Talk:Runaway climate change/Archive 1

Archive 1

Out of date science

I'm advised the section on Venus is based on out-of-date science. However, I can't find anything to prove that what's written is incorrect. Can anyone update it? Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

Its pretty hard to write this stuff in such a way as to make consistent sense, and I don't think you've done it. We have Loss of sea ice, exposing darker ocean and loss of glaciers and ice caps, exposing darker rock beneath. is a positive feedback. And Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, which cause further warming is a positive feedback. However, this cannot be a runaway effect or the runaway effect would have occurred long ago. But this applies to the ice-albedo effect too. So by your logic, the ice-albedo can't be a runaway effect. Of course, if you can source this inconsistency to a RS, thats fine, but I don't see you doing that William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

SOrted with section mergeAndrewjlockley (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No you haven't William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know this stuff well enough to edit it in the article without doing a bunch of searching and reading, but I'll try to help clarify. All the positive-feedback effects discussed are indeed positive feedback. Positive feedback does not constitute a runaway effect, because there are also negative feedbacks in the same system. A system containing both positive and negative feedbacks can have multiple stable equilibria. A runaway effect, as I understand the term, can occur in two ways: (1) the state of the system can be perturbed so far that it settles on a different equilibrium or oscillation, or (2) a parameter of the system can be changed so that the equilibrium no longer exists or its region of stability no longer includes the current state. I'm not sure whether my understanding of the term "runaway" is correct, nor do I know of an authoritative analysis of climate in systems terminology to cite. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Misc crit

The phenomenon of Arctic shrinkage is leading some scientists to fear that a runaway climate change event may be imminent, and may even have started[7]. is too big a statement to source to one man, Lovelock, who is a wacko (to be blunt).

Additional reference addedAndrewjlockley (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Arctic sea ice is shrinking rapidly,[8] - easy to write in late 2007; rather harder to write after 2008 didn't live up to its billing.

See explanation addedAndrewjlockley (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Albedo effect, as white ice is replaced by dark ocean, possibly as early as 2013[9] - this is desperately one-sided. You don't even mention the std.consensus view - the Arctic won't be ice free this century, from the IPCC ("The projected reduction is accelerated in the Arctic, where some models project summer sea ice cover to disappear entirely in the high-emission A2 scenario in the latter part of the 21st century." [1] but, err, most don't).

The more optimistic projections are out of date and are demonstrably not supported by the data, which is well off-trend from the projections. I suggest you start a 'history of projections' section if you feel strongly about including older, incorrect data.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does the 2013 number come from? I saw a ref for an AGU fall meeting abstract, but couldn't find the abstract. Meeting abstracts aren't peer-reviewed, by the way. And I think that the mainstream climate science community thinks 2013 is too soon, even with positive feedbacks. Awickert (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Checked GeoRef and AGU abstracts, and couldn't find it. So either he presented something different than his abstract, it's hard to search for, or there isn't an abstract. After 15 minutes of failure to find the source, I suggest the "2013" should be removed unless the primary source can be found. He doesn't have it on his own website either. Awickert (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the PDF of his presentation, Andrewjlockley. It's very helpful. However, it's still going to need a real citation, and doesn't look like it's in a peer-reviewed journal. Awickert (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I emailed him and asked for citationAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And so on.

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the original paper reference. It has been tested against the latest data and is the only solid model. http://www.ees.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/dc2008/DC/report/Maslowski.pdf The IPCC is just wrong.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(Also see above reply pertaining to this.) I'm sorry, but the "IPCC is just wrong" doesn't cut it. The presentation is useful - thanks - but it isn't a real reference, and if it was a presentation, it wasn't peer-reviewed like a journal article would be, and thus does not merit much weight. Awickert (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It fits with the data though, unlike the IPCC! I will try and find a way to re-word itAndrewjlockley (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak sourcing

The references in this article is extremely subpar, compared to the other global warming articles, it relies almost entirely on articles printed in the Guardian, which while probably a very nice newspaper, isn't a good source to science.

The lead says, that when referencing the Earth, its almost entirely a concept that is found in mass-media descriptions, but that we are also talking about a scientific concept, with Venus. Thats fine - but the scientific concept should take precedence, and the media representation should then be presented as an outlier.

