Talk:Global warming/Archive 63

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 70

minor typo

"Most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is, with high probability,[D] atttributable to human-induced changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.[86]" change to attributable. 98.28.17.36 (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Dan

Done. GManNickG (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional Source?

I recently had a discussion with a gent who thought volcanoes produce way more CO2 than humans could ever spew into the atmosphere. I told him he was dead wrong and HE produced the following source. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-volcanoes-affect-w The salient quote is "There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity." TimL (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Um... good for you? Are you proposing that this source be added to the article somehow, and if so, could you maybe post your proposed revision for consideration? This isn't a general discussion forum. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I was posting it for those who actively edit the article, which does not include myself. I will out it on my TODO list to see how it might be integrated into the article. Also I do not see how posting a source is 'general discussion'. TimL (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, we have this in the FAQ at the top of the page, linked to a New Scientist article which is a quite good overview over the many ways we can confirm where the CO2 comes from. We do write that humans emit 100 times more than volcanic activity, but that may be because our source (which I remember vaguely to be the USGS, although the link seems to have vanished) included all volcanism-related emissions, in particular deep sea vents. Or someone at SciAm got their decimal point mixed up ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I know this is probably an article that has every source imaginable (I mean that it is very visible, highly contentious (to some), (I'm not being sarcastic)). Sorry for not looking at that. TimL (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem at all. One thing we (as in all of us ;-) should be carful about is to let this be an encyclopaedic article on global warming, not a blow-by-blow discussion of discredited arguments. We do discuss the relative contributions of different sources in Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere#Sources_of_carbon_dioxide, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project

Quite aside from any issues of fact or civility: Whenlash is Yet Another Scibaby Sock¸ created for the previous comment, and now blocked. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Weakening consensus"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recycling of various items of political propaganda. --TS 11:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


The May 2010 Times article is not saying anything about a weakening consensus, and does not connect this to the CRU hack, either. It's also out of date. The Royal Society has indeed reconsidered the matter. Their new report is here and fully endorses the consensus view - in fact, it points to the IPCC and the NRC reports for further background. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Royal Society statement says "One indication of these advances [in climate change science over the past 20 years] is the increasing degree of confidence in the attribution of climate change to human activity, as expressed in the key conclusions of IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) in its assessments." Nothing about a weakening consensus there. --Nigelj (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for being willing to discuss. To answer Stephan Shulz's and Nijelj's posts:
--The article gives sources the statement that there is a "scientific consensus." These sources do not say anything about a consensus, and they are even further out of date than my source. For that reason, I have decided to "be bold" and delete the statement about consensus, which appears to be original research. Further discussion is welcome.
--I don't think that the actual content of the new Royal Society report is the relevant issue here. The important thing is that open dissent within the Royal Society forced the society to change its public statement. To quote from the first of my three sources, the London Times article: "The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause." This seems to be clear evidence that there is NOT a consensus on global warming within the Royal Society, regardless of what the majority finally decided to publish.
--I included two additional sources about the weakening consensus, both of which mentioned the "Climategate" issue. So far, nobody has claimed that either of these two sources is unreliable. So even without the London Times article, I provided two sources for the statement that consensus is weakening. Here is a links (with a quote) to my additional source, from the U.S. Senate
In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.”
I suppose I could find separate sources for every citation in the above paragraph, if my fellow wikipedia editors think that a U.S. Senate minority report isn't a reliable source. Here is my other source, which also mentions "Climategate" and the weakening consensus: "More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims"
--Other Choices (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The Inhofe Blog is not a reliable source, but a political propaganda tool. And there are several sources explicitly mentioning the consensus over at Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific_consensus, including the US National Academy, a source of the highest caliber. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
You're right, I should have given the link to the actual Senate minority report: U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. By the way, the sources mentioning consensus in the "scientific consensus" article are all out of date, so that article should be changed, too. But for now I'm going to wait and see what other editors think around here.
--Other Choices (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Your claim is the references (there are three and a footnote) are out of date. If the Joint Academies of science have released a new statement, then please do provide. The Senate minority report is not a scientific report, and in the context of science do not represent a reliable source in the context of science. Furthermore, you're raising Infofe's list that has already been discussed. See FAQ 2. You're welcome to update the link now that he's managed to fit fifty more. 155.99.230.155 (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, you bring up several points that deserve discussion and clarification:
--You seem to be misunderstanding what I meant by "out of date." All of the "consensus" article's statements are from 2008 or earlier -- sometimes much earlier. All of my "skeptical" sources are from 2008 or later. My point is that opinion within the scientific community has shifted noticeably (the consensus is weakening) in recent years, and wikipedia should reflect this shift. Furthermore, I see no reason to presume that a statement by a scientific academy reflects a consensus in that particular country. The recent example of the Royal Acadamy (see the above quote from the London Times) proves the existence of dissent in Great Britain, even if this dissent is not visible in the Royal Academy's final statement.
--You claim that the Senate minority report does not represent a reliable source "in the context of science." I would agree with you IF that document was trying to make a scientific point, but it isn't doing that. It is documenting the opinions of scientists. It is a compilation of public statements from scientists expressing skepticism about global warming. I think that we can presume that the U.S. Senate is a reliable compiler of quotations. If you disagree, please say so.
--The answers to the first two FAQ's contain statements that seem to be inaccurate, poorly sourced, and out of date. Perhaps I should open another segment on this page discussing these issues.
--Other Choices (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
But this is a flawed assumption. Inhofe isn't a reliable source for climate science. Nor are his hearings. This isn't a new phenomenon, and has been well documented (see McCright & Dunlap, for example). Guettarda (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment, Other Choices. This isn't a horse race, if the Joint Academies (it's international remember) of science made their statement in 2008, a senate minority report or new paper article published afterwards does not nullify it. The sentence was intended to represent the scientific assessment of the science. I maintain a senate minority report represents a political assessment of the science. --Tony 155.99.230.155 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Guettarda, Inhofe's Minority Report doesn't make any claims about the science, only about the consensus (or lack thereof). In this document, the scientists speak in their own words. For that reason, I don't think McCright & Dunlap is relevant.
Tony, I might be wrong, but you seem to think that the Joint Academies statements represent consensuses among each individual nation's body of scientists. Prevailing view is different from consensus, which is much stronger. The example of the Royal Academy (see the quote from the London Times above) shows that there is significant dissent within at least one national academy. Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that the Royal Academy represents the views of all or almost all scientists in Great Britain. Beyond that, the "Climategate" scandal happened AFTER all those Joint Academy statements, and that has affected scientific views, as witnessed by the quotations from scientists in the Inhofe report.
Here are some more sources documenting scientific skepticism. They seem reliable to me. Does anybody think any of these additional sources are unreliable?
--Japanese Scientists cool on theories: "When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he [Dr. Maruyama] said, 'the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.'"
--Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not give into climate ‘alarmists’: "The letter, signed or endorsed by more than 50 scientists, tells members that the signees completely disagree with the assertions made by their alarmist peers."
--Russian scientists deny that the Kyoto Protocol reflects a consensus view of the world scientific community.
--Climate Change Reconsidered: the 2009 Report of the NIPCC
--And here is the text of Harold Lewis's resignation letter from the American Physical Society: US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'
--In summary, it seems to me that all of these sources, taken together, provide ample evidence that the earlier scientific consensus about global warming is weakening. --Other Choices (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that you rewarm repeatedly refuted denialist leftovers. The NIPCC is just a front for SEPP. The Japanese stuff has been discussed before - its a) heavily mistranslated and b) a public discussion where participants were selected for different viewpoints. The "over 50 scientists" letter is always the same 50 scientists (not all of which actually are scientists). And Lewis is just another retired physicist with strong political conviction but no relevant publications. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Would the above be a "Zombie argument"? This is a reoccurring issue, should it be in this wp article? 99.56.121.78 (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

AGW??????

Type into Google "AGW" and this article is the top page that shows up . . . yet "AGW" is nowhere to be found in the article. Shouldn't it be somewhere? Just wondering. Seems logical to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1emt (talkcontribs) 01:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Figure caption glitch

In the first panel of the very first figure on the page, there's a right-bracket "]" between the caption and the figure, just hanging there and looking weird. I looked at the page code but couldn't find the source of the error, and would rather not screw things up with test edits. Mokele (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I see it. I cannot figure out what causes it. The Template:Multiple image code looks complex enough to hide all kinds of nasties, but seems to work fine elsewhere... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, unlinking "mean" in the figure caption makes the extra "]" go away.[4] No idea what that means though. Guettarda (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I changed the external link to a wikilink to GISTEMP which also seems to fix things and also keeps the attribution of the graph to a reasonable destination. The problem has something to do with the fact that the image is surrounded by double brackets in the mutiple image template, but more than that I couldn't figure out. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Solar Variation References

While reading the paragraph about Solar Variation i decided to check the linked references but found 66-68 did not support the proposed hypothesis. Instead they seemed to focus on CO2 being the primary forcing behind AGW and make little or no reference to Solar Variation. As such i would recommend removing them or re locating them to a more appropriate paragraph. "...while others studies suggest a slight warming effect.[31][66][67][68]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crushtopher (talkcontribs) 07:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Move to Global climate change?

I think a better name for this might be "Global climate change" since "global warming" is somewhat misleading. Essentially some (such as Fox News) state that excess snow fall in the eastern United States is blamed on "global warming" however snow and cold temperatures aren't warm. It is somewhat confusing since global climate change accounts for irregular weather patterns. What do others think? (especially those that have worked on this article extensively) If you Google "Global warming" / "Global climate change" I certainly see more results under Global climate change. CaribDigita (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to raise a similar point here before, see 'Request for clearer definitions of terminology and wikipedia page structure on 'climate change'/'global warming' in archive, except I was suggesting that the most appropriate term to use is simply 'climate change'. See the links I posted about the variation on the use of the two terms.86.171.71.177 (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
If you search for the full phrases (using quote marks), "Global warming" wins with 40 million vs. 1.6 million (claimed hits, but then large Google counts are extremely unreliable). Google Scholar is 380000 vs. 260000, same direction. I see your point, but at least for now, I think WP:COMMONNAME still points us the the existing name. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
agree about the unreliability of the method, but when i do it 'global warming' comes up with 29M and 'climate change' comes up 50M, and I would expect that the large majority of the references to 'climate change' are talking about recent global anthropogenic climate change (rather than climate change in its more general sense in climatology).86.171.71.177 (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a terminology shift I think we are witnessing but its too early to tell whether it's going to be the dominant name for the phenomenon The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we are witnessing a terminology shift, however I think 'climate change' has already become the (more) dominant name for the phenomenon 86.171.71.177 (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess the people responsible for major social innovations like calling Royal Mail Consignia and Jif Cif have large gaps in their careers when there's nothing much doing. I don't think Fox News' inability to explain scientific relationships is reason enough for us to rename a major article too often. It looks like we have a redirect, perhaps we could debate over there which article that should point to? --Nigelj (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Since it's not warming at the moment (the last decade) I would agree with this change of name. Isonomia (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
An unsupported assumption. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
"Essentially some (such as Fox News) state that excess snow fall in the eastern United States is blamed on "global warming" however snow and cold temperatures aren't warm."" That's why it is "global warming" not "eastern United States Warming," Calling it "global climate change" basically cedes the debate to the deniers. Modern climate science predicts "warming" not "change". And then there is the fact that calling global warming "climate change" was the originally the idea of Republican public opinion researcher Frank Luntz http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/pr-versus-science-the-luntz-memo/115.192.145.206 (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please add error bars to Instrumental temperature record

Can we please add error bars (with 3 standard deviations) to the instrument temperature record data plot? There is a 5 year moving average, which of course has a smoothing effect. However, since this is only a measure of central tendency, it does not give a quantitative measure of data dispersion, which of course is provided by the standard deviation. If you can point me to the original data set, I can generate these. There is a great deal of scatter in these data. GaleForceWindz (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As it says in the image description, the data is taken from here, which also gives uncertainty estimates (shown by the green bars) that according to Hansen et al. 2006 represent 2 standard deviations for measurements taken at the end of the 19th century, mid 20th century and early 21st century. Adding these bars has been discussed before here, but the consensus was not to add them as I remember. Mikenorton (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
GaleForceWindz, I think you'll find that the 'scatter', as you call it, is actual noise in the system due to complexity and chaos, rather than measurement uncertainty. By all means have a look at the original data, graphs and papers. --Nigelj (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. One of the recent discussions about error-bars in the graph is now in this archive, with example images. Some other discussions are listed here --Nigelj (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Move to Global warming per Revision history of Climate change ... regarding Food security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change&diff=408750529&oldid=408742500

Effects
Substance shortages

One of the effects of climate change is food shortage. The combined effects of overpopulation and the steady effects of climate change are forecast to create a worldwide food shortage as well as a shortage of other vital necessities.[5]

The Food and Agriculture Organization, said in 2003 that teps must be taken to avoid a water crisis in the future.[6]


99.181.152.66 (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And the question or comment is... what?  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It should probably go in one of those topical articles and be fleshed out there before it is put here. Please also take care to read the article into which you are putting that information. Thanks, Awickert (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I came across the Planetary boundaries article the other day. It's a strange title, but it may be close to what this is about. --Nigelj (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

