." What the effects article states is "Global warming is expected to extend the favourable zones for vectors conveying infectious disease such as malaria and west nile virus." The given source is here, like I stated above. Although it's a pretty shoddy source, it's accepted by many health organizations, such as WHO (of course, it's been criticized by quite a few as well). ~ UBeR00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Two paragraphs above that, without any citations, and both redundant and inferior to the statement you cite, we have "Other expected effects include water scarcity in some regions and increased precipitation in others, changes in mountain snowpack, adverse health effects from warmer temperatures, and the spread of disease." "Expected effects" and "anticipated effects", seem to all be based on expectations based on climate models. So, do you have any problem with the text I proposed, that Stephan reverted? We probably should also eliminate the redundancy.--Africangenesis01:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
To make my "models" remark clear: Ocean acidification depends on CO2 concentration, and not (or only in very minor ways) on the temperature and hence on climate models. Disease vector spreading depends on climate models only indirectly. --Stephan Schulz06:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I will agree with Africangenesis that the section in question could stand to be condensed to reduce redundancy. However, he/she also needs to read WP:SUMMARY as has been mentioned more than twice to understand the requirement for references in summary sections is not required on the level that it is in the associate subarticle. For example, the subarticle associated with this section is Effects of global warming; there you will find the references you seek. Of course, some people still put some references in the summary, so it is easy for new editors to become confused, understandably. The summary and the subarticle could stand some syncing to remove the summary references. --Skyemoor13:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you read effects of global warming now? If so, is there anything you necessarily disagree with in that article that appears in this one, particularly as it pertains to the spread of disease such as dengue fever and malaria (or other specifics)? I still propose we remove those two references and explicitly add them to effects of global warming (and follow WP:SUMMARY). I almost never agree references should be removed, even in summaries where references are allowed to be sparse, but in this particular instance referencing every single item on that list would just be grossly untoward and overly redundant, and for what cause?
relative vs absolute humidity
In the feedbacks section, there was a confusing reference to a slight increase in humidity as part of the water vapor feedback mechanism. Presumably this is true for absolute humidity, but that would probably confuse the readers, since relative humidity is far more familiar. Futhermore the citation used relative humidity, and found it interesting that it was lower in all the AR4 models. We probably should qualify "humidity" whereever we use it.--Africangenesis22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Swapping to slight dec in RH was even more confusing, though. Inc is the important bit; I dont think it needs to be qualified but it can be if you really want William M. Connolley08:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
To expand, relative humidity measures the percentage of humidity in the air for a given temperature. The hotter the temperature, the more water vapor can be absorbed by air. Absolute humidity, on the other hand measures the amount of water vapor in the air without regard to temperature. --Skyemoor14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
cloud feedback is second only to water vapor feedback and is positive in all the models that contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.[17]
First, the report is not yet available online, only the summaries are available ... and this paper.
Second, the sited article says that even though only positive feedbacks were included in the report, no one actually knows the sign or magnitude of these feedbacks ... which is exactly what the Third Assessment Report said. The following is quoted from the last sentence of the summary of the sited article
Our results further indicate that while the change
in cloud forcing may not accurately represent the sign
or magnitude of cloud feedback, ...
Since "cloud feedback" is a major, if not the most important, difference in the available models, I think this uncertainty should be mentioned. It should also be pointed out that scientists who hold contrary views are no longer participating in the IPCC.
Since *ALL* the models showed the positive cloud feedback, the FAR doesn't have any other models to use, unless it does its own MAGICC modeling again. So it will be interesting if the FAR retains the statement about not even knowing the sign of the cloud feedback and yet still expresses confidence in the models. Cloud feedback is problematic since it is calculated as a residual.
Another result of that paper was that the surface albedo feedback was, as expected, also a positive enhancer of the warming in *ALL* the models. This, despite *ALL* the models evidently still getting the surface albedo too high, i.e. biased against the warming, solar, CO2 or otherwise, relative to two sets of satellite observations, as reported in the Roesch diagnostic study. For perspective, this correlated mean positive surface albedo bias of 0.016 or 0.019, when applied to the globally and averaged solar flux at the earth's surface of 198w/m^2[18], is over 3w/m^2, when the total energy imbalance the models are being used to attribute and project, is less than 1w/m^2.
Roesch, A. (2006). "Evaluation of surface albedo and snow cover in AR4 coupled climate models". J. Geophys. Res. doi:10.1029/2005JD006473. The mean annual surface albedo of the 15 AR4 models amounts to 0.140 with a standard deviation of 0.013. All AR4 models are slightly above the mean of PINKER (0.124) and ISCCP-FD (0.121)." "The annual mean surface albedo of the AR4 models is 0.140 with a standard deviation of 0.013. All climate models are slightly above the average derived from the PINKER and ISCCP climatology. The participating models all capture the large-scale seasonal cycle of the surface albedo quite well. However, pronounced systematic biases are predicted in some areas. Highest differences between the models are found over snow-covered forested regions. The winter surface albedo of CNRM-CM3, averaged over the latitude zone from 50N-70N, is nearly 0.3 lower than in MIROC3.2 and INM-CM3.0. Comparisons with ground-based and remote-sensed data reveal that most AR4 models predict positive biases over primarily forested areas during the snow period. These substantial deviations are still far too high to meet the required accuracy of surface albedos in GCMs.{{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Just a side note here. Global warming is actually just like the Ice Age except the opposite. Think of it as Water Age when there is no land or ice on the Earth. This is perfectly normal and after a few million years the earth will go in to another Ice Age. Also when people say the Ozone layer is being destroyed by the pollution, it is not true. The Ozone layer is made up of ozone which contains particles of pollution. So Mr.Suzuki fight for the forests but don't worry about the Ozone layer. -UberSin
Do you even know what ozone is? If not, perhaps you should go read the ozone article. The ozone layer is destroyed by a large number of chemicals, and while (fortunately) international treaties have helped somewhat, it still is much thinner today over Antarctica than it was in the 1960s.
The ozone is created by sun light and goes away on its own during 6 months of darkness. The "hole" has always been there - we "may" have made it a little worse. This story claims that increased solar activity causes nitrogen to destroy ozone. This is almost a smoking gun that the sun is also causing global warming ... almost. Q Science08:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are a couple of links with more detail:[19][20] The thinning of the ozone layer by this process that is tied to solar activity may contribute to tropospheric warming because of increased penetration the UV part of the solar spectrum. The sun is pretty low in the sky during the Arctic spring, so I doubt a strong immediate impact, however, the impact may be greater later, when the hole mixes to thin the ozone layer at lower latitudes. This process would have to be found to be significant at other than in the wake of a relatively extreme solar event, and unusually strong circulation pattern.--Africangenesis09:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
As for saying this... do you understand that, oh, every single reputable source on the subject says it is caused by humans? If not, then perhaps you should. It is. There is natural variation, and we're outside of it and it is accellerating because of our actions. Before posting, perhaps you should do a bit of research. Titanium Dragon02:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
"every single reputable source" is hyperbole. You should note that solar activity since 1940 is at one of its highest levels of activity in the last 8000 years. Since it takes centuries for the oceans to come into equilibrium with a new level of forcing, solar is a contributer to the recent warming. So saying the warming is human caused is neglecting other causes. The warming hasn't accelerated much since 1998. --Africangenesis03:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Why do I see 1998 mentioned so often by sceptics? Might it possibly be because 1998 was an extreme outlier El-Nino year? Hm.... --Stephan Schulz03:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly why. It shows internal climate modes as a contributer too. The whole last 30 years can be an outlier contributed to by some poorly understood climate mode. I look forward to the time when the models may be able to assist us in attributing the 0.8W/m^2 or so of energy imbalance, so we can get past simplistic pattern matching.--Africangenesis03:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, when we have two explanations, one of which fits established theory and the other of which requires that we speculate upon the existence of some an as-yet unknown phenomenon, it's only natural that we should choose... the speculative one? Try shaving with Occam's razor. Raymond Arritt03:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume it is some kind of fallacy to assume solar variation is the cause, just because it is older and less speculative. There is no "the cause", there are several contributers. "unknown" is different from "poorly understood". We are still trying to understand some of the multidecadal climate modes, such as the pacific oscillation, and the hurricane cycle. It would be hubris to assume there aren't others, but there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of current attribution hyperbole, just based on the poor quality of the evidence and lack of specificity of the claim. "Most" may be little more than 50%, but the hyperbole and fearmongering would lead the naive to think it is closer to 100%. The models are so far off, they can match the 20th century warming without a solar contribution, and have errors far larger than the energy imbalance, they are no quauntitative help at all. Calorimetry on the earth is hard.--Africangenesis03:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
And the point of this torrent of non-sequiturs is what, exactly? As best I can tell it's a variation on the old "because we don't know everything, we don't know anything" argument, but it would be helpful to know for certain. You're right about the PDO (which is what I assume you mean by the "pacific oscillation", though perhaps you have something else in mind). But again, you're discarding a physically consistent and parsimonious explanation in favor of an unknown and speculative one, which does not reflect a scientific way of thinking. Raymond Arritt04:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
reset indent. What is speculative about an increased level of solar activity in the first part of the 20th century and an atmosphere coupled to oceans with most of the heat capacity of the climate system? The concerns are based on projections of the models and they have errors far larger than needed for attribution. All the positive feedback mechanisms that apply to GHGs also apply to solar, except perhaps they apply moreso to solar, since the models couple the GHGs to the whole ocean mixing layer just like solar, when the GHG forcing penetrates less than 1mm into the ocean. In a non-linear system like the climate, there is a lot of justification for humility and skepticism. The forcings can't be summed or compared directly based on some radiative forcing equivilence. They are coupled quite differently to the climate system. It is too early in our understanding to start sacrificing economic growth and placing the speculative climate concerns above known serious problems like poverty and disease.--Africangenesis04:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What is "Global mean surface temperature anomaly"?
Sorry if I'm being dense here, but what exactly is the first graph in the article showing? What does "anomaly" mean in this context - what is the norm against which it is being measured? Or is it showing the changes in temperature at each year across the period, in which case I'd suggest the caption needs clarifying? QmunkE
This does keep coming up. Perhaps it should be explained somewhere. Following the common practice of the IPCC, the zero on this figure is the mean temperature from 1961-1990. says the figure. That should mean that all the data is expressed as anomalies from the 1961-90 average (for that station) before being averaged up William M. Connolley11:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Also, if we could change the image, The scale on the Y-axis is very biased. Its +/- .6 degrees C. It should at least be 2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zachninme (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Added global warming on other planets and documentaries
Somehow the great global warming swindle is not accepting it as alink.
I hope you dont delete,major news outlets have covered this topic and imo there should be a seperate page about global warming on other planets.
I have removed. This was just discussed at the review. The links and See also were drastically too long and they need to be kept short per guidelines. Add to the glossary, if need be. Marskell12:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
man tis is not fair,let me post the other side of the story.i am a noob at wiki so i cannot make a topic on global warming on other planets.plz help me in creating a topic about GW on other planets.
If you want to make a page on global warming on other planets, I'd suggest starting on talk on an astronomy article. Maybe Mars. Or work up something in User space (User:Manchurian candidate/sandbox) and ask somebody about it when you're done. Marskell12:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
We have discussed this issue before. There is no serious evidence of "global warming" on other planets, much less warming caused by a common mechanism. See e.g. the section in Climate of Mars#Evidence_for_recent_climatic_change. There where a few mentionings of "global warming" to describe unrelated climatic events on other planets in the popular press, but digging a bit deeper has always shown the actual researchers to reject the analogy, often quite explicitely. We had an article, but it has been AfDed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar system warming. If you try to recreate it, make sure you use reliable sources and thoroughly understand them. This is a field where a lot of misinformation is around. Good luck! --Stephan Schulz12:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
But Stephan, nor do we have any serious evidence that global warming will have the economic impacts that are reported in the article. We report them because they are covered by the news if my understanding is correct. Yes, there is the Stern Review and some UN reports, but there's no "serious evidence", as you ask here. These reports are political and were criticized in economic circles, but we nonetheless present them because they're news, arent we? --Childhood's End13:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You have presented points to revisit removing the Stern report from this article, which I support. However, slipping in some UN reports under the door is vague and does not fall in the same category. What peer reviewed journal articles would you like to reference for the climates of other planets? --Skyemoor13:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not suggest to report climate on other planets. I am merely suggesting that if our standard is to present actual theories for which we have serious evidence, then the economic stuff must go. It's there right now because it makes the news, not because it's scientifically proven. --Childhood's End14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't want more than a little econ in here because it doesn't fit the article. But there are perfectly good studies out there William M. Connolley20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favour of less econ in general. However a modicum should be reported, as there have been serious reports on the subject. By contrast, the GW-on-other-planets has *not* been the subject of any serious work - there is some science around the issue, but its badly misrepresented by the press. Interestingly (if you like) one thing the solar-type proponents have *never* done is to suggest looking at other planets William M. Connolley14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Also in favor of shortening econ. Currently undue weight. As for global warming in the solar system, I've only seen Neptune's warming suggested to be possibly linked to solar variations.[21] Not sure about Pluto's, Titan's, or Jupiter's. Mars and Triton is likely not. I think there could be an interesting article on it, of course with caveats that clarify what's known via the literature. ~ UBeR17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not in favor of shortening econ, if all material there is properly sourced. Uber, my personal feeling is that we should be inclusive of sub-topics in this article. Thanks. --Sm890018:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I follow William's line of reasoning here, but I am strongly in favour of shortening the economics, if it must be kept. This topic is extremely controversial, where "properly sourced" is of the utmost subjectivity, and since there is no scientific mainstream view, due criticism made about Stern should be included if Stern is mentioned. --Childhood's End19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Sm8900—we should be inclusive and broad. That's not to say, of course, we give undue weight to a particular subject that doesn't deserve it. ~ UBeR20:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree somewhat... there *is* a mainstream view on the econ, which is that its wide open but Stern is an outlier: but I couldn't prove that William M. Connolley20:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. But now there's Arjuna808 who keeps expanding the section. (And no, I did not introduce the information, as the user suggested in their edit summary.) ~ UBeR20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The FARC has been closed...
