Talk:Climate change

Historic Low of sub-400 ppm CO2 Levels

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that at 380 ppm today, we are at an historic low of CO2 concentrations when we look back at past CO2 levels? The only other time CO2 has dropped below 400 ppm has been the late Carbiniferous some 300 million years ago, but at all other times CO2 has been above 400 ppm. The graph here [1] shows CO2 levels with a black line, and temperature is the blue line. In fact it's been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was so favorable to life that it resulted in the famous Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. This seems to contradict the predictions that our 380 ppm level will result in dire consequences for life. It's a basic crime of omission by leaving these facts out. JettaMann (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The concentrations in prehistoric and prehuman times are relevant to paleoclimatology, but of only contingent relevance to the current warming. The current warming is not predicted to have effects such as mass extinctions and the like; rather, it's likely to cause changes that we'd rather, as humans, avoid. Costly changes lasting many human lifetimes.. --TS 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Or you could say that humans originated and evolved in a special niche in which CO2 concentrations were extraordinarily low. That's to say that one can speculate either way, so it probably shouldn't be included here. Awickert (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's also say that "historic" usually refers to written history. CO2 is at an all-time high for at least 100 times longer than written history, and possibly for 2000 times longer than written history. The 20 million years currently most likely is about 10 times the average life time of a species. And Tony, global warming is predicted to cause mass extinction, although it will be hard to separate it from the holocene extinction event that's ongoing anyways. An extinction event does not require every third animal species to drop dead and rot away immediately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption about "Historic" is erroneous - just convenient for your argument.Dikstr (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that this "historic low" is really relevant. However, it is yet another example of an issue that people should find if they search the article. Having found it, readers should be diverted to another article that (maybe) gives this feature the attention it deserves.

The list of missing key-words may not include "historic low", it most certainly does include words such as "Antarctic", "desertification", "Amazon" and many others which are currently missing from the article. Two of those in my short-list above were removed immediately when I put them in. (Comments on "advocacy" of this kind by me to my TalkPage, please). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the resistance you're encountering here is because most other editors don't share your view of what this article should contain. You can't just stand around and say "X is missing", "Y is missing", and so on. You have to persuade by presenting evidence that a significant aspect of global warming is omitted. --TS 12:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

JettaMann believes a discussion of this "historic low" needs inclusion, I've told him that a mention would indeed be valuable, but i couldn't support the whole nine yards. I trust others to contribute in a similarly balanced and article improving fashion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen, isn't it worth noting in the article that historically CO2 bottoms out at about the 400 ppm level. If you look at the Tertiary period in that graph it clearly shows CO2 levels starting at about 1000 ppm, then leveling out far before industrial production began. They have no where to go but up, at least it appears that way from past behavior of the planet. This just seems like relevant information that people reading up on Global Warming would want to know. JettaMann (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tell us the "key-words" that help guide people to find out about this feature, and I'd support including them. But there is said to be a problem with article-bloat, so the discussion presumably needs to go somewhere else. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Jetta, that is not true. CO2 levels during the last half million years (i.e. "historic period"*100) or so have been between 200ppm and 300ppm (during the warmest periods of interglacials). Our best current estimates are that CO2 has not been as high as it was today in the last 20 million years. Assuming you talk about the graph labeled "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time" at [2], that graph is intended to show, in broad strokes, CO2 and temperature over half a billion years. It simply does not have the resolution to show details on the million year scale. The uncertainty for the last 20 million years in that graph goes from about 0 ppm to approxiately 350 ppm. [:File:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr.png] shows the last 400000 years in some detail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yes that's true, we are at another low point in CO2 concentrations. As I said, the current period started at around 1000 and decreased gradually then *leveled off* far before industrial inputs, leaving no where to go but up. Likely if we had more accurate records the Carboniferous would also show levels bottoming out at a similar number (you can see the error bars in the graph go to about 0). On examination of the micro level it was probably spiking up and down as we see today. But my main point here is that it is important to give data in context. You can look at smaller periods of time such as the transition from winter to summer and predict a massive trend in warming, or 1940 to 1970 and predict a massive decline in temperature, etc... up to all different time scales and periods. Without context, it can make people panic unnecessarily. The context here that is important for people to know is that: 1) the earth is at historic lows of CO2 2) It's been as high as 7000 ppm 3) Life thrived during the warmer periods 4) CO2 levels have gone down and up without any industrial activity in the past. This is important information for the average Wikipedia reader to know. JettaMann (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. First, you write "the only other time CO2 has dropped below 400 ppm has been the late Carbiniferous (sic)" - i.e. you talk about hundreds of millions of years. Then you talk about the Tertiary, i.e. about time spans of 10s of millions of years (and CO2 was below 400 ppm for large parts of the Tertiary). Now you talk about a thousand years? Or a 1000 ppm? Anyways, no, the Earth is not at "historic lows of CO2". It is likely at unprecedented heights during the current geological age. Going back even 20 million years, you are talking about a different planet. The Mediterranean dried up about 6 million years ago. Both the Tethys Seaway and the Isthmus of Panama closed up during the last 20 million years. Sure, life "thrived" during higher CO2 concentration. But "life" the last time we had 3000 ppm was the dinosaurs, not humans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - JettaMann - the details of what you're talking about are not important for the reasons you've been told. No matter how good things may have been all those years ago, the re-imposition of those CO2 levels will likely be catastrophic to our way of life and possibly to our species.

