Talk:Climate change/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Trees CAUSE warming -- trees must be cut down in northern climates

Now shown that trees growing in northern, snowy regions INCREASES global temperature. Any honest global warming fans should now be calling for all trees in the north to be cut down. junkscience.com for the story.

And then there's this... http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

Junkscience.com is a biased source with an anti-AGW agenda. And what exactly about that second source were you referring to? The whole "The Little Ice Age proves that greenhouses gases are not to blame" idea, the "Carbon dioxide is such a small percentage of the atmosphere that it couldn't possibly make any difference" argument, or the "Climatology = Weather forecasting" fallacy? johnpseudo 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not so much a fallacy as a lack of judgment. But, uh, where was junkscience.com mentioned? I reckon some bona fide persons have examined trees' potential to warm the planet,[1] but I don't think anyone's really suggesting we cut down all the tress. ~ UBeR 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, this article covered a climate model from a Californian team (if I remember correctly) that did suggest that cutting all the trees would help fight global warming. The article did not suggest, although, what to think about climate modeling... --Childhood's End 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source at all. Supplement your arguement for a better case. wkilis

The study was based on a computer modeling heat reflection effects. Even if the data was isomorphic to a real world scenario, it still would not take into consederation other, more devestating environmental effects. So no, "any honest global warming fan" would be a complete moron to say "hey, lets cut down all the trees!" It'd be a bit like saying "we should just extinguish the sun: problem solved!". Brentt 03:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, wouldn't want to trust computer modeling. (SEWilco 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

"Small warming effect"

There still doesn't seem to be any justification for the words "small warming effect" when referring to combined solar and volcanic forcings since several centuries ago until 1950. The "small cooling effect since 1950" is justified by AR4 Chp9, which states, "Recent estimates (Figure 9.9) indicate a relatively small combined effect of natural forcings on the global mean temperature evolution of the second half of the 20th century, with a small net cooling from the combined effects of solar and volcanic forcings." The SPM states that for prior to 1950, "A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere interdecadal temperature variability [of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950] is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance." No mention of "small warming effect." William appears to suggest the "small warming effect" can be found in the forcings table, but the forcings table isn't discussing the forcings for "the seven centuries prior to 1950" like we are. The "small" should be deleted, so the sentence reads "Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950." This is a fully justified and reasoanble. ~ UBeR 19:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Pre-industrial means 1860 (or 1750-ish), not 7 centuries. Whats you cite for "warming" at all, then? William M. Connolley 20:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Pre-industrial spans before the Industrial Revolution, I reckon. If you mean from 1750 until 1950, perhaps it's better to write from the Industrial Revolution until 1950. The warming, of course, is the warming since then until 1950 (Esper et al.). ~ UBeR 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Uber we discussed these sentences a while back. I though we had agreed to cut them out completely? Paul Matthews 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would we do that? In the meantime, I've restored the accurate small. I don't quite see how you can object to the unref'd small whilst retaining the rest of the sentence with no refs William M. Connolley 18:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Matthews, the previous discussion was based around the SPM, which you did not think supported the sentence, "Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950." The first half the sentence was indeed fully supported by the SPM, the latter half was based on William's interpretation of a graph in the SPM. Currently, however, we have referenced chapter 9 from the WGI contribution to the AR4. In it, they do clearly state the combined forcings have probably had a small cooling effect since the 1950, just as we have here. The chapter makes no mention of the "small warming effect" prior to 1950, bur rather say the variability is largely attributable to the combined forcings. We know that the net effect was a warming up to 1950, hence the sentence "Based on modeling results, natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950." ~ UBeR 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm curious how the "small warming" bit got added, because the original made no such mention. I'm sure it was William, and yet he still continues to add it despite the fact he knows he has no justification for it. ~ UBeR 18:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. But I am still not convinced that a comment from page 690 of the AR4 WGI belongs in the lead of the article. And I'm even less convinced that it needs to be repeated again in the solar variation section. Paul Matthews

Small is based on the SPM table showing forcings from 1750. As for PM: it makes sense to mention the effects of natural forcings - it would be odd not to. Since we have a ref for their relative magnitude, why not use that? William M. Connolley 19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And I've already explained to you the forcings table isn't describing what we are. It's describing solar irradiance forcing of 2005 relative to 1750, while we're discussing temperature from pre-industrial (seven centuries prior to 1950 according to the IPCC) through 1950 as a result of volcanism and solar forcing. ~ UBeR 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Forcings" are not "effects". Whether the climate warming was small or not, it is "significant" in the climate record and was noticed even before the modern instrument record. Unfortunately it is hard to come up with any attribution other than mere statistical correlation analysis, that isn't contaminated by the models. It is much easier to come up with information about how bad the models are. Even qualitative insights from the models, serve mainly to show how seemingly minor contributions cannot be ignored, or their effects predicted. The attribution and projection has no clothes.--Africangenesis 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm unable to detect a consensus one way or another on this question. Where are we on this? Arjuna 02:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't necessarily need to be a consensus for what's right--we just stick with what's right. ~ UBeR 02:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WIlliam Connelly and reverted it. Aaron Bowen 02:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with what? Can you be more specific? You agree the AR4 mentions a "small cooling effect" since 1950, I assume? You agree the SPM shows radiative forcing for 2005 for solar irradiance relative to 1750, I assume? Maybe you could provide some helpful insight. ~ UBeR 02:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Uber, rather than being so quick to assert that you are "right" -- though perhaps you are -- I suggest that those opposing the change have another opportunity to challenge the addition. I have no dog in this one, just trying to stop the reverts. Arjuna 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I respect that, and I'm curious as to what other people have to say. It's been almost four days now though, and Will has already stated he knows the "small" has no ref. But I'll wait and see. ~ UBeR 03:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. Arjuna 03:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, I agree the citation needed work there. I have added a citation which perhaps butresses the sentence and does describe the impact as small. --TeaDrinker 04:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, TeaDrinker. Thanks for the ref. I haven't read the whole paper yet, but it seems to be discussing solar impact from 800 to 2000. Here we're talking about pre-industrial (i.e. 700 years prior to 1950, according to the IPCC) until 1950. This paper does espouse much of the same previous stuff though, i.e., solar not responsible for much of later half of 20th century. So I'm wondering which specific spot in the paper is describing what we are here. ~ UBeR 04:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(moving left) I will admit that I am something of an amature in climate, so don't take my word for the definitive read of the paper. One quote which seems to illustrate the point which appears to butress the sentence is "Without anthropogenic forcing, the 20th century warming is small. The simulations with only natural forcing components included yield an an early 20th century peak warming of \approx 0.2\deg C (\approx 1950 AD), which is reduced to about half by the end of the century because of increased volcanism." From the last full paragraph on pp3717. --TeaDrinker 04:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a good cite for "smaller". I've adding supporting quotes to the cite, not just for "smaller", but also for "medium" solar forcing, which is larger than the reconstructed solar forcing based upon the Foukal model. Foukal, et al, only explains about 80% of the solar variability over last 30 years, a relatively unchanging period of solar activity. I also not that the model does not include interactive ozone, so probably does not represent the higher UV solar variability, which is poorly understood anyway. I may use the support for medium solar variability later.--Africangenesis 09:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm we already know 20th century warming is "small" when you take out GHGs emitted by human activity. We know natural forcings are responsible for a significant amount of the fluctuations in climate since (at least) about the onset of the LIA until 1950. We also know it warmed between those two points. Even if you don't want to take the IPCC definition of 700 yrs and instead use 1750 or 1850, there still was a net warming till 1950. Whether you want to call this warming small or not is rather subjective. ~ UBeR 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Does no one disagree? ~ UBeR 08:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? ~ UBeR 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Global warming's boring picture

Hey Dude! I think the Deutsch Globale Erwärmung article is better than the english Global warming.. The pictures are really boring. See this http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellemetlen_igazs%C3%A1g (An inconvenient Truth)-Al Gore page's pictures. Boots, ships is the desert, Roger Revelle is an important person too, and so on.. --Tamás Kádár 09:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Very true, the pictures in the deutsch version are much much better. Wkilis 06:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore is not a scientist. He created his movie to fulfill his own political adgenda. His house uses up more power in one month than the average american household does in one year, I believe. Due to his lack of credibility and the politics behind and in his "documentary", I do not beleive we can cite the film as a reliable source.

Top U.S. climate scientist says alarmism is appropriate

James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies and the top U.S. climate scientist, has issued a new warning about the threat of a catastrophic rise in sea levels. He warns further that many scientists aware of such a rise are reluctant to discuss it out of fears of appearing "alarmist."

Hansen, J.E. (2007) "Scientific reticence and sea level rise" Environmental Research Letters 2(2): 024002.

I suggest that a 'scientific reticence' is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control....

