Talk:Global warming/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Svente Arrhenius

Something in this article should mention the originator of the artificial global warming theory: Svente Arrhenius in the late 1800's. Maybe if someone writes a section on the history of the theory.

His name is Svante Arrhenius and a detailed history is provided there. Hans Erren 22:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit by 64.69.112.122

I'm not particularly happy with the recent edit. The passage now has the typical zick-zack feel of rule, exception, exception to the rule...

The source given is a bona-fide article in what looks like a bona-fide journal (but I'm not a biologist). From the abstract of the paper, however, it is clear that the authors worked with a single desert-adapted species of plant. It not clear if it was grown in a water-limited environment (for this species). I find it dangerous to generalize this to most plants. Does someonehave access to the Journal and can check the details? Online references to this paper seem to be concentrated in "sceptic" think tanks, which also makes me suspicious. --Stephan Schulz 09:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time to review the source, but I've read such material elsewhere. The is a fertilization effect of CO2, and part of that is through conservation of water, since there is less water loss through transpiration to get CO2. Some of the increased growth however, has been correctly noted as making crops less nutritious, in the sense that it increases the calorie content (sugars, starches, etc) more than it increases the protein and mineral content. So the levels of certain important nutrients PER calorie has been decreased, although, since there are still parts of the world with protein/calorie malnutrition, the fact that a net increase in both is expected is probably a net gain. In the more affluent societies, we probably really don't need crops with say 5 percent more protein and vitamins, associated with 10% more calories. Although we go to great expense to create foods with almost entirely empty calories, i.e., with higher sugar, starch and white flour content.--Silverback 10:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

intro

When/why was the intro revised? I don't like this opening para, particularly "the question is how much?" seems quite inappropriate for an intro. Rd232 talk 21:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Nov 13 by WMC in response to a suggestion by Count Iblis, above. The uncertainty bit could be worded better no doubt. What else? Vsmith 23:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, see here. Count Iblis 00:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, it was just the addition of one sentence (diff) - I thought it was more of a change. I really don't like that sentence though - it breaks up the logical flow from the previous sentence ('man-made increases') to the next (on scientific opinion). It's vaguely misleading in talking about "adding CO2" only, as if that was the only issue; and what exactly is the reader supposed to do with "30C"? It's supposed to give some kind of context for the rise of the last century, but it needs to both say more (to explain it for people who don't know), and less (to avoid distracting from the main thrust of the intro). I think it should either be taken out of the intro or expanded/improved. Rd232 talk 13:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps it's not so well written. The 30°C is actually meant to make plausible that changing greenhouse gas concentrations can indeed lead to non-negligible temperature changes. Before mentioning results of climate models etc. one needs to mention these basic facts, otherwise some people will remember just that some computer models predict a greenhouse effect. If they hear some anti-greenhouse effect propganda like they can't predict next week's weather, how come they can predict that hundred years from now temperatures will rise by a few °C?, they won't know what's wrong with this statement. Count Iblis 13:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
That issue is worth discussing, but I don't think it can be squeezed into one sentence in the intro. Rd232 talk 16:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

re W.M. Connolley's parole

I am pleased to hear this. I dropped in about a year ago and was not pleased with what he was posting. While he does make some good points and I am sure he is a very hard working researcher who believes what he posts - what he posted before was at variance with "facts" from the paleoclimate record.

I have not reviewed the page since back then. Frankly I gave up!

This looks like a positive development. As for you W.M., I will be more than pleased to review what your points of view are and indeed like any open minded scientist perhaps you will be able to correct some of my misunderstandings. What I suggested before was a spilt into different factions. The thing about science in this area is that it may take several lifetimes to sort out the facts. So I think W.M. may have a lot to contribute but he'll have to stop chompin at the bit so to speak.

TB
unsigned post by User:Terrell Larson 03:35, 5 December 2005

Moved above post to bottom of page. Seems TB missed all the fun of the past year :-) Vsmith 04:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Passing on a comment

Recently on a forum I attend a discussion about Wikipedia has generatated an interesting comment about this article (global warming), which I will report here with the consent of it's writer. I don't know enough about global warming to know if he is right or wrong, but perhaps you can answer his comment.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the guy who was fired for posting incorrect information and to him being caught in less than a week - what he did was obvious. It's the little, creeping errors and omissions that are the problem with Wikipedia from a research standpoint. It's the possibility of a minority view being presented as a majority view without any context for good decision making on the part of the reader. It's the ability of a concerted effort of a few people to get their view taken as the mainstream one. The Wiki on "Global Warming" is a perfect example.
Immediate bias in support of (human induced) global warming begins early in the article where it starts with, "Based upon basic science..." and goes on to imply that it's easy to prove global warming and also implying that any science to disprove it has to be convoluted in nature. The article pretends to be unbiased in presenting 'alternative theories', but instead only presents two and glosses over both.
Most glaring for a 'complete reference' is the fact that it ignores pre-industrial human history in its assumptions of 'rising sea levels' and 'droughts'. Sea Levels are still substantially lower than they were even 800 years ago (which is given no mention at all) and can be proven by the writings of individuals from the time period and archaological evidence. There are 'Islands' in Scotland that used to require a boat to get to at any time of day, but are now only islands during the highest of storm surges. These rocky islands do not have an accumulation of sand, silt, or other debris to account for their increased dry land area. What I read when I read that article in an academic manner is a propaganda piece dedicated to promoting (human induced) global warming and to dismissing other possibilities for the climate shift by minimizing the arguments against it. --Nathan
We have heard this over and over again, in various versions. It is just wrong. As an example, Scotland is still in isostatic rebound, which accounts for the perceived changes in sea level. If you have any more concrete points, bring them on. --Stephan Schulz 08:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
You may have heard these arguments over and over, but I and many others who would like to become informed, have not. Perhaps, instead of adding more to the Global Warming topic there could be a Global Warming Debunked topics/FAQ/bin. It could include a digest of the discussions here contained in FAQ format or similar, where every negative/skeptical viewpoint is addressed with citations? Isn't it typical for the affirmative to assume the burden of proof, thus having to respond to all the points brought up by the the negative? In any case, the closer to the science, the better--citations are good. Cheers. --J.H. Gorse 131.167.77.41 16:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of an encyclopedic article is not to debunk any and all bogus arguments, but rather to give an overview over the current state of knowledge. We do not decide this issue - it has long ago been decided (and is still refined) in the peer-reviewed literature and the various overview reports (IPCC, NAS,...). That said, having a seperate article might be useful, if only to provide an outlet for these ideas. Could Global warming controversy serve? It has some material along that line. But this does not quite seem to strike the right note....any better idea? --Stephan Schulz 23:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree that an encyclopedic article has no need to debunk any and all bogus arguments. Though, since when has this project ever been strictly encyclopedic? Also, forgive me if I'm nit-picking too much today, but to give an "overview over the current state of knowledge" it might be helpful to illustrate the darker side of the knowledge you wish to convey. That is to say, (1) stating the assumptions that are requisite to the information, (2) clarifying what is not known (or how much we don't know. Quantifying certainty.), (3) and telling the history that the knowledge has traveled in order to reach us in its current form. (3) is important in particular because in that history the mistakes and inconsistencies of the past ought to be highlighted. Thus telling us plainly what is not correct and why we have come to believe so.
The reason that I am looking for this is because I read the MC book and I found his arguments coherent enough to vaguely believe him when I read the book. I however lacked the time and energy to acquaint myself with the literature and review every claim he ever made, so I left it as I normally leave information I glean from fiction novels: as if it were a foundation of sand. Thus my desert tent of “global warming is an overreaction, at best” was pitched. Though only to be crumpled by some rude Wikipedians some months later. =) I am going to be honest, I don’t care overmuch about the truth or validity behind any particular claim in GW, I just would like to know what not to believe and why. That way I don’t have to pitch so many tents on sand dunes, and I never actually have to believe anything. --J.H. Gorse 19:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're interested in whats wrong with MC, then you probably want the RC post http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76. Debunking MC isn't part of wikipedia... debunking common myths could be, though. William M. Connolley 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC).


Concerning edit 32077369

Edit seems highly POV with regards to validity of claims of man-made changes causing carbon dioxide emissions. Suggest major reworking, or removing content. Gordon Bonnar 07:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In rereading, it does not seem highly POV. But does seem to express certain points of view. Gordon Bonnar 08:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It is, and I have reverted it. Many of the points are dicussed in Global warming controversy and other related articles.--Stephan Schulz 08:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It was not a point of view. the implied introduction of "global warming" would lead anyone who has NEVER heard of it to assume that man is directly responsible for the earth warming up. First of all...no scientific proof has EVER been established to show the "man" has increased the earth's temperature. Secondly...how could the points be my personal POV when I was directly quoting lead experts...people who were president of the NAS, the person who actually authored and wrote multiple studies on tropical / hurricane activity for the IPCC and others? It seems to me that your POV is clearly being seen in the opening remarks as it is completely slanted to truly believing that all these organizations implicity believe man is responsible for the whopping 1/2 degree centigrade of the earth's increase in temperature. If you want an unbiased POV it seriously needs to be rewritten. I am all for people living responsible and trying to be as clean as possible....however fanaticism and intolerance for anyone not only contradicing a "THEORY" but also rejecting provided expert opinion....that's allowing your POV to guide your analysis.
A scientific theory is the best thing you are going to get to explain any phenomenon. There is no "proof" in science. Secondly, as others have stated below, you can of course push a POV (wether personal or not) by quoting "lead experts" out of context - just as you did. The report you cite fully supports the IPCC conclusions. Yes, there is doubt about many issues. No, there is no reasonable doubt that global warming is happening and that anthropogenic CO2 is one of the main causes. --Stephan Schulz 23:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerning GW

I find it odd that maybe 10 people seem to feel that they are the moderators of the GW page for the world to view. I agree that this is supposed to be by "consensus"...but consens by only a few people...literally...is anything but. In regards to GW...you can't deny that The National Academy of Science reported in 2001 that, “Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents…a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.” You also can't deny that there is no solid proof that "man's" carbon-dioxide emmissions are the cause for any change in the earth's temperature. Considering the fact that GW IS A THEORY....I think it highly appropriate to note that no factual information has ascertained for CERTAIN that man is indeed warming the earth any more then the earth is warming itself by being affected by other things completely unrelated to man....and just 'mother earth' being 'mother earth'.