However, it is an interesting and perhaps significant discussion. Rather than try to argue the details of these 'historic lows', we need to provide readers with a) a signpost they'll be able to spot amongst the forest of other signposts and b) a proper discussion of this effect. The latter will almost certainly have to be on a sub-page because it cannot be fitted in here at the moment (though later it might come to be more important and be fetched back). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

@JettaMann Can you give us a statement, boiled down to one sentence, with a ref so we can see it. I don't think the addition of one sentence will damage the page. We can point to the relative sub-article with a wikilink. Mytwocents (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a simple statement that's more-or-less consistent with the designated scope of this article: "The current rise in CO2 levels is unprecedented since the appearance of homo sapiens on the earth approximately 200,000 years ago." Don't have time to provide a citation right now, but there are secondary RSs out there for this. The last time CO2 levels were 1000ppm, dinosaurs and ferns dominated the Earth. ... Kenosis (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple statement C&P direct from Atmospheric_CO2 "Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 [million years] and certainly higher than in the last 800,000." How that adds up to 'historic low' is beyond me, but a statement that says something like "Even though ancient pre-historical atmospheric CO2 levels may have been higher, present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 [million years] and certainly higher than in the last 800,000." (with the same cite as that article) might be a useful addition? ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, per "These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[25][26][27] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago." already included. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is that we just present the data to the readers of Wikipedia, unvarnished. It seems to me like some of the people above are trying to interpret the data for people, which strikes me as problematic. Malcolm McDonald's statements above are bordering on original research and Kenosis' statement would be repeating what is already said in the article. The proposed addition would be something like, "In the geologic scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which resulted in the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered." The reference for this is provided above in my first statement.JettaMann (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What's "unvarnished" about "CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm [...] which resulted in the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity"? Moreover, why do you feel this data should be included? I'm not aware of any serious scientists who claims that conditions during the Cambrian or Carboniferous are in any way comparable to conditions today. Continents are configured differently, the biosphere is completely changed, heck, even the sun was significantly fainter back then. There also is no serious scientist who claims that the current increase is some kind of natural recovery. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

^^^ That ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

AEB

The statement above is not interpretation of any kind. It is a fact that CO2 was at 7000 ppm and the Cambrian explosion followed. There is zero interpretation there. Whereas the claim that CO2 levels today are unnatural and deadly is controversial to say the least, as you are well aware. That claim is not an observation, it is an interpretation. So I'm saying let's just put these facts in the article, which are not interpretations, which put current CO2 levels in proper context to the earth's past, and which put the interpretations of AGW scientists in context as well. I'm also not sure why you are saying scientists don't think the earth's past is comparable to today. In many ways it is comparable, and in some ways it is not comparable. For you to say it is in no way comparable is your interpretation and sounds like original research to me. JettaMann (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? I thought we're discussing an article on global warming not an article on historic (or even current) levels of carbon dioxide. If the current or historic levels of CO2 are relevant to this article, as established by reliable sources then it should obviously be included in a relevant context but otherwise it doesn't matter whether it's 'a fact'. It's also a fact that Venus has an atmosphere 96.5% carbon dioxide by volume and has a surface tempeature of 740 K; and evidentally that "Republicans have received 75 percent of the oil and gas industry's $245 million in political contributions during the past 20 years" [3] and evidentally, at least as of 2005 [4] that "Bush, who has received more from the oil and gas industry than any other politician" (in the US); and that in 2006 the US had the highest per capita emissions of CO2 of any country with a population over ~6 million; but in all cases again, not something that particularly belongs in the article unless there's some established relevance Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• That the current CO2 level is unnatural is a fact, not an opinion. We don't claim that it is "deadly" in the article, so that's a straw man. If CO2 levels were 7000ppm in the Cambrian explosion is uncertain - look at the error bars. However, this is picking nits. The main problem is that you wrote "resulted", suggesting a causal link for which you have provided no evidence, let alone reliable sources. But that still misses the point. The "explosion" took some 70-80 million years. The dinosaurs left us 65 million years ago, leading to an explosion in the diversity of mammals. Does that make a major asteroid strike desirable? Granting you your nit, yes, the precambrian Earth was in "some" ways comparable to today's Earth. However, you cannot usefully compare the climate system. The sun was about 6% less luminous than today, equivalent to a forcing of approximately 20W/m², or more than 6 doublings of CO2 compared to preindustrial modern levels. The continents were configured very differently. Oxygen content started at 3% and rose to 15% or so - something that might be much more reasonably be connected to the Cambrian explosion. In short, it's a different system, and trying to frame parameters as "normal" because they are within boundaries experienced within the deep geological past is fallacious. For that concept of "normal", an Earth without humans is normal, as is one without mammals, as, indeed, is one without multicellular life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of saying "resulted in" we could say "was followed by", which contains no interpretation. You mention above that it "is a fact" that the current 382 PPM level is unnaturally high. Could I ask you how unnaturally high it is? In other words, how much ppm higher than what it is supposed to be today? This seems like a difficult thing to answer without a significant amount of interpretation because the history of CO2 levels is that it is bumping up and down all the time without any industrial or man made input. Sometimes it bumped up to as high as 7000 ppm, sometimes it was under 400 ppm, and all without industrial pollution in the past. So to me this seems like a very relevant thing to mention in an article that talks about CO2 levels with the earth today. You need to put in perspective what the earth has done in the past. You've kind of argued against your own case in my opinion by talking about what is "normal". Is it up to you to decide some arbitrary cutoff point in which "modern conditions" exist? You can't just arbitrarily select a narrow date range that Wikipedia readers are allowed to see data from. Like I said before, if you select the date range from June to December, it looks like massive global cooling! Yet it would be wrong to just focus on one small slice of data to try and convince people of a trend. JettaMann (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate 'slice' for this article is the one which includes where there most recently seemed to be a natural (non-human affected, for the sake of debate) balance or steady-state in CO2 levels for an extended period of time. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The currently proposed statement is something like, "In the context of the geologic time scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered naturally." JettaMann (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I regret encouraging you. Yes, it would be nice to have some "key-words" (eg historic low) that led the reader to some kind of explanation of this argument. (Even though I'm pretty sure it's a straw-man of the deniers). But you seem to want a discussion on the page, and that would be completely WP:UNDUE. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this paragraph as being more discussion than any other part of the article, but what specifically do you see as being discussion? Perhaps we can examine this paragraph in parts to identify which is discussion adn which is not. 1. "In the context of the geologic time scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity." Do you consider anything in this first part discussion? "The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered naturally." Does this second part contain discussion? JettaMann (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Statements like "In the context of the geologic time scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered naturally" smack of "discussion" (as in "explanation of detail") that is excessive (even in a 100Kb article). Call it WP:UNDUE. The solution is a sentence that only includes the key-words, such as "historic low" + Cambrian + Carboniferous, with a link to the "discussion" (as in "explanation of detail") at another article. Maximum informative potential without article bloat. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of non-human biodiversity. 98.236.191.219 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well I agree we want this succinct and without bloat. And if we do have the ability to link to other Wikipedia articles (Cambrian Explosion, Carboniferous) that do explain these concepts then that sounds reasonable. Part of me thinks the problems we have in this article are that we are trying to explain two different things in one article: 1) Global Warming/Climate Change (which has happened frequently in the past naturally) and Anthropomorphic Global Warming, which is a theory that mankind plays a dominant role in temperature changes that are occurring at present. It's too muddy the way things currently are organized. JettaMann (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong assumption. This article is not about arbitrary climate change, but about the recent warming and its causes. That's what the term "global warming" most often refers to, and that's the topic of the article. And that's why your 500000000 year old data is completely irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess the point that you are missing here is that past behavior of the earth is entirely relevant when talking about recent climate change. JettaMann (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Past behavior" - yes, sure. But not all past behavior, and not behavior that is so far back that not only the continents, the biosphere, and the chemistry of the Earth, but even the Sun have changed significantly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, this interpretation of yours strikes me as original research in which you are trying to say that the earth is just 100% different now compared to all other periods past 100,000 years ago (or whatever time period you want to focus on). If we take the Carboniferous period, for example, researchers believe present day earth is remarkably similar to the Carboniferous, more-so than any other period, even though it was in the distant past. JettaMann (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Who and in what context? I'm very certain that yesterdays Earth, for example, is much more like present day Earth than the Carbon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You are playing semantic games when you state that (paraphrasing) "the current period is most similar to the current period". That kind of discussion doesn't really get us anywhere. The original link states that the Carboniferous is most similar to the present period. [5] JettaMann (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...a self-published web site by a coal mining engineer? But even then, if you read it in context, you will see that his is a quite limited claim, talking about the later part of the Carboniferous only, and only about CO2 level and average temperature. He spends quite a while talking about differences like continent layout, too, but he misses two major issues - the evolution of lignin and the fainter sun. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but it logically seems that CO2 levels are unnaturally low. Now, perhaps if current trends continue, CO2 will rise, maybe become unnaturally high, but is there perhaps a danger posed to the biosphere if current levels of CO2 remain less that 0.1% of the atmosphere? --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if they are "unnaturally low", they have been unnaturally low for about 100 times longer than Homo Sapiens exist. The biosphere as a whole will survive fine, of course. The question is what will happen to some of the parts that are important to us. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet more scaremongering