75.35.115.68 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But, get this! His immediate superior, NASA administrator Michael Griffin says, "To assume that it is a problem is to assume ... that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take." Some reactions: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and my favorite, "White House Blames NASA Chief’s Global Warming Denial On His ‘Wry Sense Of Humor’". :D 75.35.115.68 22:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

minor, (minor) query about grammar

This featured article is well presented (very well presented, what I could get before my browser went to sleep) — G- W- is, muddles use/mention; could be something like "G- W- is used to refer to an (observed)<ref1>> increase in..." Of course, there is no hard and fast rule about minor grammar matters, so any improvement could be marginal either way. The style in the para below, Terminology is correct as to use/mention, though expressed a bit pedantically. Any comments? About the grammar; (no editing by this user is intended presently, till I can read at least the whole article, and some refs). — Newbyguesses 02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Would one say that "Global Warming" is 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) during the past century. Or would one say

"The amount of Global Warming" is 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) during the past century. So the first sentence could read —

Global warming is a term used referring to the increase...Newbyguesses - Talk 15:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ag fiddling

Unfortunately I'm out of reverts, but Ag has broken the page with this edit: [7]. The original wording was correct. Based on scenerios bracketing uncertainies is wrong - they are certainly intended to do this, but since the uncertainties are uncertain, this cannot be stated for sure. And secondly he has removed Including uncertainties in the models and for no apparent reason. This seems to be pointless fiddling on Ag's part without understanding William M. Connolley 08:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I drew the same conclusion, and was actually considering reverting it, but I wasn't confident enough. I've now reverted. --Ashenai 08:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you get your confidence vicariously. Are you confident enough to find the supporting source yourself?--Africangenesis 08:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, not really. I'm no expert on global warming. I do recognize and respect Dr. Connolley as a WP:EXPERT on the subject, however, and when in doubt, I'll usually defer to his expertise. --Ashenai 09:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are a volunteer sock puppet then. Let me encourage you to read the source and make a determination yourself which phrase correctly charcterizes the basis of the range. I believe you can do it if you try. Of course, it may be that neither of us have characterized it correctly.--Africangenesis 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do try to be civil, I have extremely delicate sensibilities and may start weeping bitterly at any moment. 3RR has a nasty flaw in that in a one-on-one edit war situation, it biases towards change. This is not normally a problem, but in the case of featured articles with long and complex histories, WP:BOLD suggests establishing consensus before making changes. Thus, for articles like Global warming or Human, I like to discourage edit warring by counter-biasing towards the original version. If you wish to make a change, please discuss it on the talk page first. I will certainly not stand in the way of consensus. --Ashenai 09:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't close to using that advantage, and I never have. I don't trust people to count them correctly. He wasted his reverts elsewhere. If a science article is to maintain its credibility it has to be committed more to the evidence than to consensus. I corrected a phrase that was at first without any cite and then was unsupported by the provided cite. I correctly characterized the source, although more detail could be even more correct. It is a judgement call what kind of correction needs to go to the community, I've made several changes in the past that were not reverted, so where was the need in those to get consensus first. These things are best left to those that follow and understand what is going on. However, let me encourage you to participate, climatology is a multidisciplinary field, and thus the peer reviewed papers are often well written with non-specialists in mind. It is an enjoyable field.--Africangenesis 09:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You did well Ashenai. AG: "corrected" is a little generous to yourself. Trying to make a distinction between different model ranges and error ranges for unincluded model error is also not really a basis for "unsupported": you have to make an OR claim for consistent ommision or consistent bias in order to contest the assumption that the range of ranges output from each model gives a reason view. The OR claim could be right of course but its still OR. --BozMo talk 10:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I do have a problem with people making reverts "because they trust someone else" without being able to support them themselves on the talk page. An apetite for "counter-biaising" in favor of the original version is no reason to spoil the legitimate efforts of another editor. --Childhood's End 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you provide a source showing that the range includes uncertainties in the models, I will revert it myself. The range presented is from the low end of the B1 scenerio to the high end of the A1F1 scenerio. The reason there are several scenerios, is there are uncertainties in the future levels of greenhouse gasses. There is no evidence that they have expanded the range for model uncertainties, such as those documented in the diagnostic subprojects. --Africangenesis 08:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"For no apparent reason"? I put the "citation needed" in there twice, you provided a source that didn't support the phrase, which is exactly what I expected. You shouldn't be surprised.--Africangenesis 08:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop being silly, read the SPM, table 3 will do you. [PA removed] William M. Connolley 09:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Table 3 supports my statement not yours, there is nothing there documenting or even mentioning that they are including uncertainties in the models. The ranges within the scenerios are from the different models with different senstitivies [PA removed] --Africangenesis 09:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Table 3 says These estimates are assessed from a hierarchy of models that encompass a simple climate model, several Earth Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs), and a large number of Atmosphere-Ocean Global Circulaion Models (AOGCMs) - these *are* uncertainties in the models. Unless you have some private definition designed to exclude these William M. Connolley 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, those are not uncertainties in the models, those are different models. No attempt is made to assess or report the uncertainties in the models in these ranges. Is what you are attempting OR? The term seems to have a rather broad definition. You still need a cite, you are hoping that I will make some kind of leap from different models to model uncertainties, and it isn't there to be made.--Africangenesis 09:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are dancing on pinheads here. If you'd like to rephrase it as "modelling uncertainty" that would be fine William M. Connolley 10:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Asheni, your deference to WMC as an 'expert' on global warming is misplaced. I believe he has published on Antarctica, if you'd like to discuss the climate there, feel free to cite him as an expert. Blogging doesn't make someone an expert.67.141.235.203 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WMC is a mathematician from what I've found, not a climate scientist. ^rossnixon 02:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(a) This isn't an appropriate line of discussion. (b) You're wrong. Raymond Arritt 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your admonition would be better directed at Ashenai if WMC's expertise is inappropriate, I agree that each of his actions should be evaluated on its merits, after all, he has been wrong a few times. That said, climate science is a multidisciplinary field, that physicists, geologists, mathmaticians, astronomers, chemists, meteorologies, computer scientists, accountants, statisticians, climate scientists, etc. all have made valuable contributions to. I don't think of someone with a numerical analysis degree as any less qualified or less a climate scientist than the other disciplines.--Africangenesis 21:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the whole SPM, at no time is uncertainty used with respect to the models. Perhaps the IPCC uses so many models because despite the disagreement among the models, none can be ruled out by observations. If they hope they serve as a surrogate for the uncertainty in the knowledge of the climate, they don't discuss that here. Perhaps there is more guidance in the TAR or in the full AR4 WG1 report. I can perhaps see what you are getting at, if you view the disagreement amongst the models as representing model uncertainty, even though there is no explicit attempt to represent model uncertainty for the individual models. However, we need language that doesn't misrepresent the extent to which model uncertainty is included in this range derived multiple models running multiple scenerios. It is strange that you characterize this as "dancing on pinheads", when you would not acknowledge the direct implications of model biases for model projection credibility.--Africangenesis 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The comparison of the results from various models is of common usage in physics to estimate the uncertainty on the modeling. The use of multimodel ensemble is of common usage in climatology to esitmate our uncertainty on climate models. Anybody in the concerned fields knows that for an obvious fact ... As you apparently are working with simulation and modeling, I really don't get your point here!? --Galahaad 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you know something about modeling. Please see this section above [8], which documents correlated error in ALL the models, which you probably realize is not an uncertainty characterizable by the multi-model ensembles. Also, in the particular case of source supporting this text, there is no mention by the authors that they are intending their range to address model uncertainties, rather than uncertainties in the knowledge of climate senstivity. Enjoy.--Africangenesis 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so have you found a source for your idea that the IPCC's model deficiencies significantly affect their conclusions? johnpseudo 22:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider the two sources discussed in my proposal here [9]. The surface albedo bias is three to four times larger than global warming itself, and the arctic ice cap researchers, think the cap may disappear three decades earlier. In a nonlinear dynamics system the former is larger than the energy imbalance itself, and the latter is certainly larger than a butterfly flapping its wings in China. The burden of proof is on the modelers. There are those in the scientific community that think that climate prediction is just not possible by the very nature of the problem. I have an open mind about it. Even given the projections under discussion, a 1960s geography text is likely to only be off by a hundred miles or so in its climate maps, except perhaps in the Arctic. That seems pretty predictable to me. However, with the types of biases against solar forcing documented, there is no reason to accept on faith that the models have GHG scenerio projections right. Since all these models are "validated" against recent climate observations, which evidently is not very much of a constraint given the differences between the models and against the observations, they must have compensating errors elsewhere that balance the anti-solar biases. That is likely to be in their GHG sensitivies or feedbacks. Given that the models are similuating a warming trend constrained by snow and ice albedo negative feedback, that warming trend is eventually going to be freed of that constraint.--Africangenesis 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. I understand that some deficiencies in the model have been found. Do you have a reputable source that even suggests the link between the model deficiencies and the final conclusion? Otherwise, the IPCC's claim that model uncertainties are taken into account is undisputed. Show me where someone is saying "the IPCC is not taking model uncertainties into account". johnpseudo 22:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, look at the WG1 projections chapter, the Roesch paper is not cited in the references, even though it was submitted and brought to their attention.--Africangenesis 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You want to use the absence of something as a source? johnpseudo 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You want to reverse the usual wikipedia standard, of requiring a citation for text that has been disputed. The cites I've already provided address the AR4 models, you aren't going to get much more specific to the IPCC than that. You might also want to look Lucarini and Camp results discussed on this page and in the May archive. There was an ethical breach by some of the WG1 authors in going ahead with the projections despite knowledge of the Roesch results and rather "convenient"ly avoiding referencing them. The freedom to not address contrary evidence brought to their attention shows that the IPCC reports are not peer reviewed.--Africangenesis 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not reversing any standards here. You want to introduce the idea that there were uncertainties that the IPCC didn't take into account, and the best you can do for a source is a primary document that has no mention of the synthesis-level conclusions that we are talking about here. Who's to say that the IPCC didn't take Roesch's results under consideration and decide they were negligible? You're effectively questioning the entire validity of the IPCC's conclusions. Strong claims needs strong sources, not vague passages out of semi-relevant primary documents. johnpseudo 01:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the cite supporting "uncertainties"? If you understood nonlinear dynamics you would know there is no way to legitimately dismiss as negligible, errors of the size that Roesch has found. Perhaps other peer review research could be produced that would show his analysis was wrong, but that has not happened. You have reversed the standards here at wikipedia. Perhaps some intellectually honest person will step up in support of the compromise I have reached with Galahaad below.--Africangenesis 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point- where is the cite for claiming that the IPCC took model uncertainties into consideration? I just assumed from the way others were discussing it that the IPCC made that claim somewhere. johnpseudo 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. You have established a pattern of assuming that anyone who disagrees with you does so out of dishonesty -- or if you prefer, "intellectual dishonesty." It would be in everyone's interest if you cease such accusations. Raymond Arritt 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Prove me wrong by supporting the compromise, or providing a cite for the "uncertainties" phrase. You don't think reversing the standards, reverting out of ignorance in support of an "expert", refusing to acknowleding legitimate, cite supported points is uncivil?--Africangenesis 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Last version proposed by Africangenesis, 'including some uncertainties' seems an acceptable compromise to me. --Galahaad 23:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanx, it was offered in good faith. I accept the understanding expressed here by those knowledgable on the subject, that some model uncertainty is intended to be represented by the use of different models, even though a cite has not been provided the explicitly states that. I don't see how modelers could credibly adjust their error ranges for correlated error such as that I have cited, that is why I think we must retain the weasal word "some". The modelers certainly don't claim the ability to make such adjustments.--Africangenesis 23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The denotative difference between some combination of "Including uncertainties in climate modelling" and "Including some uncertainties in climate model sensitivities" is fairly minor and at this point the debate seems largely semantic. Ag's compromise proposal (the latter of the two examples, as I understand it) seems reasonable enough to me. Arjuna 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this: the former text is vaguer and better; it isn't as if CS is a tunable number of specific function William M. Connolley 13:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

