Talk:Climate change/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

very likely

The phrase *very likely* falls in to the category of weasel words and is not allowed in wikipedia. Period.

However, the IPCC uses this phrase for a specific meaning and it is therefore an important part of the quote. If you actually check the IPCC documents, every instance of this phrase is in italics. I chose to use bold because it is easier to read in a (my) web browser.

In my opinion, this phrase must be highlighted in some in some manner or deleted. Q Science (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Stick a note up and wikilink.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Very likely" is always statement of probability. It is not anywhere on the weasel words page. In this case, it is backed up by a reliable source, so there isn't any problem with using it. Andrewjlockley, what on earth would you wikilink "very likely" to? We should keep wikilinks to relevant articles, and I can't think of an article that would be at all relevant in this case. The fact that "very likely" is italicized in the source, and we are quoting the source, does argue for using italics. Personally, I think that we should paraphrase the source and not use italics, but I'm okay with quoting the source and using italics. - Enuja (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just put in italics before I saw this discussion. So I'm obviously fine with them... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How can it be weasel words when it has a clear definition? I linked to the place with the most information about the phrase. NJGW (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not a weasel wording. Its used by the IPCC and has a clear meaning. There is no problem William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggested using a wikilink to a note on the same page. Dunno if that's the 'done thing'.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to use a quote from the IPCC in the lead. Just summarize it, and thus the whole argument of "very likely" disappears. -Atmoz (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have run out of septics here for the moment, so replacing "very likely" with "are" will probably do, as you've done [1]. I'm happy. Be aware (if you're not already) that there is a lot of scar tissue around William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We went over this a bit in #% probabilities and the consensus at the time was to provide context to it. "very likely" has a clear and specific meaning defined by the IPCC, which runs beyond simply a dictionary term. It is rated as ">90% probably" of occurring,[2] and is notable and neutral if defined in context. "are occurring..." only gives a narrow snapshot; this topic has quite a bit of depth if you want to go into the mechanics of generating the numbers necessary to establish and provide evidence that global warming is caused by human activity—without it, a claim that the probability that global warming is caused for some other reason would be just as valid as the one provided in the article. I'm not a skeptic or any other label we choose to place upon ourselves; but the issue remains that when it is omitted, we take the position of determining "what is reader needs to know", which is a source of bias and neutrality issues: past and present. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You misrepresent. There was no consensus to add, and the discussion since makes that clearer. I've removed it again. We don't need the lede cluttered up, indeed it would ideally be less cluttered. I don't think anyone would object if you added this stuff rather lower down William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The current notes system is tremendously less invasive than the previous one, and I find your revert both unilateral and unjustified. Rather than providing how the lead is cluttered, you simply stated that I do not understand the situation. I believe you are misinterpreting my statements; for example, "the consensus at the time", was simply separating the notes and the references, the current consensus is against using the large and distracting " ^{[note x]} ". When I reentered the notes, it was a qualifier: which was designed to satisfy both ends. However, you appear to assume that the consensus is against the notes system in its entirety. I find your quick and definitive reentry into the discussion suggesting ownership: that past discussions are disparaged in the light of your statements. I'm not going to revert you, although the sooner we do so, the easier and cleaner the action would be. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I find your complaints of ownership unhelpful. I'm going to ignore them. I don't understand what you mean by a unilateral revert. A revert can only be done by one person. It is, inevitably, unilateral. I think all your fine words amount to, you want to see your notes in. I, as I've made clear, want to see them out (of the lede). The article lived very happily without them for rather a long time. But it would indeed be best to let other people voice an opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As a newcomer, what is a "lede" -do you mean lead? Also, since when is 90% "very likley" for practicing scientists? Most (if not all) scientists consider the _minimum_ acceptable confidence interval to be 95% to draw firm conclusions? What is going on? Cheers

"The article lived very happily without them for rather a long time." I disagree, this article has for a long period of time kept the two sections together (Notes and references). There is a clear and significant difference between the two: as explanatory notes do not verify the article, and placing them together suggests that they do. This section naturally belongs in this article, and providing how or why you are so against it is what I'm looking for. Suggesting that this section belongs to me is simply reversing the suggestion that this article belongs to you. We have to be possessive of our view in order to have them, however it would indeed be best to let other people voice an opinion. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two ways to approach this. Either the lede is significantly cut to put weight to the rest of the article, or it should stay as its big self. Since it is already big, I see no probelem having both notes and refs. If it is small, it could have the notes and refs removed and placed later in the article. I think that having the notes is helpful, because if I felt confused about a section, I'd sooner click a note (quick explanation) than a ref (average people can't get the papers, and it's a dense read at best). Awickert (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I really think we need to explain the terms, and notes seem to be the best way.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Para 2

Time to discuss para 2 I think, viz:

Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that 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.[1] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing climate sensitivity, and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions. Some other uncertainties include how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming is expected to continue after 2100, even in the absence of new emissions, because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere.[6][7][8]

which I've reverted back in. I like having a para about the uncertainties in the lede - without this, there is an illusion of certainty. Moreover, I think its very useful to say where these uncertainties come from. And I also think we should be saying that 2100 is an arbitrary date and warmig continues afterwards William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to explain uncertianty, but isn't this a bit anorak for the lead? As discussed above, we need to evidence the "warming is expected to continue after 2100, even in the absence of new emissions" statement. I've not seen models (excluding carbon cycle modelling) which show such an effect in a zero-emissions scenario.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fig 9.24 [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

