This is an archive of past discussions about Climate change. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have a small issue with this image being displayed on wikipedia as it does seem fairly biased.
It takes a 20 year period of slight global cooling and compares it to a 9 year period of global warming.
I am an admitted global warming sceptic but don't want to argue the point of whether the temperature is infact rising or not.
What I am concerned about is a literal 'heat map' which seems rather biased on site that is meant to show general consensus. Whether or not global temperature is increasing I would have thought a graph showing relative times and other increases in global temperature (To highlight how the current global temperature change is so much faster) would be much more relevant, accurate, informative and unbiased.
This seems particularly relevant since the whole current issue with global warming is not that the earth is cooling but the speed at which it is doing so. Well that and the causes behind it of course.
Can anyone discuss this, or give me some reason why my point is invalid?
I don't quite understand what you complain about. Your description is a bit unclear. What this map shows is the change in temperature for the average 1940-1980 to the average 1995-2004. It shows how the temperature has changed in different parts of the world and in particular, that this warming is not homogenous. What is wrong with that? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Extictions
Hi. Should we add information on this or another article about the extinctions expected from climate change? I have a reliable source, but I returned the book to the library and thus do not have the name of its author or the ISBN. The book states that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the expected rate, by 2050, it could have driven roughly 37% of all animal and plant species to eventual extinction. The book's name is "The Rough Guide to Climate Change", or something similar. The cover shows boot tracks across a desert landscape, and a quote from the Pew Center on Climate Change on the cover. Should it be included? It probably wouldn't be either speculation nor crystal-balling, because it is based on a scientific estimate that is sourced and relable, even if the future of climate change is highly variable. Try to search for the book and get its author and ISBN if you wish to use it as a source. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)18:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
With it's broad scope and it's goal of being a good 'primer' article to the topic, why doesn't this article mention peak oil? Isn't the fact that the earth will immediately begin running out of its most important fossil fuel relevent to the discussion about mitigation and adaptation? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If peak oil was mentioned in the 'adapation' sub-article, why wouldn't a short sentence or phrase about it be appropriate for this main article? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to know why peak oil is not linked as it clearly ought to be look no further than the people who even removed my comments on the subject. 212.139.94.152 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that if the effects of peak oil do indeed occur, they will not necessarily mitigate the effects of global warming, especially if oil is simply replaced by another hydrocarbon, for instance coal. Nor is there any guarantee that the effects of peak oil will be felt in time to mitigate the effects of global warming. To try and tie the two together seems to me to be crystal ball gazing. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
How is it crystal gazing to say when oil, coal or gas will run out. We have estimates of utilisable reserves, we have estimates of consumption, the result is an estimate as to when the fossil fuel that some claim drives global warming will cease. The only reason there is not a link to peak oil, is that anyone with a calculator and a fag packet can work out that the claims of never ending global warming are simply rediculous. 212.139.94.152 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
For me the main problem is the Wikipedia article on peak oil is too weak at present. If it was written well we could link to it. Peak Oil as a curve was single technology single geography and the article is US-centric not considering other technologies and geographies than the US adequately. And on the back of your fag packet you will have found that there is loads of hydrocarbon to burn through 2100 so not never ending but for as long as we both shall live. --BozMotalk21:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The argument used for around a month by the global warming censors on this page was that it was "wrong" to link. Not once did anyone say that the article was too weak. I wasted a hell of a lot of time just trying to get a link, I'm not falling for your tricks and spending another month or so fighting to bring peak oil up to a standard you would accept - because there is no standard you would accept for a link! And it is best the original poster knows this before wasting their time!212.139.94.152 (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that you think that improving an article on Wikipedia amounts to "wasting your time". Do this, and the comments about "censors" give some significant clues as to what your motivation in wanting to edit this article are? --BozMotalk10:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't talk nonsense Bozmo, it is obvious to anyone with a neutral point of view that peak oil and global warming are complimentary articles and one reading one would expect a link to the other. That is what I tried for weeks to get into this article, and the fact this simple link was blocked at every possible turn in every possible conceivable way proves that this article is censored. I won't write more, because even comments get censored in this POV article. 212.139.94.152 (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Peak oil is a very important topic and has many implications regarding means of energy, economics, security, etc. In way of global warming, I do not necessarily see it as intrinsic. It may have implications, but those are unclear. I think this is a good paper to start with. I think what we can be certain of is that there are going to be replacements, and the real implications are whether those replacements are cleaner or dirtier. I disagree that this has anything whatever to do with the Wikipedia's article on peak oil. I do not know exactly what kind of information you're suggesting to add to the article, so I'd be glad to hear what you specifically think should be changed or added. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Uber yet again you talk in terms of "right or wrong" to link, whereas the only criteria that matters is whether someone reading an article on global warming would benefit from a link. As most people will be reading global warming as a combination of the environmental and energy issues, they would expect to see a number of links on these subjects, in the same way I would expect the peak oil article to suggest as a possible additional source for information on your essay on energy the article on global warming. Just because two articles don't agree is absolutely no reason not to link one to the other, but the failure to link clearly shows an article is heavily biased to one POV. 88.109.191.89 (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well if it's just a matter of linking without context, that's what the "See also" sections are for. So we do link to peak oil, by way of a thorough glossary. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Uber - I have tried that many times and each and every time it has been removed almost before I had finished typing. To be blunt, there is no point putting in such a link, because it will be removed, and if like me you try to insist it should remain, you will end up being banned. 212.139.103.106 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
212, there's no need to be paranoid. If you make good faith edits and don't violate policies such as the three-revert rule, nobody is going to ban you for good faith attempts to make this or any article better. I would suggest that you create an account though, as your edits will generally be taken more seriously and you'll be easily identifiable on talk pages and such. If something belongs in the page, it can be added. I know it feels at time like certain people lord over global warming pages, but remember that nobody owns any page here and anyone can make good-faith edits. I encourage you to continue using the talk pages and try to work out your differences with those who may disagree with your edits. Oren0 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oren0, it is not a question of being paranoid, it is simple fact that people are regularly banned by certain users for trying to ensure neutrality of articles. Originally, like you I thought they were being paranoid, until it started happening to me, and then I noticed time and time and time again, the same people are ganging together to ensure that edits they don't like don't even get to stay on discussion pages like this. The result is that the article is one of the most badly written articles I've tried to read in Wikipedia and I doubt anyone except a very few diehards gets beyond the first paragraph. I don't think in the present climate it is possible to improve it because all edits seem to get reverted by a certain diehard group ... who are those largely responsible for making the article so unreadable. 88.109.132.62 (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, nobody's being paranoid here. We really are out to get you....
People aren't regularly banned for ensuring neutrality. They get banned for being disruptive, adding opposing views or personal commentary without citing verifiable and reliable sources, inserting inappropriate external links (which may be more appropriate in a different article), and writing talk page comments to debate the subject of the article, not the article itself. I've seen people blocked for these acts, and then they complain of persecution! Get over it; you want to edit on Wikipedia, you follow the rules.