By being "vaguer", the uncertainties give the misimpression of being all inclusive. Yes, the modelers don't exactly know where their CS differences come from, but whereever they came from, the IPCC chose to use the all the models to represent the uncertainty they have about the CS of the actual climate. The purpose of using all the models is not to represent all the model errors. There has been no attempt to extend the ranges to include the additional uncertainty due to model errors.--Africangenesis 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Count Iblis's "1.1 °C to 6.4 °C is based on the uncertainties. If it is claimed that the IPCC did not include other uncertainties that would make the interval significantly larger,then that statement must be sourced" fails to recognize the distinctions which have already been established in this discussion. First of all, while the range is based on "uncertainties", is it not "model" uncertainties, the range is due to different GHG scenerios, and due to the IPCC wanting to include models with different sensitivities, because they are uncertain about the climate's sensitivity. If they were confident, that some models were just outside the range of possible climate sensitivity, presumably they wouldn't use those models. Count Iblis seems to have fallen into the same mistaken belief that Pseudo eventually realized and acknowledged, the "uncertainties" mentioned in the text does not have a supporting cite, and Count Iblis is reversing the usual burden of proof.--Africangenesis 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's assume that there are additonal sources of uncertainties that the IPCC did not include. Then including that fact without furher qualifications will change the meaning of that sentence that gives the range of the temperature changes to something different from what the original sentence in the IPCC report intends to say.

E.g. Suppose I write up a scientific paper about investigations of the value of some quantity X and I conclude that X is between 1 and 2, the uncertainty being based on a number of effects. Of course, I may not have included all effects you can imagine. Suppose that a wiki article appears about my research that says that "based on some uncertainties the value of X was found to be between 1 and 2 by Count Iblis". That sentence would then be completely misleading as it casts doubt on the estimated range of X by me.

I, of course, had my reasons for determining the uncertainty of X in the way I did. If there are major other effects that I ignored that would significantly affect the range of X, then that would invalidade the result of my paper. A wiki article that suggests that this is could be the case is OR, unless it can be shown from reliable sources that the effects I ignored do have a significant impact.

If the wiki article just wants to make clear that I did not include all effects, it must then go through the rationale for doing that. Count Iblis 14:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. There is no citation for the pre-existing "uncertainties" phrase, and there are documented problems with the models, that were not documented until after the research the range is based on was published, but before the IPCC reports were published. There is no way the range could take account of these uncertainties, there is no citation that the IPCC took into account any "model" uncertainties, and the IPCC does provide references, that you are free to consult if you doubt this. Of course, your edit summary shows that you were unaware of the issues that the edit and compromise you reverted was about.--Africangenesis 01:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation wars

You hacked away the citation formatting and again failed to check your work. Others seem to have more robust adaptations to this new format than you. If you break your changes into small parts and do diffs after your work you may spot some of the mistakes you make.--Africangenesis 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to anything that was deleted? Nothing was deleted. ~ UBeR 19:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that you found your error in the intro, you don't check your work, so how do you know nothing was deleted? Just because you didn't intend to?--Africangenesis 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually sir, that typo came when I was formatting the new link with a citation template.[10] Again, nothing was deleted. ~ UBeR 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so is this whole edit war over whether to split references into separate paragraphs from the text they're referring to? johnpseudo 20:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Folks, please stop edit warring over the citations. I'm happy to say that I don't care about the ref format, so I will be happy to block either or both of you if you can't settle down and talk nicely about what should be done, without being snide. Or is it sorted out now? William M. Connolley 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Uber says he has now left wiki, so I guess this war is over William M. Connolley 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Human flame out. He left us with a 4th revert, I guess not having the citations globbed together with text was the last straw for him.--Africangenesis 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Again please mind WP:CIV. Congratulations on driving away an editor who contributed to the project through meticulous copyediting, reference checking, and the like. Raymond Arritt 00:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound like he was the first person driven mad by this article. So many have been shown the door ruthlessly by the "establishment" here that I can't count anymore. I'm not saying that Uber wasn't good for this article... he certainly was. But he's just another fish in the sea of those driven nuts by both sides of this controversy. 67.49.13.166 07:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there have been times when I too have had to take a break to maintain what is left of my sanity. Raymond Arritt 16:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I had plenty of run-ins with UBeR but when I reflected afterwards, I often found I'd been forced to improve things. JQ 03:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You are fond of that accusation Raymond, what are you up to?--Africangenesis 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally hate the templates they add pointless code, clutter up the article, and add several KB to the article's size. Aaron Bowen 04:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Third paragraph proposal

Uncritical acceptance of IPCC findings is a serious problem with this article. The IPCC underestimated 2000-4 CO2 emissions by a substantial amount.[11] Why does the lead make a big deal out of surveying the few remaining dissenters instead of providing counterpoint to the IPCC in accordance with the magnitude and direction of their errors? If I was allowed to edit this article, I would certainly include the IPCC's error in explicit numerical terms in the second or third paragraph. James S. 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Emissions estimates wouldn't be expected to match reality over short periods, any more than temperature trends over short periods would. This article doesn't really deal with emissions much, so I don't see why this minor matter should go into the lead. Is this the only error you think the IPCC has made? William M. Connolley 08:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

They have made plenty. In terms of the effect on outcomes, is underestimating the CO2 trend the largest? 75.35.115.68 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a bit vaguer please? William M. Connolley 12:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Working proposal:

Climate models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) project that global surface temperatures may be likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The range of values reflects the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions and results of models with differences in climate sensitivity. The IPCC underestimated 2000-04 CO₂ emissions by a substantial amount, with their worst case scenario much better than observations. CO₂ emissions from cars, factories, and power plants grew at an annual rate of 1.1% during the 1990s, according to the Global Carbon Project, but from 2000 to 2004, CO₂ emissions rates almost tripled to 3% per year. 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. This reflects the large heat capacity of the oceans. An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including sea level rise, and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. There will also be increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Other effects will include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

James S. 11:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What does 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) over the next 93 years become if we correct for the IPCC error in predicting the correct trend? James S. 12:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since these are model based, you might also ask what do these become of the surface albedo biases, and the ice/albedo feedbacks are corrected. BTW, I notice you used more affirmative language, saying there will be increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. You perhaps forget some some extremes are cold, and perhaps those may decrease, and also that the higher lattitudes are expected to have greater temperature increases, which will reduce the temperature differential vis'a'vis lower lattitudes. Reduced temperature differentials is not necessarily a recipe for increased intensity. Any intensity increases found in model simulations may be an artifact of the energy deficit at high lattitudes caused by the positive albedo biases. See the Roesch and Stroeve references I cited above.--Africangenesis 12:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Same comments as before: if you're only looking at 2000-4 this is irrelevant. If you shift SRES up or down by the difference, it makes hardly any difference at all. Also, I'm not at all sure I believe your numbers: http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/printedmatter/Bulletin2005/ghg-bulletin-2-red.pdf or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/09/co2_airbourne_fraction.php (yes I know its my blog but you can check the numbers yourself). Atmos CO2 is going up at about 2 ppmv and has been for years William M. Connolley 12:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Starting off with some years of underestimation should not be that significant, the IPCC wasn't trying to predict booms and presumably there will also be some economic bust years. However, China and India are eastablishing a pattern of exceeding expectations that might persist. --Africangenesis 12:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How much is "hardly any difference at all" in terms of temperature at 2100? Do you believe that increasing fossil fuel utilization in China and India is correctly anticipated by trends drawn only from past observations and not national economic growth projections? James S. 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the main point is that I don't believe your numbers: actual atmos CO2 levels don't support them. And actual atmos CO2 is what goes into the models. Second, if you're talking about 2000-4, then it makes little difference. If you were to factor those numbers in - say you were to decide that trebling all SRES was sensible - then clearly that would make a difference William M. Connolley 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't those numbers from GCP rates of growth consistent with trends in the data you posted? James S. 14:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if you think that atmos CO2 going up by less than 1%/y is consistent William M. Connolley 14:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the first derivative, not the second. James S. 23:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Spotts shared this: "CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate increasing from 1.1%/y for 1990-1999 to >3%/y for 2000-2004. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s..." Raupach, M.R. et al. (2007) "Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

OK, thanks for that, now look at fig 1. 2000-2 are all *below* all the SRES. 3 is mid; 4-5 are on A1F1 (for CDIAC; EIA are higher). Within the context of "to 2100" this is invisible (fig 1a). Focussing on the growth rate is going to amplify wiggles. Otherwise, I re-iterate my previous William M. Connolley 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is mistaken. The amplification is to the magnitude which is, after decades, much larger than the periodic component. The change in growth rate was observed independent of its periodic components by using data since 1980 (page 5.) James S. 15:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Periodic comp? You mean the annual cycle. I'm not talking about that, but about the wiggles. Just look at fig 1 William M. Connolley 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They may very well be wiggles, but Fig. 5 suggests the overall rate is increasing. The trend time series analysis agrees. James S. 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If the rate is changed from 1.1 to 3 in the model, then what does 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) become? James S. 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody knows. You'd need to do the experiment. Raymond Arritt 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The carbon dioxide concentration has a very direct relationship to atmospheric energy input:

$\Delta F=5.35\times ln{C \over C_{0}}$

where C is the CO₂ concentration in parts per million by volume and C₀ is the reference concentration. ΔF is the change in watts per square meter. (Myhre, et al. 1998.) James S. 15:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think one of us is confused. The equation you gave is for the increment of radiative forcing due to CO2, not temperature (which is what you asked for). The implications of such a change in radiative forcing for the eventual change in temperature, including at least the first-order linear and nonlinear feedbacks, are far from obvious. Raymond Arritt 22:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about why, given the facts of ice melting faster than the IPCC predicted, ocean sink saturation occurring faster than the IPCC predicted, and trends contrary to IPCC findings -- not to mention their demonstrated capitulation to negotiators from the US and China -- so few people are in favor of presenting the views of us who believe that the IPCC is underestimating the problem, in favor of undue weight given to the few remaining skeptics. But, given the political sway and wealth of the government and corporate skeptics, they should not be allowed to bias this article to the opposite side of the IPCC position than what repeated peer-reviewed reports indicate.