...and despite 50% of the participants still objecting to multiple points, FA status has been retained. With all respect for the closing admin's opinion (and by no means questioning his motives, let that be clear), but his statement saying that the numerical vote is indecisive and then summing up the reasons why he decides to keep the aricle featured, strongly gives me the impression that we have discussed this for over a month with tens of people, to then have the entire critical decision being made by a single person. I always believed Wikipedia worked by consensus, not by being told [t]his discussion is closed... It's going to take me a while to reflect on whether my involvement can survive this new development. Nick Mks15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
So it has. Well, decisions have to be made: how else is it done? But other than nominating the article, you don't seem to have been much involved, so I'm not sure why this is such a critical issue for you. As to the decision: most objections were stability and NPOV; the key answers were that it is fundamentally stable, and NPOV (despite objections) William M. Connolley16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said to you there Nick, a decision in either direction was going to create discontent. And how could it be closed by any but one? Difficult AfDs are closed by a single person. There is no middle option at FAR; you can't half remove its status, so you have to choose when there is a deadlock. And the closing note on that FAR was the longest I've ever written: I wanted to make the rationale clear and I think the reasoning is within the demands of WP:WIAFA.
As for [t]his discussion is closed, I didn't mean to be abrupt. It was just a procedural note--the bot comes along and tags it once it's archived, and I didn't want that to happen with a discussion in mid-stream. Marskell17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Marskell, I want to make it very clear that I do not to intend to attack your person or your actions. I greatly appreciate your very important work. However, I have my doubts concerning the procedure of a month's worth of discussion having to be reduced to a yes/no decision at a point in time when it isn't ready for that. If you say that this is your longest note ever, this may have never posed a problem in the past, but it does here. Nick Mks17:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I have some responses to that, but any more lengthy discussion should be taken to one of the FA talk pages. Post the thread, if you start one. Marskell21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted"
So you ended up converting the references to Cite.php after all. Why didn't anybody tell me? I notified everybody on this very talk page not so many months ago that I had a script that would do 90% of the work for you - in fact, I had made an edit to show that it worked because like usual, nobody believes anybody anything. But no, the proposal was rejected. So finally, you chose to do it manually anyway. So here I'm thinking, what a bunch of clowns. You could have told Peter Andersen, HughGRex et al. that I had that script. Keeling over, guys, keeling over! Okay, back to occupational therapy now! Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd certainly like a script like this, but I could do without the attitude. Like UBeR I didn't see your announcement. Why not a polite reminder and (more usefully) a link to the script.JQ20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Way cool! Creating the citations manually is a pain, it is the main reason I am having to take improving this article's status slowly. Can it save any labor during this one citation at a time stage of the process?--Africangenesis20:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Samsara, you seem to have the wrong page. Unless by "not so many months ago" you mean "before November 2006," you seem to be mistaken, because you have only one contribution to this page, which was adding a template, and no contribution to the talk pages of any of the active users on this page since then. ~ UBeR21:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
While on the subject, maybe something could be posted at the top of talk, suggesting: if you do not format your ref, it will be removed. Really, why spend the time formatting fifty refs, if tens more will be added unformatted? Marskell21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Lol, well I tried to keep up with the rush of new refs with the added info. Obviously still a few left to convert. I'll do this later tonight. ~ UBeR22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it doesn't seem to save much time. I could probably fill it out manually in the same time. Additionally, that script doesn't delete the superfluous premises that are not being inputted, which is just a waste of space. Just my thoughts. ~ UBeR22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I had envisioned something that could fill everything in based on the DOI. We could then just add the supporting quotes that save others so much effort. The form, doesn't seem any faster.--Africangenesis22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you are aware of this described in some detail at User:Verisimilus/Cite. It takes BibTeX, either raw or from Google Scholar, and makes a ref from it. And I hope Marskell's suggestion is a joke. From a badly described ref to a good ref is a simple, mostly mechanical process. From no ref to any ref is a lot harder. --Stephan Schulz22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well if you're the only who has the script, why not do it yourself. I don't think anybody is (or can) restrict you for changing the refs. In fact, I think some people might appreciate it. ~ UBeR18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
News item: additional 1.5 °C increase at 2100 from ocean measurements
This news item should be included in this and related articles.
recent studies suggest that current scientific estimates about natural absorption are too optimistic: Earth's climate by century's end could be on average up to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F.) hotter than current projections suggest....
the use of natural "sinks" – oceans, plants, and soil that can hold carbon – is said to appear in the report researchers and politicians are haggling over this week.... Some 100 countries participating went into this week's meeting ready to offer 1,500 amendments to a 24-page draft document.
Hmmm. The CSM article seems to be a synthesis of various articles. I can only access the abstract of the new Science article, and that speaks of carbon sequestration only, not of the effect on climate. Also, it is rather careful in noticing the large variability and the restriction to two sampling sites. I would let this sink in for a while and see how it is received. The Science article itself could go into carbon cycle sooner, of course, where it is directly relevant.--Stephan Schulz08:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I got an email back from Spotts who said the cite for the 1.5 °C increase over earlier predictions fact wasn't Buesseler et al. but rather: Friedlingstein, P. et al. (2006) "Climate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C4MIP Model Intercomparison" Journal of Climate19: 3337-53. 75.35.109.15300:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Economics (again)
Per talk above, I tried to shorten the dubious but newsworthy economic stuff by replacing the Stern material by the more recent IPCC 2007 statements. The Stern stuff has been re-added by Arjuna808, despite that it needlessly makes this section longer than it should be and that it is now quite outdated (Stern cost is 1% of GDP, IPCC 2007 is 0,1% - both per annum). Considering these numbers, Stern is no longer even good for the news, and if it stays, it should not be mentioned prior to the more recent numbers should it? --Childhood's End20:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I read: Modelling studies (see Box SPM.3) show carbon prices rising to 20 to 80 US$/tCO2-eq by 2030 and 30 to 155 US$/tCO2-eq by 2050 are consistent with stabilization at around 550 ppm CO2-eq by 2100. Also - Stablization levels of 445- 535 ppm CO2 eq result in less than .12 Reduction in annual GDP. So acheiving the lowest levels should cost hardly anything. --Skyemoor02:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's about the point - what the IPCC says now is that the cost is relatively small. Stern talked of 1% of GDP per annum. 1% GDP is big. --Childhood's End03:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Didn't the IPCC underestimate costs of China using cleaner energy? Thought I saw that somewhere in the news today. ~ UBeR04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why there's this idea that the economics section is "too long" -- it's 12 lines -- and obviously about a topic highly relevant to people seeking information on the subject. As for Stern, 1. it's still something that people may have heard about and thus some mention seems warranted; and 2. I might be misunderstanding you but the 1% figure Stern is attempting to quantify is something (lost annual GDP due to projected GW impacts) very different than what the IPCC was trying to put a number on (the annual cost of GW mitigation measures). Aloha. Arjuna05:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize that there was some confusion about the impact cost versus the mitigation cost. My point was not to cherrypick the mitigation cost. --Skyemoor11:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You're mixing up numbers. Stern did talked about lost GDP, but he said that the cost of avoiding the impacts were 1% per annum. Now, the IPCC says it's 0,1%. Kinda 10 times lower. Besides, Stern used previous IPCC numbers, so that's not entirely his fault.
Reason why economics should be shorter here is that this article is about "scientifically supported" stuff. Economic predictions of this kind is like fortune-telling. The news like it, and perhaps it deserves a mention because of this, but as you just saw, it's highly unreliable material. A reference to Economics of global warming should be enough imho. --Childhood's End16:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your arguments. This page is about the state of the science. The sol var stuff isn't scientifically supported - there is no consensus at all about how much it has contributed over the last 50 years. But its in, because it is *the subject of scientific inquiry*. Econ could go in under the same argument. I argue against much econ on the grounds that this should be mostly natural science William M. Connolley20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? A solar contribution is every bit as well scientifically supported as a GHG contribution. The lack of consensus about how much of a contribution is not relevant to the scientific support. Peer review research shows that solar activity is higher now than in the 1800s, how much higher is poorly understood, but even the alleged "consensus" for GHGs hasn't been made very quantitative, it is not even down to the nearest 25% proportion of contribution. This lack of consensus, is even models whose lack of skill the IPCC has yet to fully acknowledge.--Africangenesis08:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. Solar is far more poorly understood. Co2 forcing has a high level of understanding; solar has a low level. People can;t even agree if solar is to be used "raw" or if it needs an amplifier via clouds. Past levels of solar forcing aren't known either William M. Connolley10:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
We have good proxies for solar activity, we just don't have good reconstructions of the corresponding activity, just strongly suggestive correlation. This doesn't change the fact that this is a high solar activity plateau that is unlikely to continue. A solar cloud amplifier would perhaps help explain the strong correlations, but most of the positive feedbacks that apply to GHGs, such as water vapor, apply to solar, and perhaps moreso, since the "evidence" is largely model based, and the models couple GHGs to the whole ocean mixing layer, like solar. Most of "independent" observational estimates of climate sensitivity are based on the volcanic and solar records, with the assumption that GHG forcings will be equivilent. You can't just throw out the solar and climate commitment peer review evidence, just because the IPCC has faithunjustified belief in models.--Africangenesis10:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I sense an endless circle just waiting for us, so will just say I disagree with you; nor do I see any evidence that this is directed towards changing (let alone improving) the page William M. Connolley11:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing the WG1 report, the key deficiencies I see on the page are the lack of any discussion of the energy imbalance responsible for the warming, and a lack of the evidence from diagnostic studies that put the state of the model science in perspective. There is some recent solar work that is not well reflected as well.--Africangenesis11:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I added Stern and referred to it in the FAR. I would say: we need to nod (do you know what I mean by nod?) toward things that a first time reader would expect to find in the global warming article. This is our grandfather page on a very big topic. You should, if you know just something about the topic and want to read more, find links to what you've already heard (verifiability, not truth, remember). It's not compromising the scientific focus in the slightest, IMO. The Stern review was news, like China's coal-fired power plants are news. Again, we give these things a nod, because that's what our grandfather article ought to do. Marskell22:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason you choose to add Stern in particular? Is it a peer reviewed article? No. We are holding the material in this article to a high standard, which is why we received the positive rating in the news recently. You would really need to make the case for material of this nature, as there is an economics article that this article points to. --Skyemoor23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Since economics is the allocation of scarce resources, a section covering it would be incomplete without consideration of the competing priorities, such as that undertaken by the Copenhagen Consensus project. Global warming was pretty far down the list of humanitarian concerns, behind santitation, communicable diseases, poverty, etc. Given the need for more wealth and resources to tackle higher priority issues, only those responses to global warming which make economic sense should be considered at this time.--Africangenesis08:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Marksell on this stuff. Btw, someone earlier said something about economics not being "scientifically supported" -- actually, we're known as "the dismal science" which in this case is rather apropos. As for the Copenhagen Consensus, I agree completely that that should be mentioned in the article on Economics of Global Warming, but they are relatively marginal to the debate and don't merit inclusion in the granddaddy article. Arjuna09:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It is tough to determine values and priorities scientifically. For something as long range as global warming consequences of any significance, it is also tough to predict technological advances. The Copenhagen Consensus got plenty of notice and there has been little dispute that they got the priorities right, if one is thinking of the worlds poor and most vulnerable. Until we have unlimited resources, scarce resources must still be allocated, so competing priorities must be considered.--Africangenesis10:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not tough to determine values and priorities scientifically, it is completely impossible. The two realms are entirely incommensurable. Full stop. You are right about the prediction and factoring in of the technology advance bit, though -- which, it's worth noting, is as much an argument for GW action as not. Lomborg is keen on cost/benefit (in which the dirty little secret in economic circles is that you can arbitrarily assign values to any number of variables, and voila! -- get whatever answer you want), which is rather useful in examining something discrete (whether to build a particular bridge vs. a ferry, for example; i.e. discerning the relative value of competing alternatives to an already established goal/value), but a frivolous and pointless exercise when one tries to apply it to large choices or competing values. And surely you are joking that "there has been little dispite that they [CC] got the priorities right". In fact, there was nothing but dispute about the conclusions, and it was about as far from a "consensus" as one could imagine. Indeed, even one of the CC's own panel experts distanced himself from the report, noting that he thought climate change was "set up to fail".[24] So sorry -- you actually could not be more wrong about the merits of the CC. Finally, it's worth noting that The Economist, which was an early supporter of Lomborg, and indeed the primary sponsor of the Copenhagen Consensus, has evidently reversed their support -- or at least they now are volubly on record as supporting strong and early action on GW. So yes, the Copenhagen Consensus would be a great thing to put in the main article, if one wants to be mocked. It should be in the Economics of Global Warming article, however, but probably mainly as a footnote. Arjuna10:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The Economist may have joined the GW chorus, but they haven't really reversed their support for the Copenhagen Consensus, unless they have moved GW ahead of the other priorities. You may attempt to mock santitation, AIDs, and poverty as higher priorities, but the question is, can you mock them well.--Africangenesis11:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has derailed quite a bit. Point is that right now, it seems that those who support constraining this article to "mainstream science" and on this ground, rule out "skeptic" science, also support including Stern and such because it's covered by the news. Now that's the finest example of what a double standard is. Stern's numbers, at least in part, are already negated by the last IPCC report, yet you wish to keep Stern herein because it's news stuff. Thus, if this article's standard for inclusion is newsworthiness, you need to develop the skeptic position as it is reasonably covered by the news.
Also, the Copenhagen consensus isnt that irrelevant. Some country named the United States is participating in it. The Economist (not quite your local newspaper) still supports it, yes.
And Stern is not supported by science, as William implied. It's supported by advocacy groups and loose news outlets. Some economists have supported the attempt to "calculate" the issues, but the numbers themselves have found little support and much criticism from pundits.
