Talk:Global warming/Archive 12

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

Contents

some book I've read / Further Support

i think that the human race is not ment to exist on this planet. There is a very likely theory that the earth is in an ice age as we speak. The earth is not supposed to have polar iced caps, and humans are not ment to be living. the book i read is entitled 'Ice Age'.

I've actually herd this theroy too, durring an envirothon, an enviroment based science event for high school/ college students. The scientist educating us on this was pretty credable, and had some really good evidence, I think this theroy needs to be further explored and if reasonable brought into the Global Warming article.

Huh? Yes, we are, technically speaking, in an interglacial period of the current ice age, and have been for some 1000s of years. It is unknown how long the current interglacial would last without human intervention - current opinion is "probably much longer". Whether the earth is "supposed to have polar ice caps" depends, apparently, on a combination of orbital parameters and arrangement of continental plates. None of this has to do with the current anthropogenic global warming. We are currently modifying the environment in a way that heats up the earth much faster than any known natural process. --Stephan Schulz 22:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no undisputable evidence that correlates recent increases in temperatures to human activity. Historical data on the subject is sketchy at best and cannot be relied upon to draw any conclusions about man's effect on the earth's temperatures.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.90.8 (talkcontribs) As with you other comment, please provide evidence. The article on Attribution of recent climate change discusses this in detail. Please read this and all the evidence provided there and then find some references of your own to support your opinion.--NHSavage 06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have modified this article to reference the bullying tactics of the global warmng lobby against dissenters as revealed by a major scientist in todays wall street journal. I have also changed the "small" mininority of dissenters by eliminating the adjective which is pov and not verified. I full expect these edits to be reversed by the emotional charlatins who have no real knowledge of the issue. I may or may not be back to try and correct this infantile page.Incorrect 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Further, global warming, since it reduces extremes of temperture, should DECREASE storms, hurricanes, etc (wsjournal April 12, 2006), I've noticed that in my further edit.Incorrect 14:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I reverted your changes for the following reasons (notice I write "reasons" instead of what you expected it to be): Why should a warming atmosphere and thus warming sea surface temperatures DECREASE storm intensity? (also, GW does not reduce extremes of temperatures, but to the contrary increases them) Studies by Emanuel and Webster et al. measured an INCREASE in destructiveness of (atlantic) hurricanes during the last few decades, and to my knowledge climate models let expect more severe cliamte anomalies, including extreme events. furthermore, a small minority is a small minority. please read the scientific literature about global warming consensus, e.g. Oreskes 2004 (it's linked somewhere on this disc page already). thus, this position is indeed verified, and I think nearly everyone who participated in IPCC processes will also agree to this from his or her personal experience (as far as I'm aware). one last point: your language indicates to me that people contributing to this article are not the "emotional charlatans" you want them to be, but someone else looks like his description fits himself quite properly... Hardern 15:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"H - the insincerity of your position and extremest perspective you and the other pc "environmentalists" take on the issue of global warming is conveyed by your reversion of my deletion of the word "small" prior to stating that a [small] minority don't believe that horrendous damage is caused by global warming. You are unwilling to even admit that a minority of scientist object to your view, rather, with no evidence whatsoever, you state that a "small minority" disagree. Besides your failure to understand English (a minority is a minority), you attempt to show the superiority of your position by basically saying that only a small number of dumbass scientists disagree with you. At one time, only a "small minority" of scientists were willing to state that the sun did not circle around the earth, not because they didn't know better, but because they were afraid to speak out against the orthodoxy of the time as presented by the pc Catholic Church. Today we have the identical situation, elitest professors and memebers of the dominant leftist culture demand blind adherence to today's orthodoxy, whatever the scientific evidence, and be damned if you don't go along (see the wsjournal article by a major prof. of weather at MIT). So go ahead, you will win your editing wars, but 25 years from now you will be finally revealed to be the naked little man behind the curtain. Incorrect 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Incorrect. There was a time at which scientists believed the sun did not circle the earth, and they were in fact, proven incorrect. Now please compare the number of scientists and the volume of scientific data that supported the theory of the sun orbiting the earth ( circa 1700? i can't put a pin on it exactly ) to the number of scientists and the volume of scientific datat that supports the theory of global warming. That should put your little analogy in the proper perspective. 128.195.94.157 03:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


A Mr. William M. Connolley, a real believer in scientific freedoms, did something never before seen - he vandalzied the TALK section here by removing 6 or 8 lines quoting an MIT Prof. of Climatology stating that GW was an exaggerated concern supported by the usual pc lobby. Vandal Connolley is obviouly so insecure that he wasn't willing to see his position being attacked even here on the talk page. Connnolley, you've hit an all time low, you bring disrepute to your side of the argument, to Wikipedia, and to your morality. DisgusingIncorrect 07:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You silly little person, I moved the text to the end. New talk goes at the end. You're hopeless William M. Connolley 08:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You did move it, I didn't know new talk is at the end, I appologize. All ad hominem statements are withdrawn. Incorrect 12:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

section 'Climate Models',is misleading

No one should be surprised, that the people that write climate-model programs, tend to stick together in claiming climate-models actualy mean something. What is presented here, is totally one-sided. Climate models are essentialy curve fitting routines; with the coefficients being calculated by computer, to best fit past data points. In many cases, these coefficients have no physical meaning, they are simply numbers needed to get things to match. People familiar with math, know that an infinite number of functions can be generated to fit any arbitrary set of data. That means, you can generate a function that matches past data, but 'predicts' any future number the progammer desires. My suspicion is, the supposed concensus that models predict a 2 - 5 degree C increase in 100 years, is a consequence of --> if a modeller writes a program that predicts something wildly different that the concensus, --> he doesn't present that model at confernces. Any 'concensus', is no more meaningful that the direction of a buffalo stampede, most of the buffalo tend to do the same thing. Comments welcome.--CorvetteZ51 01:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. If all that is needed is a curve-fitting, you can use a standard algorithm and generate a polynomial of the desired degree (see the disuccsion at Talk:Global warming/extreme weather extrapolation graph). Climate models do indeed try to model the physics, i.e. they do not try to fit an arbitrary function. Yes, parameter fitting is required, but that is a very normal thing. Models are typically optimized on some part of the climate record, and then evaluated against the remainder. The model is considered useful only if a decent fit is achieved on this holdout set. As for your allegation: Scientist love finding unexpected answers. That is what gives you new publications. Nobody is publishing about the comparative speed of falling feathers and bullets in a vaccuum anymore.--Stephan Schulz 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone ever performed a "history match" on these computer models? I was interested in finding out if anyone actually has run the numerical models (I am assuming they are numerical "cell by cell" 2D or 3D models?) in reverse to see if they fit with historical data collected over the last 100 or 150 years. Just a question from a skeptic. --Smithsmith 04:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
They do compare the models with historical data, but I don't know if they do it on a cell-level or just a worldwide level. Presumably some of the historical data goes into the model, so it's not quite like "running it backwards". Here's an example of the model performance over the past 150 years, running with natural forcings, or anthropogenic forcings, or both: [1] bikeable (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Bikeable. I appreciate it. --Smithsmith 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
SSmiths comments show that he needs to do an awful lot of background reading. You can't run GCMs in reverse. Try global climate model for some stuff about how they work. Try the IPCC TAR SPM for fit-to-history (I think its fig 4). William M. Connolley 09:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
Yes, Mr. Connolley, you are correct. That is why I asked the question.--Smithsmith 01:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
CorvetteZ51, science is not politics. The consesus on global warming was reached in a different way than the consensus that Saddam had stockpilies of WMD. :) Count Iblis 13:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Have done computer models myself I must agree CorevetteZ51. In so far as the dynamics of climate change are reasonably well known, one can make models of climate processes. But since climate science is not an experimental science, i.e. there is no way to control and experiment on global climate variables, the whole process is pretty unconstrained. As for politics, love, philosophy and many other things I find (for myself included) in the absence of conclusive demonstration, facts are grouped by observer bias. Mrdthree 07:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


politics doesn't play a role in thise debate? Read April 12,2006 story by a MIT prof in climate studies on the role of politics in all of this.Incorrect 14:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Something missing

"...have suggested that irradiance changes over pre-industrial are less..."

...over pre-industrial what? Levels, I presume, but I leave it to you. Daniel Collins 02:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd propose to revise the sentance to:
Since the TAR, various studies (Lean et al., 2002, Wang et al., 2005) have suggested that changes in irradiance since pre-industrial times are less by a factor of 3-4 than in the reconstructions used in the TAR (e.g. Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, Lean, 2000.)
However, I can only access the GRL paper from work, so can somone who has read it check that my revision actually correspends to the paper (or I'll do this on Monday).--NHSavage 09:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right. YOu can throw in Foster, 2004 and Foukal et al., 2004 if you like, too :-) William M. Connolley 11:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

Glacier Mass Balance

Summary information on alpine glacial mass balance is available through the National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html). A recent review by Dyurgerov and Meier (http://instaar.colorado.edu/other/download/OP58_dyurgerov_meier.pdf) shows that alpine glaciers in all regions (with the exception of Europe) show a cumulative negative mass balance over the interval 1960 to 2004 (see Figure 4 in the publication). Note that within Europe, there was a negative mass balance in the Alps and a positive mass balance in Scandinavia. There has been a recent edit by user Silverback that has modified materials related to this topic. As it stands, the reader would be left with the erroneous impression that alpine glacier retreat was only an early 20th century phenomena. The statement should be revised to reflect the reality on the ground. J. Hamilton 205.189.26.38 21:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I revised the statement to reflect what was in the citation. WMC has reverted to an "an around the world" version that is not supported by the original referenced citation and is contradicted by the positive mass balance in Scandinavia evidence cited above. The paper cited in the article noted that most of the glacial retreat was in the first half of the 20th century. You should read the paper.--Silverback 04:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea how you are reading Oerlemans and getting that most occured in the first half of the century. I'd give you that perhaps a little more did based on his work, but his figure 2 is fairly close to symmetric about 1950. However, I have removed the "increasingly rapid" since there does not seem to be any big change in the rate over the 20th century. I have also edited this section to incorporate some of the material found in the Dyurgerov and Meier paper cited above. Dragons flight 06:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
How about these quotes from the paper: "Glaciers witnessed a particularly strong warming at high northern latitudes in the first decades of the 20th century (fig. S4B)." and "From 1860 onward, most regions show a temperature increase. In the first half of the 20th century the temperature rise is notably similar for all regions: about 0.5 K in 40 years." Note that my statement was that most of the glacial retreat occurred in the first half of the 20th century. Look at figure 3b. Nearly all the rise came in the first half of the century, then there was a cooling, and then a recovery to the peak levels.--Silverback 14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Figure 3 is interpreted paleotemperature based on a non-uniform weighting of the glacier length changes. It is necessarily non-uniform because the temperature sensitivity of a given glacier depends on such factors as local angle of repose and mean annual accumulation. In talking about average glacier retreat (uniformly weighted) you should be refering to Figure 2. A discussion of glacier derived paleotemperature would more easily fit in glacier retreat or one of the temperature record articles, then the summary blurb here. Dragons flight 18:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone obviously wanted glacier retreat in THIS article, it wasn't me. I see it in the same vein as trying to attribute specific huricanes to the part of GW attributed to human forcings.--Silverback 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Seems fair enough, I've rv'd to DF's version. William M. Connolley 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
We aren't trying to be fair, just encyclopedic, hyperbole is questionable in an encyclopedia, even when justified. In this case, it hasn't even been justified.--Silverback 04:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Singer and Avery?

Hi Silverback! Do you plan to do anything with the reference you added? It's not a peer-reviewed paper, but rather one of the typical reports coming out of conservative think-tanks. --Stephan Schulz 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is well footnoted by published authors, so it is as valid as a book reference. What I did with it was added before the reference was. I've read that they intend to expand it as a review paper or book, and are not claiming it is original research. --Silverback 15:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the lot. Silverback, please stop pushing your POV into this [2]. First of all, the Singer and Avery ref is *junk* (they can't even get the length of the ice age cycles right!). If you feel like defending it as valid, I'll rip it to shreds for you, but its barely worth the effort. Braun, of course, isn't junk: its just doesn't belong here. Why not add it into Dansgaard-Oeschger event, where it belongs? William M. Connolley 18:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

which Ice age cycles? You aren't referring to the rounding to 1500 are you?--Silverback 18:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
90kyr
WMC, I don't see a mention of of 90kyr ice age cycles, I see mention of cycles which include 90kyr ice ages, so the full cycle is obviously longer. I want to make sure this misreading of their statements does not clarify your issue before investigating further.--Silverback 09:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Sb, this this is gobbledegook on your part. Can you not read: It has long been accepted that the Earth has experienced climate cycles, most notably the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles.. Now, go off to ice age and compare and contrast. William M. Connolley 10:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
No, the statement you cite is ambiguous, it could be interpreted either way, but later in the article their meaning is clear "The best-known of these is the Ice Age cycle, with 90,000-year Ice Ages interspersed with far shorter interglacial periods." Given their apparent meaning do you still accuse them of not having the length of ice age cycles right. Frankly I can't tell because they don't state the length of the cycle, they just appear to be identifying which cycle they are referring to.--Silverback 11:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
How does a solar explanation of the DO events, extending into the Holocene, not belong in the solar variation section?--Silverback 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Its only a speculative mechanism for a solar trigger, not an explanation for the full range of the changes, so it has little relevance to current change. And if you want to say there has been a continuous range of D-O events with a 1,470 period in the holocence... you need to re-write the obs record first. Oh, and of course most people don't believe in a regular 1,470 year cycle for the D-O events, so don't believe in a solar connection anyway. William M. Connolley 18:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC).
...and the 1,470 solar cycle may be imaginary. Image:Carbon-14-10kyr-Hallstadtzeit_Cycles.png says so. William M. Connolley 18:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC).
There is so much cumulative evidence for the DO periodicity, including recognizing its influence in the historical record, that what was lacking was a plausible mechanism. The ability of this mechanism (the component cycles are already established in the literature) to allow the periodicity to be reproduced in a model is probably why Nature considered it significant. It makes sense. It could still be wrong, but then a lot in climate science could be, especially when it comes to modeling and attribution.--Silverback 19:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Why are you making this up? "so much cumulative evidence" - nonsense. For D-O periodicity there is Rahmstorfs paper (which specifically points out the *absence* of a solar signal at the required period). Notice how... you aren't defneding Singers mistaken 90kyr claim; you have nothing to say about the *observed* solar periodicity being 2.3kyr if anything. Being a member of WP:HEC I shall wait till tomorrow to revert this Singer junk out again... William M. Connolley 20:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC).
Please assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. (this comment by Silverback, it somehow got orphaned from the rest of the comment below)
Will you please avoid making up nonsense. There is lots of evidence for the D-O events, but for their *periodicity* is another matter entirely. William M. Connolley 10:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The DO signal has been detected in both greenland and antartic cores and in Northern Atlantic modes. You should check the references in the Braun paper which you admit "isn't junk". Obviously, there can be several solar signals which periodically coincide and superimpose on each other. So a 2.3kyr period does not contradict a 1470 period. If you want to assemble and insert evidence of other periods, fine. I haven't tried to put Singer's "mistaken" 90kyr claim into the article. If I were to do so, I would consult his references, as far as I can tell, in the cited reference his is not claiming original results, just reviewing a body of evidence that he has assembled. Perhaps he has made a mistake, I know you have, but that is no reason to reject your information or his on an ad hominem basis.(this comment also by Silverback and somehow got orphaned.)
More nonsense. Go read the ice age article. Please stop flinging "ad hom" around as though it solved all your problems. William M. Connolley 10:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
Lets stick to the matter at hand, whether you "believe" in the 1470 periodicity or not, it is in the peer reviewed literature, and my text relies upon Singer and Avery for the information about what place in the cycle the earth currently is in.
The 1470 periodicity *for D-O* is in the literature, and you should be reading that, not trash like S+A. But the problem (as I've pointed out) is that the very paper that posits 1470 specifically states that there is no solar signal to explain it. Furthermore, there is *no* evidence for it in recent times, cos there are no D-O events in recent times, and as I've already pointed out, by ref to the wiki graph, is that whatever minor signal seems to exist in the millenial band, it looks like 2.3kyr. Also, S+A isn't a scholarly summation of the literature - its propaganda. Wiki should not be referenceing it as though it were scholarly. William M. Connolley 10:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
"trash", "most people", "junk", "hopeless", please stay away from incivility and ad hominem arguments. You have just been engaging in denial, despite the evidence in the literature of the cycle. The fact that the older original paper denied a solar cycle of that period is trumped by later literature and other evidence than the ice cores itself. The original author would have to deny the existance of the 210 and 87 year solar cycles, since the Braun paper based on their superposition. For other evidence, consider "Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene" Gerard Bond, et al, in Science 7 December 2001: Vol. 294. no. 5549, pp. 2130 - 2136 where they state: "Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output through the entire Holocene. The evidence comes from a close correlation between inferred changes in production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium-10 and centennial to millennial time scale changes in proxies of drift ice measured in deep-sea sediment cores. A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantic's "1500-year" cycle." This is back in 2001 and I believe I have also read subsequent isotopic evidence extending the work.--Silverback 11:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a basis for disputing their positioning of the current climate within that cycle.
What cycle? The non-exitent 1470 D-O cycle? William M. Connolley 10:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe there is literature that associates the little ice age with that cycle, and Singer and Avery have positioned the cycle using that. I also relied upon their review for the 2 degree C amplitude of that cycle during the mild interglacials. Can you dispute that?--Silverback 09:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't all this far too much detail for this article? It should surely be under Solar_variation#Global_warming. To my way of thinking this should be concise summary of the more detailed information in that article. That section also needs a lot of work as it seems to lack any coherence. It is just a set of A said this and B said that. I would support WMC's reversion but suggest moving some of the debate to the solar forcing page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NHSavage (talkcontribs)
Anon one, you probably should focus on the "effects" section of you are concerned about article detail/length. The solar information is central to balancing the key attribution evidence, there is no need to go into the speculative fear mongering on this page where we are trying to stick to the science. Frankly, I don't think the article is too detailed or too long, those are subjective judgements and I think the interested reader can handle this article, especially if we keep it well organized. So I am not going to oppose the effects section, just make sure it doesn't stray too far beyond the evidence.--Silverback 09:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is a subjective judgement when the article is too detailed or long. That is why I phrased my original point as a question to people. However, I think it is very difficult and probably impossible to include a good summary when the original text is a mess. This discussion on the merits or otherwise of these papers belong over there not here. Get a good NPOV text there and then write the summary here.--NHSavage 12:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is the original, the others are often neglected spinoffs, sometimes spunoff not by those who love the spunoff topic and want to elaborate the details, but by those who are territorial about this article and don't feel comfortable having some evidence in it. So no wonder they are lower in quality and receive less rigorous review. This is the article where the key evidence and questions should be explained.--Silverback 14:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

WMC, your original reasons for removal of this material has not proven correct, why do you persist in removing it when you can't justify it here?--Silverback 17:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Silverback and 1RR/7

Silverback is limited to 1RR/7 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Silverback#Remedies and has broken this: [3], [4]. Silverback: can you please clearly and unambiguously promise to keep to your parole in future, or I'll report you. William M. Connolley 16:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

I haven't broken the 1RR/7 rule. I think you are misinterpreting it. It should be applied just like the 3RR rule, but with only 1R allowed. The evidence you cite is two independent reverts of independent material, that would not be counted under the 3RR rule intepretation. If you think I have misinterpreted this, perhaps we should go to the arbcom for clarification. I've been operating under this intepretation all along, and no one else has questioned it. So my interpretation is that I am under a 1 revert rule, differing from the 3RR rule only in number (1 instead of 3), and time period (7 days instead of 24hours). --Silverback 17:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, your interpretation of the parole is right, but your interpretation of WP:3RR is wrong. Quote: "Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours". What you revert on a page is irrelevant. If you read WP:3RR, the interpretation is very clear. --Stephan Schulz 17:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You most certainly have broken it, and your interpretation of the revert rule (alas, like your interpretation of so much climate science) is quite wrong. Note to others: Vsmith has blocked him, so Sb can't talk here: probably best to see [[5]]. William M. Connolley 17:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

the realclimate.org link (no. 34)

The realclimate.org link no.34 is not working for me. Is anyone else having success with it? I get "Parse error: parse error, unexpected ':' in /usr/www/users/realc/wp-content/plugins/email-notification-v1.4.php on line 156"--Silverback 21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Works fine for me (Safari 2.03). They do mention a problem with email on the page, though. Try again, maybe you hit maintenance time.--Stephan Schulz 22:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
didn't work for me the first time, BUT, after visiting realclimate, and searching for Vezier, I found the article, and the link worked, and now it works from wikipedia too. --naught101 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It works for me now too. Thanx to both of you for checking it out. I didn't want to assume it was a link gone bad.--Silverback 15:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Something's wrong, I can't get my comments posted on Realclimate Hans Erren 23:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Silverback wasting our time again

See [6] where Silverback deletes "outside the scientific community" with the deceptive edit comment "not "especially"".