The lead in general has the trouble, that it is presenting views and interpretations that aren't expanded or described in the main text of the article. A lead is a summary of the article - not the article itself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the sourcing is extremely weak. The definition of a runaway greenhouse effect has typically been that liquid water cannot be in equilibrium with atmospheric water vapor, and thus all the planets water is in the vapor phase.[2] This article seems to use the media definition of oh my god, we're all gonna die. I understand that a runaway climate change can be different than a runaway greenhouse effect, but since the definition of runaway climate change in the lead makes no sense and had no reliable sources, I'm not quite clear on the scope of this article. -Atmoz (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would help avoid confusion (and hysteria) to bring the section title into agreement with the section heading under "greenhouse effect" that refers to it -- "Positive Feedback and Runaway Greenhouse Effect". Then we could bring out the distinctions and have some discussion of positive feedback, which seems to be the underlying issue here. Agathman (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I will do that soon unless anyone objectsAndrewjlockley (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A freely available and less technical discussion of Venus' runaway greenhouse effect is available at Realclimate.org[3]. The upshot is that a runaway water-vapor greenhouse effect like that experienced in the past by Venus is not really possible for Earth anytime in the next billion years. Agathman (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The runaway picture has been used to illustrate the fact that earth has NOT runaway in contrary to any other planets, as well that Life is very rare in that respect. Its described in Gaia hypothesis already and with much better sourcing. I think the whole article is redundant and can be erased with out any damage

The IPCC reports as of 2007 mention som single event effects, as for methan, in the past. There is no eminent danger. --Polentario (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

? The only sourcing of runaway in Gaia is to Lovelock. That's hardly an improvement William M. Connolley (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified that the runaway effect is of a different order for the 2 planetsAndrewjlockley (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing overhauled in defn.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this quote from the Introduction needs a source: Once a period of runaway climate change has started, the only way for human intervention to stop it is by geoengineering to artificially break the feedback loop. Who argues geoengineering would be the only solution against runaway climate? --213.55.131.207 (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Defn

This has been touched on above, but I'd like to make it explicit: do we know what "runaway climate change" actually is? Is it the same as a "runaway greenhouse effect"? If it is, and its the same thing as venus, then it hasn't happened here and never will, and the article is all wrong. So I guess we can assume its not that. The article *says* its: Runaway climate change describes an event where climate change passes a tipping point and undergoes self-sustaining acceleration due to positive feedback effects.[citation needed]. The first and most obvious problem is that its unsourced. If no-one can provide a source for the *definition* then the solution is easy: we delete the article.

I disagree. The term is in regular use and just because a standard definition isn't available doesn't mean the article cannot describe the current uses and the concepts behind themAndrewjlockley (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Does RAC differ from a Tipping point (climatology)? If so,how?

In my view it's a type of climate tipping point, but one that's specifically associated in general usage with rapid, significant and unstoppable warming.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your view. But we're not interested in having your view in the article (or mine). We're interested in something from reliable sources. If you have no sources that can distinguish it from a TP (whatever, indeed, that might be) you have yet more defn problem William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, there are a few google scholar hits for ""runaway climate change" "runaway+climate+change"&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search, but only 138, compared to 200k for global warming. Neither of the first two screens provided a useful defn, or even an unuseful defn.

The top google hit (actually the order of hits seems to vary; google personalises them; removing personalisation, 1 and 2 swap) is [4], but its twaddle, because it says Most climate models look at the direct effect of carbon emissions on global temperatures. What they do not include is the effect any warming might have on promoting further warming—what are called positive feedback loops. One such loop arises when warmer temperatures lead to an increased evaporation of water from the oceans., so thats no use.

#2 is [5] is a bit better; its at least a respectable newspaper not just some bods web site (though its really just its science writers new book). It says Runaway climate change is a theory of how things might go badly wrong for the planet if a relatively small warming of the earth upsets the normal checks and balances that keep the climate in equilibrium. As the atmosphere heats up, more greenhouse gases are released from the soil and seas. Plants and trees that take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere die back, creating a vicious circle as the climate gets hotter and hotter. But this seems to me to be terribly vague. It is also specified entirely in terms of GHG's, so the ice-albedo feedback in our current article would have to go.