This is just the same old stuff. Nothing in science is certain; everything is just a theory. The page already contains enough qualifiers; there is no need for the text you want to push. William M. Connolley 09:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC).
On the contrary. This is specifically from the National Academy of Sciences. This is completely relevant as a disclaimer to the theory....just as any disclaimer would be for any other disclaimer. I have visited your page(s) and it is my opinion that you truly believe that "man" is inducing this increase in weather. I personally think your personal views are preventing you from accepting words from one of the organizations which has called for a reduction in emmissions (selective hearing). If you have something to prove or contradict the NAS please publish and post your study and findings. If you want further "disqualifiers" please see a summary of the NAS findings that the U.S. government is using to help shape some of it's policies on at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/climatechange.pdf . Either that or read through the actual report by the NAS. The whole G8 thing and all the "nations" was actually contested by the president of the NAS and another instituion as he said they clearly mislead the media as to the intention of their findings. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22649-1681145,00.html
some other potential "qualifiers" or rather "disqualifiers" would be
“Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).”
No one denies this, it's in the article.
of course....although in the article...obviously you and others seem to overlook this statement.
“Much of the difference in predictions of global warming by various climate models is attributable to the fact that each model represents these [feedback] processes in its own particular way. These uncertainties will remain until a more fundamental understanding of the processes that control atmospheric relative humidity and clouds is achieved.” (p. 4)
See above.
obviously, from a scientific modeling perspective...trying to deduce the results of a "hypothesis" based upon factors that you can't quantitfy or even understand (as they state)...kind of what make most people not believe the results...no? If any other scientific "theory" was tested in this way the organization or scientist would be ridiculed for presenting their findings. However...because this is dealing with the 'environment' and politicized from people's "personal agendas"....it brings on a new meaning...
The direct and indirect effects of aerosols are uncertain: � “The greatest uncertainty about the aerosol climate forcing—indeed, the largest of all the uncertainties about global climate forcings—is probably the indirect effect of aerosols on clouds.” (p. 14) � “The great uncertainty about this indirect aerosol climate forcing presents a severe handicap both for the interpretation of past climate change and for future assessments of climate changes.” (p. 14) � “Climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols is a large source of uncertainty about future climate change.” (p. 13) � “Because of the scientific uncertainties associated with the sources and composition of carbonaceous aerosols, projections of future impacts on climate are difficult.” (p. 12)
It's hard, right. There are uncertainties. See above. There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is happening and is largely caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
There is no debate that CO2 has been increasing...you faily to understand the point or have the ability to seperate the increase in CO2 and what 'increase' from 'man-emitted' CO2 has done. Again....there are so many other factors which throw off all modeling and natural variable which are increasing CO2 etc. that any statement made, or misleading the general public to believe that man-emitted CO2 is the cause of the problem is wrong. This is exactly what people are trying to do here.
The details and impacts of regional climate change resulting from global climate change are uncertain: � “On the regional scale and in the longer term, there is much more uncertainty” with respect to effects on agriculture and forestry. (p. 19) � “The Northern Hemisphere as a whole experienced a slight cooling from 1946-75, and the cooling during that period was quite marked over the eastern United States. The cause of this hiatus in the warming is still under debate.” (p. 16) � “Health outcomes in response to climate change are the subject of intense debate. . . .The understanding of the relationships between weather/climate and human health is in its infancy and therefore the health consequences of climate change are poorly understood. The costs, benefits, and availability of resources for adaptation are also uncertain.” (p. 20) � “Changes in storm frequency and intensity are one of the more uncertain elements of future climate change prediction.” (p. 20)
Yes.
Yes what? This is one of the many instances which can not be explained by their models...however these are the same models that are implying that man's CO2 emissions are the primary cause for the increase in temperature? uh....doesn't make sense.
The nature and causes of the natural variability of climate and its interactions with forced changes are uncertain: � “Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.” (p. 17) � The value of indirect effect of ozone changes induced by solar ultraviolet irradiance variations “remains highly uncertain.” (p. 14)
And yet the report strongly supports the IPCC consensus. Of course there is uncertainty. It's a hard and complex topic that we are still working on. There is no reasonable doubt that global warming is happening and is largely caused by the man-made increase in atmospheric CO2. Why do I feel like a broken record?
The report primarily does support the consensus that CO2 is increasing....that temperatures have increase, albeit nominally in most areas. They obviously have many doubts as to the causes of the temperature increase from man's inducement.
----Again...if you have studies that somehow contradict all the uncertainties of hundreds of other scientists....feel free to claim the nobel prize. Otherwise....don't allow your personal agenda to cloud the actual issue. Thanks.
Nobody denies the uncertainties. We need more research. But they do not amount to much. Nearly all of the hundreds of scientists that report the uncertainties also support the main consensus. --Stephan Schulz 23:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
'They do not amount to much'? They would only contradict the public opinion generated by the mass media that man is the sole evil root cause of any temperature increasing. Heaven forbid.....That'd be quite a contradiction no? Again, the main consensus is that CO2 is increasing...and that man is partly responsible. I can agree with that. However....that CERTAINLY is NOT how people present the GW subject.
--on another thought....scientists are continually proved wrong. Theories are just theories. Take the big bang for example. Gravity...relativity etc. If all that holds true...which we base everyday physics on....then why is the universe expanding at an increasing rate rather then a decreasing rate? That leads to some good research and ideas....  :) Point being....GW is just a theory and scientists have NO WAY to measure ANY EFFECT that man has done to help induce the earth to warm up 1/2 a degree C. Let alone to be able to truly predict anything that could result of the earth continuing to warm. That's why being so 'certain' that GW basically is 'real'....is a fallacy in and of itself. Could it be? Sure.....but no one knows. The ocean produces 100 Gt of CO2 a year....forests 60 Gt......"man"...as estimated by the NAS including all nations....about 6....... If the whole GW theory is correct why does the upper atmosphere not accurately reflect what modeling for a greenhouse scenario should react? There are way too many unanswered questions. My point being....as 'guests' on this planet we should be consiencious of it and be responsible. However...to go to one extreme based upon unfounded theories...and rather personal views....is wrong.
Yes indeed. Scientists are indeed proved wrong sometimes. But yet the article on General relativity isn't stuffed full of caveats that GR is "just a theory". The GW article already has enough caveats. You want to add cannot be unequivocally established. That text is foolish: nothing can be unequivocally established. Its a nullity. You are just pushing your septic POV, and it won't work.
That text is "foolish"? Boy...you must be smarter then all the ivy-league policy makers in the government who are using the NAS report as a basis for their policy making.... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/climatechange.pdf thank you for sharing how uneducated and foolish we all are.


You say Point being....GW is just a theory and scientists have NO WAY to measure ANY EFFECT that man has done to help induce the earth to warm up 1/2 a degree C. This is nonsense, and simply reflects personal ignorance on your part. There is a substantial body of attribution literature which does allow, with given confidence limits, the attribution of recent change. All this is refed in the article. You then go on with the traditional tedious nonsense about CO2 sources. The recent CO2 increase is anthropogenic. If you can't accept that, you're way out of the scientific mainstream, and will find only pain in trying to edit here. William M. Connolley 12:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC).