As to why he changed 4.5 into 5.5 [7] despite the link IPCC ref saying 4.5 not 5.5, who knows? Just the spirit of malice? William M. Connolley 22:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps you should assume good faith rather than leaping to the ad hominem attack. The explanation is a simple search for truth, and a proper level of scientific skepticism. I thought the 4.5 was a typo of this figure from the Shaviv and Veizer paper: "These results differ somewhat from the predictions of the general circulation models (GCMs) (IPCC, 2001), which typically imply a CO2 doubling effect of ~1.5–5.5 °C global warming, but they are consistent with alternative lower estimates of 0.6–1.6 °C(Lindzen, 1997)." Perhaps Shaviv and Veizer made a mistake, but I see no reason to impune their motives or mine. As to the subjective hyperbole about this being especially controversial OUTSIDE the scientific community, you know that was an inappropriate emotional snipe, implying that those that are a little more skeptical are somehow unscientific. It isn't consistent with our encyclopedic goal. As to the 4.5 vs 5.5 figure, I think we do have some problems here making sure we are comparing the right figures, and I am willing to work with you collegially to find the right answer.--Silverback 15:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want people to assume good faith, stop making edits with deceptive comments to stuff that was heavily argued over and come to a long-term consensus on. Coming here and acting all innocent won't get you anywhere. Except reverted, of course. William M. Connolley 15:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC).
Of course! And assuming good faith, since you have given no reason and provided no citations, I assume you have reverted on the merits.--Silverback 15:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"rv. Nothing "especially" controversial, of course"

It is just as controversial inside the scientific community, given the resignations from committees and significant questions raised by some scientitists, so there is no reason to imply that the controversy is mainly or especially outsite the scientific community, there is "especially" no reason to imply this in an encyclopedia. Do you have any specific criticism of the version that I proposed to replace this that you reverted?--Silverback 17:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. GW isn't controversial in the sci community. See Oreskes, for example. Of course, since you believe that Singer is a member in good standing of that community, we're actually talking about different things... William M. Connolley 17:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC).
"its becoming rather obvious why you got arbcommed", it isn't a mystery WMC, I got accused of personal attacks on 172, attacks which I was able to justify BTW, and the attacks were not ad hominem arguments instead of the merits on content, in fact they were unrelated to content but inspired by his abuses of the system such as you also experienced when he came to the aid of Sterling Newberry on this article. Frankly, I probably did hound him a bit much about those abuses and attemtps to game the system. Your ad hominem attacks, deletion of legitimate cited material, and insistence on hyperbolic and POV language and appeals to consensus rather than evidence are distinctly unscientific, not to mention in violation of wikipedia rules. But I still attempt to judge your posts on the merits. I recommend that you start "acting" as you have accused me of. Use reason to analyze your posts (and inflammatory edit summaries) for ad hominem content and then filter that out. We will all know based on past experience that you will be merely acting "scientific". I recommend using the "method", actually try to feel scientific, then with time, you may change, become the role you are trying to play. It will increase your credibility, not that personal credibility should matter, let's stick to the science.--Silverback 20:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Sticking to the science is a good idea. Its why I removed Singer. William M. Connolley 20:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC).
I am not an expert in this topic, but I do read the serious scientific literature, e.g., Science and Nature, and William M. Connolley statement, " GW isn't controversial in the sci community", is consistent with my reading of that literature. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I read those too. With the corrected satallite data, GW is not controversial, but the level of attribution to human vis'a'vis nature and the reliability of the predicitions and extent of the effects are controversial within the scientific community. The 1.5 to 5.5 (or is it 4.5?) range discussed above is itself evidence of controversy. Look at the article, it is about more than GW, it is about attribution of GW. WMC's fear of contrary peer reviewed information it also evidence of controversy. Scientists have commented on the pressure to conform to the consensus and the difficulty gettting contrary research published in Nature or Science is evidence of controversy. Ad hominem attacks that don't stick to the merits are evidence of controversy. Etc. --Silverback 20:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

Apologies to SS for near-edit-clash. So... I cut the Lancet out, because its odd to have it make its first appearence here. Sci.op seems more natural. I haven't read the Lancet article, though. William M. Connolley 22:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

No problem. I found it a bit weird, too, but decided to at least fix it while wiser people decide what to do ;-). I only saw the Reuters article as archived on Common Dreams, not the original article. BTW, given German history, "SS" is not really popular here (except in some very stupid circles). I don't really mind, but I go by StS if I have to use initials myself. --Stephan Schulz 22:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes, perhaps I'm not wiser after all :-). StS or full names it is! William M. Connolley 22:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC).
I can't find the Lancet article. I checked the TOC for issues on either side of the Feb 9 date, and did an author search for McMichael for the past 12 months. Is there a specific cite for the article? Do we know if McMichael was one of the authors? Perhaps I missed a non-obvious article title. I can access the full text with a proper cite, if it really is in Lancet.--Silverback 12:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68079-3 - A cursory skimming of the paper suggests that their opinions are being overstated in our article, but that they do make statements in the direction of existing climate change having already had averse health effects. Dragons flight 12:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanx. Unfortunately it has only been published online so far. I can't access the full text yet.--Silverback 12:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Aerosol cooling

OK, in an attempt to head off an edit war :-) I'll talk... StS's point about can-can is well taken, but I dislike the tone of:

Note that anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants - notably sulphate aerosol - can exert a cooling effect; this is one possible explanation for the plateau/cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the 20th century [8].

The objectional bit is ...one possible explanation...; it pretty well *is* the std expl (well, along with a bit of natural variation)... though I suppose the skeptics might find another. So I removed the first "can" - aerosols *do* exert cooling (does anyone doubt that? [9]).

William M. Connolley 13:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what's wrong with a nice little edit war? ;-)
I actually considered putting it as "...this is one proposed explanation...", but was to lazy to dig out a source to support that version. --Stephan Schulz 15:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Slightly more seriously, this is a question that keeps getting asked here and elseshere, e.g. [10]. It should get a more detailed answer. William M. Connolley 17:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC).

Good Article?

In light of the peer review, and the FA plot, I've listed this as a Wikipedia:Good articles. Technically this is against the rules, as I've contributed a lot; but its a guideline not a rule so... anyway. My rationale is (a) it *is* good (based partly on the fairly mild crit from its PR, but mostly on what I know of it) (b) there is a fair chance of it not getting through FA for one reason or another. Comments welcome. William M. Connolley 23:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

Oh, and to add: the GA criteria are:

  • be well written
  • be factually accurate
  • use a neutral point of view
  • be stable
  • be referenced, and
  • wherever possible, contain images to illustrate it. The images should all be appropriately tagged.

This article is definitely referenced; contains images (not many pics, but many excellent graphs); is stable; is factually accurate. I would also argue that its NPOV, though some may disagree. Is it well written? Maybe. William M. Connolley 23:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

And... its better than Post-glacial rebound which is also a GA :-) William M. Connolley 23:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's a GA. I don't think it can make it as a featured article while it still has that "citation needed" bit. Also, while it's generally well-written, there are some clumsy sentences: "Uncertainties in the representation of clouds are a dominant source of uncertainty in existing models, despite clear progress in modeling of clouds".
This article has piqued my interest; I'll be looking over it to see if there's anything I can do. I know next to nothing about global warming, but I'm pretty good at stylistic touch-ups. :) --Ashenai 23:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that the article is factually accurate and is definately biased towards a left-wing environmentalist propaganda point of view.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.90.8 (talkcontribs)

Please be more specific. Give examples of factually inaccuracies and provide evidence,please indicate which sections are not NPOV. And please rememeber to sign your comments.--NHSavage 06:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation format

IMO, footnotes are cleaner, and some of the text cites print sources anyway (ie. that "Veizer et al. 2000, Nature 408, pp. 698-701" citation), which is a bit ugly right in the middle of an article. Reason given well, this is an article, not a scientific journal — we do want to maintain a standard but articles are expected to be easy to be read by the laypeople, so I think we should maintain a degree of prose. Footnotes are a good way to integrate both print sources and online sources cleanly, so I think we should be prepared to convert them sooner or later — this is just to tidy it up before we do FAC, we have to copyedit the other stuff first as a priority. Thoughts? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... footnotes are cleaner: gag. What does cleaner mean? I want an inline link to link directly to the source document (my habit is to right click to open in a background page while reading on). Unless footnotes have been fixed to avoid the absurd bounce to a footnotes section to find the link, I would strongly oppose footnotes. The article can be clean and yet preserve true inline links (with of course a reference section below. This is an internet document, not paper, and quick and easy linkability is of prime importance. I would oppose FA if footnotes are a requirement - wasn't aware it was a requirement. Vsmith 00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As in, it's more...aesthetic, and something such as "pg. 71, etc." doesn't interrupt the flow of the article (it is prose, after all)...I do use firefox tabs, but then I would just click on the citation, open the link in a new tab (it is numbered) then click back up again (IMO, this is more convenient)....we have to integrate it, at least — having inline links and print source references that link into the print sources section is not very integrated, IMO. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 15:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's two too many clicks, unacceptable for a web document. This is not paper. Also my preference is for Harvard style reference links, both for paper and web refs, with the refs all arranged alphabetically in the ref section (web & paper together). Numbered links are meaningless - Harvard links carry meaning. Vsmith 02:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
My personal aesthetic preference is for inline links to web based materials and Harvard style reference (e.g. "Schuster et al. 1990") for references to print materials. Dragons flight 16:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It will come as no geat surprise to those who have been following various events that I rather prefer inline links. William M. Connolley 16:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On a more general note (and I've tried to discuss this elsewhere, with no sucess) my belief is that cite.php is almost capable of doing inline/footnote at the press of a config option. I envisage an ideal situation (in half a year or so...) when the refs will be put in with cite, and at the top of the page there will be a wiki-format-string:ref-style=inline option; but that if ref-style=footnote is set in the users preferences they will see that instead. Then we will all be hap-hap-happy :-) William M. Connolley 16:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

While we're dreaming, it would be nice if there were two buttons for references with external links. One which takes you to the footnote, listing the source, when it was accessed etc, and another small button taking the reader directly to an external page. Of course, this risks slippery slope of increasing the amount of clutter, markup and crap you can accidentally click on, but I think it would be useful and preserve the best aspects of both systems. –Joke 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice idea. William M. Connolley 23:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice dream - and might as well make 'em invisible in a printout for the paper lovers :-) Vsmith 02:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing the point

I'm not a scientist, but I think this article entirely misses the point about the GW issue. These "extra" CO2 emissions will hang around in the atmosphere (causing havoc) for decades or even centuries. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels tommorow and stopped slashing down the rain forest, CO2 emmissions would be decades away from returning to normal - if ever. This point is lost in most mediad discussions of this issue. Wikipedia should do better. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.36.244.4 (talk • contribs) .

Uh...actually the article does address the point. The article is not even advocating or focusing on solutions, it's in fact focusing on whether or not it is happening. It does discuss mitigation of global warming as a separate section, but it doesn't dominate the article. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we explicitly address expected lifetime of CO2? There is a decent RC post on this by David Archer but I'm too p*ss*d right now to find it :-))) William M. Connolley 00:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Is that in the Australian sense (usually involving beer) or the continental version ("off")? Or is the a BE meaning that eludes me? --Stephan Schulz 17:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh no more language issues. In the UK, its the same as "wazzed" or "newted" :-) William M. Connolley 19:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, okay. So you just explained an ambiguous word by comparing it to two totally mysterious words. Is there a translator in the house? Dragons flight 19:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard of "wazzed" or "newted" before either, but according to this web page, they're both slang for "drunk." --Sheldon Rampton 19:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Trolleyed more like.--NHSavage 19:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
To be serious now, I don't think this article does address the lifetime of CO2 or the thermal lag associated with deep ocean warming. However, perhaps this whole discussion of timescales in the system requires an article to itself. It needs some careful thought about how to include it here.--NHSavage 20:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
*Burp* - oops. OK, I added Note that although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming would be expected to continue past then, since CO2 has a long atmospheric lifetime. to partially address this point. A proper discussion of CO2 lifetimes probably belongs under greenhouse gas though (?). William M. Connolley 21:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

Clathrate gun section

I took out this whole section, since much of it appears to be lifted direct from Nature. Fortunately someone else has ripped it off http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateConcern/message/9624 so you can check... :-) William M. Connolley 21:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

bias

A non peer reviewed blog reference replaced my peer reviewed IPCC tar reference. Hans Erren 11:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you be a bit vaguer, please? William M. Connolley 11:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I think he is talking about the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere. Hans, your quote was somewhat out of context. The Archer article that William linked to goes into much more detail. It is not in itself peer-reviewed. However, it it written by an expert and cites peer reviewed papers, including at least 5 by the author (I did not check the "et al"s), at least two of which are very recent. If you read the RealClimate article, you can see why no single lifetime can be given. A lot of the CO2 is absorbed by "fast" processes ("fast" meaning years to centuries, with an average of centuries), but about one quarter is only absorbed via slow geological processes, i.e. over very long periods of time. On the time scale we are talking about, "CO2 has a long atmospheric lifetime" is true for either process, although the long tail often seems to be ignored. --Stephan Schulz 20:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Move of two external links to talk page

These links bring up valid issues, but I don't think they belong on the global warming page itself, so I've moved them to this talk page for now.

Evolauxia 06:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Could someone reference "The scientific consensus on global warming is that the Earth is warming, and that humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are making a significant contribution."? Thanks. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calion (talk • contribs) ..

See the next few sentences. Sources are the IPCC TAR, as well as various declaration by the national academies of science. There are more detailed sources on Scientific opinion on climate change.--Stephan Schulz 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Some breaking news here. Count Iblis 13:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is the AR4 draft, which has "do not cite or quote" written all over it. And in fact it isn't even that, just the Beeb reporting on it. William M. Connolley 16:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formerly said greenhouse gases were "probably" to blame." [11] Can anyone get access to the report and give summary to it's finding? FWBOarticle

The IPCC TAR is online William M. Connolley 18:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC).
I believe this talk page ought to be archivied. Not only I fail to spot this section in the begining, it took a while for me to find where you transfered my edit. FWBOarticle

What's wrong with utterly NPOV?

I prefer "utter" NPOV to shameless kowtowing to the industry-funded apologism claiming lack of certainty any day of the week, and this article is self-contradictory if it says any less. --James S. 23:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Should have said POV. Please remeber WP:NPOV which [12] certainly fails: The relationship between global warming and hurricanes is still being debated [13] [14] by hold-outs in major governments and industries who have paid people to argue against the scientific evidence.. Its also simply factually wrong, as the WMO report pdf I added demonstrates. You've also added your pet "global average wind speeds" which has no justification that I know of, and none that you;ve been able to find. Etc. William M. Connolley 23:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC).
The statement about governments and industry paying people to argue against consensus was properly sourced [15] [16], even if I did misread the wind speed calibration as covering different time periods (and I'm still not sure it doesn't.) --James S. 02:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You didn't misread the wind speed study because you didn't even read it. You just stuffed in the first google hit for global wind speed increase without thinking that those terms can be combined in different ways. You have used yet another misleading edit summary - you have simply re-inserted your assertion that global wind speeds have increased, without any pretence of supporting evidence. Its clear that you have logially deduced from first principles (shared by no-one else) that global wind speeds *must* have increased and are intent on inserting this piece of original research. Please give up, until you can find something that is actually to the point (which I very much doubt you will find, because I don't believe that the effect exists). And all the rest is poor too. William M. Connolley 10:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I admit I misread part of the study. However, as you infer, I am not done looking. And yes, when temperature and evaporation increases, then it is clear to me from first principles that wind speed and rainfall will increase too. You have no evidence that it doesn't, because there can be no such evidence. --James S. 19:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You're still making things up. Why is it clear to you from first principles that wind speed must increase? Its not clear to anyone else. If its so clear, why is it not in any met papers or textbooks or... anywhere? Why can't you admit that the paper you found is irrelevant? If it isn't irrelevant, please quote a relevant part of it that supports your contention. And why are you so certain of your answer, when as you now freely admit, you're still looking for papers to prop it up with? William M. Connolley 20:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Temperature is related to gas volume. Greater atmospheric forcing means greater day/night temperature gradients, meaning more thermal expansion and contraction, meaning more wind. What exactly is made up about that? All that remains is emperical confirmation, and I am still not convinced that it doesn't already exist in the cited report or one of its references (or their citators.) I see no need to temper my statements in deference to the admittedly economically conflicted arguments against the consistent truth of the remainder of the articles. I am sad that some feel so strongly about the value of their kowtowing to industry and conflicted government interest that they are reduced to spewing forth falsehoods and absurd rhetorical questions. --James S. 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You really are making this all up, aren't you? The diurnal temperature range is *decreasing* not increasing [17]. I love your All that remains is emperical confirmation... - yes, you've made up you mind in total absence of any facts, but now you're going to try to find some. Sigh. William M. Connolley 20:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who BSbuster is (not me), but I thank him or her for their comments which are reproduced below. --James S. 20:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Connolley represents as a standard what he knows (AFAIK), misconstrues N's arguments and then launches a personal attack ("he doesn't understand"). N wrote nothing about winds in general. N refers to a widely discussed effect of radiative warming on Wind produced from differences in barometric pressure. A 2005 National Research Council report concluded regional variations in radiative forcing may have important regional and global climate implications that are not resolved by the concept of global mean radiative forcing. and Regional diabatic heating can cause atmospheric teleconnections that influence regional climate thousands of kilometers away from the point of forcing. If there is any debate, it is over the degree of wind increased caused by radiative forcing. Connolley perhaps should be the subject of a RFA instead, debating in bad faith by launching personal attacks against writers who cite literature instead of debating the content of the cited literature, then mischaracterizing the debate he refused to participate in. Connolley's sustained involvement in edit wars, RFAs and unresolved conflicts warrants investigation. BSbuster 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


BSb is patently a sock; most likely of you, though who knows: see her contribs: BSb's contribs. And of course her comments above are all beside the point; and don't support your nonsense about global average windspeed at all. William M. Connolley 09:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple of questions

Pardon me but as a mere casual observer I am wondering if this whole discussion of global warning is overlooking at least a few fundamentals.

The Wikipedia article on the earth's atmosphere points out that the percentage of Cabon Doxide in air is .035% (365 ppmv). How can changes in such a minute component cause any great effect (temperature or otherwise)on something so large and complex as the earth's atmosphere?

You might just as well ask, how can the trace amounts of CO2 be of any importance to plants? Yet they are. The answer is that trace quantities can easily be important, since (as the greenhouse gas article points out, N2 and O2 are radiatively inactive in the IR). William M. Connolley 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Just let me add one thing: The fact that the 0.035% of CO2 in the atmosphere does have a profound effect on the climate is not disputed by any reasonably informed person. It is recognized by all scientist I've ever heard on the topic, including the usual sceptics like Singer et al. To put things into perspective: A resonable knife has a volume of (generously) 30 cubic centimeters. Yet sticking it into the 100000 cubic centimeters of a somewhat bulky person like me can have a very profound effect on that person. Or, more fittingly, consider the relationship between an inflated balloon and its skin.
And while the relative amount of CO2 is small, the absolute amount is significant - it amounts to roughly 0.5kg per square meter (unless I miscalculated). Do you agree that wrapping all of earth into a heavy-duty garden foil would influence the climate?--Stephan Schulz 22:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that CO2 is forming a heat shield around the earth like a skin (or garbage bag balloon). If so I observe that at .035 percent of the atmosphere CO2 seems to be a super molecule – everywhere at once. On the one hand it is down at the level of the grasses and flowers to allow them to do what they do. On the other hand it is also a layer above the tallest trees and mountain ranges (above the perforating “knifes” or pin points) dense enough to shield heat (warmer lessor molecules) in. Is the solution to global warming simply to puncture this shield with some kind of multiple pin points to let the heat out? By the way, isn’t adding plants to the discussion changing the subject? Plants do what they do at the current levels of CO2. The theory of global warming assumes rising CO2 levels which would seem to benefit plants wouldn’t it? Check with your reasonably informed people. The heat shield idea seems full of holes to me.
Just a couple of points. First, it's not a solid "heat shield"; every C02 molecule in the atmosphere does its part by reflecting a little bit more heat back down to the earth. Second, the C02 is pretty uniformly distributed through the atmosphere, so yes, it is everywhere at once. That is, anywhere you take a sample of air, it will be 0.037 percent or so CO2, no matter where you take your sample. It's not a single "layer" -- it's just the atmosphere. Take a look at Greenhouse effect. And please sign your posts with "~~~~". Thanks. bikeable (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
(Reply to unsigned). I didn't actually say that CO2 is "forming a heat shield like a skin". Your original argument was (paraphrased) that "0.035% is so little, how can it have a significant influence!". I just pointed out that 0.035% is not that small, and that there are a lot of situations where something that small can have an extraordinary effect on the larger (100%) system. Similar with William: He pointed out that the "small" amount of 0.035% CO2 is all that keeps plants alive - again, a relatively small amount can have profound influence on a large system. I also pointed out that the absolute amount of CO2 is quite high, and that, as such, it is not that surprising that it influences our climate. As Bikeable described, CO2 helps to retain heat because it absorbs infrared radiation emitted by the surface (towards space), but reemits it omnidirectionally. Hence it reduces the amount of radiation that escapes into space. For this effect, what is relevant is the average number of CO2 molecules encountered by a photon traveling from the surface to beyond the atmosphere. It is (to a first approximation) irrelveant where it encounters them.
About the plants: First, CO2 levels are rising - that is not a theory, its an observable fact. The (well supported) theory is that this will lead to an increase in the average temperature via an increased greenhouse effect. We are now also observing this (although it is harder to measure than CO2 content in a well-mixed atmosphere). For plant productivity, check the section on "positive effects" in the main article. In some areas, plant growth is limited by CO2 availability. These areas may experience an increase in bioproductivity. However, this can still lead to a decrease in biodiversity, as established long-lived species are being displaced by more mobile and adaptive species. Wether this is good or bad for the ecosystem in the long term is debatable. It is almost certainly bad for us humans in the short and medium term, because we are adapted (both biologically and economically) to the current situation.--Stephan Schulz 22:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia timeline on thermometers says that Galileo built the first one in 1592. A search on "age of the earth" yeilds an estimated age of 4.55 billion years. Assuming the best case that humans could have perfect temperature data on all parts of the atmosphere since the thermometer's invention, how could the short 414 year histroy of temperature data predict the future temperature trends of something 4.55 billion years old with its highly variable history from unknown causes?

