Talk:Climate change

Archives
Chronological archives
December 2001 – October 2002 October 2002 – February 2003 February 2003 – August 2003 August 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – February 2005 February 2005 – April 2005 April 2005 – June 2005 May 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – November 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August–October 2006 October–November 2006 December-February 2007
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

Solutions

Just curious, but is "conservation" the only way to reduce energy use? If not, could we throw an e.g. in front of it? Some might argue that stabilizing or lowering the global population could have the net effect of reducing energy use. 66.57.225.50 07:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, as there is a natural desire by everybody to see an increase in their own standard of living. Most people on earth have a standard of living well below that of western countries. Any increase in standard of living without conservation measures will see an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. --Michael Johnson 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

66.57.225.50 has a valid point. Reduction of energy use does not logically imply conservation. Within any given period, the total energy used by all people combined is equal to the average energy used per capita, times how many people there are. So with a sufficient reduction in population, it would be possible to increase the average per capita energy use, without conservation measures, and still have a reduction in total energy use. Of course, as Michael Johnson points out, not all people on earth consume energy at the same rate. A population reduction of 1,000,000 people in the U.S., for example, would have a much greater effect on total energy consumption than a population reduction of 1,000,000 people in China.

This issue is partly a matter of semantics. The existing wording would be valid if "conservation" included all forms of reducing energy use, including the reduction of energy use brought about by a reduction in population (especially the reduction in population of a rich western country). However, "energy conservation" in common usage appears to only refer to a reduction in per capita energy use. For example, the energy conservation article says "...energy conservation reduces the energy consumption and energy demand per capita...." And the articles I find via Google pertaining to "energy conservation" are consistent with that statement, in that they commonly list various ways of reducing per capita energy usage, by buying hybrid cars and what not, but they don't generally point out that how many children you choose to have will obviously have a big effect on how much energy will be used in the next generation.

Putting "(conservation)" after "Reduction of energy use" looks like a paraphrasing, which is a way of equating the two phrases, which is not logically correct as pointed out above. Conservation is just one form of reduction of energy use (albeit an extremely important form). There are a couple ways of fixing this logical error. One way would be to put "e.g." before "conservation", as suggested by 66.57.225.50. However, it makes more sense to me to just remove "(conservation)". "Reduction of energy use" is listed as being a whole category of actions that would mitigate global warming. It doesn't make sense to include an example on one item in the list of categories, when none of the other items in the list of categories include an example. Plus, the following paragraph lists a bunch of actions that fit into the categories listed, including both energy conservation and population reduction, so just removing "(conservation)" won't result in important information being lost from the article. Therefore, I'm going to just remove "(conservation)".

When I'm editing articles, I certainly don't usually write a three-paragraph explanation as to why I'm deleting one word! But the Global Warming article feels to me like it's so well-crafted as is, that I'm hesitant to even delete one word without a thorough explanation.

-- MrRedact 10:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Size and Content of the Intro

Does anyone else feel that the intro does not meet Wikipedia standards in regards to being a concise summary that keeps the reader interested? While there is a much bigger debate going on, I feel that the intro should be labeled for editing. Alex 10:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Now would be a very poor time for trying to re-write the intro. OTOH if you want to discuss it here, feel free. If its not concise enough, what do you want to cut? William M. Connolley 11:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

George Bush Acknowledges Global Warming as an Established Fact

The edit summary for an attempted edit this morning that aimed to portray global warming as just being a speculative theory says that "george junior himself is a sceptic." That statement may well have been true earlier in Bush's presidency, but in his most recent State of the Union address, Bush finally referred to global warming as an established fact. See [1].