When is main graph going to be updated?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An editor pushing some rather tendentious accusations against his fellow editors and demanding action based on unsupported assumptions. Same as it ever was. --TS 00:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


With the UAH down back below 0C [5] and other climate activists giving up [6] I see that the activists here also seem to have given up keeping the main graph up to date. If other's have given up I'd be more than happy to replace it with one that is more up to date and more informative and e.g. shows the predicted temperature rise since 2001, and compare (or should I say contrasts) it with the actual temperature.85.211.230.148 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Your sources are, um, questionable. As for the update, see the FAQ, Q7. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
That graph in your source is showing monthly temperature results; not really useful when trying to show changing climate patterns. As for your sources, um, well, there not the sort of thing that can be used to source this article. Hitthat (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I was merely using the sources to show that one could reasonably believe that the graph is not being updated to reflect recent temperature because of a particular Point of View and/or that those with a particular point of view which has been dominant here in recent years may have given up on this subject as a dead loss. Obviously, if it is the former, then this is intended as prompt to either keep it up to date or let others with a more neutral point of view edit it, if it is the latter, then I'd be quite willing to replace the graph with an updated one of my own.85.211.230.148 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Graph looks 1 year out of date to me, does'nt seem so horrid considering its only been 3 months since the data became available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.113.16 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In the days when the temperature was going up, the graph would be updated almost before the data was made public. These days that the temperature isn't going up it isn't being updated. I'll give it a few weeks and if it isn't updated by then, I will assume that no one is going to update and insert my own version. 85.211.230.148 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't you believe in the "no warming during the last decade" claim? Assuming that's true, its about as long as Wikipedia exists... Oh yes, and the NASA plot of the data shows 2010 as the warmest year on record, so expect another uptick (this is, btw, fairly closely reflected in your Spence graph). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of beliefs 2010 is indeed the warmest year on record according to Nasa's Gisstemp, which the existing plot uses as a data source. My memory of the article has a 2-3 year interval in terms of graph updates...but really single year data points recording breaking or not matter little in terms of the overall trend. --130.179.113.16 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  This "[i]n the days when the temperature was going up..." sounds more like a sentiment than an actual fact. Before you leap in to unilaterally "balance" something that might may not be unbalanced, why don't you take a look at the revisions and find the diffs where (as you claim) the graph was updated with inordinate haste? Jumping in solely on the basis of a feeling, and lacking consensus, will likely get you speedily reverted. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


New paper claims a value one seventh of the IPCC best estimate for Climate Sensitivity for a CO2 doubling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's become rather obvious that this is somebody pushing a hobby horse based on a single as-yet unpublished paper, whereas we don't or shouldn't write encyclopedia articles based on singleton papers even after they're published. --TS 00:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


This paper [7] looks like its going to hit this subject soon and lead to a complete rewrite of almost the entire global warming article. "The climate sensitivity CS as a measure for the temperature increase found, when the actual CO2-concentration is doubled, ... is found to be CS = 0.45°C with an estimated uncertainty of 30%". 85.211.230.148 (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have my doubts. It's the abstract for a poster presentation by a retired Professor for Laser and Material Science, hardly an expert on climate. Also see The FAQ/Q22. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Schulz are you attacking the man because you can't attack the science? At the very least this raises serious doubts about the IPCC temperature prediction which is the core of this article. Obviously we'll have to wait until we have full access to the paper but as I think any conclusions should be rapidly assimilated into this article I'm posting a link so that we can get ready to change it as soon as the paper is out85.211.230.148 (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no paper, or at least no sign of one. It's a poster presentation at EGU 2011. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
He makes the common mistake of treating the atmosphere as a single layer and not realizing the importance of the decrease of emissivity with height. That doesn't mean he's dumb; over the years many others have made this mistake, as Spencer Weart's review discusses in some detail. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a good example of how hard it is for the layperson to understand how science works. An abstract is not a paper. Anyone can publish an abstract. It is much harder to publish a paper in a refereed journal, because that means that someone else has checked your results. Harder still is to pass the test of replication, which requires that other scientists can reproduce your result.

What I find it hard to understand is why some people feel so strongly about global warming that they believe an abstract by a minor professor at a minor university but doubt papers published by acknowledged experts from major universities in refereed journals whose work has been replicated.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's called "result-based analysis" ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  Yes. I am quite amazed at how many people, finding a congenial "fact", then interpret everything else to confirm that fact and position. I have wondered if it would be useful to have a thoroughly detailed explanation (sort of a meta-FAQ) of how science works, but the problem is always that that the horse doesn't really want to drink. The underlying problem (at least in the States) is a long tradition of anti-intellectualism, the supposed "intellectuals" being cast as more over-bearing authoritarians which should not be allowed to interfere with one's freedom to believe in any old garbage. In the end I think it is a cultural and even political problem. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Personally I find that Bob Altemeyer's book explains this phenomenon. The kind of people he describes would gladly send themselves to prison, just to follow those they have decided to believe in. They consider authoritative statements by someone with a strong belief to be more convincing than comprehensible proofs. Hans Adler 06:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Johnson, what are you talking about. This is a paper produced by an established scientist who is an expert on atmospheric absorption and modelling. He is using the very latest techniques based on the HITRAN2008 data which is a greatly improved modelling database for modelling trace atmospheric gases, particularly H20, CO2 and Ch4. He is using a refined model of the atmosphere with an enhanced numbers of vertical layers multiple latitude zones. This refined techniques & model is demonstrating that the previoius modelling using far simpler modelling and less refined spectral analysis is severely wanting. Whilst we are yet to know if or how he is modelling any feedback, the standard of science is very high and I've no doubt you will be soon eating your words. This paper is absolute dynamite: it is going to blow this subject apart! 85.211.230.148 (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You speak very highly of it. Where are the explosions? For example, why hasn't another scientist replicate his results? Built upon his work? I realize that the paper is new. My point is unless you can provide a strong follow-up, then I am not convinced this one source is enough. Provide a follow-up and we'll see, that's all I'm asking. --Tony 155.99.230.103 (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems to come from WUWT, although even that crowd is unusually restrained. And again, there is no paper, just a poster abstract. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's start discussing what will need to change as a result of this improved calculation of warming Even from what is available, the paper is sufficient to require us to put a caveat on the figure for CO2 induced warming when it is presented at the meeting in April. But I presume no one would object to waiting until the full paper is available before making more substantive changes to the article? 85.211.230.148 (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Read before you think. Think before you write. Is there anything in the preceding replies that you do not understand? Feel free to ask! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Stephan have you even read the paper? Have you even checked up on the background and the methodology employed in this paper - apparently not else you would be a lot more contrite. I know you aren't stupid, so if you want to know more about the paper I will be very happy to point you in the direction. I have tried to make you aware of this "dynamite" of a paper. It's not just another attempt to calculate warming using another variation of another model, it is literally ground breaking stuff using the latest modelling of trace gas absorption in the atmosphere. Take it from me, because this is right up my area of expertise, this is going to need serious discussion, and it would be very much in your interest to set the rules for that discussion now, before the less scientific contributors realise exactly how significant this paper is and start piling in. 85.211.230.148 (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
So you have "'dynamite' of a paper" from a laser researcher at Hamburg Bundeswehr University for whom this appears to be the first publication on climate science. What's next? Revolutionary discoveries in a television interview with Jörg Kachelmann and fundamentally new insights in a diploma thesis by Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg? Hans Adler 14:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm with the majority here. I just read through the abstract and it fails on several levels. The first of which is it fails to deal with any sort of feedbacks whatsoever. The second is that it claims that there is "interference with water lines." WTFFT (what the fast fourier transform??)??? One need look no further than this graph (there was a better one I saw yesterday at colloquium that dealt with looking at Earth from the outside, but I can't seem to find it) to see that CO2 and H20 are nowhere near each other in the spectrum, and the distinction is even more sharp when plotted in a log log plot. Third, it's an abstract... for a poster.... no one in charge of accepting or rejecting these abstracts ever actually looks at these things, and no supporting paper is required. Wake me when it's a paper in the peer-reviewed literature..... Sailsbystars (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have read the thing (It's not a paper. It's a poster abstract). I'm very much not impressed. The thing is only a page, i.e. much to short to give a reasonable description. And I'm no expert (for an expert comment see Boris above, who really knows what he is talking about). But even I can see that the "two layer model", which models the atmosphere as a simple layer (presumably with the spectroscopic properties modeled as a composite of the 228 individual layers), is severely oversimplified and fraught with error. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"This is a paper produced by an established scientist who is an expert on atmospheric absorption and modelling." Except that it is not a paper, it is not produced by an established scientist, and he is not an expert. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no possibility that this work will be accepted by a reputable peer-reviewed journal in anything resembling its present form. Let's not waste any more time arguing over it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I expect the extended version in Energy and Environment next month... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

85.211.230.14 (whoever you are): have you never heard of the saying that one swallow does not a summer make? (Although here I am more inclined to "one snowflake does not a snowstorm make".) What I was talking about above is, basically, epistemology — the study of why we think we know what we think we know. In the current case, you are getting all hot (!) and bothered about one — well, it's not even a paper, it's a poster abstract. Possibly of some potential interest, but scientifically having no more weight than a snowflake. Hardly the fulcrum by which you, or anyone, is going to overturn half a century of research. The only question of possible interest here is why you, with little understanding of science generally, and apparently no expertise whatsoever of climate science, should think that you know better than the experts amongst us. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't lower myself to comment directly on the previous comments, except to say go and do your homework! This paper is a vast improvement on Myhre et al. (1998) as you would expect if you are using the 2008 HITRAN database rather than 1996 database. The two are like chalk and cheese. So is the layering used in this new paper. The paper clearly explains why there is such a marked difference and I won't insult those who have read it by repeating it. The simple fact is that unless the author has made a major error, this paper is going to force a major rewrite here. The question is do we caveat the relevant parts now or when it comes out in April? 85.211.230.148 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
85.211.230.148, (I think it would be useful if you would confirm or deny that you are Isonomia), many climate papers are published every month, and really it's true that we don't rely on singleton papers. Now here you quote an abstract describing a paper that hasn't even yet been published. Can you see the problem here? Whatever the paper, which you have not read, might say, even if you had read it and could show it to us, the reason why we should choose to rely on this single paper, of all the others we do not rely on, is not clear. This is an encyclopedia, not a silly blog where ignorant people will seized on the next piece of text that seems to confirm their beliefs. --TS 00:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Definition

In the first sentence, why is the term "Global Warming" defined using the phrase "since the mid-20th century"? That seems to be an arbitrary restriction on the definition with no reference given. Global warming has been happening for 12000 years (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation#Land-based_chronology_of_Quaternary_glacial_cycles). Has this definition been erroneously transferred from "anthropogenic global warming"? Or does Wikipedia make no distinction between cause and effect? Mrdavenport (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As per the article hat-note (before the first sentence), what you're looking for may be in Climate change or Paleoclimatology. --Nigelj (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know, the 'global warming' that has been happening for the last 12000 years was us comming out of an ice age. In other words, that doesn't really count because it would have happened anyway. The point is that it should have slowed down, and it hasn't. If it hadn't been for human intervention in the last couple of centuries, the climate would have stablised. Just because to things have the same effect doesn't mean they are the same. 81.187.148.35 (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
that doesn't really count because it would have happened anyway.... so why's this article called global warming when no one's ever proved it isn't natural variation and would happen anyway? Isonomia (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
12,000 years....it's been cooling for the last 8,000 years now.[8] Kauffner (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Kauffner-Where on the Vostok graph does it show "cooling for the last 8,000 years"? --CurtisSwain (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Kauffner is right; there has been a slow decrease in reconstructed temps since the Holocene climatic optimum. Mrdavenport: the last glacial maximum is typically given as 21 ka and the hatnote on this article should tell you how WP uses the phrase (in order to free up "climate change" for the more general). To all - let's move on, as this doesn't seem to have anything to do with improving this article. Awickert (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Most scientists" should be changed to "an overwhelming majority of scientists" as cited source states. ("Most" could mean as little as 51 percent the cited source specifically states "overwhelming majority" and goes into details about the number of peer reviewed studies etc. Improves (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)improves

problems with FAQ

I'm going to bring up issues about the FAQ here before I go and change anything. First of all, the FAQ states that an anti-global-warming petition uses the names of imaginary characters like "Perry Mason." However, there really is a Perry Mason, Ph.D -- he's a chemist in Texas. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition and (with photo) Perry Mason's university bio page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talkcontribs) 01:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question, why is there an obvious BLP violation in the FAQ? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see an obvious BLP violation. If you're referring to the "Perry Mason" bit, that was hardly obvious. Anyway I've fixed it (as you could have done yourself if that was the item of concern). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I couldnt figure out how to edit them. Are they transcluded from somewhere? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's kind of confusing -- took a couple of tries to figure it out, and I'm a "regular" here. You click on the "faq page" link at the left of the bar (not the ? mark), then you can edit the FAQ page like any other. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, and I think it gets a little stranger. Turns out people are adding fake names,[9] which makes it difficult discern those real people who happen to share the names of famous personalities.[10] I think the second bullet in FAQ 2 should say:

But Boris has already fixed it, and I'm fine with whatever. What do you guys think? --CaC 155.99.231.35 (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's one that's a bit more complicated: George Waldenberger and his demand to be taken off Senator Inhofe's list of skeptical scientists. The way the FAQ is currently worded gives the impression that Waldenberger is falsely being labeled a skeptic. But the actual Senate report provides a direct quote from Waldenburger as follows:

Perhaps, if Waldenberger is to be mentioned, we should refer to what he actually said, which is the reason for his continued inclusion in the report despite his demand to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talkcontribs) 03:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to know when to stop. We could go further and note that George Waldenberger is a TV weathercaster, not a practicing scientist as implied by Inhofe's list. I think Waldenberger's personal statement is adequate without doing our own analysis of the situation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify my point about Waldenberger, which also applies to Steve Rayner (not Rainer; I'd correct it if I could figure out how). The FAQ as currently written gives the impression that Waldenberger and Rayner are NOT skeptical about global warming, and that their inclusion on the list is inappropriate. My point, and I ask other editors to share their opinions, is that both of these points are debatable:
--Inhofe's list quotes the words of Waldenberger and Rayner, so everybody can see what they said and wrote in public. As far as I know, neither one has retracted the public statements that led to their inclusion in the list.
--Therefore, some people might reasonably conclude that their inclusion in this list is appropriate, and wikipedia shouldn't take sides concerning this question the way it is doing now.--Other Choices (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I've amended the text so that it says the people in question "say they aren't skeptical." This avoids our taking sides, and is more consistent with Wikipedia's usual "he said, she said" approach. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Red-linked "users"

The continuing nonsense from brand new accounts red-linked for lack of any user page content makes me wonder: would it be useful to restrict editing from new "users" until 48 hours after user page content has been added? That might slow down the nonsense, and even give us a chance to get ahead of it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats something you would have to propose to the community at WP:VP/PR. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be ineffective, as if the sockmaster's behavior is identified, he simply changes his behavior so he no longer fits the criteria. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  I think the community at large is not so closely impacted, is less interested. I think it would have some effectiveness, because a requirement to add anything on one's user page provides more opportunity to examine behavior. The extra work of adding something (which legitimate users do anyway) amounts to a significant increment of effort when creating multiple throw-away accounts. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It wouldn't slow him down. In fact he went through a phase of trivially bluelinking his user and talk pages. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
We used to have a crack team of sock-spotters here, and more recently there have been a few delays in identifying some of them. What we need to do may be to hang a bit looser, and not feel the need to rise to every bait laid on the talk page, en masse, within minutes, time after time. On most occasions, if the article isn't compromised, nothing is lost by leaving the odd assertion unchallenged here for a few hours. It makes it less fun for those who come here for their entertainment, and sensible discussions will still proceed at a slower pace. --Nigelj (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Possibly a trivial bluelink is an insufficient indicator. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Raymond has a good point. Keni Rodgers (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Making any substantive decision on the basis of a redlinked userpage would be ineffective in handling this sophisticated and battle-hardened sock puppeteer. It would only present a very hostile face to newcomers--which is one of the problems of the handling of this topic that were raised by the arbitration committee last Autumn.

The idea of holding back from responding to controversial comments is very promising. A genuine newcomer wouldn't expect an instant response, but a talk page pile-on is the kind of thing that gratifies trolls. Tasty monster (=TS ) 09:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Or we could just ignore red-linked users? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Validity of science vs. cost of mitigation

Sailbystars' [edit] changes the description of the "ongoing ... debate" from "validity of the science" to "whether the costs of mitigation outweigh the risks of inaction'". These are very different issues. I haven't reverted because both statements have some validity, but this change is something that ought to be discussed before being unilaterally made. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I welcome discussion. My edit was made under WP:BRD and I'm open to the R to the original version. Let's look at a few versions of that sentence that we had:
    1. The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[8][9][10][B] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. (original)
    2. The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[8][9][10][B] Since consensus does not constitute proof, the political and public debate continues.(Amazeroth v. 1)
    3. While the scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring[8][9][10][B], the political and public debate about the theory continues. (Amazeroth v.2)
    4. While the scientific consensus is that human activity contributes significantly to global warming[8][9][10][B], there is an ongoing political and public debate over the validity of the science. (Pseudo-Richard)
    5. While the scientific consensus is that human activity contributes significantly to global warming[8][9][10][B], there is an ongoing political and public debate over whether the costs of mitigation outweigh the risks of inaction. (my version)
Option 1 is acceptable, but vague and somewhat leaves the impression that public debate is without merit
Option 2 is the "it's only a theory" trope commonly used to downplay the strength of a science conclusion
Option 3 is not too bad. I still dislike the use of the word "theory" since scientists and the public use the word in different ways
Option 4 is a gross insult to scientists everywhere.
Option 5 takes on a bit of a different meaning, and perhaps a bit of wishful thinking on my part. Science can and is being debated by qualified scientists in the literature. In my idealized vision of the world, science has presented several scenarios, the likelihood and error bars of each scenario, and the consequences of each one. The debate in the public sphere should not be about the science, but whether action should be taken. Unfortunately, you have people like Sen. Inhofe and Lord Monckton who think that somehow they are smarter than thousands of scientists who have dedicated their careers to understanding this stuff, and I don't how how we can indicate in the article that this is a sensitive issue without insulting the work of those scientists or the intelligence and honor of such politicians. Thoughts? Sailsbystars (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick side note, I had some discussion with Amazeroth on his or her talk page earlier today. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts? 1. Science is based on facts, on evidence, and as soon as you start talking about consensus you are talking about something that has no place in a scientific article. 2. There was also an "overwhelming consensus" on WMD - all the experts agreed, the evidence was compelling, unequivocal etc. etc. ... and likewise it just lacked that one essential ingredient: evidence! 85.211.230.148 (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  Another red herring, and a popular misunderstanding. 1) Science is entirely about consensus, even as to what is accepted as "fact". 2) The "overwhelming evidence" for WMD had nothing to do with science, or even real evidence; it was the ideologically driven interpretation of political appointees. Which is the same source of the "controversy" here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is horsepoo. If science were about consensus we wouldn't need schools nor universities, we could just all agree on something to be true. Heck, I wouldn't even need to prove the Pythagorean Theorem to my professor anymore, I would just have everyone in the classroom vote for me (so much for keeping political ideology out of science, hmmm?). --Amazeroth (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
As I said earlier on my (his!) discussion page: I am for option 3. There is nothing wrong with calling an apple an apple or a theory a theory. One can always just link to theory (or its relevant section). But it is wrong to imply that the public and political debate is just about mitigation, because it is not, it is about the whole theory – otherwise this article wouldn't need to be protected, right? ;-)
I doubt it's an editors job to protect people from certain beliefs or disbeliefs, or to advance or hinder certain things. Calling a theory a theory will not sway those who believe in global warming, nor those who do not believe in it, to either side. At some point the most one can do is to give it ones best shot and wait for truth to assert itself (it always has and always will). And if it causes someone to investigate what a theory actually is, all the better! One more brain for science. --Amazeroth (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with Amazeroth's reasoning of calling it a theory. GW is both theory and data. For example, temperature is measurable; so are energy flux and atmospheric composition. Concluding that the increase in temperature, on the other hand, can be explained by the release of greenhouse gases is theory. The public and political debate do discuss the scientific theory and data, they may be wrong, but it is a debate nevertheless. I prefer the original, Option 1, since Sailsbystars asked.

The scientific consensus isn't only about AGW. It basically summed up in the second and third sentence in the first paragraph. I think it should be moved there, rather than repeated in the third paragraph, which should really focused on the public perception and politics. --Tony 155.99.231.12 (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think option 5 should stand. If the first part of the sentence read "While the scientific consensus is that the costs of mitigation outweigh the risks of inaction" then it would make sense to contrast that with the general public consensus on that issue - it does not. How about a less woolly version of option 1 above:
The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[8][9][10][B] Nevertheless, skepticism amongst the wider public remains.
--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
"While the scientific consensus is that the costs of mitigation outweigh the risks of inaction" is not an appropriate construction. Assessing the costs of mitigation relative to the business-as-usual scenario is an economic and policy issue, not a scientific one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Option 1, or perhaps IanOfNorwich's 'less woolly' version of it above are the only verifiable statements. In the current version (i.e. 5), if "human activity contributes significantly to global warming", what are the other significant contributory factors that have global scientific agreement? And where are they either referenced or discussed in the article? That construct is just unfounded FUD and Teach the Controversy weasel wording. Speaking of global, I would alter IoN's 'less woolly' statement by adding "especially in the US" on the end, but maybe that's just me. --Nigelj (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The original version or Ian's "less wolly" version are both fine. My alternate version was mainly to provoke thoughtful discussion on alternate phrasing to address amazeroth's concerns, which it has (for the most part) and I'm not overly attached to it. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I've interpreted that as sufficient (non scientific) consensus, for now at least, and made the edit. @Short Brigade Harvester Boris - I agree; was for illustrative purposes only. I've left out Nigelj's addition as I've met a few fairly avid skeptics here in the UK too, I'm certainly a skeptic myself.
--IanOfNorwich (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, sorry if I implied otherwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
No apology needed, though I was misunderstood but seemingly the other way round.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The revised version is worse than the original. "skepticism amongst the wider public remains" is misleading, as it suggests that it is only the general public who are skeptical, not scientists. In fact, many scientists are also skeptical. Poujeaux (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Poujeax, Take a look at List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. Given it's from the set of all the scientist in the world it's a small list. Compare with List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis; which is just a list of scientist contributing to one part of one IPCC report. The concensus is not absolute but is overwhelming. While the first list may not be complete the best route might be to expand that before changing the lede here.
--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

problems with the instrumental temperature record chart

for the last six years, this article has used Dragons flight's graph of the instrumental temperature record, using a zero baseline of the interval 1961-1990. this showed the current maximum anomaly as about .5 deg C above the baseline through 2009.

now we have a new graph, using a zero baseline interval of 1951-1980, which effectively pushes the maximum anomaly to now exceed .8 deg C above baseline for 2010 (while also pushing the max values through 2009 to above .7 deg C)

why? what's the rationale for changing the baseline and pushing all the values higher? Anastrophe (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

DF's graph, for a long time, was based on the HadCRUT numbers, which follow the IPCC standard of using 1961-1990 as the baseline. He maintained that even when moving to the GIS dataset (because the legal situation of using the CRU data was/is not completely clear - apparently in Britain you can copyright data, and the CRU license, while fine for scientific work, is not generous enough for Wikipedia). Someone else wanted to have the latest data in, and, instead of using the data to create a graph following the conventions used here and by the IPCC just grabbed the ready-made (PD) graph of the NASA web page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
An advantage of the GISS version is that it includes uncertainty estimates (the vertical green bars). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
i'd argue that consistency of data presentation would be more desireable. Anastrophe (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a consistent basis period is desirable. Also, normally, using the longest relevant period is desirable. (Relevant period in this case being post industrial revolution). Both basis periods are 30 years, the 1951-1980 basis period, however, gives a longer time for any signal (or lack thereof) to become apparent, so is, in that respect, preferable. On the other hand going too far back data quality may diminish but I don't think that too much of a problem here. Neither basis period can be used for direct with satellite data as the main sets only go back to Dec 1978 so 1961-1990 wouldn't give us universal consistency.
--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be mixing up the basis period with the period of record (unless I'm the one who's confused, which does happen fairly often). The basis period is arbitrary; choosing a different basis period simply produces a constant offset. That being the case I don't see how it "gives a longer time for any signal to become apparent." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that a different baseline (or consistency) is a problem as it doesn't affect the scientific accuracy of the graph; that said the main difference is not even the reference period (~ 0.05°C) but that the current graph use a different dataset(i.e. the met stations only, no SST)...while the previous one was the land-ocean temperature index: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right -- I hadn't noticed that. We definitely should be using the land-ocean chart. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, on the subject of baseline, it does matter. While it would be accurate with any baseline an appropriately chosen one makes some information in the data easier to see. I agree, though, that including/excluding Sea Surface Temperature is a more substantial change. What are the bennefits of including Sea Surface Temperature? What information should the graph convey? I can see a case for concentrating on surface land temperatures, as that is where most of us live and where warming will have the greatest effect first. What's the reasoning for including SST?--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It's global warming after all, and oceans cover about 70% of the globe. It would be nice to have the global mean (land and SST) in the lede and then separate graphs for land and oceans later on, but that might be too much. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, thermal expansion of sea water and increased evaporation are both effects that have a very great effect on us (in the abstract) indeed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Would certainly be nice (further into the article) to have separate graphs showing both sea and land temp or even better both as separate lines in one graph to contrast the two. To be clear, what we are talking about with SST is just that the surface temperature of the sea, as opposed to an atmospheric temperature on for the land. I guess that where the sea and air are in contact they are at the same temperature, though I don't know how far into the atmosphere that holds true? I take the point re sea temperature mattering (tangibly) but I'm still for keeping it simple and using land instrumental record where we have a choice for the lede, because that is easy to understand and all these sets tell the same tale in any case (though more pronounced on land?).
As it happens, it's up to DF or other existing graphs for the mo, until we can make some new ones. My first thought would be gnuplot and data from woodfortrees.org as far as that goes, is there an internal wiki page on the subject of graph making or something?
--IanOfNorwich (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
In case editors want to switch back to the land-ocean temperature index just upload a new version of the current graph at wikimedia commons using the land-ocean chart:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif
Separate graphs for land and ocean are already available at the more specific Instrumental temperature record article. Those graphs use NOAA data, giss do not provide an sst analisys(gistemp use HadSST2 and Oiv2 sst products) and the meteorological stations index is not really a land only temperature reconstruction, it is an approximation of the global temperature using only met. stations prepared at a time when gridded sst products were not yet available, that's why land anomalies are extrapolated over the ocean and anomalies are not weighted proportionate to the land area over the 3 latitude bands(90s/23.6s - 23.6s/23.6n - 23.6n/90n) but to the land-ocean area(~ 0.3 - 0.4 - 0.3). --Giorgiogp2 (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm only mildly against the change. The current concusses seems in favor so I'd just do it if I were you.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Emissions illustrations out of date