Predictions of future temperature don't much depend on the past history. But check out temperature record for how the past record is constructed William M. Connolley 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
But all climate change models are based on historical data, obviously they can’t be based on future data. Also, one can’t study warm periods of the earth’s climate by looking at the glacial record. Relevant glaciers would have melted away.

If I need to create an account and log in to start this dicussion let me know.

No need, but it would make it more convenient to both you and us.--Stephan Schulz 22:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you,

per_1062@earthlink.net

Perhaps missing from the above answers is also some perspective on whether the effect of the CO2 is a "great" effect. There are perspectives in which it is a small effect. Looking at the measured warming in terms of degrees Kelvin, i.e., relative to absolute zero, the effect is small. Why is the possible impact on human lives so "great" then? Human's live very close to the freezing point of water, in the narrow range where water is liquid at atmospheric pressures. Close to the freezing point of water, small changes in absolute temperature can have relatively large changes in the vapor pressure of water, and because of this, phase changes in water play a large part in the energy transport on the surface of our planet and are very sensitive to temperature increases, especially in the oceans. So a minisule percentage increase in the absolute temperature can represent a several percent movement between the freezing and boiling points of water at atmospheric pressure. Even the small absolute changes in temperature between summer and winter, have huge effects on energy transport in the atmosphere, for instance hurricanes practically disappear in the winter. So it is more than just temperature differences between the tropics and the poles which drive these phenomena, they become far more likely when the water temperature distances just a few more degrees from the freezing point.--Silverback 08:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. Is this (should this be) in an article somewhere? And does this section suggest we should have another go at a simplified version of "GW for Beginners"? (I remember WMC started something like that, what happened to it?) Rd232 talk 08:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of "GW for beginners", addressing commonly misunderstood points like the "heat shield" idea above. bikeable (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Simplified version?

I started Global warming/Global warming (simplified) at one point but it didn't get far :-(

William M. Connolley 22:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

External links

Can someone please clean up the "External links" section? It's well on its way to becoming a WP:SPAMHOLE. Melchoir 12:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I took 2 out, but it needs more work. People just kee adding them... William M. Connolley 12:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I was bold, I guess, and removed around half of the links. I'm already prepared to get reverted, but it looks a lot better now. This was not a link list, it was a jungle with no one being able to navigate through. Now it's more like a steppe, or let's say grasslands to stay in this metaphorical language ;) Hardern 12:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

volcanic emmisions of methane

Here is a source [18], although it is generally known that methane is emitted by volcanoes. The climatic effects of the sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide are probably greater. This study finds that much of the methane release from resting volcanoes is probably from the interaction of hydrothermal systems with sedimentary rocks, but Mt. Baker for instance, based on isotopic analyses has a higher magmatic CH4 component.[19]--Silverback 14:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

According to that study, geologic sources are 8.5%, but thats total geologic sources:
Major GEMs are related to hydrocarbon production in sedimentary basins (biogenic and thermogenic methane), through continuous exhalation and eruptions from more than 1200 onshore and offshore mud volcanoes (MVs), through diffuse soil microseepage, and shallow marine seeps; secondarily, methane is released from geothermal and volcano-magmatic systems.
which makes volcanoes one part of the "secondary" part, so why pick them out? If you meant MV's, thats not what most people are going to think of when they hear "volcano". William M. Connolley 16:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't pick it out, methane was being discussed. The existing language gave the impression that all sources were biological or anthopogenic. Vulcanoes are an example that isn't, although upon researching it, the contribution was poorly understood because it is a difficult environment in which to measure it. It is definitely a smaller contribution than I had been thinking. The MVs and hydrothermal plumes are more important.--Silverback 18:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

please assist in ending one of my arbcom sanctions

In a case back in Nov, the arbcom imposed a limit of 1RR per 7 days per article that had an indefinite time span, one that WMC noted was unusually severe. I have petitioned the arbcom to now revisit and remove this component of my sanctions. Arbcom member User:Raul654 seems to think that my editing here on Global warming somehow weighs against removal of the sanction. The link to my petition is here and that has links to the earlier decision.[20] I would appreciate the honest feedback of WMC, Schulz and other colleagues I have exchanged ideas and arguments with to aid in informing the arbcom's decision in this matter. I assume that feedback either here or at the petition above will be able to be referenced by the arbcom. Thank you for your consideration.--Silverback 03:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been brooding over this for some time. I have not followed your ArbCom case closely, so I don't know the exact reasoning of the committee. I mostly know you from the GW related articles. From what I see, I deduce that you come with a reasonably strong POV. You only insert material that supports that POV. While doing that, you often bring valuable sources, but more often than not, you misinterprete them. Since you are usually bold in editing, it always takes quite some effort to convince you about that and to move the article back to a neutral point of view. The article often become better as a result, but it takes a lot more effort than necessary. I think a more cooperative editing style would help a lot (e.g. proposing things on talk, which you now sometimes do - thanks!). Your also prone to subtle edits that individually are hard to object to, but in the sum shift the impression of the article towards a septic (to borrow the term from WMC) POV. Your edit summaries on those are not always helpful. On the other hand, you are often reasonable (in that one can reason with you), you do help revert plain vandalism, and you are much better than most other duped lackeys of the oil industry POV editors we get. I find a 1RR/article/week not really unreasonable. On the third hand, keeping track of things over such a long period is rather burdensome for an active editor, and I don't think that plain reverting is a major problem of you, at least on the GW pages. So I'd be fine with reducing it to say 1RR/article/day or something like that. I would also encourage you to step back and try to see beyond your POV. Even strongly held convictions are not guaranteed to be correct. You obviously have the capacity to understand complex issues. It just seems that sometimes you are to lazy to think on once you have found one interpretation that fits your POV. I'm all for lazyness, but not in thinking ;-). --Stephan Schulz 10:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I was the first to bring the new climate commitment results, and the new satellite results to attention of the community here. Those were not necessarily supportive of the skeptical POV. Although I think it is still pretty clear that the TAR modeling predictions could be parameterizing their models so that climate commitment from earlier forcings get attributed to GHGs and thus modeling the climate with a higher response to GHG increases than is justified. I think it is natural for memory to be selective for the more contentious issues. A lot of the language qualifying of the "consensus" position and a lot of the information on alternative explanations in the article are due to my efforts, and should not be controversial, ard are actually in the text of the TAR (if not in the summary statements). In working with with wMC, his knee jerk reaction is to revert. Most of what I have gotten into the article is by after his revert, defending my addition here, and then reverting back perhaps with some modified language. Because I could revert back, WMC had to be more reasonable, and often qualified the language to death, and I qualified his language. Frankly, even though my original statements were usually supported by peer reviewed literature, I was usually satisfied that the final language would be enough to let the critical thinker know there was other evidence and an alternative interpretation that couldn't be ruled out. Now that I am crippled by the sanction WMCs reverts just stand, and he just assumes that he has won the discussion. When he was under sanctions, I only used more than 1RR against him only once, because I don't believe in winning arguments that way. In retrospect, I now realize that he was perhaps more crippled by the 1RR per day than I had thought, because I thought the rule only applied to reverting the same material. I know that is how I interpreted it. That must have been frustrating for him.
I think the net result of my contributions on this article has been that the case for the Global warming proponents appears stronger, because the article is more balanced. I know I'm always suspicious of one side expositions that don't give due credit and respect to other POVs, and don't acknowledge areas where the evidence is weak or the understanding is poor. I think the article is suffering because some of the double standards being applied by the community here. The rejection of peer reviewed research because it is "too new" standard is completely arbitrary, and disrepects the peer review process with its review of the prior literature. Of course, part of the reason there is a double standard is because it is not applied by those that advocate it to POVs they agree with, and because I don't agree with it, I don't try to force consistent application. I have tried not to use tactics I disagree with to avoid hypocrisy and because I am interested in the science. I prefer discussion of the merits but am reconsidering that position because it puts me at a disadvantage in editing game. --Silverback 16:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the article is necessarily more balanced. It is more detailed, which may or may not be good (sometimes this hampers the flow that it becomes hard for a non-specialist to follow). As for your position of "mutually assured revert" or whatever I should call it, I very much disagree. If WMC reverts you (and he does have an itchy finger for that - somewhat understandable, given the amount of vandalism and plain nonsense we get on this article), just start discussing on talk. It's not as if William is the only one who has these articles on his watchlist. --Stephan Schulz 16:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Sb, and have said so on the arbcomm page. Just look at the t:Solar variation if you want to know why. Sb just doesn't get it. He consistently misinterpreted the commitment stuff (and does so above), and I haven't a clue what he means by the satellite stuff. Sb's stuff above is just revisionist. William M. Connolley 17:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Solar variation is a good example. Look at this diff where he completely removed S+V[21] with this as one of the intermediate edit summaries "s+v: rm the lot: see talk". The strong cosmic ray correlation was discussed in the IPCC TAR and has been advanced in the peer reviewed literature since then, both in terms of extending it to shorter time scales and in terms of a plausible mechanism for this indirect effect through low level clouds. WMC has removed the lot because HE considers it marginal although peer reviewers and editors of peer reviewed journals considered it signficant enough to publish. WMC believes I have misinterpreted the climate commitment stuff, but he does know that I have. There is no evidence that the model based predictions of the TAR attribute any of the predicted future warming to unrealized commitment from the past warming. Only one Climate commitment paper was cited in the TAR, and the important work was all done since then, (including later in the year of the TAR) and this has been pointed out on this talk page (see archives). As to the satellite data, I was the first to bring news of the revision to this page, also see the archives.--Silverback 13:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Correction Looking back, my post of the revision of the Christy satellite results must not have been to this page. I know that at the time someone reported it here, I had already read the peer reviewed papers and posted it on wikipedia somewhere. However, I think it must have been on one of the now deleted pages that get purged from our contribution logs.--Silverback 13:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be going round in the familiar circles. Sb is back to the tired old skeptic "it appeared in the PR literature, therefore it *must* appear in the article", which is wrong. Sb wrote the S+V stuff up in SV based on Singer, and so unsurprisingly it was wrong. One day Sb will learn to let go of Singer, and be happier for it.
But anyway, I think its time for other peoples opinions, if they care to voice them William M. Connolley 16:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

gci.uk.org was recently cited as a source

gci.uk.org was recently cited as a source. The source is apparently an "essay" without references or authors. These seems even less authoritative and peer reviewed than the articles from the Journal's Nature and Science that I often cite. This gci essay may also be subject to the oft cited "too recent" objection, since it is not even dated.--Silverback 13:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact it is being used to support is in the right ballpark, but you are right, we should get a more reliable value and provide a better source. Dragons flight 08:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Reason for not mentioning sunspot data in solar section?

Is there a reason it was omitted? Sunspot frequency figures are the standard reason people believe solar forcings are underestimated[22].Mrdthree 07:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, solar forcing is important and exactly how important is a subject of dispute, but given that solar activity has been basically flat for the last 50 years, it is rather difficult to attribute much of the recent global warming to it. Or to put it the way your own reference does:
Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot number may be taken as an indication that the Sun has contributed to the unusual degree of climate change during the twentieth century, we stress that solar variability is unlikely to be the prime cause of the strong warming during the last three decades3. In ref. 3, reconstructions of solar total and spectral irradiance as well as of cosmic ray flux were compared with surface temperature records covering approximately 150 years. It was shown that even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin.
So what are you trying to say? Dragons flight 07:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to say that the solar data is not as dissimilar as teh temperature data as one would be led to believe looking at the periodic functions displayed in the article. I want someone to look at the susnpot figure and the termperature figure and ask why. My motive is as I said I think solar forcings are currently being underestimated. If you are interested in my particular beliefs about global warming contact me.Mrdthree 08:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, but I think the article is not the right place to put in unproved theories that are not even supported by your own source. This discussion site is, though. So I'm putting your sentence that I recently deleted from the article in here:
While estimates of solar inputs appear unsupportive of a solar cause for global warming, many  
scientists have observed that changes in sunspot density and distribution, an event associated with 
solar emissions, has increased in a fashion that parallels 20th century termperature changes 
[23]
So let's go through this: First, you claim "many scientists have obersved" a thing. In fact, this is one paper, written by five people. If I'd quote it, I would be writing "Solanki et al.", finished. Second, you seem to have not be noticing the discussion arising from the article you quoted, see here. There it's stated that there is no unusually high activity of the sun itself going on these years, compared to the last 8,000 years. Third, your comment lacks a theory why sunspots should be causing global warming, while you already sorted out "a solar cause for global warming". This looks more like the famous story of storks and children then: Both of them are more often appearing, so there must be some sort of connection. Fourth, your linked graph shows the observed and modeled number of sunspots - but no temperature graph from proxy records is being compared to this. So this is again a very vague and highly assumptive (and in my opinion wrong) use of data in this case. Hardern 08:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Solanki, et all, still stand by their original reconstruction, see [24], where references also point to data confirming their original conclusions.--Silverback 09:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not offering a theory. I am offering data. As I sid before I thnk that the forcing due to solar inputs is underestimated. Sunspots are associated with solar flares and heightened solar emission. Sunspot counts are associated with climate changes Sunspot variability plays a role in determining solar activity and inputs in computer models. In the article is a temperature figure on the same timescale as the figure I linked to This can be directly compared.with here I am not an expert on climates but I am a scientist who does computer simulations and would be happy to share theories with you privately Mrdthree 10:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I read that you said "the forcing due to solar inputs is underestimated", yet you fail to provide a source, a reason or a theory to support that claim. All I can find is a single graph, indicating the number of sunspots has been rising. There is neither a comparison between sunspot numbers and global average surface temperature (despite your hint I should put them both together and see (what?) for myself), nor is there any statement in the linked article to support your claim, as Dragon's Flight already pointed out. So you quoted a source and said it would prove something not even the authors think is true!
Now I am indeed well aware that solar activity does play an important role in Earth's climate variations, yet data indicates that it is not causing present global warming, and I could again quote your own source for this, or this article by Solanki and Krivova. It states:
This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric heating caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux.
-- Hardern 11:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I too think we should not be quoting one Nature paper as absolute truth; the exact role of solar forcing is uncertain, though as pointed out above it can't explain the most recent warming. Solanki et al. would probably be at the extreme side of how-big-is-solar-forcing.

But anyway, since this is an aspect of solar variation, shouldn't it be thrashed out there first?

Also - I don't see a number for the solar-var / sunspot number correlation. Just saying "correlates" is near meaningless... could be zero. Anyone know? William M. Connolley 13:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

r=0.991 for variations in annual averages of sunspot numbers and top of atmosphere 10.7 cm flux (an easier to measure proxy for total solar irradiance) over the last 55 years. Dragons flight 17:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hardem-- thats good to know; but I think the periodic function for solar activity in the last twenty years gives a misimpression of the important role the sun plays. It presents too small a piece of the evidence, allowing the reader to be too easily persuaded the sun cannot account for a large share of the variance in temperature over the last 300 years. Connelly-- Here is my simple proposal for a correlation study: take sunspot data as input to a leaky Integrator ( simple dynamics assumptions) or a low pass filter ). Pick a time constant that captures the hockey stick ending with some of the fluctuations. Compare that with the temperature curve from the same time period (say 900 AD on). you think the temperature curve would not correlate with this sunspot derived function? I am pretty sure sunspots are used as inputs to make climate models (here). "Various studies have been made using sunspot number (for which records extend over hundreds of years) as a proxy for solar output (for which good records only extend for a few decades)." I can only imagine they do this because it correlates with global temperatures.Mrdthree 16:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

They do correlate, and this shouldn't be surprising. Since ice sheets and sea levels stabalized ~7000 years ago, we know that greenhouse gases were basically stable up till the industrial revolution. We also know that there won't be much orbital forcing over this period. So to first approximation, the best guess to explain any climate variability over the several thousand years before the industrial revolution is solar variation, since it is the known forcing factor most prone to changes prior to the industrial revolution. (Which is not to say that every climate change was solar, just that it is the first candidate one would usually look at.) However, since solar activity has been basically neutral since 1950, it is not a good candidate to explain the most recent changes. You might appreciate a look at this figure: Image:Climate Change Attribution.png. Dragons flight 17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I take it with a grain of salt. I do think almost all the major factors have been identified (except magnetosphere changes-- is it noise or a patterned signal?). But assigning parameters to them takes alot of measurement and decorrelation, which is hard to do without controlled experiments. It makes me want to see results before I believe.71.192.98.234 18:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
From what I've read about this topic, the correlation seems to come about via cosmic rays. The more cosmic rays hit the earth's atmosphere the more cloud formation you get and you get less solar radiation at the Earth's surface. Cosmic rays are strongly affected by magnetic fields. If the magnetic field is stonger, less cosmic rays will hit the earth's atmosphere. Now during solar maxima the magnetic fields are stronger and thus you get less clouds and therefore you have higher temperatures. At least that is the theory.Count Iblis 16:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Given your guys discussion I think the proper sentence should be " While solar inputs are unlikely to be the primary cause of global warming in the last 20 years, sunspot activity suggests that solar activity played a strong role in the global warming in years and centuries prior to the last few decades.[25]" Mrdthree 17:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you're still overselling it. Your words are wrong, and you need a better source than one graph. "strong" is also near-meaningless, though its implications are too... strong William M. Connolley 22:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what I ended up inserting at the beginning of the solar variations alternative theories:

In the years and centuries prior to the last few decades, solar activity, as measured by long term patterns in sunspot activity has been strongly correlated to measures of global temperature.[26]

Mrdthree 01:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this. You are over-using that figure. You are sourcing the assertion sunspot activity has been strongly correlated to measures of global temperature to that figure. Since that figure doesn't show temperature, you simply can't do it. Secondly, putting it first is wrong - probably the most important thing about the solar forcing, insofar as its known, is that its too weak. All the studies showing a *high* effect of solar forcing are non-physical: they are based on correlations.

And I don't know when Based on basic science, disappeared from the intro, but I've re-inserted it.

William M. Connolley 08:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Connelly, I dont understand your argument. Is it that you dont like me to using the term 'correlate' without an 'r' value? would you prefer 'a close fit' ? Do you disagree that a high correlation exists? Do you disagree that a close fit exists? Do you want the statement to be completely demonstrated by the foot note? If so would a compound figure of the temperature figure already in the paper and the sunspotgraphs together satisfy you? Do you disagree that recent global warming occurts on a background of higher sunspot activity at the centuries scale? Do you think that it would be adequate to link to the compound figure and say a 'close fit' exists betwen sunspot number and termperature? Do you disagree that sunspots are correlated to higher solar inputs? Do you disagree as to the accuracy of using sunspots as a historical measure of solar inputs?Mrdthree 20:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree with the statement:

"In the millenia prior to the last few decades, changes in reconstructed global temperature [27][28] and solar activity as reconstructed by proxies such as sunspot number[29] or related measures [30] show a coarse fit. This has led many to suspect variation in solar inputs may be a primary source of global warming. Despite these long term trends, direct variations in solar output appear too small to have substantially affected the climate in the last 50 years; nonetheless......."

Mrdthree 21:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"too small to have substantially affected the climate"??? The Stott result cited in the article attributes 16 to 36% to solar forcing. Is that "too small" or insubstantial?--Silverback 00:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
"...Despite these long term trends, recent variations in solar output appear too small to account for the changes in global temperatures observed in the last 50 years; nonetheless......."Mrdthree 03:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the solar bit again. The graphs simply don't support the argument. Try [31] against [32]. Does that show a close correlation? Of which solar recon against which T recon? Those show solar increasing since 1400 ish. Thats not what *any* of the T graphs show. You seem to have a fixed idea of what you want to see, and are producing graphs to buttress your argument without actually looking at them very carefully. In any event, doing it this way is Original Research. You need to find decent sources for this, not do the work yourself, which is Forbidden. Oh, and I'm not opposed to a reasonable re-write of the too-small bit; but its better than the new version William M. Connolley 16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Need more info

I believe this article needs more information on the effects of global warming, because there is a lot of it and very little of it is in the article. Infact, the beneficial effects is almost as big as the adverse effects on the page. This gives the impression that global warming is not very serious. —This unsigned comment was added by Frozen solid (talkcontribs) .