Again....you solely discount anything that doesn't coincide with your belief that man is the sole cause for temperature increase. If I'm way out of the mainstream....then how come no one can show why the temperature is increasing? How come modeling doesn't accurately predict how the atmosphere is reacting to CO2 increase? All is ref'd in the article? Oh...would that be by the political agenda based IPCC? The organization that multiple senior top lead authors have quit from for that reason? The organization that multiple NAS presidents have criticized? Thanks for your "opinion" on that.
....because this page is effectively 'owned' by william m. connolley. it's so amusing - i added one word to a sentence in the article - 'natural' - and met repeated reverts, heated arguments from wmc that there was simply no reason to include natural variability as a factor in that sentence - and only, ONLY after one of those who is part of the group that comprises the 'consensus ring' that controls this article allowed that natural variability is a factor - did the reverts stop, without any further argument. it's a farce, and the pretense really ought to be dropped.Anastrophe 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Poor you. I still disagree over the word natural. The difference is, DF has quite clearly established a reputation for competence and lack of bias in editing here, and I'll respect that. William M. Connolley 21:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC).
thanks for that admission. edits aren't judged on their own merit, but by whether the contributor shares your biases. that's wikipedia's congenital defect, in a nutshell. Anastrophe 21:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
You're trolling. Which is one reason why your edits get so little respect. William M. Connolley 22:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC).
now that's funny. I'm not trolling at all. On the contrary I have been interested and researching areas such as GW, relativity, quantum physics and other areas for some time due to curiosity (not that I'm an "expert" in any one area...but neither is reading temperature gauges from a single location)...and more pointedly I'm tired of hearing the media report on the front page that "Global Warming" is occurring and then states man is responsible. I'm tired of people like you who call people like me 'trolls' because I post another viewpoint within the same topic (although quoting the same sources). I'm tired that people like you "cherry pick" the results in order to reaffirm their own beliefs. I'm tired of people who constantly feel it is their right to decide what information from a published article...is published elsewhere. So...if you think I'm trolling....can't help you. I'm merely posting information from sources that are used on this exact page. YOU are the one who is trolling by making yourself the self-moderator of this page and deciding what information is to be included on this page or not. I read your user page...one of your arguments you stated that you won...you thought...well..that you're still here and they're gone so the mod edit war is over. Well, I'm kind of tired of you and people such as yourself who feel they can just try to 'outlast' other people and therefore only show what you feel like from a published report (rather then including both the proponents and reservations of the report).
The NAS themselves obviously felt the need to include MULTIPLE disclaimers as to how their modelling works, as to what the results are, as to how little they actually understand about the factors involved in the models, as to what the actual impacts are of various factors....yet "you" feel that it is irrelevant?
As for 'respect' I really don't care if you or others 'respect' me. I am quoting VERIFIALBE SOURCES (i.e. the NAS) INCLUDED WITHIN THE EXISTING PAGE. You and GW activists never will because I choose to voice a different "OPINION" then yours. Quite frankly the majority of the GW page is heavily slanted in one direction. If you want a true GW page you should state what GW is....the warming of the earth....and then present various theories as to why it is...and more so in some areas then others. i.e., CO2 emmissions from man, land-use theory more then barely mentioning it (go read observation stations for various cities and notice population increases in an area have a direct effect on temperature...as for that matter, can you explain why man's reading of temperature varies from satellite launched since 1979?), ocean-wave current modeling (more then a link), atmospheric currents, absorbtion of the CO2 by the ocean, indicate other factors that contribute to GW such as volcanic eruptions. Instead of making GW the the "anthropogenic global warming" page...why don't you list that as a theory as well? Instead...you start the GW topic off as man is warming the earth by CO2 emmissions and the clearly discount the few selected theories represented. After the intro you then go into CO2 as the primary source for global warming...which again not only isn't proven (i.e. the rate of increasing velocity of a falling object can be proven here on earth although based upon theories of relativity and gravity). I don't see anything other then singular references or bare mentions of how many volcanic eruptions there are or what the increase or decrease in frequency is in the recent years or how much gas is released with an average eruption compared to man's annual release. I don't see references to the fact that models dealing with CO2 interaction with the atmosphere do not coicide with what is actually occurring.
You see...you are soley basing the increase in temperature upon CO2 due to man and this whole GW page is a dedicated primer for the public that man is solely responsible for the increase in CO2 and the very "little" agreed upon increased temperature of 1/2 a degree C in the last century while discounting all inconsistencies with past weather anonalies, ignoring the fallacies of existing modelling techniques as well as the political pressure applied by some groups as proponents of GW in the light of trying to be politically correct. Do you understand that biased perspective?
further admission. your use of the 'trolling' bat is way too frequent. it's an easy way to dismiss whatever you happen to find 'unpleasant', regardless of veracity. shall i swing the troll bat at you for the meaningless, yet utterly trollish "poor you"? if you'll review my edits, you'll find most have been grammatical, formatting - good changes that were needed, but that don't give you an opportunity to swing around your 'respect' bat as well. Anastrophe 22:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned before, this is indeed in the anon's words, "cherry picking". The quote is nothing substantial - we all know there is a degree of uncertainty in the current research finding. It's either stated or implied almost throughout the article, albeit - to emphasise this uncertainty goes almost in the way of anti climate-change - here you have one lumpy paragraph that does the article no justice. -- Natalinasmpf 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You've pretty much made my point. "does the article no justice". I.e....if it goes against the "idea" that man is responsible for any climate change....then it can't be accepted into the "global warming" concept. That, or other, quotes are not substantial? Now...who's cherry picking?

Anon 158.147.53.100 and 3RR

158.147.53.100 has easily broken the WP:3RR on this page: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. I'll report her now; and warn her on her talk page. William M. Connolley 16:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC).

BTW...I'm a "him" and you are also then in direct violation of WP:3RR as everytime I changed the page you changed it back. What's your point? Practice what you preach. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
Um, as far as I can tell, William has reverted you at most once. I did it twice, by the way. William and I are disjoint persons. --Stephan Schulz 12:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

just out of curiosity, how have you determined 158.147.53.100's gender? Anastrophe 17:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't. What makes you think I have? William M. Connolley 21:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC).
you're familiar with the concept of a personal pronoun, are you not?Anastrophe 21:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

NAS 2001 Cherry Picking

The statement that has been selected from the National Academies 2001 publication that has been appearing in this article does not reflect the tenor or general findings of that publication or those of a variety of similar overview pieces that have been published in recent years. The statement has been cherry picked to support a particular point of view. Within that same document there are numerous clear positions taken, such as the first sentence in the Summary which reads "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The inclusion of the cherry picked NAS material contributes nothing to this article which has a focus on the science of global warming. 205.189.26.38 21:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

of course, the global warming true believers *never* cherry pick. heavens, no. Anastrophe 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


heck no they don't cherry pick, lol. global warming activists only consider what they want to because it coincides with their personal beliefs. i.e., they have removed references to former NAS presidents stating that the "endorsement by the G8" etc. was taken out of context and not the intended meaning of their research. They have removed references to the senior author on tropical/hurricane studies who quit because the IPCC has been politicized in order to make people's agendas...as they asked him to present that global warming is the reason for the increase in hurricanes in "only" the atlantic region....which it is not and has nothing to do with it. The have removed other IPCC senior lead author's comments who have quit concerning the IPCC's political agenda as well. However....everything they seem to quote stems from the "IPCC" which is obviously a politically biased and agenda-based machine.

The comments most recently removed and under criticism now.....are not cherry picking. What all you activists seem to not understand is that the NAS and the average person, such as myself, whole-heartedly believe that emissions etc. should be reduced. Why not be as "clean" as possible, etc.? However....this whole section on GW listed here is a completely biased POV which is only listing viewpoints which promote that "man" is the cause for global warming when NO SCIENTIST OR GROUP OF SCIENTISTS can state this. Even the IPCC and NAS can't say for certain. However...if a scientist within these organizations goes against the train of thought....which is that man IS responsible and they just 'have to prove it'....then they are shut out from that organization. However....activists are fanatics and will spend their lives dedicated to trying to 'prove their point'...although historically have been proven wrong over time quite often as further studies, concerning whatever topic, comes out. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .

Well, there is a concrete, testable claim there. Tell me which scientist has been excluded from the US National Academy of Sciences for opposing the consensus on global warming. Please pick any one (although "hundreds" would be even more impressive). --Stephan Schulz 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
So is the claim that GW is primarily caused by CO2 emitted by man. But...I will concede the point that my actual wording was wrong. I will say that I believe that many scientists are politically pressured from within the IPCC and NAS to conform to their beliefs. By not doing so...how should I say creates strained relationships in the workplace.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
You're wrong. If there is political pressure - and there is - its very clear that its from the Bush side to minimise GW. IPCC doesn't have the structure to pressurise anyone. But... if you only want to talk about politics not science, you should be editing elsewhere. William M. Connolley 14:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
My point being, and as is emphasized by previous members of the IPCC and NAS that "politics" and "office politics" both play a predominant role in how the IPCC forms its reports. Is it really that hard to accept? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
Yes. In fact the IPCC reports are a remarkably faithful summary of the science, just about unparallelled elsewhere. You don't like the results and you can't talk about the science, so you try to smear them politicially. William M. Connolley 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
you want some good reading? try http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/ipcc-correspondence.pdf , email exchange between Christopher Landsea and others concerning "GW" is causing increased hurricanes...b/c it actually isn't and I would think he should know as he was the lead author for multiple revisions of the IPCC reports in 1995 and 2001 on this subject. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
No he wasn't. William M. Connolley 14:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
A few quotes:
"After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."
"It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming."
"I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC."
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
Landsea walked off in a huff. Quite why is very obscure. He had no complaints at all about the IPCC drafting process. http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/landsea-contrasts.html & http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/science-and-policy.html. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
But more than that... so what. Read the wiki pages. They get the GW/hurricances story right. So what exactly are you whinging about? William M. Connolley 14:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
Not whining at all. Of course...that seems to be your only response when I quote facts or provide evidence contrary to your belief. I'm a troll...my comments are foolish....I'm whining now...lol. You're too funny. But hey...thanks for the link though as it provided a link to testimony by John Christy to the U.S. House Committee on Resources http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Christytestimony0503.html (although I'm sure you'll say it's irrelevant somehow, not valid, and foolish of me to quote him)..BTW...for reference, Christy IS one of the lead author's at the IPCC. Below are some excerpts from his testimony. Gee...this is almost too much fun...the more I dig the more I find holes in this whole "man" is responsible for GW...lol. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
Glad you posted that link to Christys testimony, because its wrong. Christy attempted to use his "real" data to disprove the climate models. But sadly for him, his real data turned out to have sign errors in it. Corrected, the warming is greater than his testimony shows (he admits this; it is no secret). Don't hold your breath for him going back to correct his testimony, though. William M. Connolley 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
this is my point on modeling....you can throw all your models out the window. they're based upon factors that "man" doesn't understand and thus far all the models the past several decades have been wrong....warming...ozone holes....the greenhouse effect's on the atmosphere. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
Errr, but you (and Christy 2003) are wrong, cos the obs turned out to be wrong and the models right. Funny, eh? William M. Connolley 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
This evidence indicates that the projected warming of the climate model had little consistency with the real world.
The inability of climate models to achieve consistency on this scale is a serious shortcoming and suggests projections from such models be viewed with great skepticism.
Changes in surface temperature have also been a topic of controversy. The conclusion in IPCC 2001 that human induced global warming was clearly evident was partly based on a depiction of the Northern Hemisphere temperature since 1000 A.D. This depiction showed little change until about 1850, then contains a sharp upward rise, suggesting that recent warming was dramatic and linked to human effects.[3] Since IPCC 2001, two important papers have shown something else.[4] Using a wider range of information from new sources these studies now indicate large temperature swings have been common in the past 1000 years and that temperatures warmer than today's were common in 50-year periods about 1000 years ago. These studies suggest that the climate we see today is not unusual at all.
Is this Christy speaking? If it is, he's gone outside his field and is talking nonsense. William M. Connolley 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
I want to encourage the committee to be suspicious of media reports in which weather extremes are given as proof of human-induced climate change. Weather extremes occur somewhere all the time. For example, in the year 2000, in the 48 conterminous states, the U.S. experienced the coldest combined November and December in 106 years.
Has hot weather occurred before in the US? In my region of Alabama, the 19 hottest summers of the past 108 years occurred prior to 1955. In the midwest, of the 10 worst heatwaves, only two have occurred since 1970, and they are placed 7th and 8th. Hot weather has happened before and will happen again. Such events do not prove climate change is occurring.
The intensity and frequency of hurricanes have not increased. The intensity and frequency of tornadoes have not increased. The same is true for thunderstorms and hail.
Droughts and wet spells have not statistically increased or decreased. In a paper published last year, I demonstrated from a rigorously constructed temperature dataset for North Alabama that summer temperatures there have actually declined since the 19th century.[5] Similar results have been found within states from California to Georgia.
When considering information such as indicated above, one finds it difficult to conclude the climate change is occurring in the US and that it is exceedingly difficult to conclude that part of that change might have been caused by human factors.
In the past 150 years, sea level has risen at a rate of 6 in. ± 4 in. (15 cm ± 10 cm) per century and is apparently not accelerating. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
One of IPCC's lead author's, Keith Shine, said "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented....It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientist's report". The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
You've misunderstood his quote though. What Shine is complaining about is people like Saudi Arabia watering down the language - not pressure to spice it up. William M. Connolley 14:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
If this is true, please provide some links to sources. I would find it interesting. Thanks. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
I know Shine. He's not a skeptic. He's a scientist. William M. Connolley 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
Dr. Frederick Seitz, FORMER PRESIDENT of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, has PUBLICLY DENOUCED THE IPCC REPORT, stating "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process that the events that led to this IPCC report." The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
Seitz is a has-been septic. William M. Connolley 14:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
If you knew the peer-review process that was in use was flawed and changed the outcome of research...wouldn't you be? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
What are you talking about? William M. Connolley 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
uh...while that may not be hundreds to indicate the pressure to conform...considering these are remarks coming from lead authors for various sections of the IPCC itself as well as a former president of NAS...I'd say they carry just a "tad" bit of weight...no? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
Landsea wasn't a lead author. Shine is but you've misunderstood him. If the head of NAS is a septic, why is NAS so pro-GW? You're hopelessly confused. William M. Connolley 14:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
please explain what your use of the term "septic" is intended to convey. septic is a medical condition, often resulting in death. what are you suggesting? and if indeed seitz is septic, what relevance does that have with the situation at hand? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) . 19:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
"skeptic" is at erm that is used, but misleadingly. All scientists are skeptics: they don't accept claims until proven. Seitz isn't a skeptic: he's just very biased anti-GW, for reasons I don't know. So losing the k seems appropriate. William M. Connolley 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
please don't use your own private codewords in a discussion page. i know of no other person who uses such a bizarre descriptor, and since your descriptor has a well established other meaning, it leads to pointless confusion. Anastrophe 23:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea_bio.html I'm sorry...he was just one of very few 'authors' on that section for the IPCC....one of a handful out of how many thousands in the field? I would say to have your name listed as an 'author' means you did QUITE a bit of work and contribution...wouldn't you? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
You said Landsea was a lead author. He wasn't. Now you head on towards obfustication... William M. Connolley 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
btw...I don't suppose you have ANY published material on the subject of climatology with your name on it do you? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
Funnily enough, yes I do... I could put you out of your misery by pointing you towards it, but that would be dull. You've clearly demonstrated your inability to find the obvious. William M. Connolley 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
Googling you all I can find is a couple of proposed presentations to the "International Glaciological Society", that on your personal website you did a peronal 'translation' of Fourier's work and that on opendemocracy...well I just loved the quotes "If you'd add some comprehension to your reading skills, then subtract at least some of your pious self-regard, you would have realized the question has already been answered." and "More fundamentally, especially so given my initial queries in this thread, it's very much your authoritarian zeal and presumptive impatience, by no means unique in this broader debate, that confirms my continued agnosticism." by "James M" whoever that is and "If you are really interested in the *science* of climate change – rather than the *political shenanigans* – then you shouldn’t fall for the spin; you should read, think and judge for yourself." by "Benny Peisner". Hmm...sounds to be like I'm not the only one who believes your personal agenda is guiding what you choose to 'cherry pick'. Although you may work in the field...it doesn't appear to be very high up the totem pole and Landsea is light years ahead of you and tons of other people.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
Peiser is a joke: http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser2/ William M. Connolley 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

Now, all of that was jolly fun, but has nothing to do with improving the pages. If you want to talk about the science (which you seem rather shy of) please do. William M. Connolley 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

I've rm'd a pile of trolling. This page gets long enough without total time-wasters. William M. Connolley 17:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC).

You have serious issues. You remove my comments from the page? I could revert them of course....but what's the point. I show you countless quotes cite scientific reports and lead authors, former NAS presidents etc....and you come back with your "personal" interpretations of all of them...you show or prove nothing in response...and you call me trolling? You need help. You appear to have more time to monitor this page then to do productive research....

And it wasn't total time-wasting...as I'm refuting your 'opinion' with citable sources....all of this b/c you wouldn't accept 1 paragraph? Again....you over-state your own self-importance when you feel it is your duty to regulate these pages. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .

So far you have done nothing but quote one prominent detractor (Seitz) who has a very weak idea of the current state of the art in climate research, and quoted a lot of stuff apparently without understanding and without proper context. Of course scientists qualify their results. They do understand the tentative nature of all scientific research. Nevertheless, they also produce solid results. And they have produced literally thousands of results in this field, nearly all of them supporting the notion that global warming is happening and is, to a large extend, the result of anthopogenic increase of atmospheric CO2. If you want to cast doubt on this, present real, complete papers, not just snippets grabbed from some idiot think tank web site. You will not find many. And we have been over most of these before - check the archives. Or you could email some of your "sources" and inquire directly- you will find that most do indeed support the IPCC consensus opinion to a high degree. As for the "personal interpretation" - I know William has a doctorate in the field and is working in climate science as an active researcher. I know you can copy and paste... I know whose opinion I trust (although not much trust is necessary - I have read some of the papers myself, and always found my own interpretation compatible with William's). --Stephan Schulz 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I have quoted the former NAS president and several IPCC authors. I have never said that human-induced CO2 isn't the reason (and in all likelihood is to some degree) for whatever warming is measured on a 'global' scale. I merely was trying to include a single paragraph that indicated that as of yet...(and feel free to show me if i'm wrong) no one has proven that man is the primary source of any temperature change. That is my point. Nothing more...nothing less. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
Have you really failed to even read the article? There are links to the evidence, and to the attribution page. "Argument from personal ignorance" is not convincing. William M. Connolley 16:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC).
As far as the 'attribution' section consider what Dr. Santer, lead author, said. What was your point? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/276/5315/1040

""It's unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the [IPCC] chapter" on the detection of greenhouse warming, says climate modeler Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, the lead author of the chapter. "I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say the attribution issue was a done deal."

