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)

Proposed new first paragraph for the Global Warming article

I would like to propose editing the first paragraph of the article to include information about the latest developments and climate observations that are available from reputable sources. Please do not delete my suggestion without allowing debate to happen.

• • • • Begin Paragraph ****

Global warming is a scientific theory that became popular in the 1980s to explain the observed increase in global temperature. The theory was proposed as a human-caused phenomenon, and is often referred to as Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW). Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.[2][A] However, the most recent decade has seen temperature declines in North America, Australia, and Europe. As a result, the controversy over human-caused global warming has increased. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The University of East Anglia, the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of other education and governmental institutions have recently come under increased scrutiny as revelations of missing source data and allegations of fraud revealed in the "Climategate" scandal have called some of the fundamental assumptions made by leading AGW scientists into doubt.

• • • • End Paragraph ****

Sources to cite:

• Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing N. American temperatures over the last decade:

 -	 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

• Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing European temperatures over the last 8 years (Compare Seasonal Averages):

 -	 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2001/winter/averages.html
 -	 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2009/winter/averages.html

• Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing Australian temperatures over the last decade:

 -	 http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=meanT&area=nt&station=015135&dtype=raw&period=winter&ave_yr=3

• Sources to substantiate the fact of increasing public scrutiny:

 -	 Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1945175,00.html
 -	 The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120404511.html?hpid=topnews
 -	 The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

• Source to cite to substantiate the initiation of fraud investigations:

 -	 United Kingdom Parliament: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn14_100122.cfm
 -	 Penn State press release regarding an investigation into Michael Mann: http://www.ems.psu.edu/sites/default/files/u5/Mann_Public_Statement.pdf
 -	 Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/universities-take-action-on-climategate/

• Source to cite to substantiate the fact of the Climategate scandal:

 -	 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=803

Mcoers (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Matt C.

Hello Mcoers, your proposition looks to me to be a very nice exercice of spin. From the use of the word "theory" in the first sentence, as a general rule, it seems that only deniers of evolution or Global warning want to use that word. Everybody else understands what theory means in a scientific context. To the expression "became popular in the 1980s" implying that it is recent and fashionable whereas it is actualy a cut and dry scientific question that has been studied for decades.

You assertion that temperatures have declined in the last decade is factually wrong. In fact the last decade was the warmest on record and there is not statistical decrease over the last few years. Incidentally, nice exercise of cherry picking your data. Because, if instead of picking just Winter like you did, we choose the whole year; and instead of Europe and Australia like you did we choose the whole world, it turns out, the results are exactly the opposite of yours.

Including the so called "Climategate" in the lede is a clear case of undue weight.

Last but not least, you conclusion that "some of the fundamental assumptions made by leading AGW scientists into doubt" is, and I'm trying to put this delicately, a statement that is laughable on its face. So, I would vote for not changing the first paragraph. --McSly (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mcsly, calling my modification "laughable" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Furthermore if you have access to a publicly available data set that shows actual global temperatures, then I would like to see it (IOW, please cite your source). I don't believe that there is a "global" data set that we can go look at that is similar to those available from the governments of Australia, U.S., and U.K. One of the problems is that most of the pretty charts we see regarding "global temperature data" are manipulated the data with "tricks" and other procedures in an undocumented way. The data sets that I found are indicative of global temperatures in the sense that they represent the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western hemispheres. I chose these sets because they are on English websites. I can't very well investigate Chinese websites since I don't speak Chinese - even more importantly, neither do the visitors to the English version of this website.

Even better, these data sets are far more democratic for users since everyone can run their own numbers. I'm not cherry-picking data. You can run the numbers however you wish. Some monthly comparisons will show increases in temperature, some will show decreases. But if you average out the temperatures and develop trailing averages you will inevitably come to the same conclusion as I have that global temperatures are not going up. I could post those comparisons on my website, but the problem I have with doing so is that you guys will nix my results because that would probably be nit picked as originial research. Mcoers (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Matt C.