There is a link to the main article, Effects of global warming, which is 48k and has links to further details. This article is fairly large as it is. --Stephan Schulz 19:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Spam markers

Other and see also sections often link to major partisan sites. This is standard. I think you are misinterpreting policy here. JoshuaZ 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-science, misinformation external links

Are you sure? This isn't a partisan issue, but a scientific one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothergrimm (talkcontribs) --Hardern 07:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia does not take a scientific stand. See WP:NPOV. This is why for example, we discuss what the creationists arguments are also. (Generally when something is bizaarely pseudoscientific, it will be apparent from a reading of the wiki article, but the article itself must satisfy [[WP:NPOV). Does that clarify things? (Also you may want to sign your comments so people can easily tell who said what). JoshuaZ 05:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits by Butchnovak

I reverted the latest three edits by User:Butchnovak for the following reasons:

You wrote: "[Earth is warmer than it would be without] the production of both carbon dioxide from all oxygen breathing animals, and the production of oxygen from photosynthetic plants." Breathing of animals is, as far as I know, not a primary source of atmospheric CO2. In fact, animals do only emit CO2 that has been captured by plants before. So over all, they do not influence the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (except if they would destroy large forested areas, but I think on a global scale this is only done by humans). Anyway, I'm not so sure about the amount of animal biomass on Earth and its actual influences and would welcome any corrections in here. But to my knowledge, volcanoes and erosion do play a much bigger role. Biomass does play a role in seasonal variations of CO2 concentrations, though. As Carbon dioxide says, "On long timescales, atmospheric CO2 content is determined by the balance among geochemical processes including organic carbon burial in sediments, silicate rock weathering, and vulcanism."

You wrote: "For Billions of years, the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and movement has increased and lowered the mean temperature to a current temperature" It doesn't make sense to me that the greenhouse effect increased and thus the temperature lowered. How is this meant? What is meant by the "movement"?? And I think the long-scale climate history that you mention here, going into billion years is by far unknown (see here).

You wrote: "Current studies have not proven that the changes in average temperature over the last 100 years can be attributed to any single or collection of souces." What's the point in here mentioning that there is no proof in any single or collection of sources? You mean: There is no proof of global warming? Or that there is no proof of anthropogenic global warming? And what about the overwhelming set of clues for both? I know there is no "proof" in this - but as I recently read: There is no proof in a single case of lung cancer that is has been caused by smoking... and you might have a look at this.

You wrote: "This theory of an independant Earth cycle and human activity has however changed and it is now a world-wide debate." Sort of debate... over here in Europe, there is a debate going on about the extent of measures to undertake against global warming (and of course about scientific uncertainties). I'm not aware of any reasonable public statements that doubt global warming is happening. So the debate is not any longer about the "independent Earth cycle" and its rubbishness, but about humans and their short-sightedness.

You wrote: "[IPCC sayd temperatures might increase about 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius] However, per past studies a gradual change of .03 to .07 °C is more likely to be expected. Any rapid or extreme changes ofcourse can never be predicted." First, there is no source, second, I don't think this is true at all. And you added: "[Models showed the 1.4-5.8 degrees figure] However past records of temperature and previous estimeates show only the normal change of .3 and .7 °C" Now this is just larger by a factor of 10. And what is the "normal change"?

(btw: If you edit an article, please use the "Show preview" button right next to the lovely "Save page" button at the bottom of the page ;) this helps keeping an article's history clean)

Please answer here before putting it back into the article, and I'm sorry if I have understood anything wrong. Please correct me if I did :) I do not mean to offend you in any way. Hardern 13:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also see my remark at User talk:Butchnovak--Stephan Schulz 13:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Reason for adding "Controversial Topic" and "POV" headings

I added the "POV" heading to the main article and "controversial topic" heading to the discussion page because I believe that they're appropriate for this topic. The article as it exists now doesn't present a neutral point of view. On the contrary, it is slanted towards the point of view of proponents of the theory of human-induced global warming. Unfortunately, I believe that undermines the credibility of the entry. I've heard that anyone who tries to make the article more neutral has their edits reversed within minutes of placing them. As biased as the article is, I'm surprised that it received a "Good Article" rating. I thought that the point of Wikipedia was to "present the facts and let people make up their own mind on what is true?" It wouldn't take much to make this article neutral, all it needs is to qualify some of the absolute statements. If anyone wants to know which statements I believe present a non-neutral POV, I'll be more than willing to list them here. cla68, 28 Mar 06

Please do list them. Dragons flight 21:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The controversial tag is fine. The POV tag isn't, and I've removed it. Please list your objections, as you and DF suggest. It would be nice if you'd review the talk and archives, because just about everything has been discussed to death already. The "good" tag - I added that; its been uncontroversial; I've seen no objections, up till now William M. Connolley 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Human-induced global warming is a theory, not a fact. This article presents it as a fact. Therefore, the POV tag is appropriate. Like I said, though, there's only a few sentences (about 4 or 5) that would need to be qualified to make the article more neutral and, thus, make the POV tag unnecessary. I'll list them here as soon as I can. cla68
Cla, on this topic we must be careful about wording. There are two issues here: global warming, and an anthropogenic cause. As to the first issue, the article says very clearly (in the first paragraph!), Global warming is an observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. As for the second issue, it continues, Part of this increase may be due to natural processes, and would have occurred independently of human activity. The remainder is due to a human-induced intensification of the greenhouse effect. This seems completely NPOV to me, and in fact gives a bit too much weight to "natural processes". Please do list the sentences you have questions with. Also, please sign your comments with "~~~~". thanks. bikeable (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict - reply to the original poster):The article primarily describes the current scientific consensus. In fact, it gives rather more weight to the sceptics than appropriate. Some people have been working on this careful balance for a long time, and have seen, discussed, and rejected very many arguments (btw, on either side of the fence - see e.g. Talk:Global warming/extreme weather extrapolation graph). That's why some reappearing arguments often get reverted rather quickly. If you have any concrete stuff you want to have in, try to suggest it here on talk. --Stephan Schulz 22:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that this theory is correct. This article does not ignore the alternative viewpoints but neither does it give them equal weight. This is in line with Wikipedia policy. --NHSavage 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, next time you'd better avoid the sentence "... is a theory not fact". It has rather negative associations, e.g. with evolution (theory not fact) and WMD (fact not theory). :) Count Iblis 23:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cla's suggestions

I understand everyone's point of view on the matter, and appreciate the serious thought and analysis everyone has put into making this entry as good as it is. And, I should add, that the scientific explanations in the article are excellent. But, the apparent point of view of portions of the entry is what I'm talking about. I notice that this has been a fairly contentious debate, since I see on the discussion page for "Global Warming Controversy" that two of the users featuring prominently in this discussion were placed on probation for engaging in "revert wars." Anyway, I'll list the statements I think aren't neutral along with my suggestion on how to mitigate them in italics. Here we go:

  • (1st paragarph) The remainder is due to a human-induced intensification of the greenhouse effect. This statement isn't qualified, but stating an absolute that at least some of global warming is due to human-induced effects. There are some out there who disagree that any of the effects of global warming are due to human-related actions. Therefore, it should say something like, "Most (or many) of the scientific community believe that the remainder is due to human-induced...."
  • There is no-one with any serious scientific credentials that believes what you've said. Even Michaels doesn't believe it. Also, your proposition doesn't even make sense: some of the effect is natural; some believe that the remainder is human-caused: what are you proposing, that some believe that its caused by space aliens? In fact that sentence really needs re-ordering, to put human cause first William M. Connolley 19:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (1st paragraph of Overview section) The scientific consensus on global warming is that the Earth is warming, and that humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are making a significant contribution. I suggest that using the word "consensus" throughout this sentence indicates bias towards one side of the debate. I would suggest using, "The scientific consensus on global warming is that the Earth is warming, and much of the scientific community believes that humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are making..."
  • Sounds pointless; "sci cons" qualifies both halves of the sentence already William M. Connolley 19:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
There is in fact a strong scientific consensus about these issues. The IPCC report is already a fusion document. It has been explicitely endorsed by essentially all relevant scientific bodies. And when the Bush administration went opinion shopping, the US associations issued further confirming reports. I personally was also very impressed by Naomi Oreskes's analysis in Science.--Stephan Schulz 20:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (Last paragraph under Causes of Global Warming) At present, none of these has more than a small number of supporters within the climate science community. This sentence isn't necessary, since it has already been stated that most within the scientific community theorize that human-induced elements are responsible at least in part for global warming. It makes the article look like it is biased towards one side of the discussion or debate.
  • Disagree. It needs to be pointed out there that those theories are only listed for completeness: they are non-runners. William M. Connolley 19:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • (Under Public Controversy) Although not fully settled, the current consensus from the official scientific communities on climate change is that recent warming is largely human-caused. There is near consensus among scientists that global warming is already occurring due to greenhouse gases. I know this is arguable, but I think "consensus" is too strong of a word. From what I've read, including in this discussion page, there isn't precisely a "general agreement" that recent warming is largely human-caused. Therefore, I suggest saying something like, "...many from the scientific communities on climate change..."
  • Here you are simply wrong. We have listed the opinions of the science academies around the world... you have listed... your own personal opinion based, as far as can be seen, on nothing at all William M. Connolley 19:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As pointed out, the article does state some of the opposing points of view. That's not in dispute here. It's just that, in spite of all that, the article still appears to favor one side over the other, which is a Wikipedia no-no. If an article wants to promote a particular point of view, then it belongs on a different web forum or needs the "POV" banner at the top of the main page. 30 Mar 06 "~~~~" cla68

Deeerrrr... you're not supposed to put in the "nowiki" bit too William M. Connolley 19:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Connolley, If you're one of the main authors of the article, I'm fairly sure you're able, if not necessarily willing, to engage in constructive debate over this issue. After looking through the entries for global warming controversy, State of Fear, and Michael Crichton, I now understand that you might be somewhat weary from your constant disagreements with others over ideas that you appear to firmly believe in. However, I hope that you don't give up on engaging in constructive and civil debate over these topics, as one of the great things about Wikipedia is that it provides this mechanism to do it, but only if all are willing and able to do so. cla68
Dr Connolley to you, though in fact my username or just WMC is better. And *please* learn to sign your name, its really not difficult, you just put four tilde's in a row. Constructive debate... sure. What else is the above? You've made a pile of the conventional sort of errors; hopefully you'll be able to learn from them. William M. Connolley 19:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the debate and discussion on my suggestions. I think we've made our points and, thus, the entry is continuing to evolve with community involvement as it should. Others can read the article, read the discussion, explore the related Wikipedia and external links, and hopefully make up their own minds on where the "truth" lies. Cla68 14:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

About the consensus thing: It is being posted quite often now, but I kindly suggest reading the following Oreskes Article about the scientific consensus (and when you like the Blog entries about the following discussion) as well as a report about US newspapers and their coverage of global warming as a topic, called "Balance as Bias".
See also Scientific opinion on climate change. Cheers, Hardern 17:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Neutrality

Reading the following quote gave me a much better understanding of one aspect of the conflict in discussions about GW:

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus....There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." - Michael Crichton

The more that the word "consensus" is used in this article (whether in support of or against GW), the weaker the arguments become. Gather the facts (hard, emperical data), and let the facts speak for themselves. The best weapon against misinformation and propaganda (which can come from both directions) is cold, hard facts. I expect that there's more than enough emperical data to open people's eyes to the reality of GW (whatever that reality is).

Ideally, I'd like to see this article have three main sections:

  1. What the theory of GW is (it's fair to start with this since it's an article about the theory of GW, regardless of whether people agree with the theory or not)
  2. Data in favor of GW (again, since the article is about the theory itself, it's reasonable to first present the data in support of the theory)
  3. Data against GW

The article should contain no opinions, other than as necessary for describing what the theory of GW is. Any additional opinions should be limited to external links, with each set of links clearly labelled as to whether they support or are against the theory of GW. --Flash 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Crichton is cr*p. The quote from him, above, is rubbish. Of course its rubbish: how can it possibly be true to say that something is wrong simply because people agree on it? You've started from such a bad premise, I don't see how you'll recover. William M. Connolley 08:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Did Crichton say something is wrong simply because people agree on it? Aren't you attacking a staw man?--Silverback 00:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree about Crichton (although "Prey" is in my "to read" stack). He is not a scientist and he does not understand science. I'd like to see his list of "great scientists" that broke with the then-current scientific consensus. As for the rest: What you propose is a) unrealistic and b) original research. There are at least hundreds of reputable papers published on different relevant aspects of climate and global warming. We cannot explain things starting at first principles. Luckily, we don't have to, as several scientific organizations have published summaries of the science. And since they all essentially agree, and since nearly all competent scientists agree as well, we call that "scientific consensus". --Stephan Schulz 12:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Even a great idiot can sometimes say useful and wise things. Ideas should be judged on their own, without being prejudiced by prior notions about the people behind them.
Right. And I've explained, above, why Crichtons ideas are junk. I await your rebuttal to that; and your reply to Stephans point about scientific opinion, and... William M. Connolley 16:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
My wife points out that rather than calling Crichton the bozo that he is, it might be more helpful to point to the various RC posts taking him to bits: they are http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion-ii-the-climatologists-return/ and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/inhofe-and-crichton-together-at-last/, if you've previously missed them :-) William M. Connolley 20:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I notice that in the first reference Hansen's predictions are discussed. Notice that in his scenerio C with GHGs held at 2000 levels, there is no further temperature increases. This contradicts the climate commitment results and shows that the "good match" he achieved in scenerio B must have attributed warming to GHG that was actually due to climate commitment. His old work was obviously wrong, even when the fit was "good".--Silverback 00:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There is only a little increase, which is interesting. Could be just nat var; who knows? But I don't see how your conclusion follows William M. Connolley 08:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
If something is unrealistic, that doesn't by itself mean that it shouldn't be a goal that people strive for. In the event that GW is real, it's unrealistic to expect people to change their lifestyles to accomodate this, but it is nonetheless essential to make the effort. It's unrealistic to expect people across the world to stop waging war and committing genocide, but it's essential to make the effort. Having an ideal in mind, can help to bring valuable progress towards it, even if the goal is never completely reachable.
This article is primarily about the science of GW, not about the political consequences William M. Connolley 16:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
A few examples of "great scientists" breaking with the consensus:
  • Einstein: The notion of time being relative, and of matter and energy being equivalent
Did not go against scientific consensus. Pointcare and Lorentz, e.g. had prepared the ground. Together, they opened a new paradigm. It did go against popular belief, of course.
  • Galileo and Kepler: The notion of the earth revolving around the sun
To early for going against any "scientific consensus". There was no scientific community (and little real science) at the time. Again, they broke with strongly held non-scientific beliefs.
  • Darwin: Natural selection and evolution
Again, did not go against any scientific consensus, unless you call "We have no good model" a scientific consensus.
  • Hawking and Penrose: The big bang (a derisive term coined by their peers)
Again, what scientific consensus did they break with?
  • Newton: The concept of light as a particle
Same here. If you offer a new explantion for something that does not have a satisfiable explanation, you do not break with the consensus. You introduce something new. You may even initiate a shift of paradigms. But to break consensus, you need to go against an exisiting opinion held by the vast majority of scientists at the time. Can you tell me what the scientific consensus on the creation of species was in 1840? Or the scientific consensus on the interrelation of inertial systems in 1904? --Stephan Schulz 23:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


This isn't to suggest that anyone who breaks from the consensus is automatically a great scientist, but if a scientist's work was remarkable, that tends to suggest that they strayed in a significant way from what their peers knew or believed--otherwise there was nothing remarkable about it. More importantly, if a scientist's work is sound, and if their results are concrete, then the data will hold up on its own, regardless of whether it goes with or against the consensus views of the time. --Flash 16:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hawking and Penrose didn't do the BB. But quite apart from that... all of the people above actually produced good evidence for their views. They didn't just wurble something about "oh, its the consensus, it must be wrong, so I must be right" William M. Connolley 16:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. Looks like the role Hawking and Penrose played was more in providing mathematical support for the Big Bang theory. So I'd substitute "Georges Lemaître" for Hawking and Penrose on that list. I went back and wikified the names on the list to make it easier to catch any other inaccuracies. --Flash 16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Flash, I think you make a good point on how the issue should be addressed in the article and your suggestion is appreciated. Others who read this discussion section, whether or not they post their own reply, will be able to see your point and be able to consider it in forming their own opinions. Unfortunately, if you read the discussion sections for this and the other GW-related topics (global warming controversy, Michael Crichton, etc) you'll quickly see that several of the human-induced GW theory advocates who participate in these discussions (and one especially in particular) appear to be exceptionally "thin-skinned" and pejorative when it comes to discussing alternative ideas on the issue (but, to be fair, many of the posts advocating other positions appear to be inappropriately emotional and personal also). But, again, I think your suggestion is a good one and should be seriously considered by the community. Cla68 15:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Finding the gems of insight which go against scientific consensus is the job of other scientists, not an encyclopedia. To rewrite the article to give weight to an extremely marginal (in terms of number of professional adherants) view because you believe it to be correct is the very definition of original research. --TeaDrinker 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The idea isn't to go against (or with) the consensus, but to simply present the facts as they are. Why would it necessarily give weight to the minority, rather than to the majority? If the theory of GW is sound, focusing on the facts will strengthen the theory (and will also improve the quality of the article). In science, it's never a bad idea to present facts. Facts are only a detriment in the realm of misinformation and propaganda. --Flash 17:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The writing of encyclopedias is about cataloging human understanding, and on scientific topics, the understanding of scientists. For practical reasons, Wikipedia takes consensus driven approach in how it approaches all issues (see WP:NPOV#Undue weight), such that every significant opinion should be reported in rough proportion to which it is held. Still Flash, your objection is a good one. This is not science, and Wikipedia is not a scientific publication. The act of writing an encyclopedia is more akin to science journalism than actual science. We are not here to form a new synthesis or reach any new conclusions. We are only here to report on the shape of the debate, and provide such information as is relevant to understanding what global warming is about. And yes that means reporting on people's opinions and the "consensus" such as it is. As for "cold, hard facts", I agree that this article is benefitted by the inclusion of such facts, particularly those which are widely agreed upon by all sides, as such facts set the stage for the debate. However, you must also realize that there are many "facts" that are in reality the interpretations of data. For example, John Q. Scientist might state that temperatures in Nome, AL are rising because 40 years of measurements tell him so, but Roger Argues-Alot might dispute this with arguments about calibration, or heat islands or other things. So ultimately there is very little data that can be regarded as black or white, for or against. Most data is subject to interpretation, reevaluation and ultimately opinion. Which brings me right back to saying that the point of an encyclopedia is give people an understanding of the shape of the issue by fairly reporting on the majority and minority opinions. Dragons flight 17:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In the bigger picture, this touches on how to encourage people with a wide range of views to be able to work together constructively and peacefully towards a common goal. Opinions seem to have a way of dividing people more than bringing them together. If the goal of this article is to present a consensus, opinions do not lead in that direction; opinions lead in the direction of escalating disagreement.
Facts are a neutral medium for discussion and collaboration; there's nothing inherently emotional or biased about raw scientific measurements. Data can be misused and distorted, but that shouldn't be an argument for avoiding data; it should be an argument for finding more-reliable ways to gather and present it, decreasing the chance of it having been influenced or altered.
One of the natural functions of Wikipedia is weeding out information that can't survive being held up to public scrutiny (and the internet in general is a powerful tool for exposing misinformation). This happens to some extent with every article. It should be possible to apply this somewhat to existing data regarding GW, without being non-encyclopedic, and without requiring original research. --Flash 20:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Raw scientific data on climate change is nice, but unusable in this article. To make it usable, it needs to be quality checked, processed, averaged and turned into something that applies to more than one weather station. Like the graph that we have on the page already. Or the 0.6 +/- 0.2 thats on the page already. But you can't put up the raw data. There is also no way we can write an article on wiki about GW and not mention, prominently, the most likely explanation for it William M. Connolley 20:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is something about this "skeptics are silenced by orthodox climatologists"-thing I always wonder about. Above it's mentioned that so great inventions have been made by people who broke up with the "scientific" consensus of past ages, and thus GW skeptics might eventually do the same. Have you never noticed how young the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is compared to decades and centuries in which only natural effects seemed to be relevant? Of course Svante Arrhenius discovered more than a century ago the possibility of human CO2 emissions influencing the world's climate. But is just since 1992 when the UNFCCC was agreed upon that there might indeed be levels of dangerous interferencce with the global climate system caused by humans. And even during the '92 Rio Summit it was stated that action should be taken to protect the climate even if the scientific understanding gives no 100% proof about anthropogenic influence and its outcomes. Therefore, it is an anstonishing sign of maturity for science having been able to adapt to lots of new findings as fast as it did! To gather so much evidence for anthropogenic global warming that after not even two decades there of course still are uncertainties, but no reasonable doubt about the basic picture! Global warming is the nwe idea which broke up with the traditional mainstream - not the other way round!

Thus, my statement is that the argument used by pro-skeptics (or whatever someone might call them or him- or herself) about global warming consensus blocking relevant and revolutionary scientific findings just fires back, concluding that the climatologists' community is the new idea, not the skeptics are.

And for a last word: I don't see why GW suddenly got the "neutrality"-button... I would suggest to put that away as soon as it has been put there. Hardern 14:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?