Partially on topic, but seems to have run its course. Please start a new section better focused on improvements to the article if needs be. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yet more scaremongering by a bunch of commie pinkos [6] [7]. Send in the marines, I say. I mean: Climate change will affect ... in two broad ways. First, climate change will shape the operating environment, roles, and missions that we undertake. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, composed of 13 federal agencies, reported in 2009 that climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. - has no-one told these people that Wattsup and Joe d'Aleo have conclusively refuted global warming? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC) What specific improvement to the article are you suggesting? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC) This looks to me like soapboxing specifically the part about Wattsupwiththat and Joe D`aleo, WMC would you please remove those parts --mark nutley (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Or "advocacy". It's not even clear the defense.gov document is accurate - some extreme weather events we were assured were increasing by the IPCC seem not to be increasing. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC) What are you using to assess it's accuracy? The IPCC report? Something else? Are you asserting the DoD doc isn't a RS? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Are you saying the DoD is now an expert on climate change? Sounds to me like they are following the lead of the current administration - conformism does not equal expertise. In a few years we'll all (most of us) look back and laugh at the silliness of it all.TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Oh, and I'd like to suggest we include this CIA report, from 1974, about the horrors of global cooling. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC) TGL - the CIA report in pdf is fascinating - but why is there no text version of it anywhere? Spiked did a pretty devastating indictment of GW based on what they claim they found, it's here. But without being able to search for the specific phrases they've picked up and commented on, it's worthless. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Very interesting article, I'd love to see wikipedia mention that people and organizations were claiming scientific consensus back in the 70's over their global cooling theory. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC) We have it on best authority, WMC and his pals, that the scientific consensus, even back then, was in favour of Global Warming (maybe AGW, not sure). The CIA document doesn't really undermine what the owners claim and the fact that nobody has turned it into text makes it practically irrelevant. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC) As it happens, there is a peer-reviewed scientific paper on this very subject that you might be interested in [8] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, I think most of us are aware of your and the IPCC's peer-reviewed work :). I'd read some interesting debunking of that link though - perhaps they were funded by the fossil fuel industry? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Are you all talking about the report that says "blablabla...working paper [...] for internal planning purposes [...] views should not be taken to represent official position...blablabla" on the title page? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC) We can also include this report from the Australian defense force - they don't seem terribly concerned about climate change. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming specific "climate skeptics"

Three names are given in the article -- "Prominent global warming skeptics include Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer and Patrick Michaels."