Anyway, I couldn't find a good defn. Someone needs to, or the article needs to die William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We could merge it with tipping point (climatology) and keep the title as a redirect. We should clean up and transfer the content, as some of it's strong (e.g. 'current situation')Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can't find a proper defn, that's probably the only way to go William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The only disadvantage to this is that when ppl search for RAC the article won't come up. Is that seen as a problem? Does wiki have a policy on ill-defined but commonly-used concepts?Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've put references in when they're needed and generally cleaned up. Recommend keepAndrewjlockley (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the chief problem: lack of a definition. So I've redirected it per your suggestion. Please feel free to copy any relevant content across. Please don't restore this article unless you can find a reputable definition William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to VSmith for fixing it properly [6] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've extensively cited usage of the term and explained the lack of an agreed definition. I think there's a clear case now for a keep. If people disagree, I believe the correct procedure it to post a merge tag on both articles and then properly integrate the content. I don't think that process was followed here.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now found and added a definition. There is now IMO NO CASE for deletion.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I do indeed disagree. Citing a couple of minor papers from a different discipline that barely touch on the concept (I cant see where your first ref uses it at all) isn't close to good enough. Citing some poor defenceless NN blog with only one post [7] is desperation. Addressing the lack of a defn by simply asserting it doesn't have one, and then using the defn you used before, is no good, I think. Hence the AFD William M. Connolley (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You've now found a defn, from the Grauniad. But is it authoritative, and is it widely used? Are any of the other refs using it? I don't think so. In fact its not really a defn at all, it's words wrapped around the authors ideas William M. Connolley (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it even make sense. How would it work if you applied this defn to the changes at the end of the last ice age? Are they RAC? Or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've clarifies the definition is given only in relation to current conditions. Wiki uses 'global warming' to mean 'anthropogenic climate change'. The Guardian def. would, by wiki convention, be for 'runaway global warming'. However, the GW/CC naming convention isn't universal and the def. is clearly for anthropogenic warming. I've clarified that in the lead.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is nice, but its again something you've made up. Its by no means clear that the Grauniad restrict themselves to current conditions William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The global warming article also lacks an agree definition. Shall we tag that for deletion too?Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Only if you want to look very silly William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's you that's suggesting deletion on these grounds, not me. Does your 'rule' about defns stand, or doesn't it?Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat above, I challenged AJL about when this term referred to, and the answer was, "current", which he added. So how does the PETM fit in? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, but the PETM and current RACC potentially are based on the same processes.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

William is saying that if the definition of RACC is "current climate change", then the PETM is outside its scope. They are likely based on the same processes, but if def'n of RACC says to keep PETM, we need to include info on time-scales. Awickert (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Venus

According to Atmosphere of Venus: Implications of Venera 8 sunlight measurements, Lacis and Hansen, 1974, the evidence at that time did not support (or disprove) a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. Therefore, your 1970 article is obsolete. In addition, the solar radiation at the surface is only about 1% of top of atmosphere. A better explanation is that Venus has an ocean of CO2 (because the temperature and pressure are above the critical point). This also means that the spectra of CO2 on Venus looks nothing like the spectra on Earth. Q Science (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dropped this section - it was confusing, controversial and superfluous.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But the 1970 paper is still in :-(. Also, Astronomers commonly use related 'runaway' terms to describe very severe climate change events on the planet Venus, when the oceans boiled away - did Venus ever had oceans that boiled away? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As the term is clearly used in climate science for Venus, I suggest we look at adding back that section when you revert your other edits.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See bottom. Awickert (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

References.

I've removed a reference to this paper [8], which according to the text in the lead ("References to the term exist in scientific journals") should have used the term. Now the text contains exactly one example of the word "runaway" - and that is "runaway greenhouse effect" not runaway climate change. The former is another issue completely. References need to be checked here - because this isn't the first time i've had to remove text because the stated reference didn't support it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Correction: two instances. (the other was "run-away" - but both are still for runaway greenhouse effect). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article covers both runaway greenhouse effect and runaway climate change, which are used interchangeably. The reference in the lead to RGE was removed earlier today. Should I re-include it or build a separate article for RGE?Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article covers both runaway greenhouse effect and runaway climate change, which are used interchangeably. - errm, so we're back to the problem of definitions again. IF RGE and RAC are the same thing, is this because (a) you say so or (b) some source says so? In which case, which source? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We're splitting hairs here, as well you know. There is no standard definition for 'global warming' or 'climate change'. Neither article has a referenced definition. Why don't you go and delete those?Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Because we know what GW is. We don't know what RAC is. We know that you think its the same thing as runaway greenhouse effect, but other people may disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

GW is a political phrase used to rile people up (well, that is how the local weather reporter used it for almost a year), and AGW is a theory that increasing CO2 might increase the global temperature. I think I agree with Andrew, GW still needs a clear definition. Unfortunately, its past association with propaganda means that that is the first thing some people think when they see that term. Q Science (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

William, if we 'know what global warming is', then it won't be a problem to find the 'official' definition and put it in the article, will it?Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Rebuild