As for the relationship to feedbacks, the largest is water vapor. Contrary to what many people who post on this page think, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Adjusting the rate of change just the small amount indicated will make a huge difference in the concentration in 93 years, and the change in atmospheric energy input alone, even if we ignore all feedbacks, will be quite large. So would the temperature change.

I am also confused about WMC's capitulation to those who would give weight to the skeptics at the expense of weight given to the so-called alarmists -- skeptics on the other side -- who believe the IPCC is underestimating the problem. Mr. Connolly has suggested that his opinion about changes in the rate of carbon emissions growth is not informed by the economic reality of the developing world. His comments suggest he prefers to predict future trends by past observations alone, turning a blind eye to expected hydrocarbon fuels supply and demand, perhaps because he considers himself a natural scientist and shuns economics. James S. 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

I agree with RA, and feel this straw poll should be ignored. However, to the extent that it may be (inappropriately) used to argue that a consensus has been reached (ironic, no?): No to A and B. Arjuna 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil.As much as I sympathise with the view of the poll designer, this really isn't the way to achieve it. For a start, the first question states a fairly contentious premise! Yes, the consensus nature of IPCC means that it excludes a lot of new and outlying research, but lets discuss this rather than pushing through changes. Mostlyharmless 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore straw poll. AS above, plus note that James is banned from this article for a good reason and should not be attempting to stuff text in by other means William M. Connolley 08:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason was that I had edited this article inappropriately. When I asked you and Thatcher131 which edit(s) were inappropriate, you refused to answer. Again, how have I been editing inappropriately? Such accusations, when not substantiated by facts, are personal attacks. --James S. → talk 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no more appropriate way to attempt to "stuff text" in the article than by convincing the community on the talk page. Unfortunately, there are deletionists around that don't participate on the talk page or attempt to understand the issues, and others who reach agreements on the talk page and then don't participate in implementing them. Proper editing requires a community committed to improving the page, whether they agree with the science or not. --Africangenesis 12:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The poll already has more "votes against the poll" than votes for either option. Time to archive the poll and continue with productive discussion instead. >Radiant< 10:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether you believe it is a good poll or bad, you closed after just over a day -- 26 hours -- and so I ask that someone else re-open it. --James S. → talk 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please point out any policy that straw polls must stay open for more than 26 hours, thank you. >Radiant< 11:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say there is one, but I suspect there would have been more legitimate opinions and discussion of the issues I am raising if the poll had been left open, as all the straw polls in the recent archives are. Is there any policy or guideline that would preclude me or anyone else from re-opening it? --James S. → talk 12:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, yes. Wikipedia is not a democracy, Polling is not a substitute for discussion, How consensus is formed and Voting is evil. The point is that this really isn't a good way of deciding things. It is a very good idea to get more legitimate opinions and discussion on this issue; it is not a very good idea to require that those opinions and discussions conform to the pigeonhole categories mentioned above - it creates a false "us vs. them" mentality. >Radiant< 12:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly none of those policies would prevent re-opening the poll. For WP:PNSD the poll does not preclude discussion and clearly, based on the second and subsequent answers, was encouraging it. If I re-open the poll, will you take any retributive action against me? In the mean time, I will try to create a structured discussion without polling which I hope you will support.--James S. → talk 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Worseness worse than expected

Melting glaciers, ice sheets and snow cover could speed the rate at which the planet heats up, causing rising sea levels, flooding and water shortages that impact as many as 40 percent of the world's population, a U.N. report said Monday.... "An estimated 40 per cent of the world's population could be affected by loss of snow and glaciers on the mountains of Asia," the report said. The rate at which the Greenland ice sheet is melting has doubled over the past two or three years, and glaciers are receding in most of the world.... Hunters in parts of Greenland have switched from traditional dogsleds to small boats because of changes in the ice.[12] --James S. → talk 09:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a UN report, so is bound to be completely misleading. You can completely ignore a trend of "two to three years" with regards to climate change. ^rossnixon 11:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well clearly what we need is the ice melting rate chart so people can see for themselves. --James S. → talk 11:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this snow and ice is already warming the climate, and that this warming is not represented in the models, yet the models match the warming, so are incorrectly attributing the warming to something else. See the Roesch and Stroeve references above.--Africangenesis 01:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

US rejects German G8 climate goal

Washington says it will not agree to climate change targets ahead of a G8 summit in Germany.... Rejecting proposals to slash emissions, top US climate official James Connaughton said the G8 should not dictate members' policies. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, hosting the summit, has set what is seen as an ambitious personal goal of persuading the leading industrialised countries to commit to cutting emissions by 50% by 2050. She also wants them to increase fuel efficiency by 20% and limit the world's temperature rise to 2°C.

James Connaughton ... made clear the US did not believe the G8 should be the forum for setting targets.

"There is significant agreement that those should be established on a national basis, and the only area of disagreement is that the G8 should dictate the national policies of its members," he said.[13]

How is reducing emissions by 50% in 2050 anywhere near a 2°C cap? I recommend asking the scientists and politicians in Venice, not Germany. --James S. → talk 13:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Worseness worse than expected: Yes. So THe article's name is a big mistake. We have to change the article's name to Global Climate Crisis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamás Kádár (talk • contribs).

Panic-mongering is not helpful and plays into the hands of the skeptics. This article should be based on proper science, not newspapers, Yahoo news or politicians like Angela 'Canute' Merkel. Paul Matthews 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The top U.S. climate scientist does not agree. See Hansen, J.E. (2007) "Scientific reticence and sea level rise" Environmental Research Letters 2(2): 024002. --James S. → talk 04:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case (so far) Hansen has a minority view - so should be conceded weight accordingly. --Kim D. Petersen 10:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that based on a survey of climatologists or your personal opinion? --James S. → talk 12:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, my opinion is based on a very large assessment report that has just been finished, which considered the current state of the science, by experts in the science. --Kim D. Petersen 13:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Did that assessment report include any statements on the appropriateness of alarmism or reticence? --James S. → talk 15:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Global Climate Crisis

In 2007 we cant speak about global warming, we can speak abou just Global Climate Crisis. We have to change the article's name to Global Climate Crisis.--Tamás Kádár 13:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we then go back and change the global cooling site title to global cooling crisis? --72.165.98.194 18:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we include the inaccuracies of the IPCC?

Since my straw poll which included this question was closed after only six responses and 26 hours, by an administrator who claims that several policies would prevent me from re-opening it, I am soliciting discussion of the most important of the questions here. --James S. → talk 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for

• WP:NPOV -- presenting IPCC findings as unbiased truth when empirical observation, time series analysis, and economic projections as reported in primary and secondary peer-reviewed sources all disagree with them is against one of the pillars of Wikipedia policy.
• the IPCC has substantially underestimated:
  • CO2 emissions (Raupach, M.R. et al. (2007) "Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences);
  • icepack and glacier melting (Stroeve, J., et al. (2007) "Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast" Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L09501; and also UN[14]); and
  • the rate at which the oceans are saturating with absorbed CO2 (Le Quéré, C., et al. (2007) "Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO₂ Sink Due to Recent Climate Change" Science.)
• Attacks on the IPCC and conventional scientific views abound in the mass media by global warming skeptics as being alarmist. General readers need to know that the mistakes they have been making understate global warming, not overstate it.
• The CO2 projections [that] WMC has made in his blog, are based only on past emissions trends, and are not informed by the expected rapid increase in fossil fuels in China, India, and other parts of the developing world, seriously understating the expected increase. apparently irrelevant --James S. → talk 13:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• The underestimations are so serious that they could hasten sea level rise by decades and result in an underestimation of multiple or several °C by 2100. --James S. → talk 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale against

• would take space in the article. --James S. → talk 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• the above comments have an element of OR about them. Also whilst anyone who wants to prove their research valuable has to find a way it extends or contradicts IPCC, I don't see a substantial enough set of opinions. I am afraid in my view this has to wait until someone serious publishes a review article on these bits; or possibly this should go in the controversy article not here. --BozMo talk 08:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the statements I've proposed including are fully attributable to the peer-reviewed literature. --James S. → talk 10:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As usual, many of your statements are heavily OR/wrong. For example The CO2 projections, as WMC has made clear in his blog, are based only on past emissions trends is simply wrong. Its pretty clear that no-one wants to include your stuff William M. Connolley 11:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You clearly say here that you update your projections with historical data -- where is the evidence that your trend analysis involves anything other than past data? --James S. → talk 12:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're hopeless. Thats just *my* picture. We were talking about the SRES/IPCC estimates - they don't just use my data William M. Connolley 12:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly refrain from personal attacks? I was referring to the blog page you specifically directed me to read above -- if it was not relevant to the question you were answering, it would have been nice if you would have said so. The fact remains that IPCC projections have been very low, for emissions, ice melt, and ocean saturation, and those facts are reported in the peer-reviewed literature. Would you mind telling me how presenting IPCC assertions without including the reports that they have been repeatedly wrong is not a violation of WP:NPOV? --James S. → talk 13:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"How" or "why"? The "repeatedly wrong" bit is an OR synthesis, I mean you might as well argue that science itself is repeatedly wrongly because in fact lots of things weren't got right first time in History. You need to provide a decent review showing systematic bias to even interest me at all in the idea this might be worthy of including in the article. --BozMo talk 13:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the PA but its really frustrating talking with you as you don't seem to understand. You were talking about temperature *projections*. Ie, into the future. My blog says nothing whatsoever about what goes into those projections. You still don't seem to understand that fluctuations over a few years just aren't relevant; your assertion that IPCC proj's for ice melt and ocean sat are low are wrong: you're as bad as the skeptics, picking out one paper they agree with. You got banned from this article for a good reason and the way you're arguing here its easy to see why William M. Connolley 13:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you direct me to read your blog post in response to my question about temperature projections? As for my assertions:

"Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that satellite and other observations show the Arctic ice cover is retreating more rapidly than estimated by any of the eighteen computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in preparing its 2007 assessments."[15]

"Climate change has arrested the Southern Ocean's ability to absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.... 'This finding could make a significant difference in some of the IPCC projections,' said co-author Thomas Conway of the Global Monitoring Division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).... Other oceans may also be reacting in a similar way and absorbing less CO2, says Le Quere, noting that there is evidence to that effect in the North Atlantic. This means that the climate models the IPCC uses are overestimating how much carbon the oceans are absorbing and underestimating the rate at which CO2 will rise in future."[16]

How are those wrong? They are both reports on peer-reviewed papers. And if I was banned for such a good reason, how is it that you aren't able to say which edit or edits you consider inappropriate? --James S. talk 13:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC

Positive effects of global warming

I suggest we should mention the good side of global warming. Global warming has negative effects for serain individual countries, but on a longer time scale, it has a global beneficial effect.