I've never heard of any of these people, nor do I see what makes them special compared to scores of other climate skeptics across the globe. Not to mention -- why is an individual's opinion considered encyclopedic in the first place? Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a political debate board, and it seems to me this content is completely irrelevant. Since it's also an unsourced statement, I'd normally remove this as irrelevant, but given the "article probation" threat, I dare not change the article. So I figured I'd post to the talk page instead, requesting opinions. -Stian (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there already a wiki dedicated to Sceptics? --DuKu (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreedment with you on this one. I posted back on a previous thread that there isnt a reason to list specific people. Who decides which? Why one and not another? etc, just remove the names leave the rest is my opinion on that one --Snowman frosty (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There should be a link to a list to the denial campaigners. --DuKu (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Should there also be a page for global warming alarmists? Such as the ones claiming the glaciers will melt away in 5 years? Jeff K. Halle (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to remove the link to the 3 specific names listed under "climate skeptics" section but was reverted. I agree with Stian for the most part. We have them listed in the list of scientists link within that section. Why do these 3 get listed and not every one the list, or 10, or 5, why those 3? Are there any editors that can explain why these 3 names are listed, why they are so, because I must be missing something? --Snowman frosty (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the consensus was to remove all names but put in a link to the list off sceptics page mark nutley (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but add those names to the other wiki. Snowman i just saw your post on my user site, i remove it now. --DuKu (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please be clearer? A wiki is a system for collaborative editing, or a concrete instance of it. Do you mean another wiki or another page on Wikipedia? Lindzen, Singer and Michaels have been on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming since time immemorial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Schulz, yes the link from the relative paragraph. Or do you imply there are more such listings? (If so please provide the link) I just had a quick look and the names are there. As long the link is inside the gw wiki i think it is not necassary to add those 3 names. --DuKu (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes stephen, it was agreed to remove the names and put in a link to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming with a line like, Tot everyone believes AGW is caused by man, or something along those lines mark nutley (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted back to last legit version from snowman. --DuKu (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Stian - there are big advantages to inserting the names of some skeptics into the article. 10s of 1,000s of people are (almost certainly) flocking to hear Lord Monckton touring Australia right now and arguing that, amongst other things, the costs of mitigation far exceed the gains and few of the Copenhagen countries have even notified the IPCC of the CO2 target they set themselves, as they promised to do last December. Millions of people are hearing about Monckton's arguments and might expect the on-line encyclopedia of record to have mention of the arguments and of him. And yet, the key-word "Monckton" isn't in the article and I don't think any of the other key-words one might search on would lead you to answers to any of the questions such a person might have! I don't know what the answer is, it's obviously very difficult to help people find what they want. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a big fallacy. The aim of this article is not to counter Monckton or any of his or other fallacious arguments. It is to give a decent and correct overview of the topic. Monckton is one click off Monckton, feel free to add a discussion of his claims and counterclaims there. Likewise, Lindzen is, surprisingly, at Lindzen, and COP15 has its own article. Note how Evolution does not cater to each creationist fallacy, and how Earth does not contain a list of Flatland arguments and their refutation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The aim of this article should be to inform, perhaps to "settle arguments". It fails completely. Anyone hearing of Monckton's tour or his radio interviews needs to be able to dial in "Global Warming" and click on the Wikipedia article with confidence that it will cover the major points of interest eg do a search on the article for "Monckton".

My first experience of this was coming across an article on the views of Dr Will Happer, I naturally expected to check Global Warming and burrow down until I discovered whether Happer was a kook or not, or whether the really credible things he claims about GW were worth investigating further.

My comment to Stian is that a few "names of skeptics" definitely belong in the article, such names function as key-words that enable readers to find out what's going on. The problem is that it's the wrong names that are included. Happer and Monckton get excluded, just as Amazon and Antarctica and rain-forest and desertification are excluded. Perhaps I should re-start a section I wanted earlier, what the bloody hell is this article for? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"to inform" is a non-statement. The question is to inform about what? And the answer is: About global warming - what it is, what causes it, what effects it will have. The article is not here to inform about every politico's or pundit's or think tank's propaganda. If we had an unlimited capacity for information and unlimited bandwidth into the brain, we would not need Wikipedia - people could just read all of the internet. Since that is not the case, we need to select what goes into this article. There is a trade-off - and I strongly maintain that we preferably put in relevant and supported information, not irrelevant and refuted arguments. In particular, we do not write articles that will become obsolete in half a year when Monckton's tour is over. Information we include should have a good chance of standing the test of time, both in correctness and in relevance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the arguments of Monckton (and numerous others) are refuted somewhere in WP. But I've not come across anything like that. In fact, if you arrive at this article expecting it to answer any questions you have about Monckton, I think you'll go away convinced that wP is not informative. None of the key-words I tried led anywhere, and his name (surely the first thing such people will try) isn't there either. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that if you arrive with questions about internal combustion at Swan Lake, you will have a similar experience. I would expect people with questions about Monckton to go to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, where I'm sure his personal claims, properly attributed and contextualized, could lead a useful life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems a bit random to name specific people surrounding a theory, when such people have not been key to developing the theories they advocate, but are rather distinguished mainly by the amount of media coverage they obtain or how vocal they are. Mentioning Plato in Platonism is somewhat essential, or Christ in Christianity, but giving a pick n' mix of proponents for the theory of global warming or theory of non-global warming is perhaps giving undue coverage to people who are not inherent to their respective camps (in the same way that Al Gore isn't, nor probably should be mentioned.) --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Truth is that it's a selection of strawman targets (at least in the 'common' perception). Will anyone admit this? Probably not. Top that with the fact that [NPOV] will never be realized with such strong wording as creationist fallacy instead of creationist theory (or at least concept, topic, idea). With thoughts like these directing articles, it's no wonder [NPOV] is impossible. I mean, political rhetoric is so apparent in these articles. I'd say you can remove skepticism all together and place in the see topics links, because honestly, if you wish to represent Global Warming as a theory and not fact, skepticism makes no sense. It's like having gravity skepticism (even though the concept is plausible and even debatable) the theory is not subject to skepticism unless it is fronted as fact. Science needs to get off its high horse of fact. Science is a model of reality, and it's only useful as a model, never will it be fact, and it will only approach fact as time approaches infinity (if we are even lucky to not get stupid one day). Cflare (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Simple clarification, please!

My understanding of the article is that solar radiation hits the surface of the earth, which is absorbed and re-emitted, then "trapped" in the atmosphere by the greenhouse gases. What I'd like to know (and the article doesn't explain) is why the incoming solar radiation isn't absorbed by the greenhouse gases before it hits the earth. Norman21 (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the linked wiki article, corresponding to your question. Main articles: Greenhouse effect and Radiative forcing --DuKu (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You want GHE, not radiative forcing. User_talk:William_M._Connolley#More_thermals may help William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Norman21, I'm guessing you arrived as a regular visitor/seeker after "truth", with only slight Wiki-familiarity. You've arrived at one of the most informative articles (indeed, entire topic) in the whole of Wikipedia, but I'm not convinced you checked the article carefully enough before giving up and asking us for help. You should really have done a search in the article for some key-word that particularly interested you. I chose to do a test-search on the word "radiation" and quickly found this. While that overview section of another article doesn't explain the answer to your particular question, as others have told you it does point to Greenhouse effect and Radiative forcing. The former begins with a section called Basic Mechanism which I think does an acceptable job of explanation.