This double standard needs to be adressed. Simple solution is to limit the econs to the last IPCC report and point to the Econs article for more info. --Childhood's End13:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"those who support constraining this article to "mainstream science" and on this ground, rule out "skeptic" science, also support including Stern and such because it's covered by the news." Which of the actively participating editors do you count as "those"? I believe most of the former agree with moving the Stern discussion to the Economic of GW article. --Skyemoor13:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think most people agree to constrain the article to mainstream science. I am one of those, provided the sub-articles discuss the controversy openly. Now, Arjuna re-added Stern and it seems that I am alone objecting it. William seems to support reducing the economic stuff, but he so far failed to act accordingly, while he is usually not too shy to modify the article when he thinks that a mod is in order. He also says that Stern could go in because "it is the subject of scientific inquiry" (what is not?). He and Africangenesis then had a discussion about solar variation (?) and Marskell supports giving nods to what a reader would expect finding here (sounds good but who judges this and on what criterion? solar var could be in then). I am not sure of your own position. --Childhood's End14:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have always agreed that it should be confined to science IF it has a name change. But if it just says "Global Warming" THAT topic is wider than just the science. To me this is obvious by inspection.--Blue Tie14:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, my point is to avoid a double-standard for inclusion in the article. If Stern (or even the IPCC economic position) stays, per what you say or per the "newsworthiness" rationale, proper criticism against Stern should be included since, I hope, we are not pretending that there is a "scientific consensus" supporting Stern. --Childhood's End17:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, if we're going to include Stern, which is permissible under WP:RS (contrary to what Skyemoor thinks) and some editors' decisions to allow shoddy sources, then valid criticism of it must be included. In my opinion, we should focus more on the well-taken research pertaining to the economics that isn't so bunk. ~ UBeR18:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think someone needs to read up on the Copenhagen Consensus before asserting that the United States is a participant. It is not, because CC is a research center and advocacy panel, not an international mechanism. Sending a U.N. Ambassador is not the same thing. I think it's legitimate to make the point in the main article that there are concerns about the economic costs involved in climate change mitigation, but CC is marginal at best. Arjuna19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Algae expansion in global warming
I believe that the role of alage in the ocean naturally combating the effects of excess CO2 in the environment is a vital point that is given short shrift in this article. Read up on algae and how rapidly it expands in the presence of high levels of CO2. There is no reason the think that the symbiotic relationship between algae in the ocean and humans will not balance itself out as it always does. More CO2 means more algae, and more algae sinks the CO2 levels amd the algae die off and the process starts over again and again. It's the cycle of life!
So why all the hysteria over a warming that will naturally correct iteself?
I'm not aware of any reliable source that describes this effect. If you have one, please tell us. Of course the warming will "naturally correct" itself, but this will take a couple of ten thousand years (give or take a few millenia). Some of us are concerned about the time in between. --Stephan Schulz01:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
plz mods contact this website http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/cylmaps.html and ask permission to host this pic in the gw article.This scenario will happen
manchurian candidate 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)manchurian_candidate
Why is there no list of temperatures on earth over 1 Million years in this article?
I saw a chart a long time ago showing scientists guess that the
average temperature of the earth would swing 75 degrees in 50 years during ice ages and warm cycles. Such a chart would really bring this into focus how small the changes are lately. Is this purposely left out or buried to promote a political agenda or POV? The present swing of global warming is only 1 degree??? -anonymous
<tiny>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.14.220 (talk • contribs).
100 million years ago seems to be quite a bit hotter than today, yes. 500 million years of climate change ~ UBeR18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you saw, but no, nobody ever seriously suggested temperature swings of 75 degrees in 50 years. Check out the temperature record. The total variation over the last 800000 years is about 10 degrees Celsius (and maybe 12-14 degrees Celsius over the last 5 million years). Yes, 20th century warming is a bit less than 1 degree Celsius/a bit more than 1 degree Fahrenheit. As far as we know, this speed is unprecedented for global average temperature. And we have no million-year temperature record in the article because that would be very irrelevant. Global warming a problem on the scale of centuries to millenia. Human civilization goes back about 10000 years. Humans go back about 100000 years. --Stephan Schulz18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
But water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius or lower. Take a place like Ontario, Canada where there were glaciers during the last ice age where it has been a pleasant 20 degrees Celsius for the last 50 year. The beginning of an ice age, which took place in 50 years or 100 years was real global cooling of half degree per year. Todays 1 degree warming per 100 years is nothing. -anonymous -The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.21.55 (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Umm. Toronto, one of the warmest places in Ontario nowadays, has a year average temperature of 7.6 degrees Celsius[26], not "a pleasant 20 degrees". And of course you are now talking about local climate, not global climate. And, of course, accumulation of ice depends not only on the average temperature, but also on the amount and conditions of precipation. If it snows enough in winter, not all snow will melt in summer. And the onset of a glaciation period was more typically measured in millenia than in centuries....--Stephan Schulz01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The other problem with the really long term charts is that modern climate change has occured so rapidly that it isn't even ON a lot of them. The 500 million year one, for instance, doesn't even show the modern temperature fluctuations, neither the ice ages nor the present day. Its also worth noting what it -actually- is - oxygen isotope ratios. Titanium Dragon02:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that is total nonsense. For such a graph to be not misleading we have to explain how oxygen isotope ratios depend on temperature, how continental drift influences the climate (something we have some, but not a good understanding of), how the very composition of the atmosphere changed massively and how this influenced climate, how the sun evolved over 5% of its lifetime, and so on. All that to display a graph that has nothing to with the current episode of global warming, and in which the last million years of ice age cycle is represented by a width of one pixel (in the full size version of the plot). Can you explain why you want it in? --Stephan Schulz06:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I too would be very interested to hear the reasoning. I can think of reasons why the climate of the Himalayas could have changed somewhat over such time scales, but am interested in your more general explanation. Raymond Arritt14:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
(Unindent) Ok. Global Warming is a phenomenon that has existed in the past (over many different time frames) and will exist again in the future (with Global Cooling in between). Including this information thus makes the article more complete, and allows the current warming to be put in perspective -- whether that perspective is to say "We have been warm before and it is about time for a rise" or if it is to say "Temperatures have never risen so fast before and might go higher than at any time in human development". It is still perspective. Which is valuable for helping readers draw their own conclusions. In addition, it avoids pov and it allows reference to work that scientists are doing on global climate change based upon past periods whereby we may attempt to understand or extrapolate the current direction, causes and consequences.--Blue Tie14:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If the reader is not to be misled regarding the relation to current warming, the graph would require a very, very long explanation for the reasons that Stephan described. And the upshot would essentially be "the variations over the past 100 million years occurred for reasons that are mostly irrelevant to the present warming." Given your preference to de-emphasize the science in favor of more political content, I'm surprised you'd want to lengthen the article in such a way. Raymond Arritt15:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Some perspective. If you draw the largest semicircle a reasonably modern computer display allows, and assume that represents a hemisphere of the Earth, Mount Everest will be approximately 1 pixel high. What you suggest is about 500 times worse. --Stephan Schulz18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If the reader is not to be misled regarding the relation to current warming - but then that would be missing the whole point of asking for it to be included. Raul65418:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Charts that focus only on the last 50 years can be similarly misleading, in the opposite direction, e.g., there is data on glacial retreat since the early 1800s, yet the glacial thinning data is plotted instead, and that limits us to data since the 1950s. This doesn't provide any further perspective, just a trendline supporting the "recent" warming. At least the more extended chart being proprosed, serves to show that current conditions are well within paleo experience, and no "runaway" has occurred. AGF. --Africangenesis21:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You raise some good points, though I think they're adequately illustrated by the graph of temperature over the past 450 Kyr which already appears in the article. There's a limit to how far back we should go -- it doesn't make sense to compare present climate to times when there were no Himalayan mountains, the tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans freely mixed, Australia was part of Antarctica, and so on. Raymond Arritt21:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
To Schulz, I think it is ok to show Mt Everest as only one pixel high... or less. That is perspective. The earth is as smooth as a cueball, but it is hard to tell that from the surface. That is perspective, even if you do not recognize it as such. --Blue Tie00:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It's misleading perspective. It's irrelevant for someone who wants to climb it ("it's so tiny, I can barely see it, must be easy"), for someone who wants to understand plate tectonics, or for someone who wants to relate height to something they experience regularly. --Stephan Schulz07:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
To Raymond. One of the purposes of the article is to discuss the Scientific studies of global warming. That is a reason to include more than 450 kyr -- the science does not stop at that limit. --Blue Tie00:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The science doesn't stop, but it becomes irrelevant and misleading when placed in the context of recent warming. Raymond Arritt00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Basically, no. It does not become irrelevant and misleading. It remains relevant and contributory because the article is supposed to be a general article about Global Warming. Not just "Recent" Global Warming. But "Global Warming" as a full and complete article. And scientists definitely study what they call "Global Warming" over very long periods of time. For the article to be complete, this should be included. It is a matter of comprehensiveness.
Neither is it misleading. It provides perspective. I also think it provides perspective that is neutral. For example, one might be inclined to say "Its happened before, its happening again -- no big deal". That would be one view. ALternatively one might say "It happened before but never this fast -- the speed could be dangerous". Or even, "It happened before and its happening again, but it has never happened like this during human development -- what are we in for?" There might be other views. But it is informative to the reader and it is NPOV.
As I said when I started, why should I bother discussing this with you when your mind is made up so that no logic may penetrate? There has never been one instance where verifiable, citable and logical inclusions that are contrary to your pov have been given even the start of a fair discussion. As before, you simply dismiss without even an instant of logical argument. You just assert your opinion as fact. So, why would I attempt to discuss things with you? As before, I sought to assume good faith that you might break from your previous process. But you regularly display your contempt for me, so I do not know why I thought you might change this time. I have to admit though, it is weirdly disappointing to not be disappointed in my expectations. An odd feeling. --Blue Tie04:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Climate change is what's been happening at various times and for various reasons, since the beginning of the Earth's history, while "global warming" is what's going on now, a subset of climate change. The graph would be perfect, if presented in the proper geohistorical context of orbital wobbles, gaseous burps, etc., in a separate article on climate change, but would be out of context in this GW article. Arjuna04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, climate change happens at various times and for various reasons. Sometimes those are global warming changes. Sometimes global cooling. I am not so interested in a focus on the big aspect of "climate change" for this article or on the cooling side of things. But I think Global Warming is appropriately discussed within the context of changes that happen over periods of time, including long periods of time. I am not arguing for a detailed discussion of something that might be covered in a different article more fully. But I am not in agreement with ignoring it either. A summary discussion, perhaps two or three sentences long, and with the graph and with a link to any appropriate detailed article, makes sense to me. I would also like to see some modest editorial directions for possible thought about the graph to include the idea that global warming is not unusual for the earth, but the speed of the anticipated increase is very fast by historical standards. Incidentally, I have been a proponent of this article being sort of a master article to a number of other more detailed articles (including one on the Science of Global Warming) and this would be an example. And, reading your comment about the orbital wobbles, gaseous burps, etc., I am not aware that we know all the reasons for past warming and cooling and I would certainly not want to see that sort of discussion here in this article if it would be better covered elsewhere. I would consider that to be out of context here.--Blue Tie05:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand your position, but one has to define (and limit) the scope of the article at some level. As implied in my earlier post, I'd flip it and say that climate change should be the master article since that covers the whole shebang and GW is concerned with what's happening now. (Did GW happen in the past? Yes, of course but what I'm proposing is to define them distinctly for clarity, and because it just seems to make sense. Any definition is inherently arbitrary but nonetheless necessary.) I'm not dogmatic about putting a couple of sentences in to the GW article but I disagree with including the graph, for the reasons I outlined. Cheers, Arjuna05:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
So, it appears that for you, the issue is the Definition of Global Warming. It is for me also. I do not see it as a recent thing. I see it as a recent concern, but not a recent phenomenon. And, I have presented substantial evidence that most other sources of definitions for the term do not confine it to the recent past. I believe that historical review gives perspective. I also believe it should be included to enhance NPOV. By the way, I also see Climate Change as a higher level article as well. In fact, I would prefer to see it be the only one. I think that an article detailing the Science studying climate change is also appropriate. But an article named "Global Warming" exists. It is a bit redundant with climate change, but as long as it exists, I think it should be in harmony with wikipedia policies to include comprehensiveness on the subject matter.--Blue Tie06:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
"Global warming" is a compound noun, but it also is a standing phrase refering to the current episode only. As several people have demonstrated, the second is the prevalent use, and by WP:COMMONNAME, that's what we primarily discuss in th article. --Stephan Schulz07:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, sounds as though we agree on the definition in principle but not on substance, since GW is a phenomenon that in being mostly anthropogenic (and thus recent), is extraordinary and exceptional, and deserves a different treatment as a subset of CC. Thus I wouldn't want to see CC be the only article, but that would be the one to give the full, comprehensive historical treatment. So we agree to disagree. Arjuna07:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hyperbole alert. Just like cane sugar vs beet sugar, there is no difference between anthro and "natural" CO2, so the earth has seen these levels before. Far from being extradinary and exception, the current warming barely exceeds past post-glacial warmings by its error bars, and that may be due to lack of unequivocal high frequency data in the paleo record. Recent temperatures are probably higher than they would have been without the increase in GHGs, but despite the IPCCs statement, there is not good or convincing evidence that "most" of the warming is anthropogenic. The models being relied upon, are just not ready for that task, and in addition to their IPCC documented errors, their failure to attribute *ANY* of the recent warming to the current plateau in solar activity should give anyone familiar with climate commitment studies pause.--Africangenesis07:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Earth has seen far beyond the current CO2 levels before, but that's hardly the point here, is it? Actually, I know what the previous discussion was about but not sure what your point is...but thanks for sharing your opinion along with more red herrings. Arjuna08:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
We may agree to disagree, but I do not think the disagreement is quite as you described it. Global Warming is not just or mostly anthropogenic. Maybe this time around. But not universally. Global warming has occurred a few times when men were not around to anthropogenerate it :-) Again, the fundamental disagreement between us is the definition of Global Warming. And I have already said that I have presented a detailed study of definitions and found that most of them do not limit it to the recent upward climb in temperature. To be fair a number of them (not a majority) mention it, but mention it as in some way, part of the a larger sense of global warming. Only one source, not really a definitional source, said it was only the recent increase. To me this should be enough rationale to include (per WP:NPOV) alternative views on just what Global Warming actually is. --Blue Tie09:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone asked me if I knock on the oxygen isotope cycle, and I say no. However, the interpretation of the data relies on an estimate of correlation of oxygen isotope ratios to global temperature. It isn't that the data isn't meaningful, it is that it is somewhat misleading as it is an estimate, and a loose one at that.
