(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 129:
Line 129:
== Consensus begins to form, 1980-1988 ==
== Consensus begins to form, 1980-1988 ==
Point is, Consensus was not begin to form out of the blue, nor was it required for the major breakthroughs in athmospheric policy of the 80ies, the Ozone regulation nor the acid rain issues, which was solved predominantly on the national level. Managing and manufacturing consensus took a while as well within the IPCC. The FAR did not have formal requirements for consensus nor had it been asked for by the major clients, governments. Consensus was being asked for and stated by a single scientist, Houghton, as an important means of communication to the public. The whole consensus business startet to gain formal importance with the SAR. [[User:Serten II|Serten II]] ([[User talk:Serten II|talk]]) 09:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Point is, Consensus was not begin to form out of the blue, nor was it required for the major breakthroughs in athmospheric policy of the 80ies, the Ozone regulation nor the acid rain issues, which was solved predominantly on the national level. Managing and manufacturing consensus took a while as well within the IPCC. The FAR did not have formal requirements for consensus nor had it been asked for by the major clients, governments. Consensus was being asked for and stated by a single scientist, Houghton, as an important means of communication to the public. The whole consensus business startet to gain formal importance with the SAR. [[User:Serten II|Serten II]] ([[User talk:Serten II|talk]]) 09:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
== Quality issue ==
== Quality issue ==
Line 134:
Line 135:
: Make some effort to fix it, before tagging. I don't think what you're arguing for even belongs here [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 10:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
: Make some effort to fix it, before tagging. I don't think what you're arguing for even belongs here [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 10:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
:: Lets say, "climate change science" stands for all inputs, from the gulf stream to sun spots. Land use patterns is the most important sector that has not being addressed. I had a look again, propbaly its better to delete the whole section. What you mean, [[User:William M. Connolley]] ? [[User:Serten II|Serten II]] ([[User talk:Serten II|talk]]) 10:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
I've just posted this new article after working on it in sandbox form, and I hope people start making improvements! Some suggestions where it can use help, in my opinion: it ignores the history of paleoclimate science after the 1800s (and I think that subject really deserves its own article, but maybe could be developed as a section here in the meantime); it doesn't discuss greenhouse gases other than CO2 and water vapor and is really focused on CO2; and each period could use some fleshing out. Still, I hope it's a decent start.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a bad choice - it was listed at wikimedia "glacial erratic" page but I suppose could be wrong. A substitute would be welcome. One that I looked at was - in the Scandinavian area where they first suspected climate change and pretty clearly an erratic, but the modern guy in the frame might be offputting. Maybe instead?Brian A Schmidt (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably just my browser or something, but the image you chose doesn't show up in the article for me. -Atmoz (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I can see it in Firefox and IE. Do you see the other thumbnail above, with the man in the picture? I guess we could use that one instead.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A little experimenting shows I can see it fine for any size thumbnail except 300px, which is what I have set as the default. Even after clearing the cache, history, etc. Odd. I changed the thumbnail size to 300px. If that renders for you, I guess it's probably a problem on my end. -Atmoz (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now I can't see the 300px version - it doesn't render. Using a different computer, I can still see the photo on the main page. I don't know what to do - if you're using an unusual browser, maybe don't change the photo, otherwise go ahead and change it to something that works for you? Brian A Schmidt (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with this article
Where is the discussion of scientific inquiry into the sun's role? Vulcanism? It also seems to suggest that no one had idea that the climate on earth changes before European scientists came up with the theory. This ethnocentric nonsense is easily disproven by the numerous societies whose folk traditions include stories and legends dealing with climate change. This article also seems to cherry pick articles to advance a particular viewpoint. This is an encyclopedia, so an essay advancing a particular case isn't appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article could use a discussion of the discovery of Milankovitch Cycles and other solar forcings, and discovery of the impact of natural and anthropic aerosols on climate. They're on my to-do list although maybe someone else will get to them first, which would be great. Better still in my opinion is if someone writes a history of paleoclimate science that discusses the discovery of natural forcings.