Santer and his IPCC colleagues' overriding reason for stressing the caveats is their understanding of the uncertainty inherent in computer climate modeling.
"Global warming is definitely a threat as greenhouse-gas levels increase," says climate modeler David Rind of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, "but I myself am not convinced that we have [gained] greater confidence" in recent years in our predictions of greenhouse warming. Says one senior climate modeler who prefers not to enter the fray publicly: "The more you learn, the more you understand that you don't understand very much." Indeed, most modelers now agree that the climate models will not be able to link greenhouse warming unambiguously to human actions for a decade or more. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
The links to 'evidence' is based primarily upon "models" (more on that ina sec.) Ignorance is ignoring the fact that the earth has, globally, only heated a 1/2 degree C in the past 100 years, and isn't nearly as hot as it has been historically. Ignorance is ignoring the fact that the "models" thus far have been inacurrate and can not explain weather anomalies within the past hundred years, have incorrectly predicted how the green-house effect would affect the atmosphere and are based upon factors that scientists agree they do not fully understand....and despite this...still believing that somehow they can accurately predict the future. Ignorance is jumping feet first into a theory based more on political agendas that has not been proven and the more that has been discovered the last 20 years...the more they realize they don't understand.....yet still blindly believing 100% that man is responsible for the little warming the earth has experienced. Ignorance is cherry-picking the data with no real references to the other side of the theory. I'm not against the idea of GW (as the earth historically warms and cools)...I'm against the concept that people endorse the idea wholeheartedly that 'man' is responsible. Hey....maybe I should just say you're comments as "trolling" since they have nothing to do with the page, and are you're POV and delete them. Isn't that the way you've seem to handle anything I, or others, try to add or say? On another note (and really not in relation to anything really we've discussed thus far, a new article I on wired.com concerning land-usage / tree planting is interesting although I've read similiar stuff before. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,69914-0.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 ) Not really for or against GW but dealing with plant's absorbtion of CO2 and light reflectivity etc. an excerpt: "Caldeira and colleagues at California's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory created a computer simulation showing that if most land areas in northern latitudes were covered with forests, the planet would be six degrees warmer than it is today."
I found this interesting: "Not surprisingly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's climate models simply ignore the Medieval Warm Period. The models simply compare current temperatures to those of the immediately preceding pre-industrial societies. It is almost as if the Medieval Warm Period simply never happened as far as the IPCC is concerned (which makes it a lot easier to claim the current warming trend is completely unprecedented and, therefore, must be due to human-induced changes in the climate." http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000033.html Is this true? Do the IPCC models ignore the Medieval Warm Period? This supposedly was from a report in "Science". If so...it would, once again, point to fallacies in modelling techniques. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .
People fail to distinguish the difference between the earth warming (and it's been warmer in the recent past) and the earth warming due to "man's CO2". The NAS and IPCC both have multiple disclaimers throughout their reports...yet somehow people self-moderating this page feel that there shouldn't be any sort of disclaimer to the anthropogenic theory and instead specifically points to it as the main source of global warming. That simply isn't true and multiple respected scientists have testified as such. To ignore it on this page is taking a POV and not showing all the facts. It is being biased. All I have seen here is 'consensus' and 'opinions' and 'interpretations'....yet anytime I quote facts relating to past weather anomalies, unexplained incorrect model predictions and other things....I'm told I'm a troll and that the "opinons" of others hold more weight then what has "actually been observed".....What means most? A model that hasn't predicted accurate occurrences....or what has actually been observed on a global scale including the last couple of decades as well as thousands of years ago? From what I see....hypothetical models predicting the end of the world seem to carry more weight then the fact that in the last 100 years the earth has only heated up globally a 1/2 degree centigrade. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.245.125.102 (talk • contribs) .

66.245.125.102 please sign your posts. I will not do it for you again. Unsigned posts can be removed and modified and very few people would be bother to care because of the failure of identifying who the comment belongs to. Oh by the way, if you want publications, you might want to check out William M. Connolley, which was blatantly obvious if you didn't see. You didn't even have to check google. -- Natalinasmpf 22:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

China Daily report

Believing it to be recent info, I inserted "In December, 2005 it was revealed the reflectivity effect of airborne pollutants was about double that previously expected, and that therefore some global warming was being masked. This effect implies that pre-2006 models will underpredict future global warming. [6]". Simesa 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Follow-up: I contacted a climate researcher at NCAR about the "new" values for the reflectivity effect. He indicated that the "estimates" are not out-of-uncertainty-range for most models (perhaps they were for the Chinese models, although I am not aware of China having supercomputer-model capability). Specifically, he said:

The exact magnitude of various forcings is uncertain. The new estimates you refer to for aerosols are larger than what some models use (the magnitude of what models compute, for example, for sulfate aerosols varies depending on the nature of their sulfur cycle models or types of sulfate aerosol concentrations they use) but not out of the range of uncertainty for aerosol forcing used across all of the more than 20 models currently being assessed in the IPCC AR4. This accounts for some of the range of model responses to the simulation of 20th century climate. Even with this uncertainty in aerosols, the GHGs are still the largest forcing by far, and are the big driver for late 20th century warming and estimates of 21st century warming. The latest simulations will be assessed in the IPCC AR4, but many modeling groups are publishing their latest findings in the peer reviewed literature now (for example, from our group see: Meehl et al., 2005: How much more warming and sea level rise? Science, 307, 1769—1772).

Simesa 18:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, thats interesting, and supports my weakening it... note that the report was in china dily but the research was Hadley Centre I think. William M. Connolley 20:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC).
You think that China doesn't have supercomputers? —James S. 01:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I said I am not aware of China having applied super-computers to global climate change problems, as has Japan with their Earth Simulator. Simesa 09:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

we finally have a photograph

We need more. We have too many graphs, we need a photograph that captures the entire concept at hand. I am considering exchanging the Himalaya photograph's position with one of the images at the top, considering that photographs are better as in the lead section than it is tagged at the bottom. Anyhow. -- Natalinasmpf 05:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I can probably find a few more retreated-glacier type photos... William M. Connolley 20:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC).
In my opinion, some of the most pronounced changes include the breakup of the Larsen Ice Shelf (satellite imagery available) or the reduced (soon to be gone) ice cover on top of Mount Kilimanjaro (see Image:Glacier at summit of Mt Kilimanjaro 001.JPG). --Aude 21:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I've read that Kilimanjaro's losses are due in part to drought and human-caused desertification in the region, so it seems to me to be a less perfect demonstration of global warming, but perhaps someone with a better reference can fill me in. I think the best images I've seen are NASA images of the Artic ice melt, e.g., here and here. Dramatic, no? bikeable (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
That's another great example. And, yes we need to be careful in associating a particular example with the global warming article. Changes in places such as Kilimanjaro are often very nuanced. --Aude 21:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Photos are good, but as Kmf and Bikeable say one also has to be careful with photos. With any specific example of climate change it is often the case that there are multiple factors in play. I am reminded of a certain glacier comparison done by Greenpeace where they showed a before and after picture of a glacier that had greatly retreated over the last 50 years as an example of global warming, only to have their comparison ridiculed when someone pointed out that the retreat was unrelated to changes in local temperatures. (I forget what the culprit actually was in that case, but something related to local water management or daming, I think.) So if we are going to hold up pictures as key examples of global warming, let's do our homework and make sure that scientists actually support that conclusion. Personally, I'd love to see more photos on the subject but good ones seem hard to come by. Dragons flight 05:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
A video, too! How much material do they have? All of this should be uploaded to the commons. Hey, it's time we linked to a video on here, and maybe a spoken article, if anyone bothers. -- Natalinasmpf 03:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I hacked together this comparison of two NASA photos. Comments welcome.

1979
2005
NASA imagery indicates that the extent of the Arctic ice pack has shrunk in recent years. At left, the minimum extent of ice in 1979; at right, in 2005. More at NASA.

I uploaded those two photos, plus Image:Arctic_SSMI1979-03.jpg . bikeable (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. I may suggest rewording it to "computer generated image representing data taken from satellites" or something similar, well, just to make it plain to the most clueless reader what this exactly is. Reminds me something I could do for a hurricane stormbox...oh, I suppose we could upload that video file too, on albedo-ice feedback, and append it somewhere? -- Natalinasmpf 06:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

How Was Historical Temperature "Relatively Stable"?

According to the current version of the page, "Over the past 1-2 thousand years before 1850 the temperature is believed to have been relatively stable, with various (possibly local) fluctuations, such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but following through to the links on MWP and LIA, doesn't that mean that the last 700 years of the "past 1-2 thousand years" have been "variations?" I think this needs a cite to another wiki page or an external source, because I'm not sure I understand it. Is the author saying that the temperature was relatively stable for the 300-1300 years before the MWP (and if so, that's a big range - is it closer to 300 or 1300?), or is the author saying that the temperaturature range was stable even during the MWP and LIA? Also, who is it who is it who believes that the last 1000-2000 years before 1850 were relatively stable, and what do they mean by "relatively"?

To clarify, I'm not saying the statement isn't true, just that it doesn't make sense without some kind of reference clarifying the point. TheronJ 15:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe whats its relative to isn't so clear. Relative to the recent change; relative to the glacial-interglacial fluctuations. And yes the statement (I wrote it so I can read my mind) does mean literally 1-2 kyr before 1850. William M. Connolley 20:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC).

Attribution of Cause

I've removed Nrcprm2026's:

The extent to which human activities are responsible for global warming by radiative forcing is determined from the proportions of changes in greenhouse gases and their relative opacity in visible light and infrared.

First a comment on his unpleasant editing style: the edit comment is: if you have any reasons why this is not true or "weak" then please cite sources which is quite unsymmetric: he has however presented no sources for the truth of this, presumably regarding it as self-evident.

But it isn't. Firstly, most GHG's are (for all practical purposes, by which I think I mean climate models) completely transparent in the viz, so the relative opacity tells you nothing useful at all. Secondly, the para implies that attribution of climate change is done simply by totalling the calculated radiative forcing. This is not true. There is a section on D+A in Attribution_of_recent_climate_change. Thirdly, the para just isn't necessary. William M. Connolley 11:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

I agree with the part about "relative opacity." However, I think the idea that the radiative forcing cause of global warming isn't self-evident is nonsense. From the D+A section of the Attribution article, quoting the IPCC TAR: "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations where 'likely' is quantified as 66-90% certain." There aren't any alternative hypotheses which have anywhere near the kind of explanitory parsimony.
Even if the math is well founded, I, for one, would like to know why Wm. Connolley thinks 66-90% certainty is "weak." I make no apologies for asking for sources, and don't care if others consider that unpleasant. —James S. 21:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
If you insist on being unpleasant, please don't be surprised when people end up disliking you. I've removed the text again: the new version was correct (obviously, since its an IPCC quote; but notice it has a different meaning to your previous ''The extent to which human activities are responsible for global warming by radiative forcing is determined from...), but simply unneeded. Its been said just before. William M. Connolley 22:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC).
It has been said before somewhere else. Why do you think the statement is not appropriate for this article? I am replacing it.
Again, why did you say 66%-90% certainty is "weak"? —James S. 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't. What particular text are you misinterpreting? William M. Connolley 11:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

Okay, I'm soon going to move summaries of the text which has ended up on Effects of global warming over here and to Climate change, in particular the description of daytime thermal expansion creating more wind and the British Insurers Association description of the proportion of costs. So if you don't like what it says over there then please edit it to your liking in the next day or two.

