Talk:Climate change/Archive 36

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.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

→

Cooling

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.68.146 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The temperature dropped over the course of a whole year? Imagine that! I must say, I've noticed it too -- last July, here where I live in the US, the average daily high must have been in the high 90s. (mid 30s for you metric people) And just six little months later, it's dropped into the 30s (1-2 degrees C).

The moral of the story: temperature data is noisy. You can't judge it over the couse of a single year - especially during a La Nina year when everyone expects it to cool slightly. As RA said previously, that would be like saying there's no such thing as inflation because your local walmart is having a sale. Raul654 (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the actual report these articles are 'based' on can be found here. It says that the global temperature anomaly is 0.18 degrees above normal. There's little else I can draw from it, apart from a stark illustration of La Niña. As always, breathless reporting does no-one favours. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Will no amount of data against Global Warming change peoples minds? Even in the face of a huge drop, the drop that, as columnists noted today, "wipes out" the whole temperature rise of the last 100 years, not even an acknowledgment that maybe something is up. Global warming really is a religion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Writings of columnists are usually not of high scientific quality. Let's stick to the peer reviewed scientific literature. Count Iblis (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither are "documentaries" of politicians12.26.68.146 (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is based off of data from Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS, none of which are considered low brow or partisan researchers. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the original data come from. Putting good data in the hands of an idiot is like giving a Mercedes to a drunken teenager. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes! It doesn't matter where the original data came from! If it doesn't support Global Warming, it must be silenced! Viva Stalin!12.26.68.146 (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn, you are full of good analogies ;) Raul654 (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

People are always saying I'm full of something. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(dedent)It's worth noting that this is being picked up by a few other news outlets: Fox News and the Canada Free Press. Obviously it's too soon for any peer reviewed science on the issue. If (as I suspect may happen) the media as a whole picks up on this and claims that it's evidence against GW, we'll have to pick up on it and mention it. Like it or not, this page is about global warming in general, and if large numbers of reliable sources report something it becomes fair game here. Oren0 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it worth noting that Fox News talks about it? Fox News didn't create it, they just reported on it. If Fox News reported that the sky is blue, does that make it not true? And you're half-right here... This article SHOULD be on Global Warming in general. Unfortunately, it's about how we're all destroying the Earth and we all have to resort to living like cavemen to stop it. "Saving the world" isn't about actually saving the world, it's about keeping the Earth a place that man can inhabit, whether it goes against natural planetary cycles or not. I've been following the discussion and reading scientific articles and looking at hockey-stick graphs for years now, and I'm sorry, the idea of man-made Global Warming is unproven, and this article should represent as such. The IPCC, a panel of yes-men scientists hand-picked by politicians does not constitute a scientific "consensus" that eliminates the legitimacy of debate.12.26.68.146 (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Brit Hume hardly qualifies as a reliable source for making scientific pronouncements. As others have said, let's stick to the peer-reviewed scientific literature here. Thanks though, Silly rabbit (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the condescension. Read what I said again. IF the mainstream media (read: not just Fox, CFP, et al) begins reporting that these temperature readings have an impact on the credibility of global warming, then we'll have to report that information here. We don't have to wait years for papers to get published before we can report on a topic, nor is there any sort of Wikipedia rule I'm aware of stating that media aren't reliable sources for scientific information. Of course we'd prefer scientific literature, but that doesn't change our right to report on what reliable sources report on, which is the way Wikipedia is built. Oren0 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't we have a "Social and political debate" section? Why not mention it there? That section is clearly in need of balanced POV. The machine512 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do have to wait for it being mentioned in other than mainstream media (which isn't reliable for science), ie. in the peer-reviewed press. Since this is a scientific article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is about global warming. That includes all of the relevant areas upon which GW hits: scientific, social, political, economic, etc. If this article were entitled science of global warming, the conversation would be different. If a major story regarding any of these aspects of global warming floats around the popular press, that's good enough for inclusion. Again, there is no Wikipedia policy that I'm aware of that states that the popular press cannot be used as sources in scientific contexts. Even if that were the case, this page isn't just about the science. Oren0 (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That this article is about the science is the long standing consensus. If you want to lobby for changing that, fair enough, but just stating it isn't going to. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside experts have praised the article for "sticking to the science."[1] Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Oren0 wants this article to be praised by a different group of people :) Count Iblis (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys think I have malicious intentions with regards to this page. I don't want to turn this page into some haven for GW skepticism. There are several things I think this page has gotten wrong. As I said above, global warming is about more than just science. Since the topic is so broad, pretty much every piece (attribution, controversy, economics, politics) has been punted to its own article, per WP:SUMMARY. I think it's time to do the same for science of global warming and leave this page as more of an overview. The decision to make this page all about the science was made before I started editing GW articles (so over a year ago) and now that the articles have grown so much I think it's time to revisit it, but I'll make that proposal more officially another time. The main reason I spend so much time on these GW pages isn't because I'm some kind of skeptic crackpot, it's because some editors here exert ridiculous ownership or these articles and bite anyone that comes near them (and I know I'm nowhere near the first to make this observation). I'm just trying to ensure that anyone that makes any attempt to question the global warming dogma isn't bullied out of existence. And I'm fairly unswayed by accolade in the press. Oren0 (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this page into some haven for GW skepticism. - {{fact}} The main reason I spend so much time on these GW pages isn't because I'm some kind of skeptic crackpot{{fact}} Raul654 (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this isn't a "science only" article, hence the social and political section. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Its also noticeable that the CFP article is factually incorrect. 2007 did show "the greatest single drop in temperature in recorded history". Doesn't speak well for the editorial process and fact checkings at CFP - and thus for the reliability of the CFP in general. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Social and political debate", some of this already exists in the Global warming controversy and the Climate change denial article. Perhaps Brit Hume et al can find a home there in one or the other of these two articles. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Weight reduction for the Solar Variation section and Svensmark refs

While I had argued before for altogether depreciating both in the past, at the very least can they be reduced in size? Mainstream science has Solar related effects, which includes Henrik Svensmark's idea of cloud seeding by galactic cosmic rays, as being a very minor component at best in the current global warming trend. Which seems to make both the size of the Solar Variation section and the number of references to Henrik Svensmark a bit unbalanced. I suggest both get reduced in size by about half at least. Thoughts? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The solar variation section is fine, per all the previous discussions. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I wait for somewhat more neutral input on this. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Developing countries, rather than the developed world, are at greatest economic risk"

This sentence is indirectly sourced from [2]. There it is written: "Although the steady increase in economic and insured losses is more a function of the concentration of economic development in vulnerable regions than climate change per se3, it is clear that climate change will exacerbate these loss trends. Although less developed countries (LDCs) are particularly vulnerable to future climate impacts, there will also be significant effects in developed countries (Annex 1 to the Kyoto Protocol). The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underscored the gravity of the situation when it revised upwards the expected temperature changes over the next 100 years, and presented new and stronger evidence that most global warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities4."

The first sentence implies that economic losses are highest at the regions of concentrated economic development (e.g. London area, Florida, etc.). The second sentence is about vulnerability to climate impacts, it is not clear if it is economic vulnerability or some other type vulnerability. The sentence "Developing countries, rather than the developed world, are at greatest economic risk" should be removed because it is contradicted by the first sentence in the quote and not really supported by the second one. --Doopdoop (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The actual ref in the article is Climate Risk to Global Economy, and on page 2 it goes:

Recently issued scientic reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among others, have affirmed that most global warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. They have also concluded that:

the climate may warm faster than previously thought;
developing countries are most at risk; and
at some point, sudden and irreversible shifts in global climate patterns may occur.

You're not ref'ing the actual cite used in article ("indirectly" doesn't count), and the actual ref used supports the wording in the article. I'm therefore reverting you again. If you still want to disagree, it's best to do it here first before making undiscussed changes since you have the burden of proof to justify your change. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actual reference does not refer to economic risk. Also, actual ref is just an executive summary of the document I have cited above. In any case, we have conflicting sources - one sentence says regions of concentrated economic development are at risk, the other describes generic risk to developing countries. I am glad that you explained your revert in the talk page. --Doopdoop (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It might make sense to use the 2007 publication instead of the 2002 one. Here's the 2007 CEO briefing [3]. Honestly, I can't find a more extensive report; it looks like the UNEPI is mostly confining itself to CEO briefings (which don't appear to be summaries of anything else) and singed statements; the most recent document on the UNEPFI climate change page [4] over 25 pages long is a 2002 document. The documents are very vague; they are saying the developing countries are at greatest risk, but they aren't defining what the risk is. Does this mean the risk of the largest dollar value loss? The largest relative disruption of local economies? How about changing the language to better reflect the contents of the UNEPFI source (either 2002 or 2007) to "Developing countries are singled out as being at particular risk from global warming." - Enuja (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How about using this ref instead? -- it's a bit more "no if's or but's" about the matter. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You have found an excellent source. Would you agree with replacing this disputed sentence with "Developing countries where approximately a third of the gross national product is agricultural and subsistence agriculture is still being practiced will be particularly harmed by global warming" and citing Schelling? --Doopdoop (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the section is about the economic effects of Global Warming and since the Shelling piece particularly addresses this, I don't see why not. But that's just me.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for an opinion of Stephan Schulz and Enuja then. --Doopdoop (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Another reference to chose from [5] - which (imho) is pretty clear on the subject:

A core challenge is to reach agreement among major emitting countries on objectives and/ or polices to limit future greenhouse gas emissions (in addition, for example, to those designed to reduce the costs of climate change through adaptation). Significant problems of international coordination here arise given that the consequences of GHG emissions, by any one country affect everyone globally. These are exacerbated by the fact that climate change is caused by increases in the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, for which industrialized countries bear primary historic responsibly, while a much larger share of future emissions are expected to come from emerging markets and developing countries. In addition, the impacts (and therefore the benefits of mitigation) are unevenly distributed, with low-income countries likely to be most seriously affected.