Regarding cultural beliefs, this article is about the history of the science, not culture. But maybe a short section on cultural beliefs prior to scientific developments would be appropriate. In particular I'd like to mention Shen Kuo: "He also proposed a hypothesis of gradual climate change, after observing ancient petrified bamboos that were preserved underground in a dry northern habitat that would not support bamboo growth in his time." That actually sounds like science to me, although I don't see any evidence his theory was ever picked up by Chinese or other scholars.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. If you're open to those improvements then I'm encouraged. I understand your point about climate science verse cultural beliefs and traditions, but I think context is always helpful and avoids ethnocentrism and misleading information (in this case the idea that no one realized the earth's climate is unstable). It also makes for a better and more interesting article.
My biggest concern is that the article focuses almost exclusively on human induced factors, ingoring the 4 billion some odd years before that (some of which relate and shed light on what happens when there are high CO2 levels). IN addition to the issues mentioned above there are also asteroid events, mass extinctions and other climate related issues and events that should be included. A lot of the science seems to get thrown out in favor of the politics, which is unfortunate I think. Righteous advocacy should never promote ignorance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got one or two cultural references that we could add to Shen Kuo, we could start writing that section.
There are other climate forcings, too - oceanic methane release, Deccan Traps outgassing, faint young sun, even pre-biotic atmosphere. Maybe we should have a section on other anthropic forcings, another on currently active natural forcings, and a third on past natural forcings. That's assuming there's enough to write an historical account - some of these are so newly discovered that they might not belong in a history article. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about cl ch *sci*, so is inevitably going to be dominated by "the West". Hopefully we can leave the culture wars out. I'm wary that SK may have been over-interpreted. The statements you quote are supported by Chan and Needham, and I'd like to see what the originals actually say beofore trusting someone else's paraphrase William M. Connolley (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article is about climate change science and that it will include a lot of modern and western sourced content. But the very first sentence of the article says: "The history of the discovery of climate change began in the early 1800s when natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected." But climate change wasn't first suspected in the early 1800s. As we all know and is well documented in folk lore, climate change was known to exist by many peoples well before then. So this opening sentence is inaccurate and needs to be rewritten or clarified. I'm not trying to make the article about climate change in traditional cultures, but to ignore that people were aware of climate change long before Europe's alchemists came along is misleading. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I changed the lead to "The history of the scientific discovery of climate change...." That still might shortchange SK a little, or maybe not depending on William's concerns. I think a short section at the tail end of the article would be okay though with a title something like "Antecedents to the scientific discovery of climate change" could talk about SK (if he checks out) and one or two other examples. The other examples would be interesting if derived from some type of actual cultural knowledge or investigation, instead of simply a mythical belief much like the European belief in the Great Flood. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Here's a source on the extinctions at the end of the last ice age debate. Was it climate change or overhunting? Both? [1] Here's another [2]. Here's an article on asteroid impacts and climate change [3]. Hopefully we can cover the history of this science and expand the breadth and focus of this article recent hot button political issues to the full range of scientific inquiry. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember though that we're not interested in the science itself or current scientific debates (for this article); we're interested in the history of how the science developed. These sources are fairly recent, the oldest one is 1988.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I expected to go to a library? :) I agree, web searches are pretty weak for this kind of thing. I'll try to have a look at google books and see what i can find. In fact, the whole global warming issue is fairly recent in the science, but it overwhelmingly dominates the article. Surely investigations of warm and cold periods and the little ice age and the extinction of the dinosaurs and the extinctions that took place at the end of the last ice age, and the last ice age itself, and other climate change events are a substantial part of the history? And vulcanisma and solar issues I mentioned? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Climategate
Climategate exposition of the reality of the climate change science is undeniable. Why on earth there is not a single section about it on this article???? We have tons, more than enough reliable sources to add a section about how IPCC has been corrupting the peer review process and how the main scientists have fudged the data of temperature measurements.Echofloripa (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And even if the email hacks led to a change in scientific understanding (highly doubtful), this is a history article that stops in 1988 and labels everything that follows as "modern". At some future point there might be a reason to break off a period ending later than 1988 and include it in the historical period, but I don't see the justification for doing that now. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the discussion of prominent scientists and authors who have been literally shouted down for focusing on the complete lack of correlation between temperature variations and C02 levels? Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain, Timeline) wrote a footnoted novel, State of Fear, effectively dispelling the idea that the earth's temperature was increasing based on increased greenhouse gasses, which received no attention in the article despite the fact that he was a Harvard trained physician and scientist, scientifically published and, because of his wealth from his multiple best selling science fiction novels, immune to being pressured in his analysis. So Al Gore, a politician with absolutely no scientific credentials and a horrible track record both academically and legislatively (not to mention selling his network to Al Jezeera and using his political clout to allow it to become a legitimate news organization), is featured as a source??