Is the full text of the article with the above title by Solanki (2003) available free of charge on the internet someplace? I can find lots of cites of it but not the article itself. An example web page citing it is here [33]. Here is an excerpt:

"They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time."

If this excerpt is an example of the reasoning in the Solanki article then it is faulty. Note, that Solar actitivity would not have had to increase in the last 30 years to cause a temperature rise. Climate commitment studies show that the temperature can increase under constant forcing, if the oceans have not yet equilibrated. A process that may take centuries. With solar activity at a high plateau for the last 70 years, and equilibration interrupted or even partially reversed by the aerosol caused cooling during part of this period of high solar activity, climate commitment from solar forcing can account for part of the increase even when solar forcing is constant.--Silverback 10:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

From the website of the second author [34]. They find best relationship with a lag of about a decade (e.g Figure 2C). Everything else aside, the correlation is pretty striking. Thanks for pointing this paper out. Dragons flight 10:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanx. Good find!--Silverback 10:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What you are looking at, I think, is the primitiveness of the level of the solar-climate connection. They really still are at the level of correlating things and matching wiggles on graphs. Whereas the GCM people have been doing far more sophisticated attribution. And the answer to your question is of course "no". William M. Connolley 10:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

rm xs Solanki; which is in any case ont really relevant)

WMC, how is it not relevant? Perhaps you forget that GHG forcing is dependent on solar forcing, if solar activity is highly likely to decrease early in this century, then the scenerios for the next IPCC report should include that and not assume that solar forcing stays at this historically high level. Recall that even the subsequent exchange in Nature still left the current solar forcing at least as among the 3 highest in the last millenium, and did not dispute the statistics on the duration of levels of high activity.--Silverback 10:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You are still riding your solar hobbyhorse too hard. All the indications are that GHGs are dominant for the future, with solar only a minor role, and not forecastable to any useful degree. GHG forcing is dependent on solar forcing is nonsense, obviously. As for then the scenerios for the next IPCC report should include that - this is OR. Write the IPCC a nice letter and point it out. If they agree, we can consider whether it should go in.
"nonsense"? Where do you think most of the energy that GHG's trap comes from if not the solar forcing, the earth's molten core? That the IPCC should extend their scenerios to include solar activity drop offs in solar forcing typically seen in the Holocene solar variation, is just good basic science, not OR. I am not proposing to put a recommendation to the IPCC in the article proper, we are free to discuss the science here.
I don't know if Nature's "Brief Communications Arising" receive full peer review, but they represent some further scrutiny, that lends further credence to the exceptional level of current solar activity. It would be scientific mal-practice for the IPCC to assume these levels of solar activity will continue.
The information you deleted certainly was relevant. The uncertainty in solar forcing for the next few decades can be addressed by multiple scenerios. The evidence of Solanki and other research based on the Holocene record is that we don't need to consider scenerios with higher levels of solar forcing, which fortunately decreases the parameter space some.--Silverback 18:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't be silly. Its OR cos *you* are proposing it, rather than finding out there. William M. Connolley 09:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Why bring it up, this is the talk page? If you read the TAR you will see that the scenerios assume constant solar forcing, that's not OR. If you read Solanki and the exchanges of correspondence afterwards, you will see that solar forcing is currently at a historically high level that is very unlikely to be sustained through the rest of the century, that reasearch is itself built upon a body work. Mentioning that is not OR. Don't succumb to pressure to toe the party line. Perhaps keeping your job is about sucking up to the consensus, but that isn't science. Follow the evidence if you want to do real science and not just be a party hack. Given the better statistics we have on solar variability, we should qualify the TAR model predictions, with their admitted assumptions in their scenerios about solar forcing.--Silverback 11:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess you've given up on having the 1/7 lifted. Anyway, as it happened I asked a Q after a talk today at EGU: I said: you're regressing T against ENSO, solar, etc etc; and assuming an instantaneous response. Wot about lags, sez I. Total blankness was the response William M. Connolley 14:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

ouch! Well at least you asked the question, maybe that will get them thinking. Good work. Perhaps they should be forwarded a the climate commitment papers. --Silverback 16:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

New section and Radio

Ok, I'm confused. The edit summary said "Added stuff that I heard on NPR about emigration from Tuvalu" and all those sources were already in on the last edit as far as I can tell. So is the new material in those sources or not? JoshuaZ 23:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


I'm a bit confused about your comment. I added text that said "One example of environmental refugees is ... Tuvalu." I had heard about this on NPR. It turns out that the Tuvaluans are also mentioned in the Effects of global warming article.

If you want to bring that text over to the global warming article, it is superior to what I wrote. I just haven't had the time and energy to do that yet.

Richard 02:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine then. I'll bring it over then. Sorry for the confusion. JoshuaZ 02:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Request review of Adaptation to global warming article

Well, I was "bold" and extracted the "adaptation" text from the Mitigation of global warming article into a new article Adaptation of global warming as suggested by others in the Talk:Mitigation of global warming page. Within minutes, the new article was put up as a candidate for deletion on the grounds that it was a "how-to" article which violated WP:NOT or that it was original research which violated WP:NOR. Other people said that it was not encyclopedic.

I have addressed these issues by expanding the article significantly and providing references to sources. Hopefully, this will convince those who voted for deletion to change their minds.

Just in case it doesn't, would you take a look at the Adaptation to global warming article and then vote to keep or delete the article?

If the vote is to delete the article then I will bring much of that text back into the Mitigation of global warming article which will make it longer and harder to read (which is why I created the new article in the first place).

Thanks.

Richard 05:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

More content on regarding on Global warming

I personally think more content on controversy regarding Global warming should be added to this article to be more neutral. In fact, I think the article should be restructured to create two distinct sections : theories, datas and scientists who support global warming and theories, datas and scientists who oppose global warming. The current article isn't biased in any way, but the mention on the opposition of the theory of global warming is a bit scattered. any opposition and comment?--Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 12:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is structured as it is because it foremost documents the current state of knowledge. There is no serious scientific opposition to the consensus view. In particular, there is no coherent alternative model or theory. That is why the opposition appears scattered - it is. We have a couple of other articles on the topic - see especially List of scientists opposing global warming consensus and Global warming controversy. Since there is no serious scientific dissent, I dislike your proposed structure. Instead of starting from the strong, well justified consensus model, it would start from a mostly non-existing dichtonomy. We don't start the article on Earth by discussing the flat- vs. the roundearthers (and the flat-earthers at least more or less agree on one view).--Stephan Schulz 12:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd second Stephan; and in fact even if there was such a split, just "presenting opposing views" isn't a good idea on a science article William M. Connolley 12:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Stephan and William. About scientific consensus: See my last post under Cla'S suggestion. Hardern 13:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Now that I think back, my original idea was a bad one. Thanks for taking the time to explain.--Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 13:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Gosh! Its nice to hear people changing their minds in response to reasoned argument, it gives one some faith in the process of discussion! William M. Connolley 14:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys going to stand up for intellectual honesty and fairness against WMC at all?

WMC deleted: "Assuming that previous high levels of solar activity are typical, Solanki estimates that there is only an 8% probability that this current period of high activity can last another 50 years.(Solanki 2004)"[35] It is fully supported by the peer reviewed reference. It isn't too "new" like some seem to have been concerned about in the past.--Silverback 17:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It's clear that there is a group of people led by WMC who are enforcing orthodoxy on this page. Like it or not, they seem to "own" this page if only by their willingness to revert other people's edits out.

A day or two ago, I inserted what I thought was a fair statement that the minority thought that the lack of publication was an indication of bias by the majority consensus. I didn't say that the minority opinion was correct, just that they felt that way. This, however, was edited out by WMC.

I didn't bother objecting because I'm not interested in getting involved in any long edit wars over the article content or even long discussions on this Talk page.

Of course, the fact that I'm pretty much a believer in GWT makes me less interested in waging a campaign for the other side. Presumably there are more passionate people out there who are doing this.

The bottom line is: I don't believe the Global Warming article provides a balanced view of the controversy and I believe it should. However, that's not what the orthodoxy enforcers want the article to be and so it isn't.

Instead of wasting your time trying to get stuff into this article, go improve the Global warming controversy article. It really needs some help.

Richard 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I regret and apologize for the above intemperate comment about WMC. I do think there is an orthodoxy being imposed here but I don't have enough experience to know that it is "led by WMC". That was an impression that I got from reading some stuff on the Talk page. Also, on reflection, I do think there is more balance in this article than I had originally given it credit for. I think the real problem is that both this article and the global warming controversy article could be organized better.
I'm trying to point the direction towards a better organization with my new introductory paragraph and the new section headings that I inserted. There's more work to be done but that's all I have energy for today.
Richard 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not noticed the particular change William made you mentioned, Silverback (and btw you can kindly put the "led by WMC"-thing aside). However, this whole "controversy" seems more and more odd to me. And there are a few reasons for this:

I don't think I used the term "led by WMC" that was someone else.--Silverback 05:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, I mixed it up because it appears directly beneath your comment. Hardern 08:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm from Europe, from Germany to be more precise, and a kind of "debate" which is obviously going on in the US is not happening here at all. In fact, without the internet and some weird journalists, I would not have noticed this debate at all. Strange enough, this "not noticing" is confirmed by the finding Naomi Oreskes concluded from her 2004 study, stating that "skeptics" do not play a role in science at all. But they do for sure play a (way too important, in my eyes) role in the public and political debate (as a political scientist, this is getting closer to my field of knowledge).

Second, all I as a non-natural scientist can put together, there is some argueing about uncertainties and so, but not about the basic picture - humans emit greenhouse gases and thus warm up Earth. Since there is no proof of that, it is and will for a long time be called "theory" - a theory with an overwhelming sum of evidence.

Third, there is no single scientist and especially no single theory which can explain all climate-related effects we are already observing. The "skeptics" are called skeptics because they are no homogenous group. There is everyone involved - oil industries, politicians, a handfull of scientists, and mostly internet users as it appears to me. These guys throw theories like other people change their underpants, and not one of these has only the slightest chance in explaining all these things like the IPCC summaries can.

If this "debate" should be mirrored in an article (and for the record, it should), the Global warming controversy article surely is the better place for this.

About the edit: William should say why he deleted the stuff. After a short time thinking, what you wrote does not seem wrong to me. Hardern 19:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read my new introductory paragraphs. I think this gives the reader the "lay of the land".
Also, please read my comment below about defining the focus of this article. I think this article can be either an overview of global warming as a debate over public policy or a detailed scientific article about the science behind global warming. If it tries to be both, as it seems to be right now, then it will fail at doing one or the other or both.
My feeling is that we should clean up the global warming controversy article so that it does a good job of presenting the position of the skeptics and then honestly point readers to that article. That's why I've brought mention of the controversy up into the opening paragraphs. Note that I haven't given it a lot of credence or a lot of discussion. I just mention it, why it exists and provide a link to the global warming controversy article. I also make it clear that the controversy is partly driven by the public policy debate.
Let's consider moving discussion of public policy response to global warming out of this article. I think it will help it quite a bit.
Richard 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Remark on the US and scientific theory: don't forget this is the only developed country in the world where a significant proportion of the population rejects evolution. Rd232 talk 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think WMC's judgment is poor, but because he gives too much credence to the global warming skeptics, not that he doesn't give enough. I suppose that might lead some people to think that he is doing a fair job, but truth isn't a democracy, or even an opinion poll. My opinion is based on the pure mathematical trend of historical data, and the fact that the CO2 concentration fits very closely a near-exponential logistic sigmoid curve which doesn't inflect until the year 2253 A.D. Skeptics have essentially free reign here: there are plenty of statements in these articles which still cast doubt on the magnitude, and the very existence of the greenhouse effect. Solanki is an astronomer who doesn't quantify his predictions in terms of radiative forcing energy collection in the atmosphere, and there is no evidence to support the idea that the minor variation in solar output is anywhere near the magnitude of greenhouse gas heat trapping, so in this case WMC's edit was justified. --James S. 19:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: Everyone should take into account that the "skeptics" have million-dollar P.R. budgets from multinational fossil fuel conglomerates and even the against-all-science support of the U.S. and many other major governments, while their nominal opponents such as myself, and to a lesser extent people such as WMC, are essentially volunteering their time to fight such a juggernaught. Our only advantage is that we have truth on our side, but it's like arguing with people who buy ink by the supertanker. Still eventually the truth will prevail. In the mean time, everyone needs to carefully consider exactly how much money is being spent in support of the "skeptics" -- and how very wrong the people who have been spending that money have been proven time and time again. --James S. 20:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should judge the proposed statement the merits. Solanki is not a skeptic, and the statement is about solar variation, and does not compare its importance to GHGs. The consensus should not feel so fearful of this peer reviewed research.--Silverback 20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Solanki actually did compare his measurements of solar variation to the greenhouse effect, but not in a peer-reviewed journal. [36] Sunspot records from 75 years ago just aren't all that great -- of course there were fewer recorded, because there were fewer full-time solar observers back then. His peer reviewed work states that outright, but when he goes and talks to the press, he starts claiming that you can't judge whether solar output is more or less than radiative forcing. Nonsense! Radiative forcing is easy to measure as function of the infrared translucency of the atmosphere, which is easy to measure over time from air trapped in ice. I'm not afraid of Solanki, just disgusted with him. Denial is all too easy to fall into, even for professional scientists. --James S. 21:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanx for the cite. I hadn't realized it, but this shows that Solanki has reversed his earlier quite pro-global warming position and become a skeptic or at least open to evidence about relative attribution. However also in that cite that another scientist, David Viner noted that the study also showed that over the past 20 years, the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase. "This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change,". This is evidently another scientist who hasn't heard of climate commitment. It is the same ignorance as WMC encountered, a total blank when he brought up the question of lag.
BTW, don't confuse radiative forcing with just one way of measuring part of it. If the earth were not warmed by the Sun, the "radiative forcing" by GHG would be much, much less.--Silverback 21:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating when a page is "hijacked" by someone or a group with an agenda and who apparently feel threatened by other viewpoints. It's especially frustrating because it's so clearly in violation of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Someone appears to be complaining about it [[37]]. If this doesn't work, (and I doubt it will), the next steps would be mediation and arbitration. But, to be honest, the way Wikipedia is structured, ultimate resolution is unlikely. The beauty, and sometimes downfall, of Wikipedia is that it's policed by its members. There really is no ultimate "authority" that can resolve an issue when the community members can't resolve it. At least, I've never seen it happen. Thus, we'll have to hope that anyone who reads the main article will also read the discussion page so that they can get a better picture of all the views that some are trying to suppress. 152.119.104.71 16:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Road map" for global warming related articles

I am putting this forth for discussion so as not to waste my time and annoy the maintainers of this page with a large edit that has to be reverted.

My idea is that this page is a "de facto" first page for most readers. It is far more likely that someone will type "global warming" as a search term than "global warming controversy", "effects of global warming", "mitigation of global warming" or "adaptation of global warming". All those articles have a link pointing back to this one near the top of the page anyway.

So, my thought is that we should provide the reader with a "road map" that tells him/her what this article covers and what is covered in other related articles. Yes, I know these links can be found in the "See also" section but that's way at the bottom of a long article and requires the reader to know that they need to scroll down to that section.

What I propose is something like this:

This article covers the widely accepted scientific basis for global warming. It does not cover the arguments of those who o:bject to global warming theory. Those are discussed in global warming controversy. A detailed discussion of the effects and consequences of global warming is provided in Effects of global warming. Strategies for mitigating the effects of global warming is provided in Mitigation of global warming. Strategies for adapting to global warming are provide in Adaptation to global warming.
As I look at what I've just written, I can see that this particular text would look really gross because of the "Information about A is provided in A" pattern. Please ignore that problem for the moment and comment on whether you think this general idea makes sense. We can fine-tune the wording and presentation once we agree that this would be a good thing to do.
Thanks for your time.
Richard 04:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I created a template for a navigation box for global warming some time ago (shown right), but it never really reached agreement about how it should be laid out or what it should include. I suspect something like this it really the way to go given that global warming has been growing across so many different articles. Dragons flight 14:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your proposed navigation box sounds like a good idea. Could you put it in Global warming / sandbox so that others could see it and comment on it? Thanx.
Richard 17:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, it is shown at right, so you should be able to see. The template is {{global warming}} for people interested in improving it. Dragons flight 19:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new focus for this article

This article is getting way long. The intent of the new opening paragraphs that I wrote are intended to point the reader at subsidiary articles. I think we need to pull out more stuff but we need to have some consensus on what this article covers and does not cover.

My proposed separating line is that this article should be about the science of global warming and that another article should cover the public policy debate.

If you agree that this should be the separating line, then we could insert into the introduction along the lines of the following:

"This article does not address the controversy because the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for the greater part of the temperature increase. Nor does this article address the public policy debate about what, if anything, should be done to respond to the threat of global warming.

This article focuses on the scientific basis for the theory that global warming is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases and the climate models which are used to predict the effects of global warming on climate and environment."


I don't want to insert this yet because doing so would require moving some big pieces of this article to new articles. I want to get some consensus around that before I take such a bold step.

Richard 17:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In principle, there is nothing wrong with being WP:Bold, although this is one of the worst articles for such a step;-). As for your proposal: This is exactly the focus we try to maintain, i.e. there is nothing new. It might be useful to state this in the introduction somewhere (near the end). I would not put the reasoning in (it feels defensive), just a statement of fact: "This article describes the current understanding of global warming as accepted by a wide consensus of the scientific comunity. See [...] for a discussion of opposing views and [...] for the public debate." Or words to that effect... --Stephan Schulz 18:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur, with Stephan Schulz. Trying to provide a scientific focus is probably the best way to go. The only caveat is that some users may accuse you of artficially forking the article. However, I think your suggestion makes for the best article. Ramsquire 18:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia can aspire to be more up-to-date than the consensus. The consensus if often so far behind the times, as to be wrong in particulars. Britanica can provide the consensus. While maintaining high standards we can track the latest journal articles. User:Technicaltechy my signature button is not working. Posting at shortly after midnight on 18apr2006
I agree that we do not have to stick to the IPCC reports only, but can use additional sources. But we do have to stick to the consensus. If we try to track the latest journal articles, we are much to detailed for an encyclopedia. Scientific articles usually cover very specific areas. How the published results influence the overall state of knowlegde at the level of an encyclopedic article is non-obvious, and usually even original research. That's also why I feel uncomfortable if someone (usually a "sceptic") arrives with a freshly published article, and wants to rewrite Wikipedia. Very often, the publication does not really say what he (or, in theory, she) claims. --Stephan Schulz 06:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Just because new research disturbs the consensus, is no reason to reject it, in fact such research is likely to be important and illuminating, and to result in a response or correction by the consensus. It is probably more important to report such research in order to maintain accuracy, but report it in as neutral and explanatory manner as possible. Now trying 4 tildes by hand. Technicaltechy 17:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that a single new publication is unlikely to disturb the consensus to a degree that is visible at the level of detail we can afford in a general encyclopedia (and indeed, at the level that I, and I suspect most of us, can follow). Reporting on a single paper will almost always give undue weight - and not even to the paper, but to our incomplete interpretation and summary of it. When a number of contributions have developed the science further, a new, refined consensus evolves. --Stephan Schulz 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
So, do you have problem with text such as this in the article?
"In December, 2005 Bellouin et al suggested in Nature that the reflectivity effect of airborne pollutants was about double that previously expected, and that therefore some global warming was being masked. If supported by further studies, this would imply that existing models underpredict future global warming. [38]" Technicaltechy 20:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems to indicate fairly clearly that the result needs confirmation. I prefer the RC take [39]. Bellouin probably overstated their case William M. Connolley 21:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict....reply to User:Technicaltechy) Yes. The core idea (that aerosols mask some of the GW effect) is now a well-documented part of the consensus, and should be in our article. But reporting this individual paper is overkill. It's obvious if you do this for say 20 other papers that have been published in the last few months. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator.--Stephan Schulz 21:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I would distinguish a news aggregator from a research aggregator. If you are interested in science, you want the latest. In a developing field the encyclopedia proper quickly becomes obsolete, and even annuals (yearly updates to encyclopedias) arrive late.Technicaltechy 23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we document "decisions" in comments?

Hi,

WMC has mentioned a couple of times that some people (like Silverback) have changed text that has been the subject of long debate. I've looked at the Talk page but it's simply not practical to read all the archives of the Talk page and learn what all the "decisions" are that have been made.

This is especially true because the archives have not been organized by topic. It would be good to have an archive called "Decisions" where key decisions are documented. The article text could then have strategically placed comments that link to the "Decisions" archive.

The comment should say that changing text that has been tagged as "decided" is frowned upon unless the proposed change has been discussed on the Talk page first.

This won't deter determined editors but it will give people like me an idea of which topics are "hot potatoes" and which topics can reasonably be changed without ruffling too many feathers.

Richard 18:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Aye, very good idea! Hardern 18:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Article needs restructuring

The whole article needs better organization and I think I see what part of the problem is.

I added subsection titles to the Overview and it has become obvious that the structure of the Overview section doesn't match the structure of the article. This gives the impression that either the Overview or the article is a mish-mash. The solution is to make the structure of the overview match the structure of the article or vice versa.

I don't have time to do that today. I just wanted to throw out my thoughts on this issue and see what you guys think.