If people object to the inclusion of scientific discussion in an article that discusses a mainly mass-media concept, then can we discuss where the science should be moved to? There are two obvious candidates abrupt climate change and tipping point (climatology). My impression is that the term runaway climate change is sufficiently notable to be included without much argument, but and once the science is out we'll have a good article about a general media concept, with links to the 'hard science' articles.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note this is obsolete now due to the various references to the term found in sci. lit.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. It remains a media article William M. Connolley (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It will of course remain a media article if you keep deleting all the journal references.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

I've tagged the Hansen sentence with dubious - but it may just be because the article is conflating several issues. From what i recall, Hansen is talking about irreversible changes caused by tipping points - not runaway anything. There is (imho) a large difference between runaway <insert word>, irreversible change, tipping points, abrupt climate change and for that matter any feedback loops. The article seems to conflate all into one concept, which may be the way its portrayed in the popular media, but not in the scientific literature... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, how would you advise rebuilding the article and the concepts within it to avoid potential confusion? What would move to other articles, and which ones.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It should concentrate on a single well-defined aspect, and not conflate all sorts of possibly related items.

For instance when you are writing about possibility of an ice free arctic, you need to limit yourself to sources that actually consider such a scenario - and not insert what you believe may be the consequences. When writing about the estimations on what amount of clathrate that could be released, from such a sea ice loss scenario, the text must be cited to references that specifically considers such a scenario. You also need to consider the timescales of the various sources. A thawing of permafrost, will not release all the organic methane that potentially is there, that is going to take time, and the references are talking about several aspects that act to slow this release down, something that you are forgetting in your text.

From what i can see, you are cherry-picking sources, without considering their relative merit, which are on the edge of what is considered possible, and the chances that all of the dice roll are rolling the wrong way at the same time, is rather unlikely. Try to read some assessment reports that are considering these scenarios, and their individual likelihood... I'd suggest the CCSP, AR4 and the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think those terms all mean the same thing, basically positive feedback with a gain greater than one (after all the negative feedbacks are subtracted). I agree, the first section needs to discuss definitions and explain the synonyms. The simple fact that we disagree on the definitions indicates that this article is needed. Q Science (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please make your arguments on the afd page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Runaway_climate_changeAndrewjlockley (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Positive feedback with gain greater than one can occur in an oscillation, but wouldn't constitute a runaway effect as I understand it. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarifyyour understanding of RACC??Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice how nice it would be if we actually knew what RAC actually is? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This applies equally to global warming. Please do not use this argument again unless you are able to address the parallel issues on GW.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We know what GW is. As the discussion above makes clear, we don't know what RAC is. Even you don't know what you think it is William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

William, why don't you find the definition of Global Warming and put it in the article to prove your point that 'we know what it is'. I strongly suspect you can't - just as we can't find a single, universally accepted definition of RACCAndrewjlockley (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of assuming, or thinking that these things happen in a void. Take a look at the archives of Talk:Global warming, where you can find out what the definition of global warming is, and why global warming isn't defined. Or perhaps even take the short route - by asking google for quickie: definition of global warming but no definition of runaway climate change.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

last paragraph: precedent

The last two sentences seem to be duplications of previous msterial in the article.DGG (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

DoneAndrewjlockley (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible references

I don't have full-text access, so I cant check them out in detail (except for the definition of tipping point, which is in a free-access article).

This search [9] gives these possibly-relevant results: [10], [11], [12]

The formal definition of tipping point is provided here [13].

This one [14] may be of particular interest because it's a review article. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

AFD result

The AFD result was "no consensus", so we'll have to make our own. Making this about the media use of the term seems to be the best idea William M. Connolley (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It was, until we found loads of uses in papers. I've cleaned up the article a lot.Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please try to use the {{cite journal}} template instead of just the links. It makes evaluating the references a lot easier. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting boring

A user has gone through and deleted all the cited references to RACC and RAGW that exist in scientific journals, publications etc, then tried to argue YET AGAIN that the terms are not used by scientists. I hope the editor(s) in question will be reverting these, to avoid anyone else needing to correct/revert/report what could be seen as vandalism.Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article is necessarily worse-off. I wouldn't consider the book to be a scientific source, and the article borderline. You could say that it is cited in social science, with citations (I used Google Scholar and social sciences articles came up).

On an unrelated note, I think the article could use some significant clean up which could take some time. A good read-through shows redundancies in the main points and them being addressed in different amounts of certainty.

I propose that Andrewjlockley get a full week to brush things up: make proper citations and fully refine the article, with no reverts unless he says something that is really not true and whose falsehood can be supported. This would give him the chance to make a better-looking article that is more coherent.