The illustration of country emissions are ten years old. They're out of date and inaccurate - they should be replaced or cut. They're now better in a history article. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.135.21 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

True. Can you find or create an updated figure? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The image's author is long gone. However, the image is based off of data from the main article. I've looked up the source, and in order to download the data you need to be registered. Registering shouldn't be hard, and all that needs to be done after that is to copy and past the data in CSV form into GunnMap or another provider. --CaC 155.99.231.77 (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Cool about the Gunn maps. I knew where to find the data, but not how to make the fancy-brand graphic with colors for each country. The data are available in the International Energy Agency reports which you can get without registering, e.g. [12] but it would be tedious to digitize the data (unless you're clever about extracting data from PDFs). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I downloaded the data and am working on it now... Sailsbystars (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This may take a while... I can make a quick and dirty map with the gunn map tool, but it only outputs pngs and jpgs, whereas wikigraphs should use SVGs (and they don't allow for easy labeling....) I think I can do it well using python's basemap library, but it will take a bit of time.... a few caveats on the data: Looks like CO2 w/ land use is only available through 2006 and additional greenhouse gasses (e.g. CH4) are only available though 2005, so the map is only five years out of date from the best available data. Sailsbystars (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Sailsbystars (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice work! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Breach of NPOV

Misleading graphs

The two headline graphs on the page - 'global temperatures' and 'surface and satellite temperatures' - are both somewhat misleading, and more suitable for advocacy than NPOV.

Aside from the widespread criticism of the GISS temperature record - others are more widely accepted by both skeptics and proponents - the first graph should be clearly labelled as anomalies, not temperatures. There has been (RS) criticism that it is (perhaps deliberately, probably subconsciously) chosen and presented in such a way as to create a link between the idea 'global temperature' and a graph spiking sharply upwards - although I can't find the source for that assertion right now, and it's probably not worth taking into account. Still, it should at least be properly titled.

The second graph is simply a puff-piece. Why is the trend measured over the period since Jan 1982, which just happens to start at the bottom of a trough? There's an interesting blink-graph I've seen somewhere which cycles through a number of different trend-lines fitted to the same data over different periods. If someone can track that down, it might be a good neutral piece to use.

I'm loathe to remove the graphs without any replacements ready, but they're not great as they are. The first is better than the second, but really neither is great. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Dave

Dave, before we begin, you need to realize that your claims holds no weight until it has been reliably sourced. Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy. On scientific articles such as this, academic and peer-reviewed publications are expected. I hope you appreciate that an assertion does not determine what goes into the article, but a sourced claim, and your sourced claim will be compared against those found on the image's file description. With this said, let's see your sources. --Tony 155.99.230.205 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Tony, on what basis are you claiming this article is "scientific"? The name clearly isn't scientific, it is the popular name of a political campaign. Global warming is no more scientific than "save the penguins". Yes you can draw graph after graph after graph and claim that the numbers of penguins is basically science, but anyone can see that you'd at least give it a scientific sounding name like AGW. To put in bluntly, this article is about global warming, it is not about global warming science, because if it was, that is the name it would have.85.211.192.249 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2011 (UTCt
@85.211, This article is a parent article which covers the entire climate change topic, including an entire field of scientific inquiry. I imagine that's what Tony means by "scientific", and if so, he would be correct. I can't address your particular concerns above until I have reliable sources to compare, so tracking those down would be useful for this discussion. All the best,   — Jess· Δ 17:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The reason Dragons Filght chose the period he did for the trend is indicated in the description of the file [13]. Personally, despite those reasons, I'd prefer to see the trend calculated for the whole Dec 1978 to present and have asked him on his talk page to do so, if he updates the graph.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The state-of-the-art way to measure global temperature is the radiosounde data as measured by HadAT2. That's the graph that should get top billing. The most misleading of these graphs is the third one, labelled "Reconstructed Temperature". This is the infamous "hide-the-decline" graph, with the line for instrumental data spliced on in such a way as to hide the decline in the reconstructed temperature. Kauffner (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You should be aware that the junkscience website is ironically named. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
But it's good to see (from an accuracy point of view) that even some of their graphs indicate an upward trend in the temperature of the troposphere. One problem with the sonde data, at least as presented there, is that it gives temperature at various heights above sea level. The greenhouse effect will cause cooling if you go high enough - at the level of the stratosphere which sondes reach.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Planetary boundaries

Add CO2 in the atmosphere is a Planetary boundaries metric for climate change/global warming. 99.56.120.165 (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious? Continued habitability of the Earth is why global warming is notable. If you read the article from Scientific American April 2010 ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=boundaries-for-a-healthy-planet "Boundaries for a Healthy Planet" by Jonathan Foley, Gretchen C. Daily, Robert Howarth, David A. Vaccari, Adele C. Morris, Eric F. Lambin, Scott C. Doney, Peter H. Gleick and David W. Fahey ) you'll find this boundary has already been crossed (350 ppm, in the late 1980's), that is why all the global melting. The excess carbon dioxide not only contributes to the climate change/greenhouse effect/global warming, it also increases ocean acidification, among other undesirable effects. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, why? That's a secondary or tertiary connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am having a little difficulty parsing the opening sentence. Possibly the anonymous originator meant to say something like "Please add discussion of 'CO2 in the atmosphere as a Planetary boundaries metric for climate change/global warming.'" Well, adding something like that to the article is something we might discuss, and it might even be A Good Thing. But I can't see doing so just because someone is excited about a single article. At the very least I would want to see an argument as to why that is important. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Resource: "Boundaries for a Healthy Planet" by Jonathan Foley, Gretchen C. Daily, Robert Howarth, David A. Vaccari, Adele C. Morris, Eric F. Lambin, Scott C. Doney, Peter H. Gleick and David W. Fahey Scientific American April 2010 99.190.85.150 (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
(You're repeating yourself.) Even if it were appropriate to spam links to the "Planetary boundaries" article for each boundary, it shouldn't be linked to this article, but to a more specific one on, say greenhouse gases. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is a citation. So? I see no argument or statement as to why it should be included. In that it is yet to be answered I will repeat Arthur's question: why? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Why would greenhouse gases be more appropriate as per Talk:Planetary boundaries Climate change/Global warming is a "Planetary Boundary"? 99.119.128.35 (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Because the "boundary" is said to be CO2 in the atmosphere; if the planetary boundaries should be linked from any of the articles, it should be from the one most appropriate, which is greenhouse gases, rather than the consequence, global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Planetary boundaries the planetary boundary in the table is Climate change and the description is CO2 in the atmosphere (metric). 108.73.113.97 (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Even in reliable sources, titles and subtitles are not considered acceptable. How much less are titles in subtitles within a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talkcontribs) 05:35, 1 April 2011
As in Talk:Drinking_water#Planetary_boundaries, what subtitles? It is a list of boundaries, of which global warming/climate change is one. 99.190.87.1 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The "boundary" is CO2 concentration, not warming. Even if it should be linked (where, there is at most one editor not in your cluster of IPs, in agreement), it should be from a related article, such as greenhouse gases. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Enough! This rambling, poorly enunciated discussion should be put out of its misery. The original poster wants links back to the Planetary boundaries article — see the list of targeted articles at Talk:Planetary boundaries#Include link from each boundaries' corresponding wp article?. That is a poorly sourced (as in one incompletely cited source) stub article on a obscure and not yet notable topic. Variants of this discussion are taking place on half a dozen articles, largely between Arthur and a handful of anonymous IP addresses (and one red-linked account). All of these efforts are facets of only one effort: to increase the links back to weak article. I suggest any further discussion should be referred back to Talk:Planetary boundaries. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Add LA Times resources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LA Times per comment on Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Add_LA_Times_resources:

While interesting and notable, I don't think the BEST team's results belong in the overview article on global warming (too specific of an event). Perhaps the article Instrumental temperature record briefly mentioning it under global data sets? Or the catchall Global warming controversy article? Can one of the other talk page watchers here think of a better place for noting it? Sailsbystars (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This is identical to the comment posted at Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Add_LA_Times_resources, and the responses there (generally, that this study lacks scientific notability) are applicable here. If these results are to be mentioned I think Global warming controversy is most suitable. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it the team has produced no scientific publications to date, only media announcements, and we definitely don't want to put their very provisional statements based on a tiny subset of their data into this article. It would not sit well with the extensively reviewed material we have used for the bulk of this article. --TS 13:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

For further discussion, see Talk:Global warming controversy # Per Talk:Global_warming > Add LA Times resources 99.181.155.158 (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Problems with "social systems" section

I'm not happy with the current revision of impacts on social systems


[...] In some areas the effects on agriculture, industry and health could be mixed, or even beneficial in certain respects.[...]


This statement is too vague. It should be stated which regions will face positive and negative impacts, as well as how these impacts are expected to vary according to the rate and magnitude of future climate change.


[...] Reuters have reported that the US military is spending millions of dollars a year on nuclear submarine patrols and torpedo tests in the Arctic. This is with a view to global warming leading to Arctic ice disappearing during the summers from the mid-2030s onwards, which in turn will mean that they expect vast new oil and gas reserves to become accessible and commercial shipping to make increased use of shorter passages via the Bering Strait. They report that the US is "jockeying for position" with Russia, China, and other countries to benefit from such new business opportunities in the area.[...]


I don't think this topic is important enough to be included in this article. I suggest that it be moved into the climate change, industry and society sub-article. The reference I'm using for the relative importance of topics is the IPCC report, which is accepted by a large number of countries as providing an objective scientific assessment of climate change. Additionally, I think judging importance should also be based on the UNFCCC, which states the key importance of climate change impacts on economic development, ecosystems, and food production.

My suggested revision is as follows:


There is some evidence of regional climate change having already affected human activities, including agricultural and forestry management activities at higher latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Future impacts will likely vary according the rate and magnitude of future climate change (1). Impacts will also likely vary according to region. For example, global warming of 1-3 deg C (above 1990s temperatures) could benefit crop yields in some mid- and high-latitude areas, although yields could also decrease in low-latitudes (2, 3). Economic studies suggest that this level of warming could result in net market-sector benefits in many high-latitude areas and net losses in many low-latitude areas (2). Above 3 deg C, global food production could decline (2, 3). Several studies suggest that a warming of 4 deg C could result in net market-sector losses of around 0-5% world GDP (4, 5)