No need to post anything on your website, that would indeed be OR. We have good RS about the temperature for the last decade and you were right to insist that I need to provide sources. The temperature index from GISS is one and I don't think there is any suspicion over this data. Again from GISS, I quote "2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880 "[5]. Also, there was no cooling trend in the last few years (Statisticians Reject Global Cooling). --McSly (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mcsly, you should know better than to use the term Denier it is not really WP:CIVIL is it? AGW is a theory, as is evolution (hence Darwins theory of evolution) to say AGW is not a theory is just pointless and unscientific. The assertion of temp decline is well documented, remember the now infamous e-mail, we can`t account for the lack of temp rise and that`s a travesty? And i seem to recall someone saying, yes temps have dropped but the heat is in the pipeline and will come back in twenty years or so? Your assertion that the term climategate in the lede is WP:UNDUE is obviously flawed, that term is not linked to global warming for eternity, and given the amount of press coverage weight is not an issue with it`s use. And that entire scandal has cast a shadow over the theory of AGW, many people who believed now doubt, those who just doubted now no longer believe. I would vote for changing the first paragraph to reflect reality. mark nutley (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If my remark came across as uncivil, I apologize, that wasn't my intent and it wasn't directed at Mcoers. My point was, and we seem to agree, that yes, these are all theories, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, the theory of global warming, the theory of quantum physics. It's a _good thing_, it means that these are well understood phenomenons supported by numerous underlying facts. The only reason to include that term, generally in the first sentence, would be to try to confuse the reader who would know its colloquial meaning but not its scientific meaning. --McSly (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The full quote "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate".

Teneberth refers to that fact that only the top few hundred meters of water is monitored and he believes that there is storage of heat in deeper waters (In relation to the total energy budget, since there is some missing, a travesty of water warming not the near surface air!). Ie...that there is an inability to account for energy flow....A paper that came out after Teneberth's http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JC005237.shtml supported his notion of deeper water storage of energy (heat).

I also dont believe WP:UNDUE in relation to climategate is flawed, as it stands the scientific basis and understanding has yet to change. Unless you can demonstrate that there is a change in the climatic publications being released, the issuing of major corrections to the scientific understanding et al...then the science is saying what it was saying before...I see no change do you?

I don't believe the change to the lead is convincing based on the links provided, as per McSly's comments--Snowman frosty (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can demonstrate that there is a change in the climatic publications being released, What Like his you mean? The planet has cooled over the last 11 odd years, why would you deny this? And if this is the case but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate Then how in hell can they present their work as fact not theory? Riddle me that. With regards to he believes that there is storage of heat in deeper waters yes he believes, hence another theory with no factual evidence to back it up as yet. --mark nutley (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Energy & Environment..in about 50% of the listed papers says it all, which does not say much...alas, other great climate related journals like The Electricity Journal, Iron & Steel Technology, Civil Engineering, Chemical Innovation highlight important reliable climate science I am sure...course the ones that are actually reliable are already given their due weight in the current article. Re cooling...It hasnt,

I also believe you have missed or failed to understand what Teneberth was referring to. He was talking about the oceanic temperature of the top ~900 meters depth not the entire globe or the near surface temperatures and that deep water measurements were inadequate Also did you read the paper I linked that confirmed Tenebreth hypothesis (not a theory) of deeper heat storage. Also if you go though the energy budget you can see what Teneberth was referring to, and to why the lack of heat in the top 900 m was an issue. I believe your last comment does not make sense. Since I referenced a paper that supported Teneberths thoughts on where the heat was...the linked confirmed this....mystery solved... --Snowman frosty (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mystery not solved, NODC revises ocean heat content data – it’s now dropping slightly Looks like trenberth will have to rework his theory --mark nutley (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think you are having trouble understanding...if you look at the data link you posted you can read the NODC numbers refer to the upper 700 m depth of water. So this again confirms that the heat in the ocean is present somewhere else. I again refer you back to the paper linked above, above heat storage in deep water as per Teneberths suggestion. I am not sure what else to say, nothing else here is contstructive to the current article, and it seems clear you are not understanding the difference between oceanic depths. I'll leave you the last word.--Snowman frosty (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Say what now? You do realize heat rises right? If the top 700m of water are cooling then the heat below has already moved up. That`s basic physic`s. However i`m sure the reefs in the florida keys are cheered by trenberths theory Coral in Florida Keys suffers lethal hit from coldI thank you for the last word, it`s nice to see the mindset of those who are AGW adherents. --mark nutley (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The science of climate change is well understood. Those who wish to deny climate change often misunderstand the difference between climate and weather. Look at the data. The weather goes up and down, the climate is getting warmer. A cold snap is weather, not climate. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rick, if you can show how my edit to the first paragraph is looking at weather instead of climate, please be more specific. This blanket rebuttal you have copy/pasted is rhetorical and condescending. Mcoers (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Matt C.