However, I think what Bush thinks is irrelevant as to the contents of the Global Warming article, anyway. The Global Warming article is predominantly a science article, and as such, it should attempt to reflect the current consensus of the scientists who study climate change, not the less-informed opinions of polititions, religious leaders, lobbyists, or the public at large. The place for nonscientific perspectives of global warming is on other articles, like Politics of global warming and Global warming controversy. -- MrRedact 18:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree re whether Bushs opinions matter. I somewhat disagree as to the "established fact". Bush didn't say that - those are the reporters words. Bush is quoted as saying "the serious challenge of global climate change" but thats rather different William M. Connolley 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

All I can find is more reporters talking, but there does seem to at least be a consensus among reporters that Bush has changed his opinion. E.g., "President George W. Bush's position on global warming has evolved over his presidency, from open skepticism about the reality of the phenomenon to acknowledgment at a global summit last year that climate change is occurring and human activities speed it up."[2] and "...global warming [is] something Mr Bush has only recently been willing to publicly accept has a link to human activity."[3] Again, I think Bush's opinions are irrelevant as to what a science article should contain. But some people (like Benjiwolf, apparently) do care about Bush's opinions, so I'm hoping that if people learn that Bush has changed his mind, there might be slightly fewer people who want to come in here and claim that it's far from clear that the planet's even getting warmer. -- MrRedact 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I finally found a direct quote from Bush, instead of just a reporter. About 18 months ago, Bush said "I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem"[4]. About the only way that statement would be closer to the current scientific consensus would be if he had said something like "...is probably most of the problem" instead of the more vague "...is contributing to the problem." MrRedact 16:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Climate Inversion Hypothesis

The earth, in fact, is not getting warmer. Parts of the earth have warmed, but other parts are cooling. The climates around the Globe are essentially inverting, the Poles are warming, and the Equator is cooling. Also, season changes are beginning to occur at different times during the year than they used to. Winter is beginning later, and lasting longer. Spring and Autumn last much shorter, and Summer lasts much longer. The seasonal climate of earth has changed, the overall global climate is in the process of inverting. It would not be illogical to predict that in a few hundred years the equator will be covered with ice, and the south pole will be grasslands.

It is important not to just look at the earth as a whole, but rather the earth in regions. Although some places have warmed more dramatically than others have cooled doesn't mean that Global Warming exists.

I would love to hear some feedback on my hypothesis.

Your hypothesis would appear to be falsified by the second picture at the top of the page William M. Connolley 22:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that you can just as easily rig another temperature line to make it look like we're cooling. The Medivel Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age happened without the help of SUVs. 80% of greenhouse gasses anyway come from vegetation, and we're contributing to it by growing all these plants. Want to put a dent in global warming (which the "greenhouse gasses" aren't causing on a massive scale anyway anyway)? Kill plants in mass numbers. Also there have been a lot of underwater volcanoes. Despite what left wing scientists say, the warming ocean due to volcanoes causes an increase in CO2. Plus don't forget solar cycles. Also note that fall of 2002 to spring of 2005 was a very cold time period. Average temperatures were similar to how they were in the early 1900s.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.202.222 (talk • contribs).

You are wrong. --Stephan Schulz 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

After the first two sentences, yes, he appears to be completely uninformed. Arker 22:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God! The poor dolt thinks plants GIVE OFF CO2!! LOL!! Bet he voted for Bush TWICE!

Rates and Degrees of Change

Given that CO2 levels are currently about 100ppm above the usual 100ppm rise associated with interglacial periods, and given that temperatures usually drop in the tens of degrees F at night due to radiation losses, and given that volcanic eruptions have caused a 2 degree drop in temperature over a year (no mention of the rate of change, just the duration), why has the 100ppm CO2 change over the past century or so not caused a temperature change equivalent to the normal 8 degree C rise associated with the interglacial period?

I understand ice cap melting and ocean temperature theories, but that does not enter perceptibly into the day to day temperature variations due to radiation. Something else must be causing the temperature change. The heat just escapes faster than the atmosphere can stop it. Tobyw 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All interesting questions, but a Wikipedia talk page is not really the place for a tutorial on energy balances. You might consider looking at an introductory meteorology textbook. The one by Ahrens is reasonably good, and a used copy of the previous edition can be had for US$20 or less. Raymond Arritt 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The global warming page needs to acknowledge that warming helps out millions of people