Hey, and thanks for everyone's patience with the graphs. I felt very strongly that they were the best way to convey the information, but after finding the British Insurers' report, I've come to the opinion that text is really the way to go, at least until we get the 1999-2004 data.

Speaking of the graph, based on the British Insurer's Assoc., is anyone going to mind if I change "most [of the cost is due to added exposure]" back to "some"? —James S. 08:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I object. For example http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landseanaturepublished.pdf just recently. William M. Connolley 23:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
Okay, I read it. What are you suggesting? That it invalidates something else? It seems pretty clear to me that Emmanuel's data from the storms themselves are better than just using speeds at landfall. Are you suggesting that Emmanuel's deteractors have something else? —James S. 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Another phase of tuning...?

I've tweaked the tweaks a bit... so, someone put deforestation in front of fossil fuels in the causes. This makes no sense: FF burning is far bigger (factor of 4 at least); so much so that I've removed deforestation from there.

Under the Kyoto-ish bit, I changed the bold bit of Uncertainties remain and have been emphasized by some politicians and others who highlight the high costs needed to reduce future global warming back to question: stating that the costs are high as fact is unjustified, as far as I know.

I took nearly all out of Nearly all climatologists accept that the earth has warmed recently... - AFAIK the actual fact of warming is unquestionned by climatologists. List of scientists opposing global warming consensus can only find Singer to list under this; Singer isn't a climatologist (and after the Aug 11th papers Singers argument becomes junk, but thats another matter).

And someone took out The observed warming of the Earth over the past 50 years appears to be at odds with the idea that climate feedbacks will cancel out the warming.. I don't see why.

William M. Connolley 21:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

Stuf moved from my talkpage:

Re recent changes to the global warming article:

  1. I see you removed deforestation... that's quite n.b. isn't it? How about "On this theory, the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by deforestation and especially the burning of fossil fuels are the primary sources of warming."?
See above.
  1. The sentence "Uncertainties remain and have been emphasized by some politicians and others who question the costs needed to reduce future global warming" seems awkward with "question" there don't you think? What does it mean to question the costs? (do the skeptics go up to the costs themselves and ask them questions?) I feel something along the line of my 'highlight' edit is an improvement.
See above. Your version assumes something it can't.
I've "seen above" but I can't find what it is my version assumes, please clarify. Also, perhaps my version is in need of improvement, but the status quo sentence is literally incoherent (who questions what?)Mikkerpikker 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It assumes that the costs are high. William M. Connolley 22:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
Well alright, from what I've read the costs ARE high but if this is disputed how about "Uncertainties remain and have been emphasized by some politicians and others who argue the costs needed to reduce future global warming are too high to justify the expense"? Although this does violate WP:AWW so we can also mention Bush as a politician and Lomborg as an 'other' Mikkerpikker 22:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tried a compromise on this. I think my version makes it clear that some politicians think that the costs are too high but also doesn't state that they are. Revert if you don't like though. I also got rid of the semicolon--NHSavage 20:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I've also now added a couple of references.--NHSavage 20:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think your version was a big improvement but we need to respect Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words so I've rephrased:

Although the combination of scientific consensus and economic incentives were enough to persuade the governments of more than 150 countries to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, there are issues about just how much greenhouse gas emissions warm the planet. Some politicians (such as American president George W. Bush [7] and Australian Prime Minister John Howard [8]) and public intellectuals (such as Bjørn Lomborg [9] and Ronald Bailey [10]), have argued the cost of mitigating global warming is too large to be justified. However, segments of the business community have accepted global warming as both real and anthropogenic and thus action such as carbon emissions trading and carbon taxes is needed.-- Mikkerpikker 00:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Given List of scientists opposing global warming consensus (which I take it you've contributed to) contains at least some qualified scientists who disagree with the global warming observation (as opposed to greenhouse effect theory) shouldn't it be "Nearly all" or "Most" instead of "Climatologists accept that the earth has warmed recently."?
Not sure I have, but see above: Singer isn't a climatologist.
  1. Don't you think "The observed warming of the Earth over the past 50 years appears to be at odds with the idea that climate feedbacks will cancel out the warming." is out of context? Maybe it is better to deal with observations like these at Attribution of recent climate change since it seems a bit POV in its current state. Mikkerpikker 21:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
How can it be out of context The previous sentence is discussing feedbacks. William M. Connolley 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
It is out of context in the sense that the article is dealing with global warming generally and not specifically with causal attribution and thus casting off the cuff aspersions on that alternative theory when not in the context of a broader discussion of weaknesses/strenghts of the various attempted explanations of global warming seems POV. (I hope that made sense! :) Mikkerpikker 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Well in the context of the previous sentence: Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and CH4 will be, and whether changes in water vapor, clouds, the biosphere and various other climate factors will cancel out its warming effect. The observed warming of the Earth over the past 50 years appears to be at odds with the idea that climate feedbacks will cancel out the warming. it seems fair enough, as a quick summary. William M. Connolley 22:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
I see your point but doesn't it seem a little bit like a glib dismissal to you? You obviously know far more about this than I do but when I read it for the first time it made the article seem somewhat one-sided... I'm not too insistent on this tho, just wondering whether we can't improve the article... Mikkerpikker 22:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You could call it a glib dismissal or a concise rebuttal. On reflection, I think perhaps the best thing to do is remove it and the prev sentence - what do you think? This leaves Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and CH4 will be. which I think is fair: saying the debate is about whether X will cancel out GW is wrong, so is better removed than rebutted. William M. Connolley 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC).
Yeah, I much prefer the current version. Including the pref sentence does disrupt flow... Mikkerpikker 23:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
added the land used back in, along with agriculture, explained a little better. I think it's important to note in the open paragraphs that there are more reasons than only fossil fuels burning. perhaps I should have added aerosol use? not sure. --naught101 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't like it (as before) but its not important enough to argue over. William M. Connolley 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Extreme weather extrapolation graph

Discussion archived to Talk:global warming/extreme weather extrapolation graph. No users other than the producer of the extrapolated graph appear to wish it to be included, and at least 8 users have said that they do not. The discussion appeared to end around 2 January 2006. Rd232 talk 13:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I remain of the opinion that a version of the graph consisting of purely historical data would be useful. Rd232 talk 13:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
And I would urge James S. to drop his crusade for the extrapolation, as the matter appears to have been resolved. The matter has taken up quite enough of our collective time, and as he clearly has much to contribute to the general topic of climate change, I urge him to do so. Rd232 talk 13:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The 2nd revision of the extrapolation graph, which was produced solely from suggestions made here -- from comments on the first revision -- and which predicted the preliminary 2005 cost estimate precisely, is valuable because it shows that the cost of extreme weather events is rising much more rapidly tham most people imagine. It is netiher "original," being designed from the comments of others, nor is it "research" as merely a display of published data. I maintain that graph should be included, if not here then in at least some of the most appropriate branch articles. —James S. 19:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It appears that no-one else agrees with you. As to your underyling reason for having the graph: the graph shows only dollar economic costs. The economic impact of extreme weather events in developing countries is underplayed (because X livelihoods being wiped out counts for less in dollars), and the human cost (eg displacement from floods) ignored entirely. If anything, your graph understates the global impact of extreme weather (but not in any way that fixable). These and other issues previously raised can be discussed in a paragraph far better than in an extrapolation line. Rd232 talk 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
And indeed, I have been endeavoring to use text instead, and will continue to do so when I hunt down some more peer-reviewed literature quotes, but I still think the graph belongs at least in Effects, Action, and Extreme weather. —James S. 19:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Navigational Template

This topic has grown to such a size that it really ought to have a unifying navigational template to direct people to all the related topics. So I have created {{global warming}} for that purpose (shown right). The initial choice of what to put in it and what to make it look like has been fairly haphazard. No doubt I have simply forgotten some subarticles, and I'm sure someone with some spare time can make it look spiffier. Like everything wiki, I would encourage people to improve upon it. Dragons flight 15:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Radiative forcing is a very important related topic. —James S. 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Perhaps the structure should split more between Science / other. (And I'm reminded that I still think global warming controversy should be merged into other articles.) Rd232 talk 19:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, you're missing Action on Climate Change -- isn't there a category for these articles? (Oops, I guess you don't want to conflate the climate change articles with the global warming articles.) —James S. 19:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Action on Climate Change seems to overlap enough with other articles to suggest a merge, or possibly the development of a clearer structure across articles. At minimum the relationship with mitigation of global warming, politics of global warming, and business action on climate change needs clarifying. Rd232 talk 21:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the Main topic should be Climate change, with global warming as a subtopic? I agree with Nrcprm2026, you're missing Action on Climate Change.
oh.. is there already a climate change template? if so, then ignore this. --naught101 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the POV Sentence

I deleted the POV sentence under "alternative theories" which stated that "only a small number of scientists believe in such theories."