Here is the problem in a nutshell: while it is relatively easy to explain the inherent contradictions in the "evidence" of human caused global warming, it should be just as easily demonstrated that the evidence supports man induced climate change. Yet virtually none of the articles, "references", statements, accusations, threats and denunciations made by the supporters of global warming ever attempt to explain the evidence. It is always referred to as "undeniable" or "consensus" or some other sales-based language. Why? Why not feature the simple explanations and empirical evidence of human induced global warming so intelligent people can make up their own minds? The reason is they can't and the emails and uncovered exchanges between the proponents document this irrefutably. They cannot focus on the evidence because virtually all the "evidence" is almost laughable when intelligent, educated (and unbiased) people study it. You don't need to have a PhD in climatology to see the utter lack of correlation of temperatures over the past 150 years (greenhouse gasses only began being emitted in quantities about half way into the industrial revolution), with the levels of Co2 and other man made gases. Apply Occum's Razor to the studies supporting global warming and they fall apart. Go to the summation pages of the articles from other wise legitimate scientists and what you'll find is that the actual scientific conclusions are contrary to establishing man-made global warming but the concluding remarks are mealy mouthed platitudes about how the earth's climate is "constantly changing" and we should "consider the effects of man-made green house gases". Translation: "our findings are directly contrary but if the people paying the bill and all these government, media and enviormenta types want a platitude at the end, fine, just keep funding me."
Why do you think that every single attempt to bring legal action against the "instigators" of global warming has been dismissed in the very early stages? I'll give you a couple of clues: Federal Rule of Procedure 11 fines the lawyers as well as the parties for prosecuting frivolous and unsupported cases. The U.S. Supreme Court handed down Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals in 1993, making junk science inadmissable. It followed up a few years later with Komho Tire v. Carmichael, which prevented expert testimony from so-called "experts" with little or no actual and practical background in the specific area of their testimony. No decent lawyer has been willing to risk his or her Bar license to pursue something they couldn't prove and would likely get upbraided and fined by a federal judge for bringing - and consider how many liberal federal judges have been appointed in the past decade.
This article, like many in Wikipedia, is monitored by interested and funded parties to ensure that contrary positions are quickly edited out. The article needs revision to make it a fair evaluation of the evidence rather than propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirrussea (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the early 1800's
...in the early 1800s when natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect first quantified... was it? Is this in ref to Fourier? I don't think he quantified the GHE William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's tone down all these refs to 'natural'. Are humans and the effects of our intelligence or lack of it 'unnatural' in the cosmos? Of course not. "...in the early 1800s when changes in the paleoclimate were first suspected and the greenhouse effect first identified..." Does that still work? --Nigelj (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed quantified to identified. I think natural is valuable there because no one focussed on the possibility of artificial warming, except for some land use effects. Don't have a strong opinion about it though.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to the 1700s, scientists had not suspected that prehistoric climates were different from the modern period.