I btw. think that the dubious tagging is incorrect (in any instance), since i don't think anyone here considers it dubious, but rather that we may not have sufficiently clear sourcing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

KimDabelsteinPetersen, would you agree with replacing the current sentence with the one that uses Schelling ref? --Doopdoop (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly i think that the wording currently in the article is correct - but i can see that the current reference/references so far have been ambiguous. The Oct 2007 IMF World Economic Outlook appendix 1.2~~[6]~~ (corrected: [7]) is pretty clear - but doesn't have a direct sentence that says "developing countries will suffer most economic damage" - but its rather clear when reading it (ie. there is no single sentence that says it - but the overall picture is clear). This report goes through all of the major studies of the economic effects of climate change (Stern, Nordhaus, Tol, Mendelsohn). I'd say we include the IMF report and the above short news release as additional backing for the current sentence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The current paragraph is all about the UNEP FI Climate Change report, so if we change the sourcing we probably need to change the location of the sentence. I'm perfectly happy with adding additional sourcing to the existing sentence (wherever it may end up), but if you want to change the wording, how about something a little simpler, such as "Developing countries dependent upon agriculture will be particularly harmed by global warming" . Honestly, at this point, actually editing the article would probably be the most productive move; it's easier to re-organize and refine language using the neat wiki tools and looking at diffs. - Enuja (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The point here was that Doopdoop found it dubious that the UNEP really meant economic damage. We've found sufficient reliable sources to show that this in fact isn't dubious, and that while the sentence in the UNEP article/report is ambiguous, the data (and other equally reliable sources) supports it. We can rewrite the section - thats ok for me - but your proposed sentence is incorrect, as dependent on agriculture isn't singled out as a factor. (based on natural resources is though). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try using Schelling's quote with Enuja's wording. If you have any ref about natural resources, let's discuss it here and then we can incorporate it too. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly are we choosing the opinion of a single individual (albeit a nobel prize winner) over the International Monetary Fund's report (which in turn is based on a plethora of macro-economic studies of the subject)? I'm just curious - since neither is dependent upon the UNEP info. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

IMF's report is an opinion of four individuals (albeit working for an impressive sounding organization), and has only one sentence related to impact to low-income countries. Would love to have refs to a plethora of macro-economic studies though. --Doopdoop (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm - sorry? A) The IMF is not just an "impressive sounding" organization - look them up - i placed a link. (you could without blushing call them (along with the world bank) the UN of economics) B) A report is not the opinion of the authors (at least not if they are scientifically honest). C) There is a lot of data on low-income countries in the report and in the references linked by the report, take some time out and read it. D) You can find the references to the plethora at the end of the report page 67. Worth mentioning here is Nordhaus(2000+2006+2007),Tol(2005),Stern(2006),Mendelsohn et al(2001). Which according to my readings are the giants on the field of economic assessments on climate change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To summarize: I suggest you read the article on the IMF - because i suspect that you think that this is a think-tank, an astroturf or lobby group. Then i suggest that you read the report or at least the summary news release i've linked. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice your second IMF paper and was refering to the first IMF link in my previous posts to this thread. Second IMF paper is much better but as you say is hard to cite and citing it could create WP:OR concerns. Maybe you can add this second IMF paper to the Further Reading section?

There is absolutely no need for me to read an article about IMF. Once I had an unsucessfully edited an article regarding IMF (diff [8]) and was reverted by users that are convinced that IMF is an evil cabal that destroyed the Soviet economy by advising Yeltsin in 1991 (although by the time the IMF had its first discussions with the new Russian government in November 1991, Gaidar and his team already had a clear idea of the economic reforms they wanted to introduce.). --Doopdoop (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not use both refs? The Schelling piece makes for a good clear summary -- he's a world acknowledged expert talking within his field of expertise. And just have a second link to the less clear but more technical IMF piece -- the old [1][2] punch. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No headline

The Gobal Warming artical NEEDS more on the debates that gobal warming could just be a natural weather pattern. Recent reasearch has shown c02 effect in the greenhouse effect is much less the what was though before. Also the fact that the Gobal Warming simulations that have been recently been used as an example have been proven to be less "right" as thought before.(Bigjimmy65 (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

I would suggest you show us your sources. The current version is based on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. I have seen no recent strong challenges to this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

RS, RS, RS... Well, you asked for it. So, all but one model up till now uses tree-ring data, but now brought into question is if tree-ring data is even viable. So, what do the reports show if the tree-ring data isn't included? Well, let's take a look here. I'll even send you straight to the CSV files here so you can graph it yourself. Huh, looks a lot different. Now let's look way way back. NOAA did a data sample taken from Russian ice samples and produced the graph at the bottom of this page. Strange, if NOAA is correct in their data sample then we aren't even at the warmest we have ever been. Now a big question about CO2 and it's affects on the environment. How about this paper page 4. It addresses the topic that the earth's temperature fluctuation have been followed more closely by the sun than by CO2. And don't RS me about this on. All the sources are cited in the paper. There are pages beyond this that have been published, but have never come to public attention. How about the fact a conference in New York, with quite a few experts in the field, is being held this week questioning global warming? Bob Carter is a distinguished scientist in the field that was interviewed by Glenn Beck talking about this conference. *NOTE: Here is the site about the conference. Took me a while to dig up.* And I think the most interesting report comes from here. Reporting that all the stations had been repainted with Latex paint, interfering with temperature monitoring equipment. Reported discrepancies are as high as 5 degrees Fahrenheit above what they should have been because of this new paint, and also station proximity to roofs and the like. So now even all of our data is off. How are we supposed to know what really is going on? This is not an exact science, so there's no way to give an exact answer. Infonation101 (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of your "sources" deals with the claims above, i.e. "recent reasearch has shown c02 effect in the greenhouse effect is much less the what was though before", and "Gobal Warming simulations [...] have been proven to be less right as thought before". As for your "conference", I suggest you read this. But if you start using the Heartland Institute as a source, you must be really desperate... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me how is it that because the fossil fuel industry is funding some research that it is automatically considered invalid? Don't give me that the environmentalists are a group of concerned people that only want to save the environment. Al Gore lives in a 30 bedroom house and pays over $2000 a month in utilities. Right, a real environmentalist. Your source to discredit the Heartland Conference is more like a blog. Why don't you try reading the list of speakers of the conference. Hm... Looks to me like quite the list of experts in their field. Now you're reaching for strings trying to discredit the conference with your little blog entry. And by WP's own entry on the Heartland Institute, it looks like quite the involved and published institute. Oh, and I was supporting the "global warming could just be a natural weather pattern" at the beginning of the thread. Not the involvement of CO2 in the environment. Infonation101 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that the IPCC's vice-chair, Yuri Izrael, was a speaker at the conference. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"A" vice president, not "the" vice president. But back to User:Infonation101: Because we rely on Gore as a source, we are wrong. Hmm....funny...I can't seem to find his name in any of the sources we use. What's your point again? And looking at the list, what is obvious is that there are extremely few climate scientists on it, and the best qualification listed for most is "fellow" of some think tank. "Quite the list of experts", indeed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

About the list. If you read the list you would have found it is the list of speakers, not of attendees. And what may I ask be a reputable scientist? Most of the printed articles on the main GW page is full of researchers that are professors of some University. I mean, you take the time to disregard a vice president of the IPCC. And why would you do that so quickly if you were sure that your research would stand up? Also, the point about Al Gore is that the money trail goes both ways. He might not have his name on the research, but he has funded many research programs and made quite a bit in the process. If you are so sure about your research, and your stance, then go through it all and prove to me by the data driven research you love that global warming is a fact, not an opinion. I don't see a single spot on the page that provides all the alternative information that has been presented. Infonation101 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore has funded "many research programs"? Tell me more. But, given your great list of scientists: Are you with Singer, claiming that we still have 200 years or so to go in the upswing of an "unstoppable global warming" cycle[9], or are you with Carter "global warming has stopped in 1998"[10]? Or has your "data-driven research" not allowed you to settle on one of these positions? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishing between Scientific Theories and Observed Scientific Fact