None of those scenarios mentioned are zero-emissions. Asserting that a zero-emissions scenario will result in continued warming atfer 2100 is therefore OR.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What would happen to atmospheric content if anthro emissions ceased? Ie. how long will it take before the atmospheric CO2 content falls noticeably? (ie. the time it would take for forcings to start falling?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not about how long they'd act for, it's how long the temp. would increase for. It has been proven that temps would stay high for centuries, what is not proven is that they would continue to rise beyond 2100 if emissions ceases. This has been going on long enough, the statement needs to be changed if it can't be supported. How about 'Temperatures would remain above pre-industrial levels well beyond 2100, even in the absence of new emissions.'Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Try to answer my question. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm unable to understand quite what is confusing AJL here. The sources he is being pointed at show that if emissions continue to CO2 doubling, and CO2 levels are thereafter held fixed, warming continues. This is hardly controversial; indeed, it is merely quantifying the bleedin' obvious. But I notice that AJL is using somewhat different wording, he is talking of "zero emissions", which is somewhat different. I don't even know what AJL means by zero emissions. Zero from when? Now? Thats now what the refs are talking about William M. Connolley (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The atricle states 'even in the absence of new emissions'. The ref Kim sent doesn't graph that scenario. Check it and see for your self.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To quote from the link I gave you Global mean temperature change, thermal expansion and North Atlantic overturning for a number of models of intermediate complexity. The models have been forced by 1% increase of CO2 until doubling, then the CO2 concentration has been kept constant. - you did read that, didn't you? William M. Connolley (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this the Archer paper that y'all have been talking about? -Atmoz (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nowt to do with me, but here's the one Kim referred to which was (incorrectly) used to 'demonstrate' that zero-emissions scenarios will continue warming beyond 2100. AR4 Chapter 10, subsec 10.7 Long Term Climate Change and Commitment It might well be ture, but as no-one can find a source to support the statement, I suggest it needs to come out.Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all Archer does show this as well. Second - you still haven't answered my question. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I think Andrewjlockley is factually correct on this one. This phrase "warming is expected to continue after 2100, even in the absence of new emissions ... [6][7][8]" is not supported by the IPCC summary for policymakers (which makes sense as that isn't linked as a source) and it isn't, from a quick read anyway, supported by Archer, 2005 (6) or Caldeira and Wickett, both of which are about the lifespan of CO2, not how long warming continues. When I glanced at it at first, I thought that Solomon, Plattner, Knutti, and Friedlingstein 2009 supported the that phrase, but now I think it doesn't. What does "surface warming" mean in this case ? I take it to mean "global average surface temperature in Kelvin or Celsius, with global average temperature in 1800 as 0". Go to figure 1, the second panel, blow it up, and draw a line/put a paper up to your screen halfway between 2000 and 2200. As you see, the peak warming with 450 ppm CO2 as the highest CO2 concentration (we're at about 380 ppm now) is before 2100. So it looks like the sentence in the lead is factually incorrect. (Thermal expansion of the Ocean, however, is expected to continue to increase after 2100, if emissions stop in the near future.) To me this suggests that we should just take out the sentence entirely. We could, instead, focus on the idea that is supported by all three references that current anthropogenic CO2 ain't going away, and we could add that the warmed temp. isn't going to change, which is what Andrewjlockley has been trying to do. Phrasings like this, [4] however, end up being too many words in the lead for a fairly small idea (debunking the idea that anthropogenic CO2 will just disappear right away and temps will go right down to pre-emissions? Does anyone think that? Can't we just debunk that in the body instead of in the lead?) - Enuja (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fig 9.24 [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the x-axis? Years? Predicting the next 4,000 years seems very ify. Q Science (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

They probably just wanted to run their models forward until an equilibrium state, to see what would happen if nothing else happened. Awickert (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to edit that sentence back in right now, please cite that part to that source. However, that's from the third IPCC report. I've been looking over working group I (physical basis) of the 4th working group, trying to find the relevant section, and I've honestly not got the energy right now. It would be better to cite from the 4th report than the 3rd report. However, the IPCC doesn't consider this important enough to put it in their summary for policymakers; do we have a reason to consider it important enough to put in our lead paragraph? - Enuja (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC) I'm certainly not going to revert you (we'll see what others think), but, just for the meantime, I've put in as a source for that part of the statement Ch 9 of part I of the third assessment report. - Enuja (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, this sounds like progress. You no longer think AJL is right - so I presume you agree that he is wrong - in which case I would have though that an apology for muddying the waters above and reverting would have been sensible - but now think this may not be sufficiently notable. That is a rather more defensible viewpoint (though I still disagree); but at least it isn't factually wrong. I'm not sure what you mean by "However, that's from the third IPCC report". Is there something wrong with it? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you prefer AR4, then (didn't Kim write this?) the place to look is chapter 10, obviously. Section 10.7, long term change and commitment, isn't very hard to find. Page 822, 'The concept that the climate system exhibits commitment when radiative forcing has changed is mainly due to the thermal inertia of the oceans, and was discussed independently by Wigley (1984), Hansen et al. (1984) and... etc etc. This stuff, as I said, is just the quantification of the bleedin' obvious, and I'm sorry if I'm being stupid but I really can't understand what your problem is with it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you insist on the SPM, then maybe Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans... If radiative forcing were to be stabilised in 2100 at B1 or A1B levels14 a further increase in global average temperature of about 0.5°C would still be expected, mostly by 2200. {10.7}

I'm not a modeler, and I've never pretended to be an expert on this issue, which is why I hadn't made any recent comments on it (I hadn't had time to look carefully enough at the sources). Andrewjlockley was correct that none of the formerly cited sources say that global temperature will increase even in the absence of further emissions, and it is also true that one of the cited sources has a graph that suggests the very opposite. I absolutely do not know what the current consensus in the climate modeling community is about whether or not warming would continue after 2100 if all anthropogenic sources of emissions stopped right now. What I looked at in the chapter you linked appeared to be quite consistent with that statement, but I don't understand it deeply enough yet to be certain: right now I'm just going with the premise that you know what you're talking about. I will look carefully at both the 3rd and 4th assessment report, some of the sources they cite, and search for more recent literature that cites those sources to see if this is, in fact, the current consensus of the climate modeling community, if this phrase stays in the lead. As far as best sources go, I will suggest that we cite something that is both reliable and recent. I might suggest we cite the 4th assessment report, I might suggest we cite a more recent paper, and, if the 4th assessment report says "see the 3rd assessment report" and there isn't a good, reliable review, then I'll suggest we cite the 3rd assessment report.

I will not apologize for adding confusion to the issue, because I don't believe that I did add confusion. I believe that other people will understand where Andrewjlockley is coming from when they read my comment above, and I think that alone is helpful. I have this article watched to try to keep it understandable for lay people, to protect it from vandalism and bias, and try to make new editors on this page into long term, constructive wikipedia editors. I will not apologize for my lack of expertise. I will apologize for not seeing your first link to the same source, William M. Connolley, and for making an edit to the article without reading your past comments carefully enough. I'm sorry for making that article edit. - Enuja (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to take a break, smell the air, and smile before continuing this discussion. Awickert (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a page ref on the supporting source, for the sentence that's been re-inserted. You all know how carefully I like to check sources ;-)Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley has repeatedly referred to figure 9.24, but since all he's saying is that if emissions stopped in 2100, warming wouldn't stop in 2100, that can be understood from just about any source around here. - Enuja (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely do not know what the current consensus in the climate modeling community is about whether or not warming would continue after 2100 if all anthropogenic sources of emissions stopped right now. Argh! That is what you're getting wrong, and probably AJL too. I knew this was just miscommunication. The article doesn't say that, nor do the sources. We're talking about warming, past 2100, if emissions stop in 2100. There. Are things all right now? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You may be talking about warming past 2100, if emissions stop in 2100, but that's not what the current sentence says to me (or to Andrewjlockley), and I'm sure that plenty of other people don't think that's what the sentence says, either. And I really don't understand why the lead needs to talk about what will happen if we have anthropogenic emissions up to 2100 but not afterward. If we all agree that we need the language to talk about how long the carbon is going to stick around, here is some suggested language Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, the effect of past emissions will persist for a very long time because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere.[9][10][11] No reason to have the third assessment report, but the three papers (if we want that many references in the lead) are fine. - Enuja (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But it is what the sentence says to me. Perhaps it could indeed be re-phrased to make it clear to all. The lede needs to make clear that warming won't stop in 2100, just because that is the date that most studies go up to William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to "Warming is expected to persist after 2100 because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere,[6][7][8] and with continued emissions, warming will continue beyond 2100." There are two parts here, and I, personally, think that the long term effect of emissions is more important than the continued emissions mean continued warming (because that bit is a truism).