Ecosystems

Life, human, animal, as well as plant life, is most abundant around the equator, the warmest area. On the other hand, it's very scarce around the poles, the coldest area. Global warming will simply emphasis the warmer areas of the globe, moving the borders of climate zones further north. It's uncertain wether a warming of the warmest areas will yield an even more abundant concentration of life, or if this peak of life will move further north and south respectively. However, there will be a boost of life ecosystems around the poles on a longer time scale, as the rich temperate climate will move to these areas. Thus, globally, there will be an increase in life.

Interesting pronouncement; which scientific organizations embrace this concept? What are your sources of information? How does this address tropical and sub-tropical desertification increases? Are arctic soils conducive to agricultural use? I look forward to your answers. --Skyemoor 10:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Mankind

Vast areas around the poles will become habitable, and this advantage to mankind easily overcomes the bad effects on e.g. more extreme weather.

Thus, it's only the exodus from bad stricken areas to the larger new inhabitable areas that are the obstacles of global warming, for mankind as well as for plants and animals. Mikael Häggström 07:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You might benefit from some basic reading in ecology and anthropology. Raymond Arritt 13:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place for unpublished speculation or theories, so thank you for bringing this onto the talkpage rather than straight into the article. We'd all love for your scenario to come about, but it is unlikely that the warmer conditions that may be conducive to life will last long enough or be stable enough for eco systems to adapt. Even if they do, our species as we know it will not be around for it, so we'd sooner focus on a more humanist scale, on which global warming is a cataclysm. Bendž|Ť 12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ban James S.

Could Nrcprm2026/James's ban on this article be extended to the Talk page? I find his actions here to be highly tendentious and disruptive. Raymond Arritt 13:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We get a dozen outright deniers a month, with nothing more than propagandistic TV shows to back them up, and when I ask for something stronger than the IPCC, with peer-reviewed sources on three different topics, it's time to bring out the banhammer? Sheesh. Please review WP:TEND and note that arguing for a point on a talk page, no matter how much it might upset you, does not fall under the definitions therein. --James S. → talk 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that my goal here is to support concern over global warming. (You are not alone in this misimpression, though most others who think this are on the opposite side of the issue.) It isn't. WP:OR and scientifically unsupportable material has no place in the article, regardless of which "side" it comes from. Raymond Arritt 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope your goal is to improve the encyclopedia. Inserting the claims from the three peer-reviewed sources described above is not OR, but leaving them out while giving voice to the very few who argue on the other side of the IPCC position is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. Why is my advocacy upsetting to you? --James S. → talk 16:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not the place for "advocacy" (see WP:SOAP, Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs among others). Advocacy can be a good thing, and there are many good forums for advocacy, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. Raymond Arritt 17:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Advocating for the neutral point of view policy, asking that peer-reviewed sources be included, is not only allowed, but encouraged. Let me rephrase my question: Why are you upset that I am asking that these peer-reviewed sources showing the serious underestimations by the IPCC[17][18][19] be included? --James S. → talk 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree his spamming of the talk page is getting tiresome. Aaron Bowen 17:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Also see WP:POINT, he's being purposefully disruptive. Aaron Bowen 17:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and ask that you please refrain from making personal attacks. --James S. → talk 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Given all the other highly tendentious editors on this talk page, I don't (yet) see what JS has done that is so objectionable. I didn't like his call for a poll, but that was hardly disruptive. Arjuna 18:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool out James, but no ban.65.12.145.148 00:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of banning, we could give a few regulars here (e.g. Raymond and William) the authority to moderate postings by James. So, if James posts someting that is seen to be disruptive by Raymond, then Raymond can remove that (including replies to his posting by others) without having to give detailed reasons why removing the posting is justified. Count Iblis 00:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. Better for James to meditate for a while on WP:OR. It would be helpful for an uninvolved admin to check here occasionally. Raymond Arritt 01:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this article so I don't know what gives James this reputation, but can't advocacy be a healthy way to build up a well balanced article? It's true he's being selective with his data as the IPCC's "failings" are by no means the focus of those papers, but should we discourage someone that's using scientific literature? Bendž|Ť 14:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Optimum average temperature

What is the consensus among climate scientists on the optimum average surface air temperature of our planet? Iceage77 22:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My uneducated guess is that they will claim that the question is unspecified. Optimal with respect to which criterion? The current concern is more with the rapid change than with any absolute temperature.--Stephan Schulz 22:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The article as it stands does not make this clear. For example it suggests that warming will lead to an increase in the rate of species extinction. This implies an optimum temperature at which the rate of species extinction is minimised. Iceage77 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it merely implies that warming causes species to go extinct. Any change on such a grand scale is bad for us and bad for nature. johnpseudo 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the species with us today have been through a few ice ages and interglacials. In such a history evolution selects for robustness, nevertheless we are probably in the middle of a major extinction event that is caused, not by climate change, but by human habitat destruction and population pressures. What credible scientific approach will be able to distinguish an incremental AGW addition to this background rate? Any life form that couldn't tolerate another degree was probably going to succumb to other human land use pressures anyway. Fortunately, most of the change is going to be at the high lattitudes where there isn't much diversity anyway.--Africangenesis 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the species today have been through the last ice age, but real question is how many are not with us since the last ice age. Of course, climate is probably one of the smaller reasons for such extinctions. ~ UBeR 04:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there have been many mass extinctions in the past. And many of them have most likely been caused by global warming and man's injection of CO2 into the atmosphere by driving Ford brand SUVs. However the consensus is not unanimous on that and more research must be done before conclusions can be made. The machine512 06:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Most of the species with us today have been through a few ice ages and interglacials" - of course, typically those climate swings were slower than today, and habitats could move with the climate zones. Now many habitats can't keep up, and even if, they are bound to hit some urbanized or cultivated aera. I somehow don't see Miami razed to make place for the Everglades National Park....--Stephan Schulz 06:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the heating up may not nescesarily be bad. As nice as it is to have everything be the same evolution may hold the key for new species to adapt and survive. Much of the time before the last Ice Age was hotter then it is today, yet the diversity of species was by far wider then it is today. Perhaps the true problem is that we have caused animals to be forced togethor and no longer can large diversity happen, for instance the Cheetah.--Joshic Shin 22:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"forced togethor"? the Cheetah? What are you talking about? johnpseudo 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't understand that? Come on now. The machine512 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that in reality only the anomaly from a given station is really tracked or reported, there is no temperature per se, exactly. However, from statements by the NCDC/NOAA/NASA and others, the current average annual global temperature is someplace between 13-15 degrees C (or something like that, I'm rounding it) If that's optimal or not, who knows. Probably doesn't matter -- we're talking about a global average over 4 seasons everywhere, in 5x5 lat/long squares, mixing water and land.

But ignoring that, the question is; if you live in Phoenix and it's 115 degrees F one day, is that optimal? If you're in Greenland, and it's -20 one day, is that optimal? Plotting the global temperature on a scale of the high and low temps for the year in 1998 in Manhattan Kansas might put it all in perspective for you. Or maybe not. Sln3412 23:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature: "Temperature Anomaly"

Hi, I was just wondering if someone could please define the term "Temperature Anomaly" in the opening figure of this article. I suggest this because the term has no definition elsewhere in the article. It is misleading and very much open to interpretation, people need to know what it is to understand that graph correctly, if it is a temperature change (i.e. delta T) could someone please say explicitly what the change is relative to. I would search and add ad the definition myself, but I'm sure there are many people already editing such a relevant article with much more expertise than myself. Thanks in advance. ChurchwellJH 22:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the anamolie just means that the actual temperatures are not being reported, but rather the deviations from the temperature at some zero date.--Africangenesis 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so but the graph still shows nothing until that date and temperature are cited clearly, it could be from the coldest period we know of in recent history, or from the hottest... On reading the article further I am of the opinion that the more complete absolute temperature graph over many years should be shown first anyway...