Dear editors, I have provided you with sourced information that is NEW in the sense that it is using the latest available information. This information is much more reliable given the current circumstances surrounding the unreliability of information being released by the IPCC (think about Glaciergate, Climategate, etc) and others. Giving the public access to the base data is, in this respect, a far more honest way to run this site than any other right now. At least until we can verify the veracity (or lack thereof) of information coming from the likes of people like Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et al.

Really, I'm going to have to insist that you become more inclusive and open up your "good ol boys" network to allow competing ideas into this process. If you don't like my paragraph, then let's see how you would improve it. I mean, that is the philosophy of Wikipedia, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcoers (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't. The article is under probation and it's a good idea to seek consensus here first before making major changes to the article. And everyone please sign your posts with ~~~~ Thank you. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

@ McSly: to the point, global warming is factually a theory: the general disregard for that point on this page I put down either to willful ignorance or to poor secondary school education.

@ everyone else (more or less): sarcasm is not normally considered a valid move in rational discourse, and certainly doesn't qualify when it is the entirety of the given argument. just an FYI. --Ludwigs2 09:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the general disregard you point out, I invite you to this quote from a wikipedian, yourself, in with respect to that disregard: "yes, I understand, there's a resistance to calling it a theory because there's a fear that identifying it as a theory will open the door anti-GW people who want to pov-push other theories in"

I ask that you consider this prior understanding now, as opposed to the assumption of bad faith or poor education. This is, it should be said, not meant to be taken sardonically. I didn't take your above statement to literally decry all of wikipedian editors that have related concerns, here or elsewhere, as either biased or ignorant. Nor am I trying to single out the statement on your talk page as some kind of proof that you were speaking dishonestly when you made your frustrations known here. I only want to highlight that it seemed, unless I'm mistaken, that you would argue that such a reason is not enough. If I am correct then I find myself wondering, can the perception of words be the foundation for a meritous argument against inclusion?

In other words, what if it isn't a 'don't give an inch, because if you do they'll take a mile' situation, but in fact an issue of trying to avoid framing the perception of a viewpoint in a non neutral way. Trying to avoid strengthening the chance of that view was being ignored for the wrong reasons (wrong in the eyes of wikipedia, I understand there is doubt for some, certainty for others). Let us say, for example, that someone went to the article on atheism and insisted that instead of the first sentence being 'Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities', we should write "Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the assumption that there are no deities." and the people hoping to get the wording changed repeated that it is factually true, with regards to their wording.

The facts are there, surely. But what if that is not the whole of the argument, is the new wording also neutral, was the old wording factually incorrect or biased in such a way that it would require a change? Does either benefit a point of view unduly? I can understand the arguments, I remember seeing heated talk regarding creationism in schools, where 'it's only a theory' was repeated with passion. Now, the contention for me lies elsewhere, and you may agree.

This is an article about the science. As such, I think that strengthens the case for adding such wording. I dislike using the word "theory" as a stand alone phrase, however. It has a colloquial meaning that, I don't believe, matches with the tone of the article. I am fine with the phrase "scientific theory", as I feel that is more precise. That said, I am unsure it is necessary, but then again I have been here hardly longer than two shakes of a lambs tail. By the way, I came here to check on another conversation for one quick moment, I may not return in a timely manner if at all. I hope, however, that I was able to make my stance clear enough for everyone to consider.72.192.46.9 (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right that I should have been a bit gentler in my phrasing (though I will point out that the kind of resistance I suggested above is a form of willful ignorance). You'e also correct that articles often need to be framed carefully to preserve NPOV. but framing of this sort does not extend to actual spin-doctoring. what's happened on this page (as far as I can see) is that editors have tried to frame the scientific language to exclude a political argument. that puts the article in a strange Shrödingerean state: if it is a science article it's neutral but incorrect; if it is a political article it's underdeveloped and violates NPOV. and of course talk page discussions are such that no one ever acknowledges this tension, so it can never be resolved; pure tendentious obfuscation. To my mind, either this article should be exclusively scientific (which would require discussing the matter as a scientific theory) or it should be more overtly political (which would require discussing GW as a theory in the political realm). Nothing good comes from warping the science into a sub rosa political statement (and yes, I know that all sides do that on this issue, and this side is not the worst offender by far, but I don't fid that a convincing argument for continuing to do it). --Ludwigs2 16:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"if it is a science article it's neutral but incorrect" This quote, for me, would be the meat of the argument, it's one thing to be framed and avoid using certain wording, it's another thing to be demonstrably wrong. There are other thoughts, though. "talk page discussions are such that no one ever acknowledges this tension, so it can never be resolved" If I understand the sides here, it's not that one side is denying tension to keep the article in limbo, it's that the tension is because of earnest disagreements regarding how to best word the article. I invite it may even go deeper than that, I think there is real and legitimate difference as to what editors feel the intention of this article should be. I don't think I witnessed anyone trying to assert that no one disagrees. For those that feel that way though, I do clearly disagree with those that don't agree that people disagree.