Awickert (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is clearly worse off. I accept that there may be limited use of the term in terrestrial climate science, but it's DEMONSTRABLY used in various scientific sources. Stripping these out to fit some convenient notion that it's never used in science is blatantly manipulating the facts to fit the argument.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is more than the popular press, but that those scientific sources must be qualified rather than say "science". I think it is important to understanding the meaning of the term if it is used in social-environmental science, as it seems to be a way to explain worry about what is happening to the climate. Awickert (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just re-read the latest version. WMC has tried to get the article deleted, and having failed he seems determined to use the article to essentially deride the term RACC, rather than discuss it. I regard this as completely unacceptable conduct.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For once, I agree with you: I think that the article should be reverted in some way; see my comments below. Awickert (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead

...is a wreck. It's not clearly written, is full of weasel words (hint: the passive voice is to be avoided), and even worse, after looking at the third reference that didn't support the text to which it was attached I threw my hands up in despair. Suggest stubbing the whole lead down to one simple declarative sentence and starting over from there. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I agree. I tried to make it better-written; didn't look too much into the refs, though I found one at least that contradicted what is said in the article, which I removed. I also think it needs to be better-defined. To me, runaway climate change can either be a warming or a cooling, while runaway global warming is just the warming. Awickert (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a go William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Boris was criticising your version, William. Suggest someone reverts WMC's edits. Doubtless if I did he'd try to get me blocked.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Boris was criticising your version, Andrew. Check the date stamps. Also, how would have I had a go at it before William and after Boris' comment if he had been talking about William's? Check logic. : ) Awickert (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead now serves only to deride the term, not discuss it properly. SUggest urgent revert/rewrite.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, I think we need a big time-out.

• First, sorry William, I don't think that your edits are constructive towards a peaceful resolution here; I suggest my revision of the lead as a (albeit selfish) compromise, because it's halfway between where Andrewjlockley would like it (extremely important) and William would like it (nonexistent).
• Second, Andrew, I think that the article needs a good fact check and copyedit, including making sure that the citations all support what they intend to be citing. Redundancies should be removed, and the various reasons for runaway climate change should be qualified with their proper time-scales; for an article like this, it's important to say what's important on human or geologic time-scales.
• In addition, I'd like to see my above question addressed: when I think of "runaway climate change", I think of either cooling or warming, but when I think of "runaway global warming", I only think of warming.

Awickert (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

After more thought, this needs to be first: A clear definition of the scope of the article: temporal (present, PETM), spatial (Earth, Venus), with sources qualified to what part of the scientific or popular literature they come from. Awickert (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

a (albeit selfish) compromise, because it's halfway between where Andrewjlockley would like it (extremely important) and William would like it (nonexistent) - no. I'm very happy to discuss what should be in the lede (confusingly, it really is lede not lead) but not on the basis of a compromise between me and AJL. The point Boris was making, and which I support, is that this thing is a disaster area and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up (as I think you've now noticed, from your "after more thought" comment) (yes I'm putting words into your mouth that you or Boris wouldn't use, sorry; you get the idea I hope). AJL hasn't got a clue what refs mean, and so far refuses to learn, despite your admirable patience (which I don't share, alas). Yes, let's find a clear defn of the scope of the article. I don't see any way to do this other than coming up with our own (WP:OR) meaning William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with Boris, was simply trying to keep the peace; I took out the perhaps "insulting" part of the lede (thanks for the correction) in hopes of keeping the peace without a revert. I've looked around and seen that RACC is defined via enviro-social science journals, popular media, and books. Its +/- synonyms are used in books and related to Venus. I believe that this article can be built back up from that, with an explanation of concerns. However, it needs more scientific basis than buzzwords.

The references: I'm sick of policing this. To AJL - a way to work and an ultimatum: I believe that this article can be made to work through compromise. However, I will no longer stand to continually seeing my colleagues names attributed to things that they didn't write or are the opposite of what they wrote or just happen to be on the same topic and are unrelated. It is definitely incorrect, in an academic publication one instance of this would have significant consequences, and borders on libel. If I see many more significant deviations between citations and what is on Wikipedia, significant meaning that you contradict them, or you say what they don't say in a way that is much more significant than the arctic shrinkage / continual global warming debate we had, I will collect all of your mis-citations that I can find, I will take it up with the administration.

Awickert (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understant what you're having a go at me for here Awickert? Do you mean citations that don't support what I'm saying, or me saying William's vandalised the article by removing all the scientific references? BTW, I understand the need to clarify the difference between RAGW and RACC. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm quite happy to say that the term is not usually used in terrestrial climate science. It's demonstrably used in other branches of science, both formally and casually. It's important to have an article that reflects the sceince behind the term, even if it's not part of the standard vocabulary of terrestrial climate science.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the first, citations that don't support what you're saying.