Additionally, given the focus of this article, this graph is entirely irrelevant as it does't even -show- modern global warming on it because it would look like this |, and this article is focused on modern global warming, not long term natural temperature fluctuations. Titanium Dragon06:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Stunning realization people. If the earth has been fluctuating this much over its history, chances are modern global warming isn't because of humans! If its normal for the earth to change by as much as 15 degrees farenheit over a couple thousand years, then 1 degree over 100 years probably isnt because humans have been releasing to much gas into the atmosphere or burning a hole into the ozone layer that miraculasly heals itself every year and keeps showing up again in the same spot for the same few months out of the year. DurotarLord00:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Global Temperatures Graph
Um, the temperatures readings wouldn't be completely accurate before 1979, when we started using satellites, so isn't the graph at the top of the page flawed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.48.4 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
how much of the ocean did they cover? I mean could they actually get measurements from all over the world's oceans on a regular basis? that seems pretty advanced for their time 71.161.48.404:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Proposed trimming
I'm proposing a slight trimming of the political and controversy section. The third paragraph ("This issue has sparked debate in the U.S. about the benefits of reducing industrial emissions of greenhouse gases to help the environment, versus any resulting harm due to limitations in economic activity.[56][57] There has also been discussion in several countries about the cost of adopting alternate, cleaner energy sources in order to reduce emissions") and the last sentence ("The IPCC has held international conferences which allowed official delegates from many nations to discuss the world's response to global warming, and to approve periodic reports on the situation") are what I propose to delete. They do not really provide any (helpful) context for the reader, especially as it pertains to global warming. Thoughts? ~ UBeR17:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The second and third sentences are easily trimmable, though might go well in other articles. The first article is US centric. --Skyemoor
Yes, it could be helpful in other articles. I do not know. The IPCC stuff is definitely more appropriate for an article on the IPCC. The first sentence ("article"?) is a bit U.S.-centric, but I reckon it applies elsewhere also, such as China. China has been fussing over the economic impacts of mitigating its emissions (and I'm sure other countries). ~ UBeR19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, exactly how is this intrusive. It is basic, simple information about some broad areas. i really do not think it is unreasonable to put this in. Thanks.
Uber, I'm surprised to see you suggesting this. I've repeatedly supported you when you added new materials and topics. now you are the one starting an objection to my ideas. i find your behavior cmpletely surprising. This is really unexpected. --Sm890019:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that personal loyalty should trump improvement of the article? Though sympathetic toward the skeptics, UBeR has never marched in lockstep with them. Raymond Arritt20:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe this.
Raymond, how is my material consistent with any sense or use of the word "Skeptic."
this is amazing that you would even think to use that term. --Sm8900
Hi, Steve. I appreciate your helpfulness, but my only goal and constituent here are the readers and the article. I'm not going to be a sheep, even for those who I am grateful for. My purpose here is to improve the article, so please don't take this personally. My view is that the sentences I listed above are not very helpful for understanding either the politics or controversy surrounding global warming. It's open for discussion, which is why I did not delete it preemptively. My regards, ~ UBeR21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Uber. I understand your goal is to be helpful to the article, and I appreciate it. I'm only asking whether you are willing to be open on a topic which does deserve some coverage here in this article. I am always open to others' ideas. I respect your opinion, and ask only that you respect mine also. I appreciate your input. Thanks. --Sm890013:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yup. Been trying to scour through this. I think we should start referencing specific chapters rather than the SPM, to maybe help our readers (who actually look at the references). For the most part, we reference chapters for the TAR, so it shouldn't be much worse to do so with the AR4. But then again, maybe the summary is easier. We'll see. ~ UBeR
It might be unnecessary from a scientific point of view, but we could reference both, the SPM for a quick statement and the full report for in-depth details. Possibly even in one reference (we can stick two {{cite }}templates into one <ref>). --Stephan Schulz07:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. it is outstanding, and it is the closest thing we currently have to an official world response. It is good to know these resources are out there, though it's too bad the general public does not have an intuitive sense of its role. This is where an easily-updatable, collaborative encyclopedia like ours can lend a hand. So I agree it looks like a very good resource. --Sm890013:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Intersteller cosmic rays
I removed the following paragraph, which was in it's own section titled "Interstellar Cosmic Ray."
Cosmic rays influence the formation of cloud by causing evaporated water molecules to condense into tiny droplets. When the amount of cosmic rays colliding with the earth's atmosphere increases, more cloud form, which cause more of the suns energy to be reflected into space without reaching the earths surface, cooling the earth. Also, evaporated water molecules are one type of greenhouse gas which captures the suns energy more than CO2. Therefore, when less cosmic rays hit the earth's atmosphere, less water is condensed into clouds and therefore more water exist in the greenhouse gas form increasing the earth's temperature.
My feeling, based on this and this (be sure to read past the title), seem to indicate that it is a hypothesis among some scientists, but is not widely held enough to deserve its own section. Since some of the effect seems to (at least in one formulation of the hypothesis) modulated by the magnetic field/sunspot activity of the sun, perhaps adding a sentence or two in that section would be appropriate. But with the article as long as it is, this seemed like undue weight. Thoughts or further comments? --TeaDrinker01:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's definitely a tiny-minority hypothesis per the undue-weight clause of WP:NPOV. Intriguing but highly speculative and disagrees in many ways with observations. (It's interesting that some people reject findings based on far better data and sounder theory, but gladly accept tenuous hypotheses such as this.) It doesn't merit more than a passing mention in the solar part, if that -- maybe add the words "and perhaps cosmic ray activity" somewhere in the solar discussion. Raymond Arritt01:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The text did not correctly explain the hypothesis anyway. I think it receives an indirect reference in the solar section, "cloud feedback". There is a stronger correlation of climate change with solar activity than can be explained by current reconstructions of solar irradiance alone. It is data awaiting an explanation, and it is also a reason for humility among the GHG warming theory alarmists.--Africangenesis01:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have full access to Dr. Haigh's paper? If Africangensis's material isn't in the paper, it should be deleted as improper synthesis, unless the user can get a reliable source that says so. ~ UBeR02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Click through the link, and when the abstract loads there will be an option on the right to download the PDF. It's clearly WP:SYN. The problem mainly lies in AG's linking of the two clauses with "so"; that's the synthesis. (There's also a problem with respect to the solar trend itself, but we can leave that aside for the moment.) Raymond Arritt03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The original statements were argumentative and misleading: "A difference between this mechanism and greenhouse warming is that an increase in solar activity should produce a warming of the stratosphere while greenhouse warming should produce a cooling of the stratosphere. Stratospheric warming has not been observed."
The statements misrepresent the solar variation theory, which does not suggest an increase in solar activity during the satellite era.
The replacement statement has been labeled improper synthesis: "A difference between this mechanism and greenhouse warming is that an increase in solar activity should produce a warming of the stratosphere while greenhouse warming should produce a cooling of the stratosphere. The 20th increase in solar activity occurred before satellite observations, so stratospheric warming has not been observed."
Frankly, I don't think stating a simple undisputed fact, rises to the level of a synthesis. The "so" might be argumentative, but that can be deleted, and the statement would be not mislead like the prior statements. Unless the paper states a hypothesis that solar activity has increased in the period covered by the paper, perhaps the reference to the stratosphere should be removed from this section entirely since it is irrelevant to the solar hypothesis.--Africangenesis03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the sentence should read "stratospheric warming has not been observed since 1979, when satellites began measuring solar irradiance." I haven't read the whole paper yet though. ~ UBeR03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
UBeR's alternative is good; it is a straightforward factual statement abundantly supported by the scientific literature. Raymond Arritt03:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The statement would still be misleading when juxtaposed with this statement: "A difference between this mechanism and greenhouse warming is that an increase in solar activity should produce a warming of the stratosphere". After all, is anyone claiming that increases in solar irradiance has been observed during this time period?--Africangenesis03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
In the absense of information about whether solar irradiance has increased, what is the relevance of UBeRs statement? Even if solar irradiance has increased, the statement, would then tend to disprove the prior statement, because the expected stratospheric warming did not occur. Is the statement intended as a proxy for solar activity, if so, why not just state that stratospheric measurements indicate that solar activity did not increase, during the period, or better yet, we have publications that address levels of solar activity more directly, and report that it plateaued about 1940, e.g. Solanki.--Africangenesis04:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Because it was the source of the stratospheric data, did not extend back to the increase in solar activity earlier in the century. You link does not extend back then either. So unless you hypothesize the stratosphere has somekind of thermal inertia, which extends its response to an increase in solar forcing for several decades, like the oceans, then the stratosphere would have already warmed from the increase in solar forcing before the instrument record began. We may see a GHG signature in stratosphere, but it is too late to look for the solar signature, unless one is just looking at the solar cycle response.--Africangenesis08:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm having a hard time separating what you think and what the papers think and so on. We have passable strat T measurements since 1960 and its been going down since then. You are arguing for no trend (or a declining trend?) in solar since 1960? I might well agree, but I doubt the people pushing solar connections to climate would William M. Connolley08:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think most of the solar forcing papers I've seen, show activity essentially plateaued since 1940, so I think we do agree based on no trend. However, I have recently read this review paper "Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun." by Edouard Bard and Martin Frank (Science Direct) that in the detail appears to have a dip in solar activity in the 1965-1980 time frame that I haven't fully digested yet. I'd want to go to the referenced papers to see where this came from. --Africangenesis08:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)"
I just read "COSMIC RAYS, CLOUDS, AND CLIMATE", and the charts don't indicate an increase in solar activity. Do you have another in mind? They hypothesize a cosmic ray/cloud feedback mechanism that enhances the impact of solar variability on the climate. But I don't see where they dispute the solar irradiance and activity reconstructions. Solar activity does not have to have increased since 1940 for solar to make a significant contribution to the recent warming. However, we do need a positive feedback mechanism for the attribution to be equal or greater than that of the increase in GHG forcing. Of course solar has the same feedback positive feedback mechanisms available to it that CO2 does. In fact any warming forcing also has a CO2 feedback. Based on our current understanding of solar irradiance levels, the net increase in forcing has been lower than for GHGs. However, paleo correlation with solar has been stronger than our current understanding of solar irradiance levels and climate feedbacks can explain. Solar is coupled to the climate differently that GHGs, there is stronger UV variation than there is in the visible part of the spectrum, and there is the solar activity impact on the cosmic ray flux. What explains the stronger correlation? What contribution to the recent warming does the current plateau in solar activity have? If the contribution is larger than expected, what are the mechanism and feedbacks which explain it? Frankly, we just don't believe model results which suggest no solar contribution. That this warming is occurring at a high plateau in solar activity is unlikely to be a coincidence. I don't know if Marsh and Svensmark are arguing for an increase in solar activity in the last few decades elsewhere, it just looked to me here like they were arguing for a stronger coupling to the climate via cosmic rays. If so, then the solar contribution to recent warming from the increase in solar activity that plateaued in 1940, is even greater that with solar irradiance alone.--Africangenesis09:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Too much of this is just your personal opinion, most obviously Frankly, we just don't believe model results which suggest no solar contribution. And Solar activity does not have to have increased since 1940 for solar to make a significant contribution to the recent warming is weird - there are solar folk out there who will tell you that the 40-70's "cooling" was caused by solar forcing. But maybe you disagree with that too. Solar activity does not have to have increased since 1940 for solar to make a significant contribution to the recent warming - that might depend on what you mean by recent, but S+M seem to think that T responds quickly to solar, so I can't see why you think it will have such a long lag William M. Connolley10:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I did *NOT* pull those "opinions" out thin air, give me credit for informed opinions at least. There is some quick response to solar, the long lag is due to the thermal inertia of the ocean just as it is for GHGs, see the climate commitment studies. The Bard and Frank review I mentioned above mentions a limited decrease during the 60s and 70s followed by a reincrease, citing E.W.Cliver, V.Boriakoff, J.Feynman, "Solar variability and climatechange: geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature" Geophys.Res.Lett.25(7)(1998)10351038. Bard and Frank also reported that Cliver's work was later show to be affected by instrumental problems. The level of this mid-century dip is open to question.
I suspect that there is less of an immediate response to solar than with GHGs, because the latter are directly coupled to the atmosphere, while solar penetrates several meters into the ocean. The land surface response is rapid of course, and the GHG surface response is reduced by the lapse rate feedback. Whatever the solar variation is from the plateau beginning in 1940, it is small and limited to mainly that one cycle that reached its maximum near 1970.
You know that my criticisms of the models are not mere opinion either, so I don't need to provide references here. The slight dip in solar activity since 1940 does not correlate that well with the temperature record, since it just covers a small part of it. I have my own theory based on a chart with an uncanny correlation with the cooling, and that is the rapid rise in usage of leaded gasoline after 1945 until its phase out, about the time the warming trend continued. I theorize that lead particulates acted as condensation nuclei, increasing the amount of clouds, but not necessarily increasing precipitation (over "seeding"?). The correlation is much better than for sulfates or any other competing hypothesis. The rapid decrease in lead particulates with the phase out, would contribute to the recovery of the steep warming trend. I have no references to back this up, other than those that report lead pollution levels and the timings of leaded gasoline usage. Most of the time I can back what I say with references to the peer review literature, however, informally I might express myself. I will try to identify those times when it is my opinion, unless you somehow think that it is a leap to think that the thermal inertia of the oceans applies to solar forcing as well.--Africangenesis10:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You know that my criticisms of the models are not mere opinion either, so I don't need to provide references here. This isn't a blog, this is WP, so either produce references from peer-reviewed authors (quoting them without embellishment) or admit WP:OR. --Skyemoor11:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
EXCUSE ME! The reason I don't have to provide them is because I already have discussed them above and referred to others. I've demonstrated familiarity with the literature by both citing and discussing it. How else would I expect someone to know my criticisms of the models were not mere opinion. I don't have to assume that these discussions have no prior state. You haven't been following the discussion.--Africangenesis11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Most definitely, "it is a leap to think that the thermal inertia of the oceans applies to solar forcing as well," in the context you are using it. The reason is easy to see. (Hint: look at obs of warming over oceans versus land.) Raymond Arritt12:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
AG, when you want to make a change to the text, citing adequate references is the only way you will be taken seriously. Simply referring vaguely back to (questionable) statements you've made previously does not satisfy the need to properly cite. We need more than your 'informed opinion'. --Skyemoor13:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
If I make a statement you find questionable, question it. Just don't be surprised to find out it isn't questionable. Let's not get pedantic when discussing the basic science such as climate commitement however, you should be familiar with most of the literature referenced in the article. If you truly have trouble finding the supporting material, just ask.--Africangenesis13:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Math in the IPCC economics
I have not read the recent IPCC text, but I have seen the statement: The IPCC's economic models reckon, on average, that if the world adopted such a price the annual global economic growth would be 0.1% a year lower than it otherwise would have been, or put another way, at the end of 2050 the global economy would be 1.3% smaller than had the new pricing not been adopted
It is a bit confusing. If I consider the period from, say 2010 to 2050, that looks like 40 years to me and 0.1% per year X 40 years equals 4.0%. (this also works if we think of it as 99,9%^40). Perhaps the idea is that we can wait until 2037 to make the changes, so we are only talking about 0.1% per year for 13 years, not 40.