References


This revision is more specific that the existing revision, and concentrates on two of the key criteria (economic development and food production) stated in UNFCCC Article 2. Enescot (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Enescot. I agree with your proposed changes. Except 'low-latitudes' does not have a hyphen, while 'low-latitude areas' can; but I'm sure you knew that anyway :-) Good work. --Nigelj (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Enescot (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Clearly a worthwhile review, but is this based on the 2001 TAR? Surely the 2007 AR4 report is currently relevant. There's also the question of increasing extreme weather events rather than even overall warming. The impacts of drought and flooding were projected in AR4 and have recently become more of a significant issue. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Well spotted, Dave. I'm clearly not ready for my "expert reviewers'" badge. Or my PhD. --Nigelj (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've used bits of the TAR synthesis report because I find it better for brief summaries than ar4. I think the TAR's conclusions are probably still valid, but I see that it could be viewed as being dated. To reaffirm the tar's conclusions I've altered my suggested revision and put in supporting references to ar4 (see my reply to IanOfNorwich). I agree that the link between global warming and extreme events is important. Hopefully my new revision addresses this issue. Enescot (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Enescot, Your suggested revision is more specific which is good. It looses "Low-lying coastal systems are vulnerable to sea level rise and storm surge." which is notable and reasonably specific. "Human health will be at increased risk in populations with limited capacity to adapt to climate change." (which is less specific) is also lost. "Increased drought in semi-arid low-latitudes and mid-latitudes are predicted even for 1-2 degree temperature rises." should, in my view, be included. All sourced from (2) IPCC AR4.
--IanOfNorwich (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for your comments. My revision does loose quite a lot of important info which is probably worth retaining. I think the sentences you've mentioned on health and coastal systems could be made more specific and generalized. I agree that the info you mention on droughts is worth including but it doesn't specifically refer to social impacts. Perhaps it could go in the "natural systems" section instead? My new revision:
Vulnerability of human societies to climate change mainly lies in the effects of extreme weather events rather than gradual climate change (wilbanks). Impacts of climate change so far include adverse effects on small islands (schneider reg), adverse effects on indigenous populations in high-latitude areas (schneider rea), and small but discernable effects on human health (schneider tab). Over the 21st century, climate change is likely to adversely affect hundreds of millions of people through increased coastal flooding, reductions in water supplies, increased malnutrition and increased health impacts (ipcc 2007). Small island states and low-lying coastal areas are at particular risk of severe social and economic effects due to sea level rise and storm surges (ipcc 2001, schneider reg, nicholls). Adverse effects on human health (e.g., increased malnutrition) are expected to outweigh benefits (e.g., reduced cold deaths), particularly in developing countries (confalonieri).
Future warming of around 3 deg C (by 2100, relative to 1990-2000) could result in increased crop yields in mid- and high-latitude areas, but in low-latitude areas, yields could decline, increasing the risk of malnutrition (schneider reg). A similar regional pattern of gains and losses is expected for economic (market-sector) effects (schneider tab). Warming above 3 deg C could result crop yields falling in temperate regions, leading to a reduction in global food production (schneider ag). Most economic studies show world GDP losses for higher levels of warming (yohe, stern).
References
Seems excellent to me. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Enescot (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you going to go ahead and make the edit? It seems all round an improvement on the previous version. Re-reading the original there is only one bit I'd now be bothered about loosing... While, as you pointed out to start with, the whole bit based on the Reuters article was too big, but perhaps a sentence noting the expectation of receding attic ice opening the north-west passage by 2030 would be worth including, reffed to the Reuters article. It is much more tangible that the rest of it. But in any case I'd suggest you go ahead and change it to your version, it's been a few days and anyone who wants to make alterations afterwards can do so - it is a wiki after all :-) --IanOfNorwich (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've had my edits on this article reverted before, so I'm quite cautious in making any changes. I'll leave it for a few more days to see if there are any other comments. In respect of the arctic sea ice content, I'm rather uncertain. Including it would, in my view, lend undue weight to impacts in polar regions. My reference for this is the IPCC synthesis report summary for policymakers [25]. There are a large range of regional social impacts, and it's difficult for me to see how this issue deserves greater attention than other regional social effects. I suggest that the IPCC's "especially affected" regions summary is used instead: "It is likely that some regions will be particularly affected by future climate change, including the Arctic, Africa, small islands, and Asian and African megadeltas." This could replace this sentence from my earlier suggested revision: "Small island states and low-lying coastal areas are at particular risk of severe social and economic effects due to sea level rise and storm surges (ipcc 2001, schneider reg, nicholls)."
The IPCC SPM does mention declining arctic sea ice as part of the evidence for global warming [26]. Perhaps the "natural systems" section could be revised to elaborate on this point?:


Evidence for global warming has been detected in a number of systems. Rising sea levels and observed decreases in snow and ice extent are consistent with warming.[17] On average, mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined in both hemispheres, there has been a rapid reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent, disintegration of floating ice shelves, and increased melt rates of the Greenland, West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets.


This is based on the IPCC SPM and a recent UNEP publication (Chapter 2, p.14) [27]. Enescot (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll add another voice in favor of the edit described above. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Enescot (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
"It is likely that some regions will be particularly affected by future climate change, including the Arctic, Africa, small islands, and Asian and African megadeltas." is woolly (affected how?), whereas "Small island states and low-lying coastal areas are at particular risk of severe social and economic effects due to sea level rise and storm surges (ipcc 2001, schneider reg, nicholls)." is much more specific and tangible. I see your point re arctic sea-lanes, compared to, for example, "By 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people [in Africa] are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change."(IPCC synthesis report summary for policymakers) it may be a small concern, but as with many of these broad effects, "increased water stress" is vague - it's hard to draw any firm conclusions from it and it is very hard to verify! The opening of arctic sea lanes is tangible and (at least ultimately) verifiable. I'd be interested to read some more views on that one. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that my suggested sentence is vague in respect of specific climate change impacts, however, more detailed information is provided in the regional effects of global warming sub-article. I don't agree with you about including information on the opening of Arctic sea lanes. I think that the other issues raised in the IPCC report deserve greater attention. Climate change impacts in the Arctic are not restricted to the opening of sea lanes [28], and I do not agree that tangibility and verifiability are sufficient reasons to justify the inclusion of information on Arctic sea lanes. I also think that if Arctic climate impacts are to be specifically mentioned, other especially affected regions should get a mention as well. The chapters of the IPCC reports on Africa [29] and Asian megadeltas [30][31] contain information that could be included in the article. Omitting a summary of information on impacts in Africa and on Asian megadeltas, but mentioning the opening of Arctic sea lanes is, in my opinion, biased. Information on small islands could be included as well, perhaps as per the edit I suggested earlier. I don't believe that mentioning the opening of Arctic sea lanes provides an adequate summary of impacts in Arctic regions.
I was uncertain as to how this disagreement could be resolved in a new revision, but I decided to go ahead and change the article into a compromise state. I've dropped the following sentences from the revision I suggested earlier:


Small island states and low-lying coastal areas are at particular risk of severe social and economic effects due to sea level rise and storm surges (ipcc 2001, schneider reg, nicholls). Adverse effects on human health (e.g., increased malnutrition) are expected to outweigh benefits (e.g., reduced cold deaths), particularly in developing countries (confalonieri).


I've done this in order to accommodate space for information on Arctic sea lanes. Since I do not agree that this information is sufficiently important to be included in this article, I've added a template to the section. I've also dropped this sentence from the old revision:


Overall it is expected that any benefits will be outweighed by negative effects.[94]


The cited source (AR4) does not appear to support the statement. Indeed, the assessment of aggregate impacts in AR4 [32][33] is more circumspect than in the TAR (question 3). In my opinion, any aggregate assessment of climate impacts must explain how that aggregate assessment has been made, as well as providing information on the limitations of that assessment (e.g., see [34]). Enescot (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I wasn't arguing for keeping the whole paragraph on the Arctic! I've removed the bits that I'm in favor of removing on the basis that, unless I've misunderstood, Enescot was keen to remove all of that paragraph and no one else has spoken in it's favor. It does leave it geographically unbalanced (which can be fixed two ways!).--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've moved it to Natural Systems, lost the mention of sea lanes and found a better ref. BTW, Enescot, your change to the article is a big improvement.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I did originally want the paragraph to be deleted, but I think I misunderstood why you wanted to keep it. I assumed that you wanted to keep the stuff about the military, rather than just the physical effect of the ice melting. Enescot (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Global Dimming in lede

The following ends the first paragraph of the lede:

"Global dimming, a phenomenon of increasing atmospheric concentrations of man-made aerosols, which affect cloud properties and block sunlight from reaching the surface, has partially countered the effects of warming induced by greenhouse gases."

Any views on it?

Personally I don't think it should be there as it confuses the intro. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Global dimming is organized into "External forcing" in the article, but so is Solar variation. If the objective of the sentence were to acknowledge the main negative forcings and feedbacks, then blackbody radiation has certainly been omitted. My view is that while it's important, it's not important in context of the lead unless there's broader picture to go with it. I concur with Ian. --CaC 155.99.230.160 (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
So we're actually global cooling, with the effects offset by global warming? Fukenstein (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi Fukenstein, I wouldn't put it that way. Soot etc in the atmosphere has a cooling effect, increased greenhouse gases have a warming effect. The warming effect is much greater than the cooling. I'd say that the warming would be even more pronounced if not for the effect of 'global dimming'. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not primarily "soot", but aerosols in general. Soot, i.e. black carbon, increases the effects of global warming, at least on ice and snow. Sulfate aerosols provide most of the cooling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reqest for evidence against global warming page:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf

If you read this published journal article you will realise how biased this article is. I have tried to raise some similar points about he content here, but have had my post deleted several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.169.38 (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's get your facts straight before we start. The paper is from a conference ("The AusIMM New Leaders’ Conference") not journal, and it's from his self-published website. --CaC 155.99.230.219 (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
So it still seems to me, based on the discussion, that particulates are causing global cooling...however, this cooling is being offset by global warming. I think this message needs to be made clearer in the lede. Fukenstein (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I took a look at the above document, I got as far as "Whether dangerous human-caused climate change is a fact, possibly a fact or a fabrication depends on who you choose to believe." ie the first sentence. Anyone who believes that is lost. Considering what interpretations best fit the information you have is the way to proceed. I have time to engage with anyone on this topic but not to read polemics. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
@Fukenstein Soot and aerosols already has an entire section, and there's not really a good place to mention it in the lede and nor can it be easily summarized in a form appropriate to the lede. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Fukenstien It is wrong to suggest particulates are causing global cooling, since the global temperatures are rising. Suggesting global cooling is being offset by global warming would be akin to saying that a person is floating on the surface of pool, yet that their flotation is offset by the fact that they are sinking.137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Changes in the global climate are the result of a complex combination of forcings and feedbacks. Increased greenhouse gases cause warming, warming has led to loss of ice albedo, melting permafrost is releasing further greenhouse gases, and dark soot particles on white ice also lead to a loss in reflectivity. On the other hand, particulates and aerosols in the atmosphere can reduce insolation and can also seed cloud formation that further reduces solar energy input. Warmer air can hold more water vapor, and this is itself an effective greenhouse gas. At the same time, the warmer atmosphere radiates more heat away into space. The overall effect of these, and all the other processes in play, in the last century or more has been the observed increase in global surface temperatures."
How about that? We are meant to be summarising the article, and that is my attempt at summarising sections 2 and 3. Picking out only aerosols for summary in the lede is not right, but of course summarising more makes the summary longer. --Nigelj (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as my understanding goes it seems an excellent and accurate summary of the main processes involved. Only problem is it's additional to an already large lede. We could loose some existing bits.
  • "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation" to "Global warming is the continuing/ongoing increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century."
  • "As a result of contemporary increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the oceans have become more acidic, a result that is predicted to continue." could go, true but not rel here.
There are other bits that can be lost or shortened....
--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Readded. Per WP:LEDE. -Atmoz (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hot, darker, and crowded? Good add Atmoz. 99.190.81.210 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Atmoz, firstly, please proceed (as I have done) by attempting to establish a consensus first rather than making unilateral edits. I have re-read WP:LEDE. It certainly says that "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources". While it is arguable that 'global dimming' should be mentioned in the lede it certainly should not conclude the first paragraph where you have restored it. There are several climate forcings and while the effect of aerosols is the largest negative forcing, and it does partly offset the positive forcing of greenhouse gases, it is not essential to the most basic understanding of Global warming and therefore should not be in the first paragraph of the lede. WP:LEDE also has: "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." and "It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible.". To someone unfamiliar with this topic the presents of the sentence about global dimming (at least where it is) is likely to confuse, so should be removed. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm somewhat sympathetic to mentioning global dimming in the lead but the material would need to be rewritten. For example, one of the things they tell us in those "communicating with the public" things is that when people see the word "aerosol" they immediately think "spray can." The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"particulates"? -Atmoz (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Claims of Catastrophic Warming Are Overwhelmingly Contradicted By Real-World Data

For years the crowd that ran this article have said that nothing but peer reviewed articles could be cited (peer clearly meaning people very well known to those editing here) well now the real peer reviewed literature is increasingly hostile to their nice cosy peer-"consensus" and I quote:

Dr. Carlin’s new study, A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change, is published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. It finds that fossil fuel use has little impact on atmospheric CO2 levels. Moreover, the claim that atmospheric CO2 has a strong positive feedback effect on temperature is contradicted on several grounds, ranging from low atmospheric sensitivity to volcanic eruptions, to the lack of ocean heating and the absence of a predicted tropical “hot spot.” [35]

How will they respond:

  • It's just a blog?
  • It's not a credible journal?
  • Who is this person - he's not a climatologist?
  • It's all covered in the article: climate science, the bits we try to ensure no one ever reads
  • Thank you very much for your contribution, having read the article we will certainly have to amend the article to take account of it.