As to the def'n, I think it's more useful to say what kind of science or media it is used in than in what kinds it isn't; I've outlined those above w/ where I've found it used. I think that this can be an useful article: I think it (1) needs a definition that says what it is, not what it's not, and then (2) covers the related ground (Terrestrial worry and reasons for that, Venus) in a way that explains the science behind the term, as you say.

Awickert (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Right I have tried to pretend I am WMC, but in a good mood, and I have done a new lead that makes it clear that it's NOT climatology nomenclature, but it IS in regular use and it IS a serious concept.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I was doing it whilst you did the talk Awickert, so I didn't get all your views in. Hope you like it. PLEASE will people try and IMPROVE not revert it!!!Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad for the goodwill. I'll polish it a little. Stick around. Awickert (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - done. You need to work on your proofreading, though: statements like "with significant gain" were extraneous and wikilinked to the wrong place. Also, please double-check the ref tag examples I gave you (or how I fixed them here). Awickert (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, ew. Going back to work. 1 big issue is trying to talk about RACC and RAGW at once. Awickert (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried the cite doi but it didn't work. I think gain is really, really important as you have to clarify when it's runaway and when not. Off to bed now!Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the template on your talk page. Last time: {{cite journal|doi=INSERT DOI HERE!!!!!}} Awickert (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See the history - i did it and had to revert it cos it didn't work. the bot tried and it failed. see here also for gain issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gain#Please_make_less_specific NN really ;-) Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Right but can't wiki link until it has changed. I think it failed because it's an "=", not a "|". Awickert (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your citations don't use the phrase; suggest google scholar search that uses quotes around it. Best ones would be those that use the phrase in title or abstract. Awickert (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Replacing image with English version

I found an English version of the first image. [15] However, I could not figure out how to edit the image in wikicommons. Could someone teach me how to do this? Please? Q Science (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is probably a JPEG, so would have to download and re-upload. Just upload the English-language image from NASA, probably faster and less mucking around, and double-check that Commons doesn't already have it. Awickert (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Time for a bit of sanity

[16] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness someone finally came out and said it! Awickert (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm always reluctant to blame a wet wednesday in bournemouth on GW. Pity the Hadley centre if they have written off an early loss of arctic ice as scaremongering and it turns out to drop to zero shortly. It should be noted that it's already well outside the IPCC worst-case scenario. Is the ice itself scaremongering? Doubtless some will be standing on the Arctic shore like King Canute, deminding the ocean re-freeze and 'stop being so dramatic'.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously think we should prefer your views to those of actual climate scientists? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientists have already shown we're well outside IPCC for both emissions and effects.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

DOI citations

The DOI citation bot has a small design error (which I have reported - and now fixed). The correct syntax is

{{cite doi|INSERT DOI HERE!!!!!}}

Then, after saving and displaying the page, you have to click the manual creation link, save the new template, and then make several edits to the template. Basically, the slash and parentheses characters are created as hex values and you must manually change them back. Then you run the autopopulate bot to finish the job. (The last part is not needed if the citation is already defined.) It seems that this is a little too complicated for new editors. Q Science (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What also works is:

{{cite journal|doi=INSERT DOI HERE!!!!!}}

And then adding in all the rest by using the user:citation bot, which is the method I've been a proponent of.

Awickert (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote this because the bot was failing. I have just received notice that the bot is fixed. (But I have not tested it yet.)

From what I've seen, I suggest that you compare the 2 different methods indicated above. They may both work (I have not tested that), but the first method provides links to access the bot and the second does not. Currently, I am having a problem the first reference, it is not displaying any text. Q Science (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge

WMC took it upon himself to split off a redirect to this page and create runaway greenhouse effect.After correcting the many serious mistakes in the RAGE article, its become apparent that RAGE and RACC are essentially the same article, so I've merge-tagged it. Anyone who thinks there's a difference between the two effects as regards Earth should check the peer-reviewed citations and re-consider. (We can replace the deleted Venus section in this article after the merge). As I've suggested before, if anyone thinks it's necessary, we can re-title this article 'runaway (climate change)', although I don't think it's necessary. For some reason the creation of RAGE has messed up the SEO for the original page and google now directs all users to the RAGE page, which is shorter and much less detailed. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Runaway greenhouse effect" is a long-established scientific concept and as such deserves its own article (see numerous citations). There's more to climate than the greenhouse effect, so presumably the RGE article will be linked from RCC as one possible mechanism for RCC, though the meaning of RCC itself isn't all that clear to me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I take your point that there are differences in usage, with RAGE perhaps being more 'sciency' and less 'media'. SUggest you build up RAGE then, as it's a bit thin.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Building up RAGE would be unwise as I have a family history of cardiovascular disease. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Stay away from WP then mate, I doubt it closely correlates with a long and healthy life. Although, I accept this is a POV and not backed by peer reviewed citations, in case I get any abuse!Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Runaway and cold