I also think the "grand absolutism" of the opening paragraphs should be tempered with the words "theory" and that it should be made clear that there is no clearly undeniably proven connection between human gas emissions and the recent observed increase in temperature. Don't state things as absolute truth when they are only based on models, not <observation/theory/prediction/repeatability> the fundamental pillars of scientific philosophy. People should not have to read over half the article before they get a taste of the other side of the argument ChurchwellJH 22:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The content herein is based on observation, theory, prediction, and, of course, models. ~ UBeR 22:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The absolute temperatures are not as meaningful, they are contaminated by the heat island effect. It took years of work to validate that the heat island data could still be used to confirm the trends. That is when global warming became more accepted.--Africangenesis 22:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I challenge someone to show me a primary scientific reference where human gas emissions are undeniably proven to be the primary cause of the current increase in global temperature with the abstraction of all other possible factors. There is no debate about this it either can be proven or it cannot, until then temper the articles introduction, it is clearly biased in one direction as does not accurately depict the current nature of this controversial and much debated topic. Current trends and consensus are based solely on computer models where the causative factors are estimated, interpreted and added as parameters and not proven irrefutably to be direct causes. ChurchwellJH 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, the models all have correlated bias larger than the energy imbalance thought responsible for the recent warming. So, it can't be proven with the current models. --Africangenesis 23:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Here. ~ UBeR 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the data that's reported is not based upon anything rather than deviations from a number for a given location, which are then all combined and/or averaged. For example, if it's "normally" 10 C here and I measure 9.92, I'm at -.08 If the next closest station is 11 and 11.02 is measured, I'm at +.02 So if I have 5 stations in a 5x5 grid, and they have -.08 +.02 +.5 -.3 and -.08 then that grid is +.06, or an average of +.012 for the area. That's how I understand it -- It's not +/- something from any specific number you can report on and it doesn't matter if one place was -10C and the next +30C. Sln3412 00:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record and poor quality temperature sites

This article (and Global warming controversy) need(s) to address two very important issues: 1. the controversy around unwarranted government adjustments to the temperature record and 2. ongoing research into the controversy regarding poor siting of temperature stations leading to a warming bias. Government adjustments to the temperature record are continuing. Thanks to David Smith for his post on ClimateAudit.org for these government images I link to below. See comment 87.[20] Compare the historical temperatures ranges in the two images and relative changes to years 1935 and 1998. The image from 1999 can be found here. [21] The image from 2007 is here. [22] In 1999, temps for 1935 and 1998 were the same. However, by 2007 the temp for 1998 was considerably higher than 1935. I have done enough reading now to be convinced that the 1990s were NOT warmer than the dust bowl years of the 1930s. I believe alarmists like Jim Hansen are playing with the temperature record. In effect, these "adjustments" to the temperature record are done in order to create evidence of global warming. I also believe there are a number of warming biases in our land surface temperature network as pointed out by the Davey and Pielke paper in 2005. [23] I am aware of the Peterson paper in 2006 which tried to say the problems Davey and Pielke found in eastern Colorado are not wide spread and there is no UHI warming bias. However, there are a number of problems with the Peterson paper. [24] Roger A. Pielke has called for a thorough documentation of the sites, including photographs. That effort is underway now led by Anthony Watts [25] and encouraged by Pielke [26] [27] and Steve McIntyre.[28] Out of the first 10 sites documented, all ten had significant problems, including light bulbs inside the sensor housing and the occasionally blast from a jet engine.[29] John Christy and Warwick Hughes have also done work on microsite problems. I need some help locating additional reliable sources on temperature adjustments and poor quality sites. If anyone would like to participate in this effort, you can go to my User Page and click the "Email this user" button and we can discuss where this information may be found. RonCram 13:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Geez, Ron, surely you can do better than this. Notice your first graph (what you call the "image from 1999") is labeled January-December, i.e., the data cover the full year.[30] Your second graph (what you call "the image from 2007") is labeled January-May,[31] i.e., the data are for winter and spring only. The fact that the axis on the first graph goes from 50-56 F (10-13.3 C) and the axis on the second graph goes from 40-48.F (5-9 C) is another clue for the clueful. Apples are in the first bin on the left; oranges are on the right. Raymond Arritt 14:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe [32] or [33] would be of interest. (SEWilco 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

Raymond, yes I should have read the titles. But check this out [34] and this. [35] I came across this on Comment 15 here.[36] I thought I had found some images the GISS had forgotten to clean up. I was wrong about those images but not about the unwarranted adjustments. SEWilco, thank you for the most recent image. Compare it to the older version I just provided. RonCram 15:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is by no means the first time you've carelessly mixed up totally different data sets; e.g.,[37]. You have three alternatives: (1) decide this sort of thing isn't where your talents lie and end your crusade; (2) be more diligent with your use of information (as well as, hopefully, learning something about the basic science); or (3) continue embarrassing yourself. The choice is yours. Raymond Arritt 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlike some people, I am willing to admit my mistakes. I used the wrong images, but the unwarranted adjustment of the temperature record is accurate. Your attempt at a personal attack is unworthy of you. Why not deal with the science? RonCram 16:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Intended as constructive advice. Raymond Arritt 16:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA I have always liked your sense of humor, Raymond. RonCram 16:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW Raymond, do you have any comment on the quality of the land surface network based on the links provided above? RonCram 15:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Ron's latest obsession. I predict piles of talk, in which we point out that this "major" crit appears on only a few blogs, that if he was really interested the place to start would be instrumental temperature record or perhaps urban heat island, perhaps a minor edit war on the page, but nothing will change William M. Connolley 21:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The criticism of the surface temperature stations is well represented in the peer-reviewed literature. Pielke has debunked Parker and Peterson but I am certain there is more. Christy and Hughes, for example, have done research on the issue. It is interesting to me that neither Raymond nor you have made any attempt to deal with the science. RonCram 00:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If its in the PR lit, why are you only quoting blogs? Parker and Peterson provide your science answers; pretending that Pielke has debunked them is funny, but won't do you any good William M. Connolley 10:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not only quote blogs and Pielke's blog linked to other PR lit as well. Pielke and Matsui's paper "Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same?" [38] refutes Parker's paper "Climate: Large-scale warming is not urban." [39] The Davey and Pielke paper "Microclimate exposures of surface-based weather stations - implications for the assessment of long-term temperature trends." [40] showed a number of poor quality stations in eastern Colorado. Peterson's 2006 paper "Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor Station Locations" [41] was written in response to the Davey and Pielke paper and claims the few poor stations in eastern Colorado are not a big deal. Pielke wanted to publish a response but the journal publisher would not allow it (this type of gatekeeping is another big issue in this controversy). But Peterson did not consider a number of factors, as Pielke points out on his blog. Peterson's paper has a host of problems starting with the fact it flies in the face of a number of peer-reviewed papers (besides Pielke's) including:

• “Reexamination of instrument change effects in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network” by Hubbard K. and X. Lin August 2006 [42]
• “Land use/land cover change effects on temperature trends at U.S. Climate” by R. C. Hale, K. P. Gallo, T. W. Owen, and T. R. Loveland in 2006 [43]
• “The Geoprofile metadata, exposure of instruments, and measurement bias in climatic record revisited” by Rezaul Mahmood, Stuart A. Foster and David Logan in 2006 [44]

When taken together the evidence indicates even the rural surface stations have a warming bias through the decades due to land-use changes at these stations. The work being done now by SurfaceStations.org (http://www.surfacestations.org/) documents that this is not limited to eastern Colorado. The GISS should not be adjusting temperature downward for the 1930s and 40s nor adjusting the temperature upward in the 1990s. These weather stations were put into service to provide forecasts for the military and to predict severe weather events. The station network was not originally designed to provide information on climate or to measure global warming by tenths of a degree. While some adjustments to the temperature record may be warranted, the adjustments done by the GISS fly in the face of the evidence or a warming bias in the peer-reviewed literature. RonCram 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The room fell strangely silent. Somewhere, off in the distance, a dog barked.

Metaphor aside, Ron's devotion of effort is a refreshing thing to see. I think we can all agree that this degree of research is what ought to be expected of all Wikipedia contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.226.72 (talk • contribs)

Research (as in reading P-R papers) is good. Original Research or reliance on unreliable sources is bad William M. Connolley 16:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Violation of WP:OR is what results in the kinds of messy pages that have caused public distrust of Wikipedia in the past. I do not like to consider myself a partisan on issues such as this, but alarmist arguments on both sides seem to have overshadowed the underlying science. All too frequently I have seen contributers to this article hiding behind the IPCC consensus to justify their positions or, in turn, citing only material presented in TGGWS. For once, it is a relief to see a coherent presentation of evidence, one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.226.72 (talk • contribs)

Bickering about it is rather pointless. Instead of complaining about switched graphs, or if the scale should be x or y or z, etc, why not look at the experiment and leave the rest out of it.

If stations have bad data, they shouldn't be included. Period. So far, it's to be seen exactly which stations are "bad", although there has been some attempt to categorize them according to the CRN site criteria (I believe). It's still being fleshed out. Does anyone really think every station and every measurement is perfect? Who audits and monitors these things?

I would think that if all we're seeing is a margin of error because of the location of the land sites or other factors, everyone would be interested in cleaning things up. If there is no issue, I'd imagine everyone would be interested in clearing it up too, one way or the other.

Certainly, if I think about it logically, why not see if either the placement of the site or the materials protecting the thermometers (and the calibration of the thermometers) is having some effect upon the measurements over the last few decades? Seeing if indeed the adjustment models are valid? What's not to like about that? Repeatable testing of factors. On the results, well, I'd guess the jury is still out. And remember -- Don't hate the player, hate the game. Sln3412 23:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"A few" individual scientists