Richard 19:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Introduction (as of April 4th)

I don't really like the new introduction very much. Stephan Schulz 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that just goes to show that one should never be too proud of one's own writing. There's bound to be somebody out there that hates your writing as much as you like it.  ;^)
Seriously, is this at least a step in the right direction? Is it an improvement over what was there yesterday?
Richard 20:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In some cases it oversimplifies the issues so muach that it actually becomes wrong:

  • "This trend is observed fact and there is little dispute that global temperatures are higher at the beginning of the 21st century than at the beginning of the 20th century." ....if the warming is an observed fact, why is there any dispute? (it is, as much as science can establish facts, and hence there is no serious scientific dispute)

Stephan Schulz 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you suggest a more accurate wording? All I'm trying to say is that most of the debate is around what causes the warming, not whether there has been a warming. Yes, I know some people debate whether there has been any net warming at all. Does NPOV require that we acknowledge that POV? Somebody said that WMC gave the skeptics too much credibility.
Richard 20:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "The core issue in this controversy is whether the changes are caused by anthropogenic (human generated) greenhouse gases." This is a wrong dichtonomy. Global warming is a complex issue. Some is caused directly by the increase in greehouse gases, some is caused by feedback cycles, some may be due to changes in solar forcings, and some may be caused by even other effects. Moreover, some of the warming may have been masked by other pollutants, like sulphate aerosols...". So if anything, I would write "...how much of the increase is caused by anthropogenic (human generated) greenhouse gases".

Stephan Schulz 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that but I'm trying to keep this as a really concise summary. I had thought about it but there are only so many issues that you can deal with in a first draft that's written in a matter of minutes. I have modified the text to address your criticism.
Richard 20:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Calculus" is the wrong word. The superposition calculus makes no prediction about the cost of mitigation. I can easily devise a calculus where the cost is 0 or negative. Even using standard arithmetic, there are many that claim that the net cost of mitigation is negative (possibly even if you ignore the direct cost of global warming).

Stephan Schulz 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

All I was trying to say is that mitigation costs a lot. Yes, I know some people think that the net cost may be lower than we think but there is still the perception that the cost of upfront investment and economic dislocation is high. Should we delete this altogether or is it salvageable?
Richard 20:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "There is some evidence that the amount of greenhouse gases already released into the atmosphere will cause increases in temperature that are not reversible within the next few decades." In fact, there is a strong consensus that warming will continue for some time even in a zero emission scenario. This is the "commitmentment" that Silverback likes point out so much (and he is right, for once).

Stephan Schulz 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, that's the point I was trying to make. I'll put it in.
Richard 20:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As for the cost, see above. Moving to a less carbon-intensive economy will eventually have to happen anyways (since oil and gas are in limited supply), and has a huge number of side benefits. So the investment may be huge, but the overall cost (compared to doing business as usual) can very well be negative (and there are people that argue that way).

Stephan Schulz 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was trying not to be too controversial and, more importantly, I didn't want to go too deeply into discussion of public policy. I was just trying to outline the issues and then point the reader in the direction of other articles that would cover the issues in much greater detail. As pointed out elsewhere on this page, this is an article about the science of global warming, not the public policy debate.

I don't want to simply revert things, but maybe Michael Richard has some ideas of fixing it himself.--

Stephan Schulz 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Who's Michael? ;^) I think you mean me, Richard.
Right! Sorry about that.
As for the rest, I'm fine with "simple", but not with "wrong". Cue Einstein's "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." --Stephan Schulz 21:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to change or have somebody else change the intro paragraphs. However, I think we must observe two principles. (1) Keep it short. It shouldn't get much longer than it is now. (2) Avoid getting into issues. Just give the reader the "lay of the land" and then help them figure out what part of the landscape they want to explore.
Richard 20:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I really don't like it either and started to work on another version. Let's see when I am finished to put in online here. Hardern 20:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
My main objective in writing the new intro was to distinguish between the "science of global warming" and the "public policy of responding to global warming" and then to point readers at places where they can read about the "public policy" debates. If your version accomplishes that objective, I'm not really all that caught up in the precise wording of the text.
I don't have an "ax to grind" here as far as pushing a particular POV. I just want the article to be helpful to those who want to learn about global warming. As I stated earlier, the fact is that this is probably the first place that many Wikipedia readers will come to if they are interested in any aspect of global warming. I want to get them where they want to go as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Please keep this idea in mind as you write your alternative intro.
Richard 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I have come up with something I'd like to hear some opinions:

Global warming is a term used to describe the trend of increases in the average temperature  
of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans that has been observed in recent decades. It is 
due to various effects, of which the emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) 
by humans are calculated to be the major contributors.

There is much evidence that the amount of greenhouse gases already released into the atmosphere  
will cause further increasing temperatures irreversible within the next few decades. Furthermore, 
some effects occuring delayed like sea-level rise will continue for centuries. Thus, a need to 
adapt to global warming seems to be necessary to avoid harmful 
effects, as well as there is a need to mitigate further warming by reducing the release of fossil 
fuels and in addition find safe ways to capture carbon dioxide. Although debate continues as to 
which extent adaptation is feasible and cost-effective, what is known is that the cost of 
adaptation is significant, as is the cost of ongoing global warming.  

The focus of current scientific debate and inquiry is centered around reducing uncertainties in our
understanding of the climate system, projecting the range of further temperature increases and 
predicting their effects on climate, human beings and the environment.

This article describes the current understanding of global warming as accepted by a wide consensus 
of the scientific community. For a discussion of opposing views, see [[global warming 
controversy]].

For a discussion of public policy issues concerning responses to global warming, see Kyoto Protocol, 
Politics of global warming, Economics of global warming, Mitigation of global warming, and 
Adaptation to global warming.

For a discussion of how individuals can counteract global warming, see individual action against global warming.

Now how is this? Hardern 21:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that the temperature increase will be "irreversible"? At most there is a claim or prediction and not evidence. An increase in volcanism could probably reverse it quite handily. It would be interesting to know whether solar activity returning to the level of the maunder minimum might also reverse it. Even if there is a change in the thermo-haline circulation, every time it has occurred in the past it evidently has been reversible. "Irreversible" is unencyclopedic hyperbole, I have no trouble with it being included as long as it is attributed as the opinion of some alarmist.--Silverback 05:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Tosh. "Reversible" in this context clearly means reversible by human hand on a timescale relevant to humans currently alive, i.e. a few decades. Do you have a means of increasing volcanism or reducing solar activity? If you're going to argue that someone will come up with a way in future, do you suddenly think commitment effects don't exist? Or is technology going to magic those away too? Rd232 talk 06:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't clearly mean that, if that is what it means it should explicitly state it. Furthermore, I doubt a research could be found to support it. What research has there been to show that a technological solution won't be found? Iron seeding of the oceans, human created aerosols, space based magnetic or reflective screening perhaps at the lagrangian point, are all conceivable, especially within the wealth saved or created by not participating in Kyoto type treaties. Hundreds of billions of dollars can finance a lot of research and develope at lot of technology.--Silverback 08:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Not bad.

First, with regards to "irreversible", I'm not sure what Hardern meant by "irreversible" but what I meant is what was said earlier about "even with a zero emissions scenario, you will continue to have rising temperatures". I've read somewhere an assertion about a "lag effect" in CO2 -> temperature rise. Moreover, there are no current proposals that will get us to a zero emissions scenario so I think it will take 2-3 decades before we are able to stabilize temperatures. This is only alarmist if you don't believe that anthropogenic GG cause global warming. Otherwise, it should be patently obvious.

Second, Hardern did preserve the "lay of the land" roadmap and I am grateful for that.

Third, Hardern did make it clear that this article is about the science and other articles are about the public policy and that is an important distinction that I wanted to make.

I wanted to draw this distinction so as to be able to point people away from this article and over to global warming controversy article and to the public policy articles (mitigation and adaptation) if that's what they were looking for.

So what's the difference between what I wrote and what Hardern wrote?

Hardern's text says: "Global warming is a fact, we need to mitigate and adapt, we can discuss what's the most cost effective way to do it but we gotta do it, end of story."

I wanted to say "Most scientists are confident that global warming is caused by humans. However, some people don't and it's important to discuss GW because the cost of dealing with GW is so high that we should be sure we need to deal with GW before we start spending the big bucks. Here's the controversy article. Here's the Kyoto protocol article. Here are the politics and economics articles. Here are the mitigation and adaptation articles. Go read and become wise."

Note that I never say that GW isn't caused by humans, just that the possibility that it isn't caused by humans is what drives the public policy debate. (at least in the U.S.)

Hardern has gutted that message out of my intro. Maybe that's what he and Stephan Schulz didn't like about my intro. I think my approach is more NPOV. Let's see what other people have to say.

Richard 07:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. they're very helpful! By "irreversible" I meant that the rise in temperatures cannot be reversed within the next decades by human activities (and the possibility of a meteor striking earth was not my favourite one). I think a fact, not a theory is the recent rise in temperatures. A theory is what causes it, and most evidence suggests that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a major contributor to this. I did not want to put too much emphasis on the debate thing, because this is clearly different on different continents (I guess). I said before, in Europe there is no acknowledgable public discussion about the human influnce on the climate, but much on how to adapt and mitigate. And I think this impression of mine is backed up by the scientific literature, esp. Oreskes 2004 and Boykoff and Boykoff 2004 (and of course IPCC reports).
Now a completely different field is the political and public (not the scientific) debate. I think this should be done in the adaptation and mitigation article, as well as in the controversy. It could be mentioned shortly here anyway, but the introduction passage is not the right way to bring up the debate. In fact, an introduction should give you an overview about a topic. The present version goes directly into the controversy, without really telling the big picture. This was my biggest problem with the current version. In the third paragraph, greenhouse gases are mentioned the first time - directly after mentioning "the core issue in this controversy", and this looks biased to me. Hardern 08:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the old intro, disliking the new. Some of it is simply wrong... T rise is already irreversible, saying it will be so in several decades is distinctly odd. All these undiscussed changes are distinctly over-bold William M. Connolley 08:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that just a hunch or can you provide a research cite?--Silverback 08:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that seemed a bit arbitrary. Did you read Hardern's intro? Do you dislike that as well? I would have been OK with his intro although I liked mine better.

The key idea that I'm putting forth here for the intro is to provide an overview of all of global warming, not just the science part. There is an overview of the science at the beginning of the stuff that's in the TOC.

Anyway, I've put the "roadmap" back in and left the original intro that you have reverted to since it's clear that you and others feel you don't like my intro.

Richard 09:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you should slow down. Apparently, you putting in anew intro is OK, but me restoring the old one is "arbitrary". How odd. There are so many changes its rather hard to read all the discussion of them, which is another good reason to slow down.
The key thing we've been saying is that this article is primarily about the *science*; I hope you've noticed that.
You haven't answered my comment re T rise
William M. Connolley 09:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
WMC wrote: Apparently, you putting in anew intro is OK, but me restoring the old one is "arbitrary". How odd.
richardshusr responds: Touche. It's just that I would guess this is the way edit wars start. I don't want to go that route.
I've re-read WP:BOLD and you're right. I was overly bold. I thought about that beforehand but figured I'd take the risk and see what people thought. My apologies. I was too impatient.
You don't need to apologise. Being bold is fine. Its how you react when people complain that matters. William M. Connolley 12:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you haven't had time to read Hardern's proposed text which I would have guessed was the next step. Reverting my edit out suggests that you don't like the proposed direction at all and that you figure the current text is closer to ideal than mine/Hardern's. That's a strong statement and what I meant by "arbitrary".
Thats a very odd use of the word arbitrary then. Doesn't fit my disctionary at all William M. Connolley 12:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC).
I get that this article is primarily about science. However, the topic of "global warming" is about far more than science. I'm trying to give readers the "lay of the land" and a roadmap to other relevant articles. The current layout requires readers to scroll all the way to the bottom of a long article on science to find information about those articles.
Somebody proposed a navigation box. That could also help achieve my objectives.
Richard 16:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the navbox is much nicer. Also some of your text (description of GWC) is wrong William M. Connolley 12:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
So, I've been doing some reading and I realize that I violated WP:1RR by putting back the "roadmap" sentence at the end of the intro that WMC reverted to. Can I get some feedback as to whether those sentences are OK? If they get pulled out again, I'll leave them out but I think they're useful.
Richard 16:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the roadmap per se is fine. It's just that you used (sorry, certainly not intentional) half-truths, unfounded assumptions, and false statements to flesh it out. I see the desire for a "nice" flowing prose, but I'm not ready to accept it at the cost of correctness and neutrality.--Stephan Schulz 19:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I agree that there's room for debate about what I wrote and I was willing to change it to address the concerns raised. At this point, I'm inclined to abandon my text in favor of Hardern's if there is support for that. I also am not that caught up in the issue of the intro. If people want to keep the original one, that's fine, too. I'm just looking for a way to get all the global warming articles interlinked in a way that's useful for the reader.
What are your thoughts about Hardern's intro vs. the current one?
More importantly, do we serve the reader by having a shorter intro that provides a general overview of global warming as both science and public policy, leaving the science for the article itself (i.e. the part that is indexed by the TOC)?
Richard 19:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried putting in the navbox instead of the roadmap. I like it, but it doesn't "float" as it should. Anyone know how to put it, say, inline with the TOC? William M. Connolley 13:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that either, but I do know that it's done e.g. in Renewable energy, so someone might find answers how to bring it to float there. Hardern 09:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
PS: Direct links are Template:Environmental_technology and Template:Global_warming.

I hope to wake up and make some comments on the intro etc issue over the weekend, if it isn't settled by then :-) William M. Connolley 10:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed NPOV introduction to article.

Global warming describes the trend of increases in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans that has been observed in recent decades. There is currently some debate as to how much human activity has contributed to this increase in the average temperature. The increased volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, and other human activities, are the primary sources of human-induced warming. The natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth about 33 °C warmer than it otherwise would be; adding carbon dioxide to a planet's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make that planet's surface warmer. Some scientists however believe that global warming may be due to increasing sun activity, and other phenomena not necessarily related to human activity.[40]

I put the new language in italics.Ramsquire 18:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's OK with me but I'm just one voice and I know other editors want to push the idea that global warming is a fact not a contested theory. What I'm looking for is a way to bridge between science and public policy that says "If things are as bad as most people think, then there is a need for urgent, aggressive and broad-based action. If they are not as bad as most people think, then the need for action is less urgent." Maybe that's an intro to an article called "Responses to global warming". That article doesn't exist yet but I've been thinking about creating it.
Richard 19:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"Fact" and "contested theory" are not the only possibilities. Global warming is a fact. A large anthropogenic contribution to this effect is a well-supported theory, and not seriously contested in scientific circles. The introduction should adequately reflect that. I dislike the "some scientists" above, because it gives no indication of the relative size and weight of the groups. Also, the source provided is a fluff article on a general news web site (although a good one) - not even popular science. It is apparently based on an interview with one scientist, who bases his observation on one temperature series in Ireland. And even he qualifies his opinion with a lot of maybes and coulds. There is no indication that a peer-reviewed publication underlies this. I don't think that this is good for the introduction - we should stick to general overview sources there. --Stephan Schulz 19:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
How large does an anthropogenic contribution have to be to be considered large? Is the whole range "1.4 to 5.8 °C" large or just part of it? Is the anthropogenic proportion different for the lower end of the range of predictions than it is for the higher end? There is a factor of 4 between the small end of the predictions and the large end. Is this really a "consensus" or did the parties just agree to disagree? What is the error in the predictions? What is the error in the solar/athropogenic contributions? Any agreement is in generalities, the directions and orders of magnitude. It is not getting more detailed. If you look at the "details", that is where the disagreement is.--Technicaltechy 01:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I see your point and my suggestion is just that a suggestion. I'm sure I could find a better cite if I tried, but the proposal was only a starting point. Since wiki policy is to include all significant viewpoints provided they are verifiable to reputable sources, the intro should not be so forceful and POV. I don't think there is any serious debate that global warming is occurring. The debate centers around human contribution. Since this debate is occurring, WP:NOV requires editors to present (not argue) both viewpoints. While the body of the article does a good job of that, the introduction clearly comes down on the side of human contribution. I think we should alter the intro slightly to approach the secondary, but still significant view, while informing the reader of the prevailing view. Maybe we can add a sentence that states "The prevailing view in the scientific community is that human activity is contributing to global warming, however, a significant minority disagree with this position" or words to that effect.
Ramsquire 20:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate our discussion of these issues, but we do seem to go in circles somewhat. About the only place where a debate is still taking place is the US public opinion. The scientific debate is essentially settled (and has been for years, with the consensus just getting stronger and more detailed). On the one hand there is the IPCC, supported by all major national academies of science, the vast majority of published science (see the Oreskes analysis), and nearly all competent scientists. On the other hand is miniscule group of people, most of which are not even climatologists, but geologists, economists, or astronomers. And even among those. not all deny any human contribution. That is not "a significant minority" - at best it's a "tiny group". Check List of scientists opposing global warming consensus and how "much" it has grown since its creation.--Stephan Schulz 21:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The debate is still going on within the "consensus", there is a factor of at least 4 in the predictions and at least 2 in the solar attribution. Why call it a "consensus"? The word doesn't belong in an encyclopedic science article, except perhaps in a quote.--Technicaltechy 01:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
FTR-- I am playing devil's advocate here. We actually agree but I am just getting out of a nasty POV dispute on another page, and am trying to avoid one here. The conclusory sentence "Most of the increase is due to human activity causing an amplified greenhouse effect" is just a lightning rod for this sort of debate (regardless of its accuracy and veracity) because it is unsourced, uncited, and doesnt' acknowledge the debate (as small as the dissenters are). I'm trying to think of a way of saying the same thing another way so as to not strike the ire of those who hold the minority view. Unfortunately, as I've learned, the test for contributing here is verifiability not truth. So with that in mind, I think we can just simply say "The IPCC, all major scientific academies, etc., have concluded that anthropogenic contributions are a major factor in the increasing temparatute." It's true, non-conclusory, NPOV and verifiable. Ramsquire 22:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I like Ramsquire's language much better than what's in the intro now. But can I tell you, supporters of what's already there can have all of it if I can just have one little thing taken out: in the fifth paragraph, it says "Based on basic science, observational sensitivity studies and the climate models referenced by the IPCC, temperatures may increase by ..." Saying a conclusion is based on basic science is like saying the conclusion itself is "basic" or axiomatic. That in turn amounts to telling skeptics, "If you don't see it, then something's wrong with your brain or your eyes." This is not even a scientific thought. It is the words of a child who wants to throw sand at people, simply because someone threw sand at him. If I sound angry, it's because a week ago, I tried to take out the words "basic science" and just leave it as "Based on observational sensitivity studies and the climate models ...." It was immediately reverted without comment. That is how you treat a vandal or troll. Just because I am skeptical of your prediction, that doesn't make me a vandal or troll. I would argue that the phrase "Based on basic science" is, itself, virtually vandalism.
So, keep all your conclusions. This is a global warming article, and you are numerous and determined, so you can have them. I doubt if any skeptic tunes into the Global Warming page expecting to find a neutral point of view. All I ask is, can we limit the conclusions to conclusions about global warming, rather than including a conclusion about global warming skeptics (e.g., that there's something wrong with them)? Fowler Pierre 06:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


May I suggest you change "sun activity" to "solar activity".--Technicaltechy 01:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if anyone feels I am jumping into this conversation out of nowhere, but I felt I'd voice my opinion on this entire debate. I agree with Stephan Schulz's comments above. The only real source of controversy in global warming is in the United States "court of public opinion." The scientific dissent is a small minority, and has decreased over the years. Therefore, I feel the language in this article should reflect the fact that anthropogenic induced climate change is widely accepted among most in the scientific community; the article and its wording should not give undue weight to the controversy and doubters. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you agree with Stephan Schulz, perhaps you can explain what he means by the consensus becoming more "detailed"? What do you mean by anthopogenic "induced" climate change? Solar variation induced the climate change, anthropogenic green house gasses just added to it, and may out weigh solar variation in contribution to warming in the most recent decades. The evidence is that this would be a warm period even without the anthropogenic contribution, "warm" on a millenial scale at least, since "warm" is relative. Also, I think you will find that the scientific dissent is increasing in recent years, since anyone who raises any problems or doubts is immediately branded a skeptic and a pawn of the oil industry. Ask yourself which is more scientific, those enforcing conformity with the consensus or those making sure that evidence and weaknesses are not ignored or suppressed.--Technicaltechy 01:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say that consensus becoming more detailed means that as we collect more data, as we run more models, as we see what steps (if any) the international community is going to take in reducing emissions, etc., scientists are able to know more about the nature of global warming, the complexity of its effects, how the effects may differ from region-to-region, what the exact temperature numbers may be like, and many other details. By "anthropogenic induced" climate change I mean climate change that would not exist if humans did not exist; also, the statement indirectly implies that this contribution is more significant than any natural impacts, and this is an implication that I'm certainly willing to accept in using the term. As for "scientific dissent increasing," this may be an idea that the media may imply, as dissenters often get more attention, but if every atmospheric scientist who believed in global warming were to come forward with press conferences, you would be greatly overwhelmed (and bored) by hearing the same thing over and over. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If the dissenters weren't getting shouted down, and if the consensus weren't alarmist and becoming public policy advocates there would science instead of a media circus. Try "overwelming" me with evidence and not numbers of people agreeing, lemmings prefer numbers, scientists prefer evidence and a careful assessment of the quality of that evidence. If you read the literature, you will find there only general scientific agreement even among the consensus (which is as it should be), what the consensus does agree upon is to attack anyone who brings up anything that could possibly be interpreted as uncertainty.--Technicaltechy 02:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, here we go round the same old circles again. This is the intro. It has to provide an overview. How could it possibly make sense that the only statement in the intro given a ref is the skeptic one? How large does an anthropogenic contribution have to be to be considered large? Is the whole range "1.4 to 5.8 °C" large or just part of it? - this is a total misunderstanding of where the 1.4 to 5.8 is coming from. *All* of that is anthro, because its the future prediction. There is no basis for predicting solar. I tried to take out the words "basic science" - yes, because doing so is POV. Its standard skeptic POV to push the idea that this is all based on climate models - it isn't - you should not forget the basic physics, or try to remove it.