Just my 2 cents here but the article, starting with the first sentence really doesn't approach the subject as scientific theory, but seems to try and state it as fact. While "Global Warming" itself may be accurately described as a term by the first sentence sans "projected continuation". The "projected continuation" implies Global Warming Theory, which should IMO be handled a little differently. The term "theory" only appears in this article twice as opposed to 34 uses in the page on Gravitation (not counting references) which is why I am concerned that the tone and structure of this article really doesn't seem to be in keeping with other scientific articles on WP (see evolution, gravitation). 71.164.241.199 (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to distinguish between Global Warming as an observed fact and theories e.g. in the form of climate models that try to model it to various approximations. Similarly, the existence of gravity is an observed fact, not theory. But there are various theories that describe it to some approximation. Count Iblis (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming is a theory, in fact, it's referred to as climate change now. Why? One of the reasons is that The Polar Ice Caps are almost back to their pre-1980s levels. An article to source. http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming_or_cooling/2008/02/19/73798.html --98.207.122.9 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No. And NewsMax is not remotely a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool dude, we can play that way. Here is the information given from the University of Illinois. How about NOAA? Last I heard that info is good. Let's look through some of their reports: 07/08 Western Hemisphere, Climate of 2008 January (and if I read at the bottom correctly it says, "The January 2008 snow cover extent was the largest extent over the 42-year historical record.") I know it also says that temperature is above average, but that's not what is being discussed here. I've read the reports on La Nina, and I invite anyone to dig up articles dated before January 08 that predicts this much snow fall. So Stephan, Yes, and the whole RS thing has to be seriously thought through. I swear I read that in every article that says anything remotely against the concept of Global Warming. I find it here an easy way to shut people up. Not get the truth. Infonation101 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I invite anyone to dig up articles dated before January 08 that predicts this much snow fall. - La Nina expected to make months ahead wet, cold - More snow and windstorms likely - http://www.theolympian.com/incaseofemergency/story/229350.html , dated September 2007. "SEATTLE — Expect a wetter than normal fall and winter, and maybe more snow and wind storms, forecasters said Thursday at a National Weather Service workshop." And with that, your claims are thusly debunked. Raul654 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Cook says, "There is a strong correlation with snowpack in the mountains and snow in low-lying areas" Hm... Mountains and low-lying areas. Is there any evinced that La Nina would affect the polar ice pack levels? Give me an article that shows how La Nina could get all the way up or down there. And where is a data sample or some type of graph? I don't even see how this is scientifically substantiated. This is coming from the Seattle area, but is in no way a prediction for the GLOBAL affect. And really Raul654, the whole argument doesn't ride on this fact, so it couldn't be "debunked" even if you found a correlating article. I just invited anyone to because I was curious. Infonation101 (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic here, but the point here was to critique the lack of references to the theories cited as supporting information and lack of discussion on Global Warming Theory as a theory. In the referenced articles (gravitation, evolution) the tone and structure seems to be much different than this page. I find the lack of effort in this article to distinguish between observable and agreed upon scientific fact, and the theories that attempt to explain them to be disconcerting. Furthermore, the lack of references to the various theories presented as theories seems to imply that they are instead facts. In general, I think the article seems rushed... maybe even "breathless" as it plows through only the theories and references that support the idea of global warming. 205.141.201.25 (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Politics are the source of the need to suppress doubt. This is, imo, the one major problem with this article, which would otherwise be mostly fine. You correctly point to the different tone of other important scientific articles, which do not fall into scientism as this one does, despite not being all about modelling complex systems. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Good argument, and I agree with you, but how do you plan on making any changes to the page? As you can see from the large amount of discussion above, everything that is presented receives an attack on the basis of RS or NOR, etc. I've compiled at least two dozen independent research reports that give sufficient evidence against global warming, and I'd be happy to present the research if I knew that it would actually make a difference. Also, sorry about getting off topic above. The politics that get involved really bring out the best in me. Infonation101 (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just give a list of the peer reviewed papers here so that we can all check them out. Count Iblis (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Models may underestimate climate swings 1 2. New models created based on non-treering data 3. Temperature is found to better follow sun surface temperature, not CO2 levels 4 5 (ICECAP is peer-reviewed). NOAA released data that shows we are not at our highest temperature 6. Our temperature monitors have been incorrectly eaten and used, and the data we have been receiving is off 7. Over 500 scientists have gotten together the first week of March to discuss if global warming is even real 8 (this is to show that there are many experts in the field that doubt global warming). Polar ice cap levels are completely back to normal 9 10 11. The arctic shows no signs of green house gas warming 12. Here's some of them. How many articles would have to be presented for this to be so obviously apparent? Infonation101 (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It might help if you actually read the sources you quote before posting them here: The arctic is most certainly not back to normal. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm really confused what your argument is. After looking at the link that you posted here, and going through several year comparisons, it does look 2008 has more ice on the North Pole than previously. Here is the graph from that same site that I was referring to. Also from your post, if we look at information from 10 years ago it looks like this. Looks to me like there is a lot more ice now than there was. Infonation101 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think that 2008 has more ice than 1980, then you are not reading that graph correctly. The purple areas - areas of 100% ice concentration - are substantially smaller in 2008 than in 1980. As far as this graph, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why the Artic ice was thicker in January 2007 and thinner in September 2007. Raul654 (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

On the graph it shows receding off the coast of Norway, but more than usual off the coasts of Alaska, and also the Norther part of Maine. Now moving off this specific subject, what about all the other research that has been presented? You asked for all of it, and now it's like none of it is valid because one discrepancy exists. Every research paper that may come up has been disregarded. Every researcher that opposes global warming is being figuratively dismembered. When and how can some of these topics be presented on the main GW page? Having read over the other cited articles from which the page was written, most of these articles meet the same NOR, RS, PR, etc. that everyone that has been asking for. Infonation101 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is all utterly nonsensical -- go see this. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Infonation101, I tried to go through all of your links.

Link #1 is a New Scientist news article about Link #2, so Link #2 is what needs to be evaluated. The article is a highly technical paper on how to do a better job of reconstructing early temperature. Where would this reference go in the general coverage on Climate in Wikipedia? It looks like it should go on Temperature record, or Temperature record of the past 1000 years (in the Northern Hemisphere). Unfortunately, the sections on how proxies are used need more information and more sources (and more organization; I'd expect that stuff to be in temperature record, but it's mostly in past 1000 years) before they would benefit from the very interesting but very technical Nature paper you've linked. In other words, this reference doesn't appear useful right now.

Link #3; I'm not having a lot of luck with the journal "Energy and Environment." This website [11] does not read like the website of a peer-reviewed basic science journal, and the journal doesn't appear to have a publisher; the link to abstracts goes to a self-publishing bussiness. If you follow that link and glance at the titles, a trend becomes instantly obvious; this appears to be a self-published climate change skeptic journal. So I'm not going to pay $18 to read the article. I can find other publications by C. Loehle that are in genuine peer-reviewed literature, but ISI's combined database search does not appear to include "Energy and Environment." So, I can't evaluate the article, but the source is suspect.

Links # 4 & 5. Icecap doesn't look any more peer reviewed than RealClimate. A bunch of people getting together and agreeing on something is not peer review. In peer review, an editor (usually a group of editors) chooses at least two people to review the paper, reads the reviews, and decides if the paper should be included in the journal or not.

Links # 6. Doesn't appear to have anything to do with NOAA, and the first page at least includes facts that seem consistent with what I'm familiar with and with what is on this wikipedia article. There are some value-judgement related words that appear to be different from what is on this article page, but we try to let readers on Wikipedia make their own value judgements, so I don't see how this link could help improve the article.

Link # 7. Eat what? I followed the link anyway, even though I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but this is a private call for data, not peer-reviewed, published complied data.

Links 8-11 have been addressed above.

Link # 12 Is a 1993 news article. For links #1 & 2 you gave the important part, the actual published paper. I'm not going to look this one up because it is 15 years old, and so I'm not sure how it could improve the wikipedia article.

I hope all of that wasn't a waste of my time, and you are convinced that most editors really do like to see good sources. I don't see any sources here that should be included in this article (although there is one that should be in included in an improved version of a different article. In the future, please try to improve the article by suggesting specific improvements, backed up by peer reviewed literature, instead of just listing sources that you think disagree with the article. - Enuja (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Impressive. That puts my faith back into what actually reaches these pages. One last question for now. This image I compiled in a hurry using csv files taken from NOAA about global temperature records (Series 2) and CO2 levels (Series 1) and solar temperature records (Series 3). How is it that they attribute global temperature more to "anthropogenic greenhouse gas" than to solar temperature? Honest question. I just see more correlation to solar surface temperatures than the steady rise of CO2 that's been put into the atmosphere. I quickly read through about a dozen reports from the main page, but didn't find anything that addressed this question specifically. Infonation101 (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a similar plot some time ago: Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg. The real trick is that you want to smooth the solar data over at least an 11 year interval so you can see what's going on beyond the 11 year cycle oscillations. With that done the longer term trends are more clear -- certainly solar effects are a driver, but the last 50 years or so starts to show the effects of CO₂. So yes, solar effects are quite clear in high frequency ranges, but the longer term, lower frequency, trends are CO₂ driven, and that's (a very simplistic summary of) why it gets the blame. -- Leland McInnes (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

While I enjoy a good debate as much as the next Joe on the internet, the question was one of style and tone. As a whole, and please don't take this personally, the article reads more like a thesis paper than a WP article attempting to cover a very complex subject in an objective fashion.

1.) We might want to consider a section or page something along the lines of Evolution as theory and fact to clear up some of the ambiguity in terminology and distinguish between the pieces of "global warming" attributed to observable scientific fact and the areas that are theory.