On most controversial articles (see Intelligent Design for example), all changes, almost without exception, are discussed on the talk page first. Perhaps if that was done more on this talk page, consensus would be reached before people add revertible stuff to articles without first proposing the edits on the talk page. -Amatulić (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Featured article nomination
I admire how well this article handles a very challenging topic. I would like to nominate it again for recognition. Reading the criteria, I think it needs a more concise LEAD that complies better with WP:LEAD. What do you think, does the LEAD require attention before I nominate this article? Raggz (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Lower Stratosphere cooling in Solar variation section
William, regarding the revert of "One predicted effect of an increase in solar activity would be a warming in most of the stratosphere, whereas greenhouse gas theory predicts warming only in the lower stratosphere" to "One predicted effect of an increase in solar activity would be a warming of most of the stratosphere, whereas greenhouse gas theory predicts cooling there", please note that the stratosphere is situated between ~10km and 50km 12356. Also note that, as per the IPCC fourth assessment, global warming due to greenhouse gases is expected to produce warming up to 18km between 50S and 60N (the stratosphere is expected to cool outside of 50S and 60N in both solar variation warming and greenhouse gas warming). This is warming of the lower stratosphere, thus "greenhouse gas theory" does not predict cooling in the lower stratosphere. Since you did not like my first suggestion to correct this sentence, my second suggestion is "One predicted effect of an increase in solar activity would be a warming of most of the stratosphere, whereas greenhouse gas theory predicts warming in the lower stratosphere but cooling in the mid- and upper-stratosphere".
In the future, please use the references provided to evaluate a contribution before reverting it; the stratosphere link provided in my comment about the change describes where exactly I think the lower strat is, anyway. The current version is misleading at best. It leads the reader to believe that the model of solar variation does not explain the observed atmospheric heat profile while the greenhouse gas model does. This is not true; neither model explains the observed atmospheric heat profile well. It is especially misleading to follow the current version of the sentence with the reference to the observed lower stratosphere cooling; this implies that the greenhouse gas model gets lower stratosphere trends correct whereas this is actually the area where the greenhouse gas model is most incorrect (along with the upper troposphere which blends into the lower stratosphere). Bjp716 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The stratosphere is the bit above the tropopause. It isn't at a constant height. In the real world, the tropical strat starts at about 16km (ukmo link, thanks) and the polar around 8. In the model world of the IPCC link, I suspect the tropopause is too high. Either way, essentially all the strat is cooling in 9.1c. Its certainly true that solar doesn't explain the T trends. GHGs shouldn't either, because there is a strong cooling from ozone too, although as the article notes that didn't start soon enough. Note that the IPCC sez the simulated solar-forced warming extends throughout the atmosphere and perhaps we should be following that rather than reading the piccies for ourselves. But then they don't talk about the strat cooling in the GHG runs. The TAR [1] does say some stuff, but I'm not sure it supports my side so I won't quote it: The vertical response to solar forcing (Figure 12.5) includes warming throughout most of the troposphere. The response in the stratosphere is small and possibly locally negative, but less so than with greenhouse gas forcing, which gives tropospheric warming and strong stratospheric coolingWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you said anything that contradicts the idea that "greenhouse gas theory predicts warming in the lower stratosphere but cooling in the mid- and upper-stratosphere"; do you have an alternate suggestion to my second suggestion? Yes, "essentially all the strat is cooling" in 9.1c, except for the lower stratosphere which is warming. 100 hPa on the graph in your TAR reference (which is older than the fourth assessment reference I had in the article) corresponds to ~16km and there is warming at and somewhat above that line. So, the IPCC agrees and has agreed since the TAR that GHG theory predicts warming at and somewhat above 16km not just at the equator, but up and down as far as 60N and 50S. The fact that the lower stratosphere has been observed to be cooling does not support GHG theory over solar variation theory. The problem I have with the current version of the article is that it suggests the opposite. I would be fine taking out the following sentence about lower stratosphere cooling and replacing "most" with "majority", but it seems like a waste to remove a perfectly good reference. A better supporting reference to the "GHG explains warming better than solar variation" argument would be one that summarizes observed cooling in the majority of the stratosphere rather than just the lower stratosphere. (Of course, one may argue that a superposition of solar variation and some type of cooling might better explain observed results, but that belongs in the separate GW controversy article) Bjp716 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
See this: Virtually Certain (1) Large stratospheric cooling will result from the increase in CO2 concentration and ozone depletion; the start of such cooling has been predicted by models and observed in the upper stratosphere. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, both those statements seem undisputed (Most of the stratosphere predicted to cool, cooling has been observed in the upper stratosphere), however neither contradict the point that the model does predict warming in the lower stratosphere and referencing a source that shows observed cooling in the lower stratosphere in support of the validity of the GHG model over the solar variation model is inappropriate (those observations tend to cast doubt on both in terms of matching modeled predictions). Do you have a reference that shows observed upper- or mid-stratosphere cooling? That would be a good addition to the article, but I'm not sure your reference would fit well in the article (if you were suggesting that); it just makes the assertion that "the start of such cooling has been...observed in the upper atmosphere" without anything to back it up. I'm not disputing the assertion, I just think the article would be better-served with a more substantive reference. Bjp716 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
claims it shows through 2007; it doesn't. what's the status of this? i read the discussion above, and i looked at the graph yesterday where it did show the 2007 figures, but lacked the five year average. the caption should be changed back to read '2006', or the graph should be updated. right now, it's inaccurate. Anastrophe (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see that fixed also. Perhaps someone that works with this article could add a line stating that 2007 tied with 1998 till the graph gets fixed.
The actual image itself was reverted back to the 2006 figures from the 2007 one to maintain the integrity of the original description. A new image was made and uploaded, which I just now put in the main article, to reflect 2007 figures. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
it doesn't seem like the most meaningful comparison. since global temps have dropped the last two years (according to the graph at hand), it just indicates that what was once up has come back down to meet the former second highest value. something else that's curious is that nasa uses as the base 1951-1980 - whereas the graph here uses 1961-1990. according to the graph here, 2004 appears to be the second highest average. it's all so confusing. Anastrophe (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What base you use as the zero line is irrelevant. NASA GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 use slightly different mechanisms to compute the temperature. As you can see here, there is quite some variation and uncertainty in individual year temperatures. The overall trend, however, is clear. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
how can the base be irrelevant? the two intervals had two different mean temperatures, and two different trends. if it were a single year's temperature that were used as a base, then i could see it being irrelevant. but i'm not a statistician, nor do i play one on tv. Anastrophe (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the time period you use for your average, you will end up with a given, constant base temperature. Changes in this affect the absolute size of the anomaly, but not the relative size of anomalies compared with each other, or the order of which is the biggest or smallest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Unexpected effects should be described in detail. They are also reffered to as 'tipping point' (eg the stopping of the gulfstream as previously mentioned. See this site —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 08:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
How can the Gulf stream stop? The gulf stream is the current coming out of the Gulf of Mexico (hence its name), and it is driven by equatorial winds pushing water into the Gulf of Mexico and squeezing out the warm water like toothpaste down the East coast of America. 88.111.188.67 (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Since global temperatures have not increased since 2000 the first line is clearly nonsense: "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation." For this sentence to be true there must be an increase in temperature in all recent decades. At the very least the most recent decade should show an increase in temperature. I propose to change this to:
Global warming was the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans beween 1970 and 2000 and its projected continuation.
Global warming is the increase in the ten yearly average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.