I find it regrettable that people who clearly don't understand what is going on are trying to make nuanced changes to the intro, when what they really need to do is actually read the article. William M. Connolley 11:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is no basis for predicting solar, there is no basis for predicting the temperature in the year 2100. As is pointed out by Silverback below, assuming solar output is constant at this high level has a low probability of being correct. Modeling only greenhouse gas increases out to the year 2100 might tell you something interesting about the climate models, but not about the future climate. I was wrong to suggest that the future predictions were anything but anthropogenic, since only greenhouse gasses were varied, but my point about "large" is still valid, if it is used to emphasize that global warming is a serious concern. The lower end of the predicted range does not appear all that serious or large. And the range of predictions is large, to suggest there is a "consensus", especially for dire predictions, when those predictions vary by more than a factor of 4, distracts from the true state of the science.--Technicaltechy 13:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This is just wrong. Solar is a small influence compared to anthro, as far as can be told. Sb, below, is incorrect, as I've already pointed out. Your personal belief may be that If there is no basis for predicting solar, there is no basis for predicting the temperature in the year 2100; but a look at the IPCC reports will show you that this is not widely shared. Whether the lower end IPCC prediction is "large" or "serious" is also not terribly relevant to this article anyway. And you still haven't understood the consensus: the consensus is on the 1.5-4.5 range for climate sensitivity, which implies the range of predictions. William M. Connolley 14:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"Not widely shared" is not important. Better solar activity reconstructions are available now than at the time of the IPCC report, and saying that the solar influence is small compared to anthro is like saying other climate change in the last millenium was unimportant, when significant periods and events are well established in the literature. Even over the recent time period when solar output was thought to be at a constant high level, solar activity gets 16% to 36% attribution. Yes that is smaller than the antho component, but it is not "small". That may be a couple degrees C at the high end of the range range of predictions for the year 2100. Note also, that if solar is attributed as much as 36% when it is thought to be roughly constant, the attribution if its impact may actually be higher in a period when it is varying, in this century that is highly likely to be a reduction in activity.--Technicaltechy 14:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I still think you're getting this wrong. The 16-36% is just one estimate, others are lower, and if solar is attributed as much as 36% when it is thought to be roughly constant doesn't make any sense at all (obviously). Furthermore, you seem to be under the illusion that the x% scaling is a prediction - it isn't - there is no reason at all to believe in a constant % contribution. In fact, if you actually believe what Sb is saying, below, then the future solar contribution should be negative William M. Connolley 14:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
There can be an attribution even when solar activity is decreasing. For instance, if by the year 2050 solar activity has decreased and greenhouse gasses have increased and the temperature has not changed at all, then the changes in solar activity will be roughly equivilent to the particular changes in greenhouse gasses. Yes, the influence of the solar activity was greater than expected given the small changes in insolation that had been measured. It is a bit of a mystery, of course, given the 11 year cycle, that "constant" solar activity over 3 or so cycles is a calculated figure and not a directly measured figure, and there are theories that attempt to account for this surprisingly large attribution, varying from ultraviolet-ozone and cosmic rays to different lengths of the active phase of the cycle.--Technicaltechy 15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"All" of the predicted warming is NOT anthro, if the models were properly accounting for the heat capacity of the ocean. Even though the models controlled for solar and only varied GHG, the climate commitment studies showed that continuation of pre-existing levels of forcing alone would account for some of the warming, and some of that continued forcing was the current historically high level of solar forcing. The models used for the climate commitment studies were at the lower end of sensitivity, so the 0.5 to 1 degree they predict from constant forcing at 2000 levels may represent more that half the warming those models predict by 2100.--Silverback 06:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

SUPPRESSED: there is only an 8% probability that this current period of high activity can last another 50 years

Suppressed by this community, but accepted by the scientific community because it has survived peer review, twice as a matter of fact, is research showing that there is only an 8% probability that this current period of high solar activity can last another 50 years. The literature has already been discussed on this page, [41] [42] There is no dispute in the literature of this evidence of the probabilities of high solar activity being sustained. WMC has reverted the proposed text, without supporting what we must assume is his mere assertion of irrelevance. The is the full proposed text that the community is allowing to be suppressed. [43]--Silverback 10:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Gosh you are getting paranoid. You are leaning on Solanki because he tells you what you want to hear; but predicting solar output is distinctly dodgy, and probably unimportant anyway William M. Connolley 11:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
SB, if you can find a good reference for the anticipated impact of a return to average/normal solar forcing, then I'd support mentioning that the solar forcing is likely to decline. I believe the scale of the effect is something like 0.3°C. Dragons flight 03:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Certainly one of the scenerios that should be considered is a return to average or normal solar forcing. The solar reconstructions should be able to provide a couple additional scenerios to bracket most of the probability over this century. I've already provided good references from the journal Nature. One that says the current solar forcing has for 70 years been at its highest in the last 8000 years, and a response that argues that the current high solar forcing is comparable to forcing that has occurred twice before in the last millenium, although those episodes were shorter than the current unusually long one. Your estimate of 0.3 degrees is roughly half the warming that has been observed in the last century. Since the correlations with solar variation in the literature are stronger than models can currently seem to account for, there is missing physics in this area. I don't think we need a reference for the anticipated impact in order to report the current state of the solar reconstructions, and the rarity of sustaining current levels of solar forcing for much longer.--Silverback 06:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that solar forcing could lessen without telling people whether it or not it will be important. If solar effects lead to cooling of only ~0.3C (and I don't know that this is the right number) on a warming of 1.4-5.8C then we probably shouldn't be worrying about it too much, but I do agree that solar changes seem much more likely to help us than to hurt us. Dragons flight 08:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
0.6 degrees of warming was important enough to get many concerned about global warming. The -0.3 is off that figure. Since GHGs provide positive feedback for higher solar activity, the effect will probably be larger than -0.3 off the high end predictions. Of course any future IPCC predictions should be based on the lower expected solar output if they are to have any credibility, but those haven't been made yet. That is no reason to not to report how usually long and high the current level of solar activity is, and that the reconstructions show that very few such periods have continued more than 50 years longer.--Silverback 10:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
And this is your problem. As you see it, you own personal research has demonstrated an effect so important that the IPCC projections have no crdibility without it. But wiki isn't here for your personal research, or anyone elses William M. Connolley 18:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it not my "own personal research", it is published reasearch. All I demand is that it make sense and not brush asside problems, such as the problem repesented by much stronger solar correlations in the paleo-climate than we think we can explain with what we know by measured solar variation and than is captured in the models. Combine this with model predictions for the next century that exceed GHG sensitivity in the paleo record, especially since we know the attribution to GHGs made in the TAR had problems with the solar component and did not account for warming due to climate commitment from the early period of warming. My "original research" is just to understand that when you have models that may underattribute solar forcing, and you tune them to 20th century data that has a warming trend, then that warming will be misattributed to some other forcing in the model. Frankly, noone should be confident and complacent about this science of climate prediction until discrepancies such as solar correlation are resolved and not just tuned over, especially where there are "clues" to the infancy of the science such as known deficiencies in cloud physics and wide variations in the predictions. You may call my understanding of this "original research", but it is more basic an insight into deficiencies of modeling than what you are willing to call "basic science" elsewhere.--Silverback 11:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Some vs. Most; Minority vs. Small Minority

There seems to be a Wiki way of dealing with these contentious issues already. If one group says Most and the other says Some, and no one can point to the defining source of authority, then isn't the real phrase An unknown quantity..., A debatable percentage...? (Of course if you adhere to Intelligent Design, then we know whose fault it is ;) SORRY couldn't resist. I'm sure I'll pay for that.) CMacMillan 03:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem probably is a lack of precision. "Most" probably is the right word when balanced by "some" or "significant" to account for the balance of the effect. "Most" unopposed by the clarifying detail probably suggests too strong a statement. Of course, some feel that mentioning the clarifying detail in the intro, makes it seem stronger than it should. The discerning reader, seeing "most", should wonder what in the hell that means, and then read further. Hopefully the rest of the article can balance that statement, but even getting that proper balance has been difficult here. I've no problem with an unopposed "most" in the intro, if the rest of the article fairly represents the state of the science. Currently information that is the current state of the literature is being suppressed (solar) or minimized (climate commitment).--Silverback 06:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Silverback's last sentence. There seems to me to be far too much emphasis, with this article, on eliminating things that have their supporters in the scientific community, simply on the grounds that their numbers are very small or they are not climatologists. In my experience, that kind of logic does not hold sway on universities when there are controversies over curricular content. Since this is a public wiki, the doctrine of academic freedom should apply, meaning a professor of something, even if "something" is tangential to the topic, should at least be able to have his or her observation mentioned, from a neutral POV.
To CMacMillan: in reviewing the history of this article, I believe that "an unknown quantity" or "debatable percentage", if inserted into the article, would create an even larger conflagration than the word "some". But I also think that the obsessive effort to label any skeptics of IPCC as microscopic in number is unnecessary, and is inimical to the philosophy of science. --Fowler Pierre 17:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as "eliminating things that have their supporters in the scientific community, simply on the grounds that their numbers are very small or they are not climatologists" goes, I think the major thing is to not give undue weight to the opinions of a very small minority. I think we've done a good job of including such opinions as it stands (see List of scientists opposing global warming consensus and Global warming controversy). Also, which "professors of something" are you talking about? Obviously input from astronomers and various other geoscientists is welcome, but as a climate issue, climatologists and other atmospheric scientists are much more qualified to give opinions on an individual basis than experts in other fields. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. NPOV policy os for views to be represented, roughly proportional to their weight. Things with only a very small support should not be mentioned at all William M. Connolley 21:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Weight in science is not determined by numbers of scientists. Thousands of scientists may embrace a result that one scientist (and presumably also peer reviewers) pointing out a flaw can overturn. The peer reviewed flaw stands until it itself has been shown to be flawed or irrelevant.--Silverback 11:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If that happens then those thousands of scientists will then accept that result. It may take some time, but it will ultimately happen.Count Iblis 13:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Quite. And until then, we stick with the existing literature (not numbers of scientists, BTW). This is getting rather tedious - its the same old discussion we've had, and settled, before. What exactly is the point in re-opening it, when its clear that no-one has anything new to say? William M. Connolley 13:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The text you suppressed, re the probabilities of the duration of the current high solar activity was in the existing literature.--Silverback 16:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I dispute that the number of GW skeptics is "very small", notwithstanding their pathetic representation at List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. Is the term "very small" even defined in the NPOV rule? I plan to do some research into the number of scientists who are skeptical of this or that element, when I have time.
WMC: I don't claim to be a climatological expert, but I'm not a novice either. Regarding the basic science issue, I have, in fact, read the article, contrary to your stated assumption. My point was that if there's an additional methodology, say what it is. Don't use the term basic science, because it implies that there's something wrong with anyone who would doubt the majority. If by "basic science" is meant "physical analysis", then the article should say "physical analysis" -- and I would have no insurmountable impulse to remove that or any similar phrase.
Also to WMC: it seems that one of my comments triggered your complaint about the discussion going in tedious circles. I haven't been contributing to this discussion very long, so it's all new to me. I'd be happy to take over for you, and you can have a break for a little while. (It's a JOKE. For goodness sake, pls don't respond to that.) If I have been broaching already-covered territory, it is because I see how GW defenders keep getting their dander up about whether the number of skeptics is "small" or "very small", and I am just trying to add my vote, in the hope of desmonstrating that it's not just a handful of hard-core, dedicated people. -- Fowler Pierre 19:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
And when climatologists delve into the realm of statistics (as they do here), then we can also accept input from statisticians. --Spiffy sperry 13:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
And physicists always get a say. Global warming reminds me a lot of Cold Fusion. The "specialists" think they have it right but the physicists sense that something seems a little too squirrelly to be right, and eventually get to the bottom of the problem. Over reliance on overly parameterized models with a wide spread of predictions and too many mysteries surrounding solar influence, just doesn't pass the smell test.--Silverback 16:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the strongest predictions of the global warming theory

(in Relationship to ozone depletion) is it a mistake? Shouldn't it be "One of the strongest predictions of the Greenhouse effect theory" ?

You're probably right. I've made the change William M. Connolley 21:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please add Effects of global warming to your watchlist

Hi,

Someone just added an "opposing view" to the Effects of global warming article. I'm not sure what the "official" consensus of the Global warming editors is but, whatever it is, the Effects of global warming article should follow the same policy.

Please check out the most recent edit to the Effects of global warming article and either edit it or revert it as appropriate. Thanks.

BTW, it would probably be useful to put together a comprehensive editorial policy regarding opposing POV for the following articles:

Global warming Effects of global warming Mitigation of global warming Adaptation to global warming

Politics of global warming Economics of global warming

This policy could be posted on the Talk pages of all the above articles.

Thanx.

Richard 04:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That someone was me! I added the same mild quote about there being little support for the increasing cost of severe weather events being due to their increasing strength to this article, following three quotes from the peer-reviewed scientific climate literature explaining that storm strength is directly related to temperature. I also added the same set of four preceding quotes to Extreme weather. I did that to try to balance this edit by Pol098. I thought the quote was particularly mild, and served to illustrate that the fourteen AMA meteorologists weren't contradicting, just claiming little support for severe weather cost increases due to global warming. --James S. 04:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just removed the para. Its too big for an article with a see-main. Please try to avoid bloating the GW article. Not desperately happy with the content, either William M. Connolley 11:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Solar Variation

The possible physical mechanisms should be mentioned which could make this a significant effect. E.g. I know about the theory that increase magnetic flux during high solar activity shields the earth from cosmic rays which inhibits cloud formation and thereby leads to warming.

Count Iblis 01:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find well referenced information related to your concerns was suppressed here [44] and here [45], although WMC was correct to restore the inadvertently deleted 2300 year cycle.--Silverback 12:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Those look like good references.--Technicaltechy 12:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
There is more detail in the talk page discussions: [46] [47].--Silverback 13:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

More paranoia from Sb. The mechanisms are nothing to do with that - you're looking for stuff on cloud-cosmic ray connections, etc: see the "Solar interactions with Earth" section of Solar variation William M. Connolley 13:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. "paranoia"? Come on, William. --Uncle Ed 17:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Lindzen in WSJ

BY RICHARD LINDZEN April 12, 2006 (Wall Street Journal, Opinion Section)

Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th... translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes? The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Well well well, a reputable scientist speaks the truth above- but then he's only a podunk prof at MIT, no reason to pay him any attention.Incorrect 13:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Lindzen is talking rubbish. Note the lack of examples? have seen their grant funds disappear - who? Lindzen? He is still funded by the public purse. However, its a good bit of knockabout fun, makes a change from the solar stuff. If you can find anything of scientific substance in what he says, do please quote it. But then if it was of substance, it would be in a publication, not the WSJ, no? William M. Connolley 14:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If journals like Science and Nature were not censoring alternate views, then Lindzen wouldn't have to go to a conservative newspaper to protest the censorship. Your argument stands on its head.
And didn't you yourself just libel Lindzen by accusing him of "talking rubbish"?
I like you as a person, doc, but your penchant for putting politics ahead of science still shows. --Uncle Ed 17:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please, that's not an argument. Going to the mainstream media because you can't get published doesn't necessarily mean you are being supressed; much more likely, you are a crackpot. It's of course faintly, bizarrely possible that Nature and Science are censoring, but given the actual consensus on the topic by scientists who know what they're talking about, it doesn't seem too likely. Your conclusion in your first paragraph is wildly illogical. bikeable (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
"More paranoia from [Silverback]." "Lindzen [an MIT atmospheric scientist] is talking rubbish." And, from the other side (and perhaps more egregiously), Incorrect recently said, near the top of the page, that people who subscribe to a scientific consensus on GW have done so because they are "elitist" or part of a "dominant leftist culture". I find all of these comments not only dubious, but unrelated to the article, and they detract from others' (or at least my) ability to a) better understand the relevant issues and b) argue for or against a particular edit. I'm all for passion in this debate, but could we dial back the attacks just a little? --Fowler Pierre 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Now, I have posted on Effects of global warming a critique of a couple of points. So far it doesn't appear to have been noticed. So I'm inviting everyone to go look at it and comment. Otherwise, I'll deem myself to have achieved a "consensus" (of the one interested party) and proceed with my proposed change. --Fowler Pierre 18:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Ok all you pc sheep, how do you respond to the Duke report today that much of that 1% increase in the earth's termperature has been caused by the sun, not by the increase in man made gasses, and further that it is not at all clear how much more the world's termperature will rise. Regarding the various models, what is that old saying, pc in, bs out? incorrect —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.205.151.68 (talkcontribs) .
Before you learn the difference between "%" (Percent) and "°" (degree, and then you need to specify what kind of degrees), I don't think a discussion will be very fruitful. Are you talking about this report? I could not find the original study. None of the second-hand reports mention to sun specifically. Apart from that, the study claims that the temperature increase will likely not exceed the IPCC maximum prediction. Big deal...why do you think it is called "maximum"? --Stephan Schulz 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, more abuse from anonymous editors. I hadn't seen the study you refer to, which was actually published in Sept 2005; perhaps you saw it today because it was featured on RushLimbaugh.com. Impressive newsgathering. Anyway, first I would say that science, especially something as extensively studied as global warming, does not generally turn on a single publication, but is an accumulation of evidence from many researchers over a long time. Now, looking at the paper iteslf, I read, We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted. So, if their assessment of the models is accurate (which I'm not in a position to judge, having only just glanced at it), then perhaps the models will be a bit better tuned in the next round, with slightly different results. Welcome to the fascinating world of science. I do note that they still attribute most of the climate change to anthropogenic sources. I also notice that the backlash argument has now changed from "there isn't any global warming" to "not all global warming is caused by humans". Even you, o anon, appear to accept the fact of global warming, which wouldn't have been the case a few years ago. bikeable (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I suspect he is more likely to be talking about the Apr 20 article in Nature [48]. Nothing earth shaking, just an increase in natural variation, that they argue correspondingly reduces the likelyhood that CO2 sensitivity will end up at the high end of predicted levels.--69.254.146.53 10:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed some redundancy.

Just for the record, I took out some of the information in the introduction, that was repeated verbatim elsewhere in the article. It has the effect of shortening the article, but all the information is still in the article. Ramsquire 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I put it back in, important enough to state up front, if redundant or ver batum then maybe it needs rewording in the second occurrence. Plus the format of the article was messed up w/out it there :-) Vsmith 16:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Broken?

Is the current formatting a bit broken? The "minority position" now appears just under the TOC, which is odd...

William M. Connolley 08:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Enthalpy of melting ice

Isn't the rate of temperature increase decreasing(it's getting hotter slower)? I heard this in a few places. So what I'm thinking is that the extra heat is being absorbed by the ice caps (6.02kilojoules is absorbed for ever 18 grams or so of ice melted). So global warming is reduced by the icecaps melting. On the bright side, the beach is about to come to me :).

I don't think its a very significant term. For one thing, if you look at the graph of T change, it isn't turning downwards. And for another, the ocean absorption of heat is far more significant (oceans move; ice doesn't much) William M. Connolley 18:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused... I don't get the "oceans move; ice doesn't much" comment. I would have thought the issue being raised is that it takes more heat to melt ice than it does to raise water 1 degree. IMHO, the "right" counter-argument to use in suggesting that oceans are more important than the ice caps is that there is far more water in the oceans than in the ice caps and therefore all that water absorbs more heat than the ice caps.
Richard 06:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro again

I reverted m2c's removal of so much stuff from the intro. I think that stuff is important to have up front. William M. Connolley 18:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a dilemma that users come across when trying to "fix" the introduction. The current intro by William M. Connolley, is fine except that the same information is repeated verbatim in the article at various points. This would seem to require that either it's taken out or summarized in the introduction or, conversely if you leave the introduction alone, then the body of the article should be edited where the repeated language appears. However edits to the body of the article, will require a re-writing of other parts to the body of the article, which no one seems eager to do. So a couple of users, myself included, have attempted to take the easy way out and just take the repeated language out of the introduction, even though it is probably more appropriate to edit the body of the article. Ramsquire 18:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Its not just mine. It would read slightly differently if it were. As I see it, most of the repeats occur in the overview section, and its not really clear why it is repeated in that section. William M. Connolley 19:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that, I misread the history tab, I guess you were just reverting to an earlier version of the introduction. I thought you created a new intro incorporating the previously deleted info. Ramsquire 19:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Part is mine ;-). Anyways, I just looked at the dilemna. At the moment, we are using the American Journalism approach "Tell it, tell it again, then tell it once more". As I see it, with the extensive introduction, we could probably get rid of the Overview section and migrate whatever is only there to the introduction or the main body, respectively. Comments?--Stephan Schulz 19:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
My vote would be to delete the overview, but then you'd probably have to change the article headings and make changes throughout the article to make sure it stays coherent. Ramsquire 19:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, thats what I wanted to do too so I've done it. The intro is now probably a bit too long, but the article as a whole is shorter and (all?) the repeats are gone. I deleted most of it, removed the subheadings for a few (e.g. minority) and put those into the intro. The longish govt bit I promoted to == heading and demoted to lower in the article. Comments... William M. Connolley 20:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is probably okish for length (Wikipedia:Lead section suggests three or four paras for long articles) but I would be tempted to snip the second paragraph completely. The point that climate change is about more than temperature is covered in para 3 and the bit about feedbacks should proabably be covered in the main part of the article (not quite sure where though).Just my 2p worth.--NHSavage 21:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Much of the evidence is statistical

In the intro paragraph, there is the following sentence:

"Much of the evidence is statistical; a significant increase in certain events which is correlated with warming."