2.) I think the structure/outline of the article should be revised in a manner more consistent with other WP science articles. The page on evolution does a very good job at breaking a complex subject into easy to digest sections where this page seems to ramble, restate, and overlap. To me, this is the most significant problem with the page.

3.) Given the breadth and complexity of the subject, this article should serve as a coherent jumping off point to other articles that dig into particular subject areas. Again, the article seems to be somewhat random as to what Main Article links are where and why. (for example, why is Effects of Global Warming the Main Article link for two different sections? Why isn't the Article on Climate Change referenced for Feedback Loops in addition to or instead?)

4.) While I respect the fact that there are other main articles on the matter, the lack of any significant mention of debate, skepticism or alternative theories (the article on gravitation lists alternative theories for goodness sake) seems very out of place for a scientific subject that is as complex and in a state of flux as this one is. 71.164.241.199 (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is more than enough fringey stuff in the article (do a word searches on the page for first "Polar" and then "Svensmark"). Among scientists actively engaged in climate research, there is now very, very little, if any skepticism or alternative theories. The debates have all been among the, hmmm...how to put this..."great unwashed of science". -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

theory. My opinion. 66.255.105.3 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Try "Step 6 in a scientific process to explain an observed and measured natural phenomenon". Whereas an opinion is "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof". Hope this clarifies. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, the combined theory on global warming (computer models, the various positive feedback loop behaviors, disproving of solar variation, the attributed and expected effects, etc) is so concrete that we can hold it to a higher standard than the discussion on the theory of gravity? This is starting to look like a religious debate. Scientific consensus that some portion of the current observed warming trend is due to human activity does not imply that there is consensus on all the other points raised in this article.

On an almost daily basis new reports are being issued making new predictions or attributing observations to global warming in a different way than before. Can anyone actually say with a straight face that every one of these is right and above reproach or critique? I'm not trying to disprove global warming here, but the scientific process is MADE of debate, critique, alternative hypothesis - it's all about challenging, asking questions, refining, and evolving. For Chist's sake look at the article on gravitation - in the last 37 years there have been 8 proposed alternative theories to explain gravitation... 8! Anyone who has ever seriously studied any type of science should be worried if there is such a consensus that nobody is asking questions, critiquing, or challenging any of the research going on.

Back on point, maybe I need to re-title this section because I did not put it out here to solicit debate as to global warming being fact or theory (scientific theory, not implying SWAG in keeping with the FAQ on this subject). The point, again, was that there doesn't seem to be much clarity as to which pieces of this article are observed scientific facts vs. what constitutes the consensus theory of anthropogenic global warming vs. what other theories contribute to the consensus theory and where the articles for those theories are. I gave changing the title of this section it a shot, hope it helps...

One other thing I'd like to add to my list: 5.) I think it would be a good idea for this article to have a history section on it too. Listening to NPR today they mentioned this first being looked at in the 1870's. I think it would be interesting and informative to see how research started and has evolved over the years. This would also bring this article more in line with other WP science articles. 71.164.241.199 (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The comparison with graviation isn't a good one. That article leaves you in no doubt that the dominant theory is GR and that Newtonian gravity is a very good approximation to it. The GW article is, correctly, more tentative. But it still presents the main current explanation for warming as... the main explanation William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I agree about the article on gravitation - it really should be more clear that the General Theory of Relativity is generally accepted to explain gravitation. That said, and sorry if I wasn't clear, but I am a much bigger fan of the structure of the article on evolution and was primarily using the article on gravitation to illustrate that something as long-lived and generally accepted as our scientific understanding of gravity is still being challenged. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 (as far as I know a peer reviewed, vetted source) in the last paragraph, in my reading more or less, indicates that there is still a lot to be learned about how the climate works. The section of the article on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Interplay_of_factors) that discusses feedbacks seems to indicate some amount of unknown whereas this article and the main article reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Feedbacks) don't seem to make the same assertion. This article also seems to indicate that the existing climate models are reasonably reliable, whereas in the referenced main article on Global Climate Models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming) states in the last paragraph that "Forecasts of climate change are inevitably uncertain. Even the degree of uncertainty is uncertain". Not to mention some of the attributed and expected affects...

IMO, the purpose of this article should be to as accurately and objectively as possible describe the current state and history of thinking on anthropogenic global warming theory, the observable scientific facts supporting this theory, supporting theories, and related theories in a coherent manner. At the very least it seems to shoot a little low at being coherent, does not discuss the history and evolution of study on the subject, and the certainty it implies in some areas (specifically climate models and feedback loops) indicates either a failure of accuracy or objectivity. 71.164.241.199 (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A large scale critique of the article is not the best way to go about improving it. This is a featured article, and, compared to the most articles on Wikipedia, it's really good. Most of the current work on this article is to maintain in, not improve it, so the editors who frequent this page tend to be somewhat defensive about the current state of the article. However, there is certainly room for improvement in the article. Instead of providing a conceptual critique of this article and comparison to evolution, how about starting a new section with a particular textual improvement complete with suggested language and new sources if necessary? If you'd like to edit the article yourself, just register a username, wait four days, and edit the article. People do tend to revert edits a lot on this article, but if you are just improving flow and clarifying language, everyone will love your edits. Another constructive thing to do is to edit other articles about his subject; very few of them are semi-protected (so, as an anonymous user, you can improve them) and many of them desperately need improvement.

Now, to address some of your specific critiques. Your first post on this page and point 1). I don't think this is Wikipedia's fault. The term global warming really does include projected continuation of the current trend. So, yeah, the topic is a little bit theoretical and little bit observed. We can't change that to make article writing easier. 2) What new sections do you suggest? What language in particular is rambling, restating and overlapping? 3) I'd wager that Climate change isn't linked from the feedbacks section in this article because Climate_change#Interplay_of_factors is much less complete than Effects_of_global_warming#Positive_feedback_effects (and the short section "negative feedback effects). Maybe the contents of those section on those articles need to be re-organized, but that's stuff to do on those articles (neither of which are semi-protected, so you can do it without registering). 4) solar variation is certainly a non-anthropogenic cause. Is there a particular alternative theory, backed up by a reliable source, that is missing? Reading over he Climate models subsection, it doesn't look like it claims unwarranted certainty to me. It seems like a very concise description of the idea, and it includes a link to the article that you think handles the uncertainly better. Looking at it, maybe the sentence "However, even when the same assumptions of future greenhouse gas levels are used, there still remains a considerable range of climate sensitivity." is too jargony and doesn't get the idea across enough? Do you have a suggestion on how to make that sentence easier to understand for the lay-reader, who is the target of this article? 5) If you think the article needs it, write a new section about the history global warming, including sources, and post it here on the talk page. Again, I'd suggest that you start new sections with specific proposed organization or language. - Enuja (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still a bit unsure of what exactly is your point. If you think it overstates GW, I disagree. "average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century" should make it clear that there are wide margins for prediction. So I can't see how the article is overstating GCM accuracy. Feedbacks... not brilliant; but again, the uncertainty is I think clearly stated: "Feedback effects due to clouds are an area of ongoing research..." - how much more do you want? Etc etc. Evolution, by contrast, states that NS is correct. I don't see much doubt there. If your complaint is that the structure could be improved, thats entirely possible. There is no history section, and it would be nice to have one. Spencer Wearts online book is one source; http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf is another :-). Global climate model#Accuracy of models that predict global warming is unfortunately not very good - a relic of edit warring. In case you don't realise it, your complaints *look* like you are coming more from a this-article-is-unbalanced pov that from a this-article-structure-needs-improving. The former has been gone over many many times; the latter gets neglected William M. Connolley (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the comments and advice. Will, sorry if I've been diving more into the unbalanced than structure end of the pool, but I think there are rooms for improvement in both areas. Very briefly, on the balance subject I don't think the article is really overstating GW (the article is, after all, here to explain anthropogenic global warming theory) but I think some of the sub-sections (when reading the sections as a whole) seem to spend very little time discussing what we know we don't know. Coming from an Economics background, I have personally seen the problems with complex modeling. If there were ever an area of study where there is incentive and financing available to build computer models it's in Economics, and at least for us a monkey throwing darts at the WSJ still does as good as anything else we have at predicting the stock market. Maybe I'm a little twisted in regards to that particular subject due to my background ;)

Enuja, a quick note on solar variation but even though it is listed as a cause, reading that section leaves me (maybe it's just me) with the impression that it doesn't have anything to do with GW - not currently at least. I don't know too much about this particular area, so it could be the lay-reader effect :D

Maybe it's about time for me to roll up my sleeves, register for an ID, and actually start doing some real work... Starting with an attempt at something along the lines of a "History of Research on Global Warming" or "History of Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory" section. All edits will be either accompanied or preceded by a section here on the discussion page, but I think it might make sense to wrap-up this vague/in-general conversation and continue it on point-by-point basis. 71.170.52.191 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good, very readable history of Global Warming research. And the Solar Variation section, in my opinion, actually belongs more as a shortened version in something like an "Alternative Theories" section at the bottom of the page -- solar variation is considered at best a minor or marginal contributer to the current round of global warming. And Svensmark's idea of solar activity modulating potentially cloud-seeding galactic cosmic rays is likewise not considered a factor. Hope this helps. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Also, I'm glad I wasn't misreading the section on Solar Variation. Seems a little bit confusing to have an entire section under "Causes" for something that's considered to be a very minor if not non-factor. 71.170.52.191 (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting an account would be good. Adding a history might be less controversial than re-touching the importance of the solar stuff; you will find much discussion in the archives. I'd suggest drafting anything on the talk page first, unless you're sure its uncontroversial William M. Connolley (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not even thinking about retouching anything any time soon, and agree about the draft idea. Cheers! 71.170.52.191 (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

POV fork?