Other possibilities for the continued effect of CO2 include:

1. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, the effect of past emissions will persist for a very long time because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere.[9][10][11]
2. The large heat capacity of the oceans and the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere means that effects of emissions persist for a very long time.[7][8][9]

And other possibilities for more emissions means more warming include:

1. Predicting warming up to 2100 is an arbitrary choice, and the extent of future warming depends on future emissions.
2. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, with continued emissions, warming will continue much longer.

What does everyone want us to do with this sentence? I edited the article because I do think that previous version did say that warming would continue past 2100 even without new emissions past today, and we need to avoid saying that, even accidentally. - Enuja (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Its even more troublesome than that. With a stop in emission growth (and even with reductions in emissions (ie. by keeping atmos level of CO2 at 380ppm) now, the warming will continue past 2100 (thats the constant forcing scenario). This would need to be expanded in body (imho). This means that your current version is actually also misleading :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you believe the current language is misleading, please suggest language that is not misleading. - Enuja (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Kim, I believe you are wrong. The constant forcing ignores carbon sequestration from the atmosphere. Zero emissions is falling forcing (unless we're already runaway).Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Try to read what i wrote again then. At current emission rates, around 50% stays in the atmosphere. You can lower this so that it just balances exactly with the Ocean sink - that would mean a constant 380ppm in the atmosphere. I haven't calculated on it - but that would afaik be a rather substantial reduction in emissions. A zero emission scenario is utopia - and not worth mentioning at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to show we can't turn it off. Many people think we can stop it instantly if things get bad. I think I can improve on this sentence: "With continued emissions, further warming will occur after 2100." How about "If levels of CO2 in the atmosphere remain constant, further......"Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WMC has put the misleading/incorrect sentence back in, despite the discussion above. I'll revert it early tomorrow unless anyone (other than WMC) posts an objection.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't. Unless you are actually aware that it isn't incorrect. And why your version is just as misleading. (take that as an objection). And please don't make statements like this "unless ... i will .. within ..." - discuss until end *first*! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've mostly tried to stay out of this little kerfluffle but will try to mediate (probably quixotic but what the hell). What do folks mean by "warming"? I think there may be a confusion between defining it as a continuation of an elevated level of temperature, and defining it as a continued positive rate of change of temperature. So let me ask what each of you thinks: level, or rate of change? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been using 'persist' and 'continue' to describe the difference, but it's not ideal. I prefer 'temperatures will rise' and 'temperatures will remain elevated' (or high).Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Failure to address refuting studies

I nominated this page for a NPOV discussion because I believe that it fails to address the fact that there have been many studies done that refute claims of global warming. Feedback and comments on how best to address this would be appreciated.--Roar888 (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't tag this article, it receives over 15K hits everyday, and there are enough people in the discussions to address your concerns. Tags are mainly used as a reminder to attract other readers to your concerns. To my understanding this article is specifically about Global warming, and not so much the Global warming controversy. Because of the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV and WP:SIZE, we barely haven enough space to cover main stream concept let alone the dissenting ones. Maybe what you're looking for is adding to the see also at the beginning of the article, such as the link leading to paleoclimatology—however I can't think for you, but there would be merit in it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, have any of the "refuting studies" been published in reliable sources? If yes, bring them on. We are very much trying to adequately represent all notable and reliable opinions. But someone's blog or a publication of, say, the Heartland Institute, does not meet the bar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We could link to global warming controversy, either via and embedded to headline link but if we do then I'm gonna go and check that real carefully to make sure it's every bit as well researched and ref'd as this one is! A form of words w could use is: Despite earlier [[global warming controversy|controversy]] the IPCCs main......Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We are linking to it, twice. Once from "public debate" in the lede, and once from the infobox at the end. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That link is in the wrong place, as it's about RESPONSES. I'm gonna remove it unless any1 objects. The correct form of words I meant to suggest is: Despite earlier [[global warming controversy|controversy]], these basic conclusions have been....Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a good choice of words. The scientific debate about the core results is long over, but the public debate continues. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, why do you say that the debate is over? It appears to me that it is intensifying. More to the point, NASA is getting money for new satellites ($400 million for climate change research) and new data always leads to new theories and new debates. Q Science (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I said the scientific debate about the core results is long over. Science always debates at the frontier of knowledge - better models, more feedbacks, more exact emission tracking. But extremely few qualified scientists deny the warming, or that it is mostly anthropogenic. The recent Doran&Zimmerman survey [6] found 97% of actively publishing climate scientist to agree with anthropogenic causes for global warming (apparently with one undecided and one contrarian in the sample). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Core results?" - That sounds kind of vague and weaselly. Can you please enumerate the core results for which the science is settled? You mention but two, that warming is actually occurring (or at least was up until 1998) and that it is "mostly" anthropogenic (has this actually been quantified?). Are there other core results that you include in this statement? --GoRight (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And nearly 100% of scientists in the late 19th/early 20th century believed that ~25% of women would suffer a condition called 'hysteria' at some point in their lives due to their inherent frailty despite the fact that we now know that such an illness does not even exist. With due respect, Stephan Schulz is not a specialist in atmospheric physics (neither am I) but we're equally qualified to observe that there is debate at present and it is only just beginning, and certainly intensifying as Q science stated. Please see Pielke Sr. et al. 2009 submitted, a draft being available at his website. McIntyre & McKitrick [forthcoming] have shown, for instance, that the statistical analysis of the Santer-17 study is sensitive to the endpoint of 1999 that they've chosen. Fred Singer pointed out that Santer et al. are quoted in their 2006 report as saying themselves that an endpoint near 1999 would not be meaningful. I am proposing that in the interests of maintaining NPOV in this article that a line be added to the modeling section stating that the Douglass vs Santer debate is continuing.Alex Harvey (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not that the 97% consensus could be wrong (of course it could be.) The problem is that we can only make judgments based the information we have. Thanks to social and scientific advances, it is now known that women do not suffer from 'hysteria.' Likewise, until we can reasonably dispute the now very likely theory that Global Warming is anthropogenic, we would need to discover things about the climate which are not yet known or understood. It is unfortunate how women were treated in the past, but throwing out logic is not the way to prevent errors in science from occurring.Aykantspel (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I still don't like that link, and I will break it in the absence of objections.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You just got an objection by Stephan (and i concur) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is vital to link to Global warming controversy in the lead section, and the current linking words (public debate) are very good ones. I strongly support the current linking words. - Enuja (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to do a gung-ho edit, but it does very clearly say public debate about what to do, not debate about whether it's real - that's why I think its a bad link. Any ideasAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Arctic study