Your are doubly wrong. First, we write "in recent decades", not "in each of the recent decades". Secondly, temperature has risen since 2000 according to both GISTEMP and HadCRUT3, the two main temperature records. Not that individual year comparisons are particularly useful... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the anonymous poster wrote "global temperatures have not increased since 2000", and (s)he is wrong. As I wrote, this is not particularly significant, of course. But temperatures have also increased "in the most recent decade" - 2007 was warmer than 1997 as well. Again, this single datum is just to refuse a wrong assumption. The overall warming trend is clear, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
When I originally added that, I had "Relative weight of warming/cooling radiative forcing components as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" as the description, and I had given some thought to have the description clear and brief for non-experts. But that was later changed to "The radiative forcing in 2005 relative to 1750 as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report," but I think description is not as informative, if not being outright cryptic, for a typical user of Wikipedia articles for this type of subject. Comments? I would like to change it back. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Because it's not cryptic and it's rather clear and accurate, totally in line with the IPCC description of the same image. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree -- your version appears indeed to be more cryptic and/or less clear. The graph clearly is about the relative weight of both the heating and cooling components of the major radiative forcings, and my version, the original one, I think describes that. Your version instead suggests that the graph is some sort of comparison between 2005 and 1750. Also I had allowed plenty of time for editors to discuss my proposed changes and you instead simply said you preferred your version without any reason given, then ignored my follow-up request to explain, and then finally you waited until I made the change to revert me. That appears to me to not be in keeping with the spirit of collaborative editing. Agree/Disagree? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, disagree, so I'll stick with my original reasoning. Simply because you don't understand IPCC and climate terminology does not mean it should be changed. Perhaps you should just ask for clarification. Then maybe we can see what the problem is. Sound good? ~ UBeR (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
As you well know, I have to be a wee bit more careful with reverts than others, and since you appear to be unwilling to discuss things in a timely, collaborative manner before reverting, I'll just wait for others to comment. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If I get no comments, I'll take that as tacit approval for me to go ahead and change it back. But I'll wait another day. By the way, did anyone else notice how the main article page went two whole days, Feb 6 & 7, without being touched? That doesn't seem to happen too often. Maybe some people were out celebrating Chinese New Year -- 'tis the Year of the Rat (I won't comment further....) -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Gosh. We haven't had a proper edit war on these pages for ages. Sadly I fear sanity is going to prevail. For those watching, see-also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Callmebc. OK, on to the wording. Firstly, I think this is a relatively minor matter - I could live with either wording - which is why I didn't comment at first. Secondly, any chance of getting rid of the "radiative forcing components" title *on* the piccy: its not needed: thats in the caption. Thirdly... technically, this is the difference of 2005-1750. In practice, its really the current forcing, since its really all anthro and the solar change is so small. That its the 2005-1750 diff is a detail that should be on the image page itself. So I've attempted a compromise: any good? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, "controversial" is incorrect, because it could not be considered in the least bit. A review of the articles that use the same image shows quite similar wording to my adjustment (see Radiative forcing and IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, e.g.), though I like mine more. Also, it's not "relative weight," as Callmebc would have it. It's measured in absolute values of watts per meter squared. Also, it is in fact 2005 (not necessarily current, but at least practically so), relative to 1750, per the IPCC. Also, positive/negative is more accurate than "warming/cooling." So while your new edit is indeed factually correct, I think it quite less meaningful than mine. Of course, this gives us good time to compromise: perhaps "Components of the radiative forcing in 2005 relative to 1750, as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (measured in watts per square meter)." That's infinitelty more descriptive and helpful to the reader, in my opinion. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You like your own? How surprising. I don't know why you bothered to say that its in fact 2005, we all agree that and I said so myself. I just don't think its necessary, as I said (I like my own? How surprising). Lets hope some other people will comment William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting that. I like mine more than the ones found at radiative forcing and IPCC AR4, though they are nearly identical, simply because mines a bit more clarified and wikified. Of course, I still think yours is a bit less meaningful than it could be. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I for one thought I was merely seeking approval to change the wording back to how it was, and not an edit war. If, perhaps, a certain editor had responded appropriately during the days I waited for comments instead of waiting until I made the change and then reverting me with what appears to be a disingenuous edit summary, this would have been the minor issue that it is. But for what it's worth, I'm happy enough with William M. Connolley's version to move on. I will try to focus on more substantial issues, like, say, perhaps reducing the number of references to Henrik Svensmark's work and the Galactic Cosmic Ray cloud seeding thing in general -- how much space does that stuff really merit? Perhaps we can use the ratios in the Radiative Forcing graph as a rough guide tohow much space to allocate to "Causes". Not a bad idea, yes? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Very bad idea. Of course alternative explanations are not represented in the IPCC graph - it represents the best estimate of the IPCC. We don't represent Svensmark because he is correct or his alleged effect is likely large. We mention him because he is notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever searched the main page to see how many times "Svensmark" is referenced? I'm not saying we don't mention him at all; I'm just suggesting that the article gives him and/or his theory too much weight. By the way, what's your opinion on the "Big Radiative Forcing Components Graph Description Wording Controversy," aka the "BRFCGDWC"? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Lets not distort matters, Callmebc. You asked if anyone disagreed with your proposed change and clearly I did. When you asked why, I explained that mine was accurate and inline with the IPCC's description. You changed it anyway and proceeded to edit war over an inaccurate caption. That's unfortunate. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What's to "distort"? I created this section to post a proposal to return the wording to its original. Your only response a couple of days later was "I like my wording, actually." I asked you to explain your reasoning, but you never responded. I waited another day before finally noting that I was changing the wording and then proceeded to change it. It was at that point you reverted me and started this little issue. This is all in the diffs and timeline. Anyway, that's now water under the bridge and I think it would be best now to use this section to get some more input from the other editors. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
.1 degrees isn't that small of a discrepancy when you figure that all of the 20th century warming was only .6 degrees. If all of these sources are equally reliable, maybe we should use averages? Oren0 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
21st Century Global Cooling
Basic recreation
This century global temperatures have been cooling by 0.00438 °C/Year. (Based on data from the met office site see: data)
As any theory must be validated on whether it predicts future temperatures rather than whether it simply fits the historic data when the theory was postulated, obviously whether or not the theory fits 21st century temperatures is key to whether the theory of manmade global warming is valid and I don't think the article reflects this. Where would be the best place to include this in wikipedia? How about a new article? Bugsy (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. While your data is interesting, one of the basic premises of Wikipedia is that it is not a platform for original research. Even though your data seems to be well sourced, you're drawing independent conclusions that haven't been reported in reliable sources. If these conclusions were reported in a scientific journal, newspaper, magazine, etc. then we could talk about inclusion here. Oren0 (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Also perhaps it might be useful for one to first familiarize oneself with the why's and how's for all those jiggly lines seen in global temperature graphs like this and this. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
What I don't see in the article is any sense of scientific testing of the theory of manmade global warming. It all seems to be "soft science" describing a change rather than hard testable science. It really ought to be up to those who assert global warming to prove the theory is correct using data collected after postulation (unless the "scientific method" has been dramatically watered down since I was at university). But I take your point about sourcing articles, and although science doesn't respect a consensus, Wikipedia isn't a science journal and does bow to the majority opinion however wrong it might be. So what exactly would I need to source to be able to change the article? What would happen if 2008 were another 0.2C lower; could I include it then? Bugsy (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
What has the long term trend got to do with testing the theory? You can't assert a theory as valid until you have the data post postulation, that is to say, you get many variables that at random, coincidentally change in unison, so the fact that two variables have changed is not proof of any kind. It is only the basis to draw up a postulate, a prediction which must then be tested against new data. If you are saying it needs to be a long-term trend, then you are saying it can't be validated for 2-3 decades after postulation in which case why doesn't it say that in the article? To make it clear, I was always taught you could not validate a theory on the data you use to postulate a connection - you must get additional data, so when exactly was the theory of manmade global warming first postulated in its current form? Bugsy (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You guys are getting away from the point. Bugsby, it seems you don't entirely buy into global warming theory. I don't either. Callmebc seems to. But our opinions and squabbling here are meaningless. What matters is what's reported in science journals and other reliable sources. In response to your question above, 2008 could be 5 degrees C cooler than the average and you still couldn't draw any conclusions from that in the article unless another reliable source does so. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Oren0 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, lets state my problem. Science is about testability, which means a theory isn't scientific unless it can & has been tested. But I can't find anything about "testing the theory of global warming". Not in this article, not on the web. It is frankly bizarre that such a widely known theory should fail the basic scientific test for credibility of being tested. I think there is a question of credibility here. You can't assert something as true just because no one has been able to disprove it. So, it lacks credibility for Wikipedia to be asserting the theory of (manmade) global warming is true just because a lot of people hold this opinion.