particularly russia and canada make out wonderfully from global warming...it is really a major boon to them...this page should acknowledge in the intro that warming helps some and hurts others...the only way russia and canada lose out is if the oceans undergoe a massive change in flora/fauna...then everyone might lose out in a serious way...until then tho, russia and canada...encompassing a vast amount of the earths dry surface...receive great benefit from a moderate warming...this page has an american bias in that it makes warming out to be a bad thing for everyone...why...the state of maine even could use a bit of warming...i think we have come to the difficult issue of who on this planet gets to decide what the optimal temperature is???...george junior???...do we all set out thermostats to his specifications and comfort level???...Benjiwolf 11:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The problem is that rapid environmental change is impossible for ecosystems to cope with so it is almost always destructive. --BozMo talk 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For me, this is the biggest issue with the current 'consensus'. Kyoto isn't going to achieve any real impact, even if the doom and gloom merchants are right. Surely it would make more sense to spend the $1,000,000,000,000 per annum on habitat protection and new technologies, rather than Kyoto? So long as animals and plants are able to migrate over time, then nature will adapt to any changes in the climate in the same way it always has. Animals that prefer the cold will migrate North, as the Earth heats up. Animals that prefer the warmth will move South, if the planet cools down.

There will always be winners and losers through climate change. The BBC documentary Planet Earth featured some birds that nest on the bare rock of mountains in Antartica. There was fierce competition for a patch of bare rock, because the rest of the mountains were covered in snow. If the Earth warms and the Antartic ice were to melt, these birds would have a larger breeding area and their numbers could increase dramatically. Other species could be pushed to the brink of extinction. Grimerking 12:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that climate change that is too rapid can have cataclysmic effects...and these stem mainly from the changes in the ecology...as to "destructive"...well that depends on ur viewpoint...it was perhaps rapid climate change (in theory caused by various factors) that allowed the mammals to surpass and overtake the reptiles...the global cooling was destructive to the reptiles...yet not for the mammals...cataclysms are both destructive and constructive by their very nature...some benfit and some lose out...iran made out good from the iraq cataclysm...their main rival reduced to ashes...anyways tho, looking at the climate prediction maps...those that should be lobbying for reduced warming would be...brazil!...china & india...australia!!...the american southwest and midwest and south east...all of africa!!! and the middle east!!...canada and russia should be lobbying against reduced warming...many of the northern states in the US should be lobbying against reducing the warming...in fact as these states are typically more pro-environment they should just steam out the south which tends to more anti-environment...in a half century or so the south could be severely impacted...in a century and the north wins yet again, even has the south lobbying for its own demise...(financial not lethal, theyd eventually move)...after their property was worthless from hurricances and excessive heat...no...the north really has the south on this one...it'll be very hard to reduce the warming as of several factors...the south is in trouble...if i was a northernor id increase the prices on my property for buyers...its sort of a slow non-violent siege...(as long as the feds bail people out of the hurricanes better)...in some countries tho, millions will die...africa will lose out the most, they dont have the financial resources to escape the warmings impact...we will see millions of successful refugess, yet also millions of casualties...so many in the american south may continue to lobby for not dealing with the warming as of this later, even tho their property values will be impacted...many in the north may continue to lobby for reducing warming as of the later even tho theyd steam out the south...Benjiwolf 12:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Morally speaking, Benjiwolf's viewpoint is quite disconcerting. If global warming continues or speeds up in this century, it will, through a variety of changing natural phenomena, lead to the deaths of millions of people around the world. Even if we accept the presumption that global warming can have positive effects for some, it's highly insensitive to include the aforementioned comments because they may lead to the perception that global warming is "good" collectively, which it isn't. If five people in your neighborhood win big in lotteries and 100 in your neighborhood die, the latter is a more important event. It's a loss that renders the gain irrelevant, not least because your neighborhood has more or less been wiped out.UberCryxic 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

as to grimerking and species migration

no..i think ur going to see a further massive loss of species...the warming is too rapid...humans already have the technology to preserve species...thats not the issue...the issue is the humans want greater and greater share of the planet and its resources...the humans will increase their pressure on all the species habitats...and this on top of the warming will really slam them and we'll see a massive extinction event...in fact we already do...we are currently documenting the massive extinction event...it started long ago...the scientific establishment is currently documenting a massive extinction event...if the humans drastically reduced their impact on the environment, and reduced their share of the land and sea areas, perhaps the species could better adapt to the increasing temperatures...who thinks that is going to happen tho???..the species best shot is perhaps reverting the temps to a steady state...Benjiwolf 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