So, is this article for just runaway and hot, or would things like runaway and cold do well here too? In that case, I'll add a snowball Earth section, linking to the main article, talking about the flipside of ice-albedo. Of course, if the main editors of this article think it should be just hot and recent, I'll peddle my wares elsewhere. Awickert (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds plausible William M. Connolley (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - and as it has been an issue in the past, I am defining runaway climate change, in terms of my additions, to be when positive feedbacks dominate over negative ones, and therefore the solution to whatever 'master equation' goes unstable. (This is assuming that we could somehow parametrize the climate system into something like a Rayleigh number, which conceptually works, but I'm not sure is realistic). Hopefully that's vague/specific enough for all you folks. I'll get on this in a day or two. Awickert (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A short section on snowball earth seems appropriateAndrewjlockley (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Venus in lead

Please provide citations that support the text, or they'll be removed.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please fix Venus doi

Will someone please fix the Venus reference or allow the sentence to be removed?

doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032

Apparently, there is no article with that doi. Q Science (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's part of a general problem with AMS articles. Not sure how to fix.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not cite the article in the conventional way by author, title, etc? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Functionality is far better if valid doi is included. Can u help Boris? Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If one of you can provide a link to the correct article, I will try to fix it. The problem is that I am not sure which article is being referenced. (I don't want to guess.) Q Science (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

stupid tagging

this article's been tagged to death and there's nothing on the TP that explains why. Not helpful Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There is lots on the talk page - the trouble is that you've never taken it seriously. As for the tagging - every single one of the tags contain a comment, requesting either references for the statements - or describes what exactly is wrong at the point. The reason for the tagging is that you still, despite assurances to the contrary, interpret and combine references as you wish they were, instead of describing what they actually say (WP:SYN). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't always agree with your tags. I am aware of WP syn. In general it would be perhaps mroe helpful if you edited rather than tagging. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be editing with a large pair of scissors then. The trouble here is that i still haven't seen any reference that support your speculations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What 'speculations'? Why not just 'soften' statements - eg change will to may etc. Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use the tags for a talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WMC: Agree. The commentary on the tags are in the text so that fixing it will be easier, discussion about them should be here. AJL: [17] - your comment shows that you are doing a synthesis then. You will need a reference that states that permafrost methane release can lead to a runaway state, otherwise you are simply again doing original research --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my latest version says that it will on it's own. Have you got a relevant source? Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Trying to reverse WP:BURDEN again are we? I guess your promise to behave has been retired. The paper you've just added as a claim for methane => runaway is a paper that you've been pointed out multiple times is on the wrong timescale (hint: millenial scale), and it *specifically* rules out a runaway scenario on current parameters:

It seems reasonable to assume that the parameters for clathrate melting should not predict unstable behavior in present-day conditions..

I'm getting rather tired of this "game" of yours. You do not write a text on how you think things are, and then afterwards find references that seem to support your text. Encyclopaedic work is the other way around. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Every time I've cited that B&A recently i've pointed out that it's a milennial timescale transition. Is that OK? I'm not gaming, I'm just trying to tidy up some scrappy stuff! PS I wasn't doing anything with burden, jsut asking if you'd got a cool paper that was relevant. I'm not horrible all the time kim - just when people hit me. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified that it's a) millenial and b) doesn't result from abrupt collapse of clathrate structures. It's still a runaway, even if from a human lifetime it looks like a gentle jog at best. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some of the tags off now pls? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Does any reference say that its runaway? Otherwise i guess you are still doing WP:OR --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

b&a ref

applies only to clathrates, not gen arctic sources. Clathrates are not only in arctic. Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

pls tlk in fl sents. thx. -Atmoz (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

nps m8. thx 4 th@. :-) Seriously, thanks to Kim for the gnomery today. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