I think we are mixing up two very different articles here! "Global warming" which is about a period of warming at the end of the 20th century which is a proven fact (I think?), and "manmade global warming" which is only a conjectured link between global warming and fossil fuels which as a scientific prediction must be tested against data after its postulation. 88.109.198.124 (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As an example of asserting it is science without showing any scientific testing let me give: "Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount of warming expected in the future, and how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe". Which clearly suggests the theory has been tested against new data, which if it has, then it would be easy to find, and it is not! 88.109.198.124 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The "theory of global warming" is not "it's going to get warmer". It's a complex set of interacting hypotheses, models, and laws that explain why and how it gets warmer. To test such a theory, you do not have to make predictions into the future. The broad theory behind GW has been used to predict the distribution of warming (both by altitude and by latitude), the acidity of the ocean, heat distribution in the oceans, sea level rise. The match between observations and theory has been very good (if not perfect - but then this are processes with well-known random and semi-random effects we cannot yet (or ever) model completely). As an example, the claim that atmospheric CO2 increase is caused by human emissions has been used to make predictions about the isotopic ratio of the carbon in atmospheric CO2. That prediction turned out to be true. The alternative theory that the primary source of increased atmospheric CO2 is the oceans predicts other ratios, and has been falsified by the observed isotope concentrations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess you don't believe in evolution either (which suffers from a similar degree of untestability). Aside from the limitations of believing science is about testability/falsifiability there is a difference between the testability of components of a macro-theory and the overall theory. For example, the space shuttle was scientifically designed before one actually launched and showed it worked. The scientific facts behind the theory are pretty well tested.. --BozMotalk12:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you'd have a point about the 21st century except for the fact the 21st century only consists of 7.2 years. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The one thing I thought people would respond with was some actual links to discussion about the verification of the theory of manmade global warming. I really didn't expect to get more opinions telling me I'm an idiot for not believing in it. If anyone can actually provide a single link then I'd very much appreciate it. If there isn't one, then let's just scrap the whole article as bogus, cause that is what it is increasingly looking like in the absence of proper validation. 88.109.25.45 (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not our job to disabuse you of your incorrect ideas. If you want to learn more about verifying climate change, you can start with the many references listed in this article. Raul654 (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be looking for the evidence that recent GW is anthropogenic. If you read the article, you'll find yourself pointed towards attribution of recent climate change which discusses that. Its not a brilliant page, but it will point you towards better sources if you're interested. Its linked under "due to" in the very first para of this article, so its odd you didn't find it yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This Article Violates Wikipedia Policy
Wikipedia policy states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." This article on Global Warming falls under the realm of unverifiable speculation and should be deleted. (see link)[2]JettaMann (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I would have to agree that the concept of global warming has been disputed by many important scientists who have used unbiased data to show that global warming is still debate in the scientific community, therefore making the article disputable and incapable of being proven absolutely true. For example John Coleman, the creator of the Weather Channel, does not believe that global warming is happening[3], also it's possible to dispute that the earth's temperature is only in a cycle and will return to normal temperature in a few years[4][5][6]. While there are many graphs and charts to see global temperatures since the 1820's, have anyone taken a further look back to see that the earth's temperature was higher in 900 A.D. than in 2000?[7]. It is even possible to dispute that CO2 is capable of affecting the earth's climate change like it has been predicted[8][9]. If nothing else this article should state that it is still a controversial topic. Note: Sources here have been recently updated. Infonation101 (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
On a further note, you seem to be relying a lot on a single source for information. For future reference, unless this is a very reliable source, this isn't a strong basis for a case. If it happens to be a POV site, the entire case is broken right then and there. A general policy of mine is to avoid anything with "blog" in the URL. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs)04:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note taken on my overuse of a single source. I didn't take the proper time to find the original source, but used that as a secondary source. I'll check the articles and see if I can find the original reports. As for the source itself, I do find it very reliable, but that can also be disputed. I'll dig and find the original articles. If they do check out, could the information from those sites also be presented? I would like to see on the Global Warming home page at least a graph of earth temperatures over the last 2000 years to give people a better idea what is going on.Infonation101 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I found all the original sources and posted those above. They still come from the same site, but only as the distributer of the reports given. That should be more helpful. Thanks for the critic and making apparent to me that I didn't have the original sources posted. Infonation101 (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
We already have the two thousand year historical temperature graph here (under the caption "Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale. ") Raul654 (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that, but based on new statistical evidence, and previously unknown errors in the math used in the calculation, the graph is incorrect. Check this report[10]. Here you will see the recorded global trends for the last 2000 years, and also the statistics used to make the corrects. As you will see the graph is drastically different, and I believe this should be made known on the site article.Infonation101 (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The graph in the article has 10 seperate reconstructions. On the other hand, contrary to your claims about math errors, the one paper you point to claims they got more accurate results by ignoring tree-ring data. I'll take that with a grain of salt. Raul654 (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There are only 4 charts of data, not ten (um... right), and if you read the article you would find empirical evidence that by ignoring the tree-ring data a better sample can be created for more accurate results. The statistics used are a standard method for finding error bounds on the calculation, something also not addressed in the main article. The first three charts are showing the samples of data taken from the 15 locations around the world. Then the fourth graph shows the result of combining the data. Please give me a mathematical or evidential reason why this report is incorrect and should not be posted on the main article. From there we can work. Infonation101 (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
We cant really work from there. Read WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR. We are not here to debate anything as to what we think is good or bad data. The point is that the reconstruction presented in this article is the one that is accepted by the scientific community as the best and has been independently reproduced by them many times. Come back when other reconstructions become more prominent in the community of experts. Brusegadi (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Understood. I suggest this is a controversial topic because so many have ask about it's reality. Global Warming is not a mathematical function that has a proof. It is based on statistics, and as such is debatable. Because of the debate taking place I would suggest that other research findings be present on the main page. Such as those found at the bottom of Temperature Changes/Recent. So here I will agree that this report doesn't fall under the WP:WEIGHT structure given, but I'm seeing a trend among the other data sets given. I'm checking on this, but as far as I can see many of the other studies done used the near the same data set, excluding the WP:WEIGHT from this post. I would debate the WP:OR you have suggested because it has been sited from other sources such as this. Thank you though for noting the article. Infonation101 (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You might want to read scientific opinion on climate change. You quote several political think tanks. Those are not good sources on scientific topics. Scientific organizations, on the other hand, in rare unanimity and in extremely rare explicitness, support the predominant position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I found his comment less verbose and easier to read than pages upon pages in academic work, which reach the same general conclusion. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
...not to mention that you should not get your science from the register. Claims in the original paper have been much milder, and, furthermore, the paper has been shown to have serious problems, i.e. use out-of-date data and statistical errors. See e.g. [14]. A single paper is usually only tentative evidence for or against a given theory. In this case, it turns out that the tentative evidence was very likely wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if my words were badly chosen but what I wanted to express is that his comment hides the fact that the main theory is still the output of climate models and/or heavily dependant on how datasets are constructed, rather than the result of direct observation. It was well written and easy to read though, yes. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Though much research has been done, no one has been able to compile all the data in a way that has been accepted by all the scientific community. Weather models are some of the most difficult to work with because of it's expansive nature. One indisputable RS is John Coleman. He has posted his opinions here. Also you will find that he agrees that the best place for information about global warming is http://icecap.us/. I am aware that the blogspot area of the site hosts most of the information on the page, but each article relates back to the original work. It is not in agreement that enough of the scientific communities agree that global warming is happening to make this an indisputable fact. If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? This is how I feel about the massive research that has been done and has not been posted. I am compiling all the research that has been done for the other side, and will return with that. Infonation101 (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Coleman is a weatherman, to be frank. He hasn't published anything in academic journals that relates to global warming. I'm afraid he is not a "indisputable RS." ~ UBeR (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Coleman is only reliable source for his own opinions; he isn't speaking for the scientific community, least of all in that screed in the link above. I was amazed at the quantity of emotional opinion and conflation of short-term trends with long-term observations.