212.139.61.166 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're a bit confused. Wikipedia is neutral and does not have any sinister motives. BurtAlert (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
"How will they respond". Who is "they"? 155.98.108.112 (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)



End of kyoto and the global warming nonsense

Yes, that is about three-fifths right. It's a blog (WP does not cite blogs), it's not a credible journal ("Big Sky Business" not a journal at all, and hardly credible on any scientific matter), Carlin who? the comedian? The rest is just soapboxing; sorry, no cigar. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The blog post is referring to this in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. It's an obscure young journal, but at first glance still seems to be a peer reviewed journal (not that publishing this paper does much to support that notion). Dragons flight (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This is exciting news. "Dr. Alan Carlin, now retired, was a career environmental economist at EPA when CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute) broke the story of his negative report on the agency’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gases in June, 2009." Now the thrilling tale has been taken up by the usual denialist blogosphere. An entertaining paper, overturning 150 years of climate science by introducing "my definition of valid science" which trounces those dastardly "CAGW supporters" and supports Linzen's convenient estimate of climate sensitivity. We can look forward to a settled future, with Carlin being given a Nobel prize for his amazing discoveries and redefinition of science. . . dave souza, talk 22:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not of the people who edits here on a regular basis. In fact I can not recall ever editing this article. The journal is indeed "an obscure young journal" and it may be peer reviewed, but is one of a set of such open access journal that are not yet fully accepted and they are really looking for contributions. I have had a look at the paper. The author appears to be an economist. He spends quite a bit of time arguing what is essentially the philosophy of science on what constitutes science. That make me suspicious as it is certainly not normal. I think the author is trying to do a fair job in understanding the science that he reports, but I am not convinced he is understanding the papers he reports in a proper way. It would have been much better if he, as a non-scientist, had sought a proper dialogue with experts in the appropriate field to access whether the publications he has noticed really are raising issues that challenge the accepted view of climate change. As it stands it reads as if he just picking up ideas from the scientific literature that suit his purpose without fully understanding all of them. I see no reason to take any notice of this one paper. If scientists look at the papers he looks at, and similarly argues that they throw some of the arguments on global warming in doubt, then we might have to look at those more carefully. These would, for example, include the studies on the isotope ratios and the studies of sea temperature in the last decade. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I also skimmed through the paper and I second Bduke's analysis. The paper doesn't really have anything original or novel to add to the debate. It reads much more like an editorial with references than like an original research paper. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Claims of Catastrophic Warming Are Overwhelmingly Contradicted By Real-World Data" looks like a straw man statement anyway. Count Iblis (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

CAGW?! Yet more letters in the denialist acronym? I got bored during the great GW vs CC debate (there's CC, but it's not GW/there's GW but it's not CC etc); I lost interest with AGW (there's GW but it's not A); now there's CAGW - I guess 'there's AGW but it's not C enough for anyone to change anything that might affect my paycheck/lifestyle/commute/new Hummer'. When it gets to 15 letters or more, wake me up. --Nigelj (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Media interest

Um

Isn't this just a theory? 174.124.42.87 (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

See the FAQ, specifically Q8. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Q9 caught my eye, while it's right to note that the "atmospheric lifetime of methane (about 10 years) is a lot shorter than that of CO2", should we not also be clear that it sorta converts to CO2 thus continuing to have an effect? [caution: I am not an expert] . . dave souza, talk 17:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Merging of "UNFCCC" and "Politics" sections

I've had an idea of merging these two sections. I think the existing revision of the UNFCCC section is okay, but I'm not satisfied with the politics section (revision below as of 10 May):


Developed and developing countries have made different arguments over who should bear the burden of economic costs for cutting emissions. Developing countries often concentrate on per capita emissions, that is, the total emissions of a country divided by its population.[123] Per capita emissions in the industrialized countries are typically as much as ten times the average in developing countries.[124] This is used to make the argument that the real problem of climate change is due to the profligate and unsustainable lifestyles of those living in rich countries.[123]

On the other hand, Banuri et al. point out that total carbon emissions,[123] carrying capacity, efficient energy use and civil and political rights are very important issues. Land is not the same everywhere. Not only the quantity of fossil fuel use but also the quality of energy use is a key debate point.[citation needed] Efficient energy use supporting technological change might[vague] help reduce excess carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere.[citation needed] The use of fossil fuels for conspicuous consumption and excessive entertainment are issues that can conflict with civil and political rights. People[who?] in developed countries argue that history has proven the difficulty of implementing fair rationing programs in different countries because there is no global system of checks and balances or civil liberties.

The Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005, sets legally binding emission limitations for most developed countries.[114] Developing countries are not subject to limitations. This exemption led the U.S. and Australia to decide not to ratify the treaty,[125] [126][127] although Australia did finally ratify the treaty in December 2007.[128] Debate continued at the Copenhagen climate summit and the Cancún climate summit.


The first and second paragraphs do not specify exactly who has made these various arguments. The third paragraph overlaps with the earlier section on the UNFCCC. My suggestion is to remove the "UNFCCC" section and to replace the existing "Politics" section entirely. My suggested revision for the politics section is as follows:


Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).[111] The ultimate objective of the Convention is to prevent "dangerous" human interference of the climate system.[112] As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHGs are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a sustainable fashion.

The Framework Convention was agreed in 1992, but since then, global emissions have risen (US NRC). During negotiations, the G77 (a lobbying group in the United Nations representing 133 developing nations (Dessai, p4)) pushed for a mandate requiring developed countries to "[take] the lead" in reducing their emissions (Grubb, pp.144-145). This was justified on the basis that: the developed world's emissions had contributed most to the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere; per-capita emissions (i.e., emissions per head of population) were still relatively low in developing countries; and the emissions of developing countries would grow to meet their development needs (Liverman, p.290). This mandate was sustained in the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention (Liverman, p.290), which entered into legal effect in 2005 (UNFCCC).

In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, most developed countries accepted legally binding commitments to limit their emissions. These first-round commitments expire in 2012 (UNFCCC). US President George W. Bush rejected the treaty on the basis that "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy" (Dessai, p5).

At the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in 2009 at Copenhagen, several UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord.[117] Parties associated with the Accord (140 countries, as of November 2010 (UNEP, p9)) aim to limit the future increase in global mean temperature to below 2 °C.[118] A preliminary assessment by the United Nations Environment Programme suggests a possible "emissions gap" between the voluntary pledges made in the Accord and the emissions cuts necessary to have a "likely" chance of limiting global warming to 2 deg C above the pre-industrial level (UNEP, pp10-11). To meet the 2 deg C objective, studies generally indicate the need for global emissions to peak before 2020, with substantial declines in emissions thereafter (UNEP, p14).

The 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) was held at Cancún in 2010. It produced an agreement, not a binding treaty, that the Parties should take urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet a goal of limiting global warming to 2 deg C above pre-industrial temperatures. It also recognized the need to consider strengthening the goal to a global average rise of 1.5 °C.[119]

References:


Admittedly, this is a rather long revision. I think it is an improvement on the existing revision since political points are clearly attributed to particular parties. I also felt that it was important to mention the "emissions gap" in respect of the 2 deg C target. Enescot (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor, again. I tagged parts of the politics section some time ago but haven't got round to doing much positive with it. The old version is a blight. I can't even offer any criticism of your proposed revision, this time; I must be tired.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. Enescot (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
For clarification "degrees C" above (or °C) is Celcius for those who use Fahrenheit (°F). 99.181.148.116 (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

global warming- the TRUTH!

Better response?

I have been wondering if we need a better response for these "I have found a flea/factoid/report that overturns 10,000 elephants worth scientific work". It would be easy enough to add something to the FAQ. Of course, these anonymous posters are not known to check the FAQ, but perhaps we could get some kind of snazzy image template (like  It looks like a duck to me) that catches attention and redirects to a specific FAQ question. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest you put that duck on the whole article because [censored] because I'm sceptical88.104.197.108 (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It's a common meme that needs it's own FAQ. I dunno about the duck. FAQs are good. They say: Sorry you missed it, but we've already heard that so many times here that we wrote a standard answer to it ages ago. --Nigelj (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
You could uncollapse the FAQ to make it more visible. Right now the code is {{FAQ|quickedit=no}}. Change it to {{FAQ|quickedit=no|collapsed=no}} to make it uncollapsed. On a different note, I don't think the FAQ is effective, because anons could easily disagree with it as out-of-date/inaccurate/ect. Perhaps the solution is to create a message holding a proposal to a higher standard. For example, require anons to "provide the original journal article" when a "study" is cited, which should cut-down on blogs and news sources. 174.52.224.148 (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  Hmm, goes beyond what I suggested, but I like it. Though would need some working out. If anyone is interested, perhaps this should go into its own section. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the goal of Wikipedia to provide information to people who want information, not to change the minds of people who have already made up their mind. As long as we keep this article honest, we've done the best we can. Global warming "skeptics" are not going to change their minds no matter what evidence anyone provides. Remember the Bill Cosby record "What train?" Rick Norwood (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Rick, I think you misunderstood my intent. I am not proposing anything to change anyone's mind, I was suggesting, first, that if this particular "meme" is adequately addressed in the FAQ then we wouldn't have to keep readdressing it here, on the talk page. And second, with that in place, then for all the yahoos that breeze right past the FAQ (visible, or not) we can just give them a templated response. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The goal of Wikipedia is to make a good encyclopedia rather than change people's views, but often changing their views can help in that goal. If it is to remain an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" it must be done by consensus. We can't be expected to read every polemic that someone throws at us but we do need to engage with "deniers", and preferably in a respectful way as that is more likely to engender the kind behavior we would like to see from them. The FAQ is great, btw, (better than the article perhaps!) and un-hiding it seems a good plan to me.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  I am general agreement with you here, and don't object to unhiding the FAQ. But some of these folks wont' read it no matter how many times we make them run over it. That's where I think we need an attention-getting tag that points them to a specific answer in the FAQ. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Re:JJ, I've uncollapsed the FAQ. Feel free to revert if anyone disagrees. Now about the message. I recommend keeping the message in the standard talk-page box, {{tmbox}}. There are a variety of settings to make it "attention getting". If you need help setting it up, just tell me what you want. I don't mind, it's pretty easy to me.

I agree with Rick, but on a different note. Trying to change people's minds is fruitless. They've made up their mind, telling them they're wrong won't change that. I know this is a long read, but a friend recommended a paper to me last week. I think we can develop a different approach from this paper. --Tony 174.52.224.148 (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  So no one is suggesting we "make the horse drink". As to what kind of sign could be posted saying "this way to water", I think {{tmbox}} wouldn't be so effective. Maybe something like "Read the Fabulous FAQ [link to answer]". Or even "Duh! There is an answer in the FAQ at ...". And of course, take a parameter for the FAQ answer. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) To link to Question 4 in the FAQ, enter "Talk:Global warming/FAQ#Q4". The "Talk:Global warming/FAQ" takes you to the FAQ page; the "#Q4" specifies which FAQ within the page.

I think the message should follow something along the lines, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum. Proposals should provide: (1) a specific piece of text to add, modify, or remove; and (2) reliable sources that verify the proposal. If you are citing a 'study', please cite the actual study rather than the press release or a news article." Like you said, JJ, we're not making the horse drink, but showing it where to find water. Anons are going to write proposals, they can at least write something potentially constructive rather than soapbox. The point of the message is to help them find the resources to be able to write something potentially constructive. --Tony 174.52.224.148 (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice, but way too much typing.  :-)
We have a little bit of a fork here. I am looking for something that specifically refers people to an FAQ answer; Tony is talking more about explaining what people need to do to get consideration. Which I think is a good idea, but a different idea. Hmmm, perhaps that could be put into the FAQ? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
FAQ 6 and FAQ 21 essentially covers how proposals are considered, no need to add it in. Let's talk about your proposal, how to refer people to the FAQ. I think people are aware there's an FAQ, but are reluctant to read it because it is too long. So the first step would be make it more concise:
  1. Remove FAQ 15. I don't think it's anymore relevant than than people who believe in that the earth is expanding.
  2. Merge FAQ 18 and FAQ 23. The two seem to be about climate variability, just written in different words.
  3. Merge FAQ 6 and FAQ 21. Scibaby and soapboxing seems to go together.
What do you think? --Tony 174.52.224.148 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Condensing the FAQ is a good idea. The FAQ bloats because questions get added in when certain talking points become frequent, but outdated points are rarely removed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  I suspect that most of the drive-by-spitballers are not interested in the FAQ, and wouldn't want to bother; they just want to lob a spitball and run off. So I would say that the state of the FAQ, for better or worse, is really irrelevant. What I see as the basic problem (aside from the prevalence of yahoos) is that reiterating an already available answer is essentially a waste of our time and effort. And especially for spitballers we should be able to provide a reasonable answer ("RTFM!") at less cost than they expend in the posting. And a curt response offers less toeholds for an argument. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

I'm looking for a way to track interest in the Global warming story and it occurred to me that a good indicator would be the number of comments on this discussion page. But I see that an awful lot of stories have been "archived" and in any case there is a huge number of pages. So, my question is this: is there a way to get a direct dump of comments (I don't need the text just the date). Indeed, perhaps this is a feature that might be worth adding to all Wikipedia pages? 88.104.206.60 (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Does this give you enough information? it's the history of this article in batches of 5000, with time stamps who etc, but not the content, save it into excel and you can play with it to your heart content. Cheers Khukri 09:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes that is excellent! Thankyou.88.104.206.60 (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
If you have some programming experience, you can access (nearly) all of Wikipedia's data via its http-based API. It's described at mw:API. The API has support in several languages - I found Python a good match. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow! Not sure I'll need anything that complex. Thanks88.104.206.60 (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
You can also use a hit counter to look at daily page views for any wikipedia article back to december 2007. For instance, it's interesting that there wasn't a big spike in November 2009 as one might expect given the hubub surrounding the CRU hack near the end of the month. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede is bloating

While some of the recent edits have added helpful explanations, the lede has now grown too unwieldy and lacks flow. The lede would be more effective if the details be pared back or moved to later in the text, and the current seven choppy paragraphs condensed down to no more than four per WP:LEDE. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Boris, you're right its bloated. I already made a couple moves out of the lede for stuff I thought would be non-controversial. Apologies if I erred.