  • Why is that POV, if it's a fact "at present, none of these has more than a small number of supporters within the climate science community"? There's nothing POV about that at all, if it is an accurate count of scientists in the climate science community. bikeable (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • On second thought, I reverted your edit, because I don't think it's remotely POV. If there is consensus here that you are right, we can change it back. bikeable (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"At present, none of these has more than a small number of supporters within the climate science community." Sorry Bikeable...this statement needs to be supported by a verifiable source. It was deleted. Also, I added a sentence that states "Supporters of this theory contend that accurate records of temperature were not collected until the end of the Little Ice Age (i.e., mid to late 1800s), and hence, natural warming would be an enevitable result over the subsequent decades."

  • ok, here's a source: This article in Science reviewed all 928 papers published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 with the keywords "climate change". They found that not one challenged the scientific consensus that climate is being changed by human activity. I'll put that sentence back now. bikeable (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Bikeable, I went to the article you referenced, and found the following statement: "The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

There are several flaws with this rationale, Bikeable, that need to be discussed in detail. The first is the use of the keywords "climate" and "change" in a document search. How many of the papers published in these publications discuss natural variation in climate change when using the keywords "natural" and "climate" "change"? The second point is that the referenced article discusses that 25% "took no position". Finally, the quote from the article that "75%...either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view..." What exactly is meant by the term "implicit?" Does this mean that the articles referenced their acceptance of the IPCC annual report conclusions?

I really don't want to get into a big fight over this, by I still stand by my opinion that it is POV to state "none of these theories have any more than a small support." I would propose that the sentence be changed to say "The majority of climate scientists do not believe these alternative theories are sufficient to explain the most recent 50 years of global warming." If you have an alternative, please post your proposed language.

Confused

I don't understand how people can be claiming at various places that human activity doesn't have an effect on climate. Based on the facts that a)we are burning fossil fuels and thus converting carbon, that has been locked up for millions of years, into carbon dioxide in huge quantities into the atmosphere. b)we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, because otherwise we would never have been able to come about. Venus serves as an example of the temperature-raising effects of a high carbon atmosphere. c)we are generally releasing carbon from all the places it got locked up in over the ages, that allowed the Earth to cool to this degree.

This isn't really about this specific article, but I'm sure the people who edit it know where I can find the arguments people use against this stuff. Is there an article on them? There must be some arguments, however bad, or people couldn't maintain it. 15:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Ends Justifying the Means

I heard a headline the other day on yahoo.com. It said, "several prominent members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have announced the first evidence of rising sea levels in the south pacific." The article went on to state that the "rising sea level" on this particular coral atoll was causing inhabitants to pack up and leave.

After further research into the subject, I found out that these "prominent scientists" with the IPCC were in reality working for various foreign governments which are suing the United States for being the "number one cause" of global warming. I also found out something astonishing...the island in question was actually SUBSIDING on its own accord at a rate of 1 inch per decade, and sea level was not rising. The "prominent scientists" actually knew about this, but knew that the ensuing publicity would help their cause.

As a scientist, I would implore everyone to take a good look at the members of the IPCC, and to consider the source. I would also encourage everyone to do their own investigation on the matter of the cause of global warming. Everywhere I go, scientists are quick to point out the IPCC annual reports as the gospel, and I think that most informed individuals would agree that this organization has its shortcomings. I think you will agree that the overwhelming evidence points to the fact that the IPCC members have agendas other than "saving the planet."

i happened to overhear a bit of that report myself. it immediately made me wonder how on earth the sea level could be rising just around this one group of islands. obviously, a land mass that's only a few inches above sea level would be particularly sensitive to rising sea levels - but any such land mass would be inundated purely by wave mechanics constantly. it's unfortunate when things like this happen. all it does is add to the distrust many people - including myself - have for those who relentlessly push the 'end of the world predicted, film at eleven' mentality. Anastrophe 03:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you serious? An anonymous AOL user tells us about a story "on Yahoo" that several (unnamed) "prominent scientists" make bogus claim to support unnamed "foreign governments" which are suing the poor old United States (in which court?). But luckily, our anonymous AOL user is a scientist himself, and due to his painstaking research he found out that this is all BOGUS (well, there might be a true statement) and that the experts are lying because of their secret (unnamed) agendas. --Stephan Schulz 08:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
A bit of googling came up with these (responding to above and below): [11] and [12] - it would seem that the anon's story is a 'reworking' of this story to include the US et al (stories date from just a few days ago). However, it does bear the thrust of the issue. Can someone explain how certain islands would be being swallowed up by our rising sea levels, when last i recall, there had been a 1cm rise over what - 30 years? Anastrophe 08:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
A centimeter? More like 10 to 25 over the past century: [13] and [14]. bikeable (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
anyone want to put up a link to that report? I'm interested in reading it myself--naught101 06:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


This is the link:[15]

I also saw that particular article and it is apparent that there are a whole legion of money-grubbers out there who will do anything, say anything, write anything for money. It is the oldest scam in the world to try and extract money from the "haves" and distribute to the "have nots". I personally believe that a warmer climate (see the Medieval Warm Period) is a benefit to human beings, and I for one not only welcome Global Warming, I EMBRACE IT as a great liberator and a benefit to mankind. And if you happen to live on an island which is naturally sinking into the sea due to overpumping of groundwater or natural subsidence, then it would behoove you to MOVE. --Smithsmith 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And what would that benefit be? Guettarda 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Warmer climate equals longer growing season, warmer climate equals less reliance on fossil fuels, warmer climate equals a longer period of time that people can enjoy the outdoors, warmer climate equals greater efficiency of hybrid and future battery operated vehicles, warmer climate equals less land pollution via harsh de-icing chemicals on road surfaces, warmer climate equals less disease, warmer climate equals less mortality of older individuals during the winter, warmer climate equals a longer construction season, warmer climate equals increased precipitation worldwide...I could go on and on and on. I think it is interesting to note that during the Jurassic period of geological history, it has been shown that the earth was between 10 and 15 degrees warmer than now, and the environment supported the largest land animals that have ever existed, before or since. Do you think that is a coincidence?--Smithsmith 01:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

May I please remind my fellow editors that we should be discussing how to make the article better, and not debating the topic itself. Both sides of disputed issues should be presented fairly. Relevant citations from the peer-reviewed scientific literature are the most likely to satisfy the WP:V amd WP:NPOV guidelines. They are to be preferred to comments by politicians or reports by the news media. Of course, the latter two can be useful for describing the reaction of politicians or news reporters, but cannot be relied upon for more than that. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Also... all this is Effects of global warming stuff. William M. Connolley 14:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Climate Audit

The page on Climate Audit has been proposed for deletion. I don't know if people will agree with me on the merits of keeping the page, but I am confident that this community is better suited to judge that then the average AFD voter. So, please take a look. Dragons flight 13:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Methane

I removed:

Living Plants (eg forests) have recently been identified as a major likely source (10-30%) of the greenhouse gas Methane. [16]

Its true; but its todays news. See-also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=236. I dislike having breaking news in the articles, and prefer it to settle down (for long enough for people to be able to comment, which is ideally a year but perhaps a month or two for Nature stuff).

Is there a general policy on this kind of thing?

William M. Connolley 12:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a policy but I agree with your handling. This is one laboratory based study possibly backed up by some unpublished field measurements. It is a very interesting study and I need to go and read the paper(s) but is far from established science. There have been plenty of cases where the scientific community gets interested in an idea based on a single study, does the research and at the end realises it's wrong. This is part of the normal process of science --NHSavage 20:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I second that (and have no idea whether it is a policy either). I think that for newly released research we should wait until the scientific community has had time for a response, trying to strike a balance between timeliness and the need for scrutiny. There does seem to be a large amount of possibly relevant infromation in Nature, Science etc., but it most of these could/should (?) (perhaps ideally?) generate their own pages. The risk otherwise is that these pages could become a summary of the pages of a few major journals. Mostlyharmless 01:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is peer reviewed research published in a prestigious journal, and probably underwent more intensive review because it is such a large and surprising result. David Lowe of Toposperic Physics and Chemistry Group of New Zealand evidently considers it solid enough, since he states: "The identification of a new source should prompt a re-examination of the global methane budget, and may ultimately help to reconcile the differences between the bottom-up and top down techniques." The implications for the efficacy of Kyoto mechanisms and accounting are significant. Reforestation may not have the net beneficial effect. As Lowe stated "it is possible that the forests that once occupied pasture may have produced as much methane as ruminants and grasses on the same land." If "newly released research should wait until the scientific community has had time for a response", then also, this newly released research should itself be considered the response to any earlier research that appears to be in conflict with or out of date because of it. Which is this, the "new research" or the "response"? Any research is likely a response to questions raised by earlier research. The latest research deserves more respect that the dated opinions this article retains without proper dates.--Silverback 06:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is good research but the point is this should "prompt a re-examination of the global methane budget" in other words more reasearch is needed. The extrapolation of this is based on a single study and so uncertain at this stage. I will add a small mention of it to the methane article. I will also look at properly sourcing what is here. I feel that in general it is better to base wikipedia articles in review articles or recent textbooks. Perhaps we need to take this debate to some wider forum? It seems an important debate with wider implications.--NHSavage 10:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Note Also that the authors have recently published a statement in which they state "our findings are preliminary with regard to the methane emission strength" and "the potential for reduction of global warming by planting trees is most definitely positive" [17].--NHSavage 11:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
As an example of why its a good idea to wait, see [18]. William M. Connolley 11:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
Note that their forest analysis assumes "new forest", this period of rapid growth probably does have a net positive effect, however, after that in the more mature forest whether there is a net benefit is questionable. It probably is a good idea to repeated harvest the forests and plant anew, sequestering the harvested carbon in new construction. (not newspapers in landfill).--Silverback 12:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
All of which goes to show that this should be left to settle for a while before going in. William M. Connolley 13:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC).
It doesn't go to show that at all. The forest statements were not part of the research. The research can be mentioned on its own merits. The forest statements were comments upon the research by reputable scientists and can go in as such, properly quoted and cited. They are not as questionable as some of the already included IPCC TAR information is now. The scientific state of affairs does not have to be certain to be cited, in fact if it is certain, it probably ain't science. What is unknown and needs to be investigated further, is worthy of mention and more properly represents the state of the science.--Silverback 14:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Request semi-protection, please