I added some links to the "See also" section, hoping to improve the article making cross referencing easier for kids doing term papers and other casual readers. But when adding the linksI noticed what appears to be a low intensity POV fork between this article and Global cooling. I realize that editing interests vary within sub areas of complex subjects but I wonder if perhaps the people interested in editing these two subjects might want to get together and coordinate efforts?Trilobitealive (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I glanced through the article and don't see anything that has a different point of view from this article, so it doesn't look like point of view forking to me. - Enuja (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right; in that case it would just be a content fork. I mentioned it as sometimes these things can be more noticeable to someone who seldom visits an article, sort of like what happens when you are working on a hard Sudoku puzzle and you come back a few days later and the answer jumps out at you. I do wonder though whether the two articles could benefit from the usual editors comparing notes?Trilobitealive (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the first page of the history, there appear to be many editors involved in both pages. I wonder if I'm the only editor with this article on my watch list and that one absent from my watch list! - Enuja (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're one of the readers I was hoping to help out by adding the "See also" links! That makes me feel good.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote most of GC. Its not a POV fork. Nor is it a content fork: its not about the science of GW as presently understood, its about how the science was understood in the 1970s William M. Connolley (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

It's not a big deal, but I noticed that the "footnotes" section contains references as well as notes. When one reads the article, there is no way of knowing whether the footnotes are actually references or notes, and the reader could assume that the numbers all refer to citations. Perhaps it would be useful to the reader to have a separate section just for the notes, that would be indicated by letters in the article (see Tourette syndrome). --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just visiting this article today so don't take my comments as gospel. But I've seen several articles especially in the social sciences where they do this and it generally confuses me too. For anyone who wants to tackle this task it might help to look at WP:FOOT, WP:CITE.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the main author of Tourette syndrome; if someone can explain to me what you're trying to accomplish with notes, and assure me it's not a controversial change, I can show you how to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, in case it helps, another place where you can see the application of separate notes and citations is Gettysburg Address; considering the history of this article, I hesitate to jump in and make changes, but let me know if I can help explain the methodology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Phenylaline, I think you'll find the answers in the Gettysburg article; since TS only uses one note, it's not a full example. Look at GA (where I added five notes) and you'll probably figure it out from there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Does anyone object to me adding a "notes" section to the article and moving the notes in the "references" section to the new section? --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it's wholly unnecessary. I agree that notes and references should be in separate sections (and use separate symbols: numbers for references, and Greek alphabet or something else for notes). However, there was long period of time when I was editing here that notes were completely unnecessary. I suspect nothing has changed. Anything said in the notes can probably be incorporated in the article or entirely left out. The only two notes I can see are footnotes #4 and #24. Footnote #4 only says which countries are signatories to a particular statement. This should be easily found in a reference--not an article note. Footnote #24 explains that greenhouses gases raise the temperature by about 33 °C, though that is perfectly clear from the sentence in the body. The confusion stemmed from an editor thinking that instead of increasing by 33 °C, it made the actual averaged temperature 33 °C (which is quite warm). But this is easily explained on the talk page, if anyone has any doubt about the meaning of that sentence. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, and maybe clean up the unformatted citations (per 2c) and prune the external link farm (per WP:EL, WP:NOT) while you're in there :-) Ping my talk page if you need help on the notes later, but you should be able to get it from Gettysburg. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Eigil Friis-Christensen

For someone who's theory has come up again and again in the media about global warming, his page has almost nothing on it. I would expand it, but I really have no idea how his theory works. How could cosmic rays --> climate change? The Squicks (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The theory is that cosmic rays help to form clouds. Water vapor needs to condense into ice crystals or water droplets to form clouds. But this doesn't happen without impurities. Cosmic rays ionize the air which can cause water vapor to condense.

The idea behind solar variation theory is that a more active Sun will shield the Earth more from cosmic rays (this is caused by changes in the magnetic field which deflect cosmic rays). So, you then get less clouds.

Several independent lines of investigation point to this mechanism not being a dominant factor in climate. Count Iblis (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note also that this hypothesis gets a lot of media attention precisely because it's outside the mainstream of climate research. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Warming At Other Locales

I like how "the debate is over" and how we can't mention how it may be just a theory even though there are so many people who come to the talk page to express their disagreement with Man Made Global Warming. Did you all know that the founder of the Weather Channel is a staunch skeptic of Man Made Global Warming and he's trying to sue Al Gore for fraud? Doesn't sound like skepticism of Global Warming is a "fringe" argument to me. A while back, I suggested we add a section about how other celestial bodies in our solar system are warming. My ideas were turned away. Not altered, not compromised, just shot down. The gestapo that has nothing better to do than monitor this article on computers that contribute to Global Warming if Global Warming exists are working hard around the clock trying to keep dissention on Man Made Global Warming off the radar. Well, I'd like to re-instate my idea of adding a section that talks about Global Warming happening on other planets, and the idea that the sun may be the main culprit. Here are some articles to get you going:

Global Warming: Pluto http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

Climate Change: Jupiter http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

Global Warming: Mars http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

New Extreme Natural Disasters: Saturn http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2006/11/09/nasa_looks_at_a_monster_storm_on_saturn/4126/

Global Warming: Triton (Moon of Neptune) http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml

Sun Getting HOTTER!!!!! http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm

Sun to Blame for Global Warming http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

Now, I'm sure that 5 minutes after posting this someone's gonna come here and say something like, "Well, the cousin of the head janitor who works at the building across the street from the National Geographic corporate office owns a dog that bit the wife of a guy whose brother is a junior accountant at Fox News, so they're all evil hate mongering conservatives who are tied with Fox News." But, that kind of close-mindedness is expected by me. I'm not doing this because I expect to alter this article, I'm just doing this to put one more voice out there that Man Made Global Warming is a hoax.

I also find it funny that at the top of this discussion page it mentions that this discussion isn't supposed to be a forum for people to express their opinions on Global Warming. Why not??? Science should always be up for debate! Science without debate is propaganda, and that's what this Global Warming article is. In my opinion, this article should be about a theoretical warming, man-made or not, on a planetary scale of ANY planet. So, by giving off this warning at the top of this page we're basically saying that there is no room for scientific debate on this issue, and the science behind the Global Warming wikipedia article is irrefutable and can not be altered. We're just here to discuss the most effective way of expressing propaganda.66.255.105.3 (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever read more than the headlines? Please check the FAQ for Pluto and Jupiter. Read page two of the NatGeo article on Mars. And don't take your science from the Telegraph. Not allowing general discussion of a topic is a standing Wikipedia policy, not something we invented for this article. See WP:FORUM and WP:TPG. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied to this comment. Thanks to whoever deleted it. Way to be open minded of everyone's opinion.24.125.82.140 (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It's getting to the point where not a single day goes by on this talk page that someone who doesn't understand basic science is quoting articles at us - which half the time don't support the claims - purporting to disprove global warming. Perhaps we need to tweak the rules for this page accordingly. Raul654 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How about creating a "Chatter" subpage for people who want comment and talk about global warming, but without actually referencing real, current scientific research on the matter? All comments that are not quite up to snuff in terms of discussing or referencing things genuinely connected to scientific research get moved there, and participants are encouraged to continue their talk there as well. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but I wasn't trying to "chatter". I was trying to raise what I feel is a valid scientific point, and I had references to back up what I was saying. Please be careful not to draw the line between "chatter" and legitimate discussion on the same line between GW activism and skepticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.68.146 (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that what you've linked is not science. And the conclusions that you've drawn aren't either. I'll explain one of the troubles (and why Stephan said you shouldn't get your science from the Telegraph). The Telegraph article is completely and utter bunk - its so much bunk that the Max Planck Institute and Sami Solanki, felt a need to address it with a newsrelease [12]. Can you see the problem? If so - then please accept that all of your links have much the same problem. And you are not going to get anyone convinced by breaking rules and calling people "nazi's" for pointing them out. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No more nazi talk. Such blatant personal attacks have no place in civilized society and the fact that some of the regulars here are German makes it even worse. Anyone who does it again will be blocked. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Raul654, as much as we've disagreed prior, I'll have to agree with you now. Only about how not to support their claims, not the "doesn't understand basic science." That was just an attack. After having read about 80 of the posted sources, I'm getting a better feel for how research on WP is done. Though I don't believe man is to blame for the current climate variation, I see now how I'll have to present that information for it to hold validity. Two ideas for you: Only members can post changes to articles tagged as controversial, and maybe implement an "initiation test" to make sure that everyone has read the basic guidelines on how to post research. For topics like this, current event/science, only PR articles are accepted, but there is more than enough controversy on what is and isn't PR. JSTore and other places have excellent lists of PR sources that maybe WP would consider compiling. If the articles presented are not from that list then it's considered invalid, and if someone wants to submit a new PR source so that their information can be considered valid, let them. That would take a lot of the "guess work" for what is PR and what is not. Just some ideas. Infonation101 (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is currently semi-protected; see your talk page for my take on your other suggestions. - Enuja (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In the article about Global Warming Denial we should perhaps mention the many edits by anons on this talk page and attempted edits to the main article. Links to postings here are reliable primary sources :) Count Iblis (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should at least be mentioned that the Weather Channel founder is sceptical of man made global warming. He like some scientists, believe that its just a natural cycle and that there is nothing we can do about it. If know other claim is notable at least this one is. Saksjn (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Global Warming and Global Warming Controversy