I also think that the recent IPCC statement appears to be contradictory to this statement in the article: Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 05:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
I haven't looked into the part you mention, but just from reading what you stated here I think to know what the problem is. I guess the part is about some pricing system to tackle global warming via economic incentives, right? Then there are two options. 1) introduction of the pricing system - costs money in the first place, but helps saving money from mitigated climate change. 2) no pricing system, saves money in the first place but exaggerates the costs of unmitigated climate change.
Now the pricing system apparently costs 0.1% of world GDP per year. Roughly calculating (i.e. leaving the effect of economic growth out) brings this to costs of 4% until 2050. Unmitigated climate change then apparently has been calculated with costing something around 5% until 2050. Therefore, the pricing system is 1% (1.3% in your quote) cheaper than not mitigating climate change.
(PS: I Read your quote again and have to say I posted nonsense. Don't know how I could construct the things I said out of your short post, but it really is nonsense since it seems to be only about the costs of the pricing system and nothing else, sorry. Hardern11:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
I have to read the texts to understand exactly what they are saying, but according to the published references, they are saying that there is an annual drop in Worldwide GDP of 0.1% per year, and a total accumulated drop of 1.3% by 2050. This math does not make sense to me. But it might be how it is worded.
As for the last paragraph, the problem is this: The report says that if steps are taken now to stabilize carbon (I take that to be CO2), then the warming can be halted. But the article on wikipedia reliably cited says (and my own guess would agree) that the warming would continue for a long time even if the greenhouse gases stabilized. Of course, this really takes reading the source to divine what is actually being said, but right now, things look contradictory and odd. Hope that explains the issue. I am interested to see other comments. --Blue Tie09:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The report says that if steps are taken now to stabilize carbon (I take that to be CO2), then the warming can be halted. Could you quote the report verbatim (and where in the report)? I didn't see that text but may have missed it. --Skyemoor11:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I am just now reading it (Summary for Policy Makers) now. Every chart or table that I have seen refers to CO2. One adds "CO2 Equivalents" or something like that. I found the table(s) that mention 1.3% and 0.1%. Sort of vague language. The 1.3% is a median number the 0.1% is an "average". The median is a type of average, but the average could be mean, median or mode. I would normally think it is mean. Non-normal distributions (say exponential or log normal) would have means and medians that are very different and comparing the two numbers would not be right. Also, annualized means would "work" mathematically in series better than annualized medians to produce an overall result. Also, median, if calculated as "50% of countries GDP'" could be highly misleading. but it might be 50% of worldwide-models which would be more "honest" and appropriate. I have not seen the details. So far, the report seems to be suggesting that an increase in temperature of 2 or 3 degrees C would be acceptable. This is the url of the report I am reading: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf. The only report I have found is the Summary. A quick once-thru reading does not encourage me that there is enough information to understand these numbers or make sense of them. --Blue Tie14:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussed table SPM.6 can be found on page 27, and above it is the information "In 2050 global average macro-economic costs for multi-gas mitigation towards stabilization between 710 and 445 ppm CO2-eq, are between a 1% gain to a 5.5% decrease of global GDP". The annual reduction of world GDP in the 535-590 ppm stabilization scenario is given as <0.1%, therefore one should not calculate with 0.1. This makes sense, given that the overall reduction is supposed to lie between slightly negative and 4%. In any case, you would have an annual reduction of less than 0.1%. Does this solve some questions? Btw, where did you get your initial quote from?? Hardern14:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that sort of makes sense. The number would be 0.03%. That is much less than 0.1% and it would have been better to go to significant digit(s). I noted a discussion that over 50% of the mitigation comes from not deforesting the tropics. That's interesting and difficult. It also puts a lot of weight on people who would not be likely to afford it or on nations exempt from agreements as developing countries. The original Quote was from the Economist reference in the article. There may be some other issues with the numbers but I do not have time to review or discuss it now.--Blue Tie14:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
GW Economics Webcast
For those interested, the US National Academies of Science will be webcasting the presentation "Measuring the Economic Effects of Global Warming: Models, Data, and Policies"
William D. Nordhaus will present an overview of the current state of research in the field and challenge the federal statistical and research communities to develop the data, statistics, methodological research, and analyses needed to help us chart our future course. Specifically, he will discuss "integrated assessment” and other economic models of global warming; present results of recent modeling efforts attempting to identify the relative efficiency of different policy objectives; assess the major uncertainties that limit our modeling efforts and, in turn, our understanding of the issues; and other recommendations for improving statistical data that would improve our models, projections, and policy assessments. --Skyemoor12:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Solar Variation summary becoming too specific
This section is no longer a summary, as two outlier findings have been brought to the forefront. We need to sync this section to the subarticle and present a summary more in line with WP:SUMMARY. --Skyemoor12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I doubt Stott is an outlier. But I also doubt that his models are any better than those used for the IPCC projections, especially since it was probably an earlier version. I think the section should probably be more about the assessments of the levels of solar activity, ala, Solanki, Foucal, etc, than about questionable model results. I'd have to look at Scaffeta again.--Africangenesis13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, everybody agrees that solar activity alone is insufficient to explain the recent warming. Without a model explaining attribution, mentioning solar activity is misleading. --Stephan Schulz14:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Just having levels of forcing without explaining that the levels of forcing cannot be directly compared in a non-linear system would also be misleading, so I agree that we need the models. I just don't agree that we have the models yet. It is equally misleading to be using the models for attribution of the global energy imbalance, when they have errors larger than that imbalance. Here is an example of the deficiencies Hansen discloses in his most recent model work[28]:
"Principal model deficiencies include unrealistically weak tropical El Nino-like variability and a poor distribution of sea ice, with too much sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere and too little in the Southern Hemisphere. Greatest uncertainties in the forcings are the temporal and spatial variations of anthropogenic aerosols and their indirect effects on clouds."
"Model shortcomings include ~25% regional deficiency of summer stratus cloud cover off the west coast of the continents with resulting excessive absorption of solar radiation by as much as 50 W/m2, deficiency in absorbed solar radiation and net radiation over other tropical regions by typically 20 W/m2, sea level pressure too high by 4-8 hPa in the winter in the Arctic and 2-4 hPa too low in all seasons in the tropics, ~20% deficiency of rainfall over the Amazon basin, ~25% deficiency in summer cloud cover in the western United States and central Asia with a corresponding ~5°C excessive summer warmth in these regions. In addition to the inaccuracies in the simulated climatology, another shortcoming of the atmospheric model for climate change studies is the absence of a gravity wave representation, as noted above, which may affect the nature of interactions between the troposphere and stratosphere. The stratospheric variability is less than observed, as shown by analysis of the present 20-layer 4°×5° atmospheric model by J. Perlwitz (personal communication)."
He doesn't even reference Roesch, so given the time (months to years) it takes to make these model runs, it can be assumed that he hasn't corrected the surface albedo biases. Hansen's modeling work is typical. The models are not ready to be attributing 0.85W/m^2 of energy imbalance. --Africangenesis14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Point of order: We are talking about the Solar Variation summary becoming too specific. Your above comments do not address this. "Personal Communications" with one person on this matter do not constitute support for or against any point in an encyclopedia, especially from anonymous editors (yes, even though you have a screen name). And to top it off, more cosmic ray material has crept back in. --Skyemoor19:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: This is in regards to an edit and revert[29], and I am previously known as 64.222.222.25.
In keeping with protocol[30], I'm taking it to the talk page.
I said "see: [URL to talk discussion]" in my edit comment because that's where I had previously brought up the idea of making this edit. As it received no heated dissension after several days opportunity for discussion, I decided to make the edit. I didn't mention the URL as "research"; I mentioned it as "here's the discussion where I outline the reason for this edit." There is not space enough in the comment line to go into detail. I linked to my personal talk history because I don't know of a way to link directly to a particular section of a talk page (is this possible?) This was a courtesy on my part, so others wouldn't have to slog through the long talk histories to find it.
The point of the edit was that the source, as referenced, is completely misplaced. It pretends to back up the choice of words, but it does not. Again, see the talk section I linked for the full reasoning behind this, I don't want to rehash it here.
BTW, protocol also suggests that Blue Tie should have made a constructive edit, rather than a simple revert (please don't make me look for the Wiki standards page where I read this, it was hard enough to find that image again). He should probably have reverted the wording, since he felt the need to do so, but left my placement of the reference number, as anyone reading the source can clearly see that it is a reasonable and even necessary change. Or should I assume that the full revert was due to the URL in my comment? If Blue Tie's reasoning was that anything with an "improper" comment must be completely expunged, I can make an edit with just the reference placement, without comment. We can than hash out the wording separately. Please advise. --Triple-Deuce14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I entirely agree with your reasons, but I do not agree with the edit. I believe, using your rationale, that the word "few" should be removed, not enhanced. When I have removed it, people have reverted. I intend to "constructively edit this area more in the future, but have not done so yet for good reasons. The enhancement you propose is certainly original research (who says "relatively few"?) on a word that is really not well supported anyway. Thanks for taking it to the talk page. Sorry if I was being harsh in my edit response -- I hope I was not. I will add back any reference or other associated data that I ignorantly removed. I have to take off for work right now though. Welcome to wikipedia! --Blue Tie 14:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC) NB: the only edit was to the wording. There was no change in reference location from what I can tell. --Blue Tie14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not "original research," it is discussion on a talk page! Ugh! This place is frustrating to the point of being stifling. And I didn't write "relatively few," I wrote "comparatively small number," because that's what had been suggested as an agreeable compromise by someone else in a previous discussion! I was trying to make an edit that would be acceptable to others while making the changes that I feel are absolutely necessary!
Sorry for all the bold, italics and exclamations, and thanks for the welcome, but I am really getting flustered here. --Triple-Deuce14:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As to the NB, recheck that ref location. I had removed it from the end of the sentence. And again, please re-read the referenced talk section, as well as the actual source material, for the reasoning as to why. --Triple-Deuce15:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not be frustrated. I have self reverted. I think the word few should be struck and not modified, but will discuss this later.--Blue Tie15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. I just want to make it clear that I included that URL in my edit comment in the same way one might say "as per talk," or "see talk." It was a just a courtesy. --Triple-Deuce00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this discussion, I think it is safe to say the current version of the intro has not been put to the test and reached consensus. I don't understand why a certain user is claiming that there is a consensus in the current version which does not cite its sources. --Tjsynkral04:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify why I removed your citation tag. There's really no way to cite such a thing. The number of scientists who dissent is small compared to the number who do not. This is clear to any observer of the topic. Every conceivable phrasing has been tried and all have been found lacking by one side or the other. "Comparatively" was suggested in talk as a possible compromise that might be agreeable to all (or most). The fact is that it's very difficult to mention that there are dissenting scientists without giving them undo weight, unless you make note of their lesser numbers, relative to those they oppose. How that should be done has been a major bone of contention. Again, I just don't see how the chosen wording can possibly be cited (unless falsely so, as was the case previously). If every word or phrase requires a source to justify it, we may as well turn the article into a link farm. --Triple-Deuce04:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so then we don't need sources and can choose whatever wording we want. I think there are a lot of scientists who disagree, so I should therefore be equally entitled to say "Many scientists disagree..."
Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, and any claims about something as large as the number of scientists who disagree with the consensus cannot possibly be claimed to be common knowledge. I vigorously reject your analysis and it appears that Blue Tie is in agreement with me (and is taking a Wikibreak rather than dealing with it tonight). --Tjsynkral05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Some 1,600 people wrote and/or reviwed the 4th IPCC report. 3 of them have publicly objected - Pilke, Landsea, and McIntyre. In excess of 1,500 of them have not. That makes the number in opposition "comparatively small". Raul65405:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"1,600" "Pilke, Landsea, and McIntyre" -- Where exactly does this information come from? This is exactly the kind of thing that should be cited in the article. I fail to see how citations are bad. --Tjsynkral23:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So be it. Rather than talking about where people do and do not stand on the IPCC, I say we restore my original version that addresses that point. We put Orekes back in the lead, and say there is zero scientific dissent. And, lest Ted Frank once again bring up that old canard about Benny Peiser's attempt to debunk her work, we could note in that footnote that he made an attempt to debunk her work, and that his methodology was so embarrassingly flawed that he couldn't get it published and that he himself no longer stands by it. That would be a hell of a lot more accurate than saying "a lot" of scientists dissent from global warming or from the IPCC. Raul65401:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think William and I explained to you clearly enough why this was a foolish idea (not to mention backwards thinking on your behalf). Cheers. ~ UBeR05:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not an untruth. There are zero peer reviewed papers that dissent from the premise that global warming is happening and that it's caused by humans. A tiny handful (and shrinking) number of climatologists happen to be to dissent from that. That number gets a even smaller when you exclude the "climatologists" who are directly or indirectly associated with oil companies (David Legates, just to name one). Saying there are "many" scientists who dissent from the consensus view is about as false as can be. Saying there are "virtually none" would be more accurate. Raul65402:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's true probably few scientists disagree with the notion that greenhouse gases are a primary driver of global warming. What isn't true is that there is no (or "virtually no") dissent of the "consensus." Note the article does not say individual scientists disagree with the entire consensus, bur rather parts. That's key here. Tsk. ~ UBeR06:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you just give me what I asked for, a reference on the dissenting IPCC members? You don't seem to have much interest in the factual accuracy of this intro. --Tjsynkral03:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Because, to my knowledge, nobody has taken a survey. As I said above, there are 1600 climatologists who wrote or reviewed it, and you can count the number of climatologists who publicly objected to it on one hand. Raul65403:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You didn't say "zero peer reviewed papers" (I love how the criteria for qualification to be taken seriously is ever-tightening, BTW), you said "zero scientific dissent." "Scientific dissent" does not have to mean "peer reviewed paper," especially when the process of peer review is and has always been subject to "peer pressure," not only in this field -- nor science in general -- but every aspect of life. There are scientists who dissent, but are quaking in their boots, too afraid to speak out. Think "Spanish Inquisition" for a close analogy. To dissent against AGW would be professional suicide, at this point. --64.222.222.2503:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I like to think climatologist who doesn't believe the earth is warming because of all the green house gasses we are pumping into the atmosphere is analogous to a computer engineer who believes that computers work because little goblins inside of them push the electrons around. Both of them deserve professional ostracism. Raul65403:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The little goblins really are there, of course, but there's a big UN coverup. The dissenting computer scientists are afraid to speak out because of peer pressure from the ones that are making big bucks off this "semiconductor" theory. Obvious nonsense -- something either conducts or it doesn't, how can there be a "semi" conductor? Raymond Arritt03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Belittling others is completely out of line, and only shows how unsuited some of you people are for this project (Wikipedia in general). Congrats on showing your true colors again and again. --64.222.222.2520:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Tjsynkral, please read my opening note in this section. I think you'll find that I'm with you in many ways, including the fact that the linked article does indeed contain "many" names. But I have deemed it futile to try and fight the article ownership on this issue, so I tried to find a compromise that would escape reversion. The only workable compromise is one that is neither offensively misleading from "our" perspective, nor revertible based on undue weight claims on "their" side. If we want the dissenting scientists to be mentioned at all, we must make it clear that their numbers are smaller than those they oppose. I see the current wording as a fair compromise because it is less misleading than the previous wording, and also because it is true. One shouldn't need to provide a source to prove a self-evident truth. If I said "the number of people who honestly believe that George W. Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks is small compared to those who do not," I trust we would not need a source to verify that statement. And, just like in our case, while the majority may view the minority as a bunch of kooks, that does not immediately discount their position, nor remove it from the realm of possibility. It is therefore worthy of mention -- but in the proper context. --Triple-Deuce16:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that is an accurate comparison. This article is supposed to be about science - it's not scientific to use your own estimates and hunches to make claims about the population of scientists. --Tjsynkral23:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever heard the term "stay under the radar"? If you keep drawing attention to this, it's only going to end up being deleted entirely, and then we'll have no mention of the dissenting scientists whatsoever. Is this what you want? I've already made it quite clear that I agree with your concerns, but I'm in survival mode at this point. I could quote some Kenny Rogers lyrics here... --Triple-Deuce23:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I do confess, however, that it was improper of me to simply remove your citation request. Please accept my apology for that. I should have brought up my concerns here first, and hoped that you would agree that we should probably be happy that it hasn't been reverted to the previous wording, which I think you will agree was much less desirable. --Triple-Deuce23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The goal of WP is factual accuracy. What you are doing is POV pushing by trying to include something that advances your viewpoint without using facts to back it up. Although I agree that "few" or "small" is used to admonish a valid dissenting opinion among scientists by the OWNers of this article, I do not think any data can be presented as fact without a citation. I would prefer "few" with a citation (the citation was an opinion article, by the way - anyone who checks it can clearly see the bias in the author's tone). If you want to make a statement claiming more than a "few" scientists dissent, spend your efforts on finding a source to back it up. Even though it's futile as the OWNers of this article have decided which sources to let in (the ones that say few scientists dissent) and which sources to revert out on sight (the ones that say many scientists dissent). --Tjsynkral00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be confused about my position. Either that, or I'm confused about yours. In any case, I think I'll stop now. There's only so many ways I can say "I agree with you, but..." --Triple-Deuce00:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Proposed compromise:
Cite the Quaternary opinion article that was being cited before for the "comparitively small" sentence. Any complaints? --Tjsynkral00:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I would vehemently oppose this. That citation was a primary gripe of mine, and I've previously outlined in detail how ludicrous that citation was. Again, you seem to forget that no other combination of words has been acceptable, yet there is no [sane] way to cite what should be a self-evident truth. The Quaternary piece does not qualify as a citation regarding the number of scientists. It doesn't even pretend to be; using it as such was a massive leap on the part of whoever made the initial citation -- they were grasping at straws to justify "a few." --Triple-Deuce01:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It served if nothing less as evidence that there really isn't any proof of the OWNers' claims of "few" dissenting scientists. If they insist on keeping that kind of language in the article, let the reader check the facts and see how little ammo they're working with. But by letting "small" fly without any citation, what's to stop them from saying "one scientist disagrees" or "no scientists disagree"? If we aren't asking for evidence they very well could! --Tjsynkral01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
If I had my way, "...although a comparatively small number of individual scientists do disagree with parts of them." would be changed to read "...although there are individual scientists who disagree with parts of them." This would eliminate the need for citation regarding how many scientists. But I seem to recall that similar wording was tried before, and it was deemed necessary (by some) to make note that these scientists were few(er) in number. I simply don't have the guts to make the edit. --Triple-Deuce01:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Skyemoor: do you think your revert was proper? Some quotes from Help:Reverting, and why I believe they have not been adhered to here:
"Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism." --Clearly does not apply
"If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it." --Was not discussed (in this specific case)
"If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it." --Was not done
"Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view." --No disrespect shown per se, but a rather quick reverting finger, certainly
"Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith." --Clearly I've been struggling to make a positive change in this case, so...where's your proof otherwise?
"Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly." --Self explanatory
"Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it." --Again, a fairly clear directive
Please explain why your revert does not conflict with the above. I agree with your reversion comment that "there really is no other solution," but clearly everyone is not happy yet -- hence my last edit. So, how is the removal of the "number problem" anything but positive? That edit could be seen as maintaining the lesser weight of said scientists, and would indeed literally do so, by inflection, if we were to place the word "individual" in italics. Would that be something you might consider acceptable?
I'm not going to "revert your revert," because I can live with the "comparative" text as it stands, although I'd prefer to avoid the issue of numbers altogether, which the text you reverted did quite neutrally, IMO. I'd be very interested how you (and others) feel about using the reverted text, but with "individual" italicized. Thanks. --Triple-Deuce02:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You've visited this page since my above post. I again ask you to please respond. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. --Triple-Deuce20:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
(...) But the rates of mixing in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, and the extent of upwelling induced, remain poorly understood due to a lack of direct observations. A natural phenomenon, the release of helium from submarine volcanoes into the current near Drake Passage, provided an opportunity to fill in that observational gap. (...) This creates a previously unrecognized 'short circuit' in the global oceanic overturning circulation (...) [31]
Here is the proposed text: "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and the energy imbalance that commits the earth to further warming if nothing changes."
The energy imbalance is on much firmer ground than the projections, since it is supported by observations of the sea level, satellite TOA irradiance measurements and the climate models. Scientists who accept a thermal component to the sea level rise record, accept the energy imbalance whether they believe the models have credibility or not. The thermal inertia that the oceans bring to the coupled climate system, and that results in climate commitment when a new level of forcing brings about an energy imbalance, is a key foundation of climate science (as opposed to mere weather forcasting). Attributing that energy imbalance, and projecting its future levels is the overarching purpose of the science dicsussed on this page.--Africangenesis14:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay (as in I think you are technically correct) but I think changing the text in this way makes it read worse, personally. I also think "Issue debate and political processes" is much worse than controversy and politics but I know some people hate being reverted when they fiddle so I thought I'd ask here? --BozMotalk14:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about "Issue debate and political processes"? I am not satisfied with the last phrase myself "if nothing changes", I thought about "all else being equal". I wanted to suggest that if nothing changes, this warming will increase, perhaps better will be, "if the drivers of the climate system don't change", or "if the forces influencing the climate continue", etc.--Africangenesis01:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the question. i am trying to better reflect the content of this section. it should be both the main political issues and debate, but also various ongoing political processes which are designed both for debate and to address this issue. Very often, debate and addressing an issue are synonymous, but with the previous heading, people seem to feel the two do not go together. So that's why i thought a new heading might be better. --Sm890015:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The term "projections" takes into account energy imbalances, and the current wording is less bothersome for first time readers of this article. To SM900's discussion, we must first identify what the science of the matter is, before fuddling minds with political spin machinations. The article already addresses this sufficiently, including the summary. --Skyemoor15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I put the current language in the intro in, but knew it reflected more the current state of the article than the underlying science. "projections" skips over the underlying science, implicitly to the models.--Africangenesis01:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
whoa, whoa, whoa! why is this becoming an argument again? why is every change made sometimes assumed to be an ulterior motive. Skyemoor, i simply want to make this a general section on some nice, basic political info, as it pretty much already is. Does that sound good. Even if it doesn't, where is this label of my actions coming from? what on earth makes you think I am trying to spin anything. People, this is really getting out of hand! this is really getting rude and insulting! If I made a change to a heading, just discuss the change. that is it. Skyemoor, what are you talking about? where do you see any spin in the chnage I made? whatever the reason is, is inaccurate, but I can't even imagine how you imposed that meaning on my actions. just wanted to mention that. --Sm890015:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The lead is very sensitive - you know that. Its far better to discuss first, if you want to avoid being inflammatory. In this case your change seems to me for the worse: the commitment stuff is not a major part of the story (as demonstrated by its lack of prominence in the rest of the article) and doesn't deserve such heavy featuring early on. And since "if nothing changes" is wildly unlikely, its no real part of the main debate William M. Connolley15:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a major fault of the article, that the central scientific crux of the global warming issue, the global energy imbalance, has been skipped over without even being mentioned. The surface temperatures were the symptom, the energy imbalance was the underlying cause. Reproducing, attributing, and projecting that imbalance is what the models are trying to do. The commitment stuff is in there, just not always by name, even if GHG levels stabilize, etc., but I hope to make more explicit in the rest of the article also, its centrality to understanding of the issues. There should be a section reporting estimates of the imbalance, Hansen's article is a good start. At the time of the article, the imbalance of the last year of his study was 0.85W/m^2, estimates from sea level changes, showed that the imbalance must have averaged 0.75W/m^2 for the prior decade. Further warming in the coming years is built into the system if this imbalance continues or increases, or even decreases, but still remains positive. We don't need models or projections to know this, it is on a more basic scientific foundation, that the huge thermal inertia of the oceans is coupled to the atmosphere. I hope to change the emphasis later on also, in the "causes" section, the cause is an energy imbalance, attribution is the attempt to understand the sources of that imbalance. That is where the models play a major role. I don't think this can be described as "personal opinion".
Sm900, I first misunderstood you, which lead to you misunderstanding me. I thought you wanted more 'issue debate and political processes' in the lede, which was not the case. I wasn't referring to your actions as such, but wanting to keep the material to the section we already have it in. Sorry for the confusion. --Skyemoor16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Skyemoor. i really appeciate your reply. That is an extremely open and very decent thing for you to say. It shows a lot of decency for you to reply so helpfully. thanks very much. the only reason for my reply being so strident was i thought you had made some assumption which was based on other things. If I'd known it was simply a misunderstanding, I certainly would have simpy tried to clarify. thanks so much for your answer. look forward to further discussions and exchanges. thanks. --Sm890016:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
1800 to 1950 warming
The article states "Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950"
If their was global warming since 1800... then wouldn't solar variation and volcanoes take the ENTIRE blame of global warming during pre-industrial times? What does this "small warming effect" mean? And if it truly was only a small warming effect, then what caused the rest of it? Bryanpeterson21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The phrase entangles solar variation, which has a strong correlation with climate variation over the past few millenia, with episodic periods of volcanic activity, which cause cooling. "small ... to 1950", depends on whether one picks a dip or a peak as the baseline period, e.g., maunder minimum or the miedeval warming period. It also depends on what you consider "small". There is a low level of scientific understanding of past solar forcing. While the correlation is strong, the amplitude of variation that presumably caused that variation is not known. Our best physically based solar models can only account for about 80% of the solar variation over the satellite observations of the current high plateau of solar activity. Their validity for extrapolation to periods of relatively quiet solar activity is unknown.--Africangenesis02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Very rarely is only one force the cause of any change within Earth's climate system. The rest, of course, is said to be attributed to this. ~ UBeR05:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, correlation is not causation, and the forcings themselves are coupled. For instance, CO2 is released in a warming climate and along with water vapor would constitute a positive feedback to the solar forcing.--Africangenesis06:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Causes
So, I have done the obvious and reverted AG's changes [32]. Firstly, the energy imbalance, while interesting in itself, isn't a major part of attribution - it doesn't even get a mention in the AR4 spm attribution section [33]. Even if it did, it would be still too much detail on one minor element. Secondly, the assertion that because we have warming, we *must* have an energy imbalance, is false: this is only true if the forcings are changing faster than the climate can keep up. This latter is true, but not a priori William M. Connolley08:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The thermal inertia of the ocean precludes an instantaneous climate response, so there is no sense in which the climate can "keep up". You should read the SPM, it doesn't use terms of art, since is it is a summary for policy makers, but they are there and central to the report.
In the very first paragraph after the intro, "Changes in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system. These changes are expressed in terms of radiative forcing, which is used to compare how a range of human and natural factors drive warming or cooling influences on global climate."
This from the notes: "Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism."
So, keep in mind that anytime they are talking about "radiative forcing", they are talking indirectly about the energy balance.
On page 17, they are talking implicitly about the energy imbalance: "Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized."
Two of the next 3 bullet points refer to continuing temperature increases even if radiative forcings were to be stabilized, including the thermal expansion that my text mentioned. "If radiative forcing were to be stabilized in 2100 at B1 or A1B levels11 a further increase in global average temperature of about 0.5°C would still be expected, mostly by 2200." and "If radiative forcing were to be stabilized in 2100 at A1B levels11, thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to 0.8 m of sea level rise by 2300 (relative to 1980–1999). Thermal expansion would continue for many centuries, due to the time required to transport heat into the deep ocean."
Note the mention of the deeper levels of the ocean, just as in my text.
On page 13, the thermal inertia of the ocean is referred to again, in policy maker terms of course: "Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents are held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans."
Here on page 5, rising sea level is indicative warming: "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)."
Page 7, heat storage into the system, just as I mentioned, this seems related to energy balance: "Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise (see Table SPM-1).
I don't see why you thought we should be limited to the attribution section of the SPM, but here goes:
Note the reference to sea level rise, i.e., heat storage into the oceans: "Warming of the climate system has been detected in changes of surface and atmospheric temperatures, temperatures in the upper several hundred metres of the ocean and in contributions to sea level rise."