This needs to go in. [7] shall we put it in the lead under uncertainties, or in the body.Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And why does it need to go in? And why are you even speculating in putting it into the lead? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's important because:

• Shows a specific failure of models
• Indicates early loss of a major global asset
• Shows that and tipping point (climatology) may be reached earlier than expected in the region
• Illustrates the need for a precautionary principle approach.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:15, 28

If less ice than the IPCC needs to go in, then why isn't there any mention that since 2001 when the IPCC predicted warming of between 1.4 adn 5.8 I seem to remember in the next century this prediction has been followed by an average cooling of -1.2C/decade. Seems to me in an article on global warming the most important information to put in is the failure to predict that temperatures would decline. But of course, this article only ever has information added if it supports the discredited idea of manmade global warming. 89.168.200.217 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

February 2009 (UTC)(signed later, whoops)

If you care enough, please at least (a) sign your posts (b) put the f*ck*ng thing here in a format which allows us to read it. As a Top Tip, saying "This needs to go in" is just bound to annoy peopel, and probably be wrong. "I believe that this should be mentionned" is one obvious improvement William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A GRL paper should not be in the lead of this article. -Atmoz (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with GRL?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

GRL is a fine journal. But it's not, in general, up in the Nature/Science class. This particular paper isn't going in the lead, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WMC keeps stripping stuff which shows Artic modelling is unreliable. What's the issue? Can this study going in the body? I don't see what's wrong with it. Peer-reviewed science should be of a consistent standard, regardless of what it costs at the newsstand.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be journal snobs; in terms of content I'd often take a JGR paper over a Nature paper; the former is usually much better-developed. As for what should be in the lede, I think it depends on what the general consensus is about the sea ice. If there are a large number of studies that say it is faster than IPCC predicts, then we should cite the most notable and include that - maybe in the lede, maybe not. If there is some good evidence with no clear consensus, maybe that should be noted in the body. Awickert (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand, it's now well out of IPCC error bars. We need to get this acrossAndrewjlockley (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But is your understanding good? What, for example, *are* the IPCC error bars, in your opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a report on the latest research. You continually fail to understand this simple concept. -Atmoz (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I see two highly-cited studies by the same group that put it faster than IPCC by reading the abstracts: the one above in GRL and this one, Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice, also in GRL, and more cited. Through a cursory search, I couldn't find anything that says sea ice will shrink more slowly. So therefore, I say that something about this should probably go in the body of the article. Awickert (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is the IPCC got it wrong. Can anyone demonstrate that this is not the case? We should base our article on the scientific evidence. I think this should be mentioned in the lead, because Arctic shrinkage is a really important effect.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Then stick it in Arctic shrinkage or Effects of global warming. This article is neither focused on Arctic shrinkage nor the IPCC, so it doesn't really belong in the article and definitely not in the lead. Jason Patton (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Or we could look at [8] and comment on the IPCC predicted a faster decline in Antarctic ice than has actually happened? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. We need to show how hard it is to predict reliably, and hence the need to be cautious with emissions.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The second clause of your second sentence is not a neutral point of view. -Atmoz (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but the precautionary principle is fairly well established. It's still worth including.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

% probabilities

I think we should add the % probability to 'very likely' in the lead. I think it's about 95%, from memory.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

From the source: "In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%". See footnote 6, page 3 of [9]. I think the approximate terms are fine. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