Can somebody explain to me why we shouldn't merge these two articles. Every other article with a controversy section has it in its main article and not in a seperate one. I'm going to post this at the controversy talk page as well. Saksjn (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is about global warming - that one documents a political campaign (it's one of three articles spun out from the Social and political debate subsection of this article. It is not a segregation of criticism. Guettarda (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We should probably add some kind of information on Global Warming's criticisms on here. Saksjn (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if there are peer reviewed articles in leading journals where such criticisms can be found. E.g. if some climate scientists have a change of heart and write in Nature that we need to rethink things then that should certainly be included in this article. But "criticisms" by people in newspapers or in blogs are unacceptable. You would have to ask yourself why such criticism did not appear in some scientific journal (presumably because it does not meet rigorous scientific standards, as journals like Nature would do everything to be the first to publish a breakthrough article that overturns some scientific paradigm). Count Iblis (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman? Saksjn (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "Global Warming" and "Global Warming Controversy"

The verbiage is clear that "Global Warming" section should be scientific and the "Global Warming Controversy" section political. But why then is conflicting scientific evidence from legitimate resources removed from the "Global Warming" section and sometimes replaced in the "Global Warming Controversy" section? And why is there a political section and interlaced references to political actions in the scientific "Global Warming" section? If I am wrong can we come up with a clear and simple definition between the material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.38.214 (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Solar Minimum + C02 = Global Cooling ?

Should natural variation (ie the sun) take a more prominent role in this article now the earth is cooling. I wonder when the public will take notice and hold the AGW advocates credible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.143.91 (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mu. You assume the Earth is cooling. It is not. Half-a-year of La Niña does not a cooling make, anymore than a sale at your local Walmart proves inflation is nonexistant. Raul654 (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, one year of cooling does not equate to a trend. However, the global metrics show static temperatures over a nominal decade, or even moderate cooling. What mechanism explains the cooling? La Nina is widely cited, perhaps solar activity as well, and maybe the two are linked? The strong 1998 El Nino accounts for at least some warming during that period. These are natural variations of climate, consistent with documented past variation (El Nino/Nina, volcanic eruption, maunder minimum, ect.). If these natural variations are not well enough understood to accurately predict future temperature magnitude, such as El Nina connected to the past year of cooling, is it possible that natural variation also accounts for at least some of the 20th century warming? It would be difficult to argue logically that all or most warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2, but all or most cooling is natural. In other words, you can't have it both ways in a system as chaotic, variable and poorly understood, evident by the climate models inability to predict the present static or mild cooling behavior. The point is, is it completely honest to proclaim definitively in the media, or Wikipedia as the authoritative technical community that global warming is unquestionably caused by human induced CO2 emissions, but cooling is natural? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There's that whole "projected continuation" bit. In other words, the issue is the definitions. The definition of global warming is the long-term trend. The definition of global cooling (in context of past cooling or the future trends some people hypothesized during the 70s) is also the long-term trend. The 1998 El Nino was not global warming, and the current La Nina is not global cooling. If there is a particular graph or sentence or paragraph or whatever in the article that overemphasizes observed (which is of a much smaller magnitude than projected future) global warming due to the 1998 El Nino, please bring that issue up here so that it can be corrected. - Enuja (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I can not find fault with the way the introduction of the article is stated. It effective describes the main-stream view of the subject matter as reflected in the most prominent body the IPCC. My view is this article should serve to temper the IPCC view because the effects of climate change, not the science, is often sensationalized by the media (20 ft of sea level rise, ice caps melting, hotter then ever, ect.), as the media tends to do almost always. I take issue with implicit certainly with which AGW is conveyed to the public. My experience is science should always conservatively state conclusions about their research, particularly for modeling of complex systems, because they could be wrong. Only after many revisions of code does the model begin to match the data, even for modeling relatively controlled processes in a laboratory environment. I do not believe anyone would disagree that climate is an incredibly complex system with changes taking place over millions of year, not sub-nanoseconds like most areas of physics these days, while modeling of climate has only been around for a few of decades. Therefore, revisions of climate models unfortunately haven't had the benefit seeing the entire range of changes on the earth as seen in the prehistoric record. Therefore, it is my view climate science should take an even more conservative approach to stating predictions from climate models. Unfortunately, the potential impact climate could have on humanity far out weights the basic virtues science is accustomed to operating under by emphasizing consequences of those predictions instead of the science behind them. To conclude, stating something to the effect, nature still has an effect on climate does much good by giving perspective to the indoctrinated public, which is my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mauna Loa figures

I'm just wondering whether the article should use the NOAA's Mauna Loa mean figure for CO2 concentration, or their global mean, which lags by about 1.5ppm. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Mauna Loa time series is longer, so it shows the trend more completely. As you note it's consistent with the global time series except for the small offset. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Stanford University" research

I removed the following line from the Security section:

Research at Stanford University indicates global warming will lead to decreased mortality rates.^[1]

for a number of reasons. First of all, this is not Stanford University research, but rather that undertaken by Thomas Gale Moore of the Hoover Institute. I don't know much about the Hoover Institute or what their agenda is: they are a think-tank for one thing. My main objection is that presenting their research as that of "Stanford University" (whatever that means) seems to be a deliberate attempt at misrepresenting the source. Secondly, it would be more accurate to say that the research concluded that the study finds that there may be fewer temperature-related fatalities in the United States. Global warming is not some magic elixir: rather the study finds that the losses in cold-related deaths would offset the gains in heat-related deaths. Furthermore, it makes a number of convenient assumptions in arriving at this conclusion. One of which is that people will grow accustomed to hotter summers, more people will have air conditioning installed, etc. This all seems to beg the question, if you ask me. The statistical methodologies are shoddy (look at the indicators they suggest in the abstract!) I think it would be NPOV to say that "Studies find that increasing global temperatures lead to fewer cold-related deaths." Doesn't seem worthy of comment. Finally, the sentence was added to the Security section, when it clearly has nothing to do with security.

^ www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html

Silly rabbit (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There are some faults in the study, but that doesn't prevent it from being a reliable source. The possibility that "the losses in cold-related deaths would offset the gains in heat-related deaths" isn't a fringe opinion. It has been argued for before by Bjorn Lomburg and others.

A study by Thomas Gale Moore of the Hoover Institute stated that global warming will lead to decreased mortality rates, with the decrease in cold-related deaths exceeding increase in heat-related deaths. -- would be the best way to word it. The Squicks (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

According to The New York Times:

""The effect of the rising temperatures is more complicated to gauge... The first is that winter can be deadlier than summer. About seven times more deaths in Europe are attributed annually to cold weather (which aggravates circulatory and respiratory illness) than to hot weather, Dr. Lomborg notes, pointing to studies showing that a warmer planet would mean fewer temperature-related deaths in Europe and worldwide.

The second factor is that the weather matters a lot less than how people respond to it. Just because there are hotter summers in New York doesn’t mean that more people die — in fact, just the reverse has occurred. Researchers led by Robert Davis, a climatologist at the University of Virginia, concluded that the number of heat-related deaths in New York in the 1990s was only a third as high as in the 1960s. The main reason is simple, and evident as you as walk into the Bridge Cafe on a warm afternoon: air-conditioning."" The Squicks (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Wired (magazine):

""While the good news they find might not be global, some researchers believe the benefits of Earth's warming will help compensate for the harmful consequences. Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, is one such academic. "From a purely evolutionary point of view, warm periods have been exceptionally good to us. Cold periods have been the troublesome ages," Peiser said. The possible positive side effects of global warming have researchers like Peiser ready for changes to come.