Note the reference to equilibrium and radiative forcing, equilibrium is a form of energy balance: "The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing."
I'm not sure why Hansen and several co-author's bold statements in the peer review literature weren't enough, and we had to go to a rather general summary for politicians. Any climate modeler knows the importance of energy balance to reproducing climate behaviors and they are trying to achieve it more realistically and eliminate the need for flux corrections. Whether, this was mentioned in the attribution section or not, it is clear, even from the SPM, that the energy imbalance is what is ultimately being attributed.--Africangenesis09:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Isn't this a bit like arguing that every science article should cite hamilton's principle? Everything is ultimately energy balance but that doesn't make it the best point of access or explanation? --BozMotalk10:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
None of AGs statements is justification for keeping his text; I maintain my original arguments. The energy balance exists, and is interesting, but that is no justification for dumping it in here. You are quoting too much irrelevant text on talk William M. Connolley10:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
the energy imbalance is what is ultimately being attributed - this is simply wrong. In general it is the temperature change that is being attributed William M. Connolley10:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Nah, he's right in a way since the temp change is in turn caused by an energy imbalance (which must be true). The point is that "ultimately" is rather irrelevant: this is the reductist science falacy. You stick with the level of causation which gives the most insight which in this case is yours not his (although his IS ultimately further up the chain). --BozMotalk10:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have issues with the SPM mentioning energy balance, and inputs and outputs, and thermal inertia, as documented in my excerpts above, are these irrelevant? If the model also includes sea level rise, or alternatively accounts for energy stored into the ocean, then it is attributing more than temperature.--Africangenesis10:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This is silly - you've just bolded the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system - this isn't a cause of change. Its something you need to understand if you want to work out where all the heat is gone - but that is a level of detail below what we need. You appear to be asserting that because its mentioned in the SPM, therefore it belongs in this page. Thats wrong, as BozMo is pointing out. Thermal inertia is relevant to the commitment stuff - but we mention that anyway William M. Connolley11:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't bring up the SPM, you did. This is being mentioned to show how central thermal inertia, climate commitment and energy imbalance are. There are all these mentions and allusions, even in simple explanations for policy makers. The whole point is that this should not be relegated to the climate commitment page.--Africangenesis11:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is the text I proposed along with the reflist, so that others don't have to go to the diffs, I challenge William to show that any of the text excerpts I cited are irrelevant:
The climate is a complex system which varies through natural, internal processes and in response to variations in external forcing factors, such as solar activity, volcanic emissions, variations in the earth's orbit (orbital forcing), aerosols, land use changes and greenhouse gases. In a generalized global warming such as is currently occurring, these must have resulted in a net energy imbalance, more energy coming in than is going out.
In the long run, a positive energy imbalance must result in heat storage in the oceans where most of the thermal inertia of the climate system resides. The rise in sea level from the resulting thermal expansion provides a way to estimate the level of this energy imbalance. Hansen found that in 2003 the energy imbalance was 0.85W/m^2, and that over the prior decade, it had averaged 0.75W/m^2.[1] Because of this thermal inertia, none of the effects of forcing are instantaneous. Most of the response of the atmosphere and upper ocean occurrs within the first decades of changes in forcings, but the total response of the deep oceans will take centuries to reach equilibrium. In the dynamic climate system, forcings are likely to change again before equilibrium is ever reached. Climate commitment studies of the coupled atmosphere climate system indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at present day levels, a further warming of about 0.5 °C(0.9 °F) would still occur.[2]
Sigh. I'm sure you can find some kind of relevance form your quotes to your text, but you need to be more focussed. For some reason known only to yourself, you are trying to go into detail about the energy imbalance estimated from the thermal expansion of the ocean (which cannot be measured, of course). There is no obvious reason why all this detail belongs on a section about "causes" - this might belong in "basic climate mechanisms" which (correctly) is not part of this article William M. Connolley11:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, this is an overview (summary) of the subarticles, and foremost must reflect those subarticles. In addition, we can't zero in on just any detail, as we could repeat the entire AR4 here, so we must condense our sources to provide a broad overview of the subject matter. --Skyemoor11:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
"right level of detail" is a subjective criteria that is easy to raise. The level of detail I provided is enough to make statements that are already in the article, such as continued warming even if GHGs are stabilized, understandable. There is a lot of arcania detail in the article, just look at feedbacks which mentions the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, look at the mention of the geophysical organization, etc.--Africangenesis11:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
"sigh", "irrelevant", "dumping", "silly", "OR/SYN", a generally dismissive attitude, marking a revert of my contributions as Minor. Please try to be civil. You had no problem with the climate commitment references that were already in the section. This is good summary writing with references, totally relevant and useful to the reader. I am open to a better place for it in this article, but this heat imbalance is what is being attributed, and is a central concept that aids any reader in understanding the science and the statements in this article. It is not some underlying irrelevancy.--Africangenesis11:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Please try to make sense - reverts are generally marked as minor; I always do. Your text is largely irrelevant and not useful. You repeat your error that heat balance is being attributed when it clearly isn't - see the SPM. This article is not the place for basic concepts in climate dynamics. Why not edit a less fashionable article where it would be welcome? William M. Connolley11:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
How about a seperate section before "causes", called "Energy imbalance", or "climate commitment" or "thermal inertia". Not having this in the article is a lot like having an article on heat engines without mentioning thermodynamics, or an article on the red shift without mentioning the doppler effect. Shouldn't minor in a revert be reserved for vandalism?--Africangenesis11:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. And I shouldn't have said "always do"; always *intend to* do would be better. But: there are a lot of things that would be nice to have in this article. Not having this in the article is like not mentioning basic concepts of climate dynamics: which we don't, of course. You are failing to justify this as sufficiently useful to be worth including. I don't think it adds much at all. Since we're going round in circles, I'm going to stop for a bit to see what other people want to say William M. Connolley12:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Reverts should not be marked as "Minor". I quote from wikipedia help
A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.
By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.
The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please do not mark it as minor. --Blue Tie13:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Aren't feedbacks, basic concepts of climate dynamics? We have quite a section on that, and rightfully so. The level of detail is subjective and incapable of being rigorously applied. Too basic? Too arcane? You can't justify any of these, so what it comes down to, is that you are willing to edit war about it.--Africangenesis12:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps an explanation of why this should be in causes. The energy imbalance is the cause of global warming. The energy imbalance is why we know that the temperatures will continue to increase, independant of where we stand on the attribution issue, and independent of whether we think the forcings will increase. This energy imbalance is verifiable by observation of sea level rise, and satellite observations, so it is independent of where one stands on model skill. From here, one can go to more specific attribution, so it is a natural for the beginning of the causes section.--Africangenesis12:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears that you are genuinely unable to see the difference between the facts as they stand and your interpretation of them. The result is pointless and over-long "discussion" such as this. Raymond Arritt13:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Appearances can be deceptive and their interpretation is always a function of the observer. It is entirely possible that by some objective standard, you may also be unable to see such differences. Discussion however, may help eyes open. In any case, discussion is the approved method for achieving consensus on wikipedia and rejecting it is another method for rejecting wikipedia standards on this article. --Blue Tie13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The energy imbalance is the cause of global warming. This is where AG's issue lies; energy imbalance is the result of the net effect of one or more forcings, which are the true causes of GW. --Skyemoor16:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
In a non-linear system you may not know what the "true" cause is, but you can know there is an energy imbalance. Take the case where where there is a significant reduction in aerosols or particulates, and the other forcings change some, but not much and a warming ensues, or where there is an unexplain change in cloudiness. You are happy with leaping to the "true" cause, because you think you know what it is, but you may not. --Africangenesis20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is a bit more to what Africangenesis is saying than what is contained in Climate commitment studies, although that does seem to capture a lot of it. He also seems to be talking about ways to measure the warming itself and not just impact. --Blue Tie16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
POV in the intro
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The intro seems to be heavily weighted toward promoting the views of the IPCC, and disparaging any skepticism. The IPCC is very trendy, but hardly the most significant development in the history of climate science. It is already on the wane in terms of its influence. Placing such emphasis on it makes this look like an advocacy article. --Don't lose that number14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
See scientific opinion on climate change. The IPCC opinion is endorsed by essentially all relevant scientific societies, and the vastly overwhelming number of climate scientists. Serious criticism is mostly restricted to minor points (and goes both ways). --Stephan Schulz15:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the IPCC is right or wrong, does it make sense to feature it so prominently in the intro? Global warming did not begin with the IPCC. It has happened intermittently for millenia. I could see having the IPCC in the intro for Global warming controversy. Actually, I could see merging this article with Global warming controversy, because this article seems more intended to persuade than to simply be a neutral source of information. --Don't lose that number21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Poor analogy. Climate scientists have been publishing for a long, long time. However, the IPCC is a political advocacy group, and this article is being used to promote it. --Don't lose that number14:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The IPCC is an advocacy group. It advocates science over opinion and has a definite pro reality biasRktect17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure we could write an intro that does not depend solely on an IPCC report. I'm sure we can find scientific literature that can support a well-rounded introduction that is supposed to summarize the main article for those lazy to read it through. After all, the IPCC report is based on scientific literature, is it not? Either way it doesn't matter to me. ~ UBeR15:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Hundreds of specialist scientists work over 6 years to produce a synthesis report that generally acknowledged as the best summary of the state of science in any field, and we just ignore that and go back to the original literature? That makes a lot of sense... --Stephan Schulz16:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
But if you do disagree with using scientific literature as opposed to [just] the report, maybe you're looking for Summary of IPCC AR4, or something along those lines? ~ UBeR16:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note that "just" was added after my comment. UBeR, you should be aware of the problem of editing comments that others have already replied by now. Please refrain from it in the future. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz16:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
But I'm not - how could I? The question is nonsensical, as, of course, the IPCC reports are part of the scientific literature. I am strongly opposed to not using the IPCC reports, though, because the IPCC has done a lot of what we want to do, only with enormously more qualification and resources. --Stephan Schulz16:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. I'm opposed to not using the IPCC report just as well. I'm opposed to becoming overly-reliant on one report. What do you suppose would be the difference between the article I suggested you might be looking for and this article on global warming? ~ UBeR16:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
In practice Wikipedia may prevent qualified experts from giving their views even if they have been published and reer reviewed. Because Wikipedia is based on consensus, sometimes where the editors have formed their consensus without properly fact checking that the data is both accurate and current thye can be completely out to lunch. In terms of IPCC temperature models some scientists have complained in the comments to the report that they are low by 40% or more and the IPCC has accepted that, but the old projections have not been corrected on Wikipedia.Rktect18:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the IPCC is a synthesis report. Adding individual references will probably make the intro (which is normally not sourced at all - just here we get people slapping spurious tags on every sentence) look incredibly overreferenced. The IPCC summary does link to the full report, which links to the primary literature. Still, it will be hard (and pointless) to track down individual papers. Moreover, while the IPCC report is a synthesis (synthesized and summarized by people a lot more qualified than all but maybe two of the editors here), WP:OR makes it very hard to include the synthesized results without the IPCC report . --Stephan Schulz18:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree Wikipedia introductions are typically not sourced, but that is because they are (or are supposed to be) summaries of the rest of the article, where the claims are made and properly referenced. As for finding individual papers discussing the same topics we do being hard and pointless, I disagree, as it what we do with nearly all of the sections in the article. I also disagree with your notion that only the IPCC report has come to the synthesized conclusion that is espoused within this article. That, of course, wasn't my original question anyway. ~ UBeR18:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The IPCC is an advocacy group. See "Main Products and Activities" on their website (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm) ... it specifically states that they publish reports where it "supports the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change" which happens to include the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC is in no way an impartial body and although their full version assessment reports are extensively peer edited, the "Summary for Policymakers" is vulnerable to bias as a result of the IPCC's ties to the UN, UNFCCC and Kyoto. Boarderex02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, that it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC... to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.
Is it Wikipedia editorial policy to endorse scientific views on the basis of statements of support from scientific societies - rather than on the basis of an explanation of how theory explains facts? Does Wikipedia consider that the number of scientists endorsing a particular view has any bearing on whether it's true or not?
Moreover, when there is a political controversy over a scientific question, is it even appropriate for Wikipedia to take a stand on it? (I thought Wikipedia had a neutrality policy.) --Uncle Ed10:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Wikipedia has both WP:NPOV, which requires us to report scientific positions roughly as they are represented in the literature, and WP:NOR, which stops us from independently evaluating facts and theories, but rather requires us to use reliable sources. To independently evaluate a scientific theory, you need to be a qualified expert and, depending on the theory, may need to spend a lifetime studying it. Wikipedia does not "endorse" anything, it reports. And the existence (or lack) of a political controversy should have no influence on the positions reported in Wikipedia (although it often requires more detailed and referenced articles). But since you seem to be back, can you tell me how, in your opinion, this compares to our article? --Stephan Schulz10:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you point me to the policy page that requires us to report scientific positions roughly as they are represented in the literature? I've been away far too long, and I am not up to date on the changes made to NPOV since I was active. Back in 2001-2002, the idea was that Wikipedia would not take any stand when there were opposing views - on anything. How has that policy changed? --Uncle Ed10:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
See WP:UNDUE in WP:NPOV. I don't think it has changed, I just think you misunderstood it. Treating all positions as equivalent was never viable or desireable, as that would make Wikipedia useless, of course. --Stephan Schulz10:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The "undue weight" clause of NPOV is critical. Without it, tiny-minority views could being given equal weight as more broadly accepted ones. The result would be a gross distortion of the science that gives the reader a patently false impression of the issue, much like this article. Raymond Arritt14:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the last time I read that article it gave the reader the impression that it was written by a mob of uninformed but opinionated weasels who can neither properly read, write, nor think that basic consistency is a virtue. As far as I can tell, that is not particularly misleading. --Stephan Schulz14:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Always try to remember: 1,500 years ago, a majority of scientists believed that the earth was the center of the universe. They dismissed the opposition as stupid. They claimed that all the evidence pointed to their theory. They couldn't imagine how it could be any other way. The same is true for many of today's teachings, often including global warming and the big bang. The Person Who Is Strange 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying that global warming and the Big Bang are slow to be accepted by the majority, and have been ridiculed and dismissed as stupid, but with the example of Galileo in mind we can hope that they'll both be seen as correct? I guess you're right. Both do seem to have moved from early fringe theories (Arrhenius for warming; Lemaître for the BB) through a period where the evidence became much more solid (modern temperature trend measurements; inflationary theory) and finally have both become widely accepted, just like Galileo's theory. Of course, there are still the detractors of both, but then, there are still people who think the earth is flat. bikeable(talk)15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Minor point -- 1,500 years ago there were essentially no scientists, only theological (religious) scholars and a very small number of people who tried to keep classical Greek knowledge alive. It wasn't until the first scientists came along (with the renaissance) that we realised that the church views (the Earth being the centre of the Universe, creationism, etc) were wrong. Rnt2008:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The greek philosopher 'Homer', self proclaimed 'father of science' was the individual that determined the earth to be the center of the universe and that 'All the heavens moved in perfect circles around it'. He was not a member of the church, he was not even Christian. He was slain for his theories and this was a long time before the Christians began slaying those who disagreed with his theories. User:Dashhammer08:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how you can fit so many errors into one sentence. My starting hypothesis would be that you mix up Homer with Plato (who was forced to commit suicide) and Aristoteles (whose natural philosophy had strong influence throughout the middle ages). --Stephan Schulz15:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
When we take the perspective that we are advanced and understand science and mathematics better than the people who invented them from scratch, I'm inclined to think things haven't changed much.