You also mention a need to discuss the topic AS a scientific theory if the article were to be about the science. It seems to describe the elements of the scientific theory, are you saying they should mention or link to the wiki page on scientific theory, or something else? Regarding the concern for secretive statements and discussing the scientific theory in the political realm, I would would invite this thought. The wikipedia article on horses makes no overt mention of unicorns, it is entirely seated in the biological perspective, rather than in the magical perspective. However if we try to 'discuss unicorns as a biological entity from a magical perspective' as you want to discuss GW as a theory in the political realm, we might have trouble as they are not directly compatible.

This is not to discount any side as believing in the irrational, or anything else that might be inferred except that the science and the politics are separate entities. We can discuss the political climate, we can discuss the science, however those two 'realms' are separate, and cannot be discussed as if the politics is a facet of the science, or the science is a facet of politics. That may not be what you meant, but I did want to mention that in case because of the 'sub rosa' comment. Do you believe that the article considering skepticism as a fringe scientific perspective is a political statement? If so would that be the forefront of your concerns regarding neutrality? 72.192.46.9 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Mcoers, there are several editor who believe that there is not enough about scepticism in this article. I think there is support for adding well sourced material on this subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Ludwigs2 proposal

I think Ludwigs2 proposal in section above can serve as a template for debate we have had regarding the directon this article should take. The current state of "warping the science into a sub rosa political statement" needs to be changed to cleary reflect the science as a theory and the politics of global warming ( which really means money and power).

what's happened on this page (as far as I can see) is that editors have tried to frame the scientific language to exclude a political argument. that puts the article in a strange Shrödingerean state: if it is a science article it's neutral but incorrect; if it is a political article it's underdeveloped and violates NPOV. and of course talk page discussions are such that no one ever acknowledges this tension, so it can never be resolved; pure tendentious obfuscation. To my mind, either this article should be exclusively scientific (which would require discussing the matter as a scientific theory) or it should be more overtly political (which would require discussing GW as a theory in the political realm). Nothing good comes from warping the science into a sub rosa political statement (and yes, I know that all sides do that on this issue, and this side is not the worst offender by far, but I don't fid that a convincing argument for continuing to do it). Ludwigs2

Mytwocents (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think much like evolution global warming ends up being both the fact of and the theorical framework that explains. Gravity also functions in much this way with the phenom of and the theory frame that explains the phenom with the same name. I dont see how the current article warps science though into a political statement though or perhaps I am not seeing it from the same frame of reference. --Snowman frosty (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As ever, we give due weight to the overwhelming majority scientific view that global warming is a fact, and that human activities influence it. The various theories to explain this, and projections from extrapolations, are part of the scientific field, with significant minority scientific views to be explained in relation to majority views. A brief summary style section outlining the political and antiscientific debates is also appropriate, with links to the main articles on these subjects. . . dave souza, talk 19:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) (and again...) your use of the word 'fact' above is ill-advised. 'Facts' are simple empirical observations - e.g. the average temperature in 1902 was X, the average temperature in 1903 was Y, the average temperature in 1904 was Z, etc. The claim that observations X, Y, and Z demonstrate a progression, a trend, or or ongoing phenomenon of any sort is a theoretical claim derived from those observations, one subject to further testing, examination, and explanation. There are numerous places in the article where trends of this type are referred to as though they were pre-given facts rather than extrapolations from a theoretical framework, and that is just a misrepresentation of the science to try to 'assert' that global warming is 'real' using linguistic tricks.