And while you're compiling all the anti-global warming research out there, please make it a point to indicate all the sources whose funding was provided directly or indirectly by the oil industry. (Note that this latter category includes the American Enteprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and other faux-academic institutions that create talking points and whitepapers to support the organizations that give them money). Raul654 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. I am still becoming accustomed to the Wikipedia standards. Note taken on Mr. Coleman and him being an "indisputable RS". My typing got ahead of my thoughts. I will bring together the research that has been done by both sides. With the intent to keep it unbiased, but as you already know I have my opinion. As for where the research funding comes from that brings up a good discussion in itself. I'll do that. Infonation101 (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Where is the Controversy/Criticism Section?
I just read a book called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming". Excellent book and it pointed out some huge problems with the GW theory. Now I come here and see that there is no controversy or criticism section. What gives with that? There are also numerous documentaries that poke glaring holes in the theory. I find it strange that a controversy section is missing. JettaMann (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Criticism sections are discouraged. All notable scientific criticism (not: there is not very much of it) is integrated into the main narrative. You might also be interested in global warming controversy, which is indeed linked from here. "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" is not an excellent book, but a bad hatchet job - indeed, it has one word to much in the title. "Numerous documentaries" are not reliable sources - if you check this article, you will find that we try to rely on the very best sources only, i.e. peer-reviewed scientific articles. It's sad that you have been lied to. Don't fall for it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Stephan, there are serious problems. Namely, what is the fuss about? Warming in the past has always been a benefit to life, not antithetical to life! Most of the doomsday scenarios of "Inconvenient Truth" have been thoroughly discredited *by scientists* that the book names and references. There are a hundred other very well documented problems. So your dismissal of these is thoroughly laughable. JettaMann (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a "social and political debate" section which lists global warming controversy as a main article. The issue is that a long time ago someone decided this page should focus on the science of global warming rather than the subject in general (it devotes barely a passing mention to the politics, controversy, etc). Perhaps in a perfect world there would be a Science of global warming page and this one would serve as an overview of the topic as a whole, but I don't plan on pushing for that because it's a fight I know I won't win. Oren0 (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The book you read opens the debate for some quite interesting points which most Kyoto supporters cannot afford to admit that they're even worthy of discussion. But in my view, the problem is not mostly with the science itself; it's rather with the scientific process. Cure the process and the science will change in some regards. Not sure, though, that it really should be discussed at lenght in this article. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The temperature of the Earth has always been changing over millenia and even centuries and the same is there with the size of the polar ice caps, it is just one of those natural things.
Alexthegreatest (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You will never see anything related to "controversy" here because according to those who run this page, Global Warming is not only in fact real, but caused by "man". Hence, contrary ideas will be given next to no weight whatsover, if any at all. That might spoil the party.
"The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower and surface."
to this:
"The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface."
You might also add it is the process by which it cools the upper atmosphere by radiation and thus the lower atmosphere by convection as well! 88.109.73.125 (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
How do I update the global temperature graph with the 2007 figures?
It is now the end of January and the 2007 global temperature figures have been out some time, yet the graph clearly hasn't been updated. Since the resident editors don't seem to be that keen to inform the public of the latest figure, can someone tell me how I can edit the image to add the 2007 result? 88.109.191.89 (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The easiest way is to simply reproduce a new version of the graph. The data is available from the same source that is cited on the image page, and Gnuplot and Inkscape generally make for a good combination for graph production that conforms to the general style used here (though, of course, it is helpful to do the extra work to be as close to the style of the current graph as possible). -- Leland McInnes (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Leland, as you suggested I have updated the graph. I could not find the average figures in the Hadly dataset and not knowing what kind of average they were based on I have simply removed the average line. Indeed, I really can't see why it is necessary because it is fairly obvious what the trend is without overlaying the actual data with a trend that is not in the original figures.Bugsy (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You also have a typo in the legend, and apparently measure temperature in coulomb. The average is useful because it illustrates the difference between climate and weather, and abstracts from high-frequency random noise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a five year average would be good. "Anomoly (C)" should be "Anomaly (°C)", as Dr. Schulz points out. Also, to disambiguate, if you want to say "1960-91", you should probably have "wrt 1960-91" (that is, "with respect to"). I also think the years on the x-axis should be moved below the plots on the graph. If I wanted to be really picky, I'd say "Global Temperature" should be centered. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Centring "Global temperature" and (°C) I can do. Dropping the x-axis isn't something that is immediately obvious in the graph package. I tried adding an average but not only isn't it in the right place (it all gets delayed), not only am I unhappy to add something that isn't part of the Hadly data, but worse it just seems to hide the actual yearly figures. Bugsy (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've tried moving the axis and the package insists on putting the axis along the zero line - which thinking about it is probably where it ought to be. Afterall I was always taught to put the axis along the zero line and presumably the graph package follows the best practice. Bugsy (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
What graph package are you using? You really should put the x-axis labels at the bottom, and that should be easy to do any any decent graph package (once again, I highly recommend gnuplot; there's a small learning curve but the results are excellent). Also it would be best to provide the plot in SVG format rather than PNG if at all possible. SVG is definitely preferred, and allows other people to more easily edit/update details like the Anomaly (°C)" typo, centering the title, etc. If I get some time (which I hopefully will have this weekend) I will see if I can whip something up in gnuplot myself. -- Leland McInnes (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I would also suggest to revert the image (on the image page) to the last version by Cristan (which is a mechanical translation of the original by User: Dragons flight) and to reupload the current image (or an improved version) under a new name. Currently, the legend is completely wrong - this image is not prepared by Robert A. Rohde, and licensing might be problematic (if licensing information is taken from the image page, the current image will be misattributed). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it should have been uploaded as a separate image. P.S. "Anomaly" is still spelled incorrectly. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I spent a little time on this, and have created two new graphs with the most recent data, displayed on the right. The first is a simple recreation (as close as I can easily manage) of Robert Rhode's wonderful original; the second makes use of the uncertainty data now included in HadCRUT3 to provide a 95% confidence interval. I'll leave it to the regulars here which is the preferable option to go with. Note that I included the gnuplot script used to create the graphs on the image page, so creating consistent updated versions should be easy in the future. -- Leland McInnes (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Very good! I was about to do the same (and came close to the first one). What have you done for the average at the boundaries? I was trying to just use the HadCrut 21-point smoothed curve they provide on the web page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I simply didn't calculate averages at the boundaries, which is a cheap, but effective solution. I would provide the moving average code, but it's something I hacked up a while ago in perl for such data munging and simpyl re-edit to fit needs as they arise; I would be embarrased to publish what is quite ugly code. As for the binomial smoothed version: I was thinking of using that too. On the other hand, the five year (moving) average has the virtue of being simple and easily understood by the average reader. In this case I opted for simplicity. -- Leland McInnes (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Kudos for all that work (I especially like the second graph), but it leads me to ask two questions: 1) Why not use NASA's updated graphs instead since NASA is a government agency? and; 2) How does this graphing not fall prey to WP:SYN? I know the idea is to come up with GFDL compliant images in place of images with usage strings attached, but since you need to take raw data, feed it into a plotting program, do some curve smoothing and such, doesn't this seem WP:ORish a little bit, even if the final result corresponds to other graphs? The main reason I'm asking is that I get chided a lot on WP:OR stuff, especially in regards to using primary sources, even when the point is seemingly very self-evident and obvious. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well that's what I'm getting at, you're taking the raw hadcrut3 data, feeding it into some graphing program, setting your axes and whatnot, and perhaps doing a little curve smoothing as well. I'm assuming that this is fine and dandy with the Wikipedia powers that be, but I am wondering if it's the general policy that if you want to create an image based on some sort of raw data that everyone has access to, then you have a green light as long as it's a process replicatable by anyone. This may not be the best place to ask this, but....I'm just kind of wondering. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a Wikipdia power (or if, a very small one). But for me, it's not the replicability, but the straightforwardness that makes it acceptable. You are not supposed to introduce original ideas. We had a case of some user trying to extrapolate damage figures by fitting a function. That's not acceptable. But simply plotting data in a straightforward way is ok, at least with me. If you have something in mind, why not discuss the concrete case? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree plotting data gathered from reliable sources is not WP:OR, even under the most liberal interpretations, per original image policies. I did sort of like it better without the uncertainties though (which was what I thought the purpose of creating separate graphs was for). ~ UBeR (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've always worked on the principle that any straightforwrd data manipulation is fine. As to the uncertainties: I decided to generate uncertainties for the 5 year average, and found that the presentation ultimately worked well enough that I decided to just update the original. Personally I find that (given the nature of how it is displayed) the uncertainties provide significant extra information with a minimal amount of noise. Fear not, however; if people feel strongly about it we can revert the image and image page, and put the newer version elsewhere. I guess if you feel really strongly you can do this yourself right now. -- Leland McInnes (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't care that much. Just thought it might be a bit more noisy than the average reader would care for. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well since it is minimal trouble, and on reflection I do see some value is dismbiguating them as long as someone cares, I've reverted the old one, and placed the newer one under a different name (see above, now with 3 graphs). I'll leave final decisions to those interested enough to argue, but will put a tenative vote for the alternate (newer) version. -- Leland McInnes (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally think Leland McInnes's charts are fine, and they seem to be in keeping with the Global Warming Art project. I was only wondering if it's generally allowable to take any free, publicly available data set, especially if it's supplied by a US government organization, and create a graph with it that can be used in Wikipedia articles if applicable. Like I said, this may not be the best place to ask, but.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
as those discussing this subject should be well aware, the manner of graphing a data set is not necessarily a routine operation free from possibilities of bias. I can perhaps see using an extended data set to construct a new graph along the exact same lines as those already published elsewhere, if everyone here agree on the objectivity. Anything beyond that is OR. DGG (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much anything other than direct quotes can be interpreted as OR or SYN if you contort, squint, and maintain an absolutely literal interpretation of the "rules". In practice I think it is reasonable to simply apply a little common sense, and not worry about graphs from publicly available data as OR unless there's anything particularly out of the ordinary about it above and beyond a straightforward representation of the data. -- Leland McInnes (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, I do still exist, even though I am less active and I did stop watching this page. I have been planning to update myself, but A) I've been busy, and B) it's not uncommon to see revisions in February due to station data that is not immediately available (only about 20% of stations report to the climatology network in near realtime), so I try not to update in January anyway.
That said, what Leland has done is mostly okay. However, I don't understand where the 5-year error bars come from and that should be checked (i.e. statistical error in an average is smaller than the average of the error).
Also, if you are copying my design (which obviously is the starting point for your layout/coloring), then I would expect a more explicit reference, i.e. a statement like "Based on a design by Robert A. Rohde". Lastly, since this is a derivative design, the license ought to be GFDL based on the license on the original. Dragons flight (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
My apologies; I hadn't seen you around here. If you have a proper update in the works obviously that is going to be better (and more consistent with all the other figures), so I'll gladly defer to you. Sorry about the attribution issues; you're quite right. I'll remedy that now. -- Leland McInnes (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In the section about recent temperature changes the article says "Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C per decade against 0.13 °C per decade)." and this is supposedly supported by this source. But looking at the source i don't see anything supporting that claim. At best the source supports that there is a difference in temperature increases from 1979 to 1997, but if that is the case, then why is this specific fairly short time span used? The year 1979 is not highlighted in any way in the article. --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think whoever typed that meant 1970, but I can't be sure. I didn't find anything else with a cursory read. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
AR4 Chapter 3 sez 0.27°C per decade for land vs 0.13°C for sea since 1979. The year 1979 often pops up in data discussions, mainly because it marks the beginning of substantial quantitative data from satellites. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
According to official met office figures, Jan 2008 was the coldest year since February 1994 being only 0.037°C warmer than the 1960-91 average. Temperatures peaked in February 1998 at 0.749 above this average and have remained relatively stable with a downward trend since the beginning of the 21st century. See:
graph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.73.125 (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
February 1998 was in the middle of the strongest El Nino in the instrumental record. January 2008 was in the middle of a La Nina. Ho hum. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So Raymond, how much do global temperatures have to drop to mention it in the article? Oh, and I've still to find any bookmaker who is taking bets on global warming. Apparently no climatologists are actually willing to put their money where their mouth is. So, Raymond perhaps you are willing to back your words, what odds would you give for 2008 being warmer than 1998 average? Bugsy (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, weather is something that is difficult to predict and gets cooler when you don't want it to, climate is something that is so easy to predict that there is an "overwhelming scientific consensus" that it will not get cooler. Bugsy (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me ask a really stupid question, If next month were to be the coldest month since reliable temperature recording began, would it warrant a mention in the article? Or is even that too little? Bugsy (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, I'll stop making fun of you, when you answer the simple question. How much does the climate have to cool before you will allow any changes to the article? Just tell me and then I'll know how long I have to wait before we can bring some honesty back to the article. 88.109.73.125 (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
But it has already been published in a reliable source, THE MET OFFICE. Are you saying I can get rid of the statement global warming is the warming in recent decades now? 88.109.73.125 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Basic recreationYou are funny Bozmo. As you know the met office have on their site Hadcrut3 which is the data used on the main graph on the article. I really can't see why you are so fussed, afterall the climate is going to heat and there never will be a time when I can change the text to reflect cooling. So, why not humour me and give me a criteria which you would accept for changing it. How far has the attached graph got to go down? Would you accept a monthly, yearly, 5 yearly, decade, century average which has gone down and below what figure. It's not a difficult question is it? Bugsy (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What the Met Office was discussing was a single month's record. We're talking about trends. A trend becomes relevant, i.e. notable, when it appears in reliable sources, for the purposes of this article. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop making me laugh Uber, I broke my ribs a while back and it hurts! As you well know the met office is a reliable source, and Wikipedia allows people to make simple observations like "it is not warming" and then adjust the article accordingly. Stop trying to amuse me and take this seriously, how much does the temperature have to drop before you will accept a revision of e.g. the phrase "recent global warming"? Bugsy (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not allow people to make "simple" observations of this sort. See WP:SYN. "January was cold" and therefore "it is not warming" is OR synthesis. (It's also absurd on its face, but hey.) Marskell (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Why all this fuss if it's getting warming? Now don't tell me that if January is the coldest month in 14 years according to reliable web sites like the met office, that one is not allowed to say "Jan is the coldest month in 14 years", unless some web site says: "Jan is the coldest month in 14 years". If this is the standard of proof you are demanding, then I certainly will apply it to the article with a liberal brush. Now, I take it that no one is against me including the statement "Jan was the coldest month in 14 years", if by chance it happens to be publihsed in a newspaper? Bugsy (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You certainly are allowed to say that. But not here. Putting that factoid in global warming would be to suggest that this month's record somehow falsifies global warming, which it doesn't. You see, you're creating a context of your own--your taking the Met Office's results out of context. They weren't using this data to argue against global warming so neither should you (lest you violate WP:SYN). ~ UBeR (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about global warming isn't it? The basis of the article must be the scientic evidence which I would ahve thought speaks for itself. Are you saying that you would not allow the factual statement global temperatures peaked in February 1998, or would you prefer to "Global temperatures peaked in 1998", or are you insisting that I write "Global temperatures peak in the period 1998-2007", or are you going to insist that it is a decade "global warming peaked in the first decade of the 21st century", or are you seriously saying you would never allow that statement into the article no matter how patently obvious it is to anyone with an ounce of scientific knowledge that the temperatures had gone down. Think about it Uber, you can block some statements some of the time, but you can't block all statements all the time! Bugsy (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you find a reliable source that (explicitly) makes that claim (because it was cold in January, global warming doesn't exist), and I might listen to you. Until then, ta ta. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just to reiterate what Marskell just said, you're not allowed to create your own context out of material from a RS, which the MO is. However, the Met Office is not saying that because it was cold last month that global warming has been negated. That's your argument--not theirs. That's inappropriate synthesis, especially because it's taking information out of context. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think scientists expect these years to be cooler than the ones a decade back due to, among other things, the la nina. I doubt this "cooling" warrants mention because its a short period in a much longer trend and the observations do not contradict expectations. The question is not about how much cooler it needs to get, its about timeframes. If the temperature were to drop severely very fast you might want to start writing in the apocalypse pages. If the temperature drops very modestly per year for the next 50 years than you come here (with a reliable source, to avoid OR). Wow, I'll be 73... Brusegadi (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the big problem here? It's only a la nina. Although global warming might trump la nina, it doesn't mean it's impossible for occasional coolings over a short period of time. After all, even as the global temperature rises, there's going to be ups and downs in global temperature over short periods of time. If it wasn't happening, it would be the coldest in longer time. Remember global warming can cause cooling periods too. This does not disprove global warming. It also does not prove that global warming either is or isn't resposinible. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)18:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Where does the line between Climate change and weather change get drawn? It's not strictly a matter of time frames of the observations but rather a matter of time frame over which the forcing expected to be behind the change can operate right? If the polar regions were painted black in some way, we could speak of an immediate climate change even though climate is observed over long time scales because the darkening could in theory maintain a long term change right? But if the darkening were almost immediately reversed there never would have been any climate change? Or if somehow the atmospheric CO2 were catastrophically quadrupled in a single day we could describe the resulting observed warming as climate change even the very next day but if all the CO2 were some how rapidly sequestered the day after that we still would have observed a "brief" climate change right? or is a "brief" climate change impossible by definition? Is it impossible for the climate to rapidly change no matter what by definition?
and yes I understand that in no way does any of this relate to the fact that we can't use an unexplained observed short term change to infer a climate change.Zebulin (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. I know weather averages of 30 years or more are used in describing climate but I'm wondering if discrete rapid events with long term effects can be regarded as producing a climate change over much shorter periods if it is clear the event would otherwise have had long term consequences for the climate. Like my example of a rapid and very dramatic change in atmospheric CO2. Surely we wouldn't claim the climate was unchanged until 30 years later? Put another way, is the Tuscan weather service quote "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get." a better description of the distinction between weather and climate than the 30 years of observation standard? Zebulin (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
...how much do global temperatures have to drop to mention it in the article?
Temperatures have to drop by such a large amount that it becomes relevant to the science of global warming. When that happens we'll see this mentioned in peer reviewed articles, which is the criterium for inclusion in wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll join one part of the chorus re "how long of drop before it's mentioned," "what's the dividing line between weather and climate," etc. These are not questions we answer on this talk page. They are answered by reliable, scientific sources, if and when they start mentioning them. Obviously, one month is irrelevant. And two and three. My own opinion is that decadal tracking is the meaningful threshold, because the sunspot cycle is about a decade long. But that's just my own opinion, and it's irrelevant—only the sources are relevant. Marskell (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Marskell, that's the first helpful comment I've seen. So let us suppose that the last decade shows cooling on average. Can I then remove the phrase "warming in recent years" and replace it with "warming up until the last decade" or something similar? Bugsy (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
My own opinion is that the first sentence should read "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans after the beginning of the industrial era and its projected continuation." This would eliminate any need to talk about a few cooler years here and there. I'm sure we'll have a decade that was a little cooler than the last in this century (perhaps this one). It's perfectly possible the Sun enters something like a Maunder Minimum and we have a few cooler decades. But anthropogenic climate change is a "self-evident mechanism". A period of cooling does not by itself disprove the trend. Marskell (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to start mentioning science, can I remind you Marskell, that science is on the side of the sceptic, and it is not up to the sceptic to prove that there is not a link between CO2, it is up to you to prove there is, but that is not reflected in the article! 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isonomia (talk • contribs)
Ummm, this stuff was already covered recently. Short term temperature trends, even those lasting several years, don't mean a whole lot when measuring a planetary wide phenomenon like global warming. Again, compare this "short term" NASA graph to this long term NASA graph. Again, see the difference? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the consensus is developing that if a decade shows average trend which is negative then we have to drop the phrase global warming "in recent decades". To save hassles when it happens what would be the appropriate form of words? Bugsy (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
To save hassles when it happens too what is the appropriate form of words when global warming is reduced from reflection off the wings of flying pigs? --BozMotalk15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the phrasing would be "Anecdotal evidence suggests the wings of flying pigs contribute a net cooling effect and therefore there is no global warming. It was also really cold in Wagga Wagga last night. [15]" Marskell (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Marskell - I liked that one! I have not heard anyone against my proposal that the criteria for accepting the end of global warming is that the average trend of Hadcrut3 monthly figures should be negative in a period of 120months and if I understand wikipedia, if no one disagrees, then it becomes official policy for the article, and when it does happen I can change the "global warming in recent decades" to "Global warming was the warming experienced up until 1998". Bugsy (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Bugsy, first, see my reply above. When I said decadal tracking is a logical threshold, I did not mean one decade answers the question; you need multiple data points, obviously, as Callmebc has provided.long term NASA graph Second, your misunderstanding what's been said about WP:SYN. We do not decide on the criteria. Sources do. We have absolutely no business talking about 120 mos. Marskell (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I like this criteria, that nothing can be stated in the article unless it is stated in a reputable source. Would you like me to start going through the article now? More specifically, can you give me some references for warming in "recent decades" from a credible source because unless there is a credible source then as you say it needs to be removed. Bugsy (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"Recent decades" is descriptive enough if you consider the past dozen or so decades as being extremely "recent" compared to the overall age of the earth. Personally I would prefer "since the onset of the industrial era," but that's just me. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, that graph is very misleading; the CO2 scale could be anything you wanted it to be. Thus, it is worthless. What is important is correlation. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