While granting that religion has always seen it as its job to keep knowledge from the masses and make it into an initiated wisdom which one must be certified to practice or use its interesting to look at how we illiterate peasants and peons managed to make it through the day.
Peasants created almanacs to predict the weather and measure time so they could know when the innundation would come to water their fields, and when to sow and when to reap. Ignorant traders developed the periplus to enable navigation across seas without chronometers and compasses. Simple working men developed methods of constructing buildings whose proportions are based on fingers, palms, hands and feet, whose complexities of engineering architects and scientists took 5 or 6 millenia to fully understand.
Its ironic, that in order to gather data with which to measure, weigh, and judge their findings; modern scientists have recourse to the same tools first used not 1500, but rather four times that many years ago, in a period many scientists consider primative. In that time science and mathematics thrived because people hadn't been taught yet that it wasn't their place to study them without the proper training.
I have a friend, a science fiction writer, who pointed out to me that long before Galileo, one of the simplest tools you can imagine, the standard carpenters plumb bob, was used with the mehkhert and bey as penduluum to discover things about the earth such as its size, gravity and mass, and about the coordinates of time and space as well. The framing square, the carpenters level, and even the simple ruler and compass would be as identifiable in an Egyptian carpenters tool box as they would be in a Romans.
Perhaps we are looking at global warming and climate change in the same way the Greeks and Romans observed the motions of Mars and Venus creating epicycles and complexities on complexities without realising there is a simpler answer Rktect11:12, 31 July 2007 (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.
There is no clear consensus on global warming and this article should reflect that.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Notice of intent to move to May 2007 archive. Last post appears to be July 31.
Many eminent scientists have disagreed with the "consensus" about global warming. For example, read this article in the Wall Street Journal by Richard Lindzen (Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, one of the world's most prestigious scientific universities) in which he most strongly disagrees with the scientific underpinnings of the so-called global warming.
Other dissenters with the scientific underpinnings of the global warming theories include:
John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, in Huntsville. Alabama State Climatologist. NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and American Meteorological Society Special Award. Fellow in the American Meteorological Society.
Henk Tennekes, former research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society.
Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization.
Dick Morgan, Researcher in Climatology, University of Exeter, United Kingdom and former Advisor to the World Meteorological Organization.
Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia. Past President of the American Association of State Climatologists and former program Chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology for the American Meteorological Society. Contributing Author and Reviewer of U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes, University of Colorado. Contributing Author to the IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report.
Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama Huntsville. Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. Recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, American Meteorological Society's Special Award.
Robert Davis, Associate Professor of Climatology, University of Virginia. Member of EPA Global Change Research Strategy, and the NOAA Data Management Advisory Panel. Contributed to the 1995 Report of the IPCC. Past Chair of the American Metrological Society’s Committee on Biometeorology and Aermeteorology.
Robert Balling, Jr. Professor, Department of Geography and former Director of the Office of Climatology, Arizona State University. Climate Consultant to the United Nations Environment Program, The World Climate Program, World Metrological Organization, UNESCO, and the IPCC.
William M. Grey, Colorado State University Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State Universities’ Department of Atmospheric Sciences.
Boris Winterhalter, Professor of Marine Geology, University of Helsinki, and former Marine Researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland.
Igor Polyakov, Professor at the Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska.
I think that we cannot ignore the opinions of so many highly qualified scientists such as those above. This article definitely needs a new section about the lack of consensus and that section should include the above information. Otherwise, the article clearly does not have a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) as called for by Wikipedia policy. - mbeychok20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If there is a consensus then, where are the signatures of Scientists who are both:
A) Formally educated in meteorology or a field related to meteorology.
B) Actually did research on Climate Change in the past, or in the present.
I call your bluff, lay down the cards.
Giving a short list of scientists who are skeptics to try to disprove the non-existant list non-skeptics is not the way to go. Demand they publish their signatures of actual qualified professionals. This entire thing is silly. Where is the shame?
Please see Project Steve for comparison and then just consider that you may just be talking about a tiny incoherent minority to anyone who is reasonable numerate. The NPOV discussion has been discussed at length. I suggest you start by reviewing. --BozMotalk20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
BozMo: With all due respect, when you use language like ... incoherent minority to anyone who is reasonable numerate.', you provide an excellent example of a biased, non-NPOV statement. There is nothing incoherent about Lindzen's article. At least the next two responses (just below) to my comment use moderate, reasonable laguage with out telling me that I am not being reasonably numerate. - mbeychok22:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspect you misunderstand BozMo. Lindzen may be coherent (at least he is reasonably consistent). But the so-called sceptics as a group are not - they vary from "there is no warming" (now getting rare, but rather frequent only 5 years ago) via "it's the sun", "it's cosmic rays", "it's cosmic rays modulated by the sun", "it's clouds induced by cosmic rays modulated by the sun", "it's unstoppable cycles" to "maybe it's human, but there is nothing we can do about it" and "it's good and we should do nothing about it". --Stephan Schulz23:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone considered that the reason there is such "incoherence" among so many qualified skeptics is that there really are a number of possibilities that need further research before the science is "settled"? For an interesting series of profiles of these skeptics, visit Here. I think it's pretty clear that when you get beyond the loud and consistent repetition of "consensus" and "settled science" on the part of greenhouse theory advocates. 71.217.77.4100:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
See scientific opinion on climate change for an overview of who supports the consensus and how few disagree. Lindzen is one of the very few competent scientists to question significant parts of the consensus. His article is a year old, as is the source of your list (which, moreover, is a political, not a scientifc one). Christy is at best a lukewarm sceptic. There is nothing in your contribution that has not already been discussed to death and back again. This article is the result, and is a reasonably fair representation of the state of science. We discuss the controversy in global warming controversy.--Stephan Schulz21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
An interesting quote from Rupert Murdoch might be considered notable, even if he is simply a media mogul;
"I think when people see that 99 percent of scientists agree about the serious extent of global warming, it's going to become a fact of life." [34] --Skyemoor13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Too bad he chose to accept it through a fallacy rather than examining the evidence. ~ UBeR18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, what did Frauenfeld in particular say? I notice that he actually contributed to the IPCC's 4th report, whyich was quite a significant work; "Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes, University of Colorado. Contributing Author to the IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report." --Sm890019:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that he is lumped in because he wrote Chapter 7 'Predictive Skill of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Related Atmospheric Teleconnections' in Michaels' book 'Shattered consensus'. --Kim D. Petersen00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read my comment in "POV in Intro." And there is no way you can dismiss all of the people in the list besides Lindzen as incompetent. Furthermore, if you admit that Lindzen's article is coherent and scientific, why can't it be used in this "neutral" article? Because right now, this article is showing one singular point of view, without even a "criticism" or "dissent" section. Believe it or not, there is a chance that your precious scientific climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge could be wrong. The Person Who Is Strange 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the scientific theory of global warming. Opinions of indivudual scientists, politicians etc. expressed on their personal blogs, the Wall Street Journal etc. etc. are irrelevant. As far as scientific wikipedia articles are concerned the only reliable sources are those peer reviewed journals that have a large impact factor in the relevant field. Count Iblis15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge and their personal opinions. Apparently you're allowed to use those. The Person Who Is Strange 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
We are using neither Al Gore nor Melissa Etheridge as sources. Suprising as it may be, even non-experts can be right, if by accident. The fact that even many non-experts agree with the the basic tenets of anthropogenic global warming does in no way detract from the broad support it enjoys among qualified experts. --Stephan Schulz16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This article in the Wall Street Journal is not a scientific one. Obviously you never even glimpsed into a scientific journal. --194.97.123.5420:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The view of the vast majority of scientists is discussed in great detail on the scientific opinion on climate change page, with lots of references to the surveys and polls used. There is really no debate about what almost all scientists think -- the only real debates are:
whether or not the majority of scientists could have got it all wrong;
what the politicians should do about it; and
how much the petroleum-industry lobby will manage to sway public opinion against the scientific consensus by regularly putting their own "scientists" onto every major network[35].Rnt2011:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It is important to note that the non-NPOV article does cite a geologic organization as one of the "incoherent" dissenters. Simply put there are far to many imputs that could be responsible for the warming of the Earth, including increased solar radiation, natural heating/cooling, human influence to a degree, and a relavant study http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6926597.stm. Anyone claiming to have the single answer is wrong. The article should include the massive amount of skepticism surrounding a singular human cause of warming.
I agree. I love Wikipedia, but this is the first time I've read an article and thought it was biased. There should at least be a warning for "weasel words". Or a disclamer saying "the nuetrality of this article has been debated". Thanks, -Tim
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.
Extent to Which Humans are Involved
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Notice of intent to move to May 2007 archive. Last post appears to be August 2.
I know I am opening myself up for major attack here, but there is a video (Watch at Google Video) from the BBC that disputes that claim made in the sentence under "Cause" that reads: detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[8] identifies increased levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence.
No dispute on Global Warming, just disputing the extent to which humans are involved. The video is an hour long, but well worth watching for anyone who feels they should be commenting on this topic solely based on what they had seen in An Inconvenient Truth.
Anybody want to respond?? My question is: in this "neutral" article, how come only one side's ideas are displayed when reputable scientists in films such as this have a different idea? Is it because your precious majority? Please read my comments in "POV in Intro" as dismissal to that. The Person Who Is Strange 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You cannot mention the "Great Global Warming Swindle" on this page as evidence against global warming as this film has been so ridiculed by the media -- it would be like using Hitler's comments that all cities should have efficient public transport as an endorsement on the public transport page. The film "Great Global Warming Swindle" is currently undergoing an independent investigation as to whether the producers of it "distorted or misrepresented their known views" (i.e. included blatant lies). One scientist interviewed for "Great Global Warming Swindle" as a "Global warming skeptic" said he was completely misrepresented (in the film) and called the film "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War II.". Rnt2008:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
TGGWS is probably the most prominent AGW-critical movie out there. It is obviously notable, and since its subject is the same as this article, it most certainly should be noted here. Zoomwsu23:37, 2 August 2007 (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.
Global warming theory
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Notice of intent to move to May 2007 archive. Last post appears to be July 31.
I was reading this article and came across a few things I thought should be brought to attention.
First off, global warming is a theory, and I believe that should be put in the opening statements.
"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."
"Global warming is the *'Theory of the'* increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."
I say it is a theory because it is not universally accepted and still disputed, much like Evolution.
Further more, I was disappointed not to see any of the negative global warming content posted.
I agree with you. And this is very unfortunate. Now I am not a conservative but I like to see the truth displayed even if at times it helps my opposition. The graphs tell the story: there is no conclusive evidenced that humans are causing global warming. Now maybe we are. But it is inconclusive. Sure we should reduce admission because of the health issue. But a lie is a lie. I think a more honest approach we be to say 'we are not sure' but lets cut down the gases just to be on the safe side. FatherTree16:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read the entire article. Also, if you think evolution is seriously under scientific dispute, perhaps it would help to do some more general reading on science and the scientific method. Raymond Arritt16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What is actually in dispute is the extent to which the climate is sensitive to the accumulation of human greenhouse gas emissions vis'a'vis other climate forcing factors and internal climate variation. Assuming it is more sensitive results in higher projected future warming and more implications for our future. There is a hypothesis or theory here, but I don't think the proposed text captures it. I'm not too concerned about what it is called. --Africangenesis17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus here that it is a theory and I am going to be bold and add that into the text. The Person Who Is Strange 15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
To you as well. Could you explain to me why your opinion is more valid than mine? Because you follow what everyone else says? And also, who's that idiot who deleted my contributions to the page without even mentioning it in the talk page? So now global warming followers have more rights than I do? The Person Who Is Strange 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
"Could you explain to me why your opinion is more valid than mine? " - Because he knows what he's talking about and isn't damaging the article each time he edits it. Raul65415:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You should read the New Scientist editorials on Global Warming. They point out that fewer articles against global warming get accepted into peer-reviewed journals than articles written against almost any other scientific idea (or "theory" as you like to put it). This is despite enormous funding for so-called "climate" institutes from (in particular) Exxon[36] (the principle purpose of these "climate" institutes is to sow confusion about global warming, rather than do real science). As peer-reviewed journals are only willing to publish the facts, these "climate" institutes have been forced to publish their results in the popular media instead (typically giving television interviews as "scientists"), which has given the general public the impression that there is uncertainty about the causes of climate change. Phil Cooney of Exxon has been accused of spending millions of dollars employing people to spread mis-information about climate change on websites -- including Wikipedia (lets see if this text gets removed by someone paid by Exxon!). Check-out a copy of New Scientist magazine for further details -- this is an independent magazine which tries hard to represent the majority opinion of scientists without bowing to the bribes of the oil industry -- see e.g. http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11074 for an example article. Rnt2008:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC) (PS I don't work for New Scientist, or Exxon, or any other related organization, before you ask).
The journal Science also agrees with this -- it says [37]:
Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
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.
![[30]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Consensus_new_and_old.svg){kind=link}