Don't get me wrong, I think global warming is real. I just object to the misrepresentation of the science, and I am (frankly) appalled that editors with an interest in science would stoop to this level of rhetorical gamesmanship. Science can get along just fine without that kind of bull, thankyouverymuch. --Ludwigs2 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on here. e.g. the average temperature in 1902 was X - come now, this is not a simple fact. It is a highly complex amalgam of a large number of observations, averaging, and a theory of how this is to be done. Even to state that "the average temperature at location X was Y in the first of January 1902" suffers the same problem. Even to state that the temperature at specific time Z at location Y (at a height of Z meters above ground level) can only be done when mediated by theory. In others words, if you insist on distinguishing "theory" from "observations" you far to rapidly zoom off into unprofitable metaphysics William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to take it that far, we could discuss it. however, it makes the wrong distinction. an average is a simple mathematical procedure: there are several different kinds of averages, and the act of averaging may be quite complex, but the intention of an average is to describe (give a summary of) a set of empirical observations. it is not intended to propose new information about those observations. a projection or trend, on the other hand, not only tries to describe the empirical observations that are given, but also makes claims about empirical observations that are yet to some.

In English, it's the difference between the past tense (temperatures rose) and the present perfect tense (temperatures have been rising); the first is a description of past events, the second an induction about ongoing events.

However, I'm not asking for a full (meta)physical of why this is a scientific theory - that's out of scope of the article. I'm merely asking that the article deal with GW as what it is - a well-crafted, heavily-supported, broadly accepted set of theories that deal with the perceived environmental changes taking place on the planet. It's honestly not that big of an issue. --Ludwigs2 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough. Folks, stop encouraging this stuff by responding to it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

lol - thanks Boris. It's people like you that make wikipedia what it is. --Ludwigs2 01:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nature

Just a note that this month a series of articles on this subject, including this, appeared in Nature. If someone can get access to them, they look like useful sources. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sent it to you, please email me or drop a note on my talk if you (pl.) see this and also want a copy. Awickert (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

dab GWC

Don't like this [6]. GWC isn't currently a sane page (under prot; and that isn't the worst of it). We should not be giving priority to a link to it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if GWC being anti-sane is a good reason, but it is already a dab in "Debate and skepticism," don't need duplicates. Removed. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming Controversy is poor because of constant non-policy and POV interference. An undocumented policy is in place for this main GW article viz no newspapers, which may be fair enough. But it's absurd to apply it to the controversy article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your first sentence, with the exception of "constant", which a glance at the edit history refutes William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stratospheric cooling

This is now hidden in the solar variation section. I think we could mention this in a section in which all the nontrivial observed signatures of global warming are summarized, just like this section summarizes the independent pieces of observational evidence for the Big Bang theory. Count Iblis (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean like Climate change#Physical evidence for climatic change? We might want to get Boris and Awickert on board. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea and would be willing to help once I clear my current to-do list, though I have no particular expertise in modern climate (beyond being able to read and mostly understand the journal articles), Awickert (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just removed "steady or" from there, because I think it is wrong. Nontrivial observed sigs belong in attribution of recent climate change probably... not that they are. But they should really go there first before being summarised here William M. Connolley (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet more scaremongering

Yet more scaremongering by a bunch of commie pinkos [7] [8]. 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 [9] 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)

Hey, global warming or global cooling, we have you covered. Jeff K. Halle (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This reference could be added, titled "UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters"... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece Jeff K. Halle (talk) 05:00, 5 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)

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)

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)

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 [10]. 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)

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."[11] As good sceptics we know that spin in newspapers has to be checked carefully. . . dave souza, talk 09:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not quite that rosy for the IPCC. The story also indicates "But the support came after Mr Pachauri agreed to accommodate an Indian scientist from the environment ministry in the IPCC Bureau as the chair’s nominee while preparing the panel’s fifth assessment report." It is clear the IPCC is losing its stature among world governments, and this should be reflected in the article, since so much of the page cites IPCC reports. Chris Vanderpump (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Snow storms

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,[12] and is predicted to continue[13] 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)

Possible errors in IPCC report - restarted discussion as suggested.

This report appears to say that there are errors in the latest IPCC report: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8d6e5773c60565dfc6e882b0a8dcbf18.4e1&show_article=1. TheGoodLocust, has said that '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'. Is there a reduction in confidence in the IPCC and why? Editors should remain civil and stick to the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:42, 6 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)

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.[14] :) 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. The "et al." is actually for the parenthetical inline references.[15][16] 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,[17] but in AR3 it looks like they're using a hypothesis test, statistical power (page 24).[18] 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) 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)