Runaway climate change is a situation in which climate forcings causes the climate system to pass a tipping point, after which internal positive feedback effects cause climate to rapidly change until it reaches a new, stable condition. Does this sentence make any sense at all? How do runaway positive feedbacks cause a stable condition? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WHen they end, I guess. It's pretty hard to read - I'll grant you. Might have a twiddle with it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Positive feedback loops never end unless overpowered by a negative feedback is what I (psychically) think Boris is saying. Awickert (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

tagged section

kim - is your tagging based on the fact that you don't approve of the use of runaway for millennial-scale events? Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Try to read my comments carefully, and an Edison-moment might occur. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have tried, and I believe I've covered your points in the text edits. Further, I have all the lightbulbs I need. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of voltage but internal impedance is too high. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, in fact you haven't addressed my points. See next section for at least one issue that you dodge every single time. Its the WP:OR/WP:SYN that follows you on almost all articles that you've touched upon. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

unbalanced

The article is still completely and utterly unbalanced. (which goes for most of AJL's articles)

It states (or implies) that a methane release leading to an abrupt/runaway state - but none of the references support this... The B&A mentioned several times is certainly *not* a runaway scenario, its pretty much linear over geological timescales. If we go by the synthesis/assessment reports by the IPCC, the CCSP or by the abrupt climate change report from the NRC - then none consider methane release a major global issue. Its a large cherry-picking of sentences and references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

B&A predict a doubling to trebling of AGW due to methane release. I just don't get why you and I keep arguing about this paper. It's as clear as bell to me. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

But strangely enough .... wait for it.... the doubling/trebling is .... wait for it..... a linear response. Hence..... No runaway! You can get there .... just keep pushing for it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Section hacking

In an attempt to find exactly which bits Kim has a problem with and for what reason, I've reorganised the secitons. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but your Cups and ball trick, has adressed exactly zero problems. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel it's you playing the games. I spend hours staring at the screen, trying to work out why exactly you keep tagging text that looks completely fine to me, but to no avail. I am hoping to break it down by halves until I find the actual ASCII character that's so mortally offended you! Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually tried to comprehend the above section (called: unbalanced)? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Kim, I don't think Andrew is deliberately distorting things or being willfully obtuse. My impression is that he has very little understanding of the science. This leaves him free to build his own mental model of how things work, and pedagogical research has shown that one of the hardest things to do when teaching is to introduce new information that conflicts with the learner's pre-existing model. So I don't think he's trying to be obstructive, but unfortunately the practical effect is the same. (The Dunning-Kruger effect also comes into play.) I really don't know how to break this impasse. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking the axe

I am snipping parts of the article that seem to have no point, are repetitive, or aren't quite right. Accepting complaints here. Awickert (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You are not going to hear complaints from my side... Its about time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a propane torch and a Sawzall in the garage. Let me know if you need them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind offer. My result is a classic sawzall job: rough but effective. I hope I've increased information density and decreased repetition. Awickert (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gain

In amplifier design, when the feedback gain is greater than one (1), the system is unstable. When it is less than one (1), it is usually stable. However, since there is noise, it should be a lot less than one. Also, when there is a time (phase) lag, the system tends to oscillate. Q Science (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In everything that I've seen though, the term is used exclusively in electronics, and that definition is not commonly used. I think it's more accessible and not incorrect to just say positive feedbacks outweigh negative. Awickert (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not correct! A positive feedback can be tiny, and still be positive. It will not lead to a runaway effect. The point is that the positive feedback has to induce a change equal to or greater than the original forcing. You can use Q-factor or damping as mathematical analogues. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Whose definitions of "climate tipping point" and other terms are we citing in the article? There are no references whatsoever attached to all this stuff about feedbacks. I'm tagging the whole mess as WP:OR until credible references that are specifically give the arguments being made appear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many definitions of "climate tipping point" and the related "Runaway greenhouse effect" in the literature. However, neither phrase is used by the IPCC AR4 Working Group 1 glossary. Instead, they talk about "abrupt climate change" and specifically mention possible changes in thermohaline circulation, permafrost melting, and the like. (In the body of the text, "tipping point" is used in describing "abrupt climate change".)

As for the engineering terminology, I suggest reading Feedback and Bode plot before calling this "original research". Advanced degrees are offered in feedback theory and system control. If this type of terminology does not exist in the "climate" literature, then perhaps the wrong people are researching the climate. Q Science (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rest assured that climate scientists know about feedback in its many forms (positive, negative, linear, nonlinear, etc). My point remains: there are no references whatsoever in the section that discusses feedback in relation to "tipping points", so where does this material come from? Did someone here just make it up? Are there literature references for this explanation? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[18]

New novel addresses this topic ==

Former NBC newsman Mark Nykanen, a member of the society of environmental journalists, researched runaway climate change re: methane releases for the plot of a new eco-suspense novel, PRIMITIVE. Regardless of your stance on the science, it is a fascinating topic.