OK, I get that much of the evidence is statistical. It's the clause after the semicolon that throws me. What are the "certain events" that are correlated with warming? I'm sure this is explained in detail later in the article but the sentence is too vague as it stands to be worth anything. Can someone clarify the meaning please?

Richard 06:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I gave it some more thought and decided to "be bold" and delete the above sentence because it's a truism and therefore adds no meaning. The sentence appears to qualify what we know about global warming by saying that the evidence is statistical, implying that maybe the evidence could be something other than statistical. However, just about everything we know in science is based on statistical evidence. So what's the point of mentioning this?
Is the sentence trying to suggest that the evidence is statistical and that there are no underlying causal models with credibility to explain the observed phenomena? If so, then we should come right out and say that. I think the underlying causal models for some observed phenomena have more more credibility than others (e.g. expanded range for species vs. hurricane strength and frequency). But, if this is what the sentence is trying to say, it is too much to pack into one single sentence. The point needs to be explained more clearly.
I'll leave that task for someone who wishes to take it on.
Richard 16:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is a "public intellectual"?

In the "Government response" section, we have the sentence:

Some public intellectuals such as Bjørn Lomborg [49] and Ronald Bailey [50] have argued the cost of mitigating global warming is too large to be justified.

Pray tell, what the hell is a "public intellectual"? Is there a school where I can get a PhD in public intellectualism? Richard 06:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed it to "high profile" as well as putting all the response parts together.--NHSavage 07:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, "high profile intellectual" is a lot better than "public intellectual" but I still maintain this is an awkward expression. What is an "intellectual"? Is it an academic who is not a scientist? If these people don't have scientific credentials, what are their credentials? Are they economists, political scientists, science policy wonks? What?
Do I with my Computer Science and Management degrees qualify as a "low profile intellectual" who would be a "high profile intellectual" if only I could get the media to listen to me?
I know this sounds argumentative but my point is the title of "intellectual" is unencyclopedic.
Thanks for listening to my rant.
Richard 08:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
We do have an entry on Intellectual. I guess in this case it is somebody who has reasonable academic qualification (or equivalent literacy), but no (serious) scientific qualification in the field he talks about (Crichton is an MD, Lombog is a political scientist). Thus, calling them "scientists" would be potentially (or even very, in Crichtons case) misleading.--Stephan Schulz 08:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, well, well. Excuse me while I pull my foot out of my mouth. I looked up intellectual in Wikipedia and found that there really is a phrase "public intellectual". I thought that was just somebody's clever turn of phrase.
According to Wikipedia, "In some contexts, especially journalistic speech, intellectual refers to academics, generally in the humanities, especially philosophy, who speak about various issues of social or political import. These are so-called public intellectuals — in effect communicators.
The term masks an assumption or several, in particular on academia, for example that intellectual work goes on generally in private, and there is a gap to society that requires bridging. In general practice intellectual as label is more consistently applied to fields related to the arts and social sciences than it is to disciplines in the natural sciences, applied sciences, mathematics or engineering."
I'm going to change the text back to "public intellectuals" with a link to the intellectual article for those who, like me, don't know what the hell a "public intellectual" is.
I still think we need to identify these individuals named in this article more explicitly. Are these "public intellectuals" social scientists, science policy wonks or what? On what credentials do they base their claim to be "public intellectuals"?
Richard 09:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps these are "policy wonks", "social critics", "science writers" or some such. Since they are not famous, they may have to rely upon the cogency of their arguments to earn or the prestige of their organizational associations to get their voice heard in the public debate. Whether mitigation or adaptation is the best response, leaves the realm of pure science and enters the area of values and economics.User:Technicaltechy 18apr2006, sig button still not working.

Reorder sections?

I propose that the sections need to be reordered:

   * 1 Historical warming of the Earth
   * 2 Causes
         o 2.1 Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
         o 2.2 Sources of greenhouse gas emissions
         o 2.3 Alternative theories
               + 2.3.1 Solar variation theory
   * 3 Potential negative effects
         o 3.1 Effects on ecosystems
         o 3.2 Impact on glaciers
         o 3.3 Destabilisation of ocean currents
         o 3.4 Environmental refugees
         o 3.5 Spread of disease
         o 3.6 Financial effects
   * 4 Potential positive effects
   * 5 Responses
   * 6 Climate models
   * 7 Issues (renamed to "Other related issues")
         o 7.1 Relationship to ozone depletion
         o 7.2 Relationship to global dimming
         o 7.3 Pre-human global warming
   * 8 References
   * 9 See also
   * 10 External links
         o 10.1 Scientific
         o 10.2 Other

This makes the article flow more logically IMHO. Comments?--NHSavage 07:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This looks ok to me, but I would then prefer to split the article into 8 separate articles. This article would then be the preface plus table of contents, the 8 others would be chapters 1 to 7 and 8+9+10. Count Iblis 13:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Is this becoming a bit strange? You're not distinguishing, above, between brief see-main sections (climate models; effects) and things actually covered in this article William M. Connolley 15:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The current article is quite long. If we have an article for each chapter then you could expand all the chapters without worrying too much about the size. Of course, you could group some of the shorter chapters into one article, and if that get's too large, you split it up.Count Iblis 15:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
There may well be something to that idea. I would not want to lose any of the core of the article, though William M. Connolley 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what is any more strange in my proposed reordering of the content (I have not changed the level of anything). I agree that as a result of trying to keep this article short but covering all aspects the article is somewhat uneven, but that is there irrespective of the order of the bits. I would rather see this remain as it is - a summary of the main points with links to more detailed articles than being broken up further. I might change my mind if I saw a more concrete proposal though.--NHSavage 19:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and do it anyway.--NHSavage 21:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Top Most graph [since 1850s] should be replaced with the historical peroid graph

The top most diagram starting in 1850s is of no value; since that date corresponds with the end of the little ice age and you can't easily see how much of the rise was simple getting back up to pre-little ice age (or compare with middle ages). I propose that the historic peroid picture that starts around AD 1 be placed there instead, since it provides the historical comparisions. Joncnunn 13:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The current image has a number of advantages. First, it reflects the instrument record, not a reconstruction. Secondly, it covers most of the industrialization era. And thirdly, because of this restriction, it is possible to recognize the temperature and its development in some detail. Compare even the 1000 year reconstructions a bit further down - the 19th and 20th century are effectively unresolvable. A 2000 year graph would be even worse.--Stephan Schulz 14:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Stephan. Also, the "end-of-LIA" argument has no clear merit. William M. Connolley 15:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Quibble about reason given for deleting text from "Responses" section

Guettarda deleted some text from the "Responses" section

08:03:01 Global warming (diff; hist) . . Guettarda (Talk | contribs) (rv to WMC - highly speculative "solutions" don't belong here)

I agree that the solution in the link is "highly speculative" but using that as a reason to delete the text requires a POV judgment.
The more appropriate reason for deletion is that the text violates Wikipedia policy on verifiability because the link is a self-published website and therefore is not considered a reliable source.
Richard 15:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that suggestion fails the laugh test. I tried to revert it using the summary "Reverted Science (?) Fiction", but our proxy server acted up...--Stephan Schulz 16:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I know, I know. The referenced website was so wacky that "highly speculative" is a kind characterization. My point, though, is that "highly speculative" wouldn't be a reason for deleting it if it was verifiable and reliably sourced. Wikipedia's standards are lower than the ones that you have set for this article as a "science article".
Richard 16:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
If it is highly speculative, how can it be verifiable and reliably sourced? At best we could report "soandso suggests that....". But even then I think it would be editorial discretion to exclude it. I also suspect that Guettarda's edit summary was a polite euphemism roughly equivalent to my "reverted nonsense". --Stephan Schulz 19:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

when did the acadamies of the G8 nations endorse?

Is there a citation for when the G8 acadamies endorsed the statement? Wasn't it before 2005?--Silverback 00:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

June 7, 2005. Their statement: http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/G8_gb.pdf
Thanx for the reference. It is undated, but from internal analysis it appears that 2005 is supported, since it anticipated the mid-year G8 meeting. It does not appear they made any independent assessment of the evidence however, so I don't see what it adds to any scientific credibility. --Silverback 01:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
An earlier endorsment by 5 of the G8 acadamies was signed in May 2001: [51]. The point is not whether they did an independent assesment of the evidence but the fact that these top scientific bodies (which do not just include Climate scientists) evaluated the report and agreed with its conclusion that "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.". It shows that among the scientific community in these countries there is strong agreement with the 3rd assesment reports.--NHSavage 08:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And the other one we refer to directly in the introduction was in 2005 (Press release is June 7th): [52] --Stephan Schulz 08:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Stopping IP vandalism

Given the last weeks, where among some useful edits lots of vandalism has been coming from different IPs, would it be useful to allow only registered users editing the article? I'm not sure how this is handled here at the English Wikipedia, so this is something between a comment, a suggestion and a question. What do you think? Hardern 10:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What you need is Wikipedia:semiprotection. JoshuaZ 13:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. Another option would be to automatically revert an edit by an anon and check later if it is indeed vandalism, basically a "guilty until proven innocent" policy. :) Count Iblis 12:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The "automatic" revert would be a good substitute for thinking. The consensus has already done all the thinking (we think?), anymore thinking just gets in the way.  :-) --69.254.146.53 17:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I`ve put GW on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Hardern 13:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I may simply Do This. Anyone object at all? William M. Connolley 15:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:SEMI, semi-protection is intended to be a temporary tool for combatting vandalism. It is not intended to be a permanent means of excluding anonymous editors. So semi-protection should only be used if there is a recent/ongoing spree of anon vandalism that exceeds the normal level of vandalism a page recieves. I don't really think that is the case at the moment. Dragons flight 15:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
So what do you suggest to improve the situation? Besides, I think this article exceeds "the normal level of vandalism a page recieves". Hardern 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I mean the normal level of vandalism that this page recieves. Present policy is bacially to continue doing what we have been doing, i.e. blocking vandals and protecting/semi-protecting when things get bad. I'm not saying this is really a solution, because it isn't, but present policy gives greater credence to the virtues of open editting than the troubles of dealing with vandalism. Someday that will probably have to change, but it is what it is right now. Feel free to raise the issue at village pump (policy), if you think you can make a good case. Dragons flight 16:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I wonder in which case semi-protection should be used then. It is not the case when one or two IPs again and again put in nonsense, because then an IP block is of better use. It also is not to be used when there is regularly occurring IP vandalism like it is the case here (roughly once every 6 hours or so). So when should it be used? In this article, there are lots of vandalisms that include already discussed issues, likely from people without any scientific background. They happen very often, they are coming form different IPs, they make the article's history a mess, they bind people's work time because one has to check in again and again, and they thus prevent reasonable contributors from working on certain aspects of the article. WP:SEMI says, semi-protection should not be used as a "purely pre-emptive measure" (which is not the case here since the vandalism is already under way any time), it should not be used to "deal with regular content disputes" (also not the case here, disputes are being discussed and solved at this discussion page), and it should not intend "to prohibit anonymous editing in general" (this is somewhat difficult, especially because at least one of the good reverts of the past two days has been done by an IP). So I'm still not sure if this is the right thing to do, but in my opinion our rules for semi-protecting are not as clear as you're pointing out. Hardern 18:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
We used it semiprotection on the Carthage article to block a particularly persistent anon user who was single-mindedly pushing a particular POV without being willing to discuss it rationally and build a consensus NPOV treatment.
It seems to have worked although it's possible that he is back as a registered user. That's OK because we can block a registered user if we have to. We can't block someone who comes in on multiple anon IP addresses.
--Richard 23:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There is some truth to what DF says. But the level of junk does seem to be going up recently? Maybe someone could write an automatic vandal-o-meter displaying # of edits reverted as plain vandalism per day... William M. Connolley 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Since 19 April there have been 12 IP changes that were reverted, this makes 4 per day. One additional revert was against newly registered User:Missyface, and only one visible revert was against the regularly contributing User:Kyaa the Catlord. I don't know how this number evolved during the last weeks, though. Anyway, since WMC can put the page under semi-protection and thus this issue is going to be solved here, I deleted the request from Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Hardern 19:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why Tawkerbot isn't automatically reverting the vandalism? What do you define as vandalism? Is it the usual sophomoric "bad words" vandalism or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talkcontribs) --Hardern 19:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To try and cast light on this I have gone through the vandalism of the last 3 days by hand.
Revision as of 17:31, 21 April 2006: deletion of external links
Revision as of 17:19, 21 April 2006: adding extra characters to break external link
Revision as of 14:42, 21 April 2006: Global warming is fake
Revision as of 11:27, 21 April 2006: Global warming is not a term 
Revision as of 03:22, 21 April 2006: Deletion of text
Revision as of 23:59, 20 April 2006: Blog -> blob
Revision as of 18:00, 20 April 2006: chancler barito
Revision as of 17:22, 20 April 2006: a;lkajf;la jlajf a;lkfja ;l jfa l;jfa;ljasa and hahahahaha
Revision as of 14:19, 20 April 2006: it is the best dudes rock on!
Revision as of 14:10, 20 April 2006: global warming is bad because it gives the earth's heat a extra boost
Revision as of 01:58, 20 April 2006: attributableafshjghjfjhfjhjhgjghhjhgj  
Revision as of 17:06, 19 April 2006: conditions  -> coditions
Revision as of 16:13, 19 April 2006: different reconstructions-> steve
Revision as of 00:32, 19 April 2006: trevor rocks so bad go to www.freewebs.com/narja52
So I would conclude Tawkerbot won't get it as it is generally not just the rude words type. Often it is "policitcally" motivated (either pro or anti the global warming theory). I suppose the question is whether typically 4 to 10 instances of vandalism a day is enought to say that we have passed the point where it is too damaging to allow anon editing. To prevent this will harm wikipedia but allowing persistant vandalism harms it as well. It is not easy. However at the moment I would probably agree that it is still just anonying b/g noise.--NHSavage 19:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
A rough perl script run over the last 500 edits gives:
20060330 5
20060331 7
20060401 1
20060403 2
20060404 11
20060405 5
20060406 6
20060407 4
20060408 2
20060409 3
20060410 2
20060411 3
20060412 6
20060413 12
20060414 3
20060415 1
20060416 2
20060417 1
20060418 4
20060419 3
20060420 3
20060421 5
which I'm obliged to admit doesn't seem too bad William M. Connolley 18:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
hm, you're probably right, even if it is an annoying background noise... Hardern 19:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I searched on "few" and "El C" and don't see a discussion

I don't see a dicussion on the "a few" language, that El C reverted without comment and Schulz restored with an uninformative comment. It seems inherently POV.--Poodleboy 18:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Might be helpful to actually read the page. See #Some_vs._Most.3B_Minority_vs._Small_Minority higher up the page. Guettarda 18:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
...plus several other discussions in the archives. This page has a long history. If I want some peace, I go over to Creationism or Muhammad ;-). Nowadays I normally just point to the Oreskes analysis (in short, she looked at about 1000 peer-reviewed scientific papers and found a lot of support, but no dissent for the core theses of the IPCC). --Stephan Schulz 18:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If some POV language is that controversial, the justification for the language should be preserved in references near the text. These few scientists should be able to easily be countered by large numbers of scientists that believe that there are no "uncertainties exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future", and presumably it should be easy to document that nearly all scientists know what "should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the consequences." Oreskes analysis was of abstracts not scientists (a poor methodology and design if she was intending to assess scientific opinion). Science is not a democracy, none of these numbers of supporters should matter to them or us.--Poodleboy 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Your misreading the article. The scope of the "few scientists" is only the first sentence of that paragraph. All the rest is part of the consensus. I'll try to make it clearer. As for Oreskes: Papers are where scientists proclaim their professional opinion. Yes, science is not a democracy. But the standard rules apply: Most scientists are neither stupid, incompetent or liars. If they overwhemlingly support a certain position in their field of knowledge, it's very good evidence that that position is right, or at least better than the alternatives.--Stephan Schulz 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Abstracts are for results, and necessarily have little room for opinions. Even in full text articles, opinions would be limited to the discussion and conclusions. However, in wikipedia, any POV language should be justified near the text in the article since it is likely to inspire controversy. And, there certainly should be informative edit summaries when undocumented POV language is summarily reverted back into the text. Thanx for your efforts to clarify the paragraph. It is sad that we have to quibble numbers of scientists in a scientific article. They should be irrelevant. --Poodleboy 19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The one quibbling the numbers is you. If you really don't care about the numbers, why do you object to "a few"? William M. Connolley 20:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I objected to the reversion without a reason. It was of course compounded by the POV language, why is a reversion being used on something like that? I really don't care, but we should care if, in the article, references to numbers is associated with language that implies that they increase or decrease the credibility of any particular scientific point. When I say, I don't care, I mean that I personally can see through such irrelevancies and would not be influenced by them. Hopefully others are similar in their critical thinking. --Poodleboy 20:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
We don't really care about your personal opinions. What matters is the text on the page. So, do you care, or not, as to whether the page says "a few"? "a few" is accurate (well, as Stephan says, its probably over-generous) as measured against, say, contributors to the IPCC reports William M. Connolley 20:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I think it was wrong (but understandable given the amount of vandalism this article suffers) not to have an explanation in the original revert edit summary. I have been rereading the article carefully and I wonder if we should have There are a few not There are only a few. This is just about the tone I know, but I feel the former is both NPOV and accurate. The only crept in in the last edit and was not there before.--NHSavage 21:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it did not quite "creep" in, I put it there quite on purpose to help illustrate the contrast between the extreme minority position and the more reasonable open questions below. --Stephan Schulz 22:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
OK fair enough but I do think it starts to border on the POV the way it is phrased. How about: Uncertainties exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and a hotly-contested political and public debate exists over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the consequences. A few scientists even contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures. . I think this works better becaue it puts the open questions first and the extreme minority position last.--NHSavage 07:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Observed Solar Variables

I have heard some talk about climate changes on some other planets in our solar system, most notably on mars. Most of what I could find was either pointed at a defunct Denver Post article, or was touted as the silver bullet against Global Warming. I was able to find an unbiased article on the current state of warming on Mars, located at Space.com. The article does not address "mars global warming", but does explore how that planet is currently in a state of warming. There does not seem to be any part of this Wikiarticle that addresses the possible parallels between a simultaneous warming of earth and mars. Thus I would like to get some feedback on possibly introducing a NPOV exploration of the possible implications. Regards. --Coldbourne 10:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You want http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/ William M. Connolley 10:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
In addition, you might be interested in http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/theres-global-warming-on-mars-too.html --Hardern 10:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I had previously read both of those articles on my search, and I am afraid that they do not represent a neutral POV. The articles address the Mars "Global Warming" claims directly, rather than the independent data that is being collected outside of this debate. Also at least in the case of Realclimate.org, none of these members have any background in extraterrestrial studies that would validate their arguments about climate shift on another planet. With degree's and backgrounds in various terrestrial climatological aspects, they would not be expected too. Furthermore as both site's are Blogs, I am not certain how they can maintain a neutral and "non-political" agenda. The very essence of the sites seem to be grounded in the entire Global Warming debate. I would like to explore, discuss, and possibly implement findings from actual scientific websites and journals. I am not interested in commentary, just facts. --Coldbourne 03:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, look at where the nonsensical claim "Mars is warming, therefore the Sun is responsible for GW on Earth" is coming from. I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed paper that claims this relationship. So what kind of qualification do the proponents have? As an example, Lubos is what, a string theoretician? I'm sure he has a nice model of the climate working from first principles at the sub-atomic level. Indeed, what kind of qualification would make someone more competent for this question than that of a climatologist? Also notice that RC does cite primary sources. I know where I see the prevalence of evidence in this case... --Stephan Schulz 07:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Cb seems to have failed to notice that the Mars post is a guest post, written by someone with astronomical qualifications. Cb: as Stephan says, since no-one actually takes the Mars-Earth parallels seriously, I doubt you'll find any papers on it. A good argument for not mentioning it in the article. I'm fairly sure the RC post is mentionned on Mars, though William M. Connolley 20:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)