You'll be interested to know this is almost the first "information test" I've done that the article has passed. If you'd come here wanting to know if Monckton is lying about the economic cost of adaptation compared with the costs of mitigation I don't think you'd have got to the answer. Ditto if you were looking for the savannahification (or desertification) of the Amazon or other rain-forests, or if you wanted to check on Antarctica and the melting of the ice-shelves.

When others have had a chance to read this, I suggest this whole section be taken and left at your (talk). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, Greenhouse gases (generally) don't absorb light, some of the light is absorbed by the planet and the emitted as heat and some of that heat is absorbed by gases like H20 and CO2 and re-emitted, occasionally back towards the planet in order to cause the greenhouse effect. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your rapid and informative responses. The following answers my question (I think): "The Earth receives energy from the Sun mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths. About 50% of the sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface, the rest is reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere. The absorbed energy warms the surface." (from Basic Mechanism). I was probably trying to derive too much information from the diagram. Norman21 (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the explanation could be better. The important thing is that energy comes in on wavelengths that are somewhat transparent to greenhouse gases but exits (or tries to exit) on wavelengths that are somewhat opaque to the same gases. If you're satisfied then the explanation currently in place scores a hit, and that's as much as can be expected.

But what I'm trying to do is examine the processes people use or could use once they'd arrived at this main GW article which was, in your case and presumably many others, the first point of call. For your particular inquiry I'd suggest the system worked almost as well as it could have done. Do you agree, or could the article have pointed you to the answer without asking at the discussion page? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting question. If your simple explanation (energy comes in on wavelengths that are somewhat transparent to greenhouse gases but exits (or tries to exit) on wavelengths that are somewhat opaque to the same gases) had appeared early on in the article, together with a link to more explanation, my question would have been answered. However, I wouldn't want my limited experience to influence policy! Norman21 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with small improvements (like the one I've offered) than the structure that allows visitors to navigate. If you were to come from a different tack (eg wanting to know what Lord Monckton or Dr Will Happer were really saying) and try to find answers I think you'd be stumped. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that is OK, because the implicit answer is "nothing of interest", and that is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User AbbaIkea2010 adds new categorys

See his contribution and talk page. Category:Scientific controversies Category:Globalism Category:Political controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AbbaIkea2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AbbaIkea2010 --DuKu (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#AbbaIkea2010_and_DuKu William M. Connolley (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Settled Science" Takes Another Hit

The Dutch point out yet more sloppy work by IPCC: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8d6e5773c60565dfc6e882b0a8dcbf18.4e1&show_article=1

The IPCC reports are becoming pretty fragile things upon which to build this article. 75.119.247.37 (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Always interesting how all these "errors" seem to exaggerate the danger. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So what? Its a 938 page report and there is two errors, neither of which actually effect the science itself used to measure climate change. Hitthat (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the lead author on the glacier section said there were 5 "glaring" errors in the glacier section alone. And there are far more out there that have come to light recently. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Always interesting how all these "reliable sources" seem to fail to realise IPCC isn't one report William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Its irrelevant whether the IPCC is 1 or 100 reports. Taken together its being exposed as an inaccurate publication constructed in a slipshod fashion. But what else would we expect from one of the world's worst bureaucracies?Dikstr (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

IPCC AR4 is one report. If our intention is to persuade the paying public that we're presenting the state of the science in an NPOV fashion then we really need to look at the latest opinion poll that was on the BBC tonight. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, no. It is several reports. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

AR4 refers to "The Fourth Assessment Report". While it has subreports, they combine to make one bigger report; the AR4. It's like Captain Planet. Macai (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that we were talking about a 930+ pages report, and that the WG2 Report alone has about 930+ pages, I'd say that in this context either they are several reports, or the time-space continuum has bent the Natural Numbers all out of shape... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One report, ten reports? Who cares? We all know what we are talking about. Can we now get back to the content and the errors in it/them please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a greater respect for accuaracy would be useful William M. Connolley (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill - you still trying to cover for the lack of "peer reviewed" material in the IPCC Reports ? Don't you realize that your house of cards is falling down ??? Mk 71.228.77.211 (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with William that the problems with the IPCC's report and its eggregious lack of accuracy is highly problematic and should be noted. The 300 year error and the other problems with the report expose a level of shoddy unscientific work that is a big deal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, none of the True Believers address the IPCC reports' sloppiness and dubious science. Connelley pulls out yet another striped rabbit argument to say there's more than one report (a fact not lost on the original IP that posted the Dutch link). These are not "errors". Errors are using "it's" when you should use "its". Claiming the glaciers that supply water to 40% of the world are going to be gone in 25 years when, in fact, they won't be is no "error". Neither is saying a country is more than 50 per cent below sea level when, in fact, it's about 25%, a simple thing that could be checked by anyone who cared about accuracy instead of politics. It was all supposed to be unassailable science. Now the air is leaking out of the balloon. The hockey stick graph has been laughed out of science, Mann and the CRU are fighting to save their careers as their "science" is scrutinized, but there's nothing to see here, so just move along, folks.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking of accuracy whilst being unable to spell my name is someone ironic, no? As for the rest... you may want to read temperature record of the past 1000 years William M. Connolley (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That redlink speaks volumes. As far as your name goes, the short form Will would be much easier for people to spell. I would recommend going with that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it certainly does speak volumes: it is saying, you don't have the knowledge to fix it. Fortunately, I do William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Connolley, when you actually deal with an argument straight on, we'll worry about the spelling of your name. Right now, I, too, will make note of the useless link without even bothering to mention how the tree ring studies have been discredited by Russian scientists who say the data -- and the trees themselves -- were cherry-picked to include only those that fit with the AGW theory. Now, where did that pesky Medieval Warming Period go? Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Dutch criticism of IPCC's work should be included in this articleSpoonkymonkey (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Settled science is challenged and overturned by peer-reviewed publications. If you have some of these, then let's see the refs here. What you guys seem to have is a "let's all shout together" idea that settled science is overturned in Wikipedia, or in op-eds, or by politicians. I haven't seen any evidence of a single important peer reviewed research paper's conclusions on AGW getting overturned. Have you got one? (hint: AR4 is not a peer reviewed research paper, it's just a summary for politicians and others to try to understand stuff that's harder than they're used to reading) --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