I am wondering if this section shouldn't mention religion. In those far-off days creationism and/or uniform-planetism were powerful ideas, and affected what people could say William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that it isn't an RS? Uninvolved editors at the RS noticeboard were split on it. I would say, based on that, that we should discuss if the information it is used to introduce is dodgy or not. I used it to only to state that Joseph Fourier's research was active around 1824. You removed the source, not the information, so I take it that the information is not disputed. If the information is OK, then how can you dispute the source for it? If you believe so, then you would have to remove both. Cla68 (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing for a moment the RS issue - is the HSi really a reference for the information that you used it for? Specifically that particular sentence is saying quite a bit more than just than "Fourier wrote a paper". Does the HSi contain that sentence/information? If not ... then why are you using it as a reference? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broecker (1975)
Stefan Rahmstorf, an oceanographer at Potsdam, has produced a review of an important 1975 paper by Wally Broecker, which is significant for the earliest, or one of the earliest, uses of the term "global warming" in the academic literature, and for an attempt to quantify the effects of increased anthropogenic carbon dioxide on global temperatures. This is a resource which in my opinion might prove useful in providing a perspective on the earlier literature from the point of view of a modern climate scientist currently active in the field. It is published at RealClimate, a source of expert commentary on the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasty monster (talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have assessed this article as C-class on the WikiProject History of Science quality scale. It is very, very close to meeting the B-class criteria, and possibly higher criteria too.
There are a few significant unsourced statements need to be explicitly supported by inline references to reliable sources. ("By the early 1980s, the slight cooling trend from 1945-1975 had stopped.", "Milanković's ideas became the consensus position in the 1970s", "Better spectrography in the 1950s" etc).
There are a few technical terms which are neither explained nor linked. ("spectography", "infrared absorption", "particulate").
Not directly related to the B-class criteria, but worth considering for higher classes:
The copyright status of the portrait of Arrhenius is not certain. It is claimed to be in the public domain, but it could easily still be protected by copyright depending on the date of death of the photographer. The Commons image description page is unhelpful.. "Larger Version. PD I think".
Despite the above, I would like to express how much I enjoyed the article, and how much I learned from it. It is exceptionally well written and it deserves recognition.
"spectrography", "infrared absorption", and "particulate" are now wikilinked. (I was not able to find the term "spectography" in the article.) Q Science (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Better spectrography in the 1950s" is already referenced to http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm which states "during the 1950s" there "were new data for the absorption of infrared radiation" and "the most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines". IMO, that should be ok. Q Science (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be best to say "new spectrographic data" rather than "better spectrography". The present wording seems to suggest that the practice of spectrography itself became "better" in the 1950s, which of course it probably did, but the source doesn't support that. And "better" can be a problematic word; better than what? Better in which way? I don't see any reason to use it when the source doesn't do so. Thparkth (talk)10:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed revision
As suggested by some of the comments, I'm thinking of doing a substantial reworking to include, in the appropriate chronological sections, material on Milankovich cycles, solar forcing, aerosols, and other greenhouse gases. -Spencer Weart (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David Hume in his essay "On the Populousness of Ancient Nations", claims, citing several ancient writers that the climate of Europe used to be colder in the ancient times, and proposes that human activity is the reason for change: "Allowing, therefore, this remark to be just, that Europe is become warmer than formerly; how can we account for it? Plainly, by no other method, than by supposing, that the land is at present much better cultivated, and that the woods are cleared, which formerly threw a shade upon the earth, and kept the rays of the sun from penetrating to it."
Point is, Consensus was not begin to form out of the blue, nor was it required for the major breakthroughs in athmospheric policy of the 80ies, the Ozone regulation nor the acid rain issues, which was solved predominantly on the national level. Managing and manufacturing consensus took a while as well within the IPCC. The FAR did not have formal requirements for consensus nor had it been asked for by the major clients, governments. Consensus was being asked for and stated by a single scientist, Houghton, as an important means of communication to the public. The whole consensus business startet to gain formal importance with the SAR. Serten II (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quality issue
The whole interaction with natural causes is lacking, e.g. the sun spot cycle, sea circulation, or volcanoes, water vapor is nearly completely left out, same for land use patterns, which play in the same league as CO2. The whole article has no idea of the historical issues connected. Serten II (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lets say, "climate change science" stands for all inputs, from the gulf stream to sun spots. Land use patterns is the most important sector that has not being addressed. I had a look again, propbaly its better to delete the whole section. What you mean, User:William M. Connolley ? Serten II (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