Earth's temperature is expected to rise 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2100, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. One area where this warming could aid society is in terms of health. In Britain alone, scientists estimate between 20,000 and 40,000 deaths a year are related to cold winter weather. A report (.pdf) from the United Kingdom's Faculty of Public Health found that the number of cold-weather deaths increase by approximately 8,000 for every 1 degree Celsius the temperature falls. Peiser estimates there will be only 2,000 more deaths a year due to an equal rise in temperature, because humans adapt better to hot climates and can rely on air conditioning. "And Britain isn't even that cold of place in the world respectively," said Peiser."" The Squicks (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The information would fall under 'Effects_of_global_warming#Direct_effects_of_temperature_rise', but I think that it should also be mentioned in this article. The Squicks (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Because this is a scientific wiki article the normal "reliable sources", like the New York Times etc. are not good enough. We must base what we write here on research published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Count Iblis (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not suitable for inclusion in this article. There is simply no place to put it without creating a new section, and dealing with all sorts of balancing points of view. That said, I think the case can (and should) be made for inclusion at Effects_of_global_warming#Direct_effects_of_temperature_rise. Silly rabbit (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried combing WP:RS for the bit that says which sources are considered reliable can change. I have yet to find one that says this particular article cannot accept non-peer-reviewed-scientific-article sources. Depressingly, Wikipedia is not held to the same standards as university essays, and I would have to contend that if a reliable source declares something which is on topic, it's a reliable source whether it's in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or not. Is there a policy which says that for science-related articles, only peer reviewed scientific journals can ever be used as sources? I ask out of legitimate curiosity. For all I know, it does exist. 142.12.15.8 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The official Wikipedia rules do not dictate such things in detail, they leave a lot of room for the editors of articles to determine. Now, at some point a few years ago, we decided to only allow peer reviewed articles in this article (with a few exeptions were political issues are concerned), because this article is mostly about the science and non peer reviewed sources are notoriously unreliable when it comes to science in general. And Global Warming is a very politically charged subject which leads to a lot of scientifically invalid arguments being published in otherwise reliable sources.

Some time ago, I had the same discussion with a few editors of the special relativity page. There was a news report that said that special relativity had been falsified. But the (at that time unpublished) preprint on what that report was based did not make that strong statement at all. Now, precisely because we are not allowed to do original research, we should not judge on a case by case basis what newspapers articles are ok and what not. So, to keep garbage out of the wiki science articles without violating the OR rule, we must base everything on peer reviewed sources. Count Iblis (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a problem. A few months ago a certain well-known tag team of admins gutted WP:RS of almost all meaningful content, so we have insufficient guidance on what constitutes a reliable source. Given the abysmal state of science journalism (especially in the U.S.) it's best to stick to reviewed journals, reports from recognized scientific bodies, and other high quality sources. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My issue with this is not one of wanting to oppose the science, but of opposing the notion that editors get to dictate, sight unseen, that any reliable source brought forward by any other editor is inherently valueless. It's not really a call you get to make in advance. This article doesn't get a special privilege that other articles don't. Innumerable other Wikipedia articles are inundated with absolute bullshit. But we have to include it because a reliable source says it. The OR policy is meant to prevent exactly what you're doing. It's not upto Wikipedia to present only one side of the reliable sources because that side happens to favor their position. -Unless this is policy-. So, until an article says that reliable sources about scientific subjects have to come from reliable SCIENTIFIC sources (peer-reviewed journals), it's elitist to think that this article enjoys some special privilege that others do not. If we're raising the standard on what counts as a reliable source, it should be a standard raised for ALL articles, or none. The JOB of editors is to evaluate sources individually and on their merits. And as much as I don't want falsehoods and bullshit to creep into this article, I also want them kept out of other articles. So, we set a bad example by saying "we're too good to report the patent lies that are so often reported in the popular media". It's not our JOB to judge if the source is spouting something we PERSONALLY know to be untrue. If it's a view which is in sufficient proliferation in various popular sources which are generally reliable, and which meet the threshold of reliability for OTHER articles, then the editors on this and other articles have no business excluding it, if the material it would add is relevant to the article.

That's not original research, it's something much worse. It's a kind of elitist privilege being afforded to certain articles which renders them, unlike other articles, immune to the buffeting winds of public opinion.

As much as I PERSONALLY would love this standard to be upheld for ALL wikipedia articles: If there's truly enough concensus that science articles should use scientific journals as their only sources? There'd be a policy about it. There's not. Thus, the stance that only journals may be used on this article is obstructionist and more than a little disturbing. Remember that the standard for wikipedia is, sadly, verifiability, not truth. If popular media or non-journal-articles contradict what's in this article, said reliable sources should be presented as counterpoint, if the view is widespread enough to not constitute disproportionate representation of minority viewpoints. This article isn't special, and policy shouldn't change just for it. Policy should change for ALL science articles. 142.12.15.16 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your argument would make sense if Wikipedia were a centrally controlled bureaucracy. It's not. We, as editors interested in this article, should make decisions that make this article (and therefore the encyclopedia as a whole because it includes this article) better. There is nothing wrong or elitist with the editors on this article agreeing to accept only a subset of what the general policy on sources says are reliable sources. Personally, I think that popular news is a great source for information about actors and a terrible source for the science about global warming. I don't think that's elitist, I simply think it's true. - Enuja (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(To the Count): Because this is a scientific wiki article the normal "reliable sources", like the New York Times etc. are not good enough. We must base what we write here on research published in peer reviewed scientific journals. I've looked over Effects_of_global_warming, and I don't see this rule being followed. Quite the contrary. Effects_of_global_warming cites this blog repost of a Reuters story, among other things. The Squicks (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This article cites this blog post by J. Bradford DeLong. I personally don't object to the "only peer reviewed sources" idea in principle, but I think that should be followed consistently if the users here choose to adopt it. The Squicks (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In most scientific wiki articles only peer reviewed surces are allowed. But there are some articles, mainly on sociological, or economic subjects in which newspaper articles are also accepted. The article about effects of global warming contains a lot of speculative material, beacuse the effects are not well known. Presumably the editors of that article have decided that the topic of that article will be the seculative ideas which you can find in hte media. But every article has its own focus area.

Most other wiki science articles have a much more restrictive policy than this article. Even peer reviewed articles are not always allowed. E.g. about a year ago we had a discussion about the article on dark matter, in particular the ever expanding section on alternative models. People were editing in the latest (peer reviewed) news from that front.

What you would see is someone editing in a summary of a published article and then, a month later a published comment disputing that would be edited in. Now, the wiki article on dark matter has to give a representative overview of the subject and therefore we decided not to allow such "latest news" from the "fringe front" (in this case "fringe" is still scientifically respectable, though). Count Iblis (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How can we prevent global warming?

To make this article stronger, I think it would be helpful to post ways we can prevent global warming. If anyone has any good information on this, please do.

--Sandiehara (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This a summary article which has many articles have grown out of it and cover parts of the subject. For things that we can do to prevent global warming, please see and improve Mitigation of global warming. - Enuja (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Detailed NASA satellite global temperature data from the past decade

This graph should be included in the article. The red line shows detailed satellite measurement of global temperatures from the last decade.

NASA line plot of monthly mean global surface temperature anomaly from January 1998 through March 2008. The black line shows meterological stations only. The red line shows the land-ocean temperature index, which uses sea surface temperatures obtained from satellite measurements.

Grundle2600 (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No. This is an article about climate. Month-to-month variations don't tell us anything about climate, and a 10-year period is too short to represent climate change. Note the WMO climate normal period is 30 years. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an aside, it is really grating to see people swoop in and declare flatly "no" to things. Every word after that was great, but you began on a sour note. Also, are we really fact-tagging talk page comments now? I want my mommy. CreepyCrawly (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If 10 years is too short, then why does the article contain the map of temperature changes from 1995 to 2004? It's because only charts that show a warming trend are allowed‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}. The censors here will erase anything that doesn't show a warming trend‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}. Since my chart from 1998 to 2008 doesn't show a warming trend, it's not allowed‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}. The map from 1995 to 2004 does show a warming trend, so it is allowed‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}. This article is being censored‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}. All politically incorrect information is banned‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the temp record graph at the top of the page, you will see there is plenty of noise within the overall warming trend, some years certain climatic factors contribute to a higher global average and in other years you will see factors which contribute to a lower global average. Thus the graph is not linear and takes on a more fluid shape that it does. Taking any 10 year range you can show warming, cooling, more warming, more cooling etc many times over. Like Dr. Arritt mentioned above longer time periods reduce this "noise" and a trend becomes clear. Over the past 100 years its clear there is a warming trend. Though why is the map 1995 to 2004 displayed? --198.103.161.1 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I now understand that the other chart compares a recent decade to a past decade. But my chart is still relevant. Global warming theory predicts that warming will accelerate ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}. My chart shows that the real world evidence does not back up that theory. When evidence doesn't agree with a theory, a good scientist will admit that the theory was wrong. A bad scientiust will try to censor the evidence, and prevent people from findng out the truth. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Only data that shows it's getting warmer is relevant in the mind of the AGW propagandists. Data and science in general is inconvenient with the political and media indoctrination in full swing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this graph is relevant because the data isn't going to change because it has already been recorded, and so will be the same for the next ten+ years. I feel sorry for the guy who made this, the data is from NASA and is relevant now, and in the future, also because some jerk decided he was going to use the [citation needed] links in the discussion page, where citation are not needed, to make him look like an idiot, when all he was doing was trying to give up to date data. If your not going to use it I would say take out the out of date graphs, and take out the graphs that are just based on predictions on the article, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

I used the data NASA website listed as the source of the image in the article to compute the same graph, but using the "current" ten year period as 1997-2007 (the website, of course, does not have an annual average for 2008 yet as it isn't over). Here is the graph. [13] Now, this graph isn't of the quality of the current graph (the image page describes how User:Dragons flight made the image look nice, and I haven't done that). You can make this graph yourself, using the mapping tool [14] linked in the image description, for whatever dates you'd like to do. Authors have argued in the past that past-year data get updated and corrected, so it might make sense to skip 2007. I'm not sure what the most informative graph for the article would be, but it might very well be one that is newer than the current graph. What's the most appropriate base data to use? Again, I don't know, and in this case I suspect that Dragon's flight had some reason to use 1940-1980, but I don't know what that reason was. - Enuja (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Switch: "overwhelming" to "large" majority