I object to this formulation in the intro, first of all because it is intended to disparage skeptics, secondly because it is inaccurate -- there are upwards of 17K signators on the Oregon Petition, and thirdly because it is a violation of WP:AWT. --Don't lose that number 21:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This particular word has been discussed to death, and ended up as consensus though personally I am not very fussed. However you implying that the signators of the Oregon Petition are "scientists" though is beyond wrong and in the realm of deserving disparagement. --BozMo talk 21:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This pops up every other week or so, gets discussed, alternatives broached, and then we find that there is really no acceptable alternative. The Oregon Petition was a push poll to those uninvolved in climate research, with misleading propaganda. --66.225.251.176 21:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To which I will add - saying that there's "a few" is, if anything, overstating the case. Raul654 21:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there is some serious POV warfare going on here, so let me state the case differently. How many is "a few"? What is the source for this assessment? Why is it necessary to quantify, however vaguely, the number of individual scientists, for the purposes of the lead? And finally, is this not an explicit violation of WP:AWT? --Don't lose that number 01:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) "A few" is the 34 individual scientists listed at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (several of whom have connections with the oil industry). (2) It is necessary to quantify the dissent because the anti-science lobby want to play up the nearly-nonexistent scientific dissent to global warming. 34 is a significant number if you are talking about countries in the word (34 out of 215), or US States (34 out of 50). 34 climatologists out of the tens-of-thousands (hundreds of thousands? Millions?) of professional climatologists is a vanishingly small number. (3) No, it is not. Raul654 01:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, a number of order 10-20,000 probably wouldn't be far off. A hard lower limit would be the 900 or so people involved at some level of authorship for the IPCC reports. Another point of reference is that the American Meteorological Society has 11,000 members though many (most?) are not involved in climate or research (TV forecasters, weather enthusiasts, people working in air pollution, and so on). Raymond Arritt 03:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, these "few dissenting scientists" hold their views mostly as lay persons. I.e. they very rarely publish their work in peer reviewed journals or present their work at conferences visited by climate scientists. Count Iblis 13:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see how propaganda actually works on both sides while the pro-AGW must add to it its self-proclaimed righteousness. Raul654 has this exact kind of discourse that makes me skeptical of AGW...: (1) The 34 listed in this list are merely those who i- fall within the strict criterion; ii- have made a Wiki-wise verifiable and attributable quote, outside joint statements(?!); iii- have Wiki-wise notability, and iv- have dared put their reputation/job/funding on the table by making public comments against the IPCC. Pretending that this list is exhaustive is, to paraphrase BozMo above, "beyond wrong" (2) the anti-science lobby, as history shows, has always been the side which wanted to hide or suppress dissent and/or turn science into a collective decision process rather than an individual inquiry process (3) there are no "millions of professional climatologists" and even farther beyond wrong, we are here asked to presume that any scientist not appearing on this list supports the IPCC findings, while in fact, those who participate in the IPCC simply dont know anything about what's outside their fields of expertise, and all the others may dissent in silence for various, and notably personal, reasons.

I must say that I share Dont lose that number's concern. I understand that the reason why it has been deemed necessary to quantify with words like "a few" is for WP:WEIGHT concerns, but there is also a reason why we cannot quantify without anything else than weasel words; both the level of individual support and individual skepticism is actually elusive, and the collective process elected by the UN blurs further the issue, and the science itself with it. We can only presume that 'a few' describes correctly the actual situation. Whereas presumptions are not good enough for normal encyclopedic entries, it has been deemed satisfying for this one. --Childhood's End 13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Both you and Raul are forgetting that the list is useless for these counting purposes because it isn't restricted to climate scientists, or even to active scientists: Bellamy, Bryson, Kukla are obvious ones. If the skeptic-types want to make that page useful for counting, they are going to have to accept seom tightening up of the inclusion rules William M. Connolley 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested that this list should be used for counting purposes...

OK, glad to hear it William M. Connolley 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As for inclusion, to me, I would be open to the idea that the list be restricted to "climate scientists" if "climate scientists" was properly defined and understood. Right now, it would just leave up in the air who could belong and who could not. Also, if some tightening is needed in some respects, I think that some loosening is even more needed in some others (notably red links and joint statements). Anyway... the purpose of the list should not be "counting the skeptics", but simply to report valid skeptical views. --Childhood's End 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is just silly. There are very few climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC consensus; get over it. What would you prefer in place of "a few"? 34? As already mentioned, it is difficult to precisely quantify the number of scientists opposing the consensus. "A few" is much safer and definitely accurate. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you can only presume that "a few" is an accurate description. See my reasons above. --Childhood's End 20:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this issue gets raised every couple of weeks just shows how wrong the statement is. Also the citation is, as with many, completely bogus. "...few individual scientists also disagree with parts of them" is backed up by "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures" - a completely different statement. Paul Matthews 17:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think "a few" is the most accurate we can get. It explains it well, why need exact numbers? It almost goes without saying. Sln3412 23:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, or "have voiced disagreement" ?

I propose here a slight modification to the intro's language. Instead of "...a few scientists disagree with...", I would suggest "...a few scientists have voiced disagreement with...". Obviously, we cannot speak for those who remain silent so far. Does it make sense? --Childhood's End 20:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I happen to like the proposed rewording. I think. --BozMo talk 21:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it is in science always the current (or reasonably current) opinion that is prevalent. By going to the past tense - we open for all those who disagreed with the first IPCC report for instance. This would actually make the statement incorrect, as many in the current consensus, at some time in the past have been in disagreement. --Kim D. Petersen 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it almost impossible to establish current opinion though? --BozMo talk 09:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to grasp the basis of your opposition as it seems hopelessly wrong. Obviously, past tense or not, the new wording would refer to the actual scientific opinion ("....a few scientists have voiced disagreement with ('the IPCC's 4AR conclusions')"). --Childhood's End 22:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the wording really referring to AR4? I don't recall that the current one does. (the AAPG doesn't for instance) --Kim D. Petersen 23:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not look at the article? The exact sentence would be "The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions,[4][5] and a few individual scientists also disagree have voiced disagreement with parts of them.[6]", where "of them" refers to "these conclusions", which refers to the "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes (...)" in the lead. Unless you and/or Raymond Arritt pretend that the lead describes past reports or past science, the use of the past tense would still refer to the present assessment and would only mean that the disagreements have been voiced at some time before the time the reader reads the article, which is necessarily true in and of itself. --Childhood's End 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The preceding text says "These basic conclusions" (emphasis added). This implies that the antecedent is the basic points that were mentioned (warming, attribution to CO2, etc) and not the IPCC reports specifically. Thus opens a can of worms. Raymond Arritt 01:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But from where are these basic conclusions/points taken again? (clue: look at footnote 1) --Childhood's End 13:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not about to start a revert war but I am with CE on this one. I think have voiced objections is better prose and don't see any particular cans of worms? --BozMo talk 14:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone who voices a concern and then later changes their mind on the subject can still be said to have "voiced an objection" Raul654 14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the statement lows the bar on criteria for inclusion. However, in reality every scientist is thinking about things all the time and we cannot do much better than "voiced an objection not yet withdrawn". I think that CE's wording is better prose exactly because it highlights the transitory nature of scientific opinion. By the way have you used the test I deleted before... I might borrow it. --BozMo talk 15:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Test? Raul654 15:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Text. S and X are adjacent and I have fat fingers... --BozMo talk 16:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The actual wording implies that we know what scientists think, instead of what they have said. And any withdrawn opinion would not appear on the list to where this sentence leads anyway. --Childhood's End 15:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you. Hmmm. --BozMo talk 16:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Note among other things that by this criterion, the opinion would have to be explicitly withdrawn. A contrary statement phrased in slightly different terms, passage of decades, or death of the individual all would allow the original statement to stand. Raymond Arritt 16:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Then using the current tense would suit that situation..."voice disagreement...", though then we are at the point of how long ago is considered current. --Skyemoor 16:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this concern is very remote compared to the problem of implying that we know what scientists think, especially those who have remained silent so far.

How about a poll... perhaps for once it could be of use. --Childhood's End 19:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(poll deleted) --Childhood's End 12:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Polls should not be used as a substitute for consensus. johnpseudo 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus, I like the "a few individual scientists have voiced disagreement not yet withdrawn with..." -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What's with this consensus hysteria? Only to clarify, do you suggest that an edit cannot be contemplated from the moment someone disagrees with it? --Childhood's End 19:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Count this as a vote against the vote, per User:Johnpseudo and User:Cielomobile. Raymond Arritt 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I prefer the phrase "relatively few" or better yet "a small percentage". We will never get away from WW on this as there is not one discrete number and there never will be. So that's what usually shunts these kinds of discussion off into the ether. --66.225.251.176 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to fan the fires - I assume that you realize that the head of NASA thinks that Global Warming is nothing to get excited about - [details and 9 quotes from scientists who agree] Q Science 06:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Go on fanning. A press release by a right-wing think tank, with little substance on what was said, and endorsements by the usual suspects (including Lubos - that's new!), will be consumed by the flames in seconds. And Griffin, while well-educated, is an administrator (and has been for a long while), not a working scientist.--Stephan Schulz 07:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is completely biased, and does not provide balance or impartiality for this pseudo-scientific term

You should watch the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle". You'll discover that as humans, we are a tiny speck in the whole existence of the universe. How can we think we're so big that we'll influence something so great as the earth? Solar and cosmic activity control the temperature, we can't do a thing about it. "Global Warming" is a media driven term used to create hype around a non-existent issue. 203.213.238.191 05:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You should read The Great Global Warming Swindle (an apt title, if taken to be self-referential), and especially the scientific reactions section.--Stephan Schulz 06:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your point?

World temperatures are cyclic; do you think that the temperature has been constant for the past few billion years, and that it only started changing when humans came along? Ice ages were followed by a warming of the earth, species died out, and was it because we all drove around in cars and had industrial plants? No, because we didn't exist. It's really only been in the past 50 or so years that we have had a number of cars and factories. We really don't take up that much space on the earth, the majority of it is water. So to think that WE can change the climate in only half a century; when for billions of years it has been uncontrollable forces dictating the temperature; is ridiculous, and quite frankly, a bit bold. We aren't that great. The ocean is a great temperature stabiliser as water has such a high specific heat capacity, i.e. it takes a great amount of energy to heat a volume of water. As if the polar ice caps are going to melt! Why would you think that this would increase the volume of the ocean, anyway? If the ice melts, then it doesn't take up more space, it actually takes up less as the crystalline structure of the ice is lost and therefore volume is lost. Look it up. Why does everyone take this "global warming" as a given? Do YOU know the facts? Are ALL scientists right? No. In fact some who were believers of global warming have since become sceptics. There is no general "concensus" that global warming is real. We are coming out of a mini ice age, in fact. 203.213.238.191 05:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the TGGWS is proven crap, and any argument based on it has no weight. Look, your honour, I may have had a smoking gun in my hand, but billions of people have died before I even could handle it! Why should I now be responsible for this death? And moreover, the bullet was only 0.08 pounds. How could that have killed the 200 pound alleged victim? Your arguments are stale, and either plain wrong or irrelevant. Your comment on melting polar ice shows a lack of understandig both of Archimedes' Principle and of the geography of Greenland and Antarctica at the same time - usually people get at least one of those correct. --Stephan Schulz 11:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just what makes you think that you are completely right and I am completely wrong? Must be a German thing. Only time will tell. If we all burn up because of a rise in the temperature in the next few decades, then you'll be right. I very much doubt we will, however. Oh, and I'll be around much longer than you, then you won't be able to talk back. 203.213.238.191 14:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy shooting fish? Interesting structure of your argument, I hope you recall it later, except I wouldn't go so far as to say "the models are proven crap", because I believe they have value, just not for attribution and projection this small a warming yet. I'm not sure the argument has a valid structure though, although it may be more valid vis'a'vis the models given their complex nonlinear nature. The burden of proof when serious problems are documented, falls on the modelers.--Africangenesis 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. You caught me in a bad mood. We would probably get fewer interlopers like this if we lead the article with the science rather that what looks like polls. When a visitor disagrees with the result of polls, it is natural to just ask for a revote. If we got down to a solid presentation of the actual science, instead of the politics, then maybe more visitor would read before disagreeing. --Africangenesis 12:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As if the polar ice caps are going to melt! Why would you think that this would increase the volume of the ocean, anyway? If the ice melts, then it doesn't take up more space, it actually takes up less as the crystalline structure of the ice is lost and therefore volume is lost. Look it up.