would that info merit a new stub article?Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. WP isn't the IPCC's glossary. -Atmoz (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Shall I stick in (>90% probability) or (>90%) next to its first use then?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You can tell just how sloppy those guys were in putting together the IPCC report when you read the detail of the scoring system they have to characterize probabilities. The transcription above is a straight lift from the Summary for Policy Makers (pg.3, footnote 5). First thing, it suggests that something can be both 'likely', AND 'very likely', AND 'Extremely likely' and so on since a score of 94% for example is greater than both 50% and 66% and 90%. Furthemore, what if the score is between 33% and 50%, what score does it get then? Sure it's all just sloppy language, but where else is there sloppy language which is hard for us amateurs to spot, but which might tilt the meaning or inference of a phrase? Fizzackerly (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course something that is "very likely" is also just "likely". It's also "more likely than not". What is sloppy about that? As for a score between 33% and 50%, what about "uninteresting"? Apparently they had no need for that range. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Likely" and "Very Likely" are two different things, the set of "Very Likely" things isn't a subset of the set of "Likely" things. If they are going to set up a metric for characterizing the thing you'd have throught they'd have set one up which is self-consistent and covers the whole range of possible outcomes - wouldn't you? I'm just pedalling some pedantry, but it just strikes me as lacking an attention to detial I might have hoped for given governments are going to be spending trillions of tax-payer dollars for decades to come based on what the report says.Fizzackerly (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. My language semantics indeed tells me that the set of very large things is a subset of the set of large things. Isn't Mount Everest a large mountant? Isn't it even a very large mountain? The IPCC terminology is entirely consistent. It's not exhaustive, but that's just saving money by not listing unnecessary values. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, here the intent of the report authors is to distinguish between what is "likely" and what is "very likely" such that a proportionate response can be made to the two different cases. If the set of "very likely" things is a subset of "likely" things then that distinction can no longer be made since, by that logic, a "very likely" thing is also a "likely" thing. To qualify as a "likely" thing something only has to have probability > 50%. When describing a thing as "likely" in this context there's an implicit assumption that it shouldn't be taken as "very likely". However that assumption is not encapsulated in the scoring system. If you asked someone to nominate a set of "large" mountains to climb and you were given a set of anonymous mountains which included "very large" mountains as well as "large" mountains then, clearly, your choice wouldn't be just an option amongst "large" mountains as you'd requested.Fizzackerly (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've seen some people create a "Notes" section, which holds explanatory notes explaining the information in better specifics. The best example I can think of is Jane Austen, however Reston ebolavirus (one that I'm more familiar with) uses this system as well. Another method I've seen used is a short of definitions list to the side when the language can be potentially confusing, Introduction to viruses is perhaps the best example I can think of. I'm a bit opposed to doing it inline, it's large and distracts the reader from catching on to the main point (I don't think we got across the point that the IPCC's conclusions are rather conservative); furthermore I don't think we can sufficiently explain a confidence intervals in so few words—their confidence intervals right? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the predicted range is not something so simple as confidence intervals. The system of having notes and references separate is new. In the past, editors here have objected to having a separate notes section, because they didn't want this article to have any notes. Right now, it has notes and references all mixed up. I, for one, would be perfectly happy to see separate notes and references sections, assuming we aren't going to be able to rid of the notes, and that you're willing to make the two separate sections. - Enuja (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It doens't seem a bad idea to have notes. It keeps the text smooth for general readers and satisfies us anoraks too :-) Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If we concede on this, I'm thinking of having the same method used in Mary Shelley, so that the notes system would be automated (it would be a serious hassle to do it manually). I don't think the system of having a separate list of references and a separate list of explanatory notes to be new, there were proposals in the village pump's persistent proposal page some time ago to have a new tag in addition to <references /> to contain explanatory notes, however they decided to use the "group" attribute instead. It's not condemned in WP:LAYOUT or any other guideline that I know of (it's sort of promoted with "Notes, Footnotes, and References"). So it would comes down to us. If there are already a number of notes in addition to references in the "Notes and references" section, then separating then would help add to the distinction between what's used for verification and what's used for explanation or expansion (into relevant topics that would seem awkward in the prose). I was guessing on confidence intervals (Statistical power, Type II error, whatever), do we have an article on this? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Having the [note x] is quite disruptive while reading the article. Either we should do it the way that gives letters for notes, or we should collapse the notes back into the references section. - Enuja (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I can do letters, and another argument in that end is that there's more flexibility (you can't cite citations). However, and in my opinion, explanatory notes are information essential to the prose, however the focus of length would be awkward in it and would ultimately breaks the flow. I am assuming that we would want the reader to use the notes, and " ^{[note 1]} " is easier to spot than " ^[A] ". I wouldn't call it disruptive though, just more explicit "note 1: that must mean that it's an explanatory note, not a reference". Let's see what Andrew or someone else thinks. ChyranandChloe (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just added a note on the 90% deal, so hopefully that solves the first half of this discussion. For the second half, I think that the notes are useful, and I don't particularly care what form they take. Awickert (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to switch between two systems unless we have an adequate consensus. Other than that I'll work on "probably". ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - and thanks for the work. Awickert (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we get the 'likely effects' sentence into %s in this way? At present they're all portrayed as equally likely, which is not the case.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Global warming on hold

In any other article this would warrent a major rewrite: 'Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one."' [10] There clearly is now a substantial group of people who agree that global warming has stopped and for the article to continue to talk in the present tense of current warming when most experts now accept there has been cooling recently is clearly misleading. 88.110.13.207 (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And then he goes on to say "Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it's just a hiccup, and that humans' penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.

""When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming," Swanson said. "Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive."" [11] NJGW (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. So, he has no idea what is causing this cooling trend, but says it's only going to last for up to 30 years? How is he able to make this prediction when he doesn't even know what's causing it? And on top of that, he knows that it's only a hiccup and we're going to have explosive warmth afterwards? - Jmartinsson (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And another reliable source saying basically the same thing: "A major scientific report by leading Japanese academics concludes that global warming is not man-made and that the overall warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century onwards has now stopped." [12]79.79.241.238 (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not, and, of course, neither DProg nor the Register are reliable sources for scientific topics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes a very convenient argument to insist that the only people whose opinion counts on global warming are those trained to be global warmers. A bit like saying the only people who can comment on an article about christianity are trained to be christians. 88.109.83.124 (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Global warmer...wonder what kind of training I must endure to become one... --Seba5618 (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The anon would benefit from reading WP:RS and learning what a climatologist is. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Some people are just too much against intellectuals for this to work Count Iblis (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Logical structure

The section on adaptation and mitigation should have subsections on adaptation and mitigation, instead of geoeng (which talks about both) and mitigation. For logic to prevail, geoeng should be mentioned in the intro, and its contributions to both should be mentioned in each relevant section. Others are editing that section, so I don't want to mess with what they're doing at the moment, otherwise I'd just do this. Awickert (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

They're mentioned separately in the lead. I will put in a bit about adaptation, but it's not my area of expertise.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. So I'm confused, though: I would assume "adaptation" would be building farther inland, getting used to warmer temperatures, etc., while mitigation would be stopping it. It seems like it's split now between direct mitigation (stop carbon) and indirect mitigation (keep carbon, reduce sunlight). Is this som ekind of official definition I don't know? (I just like being the "uninformed but interested reader" who tries to get at things from basic logic, hopefully to improve clarity, so I hope you don't mind the nitpicking.) Awickert (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Adaption, mitigation and geoeng are treated as separate subjects on WP, they are considered separately in public debate, and they are mentioned separately in the lead. I think the current titling, and the relative balance of sections, is generally helpful. (Perhaps adaptation could be a bit fatter, and maybe mitigation a bit thinner, but overall it's about right). If you wanted to be really particular about it, you could use a lower level section heading for geoengineering, but it still needs its own section for clarity. Further, whilst geoeng is a mitigation of global warming, some techniques are an adaptation to rising GHG levels: the nomenclature is therefore very blurred. Best left as is, I think.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

IPCC and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program consider geoengineering as a subset of mitigation. In the spirit of adhering to precedent set by reliable sources we should organize the topics likewise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I conflicted with Boris. "I'll summarize my points from the earlier conevrsation between AJL and myself: I thought that geoengineering would fall under mitigation because I thought adaptation to be getting used to things changing and mitigation to be keeping them from changing. 3rd party comments on how the section should be divided would be helpful." Since what I said agrees with IPCC, and Boris' 3rd party comment was indeed helpful, I'll see what I can do to change it back. Awickert (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've used subsectioning to get the topic across whilst sticking to the above classification. I think it works nicely. Boris, can you post your source? I will also edit the geoengineering article to reflect convention when I've seen it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've check the IPCC gloassary at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg3.pdf and it doesn't seem to include the solar radiation management part of geoeng. Do you have another source?"