I'm tired of trying to wade through the rvv'ed IP numbers on this article's edit history, and I bet you are, too. Please join my request for semi-protection by adding:

:seconded --~~~~

after the request. Thank you. --James S. 20:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

An admin has protected Effects of global warming, but I think this one may have been overlooked. Please second. --James S. 23:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this page may have been full-protected... thats what it told me when I just edited. It shouldn't be... I'll check. William M. Connolley 11:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC).

Hmmm, I think it may just be the message. I've replaced the text Ae used with the template; when I edit it, though, I get a message saying only-admins-may-edit. Is this just a message error? William M. Connolley 11:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's just the message. It gave me the same message but let me make an edit. Perhaps this is a bug, but maybe it has a featurish effect. --James S. 17:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


Over-enthusiasm cut to talk

I cut:

The fact that global warming is observed to be stronger at high latitudes precludes other explanations for global warming, but CO2 greenhouse forcing. Water vapor and CO2 share some of the same infra red spectrum, so the anthropogenic increase in CO2 will show at cold high latitudes where there is less water vapor in the air. The recent increase in the average global temperature is thought to be a direct result of greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution e.g. carbon dioxide emissions increased from 280ppm to 360ppm between 1890 and 2000 (there has been a steady increase in total energy consumption per capita (per person)). Changes in the nutrient content of the high latitude surface waters are also thought to affect atmospheric CO2 on longer (decades, centuries) time scales.

This is too strong (first sentence) and probably wrong (CO2 and H2O). William M. Connolley 17:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC).

Cause of CO2 rise

Again, I think it is important for people to go to legitmate sites and find out all they can about global warming, because it is apparent that this entire article is written from the point of view of environmental zealots. Science has been thrown out the window (case in point is the statement on the first part of the article describing the CO2 versus time scale plot stating "increase in CO2 dramatically affected by the industrial revolution." Using that same flawed reasoning, what caused the CO2 levels to lower during the last few ice ages, and what caused the subsequent rising in CO2?). Most people don't dispute the fact that the earth has been getting warmer during the last 30 years, but there are many who dispute the mechanism by which it is happening. There are also a heck of a lot of people who are happy that the climate is getting warmer. The warmer climate has been a major factor in an increased standard of living, and it appears that we may be headed toward another Climatic Optimum much in the same way as during the middle ages. I can only hope so, because the alternative is another Little Ice Age which would suck big time.--Smithsmith 00:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The CO2 rise is anthropogenic. If you don't believe that you're way out on a limb. Even skeptics accept that. Most people don't dispute the fact that the earth has been getting warmer during the last 30 years, but there are many who dispute the mechanism by which it is happening - well, except for the many, the article provides information about that debate. Why not try reading it? And remember... this article is about the science of GW. Not whether its a good thing or not. William M. Connolley 14:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

Your statement "The CO2 rise is anthropogenic" is not a factual statment. It should be rewritten as "most scientists believe that the CO2 rise is anthropogenic." It really all comes down to what you believe, and is a matter of faith. I would add that I accept your belief and respect it (although I disagree with it). I would politely ask you to do some research and find out just how many skeptics there are, Connelley. There are many skeptical climate scientists out there, and although you appear to have a personal vendetta against anyone who disagrees with you, I feel that you are getting way too worked up over this. If you feel that I have personnally attacked you, I am truly sorry. --Smithsmith 00:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed this for ages. "The CO2 rise is anthropogenic" is as factual as any statement about the real world we can make today. The causality is reaonably well understood, and the basic mechanism (burning of fossil fuels) is clear. If you know about sceptic scientists, feel free to add them to List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. There are not that many there yet. What I consider to be weird is that nearly all "sceptics" go from "there is no warming" via "it's not anthropogenic" to "it's actually a good thing". I see you embrace global warming. What leads you to doubt it is anthropogenic? --Stephan Schulz 00:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I respect your position, but I would expect that such a strong statement by Connelley which says "The CO2 rise is anthropogenic" is a little strong. I am a little surprised that a person that has made significant contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would box himself in (so to speak) with such a statement (sorry Connelley, I am not making this a personal attack, so please do not take it as such). The IPCC has never made such a strong statement (see the first part of the Global Warming article for their actual statement). Why did CO2 levels drop naturally during the last ice ages? Why did the C02 level increase naturally after the last ice ages? Were these events caused by humans? What caused atmospheric C02 levels to increase to 10 times the current level during the Jurassic Period? Was this also caused by humans? These are relevant questions because the study of historical trends in atmospheric C02 and temperature is key to understanding the complexity of climate. --Smithsmith 01:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. "The present atmospheric CO2 increase is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2." IPCC. There is really no room for eqivocation about why CO2 has gone up this time; we did it.
  2. Studies in single ice cores show that temperature begins to change first (presumably because of Milankovitch cycles) and then CO2 changes in response and amplifies temperature change. The process is not well understood, but is generally believed to involve wide scale change in ocean productivity. The magnitude and rate of these changes have been consistent over the last ~800kyr (see Image:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr.png for the last 400kyr). By contrast the recent changes are much faster and obtain levels probably not witnessed for at least 20 million years (same IPCC ref).
  3. Very long-term changes in CO2 are controlled by geodynamic processes affecting the weathering and sequestration of carbonate bearing minerals, principally calcium carbonate. The observed increase since 1750 is equivalent to the erosion without replacement of ~600 cubic km of calcium carbonates. Changes of this magnitude are implausible on centennial time scales, but can be accomplished over multi-million year periods. See Image:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png and references therein.
Dragons flight 07:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
May I please remind my fellow editors that we should be discussing how to make the article better, and not debating the topic itself. Both sides of disputed issues should be presented fairly. Relevant citations from the peer-reviewed scientific literature are the most likely to satisfy the WP:V amd WP:NPOV guidelines. They are to be preferred to comments by politicians or reports by the news media. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Added

I added the italicized statement.

Although no cause and effect relationship has ever been established between Global Warming and the especially severe 2005 hurricane season [43], the United Nation’s Environmental Program recently announced that severe weather around the world this year has made 2005 the most costly year on record. [44]--Smithsmith 01:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Also added quotes before "it is likely that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". I think someone removed the quotes to push their point of view.--Smithsmith 17:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the quotes where they were. Quote marks indicate... a quotation. Please familiarise yourself with the source text before messing with quotations. I await (without much hope) an apology re POV. William M. Connolley 18:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC).
The quote "it is likely that most of the warming observed..." is not mine. It came from the report, unless their website (IPCC's) has been hacked or something. I am looking at a copy of the report as we speak, so if I have a bad copy, I need to know before I go any further with this. Why are you so defensive about this? I already apologized to you last week for the Chicken Little statement. I really think that the "it is likely" quotation needs to be made part of the statement since this is apparently what was actually said (presuming I have a valid copy of the report). --Smithsmith 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Calm down everyone and be nice.

The version here says "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.". This is from the summary for policy makers. I cannot find the version with it is likely that at the start. Can you point me in the right direction - I have probably missed something obvious.--NHSavage 18:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ready for Peer review / FAC?

I just stumbled over this article and although I have not read it in every detail, it impressed me with its good overall quality. Why not submit it to Peer review and FAC? One point that seems underrepresented here (although well covered elsewhere) is the political implications, particularly the position of the current U.S. administration, but otherwise the content looks good to me. What do the experts think? Kosebamse 10:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree in princple. The political implications have been left out deliberately and moved to global warming controversy. This is a very contentious issue (especially in the US), and we have concentrated on presenting only the science to keep this article reasonably stable. We still suffer from random vandalims and occasional "intense discussions". I don't know how peer review will affect this, but we certainly should try.--Stephan Schulz 14:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is *science* of GW, and its hard enough to keep that straight! There is also a politics of global warming though I'm not sure what state that is in (GWC has a slightly unclear purpose...). But peer review sounds like a good idea William M. Connolley.
I've been hanging around WP:FAC and WP:FARC quite a lot and think this article has quite a good chance to become featured... But, as per the suggestion, there should indeed be a peer review first (despite the fact that very little is likely to come of it; FA candidates are looked on more favourably if they've gone through a peer review). Mikkerpikker ... 20:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some consensus, so I'll list the article at Wikipedia:Peer review. My compliments for the good work. Kosebamse 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

NASA never minds the climate

NASA and NSA silences global warning researcher James Hansen of Goddard Institute. Big scandal all over the world news. 195.70.32.136 08:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)