I PROPOSE moving the paragraphs starting "The uncertainty in IPCC's estimates" to the climate models section

Also.... today I added pithy language from the most recent research about why this matters (the clear and present danger paragraph). In keeping with WP:LEDE I think that is a good "hook", so I PROPOSE moving the following paragraph that describes some of the specific responses in general could move down to the intro paragraph in "Attributed and expected effects"

Will that help? And as a new editor, how do I know when enough time has gone by for soliciting comment here before going ahead with those changes? Or if you just wanna do it, that'd be fine by me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Just posted my first effort at condensing. Article-improvement oriented comment welcome.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I propose reverting to this revision. My 2 cents. -Atmoz (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I want to assume you have good intentions and intend for the article to be improved by doing this. I note it would result in the deletion of numerous verifiable citations to very recent peer reviewed research on the subject. How will this improve the article, IYO? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
While some of the changes are improvements, my overall assessment is that the lede has become fragmented and wordy, and puts too much emphasis on small-minority perspectives that do not have broad scientific acceptance (e.g., Joe Romm). I can see an argument for taking it back to an earlier version and introducing changes at a more measured pace. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Generally, I liked Atmoz' edits (thanks). I may address the biggest items that were deleted at another time (and slower). Boris, do you still feel the Lede still bloated , or is this subsection resolved to your satisfaction? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Degree of consensus on warming and on causation

Is the degree of unanimity the same for "air temp is up" as for "we caused it"? Or is it true, as I seem to recall from polls of scientists, that there is more agreement about the observed temperature increase than about what caused it?

I seem to recall that only about 5% or 10% disagree with the 1.5 F (0.8 C) atmosphere temp increase, while 20% or more still have questions about the cause.

I'm not saying there isn't a "consensus" because we Wikipedians apparently have agreed that 75% to 80% is a consensus. I'm just saying that it looks like the level of consensus is different for the two issues. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the Doran&Zimmerman paper found that 96.2% of active climate scientist support warming, and 97.4% think human activity is a significant contributing factor to changing mean global temperature. So the consensus amongst experts is very much the same (modulo statistical noise). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Note to Ed, it's not that "we Wikipedians apparently have agreed" that there is a consensus, but that the National Academy of Sciences and other august bodies have agreed there is a consensus. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Stephan, sorry if I wasn't clear: I did not mean to profess lack of awareness that over 95% of climate scientists regard human activity to be significant and when I said that 20% or more still have questions about the cause I could have been clearer. The issue is not whether human activity has a measurable or "significant" impact on warming. Lindzen, et al., all agree. The issue is rather, as a UN agency reported, whether most of the warming is caused by human activity.
Do my remarks make more sense now, in light of that clarification? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what "a UN agency" reported. The most cited and respected opinion is probably that of the IPCC, which is not a UN agency. And the IPCC did not report that "most of the warming is caused by human activity", but rather, that "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" (emphasis mine), a much more differentiated view. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Ed, verifiable citations or no discussion please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
To Stephan: the distinction you are drawing is like saying that the line Play it again, Sam never occurs in "Casablanca" and then turning right around and conceding that Ilsa Lund said, "Play it once, Sam. For old times' sake." (To play something for old time's sake is arguably to "play it again".)
Anyway, the question to which I'm still waiting for answer is this: is it true, as I seem to recall from polls of scientists, that there is more agreement about the observed temperature increase than about what caused it?
I'm sorry, but if you don't see the important difference between "most of the warming is caused by human activity" and "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations", I don't know what to do. The reason why there is strong consensus for both the statement about the observed warming and the statement about the anthropogenic causes is because the second is stronger qualified than the first to begin with. I assume you have seen sources ("polls of scientists"), so why not present them? Or take a look at Scientific opinion on climate change#Surveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature. (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010) found high agreement with the IPCC in general. You already dismissed Doran & Zimmerman. (Bray and von Storch, 2008) has some problems (it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal), but it shows about 94% agreement for "there is climate change going on now" (note the general term) and 84% for "CC is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes", but with a shift to lower degrees of certainty for the second question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
"as I seem to recall from polls of scientists"
I'm with Stephan on this.... verifiable citations to support your question or stop, please NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
To Stephan, of course I get the distinction between is caused by and is very likely due to (I've known about the nuanced statement for years ... probably for most of the time I've been writing about climate since 2001.) That is why I am proposing that we reveal as early as possible in the article that there is less than complete unanimity amoung climate scientists that "most global warming" (for any period you care to name) is due to anthropogenic causes.
  1. Some CC (i.e., a "significant" or "discernible" amount) is the result of anthropogenic causes: 85% to 98% agreement, depending on various polls; versus,
  2. Most CC (i.e., more than half) is the result of anthropogenic causes: e.g., 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent; vs. 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all
It is not true that I have already dismissed Doran & Zimmerman. I'd like WP to include every major poll, as Scientific opinion on climate change currently does, although I don't know why it omits the Oregon Petition.
To NewsAndEventsGuy, I'm not sure what "support my question" means. I'm not asking a rhetorical question, i.e., using the grammatical form of a question to make a point. I have no position on global warming that I'd like this encyclopedia to endorse. It is just the opposite: I want Wikipedia to be neutral about global warming - including the anthropogenic global warming theory - merely reporting fairly every significant theory about it. In particular, I'd like us to describe all known or conjectured cause and effect mechanisms, along with evidence which supports or contradicts these.
I'm not satisfied that we've made it sufficiently easy for readers to find scientific rejoinders to the various theories. (Note, however, that I don't want us to endorse or give "validity" to any theory, because IMHO it's not the role of Wikipedia to say that anything is true or not: rather, we should explain why some published author thinks a thing is true or not.)
I don't care how much "prominence" we give to views held by 85% or more of climatoligists, as long as a reader who wants to see the other side can find it readily. We should, of course, make every effort to ensure that we don't mislead readers by the amount of coverage given to minority views; if every other statement must be a reminder that only 5% to 15% of scientists disagree with the UNIPCC, so be it. It actually is not editorially difficult to clue in the reader about (1) existence of disagreement with the mainstream and (2) the relative smallness of this disagreement. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Oregon petition! Why didn't you SAY so in the first place? See http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-oregon-petition-how-many-scientists-does-it-take-to-change-a-consensus.html NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I signed the Oregon petition, and I still stand by my signature, for a different reason, but neither the petition nor the "scientific consensus" is relevant to this article. Although Ed is a bit of a trouble-maker, he's absolutely correct as to what should be in this article. Any significant minority viewpoint (say, held by 5% of scientists) should be mentioned in this article somewhere, and described in detail in this article or a subarticle. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Arthur, as indicated above the figure seems to be about 3% of scientists publishing in the field: that looks pretty much like a tiny minority that shouldn't be given undue weight. Adding to that, the 3% don't all share the same objections, making it an even tinier minority set of views. So, significance to the topic has to be established before such views are added to this main article: if they're well covered by reliable third party sources we can have [sub]articles about these views, which of course must show them in the context of majority scientific views on the topic. Also, don't expert coverage of the views of scientists who have no established expertise on the topic. There's a whole political aspect which needs improved coverage on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean giving it undue coverage in an overview of the science. . . dave souza, talk 18:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. You're conflating different questions. The 3% are those that do not believe that anthropogenic effects are a significant contributing factor in global warming; even the IPCC "consensus" report notes only that it's likely that the majority of [recent] global warming is due to anthropogenic causes. There are probably a number of theories about other contributing factors, some of which should be noted. Also, a number of scientists have noted that the CO2 should account for double the observed global warming, suggesting an error in the theories. If we can find a source noting that, it should be here, as well as in the appropriate subarticles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Professor or Dr Rubin, hello. Borrowing your words, it's hard to discuss article improvements based on "a number of theories about other contributing factors" that "probably" exist. In this entire subsection the only specific reference is to the Oregon Petition. Is there something specific you have in mind? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I don't have specifics in mind, except for the one I mentioned: I like anthropogenic methane (e.g.., from domestic cattle) (or perhaps other things coming from the back end of a cow) as an alternative theory, but I don't think anyone has analyzed it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Re methane, do you mean the "theory" covered in the Greenhouse gases section, "Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane,..." which is referenced to the EPA but I think you'll also find that the AR4 covers this theory in considerable detail. Something to ruminate over. As for the one you mentioned, did you have this in mind? Looks rather fringe.... dave souza, talk 20:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You might want to check [39] and Attribution of recent climate change#Livestock_and_land_use and maybe even [40]. This is a bit like me claiming "I like to think that satisfiability of first order formulas might be answered by looking only for ground term models, but I don't think anyone has analyzed it"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you talking about the methane which is discussed here, here, and the last paragraph here, and which is included in nearly all CGCMs? Do you have references explaining why you "like methane" in this context? Anthropogenic methane is pretty well understood. - Parejkoj (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Mibbe Arthur jist likes kye? Or has a steak in it.. <ducks> . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

James Hansen questions

Inertia in the climate system and energy sector

{{Merge to|greenhouse effect|discuss=Talk:greenhouse effect#Merger proposal|date=June 2011}}


I've prepared a revision to the section on external forcing, concentrating on the sub-section on greenhouse gases:

External forcing refers to processes external to the climate system (though not necessarily external to Earth) that influence climate. Climate responds to several types of external forcing, such as changes in atmospheric composition (e.g., the concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases), changes in solar luminosity (i.e., the sun's output (IPCC FAQ 2.1 Natural changes)), volcanic eruptions, and variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun.[31] Attribution of recent climate change focuses on the first three types of forcing. Orbital cycles vary slowly over tens of thousands of years and thus are too gradual to have caused the temperature changes observed in the past century. Any human-induced climate change will occur against the "background" of natural variations in climate (2001 ts).

Greenhouse gases

Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and earth's surface. Energy exchanges are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2).
This graph is known as the "Keeling Curve" and it shows the long-term increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations from 1958-2008. Monthly CO2 measurements display seasonal oscillations in an upward trend; each year's maximum occurs during the Northern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during its growing season as plants remove some atmospheric CO2.

The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[32]

Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).[33][C] The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[34][35][36] Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so have different effects on radiation from water vapor.

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing (see below) from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[37] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[38][39][40][41] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.[42] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.[43]

The increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can be calculated as a change in the radiative forcing of the climate (IPCC FAQ 2.1 Box 2.1). Radiative forcing is a measure of how various factors alter the energy balance of the Earth's atmosphere. A positive radiative forcing will tend to increase the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system, leading to a warming of the system. Between the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1750, and the year 2005, the increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide lead to a positive radiative forcing of about 1.66 watts per meter squared (SPM 2007).

Greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for different lengths of time (IPCC FAQ 10.3). For carbon dioxide, natural processes currently remove more than half of the CO2 emitted from the atmosphere within a century. Some fraction, however, remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

The governments of most countries in the world have agreed that the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should be stabilized at a safe level (see the politics section). To stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at a constant level, carbon dioxide emissions would need to be completely eliminated (IPCC FAQ 10.3). The present rate of emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere greatly exceeds its rate of removal by natural processes. This is analogous to a flow of water into a bathtub (Sterman and Sweeney, p221). So long as the tap runs water (analogous to the emission of carbon dioxide) into the tub faster than water escapes through the plughole (the natural removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere), then the level of water in the tub (analogous to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) will continue to rise.

Total greenhouse gas emissions in 2005, including land-use change.

Over the last three decades of the 20th century, economic and population growth were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions.[44] CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[45][46]:71 Emissions can be attributed to different regions. The two figures opposite show annual greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2005, including land-use change. Attribution of emissions due to land-use change is a controversial issue Banuri, p.93; Liverman, p.289). For example, concentrating on more recent changes in land-use (as the figures opposite do) is likely to favour those regions that have deforested earlier, e.g., Europe.

Future emissions

The future level of greenhouse gas emissions is highly uncertain (Fisher). One factor that will affect the future level of emissions are current and future investment decisions made in the energy sector (synth 2007; sachs, p112). Energy-sector investments, e.g., coal-fired power plants, have long lifetimes, and therefore also have long term impacts on greenhouse gas emissions.

Analysts have developed scenarios of how emissions might change in the future. Emissions in these scenarios vary according to different assumptions over future economic, social, technological, and natural developments (SRES). In 2000, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a special report on emissions scenarios. This report contains a set of 40 emissions scenarios that cover a wide range of possible future emissions out to the end of the 21st century (morita). Six representative scenarios from the IPCC's report have been used to project what the future atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide might be. These scenarios suggest an atmospheric concentration of between 540 and 970 parts-per-million (ppm) in the year 2100 (Synth 2001). This compares to a pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm, and in 2008, a concentration of about 385 ppm (US GCRP, p13).

References:


My main concern is that the flow-stock nature of climate change is not mentioned in the present revision of the article. Generally I am concerned that the existing article does not present information in a way that is easy enough to understand for the general reader. The flow-stock issue is crucial to understanding climate change - see the Sterman and Sweeney paper referenced above. I am also concerned that inertia in the energy system is not mentioned either. In my opinion, inertia is crucial to understanding policy issues related to climate change.

Another issue is that of emissions due to land-use change. In the politics section, the existing revision of the article includes diagrams that show regional GHG emissions, which includes emissions from land-use change. Emissions from land-use change is a controversial subject, and this needs to be mentioned. I'd prefer a broader discussion of emissions to be included, e.g., historical emissions, but I'm aware of the fact that the article is already far too long.