wow this is a heated one

after reading some of the latest discussions on POV in this article...i can see people are quite emotional about this page...i enjoyed the post by lordsreform with the picture of the zurich witch burnings...we indeed went crazy over here in switzerland back in those days 1400s...if u were in the out group...a protestant in a catholic town...or vice versa...you were looking at trouble...and it seems to me that if witch burnings were still legal, we would see a slew of people burned at the stake that contribute to this page on both sides of the arguments, by fellow wikipedia users and editors of these pages...anyways...yet i do think "lordsreform" was getting a bit over emotional...(we like to see that on the talk pages tho)...the other authors werent disputing a "peak oil concept"...its obvious and self-evident that oil will eventually run out...i think they were disputing its timing...yet as to governments not being able to curb CO2 emissions...i think u are very wrong...governments can do whatever they wish...they have armies...and nuclear weapons even in many cases...they can do whatever...including reduce CO2 emissions...its just that they might not want to for various reasons...Benjiwolf 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Disinformation

We may want to work this into the article: White House accused of misleading public on climate-change

Seems to me that global warming is now more politics than science. If you want the truth about global warming listen to the view of the vast majority of experts on global warming, climate scientists. Otherwise, tell yourself that the actions of individual humans can't possibly have an effect on the entire world. Tell yourself that everything is okay and that other people will solve all your problems, no change is required on the part of the individual.

I believe that global warming is a message of hope. Yes, it shows us that we have the power to drastically alter the entire world, but why does this have to be a negative thing? What if we decided tomorrow to slow and eventually stop greenhouse gas emissions? What then? --Calibas 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a sentence or two about the congressional hearing today and the allegations that provided the impetus for it should definitely be mentioned in Wikipedia. I'll do it myself if you or someone else doesn't do it soon. However, this information belongs in the "Politics of global warming" article, not the "Global warming" article. Here's another article on the topic: Panel hears climate 'spin' allegations -- MrRedact 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Climate Change: To act or not?

The public opinions expressed at this BBC news forum may make for some interesting reading http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5386&&edition=2&ttl=20070131033711 (Chrisnumbers2000 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

I believe that vehcles aren't a contributing factor to global warming because if deforestaion persists, less carbon dioxide is used by the plants and trees thus warming up the atmosphere. a few decades ago this problem didn't exist.So in my opinion car makers are wasting their time on 'green cars'

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate alarmism

Just thought it would be worth noting this AfD here -- result was to merge and redirect the article here. The redirect is in place. If anybody wants to see the page history for merging, feel free. Keep up the excellent work, everybody. Luna Santin 08:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There were 2 votes for redirect here; 2 for redir to GWC. I prefer GWC so I've changed it to that William M. Connolley 09:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

FAQ for the Global Warming Talk page

Talk:Global warming/FAQ

needed its own section--Lincoln F. Stern 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Reconciling Peak oil with Global Warming

This is a copy of my initial comments on: peak oil Given the heated nature of debate here, please could anyone wanting to have a reasonable discussion post comments on the peak oil page link

Having read and reread the article and several others on fossil fuel and oil reserves, it seems to me that total fossil fuel use is predicted to reach a peak some time in the first half of this century. Having read many models on global warming almost all are prefaced with a phrase along the lines "if we do nothing then" CO2 output will grow exponentially (usually up till 2100)

The two theories are clearly contradictory

Now I realise that both models have uncertainty, and therefore it will depend on your assumptions which will tend to dominate, but as both seem to cover roughly the same time period and the same subject of fossil energy use, I am perplexed that two such contradictory theories can co-exist without commenting on the other.

I tried to put a short section to link peak oil into this one on global warming Suggested insertion unfortunately, this appears to be some type of heresy and I was attacked quite vitriolicly in a very POV way.