500 peer-reviewed papers challenging the AGW hypothesis. Get cracken'. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. That should keep 'em busy for a while. By the way, I'm still waiting for proof that Wikipedia's sourcing standards have changed from "verifiable" to "peer-reviewed" publication.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this is a re-tread of the "450 papers" of a while ago, it looks just as broken since people disclaim it [9]. And I notice they are sweetly pretending that E&E is a proper journal, not that anyone will believe them. Ooooooh, and they've got Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission (Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008) - G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin - I can't call it laughably wrong because Lar will get upset, but really it is too silly to waste any insults on, so I won't bother. Oops William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes yes, it is so laughable you had to mount a defense, that being of mockery (Rules for Radicals?), in order to curb any growing doubts people might have. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that list certainly has an uncanny number of papers in E&E, plus a couple that definitely support the IPCC consensus (e.g. Knorr on the airborne fraction or a 1993 (!) paper on the difficulties of attribution, fitting between the 1990 and 1995 IPCC positions - like a transitional fossil). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And as the climategate emails show, certain influential scientists got together to bad mouth and blacklist journals that published articles they didn't like. So please, forgive me for taking your opinion of scientific journals and papers with a grain of salt. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they do not show anything like that. And how would that excuse misrepresenting papers that clearly do support the IPCC consensus position? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems my archiving was undone, so no new section was made to continue the discussion with a change tone, and as a result (or perhaps just concidentally) the conversation is still far from suggesting improvements to the article... carry on if you like, but I highly suggest that specific papers are picked and specific points are attacked. Otherwise this will just continue to be another bludgeoning match in the history of this sad page. Awickert (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I restarted the discussion below in the section entitled, 'Possible errors in IPCC report - restarted discussion as suggested'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I don't necessarily have anything to contribute, but hopefully something will get done this time around. Awickert (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The IPCC report doesn't seem to have any real merit as a reliable scientific source. Interesting, perhaps, but such a mess of speculation and non-scientific methods that it must be considered mere opinion by this stage. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html

--AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph, nicknamed the Torygraph, has no real merit as a reliable source on science. They're spinning like crazy, picking out errors in WGII and misleadingly suggesting that they compromise the solid science in WGI. Not, of course, that anything is infallible. However, it is interesting that Bob Watson is putting the heat on George W Bush's appointee Pachauri to improve dealing with errors. . . dave souza, talk 22:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is using the Telegraph (which is biased, but reasonably reliable - note MP expenses crisis) as a scientific source. The fact that we are comparing the IPCC 'scientists' with broadsheet journalists is perhaps indicative of their parity as scientific sources (which is objectively quite small). --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

India is now discounting the IPCC

There seems to be yet more IPCC fallout. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7157590/India-forms-new-climate-change-body.html

Now India is discounting IPCC findings. Should this be addressed in the global warming page, or elsewhere? Jeff K. Halle (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant sir. India once supported them, that's what matters. Criticism can go to a new article called Indian concerns about global warming with full context of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.168.199.238 (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the quickly changed Torygraph story – see here for the gory details, and note that India's "PM Manmohan Singh said India had 'full confidence' in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its chairman, Dr Pachauri."[10] As good sceptics we know that spin in newspapers has to be checked carefully. . . dave souza, talk 09:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Snow storms

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the east coast show us how much we have to fear from warming. Mr Conely, any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.168.199.238 (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Q4 --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC) There's a lot more to it than that. Increased precipitation in Eastern and Central North America was predicted, confirmed,[11] and is predicted to continue[12] by climate change scientists, year round. 99.27.203.165 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC) The NOAA actually predicted, “The forecast for the Northeast, the world’s largest heating oil market, will have equal chances of above-normal, near-normal, or below-normal temperatures and precipitation.” Yeah, and these are the guys we trust to tell us about global warming? That is a laughable prediction. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC) You don't understand IP-san, when the weather is hot it is proof of global warming, but when it is cold it is "weather not climate." Also, more proof of global warming includes drought, floods, prostitution, blizzards and earthquakes (yes, people really say these things). TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC) If I may: It's so Cold, there can't be Global Warming Wikispan (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of economic impacts

I wasn't happy with the previous revision:

• The social cost of carbon cannot be easily explained in a few sentences. No confidence level was given for the estimates.
• The description of the Stern Review wasn't particularly helpful, nor is the Review representative of the literature. Having to cite which economists support/dislike the Review was unnecessary.
• Terry Barker's letter to the FT: Why not quote the opinions of any other economist in this field?
• The stuff based on the UNEP source was not consistent with a literature review by Schneider et al. (2007), and was far too certain of itself:

"Developing countries dependent upon agriculture will be particularly harmed by global warming."

"Will be" suggests 100% certainty. This is wrong.

A summary of the changes I've made:

• I've replaced the social cost of carbon estimates with impact estimates based on the possible future changes in global mean temperature. I think this is much easier to understand than social cost of carbon estimates.
• I've based my revision on a literature review by Smith et al. (2001), the conclusions of which are supported in another review by Schneider et al. (2007). I believe that this source is more representative of literature than the Stern Review.
• I've put in more detail about the distribution of climate change impacts.
• I've trimmed down the description of the Stern Review.

Enescot (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Without regard to the rest, *a small increase in global mean temperature (2 °C by 2100... a medium (2-3 °C) to high level of warming is odd. How is 2 0C small, but also medium? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's up to 2 deg C = small, and 2-3 deg C = medium (Smith et al., 2001:957). Enescot (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up the citations, switch some of it to WP:LDR, compacted the section. Some style notes. Climate Change 2007 is actually (three) books, {{Cite book}} works a lot better.[13] :) I understand that they want us to cite the reports a certain way, and correct me if I'm wrong, but adding a "104 pp." to the Synthesis Report seems just strange. Article's not using parenthetical references, that's what the "pages=" parameter is for, see doc. Include all the lead coordinating and lead authors in the references at the end (up to around six or eleven). The above three author to "et al." is actually for the parenthetical inline references.[14][15] Article messed up on this part.