I've added a brief description of radiative forcing. I'd prefer an explanation of external forcing that is easier to understand. I know of the scales analogy used by potholer54. Perhaps a later revision could include this?

I've removed this:


Fossil fuel reserves [as suggested by the SRES scenarios] are sufficient to reach these [GHG concentration] levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, oil sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited


This is not supported by the cited source. Different SRES scenarios make different assumptions over the future availability of fossil fuels (4.4.6.1 onwards). These are assumptions, but the sentence above gives the impression that the SRES projections are made with absolute certainty. Enescot (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  Quite aside from the content, the citations ("2001 ts box", "Banuri PDF", "Fisher") are quite inadequate; they need to be in proper form. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I've used the citation style above purely for this talk page. If I go ahead with my suggested revision, I'll use the same citation style as the rest of the article. Enescot (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Haven't had a chance to give it a thorough read yet or compare with the existing text but "To stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at a constant level, carbon dioxide emissions would need to be completely eliminated." is wrong (even if the IPCC says it!) 'net' emissions need to be zero to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at a constant level.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I assume that the IPCC FAQ is referring to net carbon dioxide emissions from human activities. This is how the IPCC dealt with the issue of emissions and stabilization in the Third Assessment Report (see 5.3 and [55]). I agree that mentioning net emissions would be helpful. In my view it would require an explanation of what "net" actually means in this context, e.g.,:
The governments of most countries in the world have agreed that the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should be stabilized at a safe level (see the politics section). Stabilizing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would need to account both for processes that remove GHGs from the atmosphere, as well as processes that add GHGs to the atmosphere, i.e., net GHG emissions. To stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at a constant level, net carbon dioxide emissions would need to be completely eliminated (IPCC FAQ 10.3).
The present net rate of emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere greatly exceeds its net rate of removal by natural processes. This is analogous to a flow of water into a bathtub (Sterman and Sweeney, p221). So long as the tap runs water (analogous to the emission of carbon dioxide) into the tub faster than water escapes through the plughole (the natural removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere), then the level of water in the tub (analogous to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) will continue to rise.
Enescot (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Why not forget the word 'net' (I agree it might be confusing in this context) and just replace "To stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at a constant level, carbon dioxide emissions would need to be completely eliminated." with "To stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at a constant level, carbon dioxide emissions would need to equal the rate of carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere."?--IanOfNorwich (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, breaking down the explanation into two sentences rather than one might make things easier to understand. I would prefer keeping the sentence about net emissions for this reason. I think that the revision could, however, be rewritten to make things clearer:


The governments of most countries in the world have agreed that the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should be stabilized at a safe level (see the politics section). Stabilizing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would need to account both for processes that remove GHGs from the atmosphere, as well as processes that add GHGs to the atmosphere, i.e., net GHG emissions.
At present, human activities are adding emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere far faster than they are being removed. This is analogous to a flow of water into a bathtub (Sterman and Sweeney, p221). So long as the tap runs water (analogous to the emission of carbon dioxide) into the tub faster than water escapes through the plughole (the natural removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere), then the level of water in the tub (analogous to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) will continue to rise. To stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at a constant level, emissions would essentially need to be completely eliminated. It is estimated that reducing carbon dioxide emissions 100% below their present level (i.e., complete elimination) would lead to a slow decrease in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 40 ppm over the 21st century.


I think it is necessary to mention that only an effective elimination of CO2 emissions would lead to stabilization. Not mentioning this might give readers the false impression that a less stringent level of emissions reduction would lead to stabilization. Enescot (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather these changes be taken one at a time rather than in bulk, so they can be evaluated more easily. As a first specific remark, we should de-emphasize SRES since those scenarios are not being used for AR5. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on the first point you raise. Although I think the issue of inertia is important, I think a higher priority is to point out the controversy surrounding emissions from land-use change. First of all, I think that the existing article's diagrams of regional emissions should be moved from the politics section to the greenhouse gases section. This would allow a brief explanation of these diagrams in the body of the article's text. I think it is more appropriate to explain these diagrams in the greenhouse gases section of the article rather than the politics section. The text that I've added is in bold:


Total greenhouse gas emissions in 2005, including land-use change.
[...] Over the last three decades of the 20th century, economic and population growth were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions.[44] CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[45][46]:71 Emissions can be attributed to different regions. The two figures opposite show annual greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2005, including land-use change. Attribution of emissions due to land-use change is a controversial issue (Banuri, p.93; Liverman, p.289). For example, concentrating on more recent changes in land-use (as the figures opposite do) is likely to favour those regions that have deforested earlier, e.g., Europe.
Emissions scenarios, estimates of changes in future emission levels [...]


References:
I don't agree with you about the SRES scenarios. Temperature projections using six of the SRES scenarios are already referred to in the article. In my view, it therefore makes sense to use them also when referring to projections of the future atmospheric concentration of CO2.
I'm uncertain as to which scenarios you'd use instead of the SRES ones. A very wide range of emissions scenarios have been published. I'm unclear on how you would objectively choose a representative set of these scenarios to mention in this article. At the time of the IPCC fourth assessment report, the SRES scenarios were still comparable in range to other baseline scenarios in the scientific literature [58]. More recent assessments by the US Global Change Research Program (PDF, pp22-24) and US National Research Council (PDF, p2) refer to the SRES scenarios, presumably because they are still thought to be relevant. The projected concentration of CO2 based on the International Energy Agency's reference scenario of World Energy Outlook 2009 (PDF, pp190-191) appears to lie within the range of the SRES projections. You mention the fact that the SRES scenarios are not being used in the IPCC fifth assessment report. I don't know how this is relevant to improving the article at present. The fifth assessment report has not been published yet, nor have the new scenarios that are being developed for it. Enescot (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Note my suggestion is to "de-emphasize" SRES, not omit it. The CMIP5 runs (which will be used for AR5) are using "representative concentration pathways" (RCPs) rather than SRES. Basically a RCP is a concentration pathway that produces a given radiative forcing by 2100, so RCP4.5 gives a forcing of 4.5 W/m2, RCP8.5 gives a forcing of 8.5 W/m2 and so on. Output from the first runs is beginning to hit the ESG and we will begin seeing papers very soon. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. What change do you think would be appropriate? Enescot (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Simply include a mention of SRES in describing how simulations used in AR4 were set up, not a full paragraph with explanatory details. We have a whole article Special Report on Emissions Scenarios for anyone who wants to look further. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Boris when he said "I'd rather these changes be taken one at a time rather than in bulk, so they can be evaluated more easily." More importantly, I'm somewhat opposed to expanding a whole section on greenhouse gas here, without first discussing a comprehensive approach to the info you want to add with the overlapping info found on an existing article about the greenhouse effect and a separate overlapping one on greenhouse gasses. IMO all this info ought to be merged, with just the highlights here and a link to a single separate main article on the ins and outs of how the gasses do what they do. Collating all this info with a minimum of redundancy is a worthy task. Thanks for your interest. BTW, I share your desire to make internal/external forcing more clear. On a small point, there seems to be confusion about how to parse various impacts of the lithosphere. See my comment under climate-change talk for volcanos. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Discussion about my proposed merger of greenhouse effect and greenhouse gas is here: Talk:greenhouse effect#Merger proposal NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a "failed verification" tag to the following sentence:


Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, oil sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.


The above refers to the six SRES marker scenarios, mentioned in the greenhouse gases section of the article. I've already commented on the problem of the above sentence earlier on in this section. Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A - The 'failed verification' tag produces text indicating that the cited reference does not contain information corroborating the statement. For this case that is false and thus this tag should not have been used.
B - The argument above, that not all SRES scenarios assume sufficient fossil fuel availability to hit the stated emissions scenario, is irrelevant because the sentence specifies a set of assumptions ("...if coal, oil sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited") where they would be.
As such, I don't see any basis for this tag. --CBD 17:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for clarifying the basis for the statement. I'm not sure I agree with you. I interpret this (I'll label it (a) for reference):


Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, oil sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.


as "we have a certain amount of fossil fuel reserves, and if we choose to use them, these concentrations may be reached". I think the phrase "are sufficient" in (a) is crucial. Even though a caveat is used in the form of "if...," the caveat only appears to apply to whether or not fossil fuel reserves are actually used. The caveat does not appear to place in doubt whether reserves are sufficient to meet the required demand.
For this reason, I don't accept (a) (or at least my interpretation of it), due to the uncertain level of fossil fuel availability (see the TAR synthesis report, paragraph 7.27 and fig. 7-5). This is something SRES makes a point of addressing by using scenarios that "explore a wider domain of uncertainty on future fossil-resource availability." My view is that the introduction to the paragraph on scenarios already addresses this point indirectly:


Emissions scenarios, estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases, have been projected that depend upon uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments


The sentence above also appears to be consistent with the summary presented in the SRES [59]. If fossil fuel reserves are to be mentioned directly, my own view is that it should be done in a way that is less open to interpretation. I suggest:


Emissions scenarios, estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases, have been projected that depend upon uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.[51] In most scenarios, emissions continue to rise over the century, while in a few, emissions are reduced.[52][53] These emission scenarios, combined with carbon cycle modelling, have been used to produce estimates of how atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will change in the future. Using the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios, models suggest that by the year 2100, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could range between 541 and 970 ppm.[54] This is an increase of 90-250% above the concentration in the year 1750. Fossil fuel reserves are abundant, and will not limit carbon emissions in the 21st century.


  • Source: IPCC WG3 2001 SPM, paragraph 6 - "(figure SPM.2) shows that there are abundant fossil fuel resources that will not limit carbon emissions during the 21st century"
As perhaps you already know, fossil fuel availability is discussed in the SRES sub-article. Personally I don't think it is necessary to mention it in this top-level article. Enescot (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

uncertainty?

Just visiting after a long absence. I'm pleased to see that language I helped get inserted and WMC battled hard to keep out, is still around in some form.

"The uncertainty in IPCC's estimates arises from (1) the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations, the use of differing estimates of humanities' future greenhouse gas emissions, and (3) any additional emissions from climate feedbacks that were not included in the models IPCC used to prepare its report, i.e., greenhouse gas releases from permafrost."

Unfortunately, given the wikipedia cadre culture, this was the best that we could do. We enumerated what sources of uncertainty are included in the IPCC projections. Left unstated are the sources of uncertainty introduced by just about every diagnostic study, from Andrea Roesch's documentation of surface albedo bias as large as the CO2 forcing increase itself, Wentz's documentation that none of the climate models reproduce more than half of the observed increase in precipitation associated with the recent warming, and of course, we still don't know whether the net feedbacks to CO2 forcing are strongly positive as correlated in all the models, or actually negative corresponding to sensitivities less than 1 degree C.

Has the culture changed here at all? Can we actually mention that the projection ranges were not adjusted for the problems documented in the diagnostic literature, some as large as the CO2 forcing itself, or must we continue to be satisfied with this simple enumeration of what was included? I.e., is there any point in climate science literate person sticking around?--Silverback (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take credit for adding #3 in the pullquote above. Its not clear to me what your complaint is. Could you write a couple sentences of draft text with verifiable citations to help clarify your meaning? Thanks in advance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The complaint, originally was, and still is, that the citing a range of projections in a scientific context, such as that attributed to the IPCC, gives the impression that the range brackets the uncertainty in the methods applied to produce that range. However, in this case, none of the uncertainty introduced by documented problems such as those with clouds and surface albedo, have been included or estimated for that range. I already mentioned diagnostic work by Roesch and Wentz, one could easily add the separate work by Camp and Tung and by Lean showing that the models underrepresent the signature of the solar cycle seen in the observations, or the work showing that models under represent the arctic melting, etc.
The way it was left previously, is that WMC and company stated that the range incorporated such uncertainty, but were unable to back it up. The quote above, at least for items 1 and 2, were the only sources of the range specifically supportable within the AR4 report. But the clique at the time, successfully resisted including not just a statement to the effect that the range doesn't include uncertainty from known errors in the models, but resisted attempts to actually cite and report diagnostic results.--Silverback (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
With respect, please note that the Arbitration Committee has taken a dim view of battleground editing, including casting aspersions on other editors. With this in mind it is likely they would view your references to "cadres" and "cliques" in a poor light. Regards, Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
With even more respect, I took a dim view of it too, as did many other editors that gave up.--Silverback (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
With my respect too, your response was non-responsive. Please draft a couple sentences of text with verifiable citations to
clarify your meaning. Meanwhile, I am working on moving the IPCC uncertainty text from the LEDE to the section on models. See
discussion about the LEDE above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I see, once again we have to prove a negative, such as none of the diagnostic problems are incorporated in the range. Anything else is original research?--Silverback (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm just saying I can't trust myself to infer what change you want me to take my free time to write up. So instead,
I'm simply asking you to illustrate your complaint by drafting text. You seem to have plenty of time to repeat your
complaint, after all. Wouldn't it be more productive proposing the specific text you'd like to see added? Assuming you
want to improve the article, that is. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
We'll see how productive it is. I'm on a trip right now away from all the quotes from the diagnostic literature I want to get it. I'll propose some text when I get back. Thanx.--Silverback (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)