I'm posting this here because I would like to see some debate on the subject, and an attempt on both sides to reconcile their theory with the other.LordsReform 17:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. Similar comments re global dimming

Very well, let's debate the issue before changing the article. LordsReform don't change it for a third time until the discussion is concluded.--Just James 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problems I have with the section being added are twofold:

- It is misleading in that there is no analysis on the effect of global warming from the burning of fossil fuels on the back side of the bell curve. A casual reader might read the section and say, well come 2010 there will be no more oil, so no more problem, when as we know, this is not the case.

- It is also very crystal ball - we don't know what the response to rising fuel costs will be. They could well include the increased use of tar sands and shale oil, at a greater cost to global warming. So the effect of peak oil could well be detrimental to the global warming problem.

As I say, as it stands LordsReforms proposal reads as if everything will be ok come 2010, when that may be far from the truth. I should add I do thing the section well written, and informative. --Michael Johnson 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And its basic premise is flat-out wrong, i.e., "most predictions of global warming" assume unconstrained use of fossil fuels. Only the A1FI scenario assumes that, and it's specifically labeled as such (the "FI" bit means Fossil-fuel Intensive). All the other scenarios assume societal or economic restrictions on fossil-fuel use. Raymond Arritt 01:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The cited references for the limitation on global warming induced by the Oil/Gas peak (and not Fossil Fuel !) are 1/ a proceeding (preliminary results, not peer reviewed) and 2/ a journalistic paper that relies on an unreferenced source. Actually, it seems that the paper in the New Scientist, in addition to offering counter arguments to the study by Sivertsson, relies on a report written for ... a M.Sc. Project! It is also interesting to note that the link to the thesis in question, on the web page of the scientists group, is broken. This subject would fit perfectly in the Global warming controversy entry. I don't think that two non peer-reviewed preliminary scientific works, based on rather uncertain estimates (i.e. oil/gas reserves), have their place in a general encyclopedic article about the Global Warming. --Galahaad 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposed section is well-written, and well enough referenced as being an existing idea that it no longer counts as just being WP:OR. However, the science behind it (or lack thereof) is too weak, and it's too far outside of the mainstream scientific discussions of global warming, for it to appear as a section in the Global warming article. However, I think it would be OK as either: 1) a section in Global warming controversy with a summary and/or see also link in Peak oil, or 2) a section in Peak oil with a summary and/or see also link in Global warming controversy, or perhaps even 3) a separate article, with summaries and/or see also links in both the Peak oil and Global warming controversy articles. MrRedact 02:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-ordering and improving External links and perhaps adding an "Educational" links section

I am just downloading the free NASA GW Simulator from http://edgcm.columbia.edu/ for PC/Mac etc. I am shocked that it doesnt seem to be in the links anywhere and I think they are a mess anyway. I can only suggest breaking up and reordering the link somewhat and I am going to add this one. I suggest adding an "Educational" section where this could go along with anything I guess clearly related for schools, undergrads, uni etc. - there are some lecture notes there I noticed. Any comments? Mattjs 14:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Think I will do it add my link and come back and move some of them later or let some editor sort it out (got a feeling the editors here are going to be real polite to a non-vandal non-controversial supportive poster like me! :-) Mattjs 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The ext links here tend to get into a mess, and to bloat. If you want to try sorting them out, that sounds good. William M. Connolley 14:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a style guide for it? Might be the first one I actiually read! I'll read any guide there may be and have a go at reading through them then sorting them out on a lazy Sunday. Aside from ordering and grouping like the new heading suggested above some have hyphnes, some not, some start with the link and some start with the author first rather than after... Could have a Video section for videos and Software instead of Educational though I can see a few good ones to go under Educational Mattjs 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the style guide. Mattjs 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits

I am more than a bit unhappy about a 2003 new scientist article being used as a basis for "experts disagree" (its old and a couple of people presenting a paper isn't big hitter league) and also about the readdition of the reference to peak oil. The Peak Oil article specifically discusses a theory which is limited (according to the text of that article) to easily recoverable oil by a single technology. When you start adding extraction techniques and sources like tar sands, gas etc the available supply becomes asymetric and outside the scope of the peak oil article. I DO think there is scope for writing an article on "depletion of global fossil fuel" or similar but it isn't the peak oil article. As it stands the article link isn't appropriate. I am very tempted to revert these changes but thought I would ask around for other views first? --BozMo talk 14:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Again, some people should really learn a little bit what is a (scientific) reliable source. The entry here, 'Global Warming', is first of all a scientifc subject (despite the critical political and societal implications). It needs scientifically recognized references, at least as long as the science is discussed. A conference proceeding and a journalistic article in the New Scientists, relying on a student report, are of very little scientific value for a mainstream article designed for an encyclopedia (even if they could fit in a dedicated 'controversies' list, and are probably of interest for future advanced research (though it is clear it is already considered in some ways...)). I am surprised that a scientist can't even see this evidence! Moreover, it would be good to pay more attention to the subtilities of these papers (something I am sure an expert in the renewable energy problem will be able to do ;-) ): only conventionnal reserves are considered, and the problem of coal is ignored ! This clearly limit the range of these studies ... --Galahaad 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW there is a view on 2050 total hydrocarbon published by Shell in 2001 here: [5]. Shell assumes that people make changes influenced by climate change. The conclusions are (1) affordability of energy will not curtail consumption (2) oil production starts declining around 2040 (3) there is 15000 EJ (central estimate, wide range) conventional gas and "perhaps" 13000 EJ unconventional gas. Note 1bn bbl oil = 5.8 EJ. It is worth a read: they assume CO2 production will peak but in line with IPCC forecasts as far as I can see. --BozMo talk 15:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that supporters of the peak oil view such as Matthew Simmons dispute views such as this. And argue that oil etc reserves have been overeported for political reasons, and are in fact much closer to depletion than many would believe. G-Man * 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I know, and I understand that in Wikipedia this alternative view needs to be given appropriate space. Personally I am never going to be convinced: I used to work near the top of Shell, knew the people who produced the numbers and think that the suggestion is ridiculous. If there was any bias IMHO it was a bias toward sensational (i.e. low reserves because it is more of a problem). This bias is the same as the natural bias of Simmons just to a lesser degree. "Proven reserves" of course was a completely different matter: there are plenty of well pumping plenty of oil where there is zero proven reserve. --BozMo talk 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, I was very heartened by your comments. My aim is, an has always been, to get a link between the two articles so that a reader is made aware that the two issues are related, and which allows them to follow the link and view the evidence for themselves and make up their own mind. I've tried various approaches, a separate section, a simple sentence at the point where future predictions are made, but none (so far) seem to be acceptable. Scientific common sense tells me that the ultimate extend of global warming must be funamentally limited in all models by fossil fuel availability. As my personal belief is that politicians are simply incapable of bringing in the kind of policies necessary to significantly reduce CO2, I would really like to know what this means the world has in store for my children - a very simple question this article currently fails to answerLordsReform 00:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the Peak Oil talk page I vote we write a separate article on the depletion of the world's hydrocarbon reserves and keep the peak oil one for the life of a field type discussion. Then I think the relationship with this article is then much more appropriate. As this article keeps saying more than 50% of current greenhouse gas comes from coal which was burnt anyway and the discussion cannot be limited to oil. --BozMo talk 08:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

BozMo - I agree in principle, but I'd worry it might become speculative - and it might be taking all the uncertainties of global warming adding them to all the uncertainties of peak oil! Thinking aloud - there are 1. Known reserves, 2. predicted reserves 3. recoverable reserves 4. "enerconic" reserves (economic of energy). There is the issue as to where the oil is (65% in middle East). There is the topic of how the change from one fuel type to another will impact on CO2 output (oil->coal), there is the issue of the linkage between energy use and the global economy, there is the topic of economics of consumption - I'm sure there will be studies predicting how prices will vary due to price elasticity of demand with supply constriction. There is the issue of new technology making more oil/coal recoverable. There is the question as to whether fuels such as coal tars and methane hydrates are recoverable and what about those moons with substantial organic reserves? You might also go into the likely increase in temperature as fossil fuel use declines due to decrease in global dimming .... Ok, there's enough for an article even if half the above can't be sourced! LordsReform 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found this article Bridging the gap between peak oil and global warming activism which is probably worth reading for all involved. G-Man * 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