Thank you for the change. That's what I tried to do in the first place (if you look at my first edit you'll find I had originally made that change, but it didn't show up on the page when I was done, so I reverted it because I was afraid I'd broken something). Then I figured I'd just remove "overwhelming," pending a source for "large." CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" is citeable and factually correct, but I changed it to "large" to keep the peace. It can be corrected later. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree there. "Overwhelming" suggests, to me, that all opposing views are effectively null and void. For example, there is no longer any serious debate about the shape of the Earth; while there does remain a tiny minority who believe that it is flat, the overwhelming majority believe that it is round. With global warming, the debate is ongoing, although not raging. You may personally relegate the opposition to the kook fringe, and you may be able to cite a thousand scientists who agree with your assessment, but the fact remains that they are still being given a place at the table. That tells me that they have not yet been rendered irrelevant, as "overwhelming majority" implies that the corresponding minority must have been, and that they are certainly not to be openly mocked in the same way a flat Earther or young Earth creationist is and should be. "Large majority" is perfectly appropriate and accurate. It neither lessens the reality nor overemphasizes it. CreepyCrawly (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with such a change. The reliable sources say overwhelming. The consensus is overwhelming. This isn't that complicated. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The source uses a weasel word, and is only being cited as justification to use same weasel word here. I would have thought this to be patently obvious. Veritas agreed, and said as much in his edit summary (his name has mysteriously been changed to "Nonexistant User" and he's apparently totally deleted -- I don't know what the deal is there, but his edit history remains). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreepyCrawly (talk • contribs) 08:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" modifies "majority of scientists working on climate change". If it modified "scientists", then large majority would make sense. However, it is factually true that, of people working on climate change (not just meterologists, physicsts, geologists and biologists but just the subset of those who study global change) it is the overwhelming majority who think that things are at least as bad as the IPCC says. It is cited in the source. It should stay. There is no debate that the current anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is changing global climate. How much the earth has warmed so far, how much it will warm in the future, what the effects will be in different places, how humans and other animals will adapt or suffer, what the best course of action for human to take; all of these are under strong contention. The idea that the burning of fossils fuels isn't increasing the global temperature of the earth is just as inconcievable a position amoung climate change scientists as the flat earth idea was amoung 14th century scholars. - Enuja (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever suggested that it referred to scientists in general. We're clearly talking about climate science here. The wording says that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists (which I believe a reasonable reader would interpret as a majority so strong as to render the topic closed) agree with the primary conclusions of the IPCC -- meaning all of those conclusions. This is simply not the case, or there would not still be the strong contention you speak of. Even a relatively minor contention, if it were occurring among respected personalities and in respected arenas, as it is being done (unlike the flat Earth "debate," such as it is), would imply a less than overwhelming majority. It would imply a large majority, perhaps even worthy of "very" large, although that would also be weaselly. CreepyCrawly (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I note user Brusegadi reinserted the weasel word with the simple summary "this is better." As user Veritas (now "Nonexistant User") had previously and wisely stated, "while [overwhelming] is in the source, it is also a highly subjective word used by the author that should not be allowed to bleed into the article as fact." I ask Brusegadi to specify how inclusion of the highly subjective weasel word is "better." CreepyCrawly (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Its better because its in the source. If a reputable and serious organization uses a 'weasel' word in their statement then such a word should be taken more seriously then if Madonna uses it. Yet, this is all speculation, the thing is that it is in the source and the source is highly regarded. We are not allowed to use such words but we are allowed to quote someone using them, the same way that we are not allowed to take sides but we are allowed to quote someone saying what they think even if the quoted person takes sides. Brusegadi (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We can also estimate the numbers and write, say, "out of the 3000 climate scientists, 24 disagree with the main conclusions". So, I guess that the fuzziness of the word "overwhelming" does work in the skeptics here. Count Iblis (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We could say all kinds of things, but we should say the more objective, non-rhetorical thing: "large majority," as opposed to "overwhelming majority." On the one hand, we eliminate all possible claim to weasel wording, but lose a cite. On the other hand, we get to keep the cite, but we're stuck with the overly excited language of the rather glib source author. Then again, why not change the word and keep the source; it's not as if [10] contains either "overwhelming" or "majority," but hey, it looks better with two numbers at the end of the sentence, amirite? CreepyCrawly (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may introduce, the other problem is that even if it is true that among 3000 scientists, only 24 have made known their disagreement, we still cannot presume, as did Oreskes, that each of the other 2976 scientists necessarily agree because of their silence. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" is not a weasel word in the first place. The overwhelming majority of the precipitation I've experienced in my life has been rain. Yes, I've been in snow, but only a few times. To say that the large majority of the precipitation I've experienced has been rain is actively misleading. Now, personally, I don't like using the same words that a source uses; I think it's evidence of poor writing. But I think it is very important to indicate, in the lead, that essentially no-one in the field thinks that the IPCC reports exaggerate the extent or certainty of future global warming. Lots of people think that the IPCC is too conservative; that the IPCC underestimates risks. The inclusion of (maybe too much) uncertainty is why, even though lots of information about future global warming is highly uncertain, there is near unanimity about the IPCC reports. Where I live, it doesn't look like it is doing to rain today. Therefore, we could get unanimity from weather forcasters or even people on the street that "there is between a 0 and 80% chance of rain today." Yes, everbody can agree with the IPCC even if they do disagree substantially on the climate change science. People who think there is a 7% and 70% chance of rain disagree, but they still both agree with the highly uncertain statement I just made. The IPCC is the same kind of thing. - Enuja (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to be a broken record or anything but, again, if you enclose "overwhelming" in quotes (to properly identify that the word is taken directly from the source) then this issue is dead. It boggles my mind that this is still being discussed. And, finally, I think the inevitable "scare quotes" argument is juvenile, self-serving and unjustified in this case. 82.41.90.144 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkout this interview with the founder of the weather channel!!

 http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7524#SlideFrame_1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.169.147 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

After years of study, John Coleman is convinced that none of this is true. And thousands of scientists and other meteorologists hold this same dissenting view.

Currently, John Coleman is a TV weatherman for KUSI News in San Diego. But Coleman is most famous for being founder of the Weather Channel. He has had a long career in predicting the weather, working for the first time as a TV weatherman during his freshman year in college in 1953. With this extensive background, we might take John Coleman seriously when he states bluntly that global warming “is the greatest scam in history.”

He's been a strong opponent of Global Warming from the beginning. Though he is experienced, John Coleman doesn't fall into WP:RS or WP:SPS catergories. Infonation101 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The effect of chlorofluorocarbons on global warming

I am thinking of adding information on how chlorofluorocarbons contribute to global warming because I did not see any information about them in this article. --Ilikemangos (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I'm surprised we missed this. We do cover the topic in Greenhouse gas. I suggest adding a short sentence in the section titled Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere here, in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It used to be in "the relation between GW and ozone dep" but got shuffled out into ozone depletion William M. Connolley (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing on related page

See LewRockwell.com and the associated edit history. Raul654 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing at your 3RR limit doesn't become you. --DHeyward (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) I've reverted twice, not three times, and (2) It's most certainly relevant to this page, seeing as it's *exactly* the same issue that has been argued to death here. Raul654 (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, "canvassing" is an appeal that is restricted to individual editors likely to have a certain point of view. A general notice that anyone can read is not canvassing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Lew Rockwell is... um... well, I don't think Wikipedia's rules about civility permit me to finish that thought.

But, nevertheless, the phrasing you've been reverting, Raul654, is IMO better than what you are replacing it with. There is a mainstream or dominant scientific view on the topic, but there are a lot of dissenters, which is to say that the mainstream view falls short of being what the dictionary would call a consensus view.

That's my opinion. You might disagree with it, but "mainstream" or "dominant" is inarguably accurate, and "consensus" is at best arguably so, so why not go with what everyone can agree is accurate? NCdave (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the word "consensus" is used by impeccably reliable sources, including the U.S. National Academy of Science and the national academies of all the other major industrialized countries. See Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Misused, according to the dictionary. NCdave (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Then file an RfC: you and the dictionary against the National Academy of Science... Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New article on Solar Variation

Testing the proposed link between cosmic rays and cloud cover

T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale
(Submitted on 15 Mar 2008) Abstract: A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infra red data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesise that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the presently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.

Count Iblis (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but it apparently hasn't gone through the peer-review process yet. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Which does not mean that we will not see Sloan and Wolfendale being added to Inhofe's list with a quote of "23% of global warming due to solar changes alone" ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Would everyone consider Environmental Research Letters WP:RS? Infonation101 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to do so. The editorial board looks competent, and it is covered in major indexing services. It is, however, very new, so we can't be sure how it will be received in the medium term. It also is pay to play, which I personally dislike... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and agree on the pay to play. I'm leaving it to all of you to decide. Looks like the article above will be published in April. Just so you know. Infonation101 (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[1] www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html

[1]