It looks good Enescot, nice job on Economics of global warming and here. Right now I'm wondering if there's a better way of describing "medium" and "high" confidence. Hmmm... In AR4 they're confidence intervals,[16] but in AR3 it looks like they're using a hypothesis test, statistical power (page 24).[17] Per WMC, think we can cut their groupings of projected increases in temperature and just say "at 2°C and above would..." The groups (I think) are to ease the math, sort of like discrete groups in a histogram, rather than continuous integrals in a probability distribution function. This is bi-variate though, I'm not that good at bi-variate statistics. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put in a footnote on this based on Chapter 1, Box 1.1 Enescot (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They used Bayesian inference by aggregating their beliefs. There mustn't be a lot of them, can't assume normality. A little disconcerted. Thanks, a lot, cleared things up. One note though, I'm not sure if your using WikiEd or something like it, but it added spaces among list items, which causes it to parse incorrectly into XHTML (WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists). Please correct. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Global warming stopped

There are various reports highlighting the fact there has been no "global warming" for at least 10 yers (e.g., http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html). Why not mention this in the lede? Chris Vanderpump (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the FAQ at the top, it has some information on that claim. Hitthat (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And the FAQ spouts a lot of nonsensical gobbledygook before stating "10 years isn't enough time to show that!" The fact of the matter is that the PDO has gone into its cool phase and the AMO isn't that far down the line. We're in for cooling. The graphs do not show a constant increase in heat - they show sharp jumps which indicate measurement error/change and/or the the various oceanic oscillations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to discuss that on the talkpage of the relevant FAQ. Count Iblis (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ten years is not enough time ? Are you kidding Count Iblis ! This bias is beyond insanity. Mk 71.228.77.211 (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll be vindicated in a few years - no need to engage in any more sisyphean tasks :). TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Another exaggerated report

This time, the reports' claims about drought in North Africa haven been found to have been invented and the "science" was not peer-reviewed. The British scientist who used to lead IPCC wants a mucking-out: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a serious couple of issues intertwined, along with the usual exaggerated editorialising. More detail is needed about the Africa info, which was in WGII and didn't have to be peer reviewed. There are also various calls for improvements to IPPC procedures. These points belong in other articles. . . dave souza, talk 14:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is largely an appeal to the authority of the IPCC and the IPCC is cited throughout the article. If their reliability is now in question, then that question should be acknowledged in some way more than a single sentence at the end of a paragraph on debate. --B (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The IPCC remains a solid resource for the science of global warming, it's come unstuck in one or more instances of its WGII report on the impacts of climage change. Perhaps we should indeed review that sentence, taking into account Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent . . dave souza, talk 14:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The IPCC isn't any sort of "resource" for science - they don't do their own research. What they do is quite simple, collect magazine articles, greenpeace pamphlets and some peer-reviewed literature; sex it up, and then shout it from the rooftops. This is quite logical since without the threat of "global warming" their organization would not exist. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust - you missed "collect grant money" from us so that they can shout (inform) at us from our rooftops. Mk 71.228.77.211 (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. By all means use the Independent material, but let's open the door to the connection between the True Believers and the carbon credit hucksters. I don't like corrupt science, and it seems almost all of this mess is being bankrolled by people who stand to make or lose a lot of money, whether it's on abatement, carbon credits or research grants. AGW may be real, but the science on both sides is so corrupt, petty and conflicted that its difficult to see what's really going on.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I'm aghast that, mixed into the so-called "settled science" is incredibly sensationalist material that, in Dave Desouza's words, "didn't have to be peer reviewed" but is being used by Ban and others to push the AGW agenda and scare well-meaning people who have not been given a score card to tell the "settled science" from speculation that, to be kind, appears to have been pulled out of thin air by a Moroccan bureaucrat who now peddles carbon credits for a living. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't collaborate with talk like that, to improve an encyclopedia article. Please suggest a referenced change to the text of the article, if you have one. --Nigelj (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely that is exactly the kind of thing we should be talking about. Both sides of the argument suggest that there is far more to the subject than science and this is clearly true. It is hard to think of any time in history when so much was at stake that was based on such complex science. There are enormous commercial and political issues involved here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Nigelj - the claim that the vested editors are "interested in improving the article" falls apart just from the way I was treated. I want the articles to be informative, incorporating key-words and links such as Antarctic and Amazon and key-skeptics such as Monckton. Every attempt I've made to include these things has been reverted with prejudice and my TalkPage recieved 3 warnings for "Advocacy". ie advocating improvements to the article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Glacier melt overestimated by 50%!

Again, I find it interesting how these mistakes always make global warming to be worse than it is. Where shall we include this tidbit in the article? And have we mentioned that the glaciers have been retreating since the last Ice Age (10,000 year ago)? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Good news, but it's odd how you've got this conspiracy theory about "mistakes" – you seem to be too credulous, you should be a sceptic like me and expect science to develop and find new and sometimes unexpected information. This, together with Susan Solomon's paper, could mean slower global warming, but still the consensus looks strong that AGW is significant. It'll be interesting to see considered analysis of this paper. . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a skeptic Souza and I've never said there was any sort of conspiracy. I believe the best explanation for the one-sidedness of these mistakes is simple human psychology like confirmation bias,groupthink and group polarization - a healthy human dose of apocophilia is probably part of it too. It is odd how you'd accuse me of something unscientific like a conspiracy theory, when my listed reasonings are based on the science of psychology. :) TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It’s just greed - political and scientific greed with a healthy dose of liberal left bias like here at WP and you have the makings of the greatest scam/ponzi scheme ever attempted. Mk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.77.211 (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. did you read the press release? "Ice loss from Alaskan glaciers since1962 is evidently smaller than previously thought. However, thinning (sometimes over 10 m/year, as in the Columbia glacier) and glacial retreat remain considerable. Moreover, the spectacular acceleration in mass loss since the mid 1990s, corresponding to a contribution of 0.25 to 0.30 mm/year to sea-level rise, is not in question and proves to be a worrying indication of future sea-level rise." Better get your wellies ready. . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course I read it and if I recall I believe that was put forth as a sort of exceptional case. Also, the smaller ice gets the faster it melts (due to surface area/volume ratios) and so glacier melt (as long as the temperature/precip is constant) should theoretically always be accelerating. Also, the sea has been rising since the end of the last ice age too :). TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

link 5 is broken

pls fix to http://royalsociety.org/Joint-science-academies-statement-Global-response-to-climate-change/ Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Awickert (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

NOAA: Blizzard Rearranges Climate Change Announcement

This is a key government office, and wondered if this should be included on this page: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/02/08/noaa-blizzard-rearranges-climate-change-announcement/ Cold Soar (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No. There are huge gaps in all these articles, but that kind of opinion piece masquerading as news has no place. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

History

Can the article: History of global warming be mentioned in the article here ? Perhaps a small section can be made aswell. Finding that the article now makes it seem that only the IPCC did actual calculations, and that global warming hadn't been predicted before 1950, I really think this would be a good addition.