the cato institute has a very different take on the risks of the predicted temperature rise over the next 100 years, call me an optimist if you must but i'll trust them. why is the fact that the objective elements of the scientific community have not yet confirmed this hypothesis (my bias!) failed to be mentioned in the main article? this is the first time i've read the discussion on a topic on wikipedia and i found the discussion above of much more interest than the actual article! one recent month proves nothing regarding a process that moves in cyces lasting thousands of years. moby dick rules! http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5371Christoroyah (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, the Cato institute takes money from ExxonMobile and produces anti-scientific propaganda in the form of talking points and white-papers. If you trust them on global warming, I have a bridge to sell you. Raul654 (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
your oil conspiracy washes no socks with me buddy. the oil industry is heavily monitored by international agencies and every single nation maintains a foreign policy that serves its own interest. give me a counter article from an academic establishment and don't expound paranoia as fact Christoroyah (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
do you understand the statement that one recent month proves nothing regarding cycles that constantly fluctuate over periods exceeding thousands of years? your comrade suggests the propaganda of the oil industry motivates my statements or the references thereof. rather than offering counter proof he attempts to defame my sources. your incomprehension is a manifestation of the same "will-to-not-question". You remind me of the witchsmeller pursuivant episode of blackadder where the peasant woman cries "that proves it!" with reference to edmunds hairstyle and his witchery! if in ten years time you can demonstrae that this hot month was the beginning of an extended warming period lasting from x til y you may hae something i would consider worthy of discussion. Christoroyah (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course I understand that one month proves nothing, which is exactly the point of my post. It was intended to contrast with the previous topic, which also relied on one months results to attempt to discredit global warming. Thank you for your positive reinforcement of my point. I'm not sure anyone has said anything about your motivations, but simply clarified the origins of the funding of the organisation you are using as a reference. If that does not bother you, that is fine, but it still does not make them a reliable source. And it is nice to see another fan of Blackadder. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
i skipped through the last article! my side can be stupid too! i still maintain that the main article expresses none of the widely held opinons that global warming is yet another great fictitious white whale. we need unemotional consideration of actual facts until we have a definitive consensus from the scientific community that global warming, or climate change or whatever still lacks. much love to all blackadder fans but rowan atkinsons stand up sucks! with regard the funding of my souurces thing, i give money to help the aged but i cant dictate their corporate opinion.Christoroyah (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The oil funding propaganda only allows some to avoid addressing the substance of the claims made. Cudos to those willing to work and actually address the questions and/or problems. That is the only way science can progress and reach confident conclusions. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless some number of scientists say that January's temperatures were particularly significant I don't see it being worth noting; yes, gradually rising global temperatures will cause this, but saying "this is proof of global warming" is like saying "Its cold outside, therefore global warming isn't real". Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
First sentence
From here, I think some people want to change the first paragraph of the intro. It states, "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation." It would be helpful to know what we mean by "global warming." Are we talking about what is mostly attributable to humans (1950-present)? Since the instrumental temperature record, which is linked to, by the way (1850-present)? Since the Industrial Revolution (~1750-present)? ~ UBeR (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That sentence (and the one immediately following it) do not speak of the causes of the warming -- only that it (the warming) exists. The fact that it is mostly man-made is established in the 3rd and 4th sentences. Raul654 (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, if we aren't talking about anthropogenic global warming, but rather a much broader sense of the phrase given observed increase of temperature, does "recent decades" still make sense? What I got from Dr. Arritts page is that he refers to what is "attributable" (to humans I'm guessing). Marskell wants to imply since humans began industry (to avoid trolling). ~ UBeR (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
We've discussed this ad-naseum. Unless it is otherwise clear from the context, "Global warming" refers to the recent (last few decades of) climate change, and its expected continuation in the future. The CO2 production that produced this began with the industrial revolution, but its effects did not become clear until the last few decades. The article - correctly - addresses global warming as a phenomenon whose effects are (a) observable recently and (b) caused by CO2 production (which did not start recently). This article is *not* about the global warming that occured in past geologic eras, or James Inhofe's claim of martian global warming, etc. Raul654 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Raul nails it. Most definitions from reliable sources emphasize recent warming or anthropogenic forcing; those two criteria are essentially the same, since most of the anthropogenic forcing has occurred since 1970.[17][18][] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond arritt (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Not gonna happen: the two warmest years of the 90s were 1998 (first warmest) and 1997 (second warmest). 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 were all warmer than 1997. Raul654 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well we have 2 years (2009 & 2009) left in this decade. The 90s averaged 0.26 C on the anomaly scale, and the 00s so far rate 0.44 C. So, to make the 00s colder than the 90s, you'd need those last two years to average -0.47 C. Good luck with that. Dragons flight (talk)
Sorry, but we're accustomed to people seriously making arguments like that. Stick around here long enough and you too can descend into the depths of cynicism and despair. ;-) Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and "recent warming" and "anthropogenic forcing" are most emphatically not the same thing. The first has been passively observed (and could briefly plateau or reverse), while the latter is a self-evident mechanism. We should distinguish them. Marskell (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, we do distinguish them. We say that global warming per se is the temperature trend, then we go on to discuss causes. If you're still hung up on the "recent decades" bit then let's change that to "past half century" since that's what IPCC uses, or maybe the equivalent "since the mid-20th century." Don't worry about the Bugsys of this world -- they will always find something they can object to. Write the best article we can with the most solid basis in reliable sources and deal with Bugsys as they arise. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't like "past half century" because it's unmoored temporally, in the same way "recent decades" is. "Mid-20th century," with a few sources, would be OK, and I suggest we adopt something like that, to at least provide a starting value.
I know what you're saying generally, but I still think we may have a cart and horse problem that will invite more Bugsys. It may be more a failure of the lexicon, than a failure of us, however. "Global warming," as used casually, actually conflates "recent warming" and "anthropogenic forcing," when they should be held distinct. We're not really in a position to separate them. Marskell (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, my 2 cents is that we are talking about a phenomenon involving global-wide warming that started around the end of the 1800's. Many years of research and increasingly precise data gathering has lead to the now general scientific consensus that the primary cause of this phenomenon is human activity, specifically in its ever increasing emissions of vast amounts of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. So we are not talking specifically about "anthropogenic forcing" as the topic -- we're talking about a "global warming" phenomenon that's best explained by anthropogenic forcing. If an article is about, say, "automobiles," you wouldn't split hairs over whether it's "engine driven" as opposed to something that "naturally" freewheels down a hill. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If the globe were to cool for one, two, or ten years in the midst of anthropogenic forcing (not impossible), the trolling would be constant. (A single cold January is enough to produce some trolling.) That's my primary point in suggesting the two should be held distinct. I think the first sentence inadequate. But it's held up so far. *Shrugs.* Marskell (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope. "A period of a few years" is not "climate change." Otherwise every El Niño / La Niña would be an instance of "climate change," which of course it isn't. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
How about like either "Global warming is the pronounced, overall increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation" or "Global warming is the gradual increase in the overall average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation"? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The caption under the chart says, "Global mean surface temperature anomaly 1850 to 2007 relative to 1961–1990."
However, if you click on the chart, the information says, "The most recent documentation for this data set is Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Haris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones (2006)."
Since the source was published in 2006, it could not possibly contain temperature data from 2007.
Therefore, the caption under the picture is not accurate.