This is utter nonsense. Due to Archimedes Principle provided the iced is floating when the ice melts, the water level remains unaltered. Look it up

89.181.221.62

And which "floating" ice are you referring to? Look that up! --BozMo talk 12:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

On Earth's core temperature and global warming

Global warming seems to be studied by meteorologist, and it seems to me that all global warming models focus on the atmosphere and the oceans' water volumes. Taking into account the extremely high temperatures beneath the earth's crust, it seems likely that fluctuations in that core temperature can have a direct or indirect impact on global climate. Bill Bryson: "No one knows exactly how hot the Earth's core is, but estimates range from something over 4,000 degrees to over 7,000 degrees Celsius - about as hot as the surface of the sun'" Bryson, Bill, A short history of nearly everything.Fortinbras 18:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz 18:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephan is entirely correct. In slightly less terse form: the issue has been looked at, and the flux of heat from Earth's interior is many orders of magnitude smaller than the other fluxes such as insolation. The heat flux at the earth's crust is 63 milliwatts (0.063 watt) per square meter (see e.g., here), compared to a mean absorbed solar radiation of about 240 watts per square meter. It's an interesting question and one that is often asked by students in our introductory meteorology class. Raymond Arritt 18:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative reply. Maybe a "Falsified theories" chapter should be added to the article, in which this idea, and perhaps others, are done away with. Fortinbras 10:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the heat flux originating from the Earth's core is not relevant. However, one also has to show that when evaluating temperature increase due to global warming one can ignore the fact that the internal temperature profile of the Earth get's modified a bit. This is basically a heat conduction problem (if we only look at the Earth's crust). We initialy have a steady state temperature profile T_{1}(r). We then switch "global warming" on, which effectively amounts to changing the boundary conditions at the surface if we ignore the effect of the heat conduction on the surface temperature in a first approximation.

If we write the new time-dependent temperature profile as T_{1}(r) + T_{2}(r,t) then, because T_{1}(r) satisfies the heat conduction equation with the old boundary conditions, you just need to let T_2(r,t) satisfy the heat conduction equation with initial temperature zero in the interior and equal to the temperature increase at the surface (this is also the boundary condition at the surface at any time). You then evaluate the extra heat flux into the Earth which is given by the heat conduction coefficient times the gradient of T_{2} and compare that to the effect of global warming. Count Iblis 17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

GW skeptic link

This link that is clogging up the history page whould not be added. Its sole purpose is rhetorical and is out of line with the WP:NPOV of the article. Bendž|Ť 21:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but which link are you referring to? Raymond Arritt 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* How to talk to climate skeptics Bendž|Ť 07:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Definitely. It's been picked up by major media sources, which puts to rest the "blog" objections. Raymond Arritt 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Day before yesterday...

...was the hottest day ever in Eleusina, Athens, Greece, Europe with the remarkable pan-European record of 47 degrees Celsius, said the Greek media. Europe is being African-ized (and Africa is being infern-ized), and the effects are evident year after year, and more evident in the southern European countries. Me, trolling? Well, it may be the heat (and the very good article I bumped into -congratulations, now list it on the main page for a month)... NikoSilver 21:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OTOH its cold and wet in the UK :-( Can we have some of the greek warmth please? William M. Connolley 08:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the jet-stream has split Europe in two. Can't remember a worse June than this in England. Iceage77 10:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We had hail and storms 2 weeks ago across Greece too, and it's become a habit in the last 4 Junes (before that it was unheard of in the summer, and very rare in the winter). That split by the jet-stream must be revolving... In Romania 18 died from the heat in that day; in Greece just 8 up to now. Thank God we got frappé! (yes, the heat is still on; so is the trolling...) NikoSilver 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Justifying my existence with a (somewhat) productive comment: I read in the sub-article that the renewable energy accounts for only 14% of the global consumption. I failed to grasp what is the total course of that percentage over the years. Projections? (there's only one graph for the wind farms there). NikoSilver 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Logarithmic relationship between CO2 and warming

Any reason why this isn't currently discussed? Iceage77 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how interested people are in the mathematics of global warming models. Temperature change estimates are enough for most of us. Is it logarithmic? What would you like to include? Bendž|Ť 21:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Existing CO2 absorbs most of the infrared radiation from the sun. As atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise, the effect on warming becomes progressively smaller. This is quite a fundamental point. Iceage77 21:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at this graph to see what I mean. Iceage77 21:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That graph doesn't seem to be very helpful; it looks to be intending to minimise the role of CO2 rather than explain. Also I'm not sure its accurate: CO2 at current conc is in the log range; at lower concs, and 20 may be lower, it gets ?linear/sqrt? I forget.

However your basic point is correct; though thats just the basic radiative forcing point; there are piles of feedbacks to include, which is why its less important than the T projections. Note that since most of the scenarios have exp increases of GHGs the forcing increase tends to be linear. I suggest that the point is best put into radiative forcing first, where tempers tend to be temperate, then when we're happy xfer stuff to here if appropriate William M. Connolley 21:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it could get a mention under feedbacks, stating how this facet of radiative forcing is overshadowed by methane releasing permafrost, decline of pelagic diatoms, etc. The graph should stay in whatever pertaining physics article. I haven't read much of the early literature on climate change. Do we have a source that says something substantial about it? Bendž|Ť 08:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The logarithmic idea is perhaps worth mentioning, but the source cited was so atrocious that I ended up reverting the whole thing. If it's to be mentioned then someone finds a decent source. Raymond Arritt 17:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think this point was controversial. I'm sure I can find an alternative source. Iceage77 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[45] Iceage77 18:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely you can do better than that; you've merely substituted one incompetent source for another. Try the peer-reviewed literature, please. Raymond Arritt 18:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough only the sceptics seem to mention this point. Are you disputing it? Iceage77 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The point itself is (mostly) valid, though not central to the issue. In any event it has to be supported by something better than rambling pontification from an unrefereed web site. Again, please try the peer-reviewed literature. Raymond Arritt 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[46] I'm not sure why you are so concerned about the source for what is essentially an uncontested point. Iceage77 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources are needed for 'likely challengeable' material. --Childhood's End 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this one[47] as source material:

It has been suggested that the absorption by CO2 is already saturated so that an increase would have no effect. This, however, is not the case. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band’s wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence. Every further doubling adds an additional 4 Wm-2 to the radiative forcing.

--Kim D. Petersen 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The relationship is already made explicit in radiative forcing. There's a general misconception that a blind eye is turned to it, when this couldn't be any less the case. Everyone since Arrhenius has acknowledged the variability of radiative forcing, but it simply isn't that relevent to models because we're not talking about doubling atmospheric carbon, but proportionally smaller increases that barely affect radiative forcing of CO2. Should we start an article about misconceptions about global warming? This kind of thing has to be acknowledged but will bog down the main article. I also notice there's no page dedicated to climate forcing.Bendž|Ť 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea of an article on misconceptions is good. We could then refer to the logarithmic nature of the forcing in light of basic concepts like this. But I fear such an article will lead to battles on the same scale as the present one. Raymond Arritt 20:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by this being a misconception. Climate scientists may not think this relationship worthy of comment, given that it is obviously factored into all of the models. However, there is a popular understanding that the relationship is linear. How many people are aware that burning fossil fuels "barely affects radiative forcing of CO2"? Iceage77 13:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Before going further I'd like to ask a question that will help structure the response. Can you give a brief (one-sentence or so) explanation of what a derivative is? Raymond Arritt 14:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not a mathematician if that's what you mean. But this article is intended for the lay-man is it not? Iceage77 14:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, it is linear. This is what we mean, and there's nothing sinister going on. As you can see from the graph that you first linked to, from 280ppm onwards, it flattens out into a gently sloped line. It's still far from zero. Understand? For a graph formulated by the anti AGW right, it's very counterproductive! Bendž|Ť 15:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, in saying emissions "barely affect radiative forcing of CO2" I was wrong. I'm still getting my head around the terminology and was talking about absolute global warming potential, which is the value of the y axis on your graph. Emissions do affect radiative forcing, proportionally, but with a slight downward curve attributable to the effect displayed in your graph, Icey; This graph would be very useful to include somewhere. Bendž|Ť 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

New Article: Cosmic Rays and Global Warming

Cosmic Rays and Global Warming

It has been claimed by others that observed temporal correlations of terrestrial cloud cover with `the cosmic ray intensity' are causal. The possibility arises, therefore, of a connection between cosmic rays and Global Warming. If true, the implications would be very great. We have examined this claim to look for evidence to corroborate it. So far we have not found any and so our tentative conclusions are to doubt it. Such correlations as appear are more likely to be due to the small variations in solar irradiance, which, of course, correlate with cosmic rays. We estimate that less than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming variations are due to cosmic rays and less than 2% of the warming over the last 35 years is due to this cause.

Comments: Submitted to ICRC 2007

Count Iblis 00:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- very interesting, especially the bit about Chernobyl. Raymond Arritt 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)