KVDP (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That article needs a good deal of work before it is useful. We should not link to it in its current state. it seem that only the IPCC did actual calculations is wrong; fortunately you don't say that in the article William M. Connolley (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted UA's addition of History of global warming. It doesn't provide any extra info for that section, and it isn't a very good page yet. It was only started today. By all means go over there and improve it, but don't link to it yet William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The first line is "Global temperature variations have been presumed possible by a variety of effects and have been researched by many people troughout the centuries", which would, at first blush, seem to make it a bit useful in the section where I had placed it. That the article has a few issues wouldn't seem to preclude including it as a "further info" link. UnitAnode 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to at least correct the spelling errors in the first sentence. More than that, though - that "information" isn't useful. The article needs extensive work before it is worth linking; space on the GW article is too valuable to waste on advertising links-for-improvement. Head over to the article and help make it better, if you have something to contribute William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The main issue isn't really with the missing "h" (I added that), but that there are currently only three sources. If this is a viable article (and I think it is), it needs to be more data-driven, as well as social history-driven. UnitAnode 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is taht it is in need of a total re-write an expansion. I've re-done the intro; sorry, your "h" vanished, though I'm sure there is another one there to replace it. But all this discussion should occur there, not here William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Poor CoM has done his pointless malicious revert [18] without realising that its the wrong article. Ah well, he'll get there in the end William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How can we incorporate this series by The Guardian into the various GW articles?

• Part 1 -- "Battle over climate data turned into war between scientists and sceptics"Whether it was democracy in action, or defence against malicious attempts to disrupt research, climate scientists were driven to siege mentality by persistence of sceptics
• Part 2 -- "How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies"Claims based on email soundbites are demonstrably false – there is manifestly no evidence of clandestine data manipulation
• Part 3 -- "Hockey stick graph took pride of place in IPCC report, despite doubts"Emails expose tension between desire for scrupulous honesty, and desire to tell simple story to tell the policymakers
• Part 4 -- "Climate change debate overheated after sceptic grasped 'hockey stick'"Steve McIntyre pursued graph's creator Michael Mann, but replication of his temperature spike has earned him credibility
• Part 5 -- "Changing weather posts in China led to accusations of scientific fraud"Climate emails suggest Phil Jones may have attempted to cover up flawed temperature data
• Part 6 -- "Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientists to 'censor' their critics"Peer review has been put under strain by conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions
• Part 7 -- "Victory for openness as IPCC climate scientist opens up lab doors"Ben Santer had a change of heart about data transparency despite being hectored and abused by rabid climate sceptics
• Part 8 -- "Climate scientists contradicted spirit of openness by rejecting information requests"Hacked emails reveal systematic attempts to block requests from sceptics — and deep frustration at anti-global warming agenda
• Part 9 -- "Climate scientists withheld Yamal data despite warnings from senior colleagues"Ancient trees dragged from frozen Siberian bogs do not undermine climate science, despite what the sceptics say
• Part 10 -- "Search for hacker may lead police back to East Anglia's climate research unit"Truth could turn out more embarrassing for university, but CRU 'dissidents', a corporate leak ahead of Copenhagen or bloggers intent on data 'liberation' are all still in the frame.
• Part 11 -- "'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review"Peer-review was meant to be a safeguard against the publication of bad science but the balance is shifting towards open access
• Part 12 -- "Climate science emails cannot destroy argument that world is warming, and humans are responsible"Climate science can no longer afford to be a closed shop or over-simplify the complexities of a changing climate if it is to reclaim credibility

The information found in these articles needs to be incorporated into the GW suite of articles, and it needs to happen quickly. The series is a treasure trove of information, and appears to be pretty pro-AGW, while not denying the major problems caused by Climategate. How should we deal with this series of articles? UnitAnode 17:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Carefully, as ever! The series gives good balance between various viewpoints, showing the context in a way that isn't currently reflected in our articles. My first thought would be to use part 12 to draw up an overview of these factors for the UEA emails article. Supplementing this, today's paper ran Climate scientists hit out at 'sloppy' melting glaciers error under a slightly different heading, including a brief mention of US climate monitoring information service gets go-ahead in Washington which will be in tomorrow's paper. This significant development is getting wide coverage, for example Agency Will Create National Climate Service to Spur Adaptation - NYTimes.com. These will come into the AR4 criticisms, and related articles. By the way, on a semantic note the Guardian is anti-AGW and thinks action is needed to reduce it. It accuses oil and manufacturing interests of being pro-AGW to the extent of lobbying to do nothing about it. . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

needs to be incorporated into the GW suite of articles, and it needs to happen quickly. Both these assertions are incorrect. We certainly don't need newspapers refs for the GW article, and there is no hurry about this at all William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to Souza for his circumspect response. I agree that Part 12 might be a good "jumping-off" point, as far as beginning the usage of this fine series in our articles. I remain unsurprised -- and unimpressed -- by WMC's intransigence. UnitAnode 19:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, do please call me dave... dave souza, talk 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. And you may call me Scott, if you like. I'm thinking of putting that in my sig, since my RL name is pretty much out there now. UnitAnode 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take it to Global warming controversy. It simply does not belong here. Wikispan (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's a fantastically informative series, and it won't be shuttled off to only the daughter articles. Have you even read them yet? I've only read three thus far (part of #1, and all of #7 and #12), and this series is outstanding. UnitAnode 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if the Guardian articles are written to be informative (#4 is pretty good, giving a cautious thumbs-up to the hockey-stick). Perhaps most importantly, there must be something about their presentation for editors to learn. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)