Mitigation: Technological change and substitution that reduce resource inputs and emissions per unit of output. Although several social, economic and technological policies would produce an emission reduction, with respect to climate change, mitigation means implementing policies to reduce GHG emissions and enhance sinks."Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See chapter 11 of the WG III report. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter11.pdf ? This contradicts the other IPCC source. Which takes precedence?Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that they're in conflict. AJL's source (above, the glossary) states, "Geo-engineering: Technological efforts to stabilize the climate system by direct intervention in the energy balance of the Earth for reducing global warming." The wording, "energy balance", covers greenhouse and incoming, b/c a balance requires a sum of all energy inputs and outputs at a steady state. Therefore, geoeng is part of mitigation, and comprises solar radiation and carbon capture and storage. Awickert (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I was replying to the above aerosols comment w.r.t. the glossary. I therefore take back my now-struck-out comment. Though I would always go with a full document, personally, over a glossary, there seems to be a definition issue. Awickert (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Big thanks

To all who gave up their saturday to do this tweak and tidy. It was all very civil and productive. Bravo!Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream News Reports Bias In This Article

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml Should this be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by E tac (talk • contribs)

404 --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the broken URL. -Atmoz (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha. So it really is Solomon. It's not "mainstream", and it's not "reports". It's fringe, and an opinion piece. It also is not about global warming. So no. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain please.--E tac (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The linked article is an opinion piece written my Lawrence Solomon for the National Review Online about his personal problems with two editors on Wikipedia and with this article. That opinion piece has no role in this article (although it has been mentioned on this talk page before). People complaining about bias in this article is not important. What is important is to address any actual bias in this article. If you see a part of this article that does not accurately reflect the current state of the peer reviewed literature, please suggest improvements, cited to peer reviewed articles as sources, here on the talk page. It doesn't matter what Solomon says is the peer reviewed literature, it matters what is actually in the peer reviewed literature. - Enuja (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a mainstream news source though is it not? That is what I was looking for an explanation for.--E tac (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not news, it's opinion. It only represents the authors opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to include Solomon's rant here. This article documents the scientific community's opinion on AGW. It's not about people's opinion of Wikipedia. The Solomon piece would be more appropriate in Criticism of Wikipedia.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What a suprise the "favored" people implied in the article dont want the article to be mentioned. Surely you can see the irony! Conflict of interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.251.162 (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither KDP or WMC have commented on this case. However all other people, not mentioned in the opionion piece agree that an opinion piece about alleged bias in this article is clearly not a reliable source for anything in this article Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Def-list for Feedback

The subsection "Feedback" has six sub-subsections. This article is already at its size cap, which implies that these sub-subsection are unlikely to be significantly expanded. Each sub-subsection contains one paragraph, with the exception of Methane, which contains two. By breaking Methane into its two key points: the Arctic methane release and the Clathrate gun hypothesis; a more effective method of presenting this information is available, which is done using a def-list design (explained in detail in WP:LISTS). ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Antarctic shelf collapse could tilt Earth's axis, resulting in much higher sea levels in some areas

See here, perhaps interesting to mention in this article. Count Iblis (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Original article is apparently this one. As is typical, the popular press account garbles things a good deal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Give it a little time to marinade. -Atmoz (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I also heard that the hotter atmosphere will cause the earth to rise (hot air rises as it is less dense than the cooler air) upwards towards the sky (the atmosphere will pull the solid earth with it by the attraction of gravity). The inertia will cause the sea level to rise on the down side - which will also be the heaviest side - drowning everyone and everything except the water plants. I'm afraid Foxy Loxy and Chicken Little will both perish. 8( The good news is, so will all the crap reporters. --Candy (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion page is for article improvement, not blog entries. --Skyemoor (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't 100% crap reporting, just about 50% :). It just focused in on the true polar wander (I'm guessing that's what they mean by the axial tilt, otherwise there would be no change in the position of the geoid bulge due to rotation with respect to the continents and oceans), without really describing it, and confused ice sheet with shelf (no mass anomaly from losing an ice shelf, as it is isostatically compensated by the instantly-deforming seawater). But I do think that both their 1st-order conclusion of geoid change due to the sudden loss of mass (ice sheet) that won't be compensated by the mantle for several thousand years, and the true polar wander, would be interesting to put somewhere after the dust settles; maybe effects of global warming?

Offsite discussion on graph

There is currently an off-site discussion taking place concerning, in part, whether this graph from this article is a violation of WP:NOR. All are welcome to come join the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Offsite comments can sometimes be helpful. But in the end concrete proposals for article improvement should be discussed here, rather than requiring editors to go to an off-site forum. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Boris re: discussion taking place here.

I'm sorry, but what exactly is OR about taking reliable, sourced data and graphing it? Raul654 (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the participants in that forum are banned and so can't discuss this here, but still have views worth considering. The argument that the graph is NOR is that it is synthesizing data from more than one source, which according to this discussion, violates the policy. My take on the debate is that a blanket ban on graphs using data from more than one source is probably taking things too far. Instead, each graph should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Several of the editors in that NOR discussion, however, appear to lean towards a more hard-line approach. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't see the synthesis because all the data are from one source, the Mauna Loa data series that Keeling initiated. The data series is publicly available from CDIAC.[13] If I'm being thick please point out where the synthesis is occurring. In any event Robert's graph is just a clearer and SVG-format plot of the Mauna Loa data compared to the non-scalable plots of the same data widely seen elsewhere on the web, e.g.[14][15] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the participants in that forum are banned and so can't discuss this here, but still have views worth considering. - we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Assuming, for the moment, that the NOR policy blanketly prohibits graphs from multiple data sources (an argument I don't buy, FWIW), it doesn't apply in this case. I'm almost positive that Robert used a single NOAA dataset to generate that graph -- presumably one of the ones listed here. Raul654 (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need to give banned authors any further say on the article; all article change discussion should take place here. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pointless discussion. NOAA produced plot looks (*gasp*) exactly like the one in the article. -Atmoz (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Subsectioning "Greenhouse effect" in Forcing and feedback

Should the section "Greenhouse effect" be subsectioned under "Forcing and feedback"? ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It could go either way. "Forcing" tends to be thought of as things that cause changes (volcanoes, changes in greenhouse gases, whatever) while the greenhouse effect per se is a more basic aspect of the climate system. But yeah, the GH effect leads naturally into a discussion of the different forcing processes. It might make sense to put all this under one larger heading but I'm not sure what that would be -- maybe something like "the physical climate system" though that's not quite right. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts were to have the subsection "Feedback" as its own section, which thus leads to renaming "Forcing and feedback" to "Forcing". The concept is essentially that we don't need subsections reproducing what the reader would already get from the title of the containing section. After that we can probably move "Greenhouse effect" into "Forcing". I don't think we need to emphasize the basic aspects about the climate system insomuch as to articulate to the reader the concept of what affects or changes (Forcing) the climate system. I'm kind of blank on a better term, in Global warming controversy, they kept it simple with "Causes". ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

COP15

I'm planning to add a few words about COP15 to the end of the last lead sentenceAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What words did you have in mind? --Skyemoor (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Er.. how about: 'A successor to the current Kyoto protocol agreement is expected to be agreed at the COP15 talks in December.'Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Related climatic issues

In the section "Related climatic issues", the first paragraph covers ocean acidification. Perhaps it would be best to move that paragraph to "Attributed and expected effects" under the subsection "Environmental". In the second paragraph it covers Global dimming, I think it would be best to move this to the section "Forcing". The third paragraph is uncited, however, "Forcing" appears to be the best location. Essentially the section "Related climatic issues" is unnecessary. What do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Acidification is environmental not climaticAndrewjlockley (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it needs to be a climatic effect for it to be considered as an "Attributed and expected effects". Furthermore, "Economic" is not a change in climate. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I was endorsing you, not contradicting you.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I thought you meant something else. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased article?

WTF??? I find that this page is a bit biased towards "global warming IS harmful" and "global warming MUST be stopped"... it still hasn't been universally agreed upon (most but not all scientists agree on it), so do Wikipedia's policies allow this sort of bias? I'm not sure whether majority opinions should be presented as fact, even if they are majority opinions; they should simply have more prominence than minority opinions in my view.--172.163.15.98 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This article reflects the consensus opinion, with due weight to minority opinions. You might want to take a look at the scientific opinion on global warming to get an idea what the consensus is, and how strong it is. The article does not include complete fringe opinions like "there is a giant conspiracy of communist scientists who invented global warming to enrich themselves on research grants while destroying our free markets". Where does it say "global warming MUST be stopped"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Where does it mention that the climate has cooled in the 21st century or that climate precictions have been abysmal failure (prediction: warming, actual: cooling) 79.79.229.103 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You won't get the alarmists who 'guard' this article allowing the mention of such things - besides, it has only been cooling for 7 years. ^rossnixon 02:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It is 8 years that it has been cooling --- ever since the IPCC predicted it would warm! 79.79.229.103 (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hard to see 8 years, more like 6-7. See http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe-m.html (check the 'fit' of the 0.0 anomaly line!) ^rossnixon 01:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree about this being a rather biased article, disrespecting the skeptic's view, and ignoring the larger historical perspective of climate variations, such as the "mid-holocene optimum" about 4,000 years ago, far warmer than today. The more recent "medieval warm period" is mentioned briefly but depicted as cooler than today, despite contrary historical facts (eg Greenland being green). It ignores possible benefits of warming, which are considerable for much of the world. In view of past examples of consensus among the scientific community mentioned above, majority opinion should NOT be presented as fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabrabyn (talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 March 2009

Please do not confuse this article with Global warming controversy. Viewed from a multi-article perspective, this article, describing the mainstream scientific concept, was allocated the name space "Global warming", where as the skeptical and political sides were allocated the name space "Global warming controversy". This perspective rests tremendously on the definition of its constituents. For example, while "Global warming" implies simply an increase in global temperature, it is used to describe the modern increase in global temperature and its projected continuation. In the past temperatures have risen, however it has also declined. Rather than describing every increase in temperature as "Global warming" and every decreases as "Global cooling", the title "Paleoclimatology" was created to describe these cycles. The modern upturn in global temperature does has yet to posses a projected cooling period with sufficient certainty, in fact, many scientists are not necessary sure how high the temperature will rise to with sufficient certainty. Essentially speaking, maybe what you're looking for is to add a navigational link leading to the Global warming controversy the article lead—like that linking to Paleoclimatology. Right now we are in progress of doing so, however, some editors here want to raise the article's (Global warming controversy) quality before we do so. I don't believe that it is absolutely necessary, however since I'm planning on cleaning the article up anyway, I'm slightly disinterested. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Greenland wasn't green during the Medieval warm period, even 1st-hand Norse accounts say so (Eirik's saga and the Grænlendinga saga). The Holocene optimum was closer to 8 ka than 4, and was a part of coming out of the last glacial. It had temperature increases of a magnitude comparable today, but at a slower rate. The Medieval warm period was within natural variability; we are now pretty confidently outside it. No, it shouldn't be presented as fact because of a scientific consensus, but research overwhelmingly shows that it is happening. I'm not sure where possible benefits of warming would go, my best guess would be to look around Wiki to see if there's anything about it and do some research on it. Awickert (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is, for example, "scientists and individuals are seeking the appropriate response to global warming"... and IMO "appropriate" is a POV term, because it represents majority opinion and not fact. Even if the entire world's population somehow wanted to stop global warming, the term would still be a POV term because "appropriate" is an opinion. It's like putting "beautiful planet" in an article but "beautiful" is a POV term. --172.131.217.195 (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Appropriate" is neutral, as it does not identify any one response, nor does it take sides with regard to mitigation vs. adapation. The anon should read WP:Truth. -- Skyemoor (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I would have considered the article on global warming controversy biased in the same way (except in the opposite direction) because it appears to denounce global warming at first glance. --172.131.217.195 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with other editors that is a biased article. This guff has been going since the late 1980s but really nothing unusual has occurred and we have just had the coldest winter in 20 years. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Lenton

Boris, please explain your rmv of Lenton in lead, when paper states "under some plausible decadal-scale scenarios of land use and greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing, switches occur between two highly nonlinear metastable regimes of the chaotic oscillations corresponding to the “active” and “weak” monsoon phases, on the intraseasonal and interannual timescales."Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Any change to the lede should be discussed first. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable argument, but not the one Boris made. Unless anyone can explain why the source contradicts the text, or suggest another reason for leaving it out, I will put it back.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. If your understanding of the words you quoted (much less the rest of the paper) really is this poor, please leave it to someone else. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The term 'monsoon failure' is widely used to describe even single season disruption. Note i didn't say 'permanent failure'. Would you be happy with 'disruption to' as opposed to 'failure'? If not, I suggest you find your own form of words, as currently the issue of abrupt climate change, in the form of disruption of ocean and atmosphere, is essentially missing from the lead.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the paper again. Hint #1: note the italicized words "under some plausible decadal-scale scenarios of land use and greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing." Hint #2 (from the paper): "Greenhouse warming that is stronger over land and in the Northern Hemisphere tends to strengthen the monsoon." Hint #3: "increasing CO2 stabilizes the monsoon." There are other important points as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, there is potentially significant disruption to the monsoon. Even a strengthening effect is a disruption, if you're trying to grow crops. I think the paper's pretty clear that major effects on the monsoon are plausible/expected. If you'd prefer, we could use the examples of the west african monsoon, or enso instead.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Then the issue is the word "disruption". Merriam-Webster defines disruption as "1 a: to break apart : rupture b: to throw into disorder <agitators trying to disrupt the meeting>2: to interrupt the normal course or unity of." Disruption implies a loss of continuity: the monsoon is not disrupted, although farming would be. Awickert (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, can someone suggest a form of words for this inclusion that is comprehensible to the general reader.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "Precipitation in the Asian monsoon region is projected to increase, and may become more variable from year to year." It shouldn't be in the lead, though. And I'm not convinced it should be in the article at all: there is no obvious justification for discussing one region of the world but not others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Why is it important enough to include in the lead? (or even the article?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It feeds a billion people! I'd favour including the ENSO, WAM, etc in the same concept. I think it does need to be in the lead, to give some 'flesh' to the concept. I also think that we need to explain the idea of ocean/atmospheric circulation changes, however briefly.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) Andrew, you're onto something here. Regional climate change shouldn't be a redlink. Would you like to start the article, summarizing past and projected changes to various regions around the world? That would be great! We could then link to it from the main global warming article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. But shuldn't this be in some regional section of the effects of global warming article? If you want something specific to global warming, then shouldn't the title be regional effects of global warming. bearing in mind the regional effects are by nature abrupt (on a climatological scale), then would abrupt climate change be better?Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re adding a section header to avoid total incomprehensibility

I have run across this paper which suggests an alternate theory: Michal Kravcik, Jan Hronsky, Jaroslav Tesliar, Robert Zvara The New Theory of The Global Warming 2002-01-26 Is there any merit in including it?  kgrr ^talk 15:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be very badly translated from Foreign. Even allowing for that, it appears to have no merit at all - I'm afraid I couldn't work out what the "new theory" even was. You could tell us I suppose William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I can say on my own authority (though you folks don't have to listen) that the part about changes in the Earth's crust is absolutely absurd. 70 cm of water on the Earth's oceans will, when the system comes to equilibrium (~10,000 years) depress the ocean basins by about 70 cm * density of water / density of upper mantle = 70 cm * (1000 kg/m^3 / 3300 kg/m^3) = 21 centimeters. Orogenesis is mountain building. If they think that a 21-centimeter drop in the ocean floor will cause mountains to pop up like daisies... I don't know what to say. Well, I do, but I won't say it here. And new continents? Oh boy, oh boy. So based on the fact that it is 100% garbage in one section, I think I'm giving it a big thumbs-down. Awickert (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The "paper" seems to be primarily concerned with the contribution deforestation makes to global warming, which, of course, is nothing new. It's been recognized in the AGW science from the 1979 NAS report to the 2001 IPCC report. Additionally, it doesn't appear to be a reliable source, just an environmental NGO.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

regional climate change

regional climate change is getting towards the point where it's possibly worth linking in. needs some further work tho.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Freeman Dyson quote

Personally, I think the evidence for global warming being caused by greenhouse emissions is strong. But NPOV requires us to present the best argument on the other side, and this is the best I know of. Read it. I think you will find it carefully researched and to the point. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Rick, we must base this article on whatever is published in the relevant peer reviewed journals. Science does not value the opinions of prominent scientist more than those of anyone else. All that counts are the results that are based on good science as judged by the reviewers for peer reviewed journals. So, the "best arguments" are precisely those that have been published in peer reviewed journals. Count Iblis (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a good idea not to tell us which quote you mean on talk, because then we can have all the fun of going to the edit history to find it. Anyway, I think you mean this [16] and the answer is the one you've already been given William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley: I would suggest, with reference to this comment and your comment in the section below, that sarcasm is not the best mode of rational discussion.

I'm sorry, Rick, but when a question is brought up without any reference to the specific quote, I think a little sarcasm is in order - think about how much longer it took those who replied to you to find it - common courtesy. Awickert (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, I'm a big fan of peer review, but I make an exception for Freeman Dyson, because he has bucked the peer review process in the past, and been proved right.Rick Norwood (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Being able to buck the peer review process does not imply that he is always right. Furthermore, my presumption is that you believe that his scientific concept will become accepted at a later time; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:NOT), we document things after they happen and not before. So after or if his concept becomes accepted and a scientific consensus emerges, then we'll document it here. Furthermore, if you want to add something, show us the sources and show us what you want to enter. This makes it much easier to concentrate on substance than on the beliefs. We can't have a COI unless we know what you're proposing in the first place. I'm assume you mean this diff[17], but making yourself clear is your job. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. --Seba5618 (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

After careful study of the movement pattern of parking cops, I've managed to park my car one night without a ticket! Now I'm immune to all traffic law! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of Freeman Dyson's notability, you may have noticed major articles about his new book, in the New Yorker and other magazines. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Which merits inclusion in the Dyson article - but not here, per all of the above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Since the mid-twentieth century"

The opening line of the article states that global warming has only be noticed since the mid-20th century. I seem to recall much, much older scientific literature describing this phenomenon, but I don't have access to my old university library anymore... Almafeta (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Anthropogenic warming has been noticed since the mid 20 century, before that it becomes harder to notice our fingerprint. The phenomenon per se has been known since the 18th century...quoting the article: The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[17] It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed even by those who do not agree that the recent temperature increase is attributable to human activity. The question is instead how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the atmospheric concentrations of particular greenhouse gases. --Seba5618 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Responses to global warming

In the Mitigation to global warming, the degree of efforts made by different countries should be shown. A good map herefore is the Climate Cooperation Index by Michèle Battig. See http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-181138392.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.180.114 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: undo done by KimDabelsteinPetersen

Planting trees is not a minority view.--Chuck (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Carbon sequestration in general, and tree planting specifically, already are mentioned in the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote was not limited to his views on trees. His view that global warming might be good is most certainly a minority view. More to the point, Dyson is not a climatologist and this extensive quote is giving his amateur opinion far, far more weight that it deserves. Raul654 (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a quote. I wrote it. It's a summary of the article. Anything I paste is from my word processor. I'm trying to spell right. I'm glad somebody read it. I thought the info was interesting, i.e. that a scientist who met Einstein wrote a paper on global warming in the 1970's and recomended planting fast-growing trees. I worked hard enough on that edit that I feel it was sort of rude for a bot to remove it. I'm not sure what a bot is, but it sounds like nobody read what I wrote. As far as I know, bots not for locking articles. They're for erasing sandboxes. Well, I'm disappointed you didn't like the paragraph I wrote, whatever the reason was.--Chuck (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)