G-Man, that is a superb article - well worth reading by anyone following this discussion. It only highlights the problem of creating a single article combining the two approaches. From what the article said it appears that there are two camps which could roughly termed: "half empty and half full". Depending of the "belief" of those involved the assumptions create different predictions. This isn't a very good basis for a Wikipedia page. it does however show three separate articles giving credence to an alternative view to the mainstream global warming assumption that global warming will not be limited by fossil fuel scarcity and though I say it again, the article does need to make readers aware of this other view else it fails WP:NPOV88.111.194.147 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a scientist?

The definition of scientist is way overdue for clarification. The term is used ridiculously throughout the media and textbooks in blind appeals for authority, as low as high school locker room lingo. That it is also used blindly in these articles brings the term encyclopedia nearly as low as tabloid. What are the necessary and/or sufficient conditions for somebody to be regarded as a "scientist" in these articles? That they (1) declare themselves to be scientists, (2) are declared to be scientists by Robin Williams, (3) are even remotely associated with some given field of science, (4) have a PhD in psychology, (5) have a PhD in astrogeophysics, (6) have a high school diploma, (7) teach grade school science, (8) know somebody that's learned something in grade school science, (9) have published at least five articles in Nature magazine, (10) have presented papers at the NSF at least every year of the last five, (11) be a professor who pulls in a minimum of US$1M of grants per year for any field of research, (12) have a mail-order PhD in an Applied Science but not a Pure Science, (13) have card carrying membership in both the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association, (14) hold Al Gore in high esteem...Does anyone know what they are talking about?192.91.171.42 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You forgot 15) People who are bought by ExxonMobil and the American Enterprise Institute at the current going price of US$10,000 each (plus travel expenses, of course) [6].

Atlant 16:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

true global warming kept secret by world govts.The culprit is THE SUN

i am surprised that in the other caused of global warming the sun isn't mentioned.All the reports that have come out are a farce.global warming is happening because of the sun. here are some articles http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html http://www.you.com.au/news/1629.htm http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040718-115714-6334r.htm

Also in a conspiracy website www.abovetopsecret.com and discovered this excellent article http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread221608/pg1

Its no doubt that global warming is caused by the sun which is getting hotter.The powers that be don't want the public to know this cuz if they know then there would be mass paninc as it is beyond human control.

Don't expect an answer to this. Its an old story discussed in detail in all the proper reviews --BozMo talk 09:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Get Used to it

Consider the most ambitious program I have seen for reduction of greenhouse emissions, described in the article Mitigation_of_global_warming, a proposal by "Pacala and Socolow of Princeton" that requires the following measures (or their equivalents) to be globally effectuated:

• Replace at least half of all coal fired generators with nuclear or natural gas
• Increase the efficiency of coal powered generation by 50% (from .4 to .6)
• Double the fuel efficiency and/or halve the aggregate usage of the worldwide fleet of diesel and gasoline powered vehicles
• Derive half of all diesel, gasoline and home heating oils from coal synfuels, which are cleaner burning than coal
• Essentially all other future energy development to come directly or indirectly from solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biomass, etc

Personally, I think that is a great program. No fueling :) But it has as much chance of being implemented as a snowball in Hell.

And the punch line is, that after all of that, according to the projections of the proposal's authors, emissions would be reduced by only 1 billion metric tons (a reduction of 20 percent from current levels). That is, a stabilization at 1990 levels. That would delay, but, ultimately not prevent the effects of global warming.

In light of the above, "solutions" such as the Kyoto Protocol are just beaureaucratic masturbation - they are unimplementable. Even if they were not, the numbers don't add up: the goal of Kyoto is to return global emissions to 1990 levels by reducing emissions in Annex 1 countries an average of 6 percent. Do the math: taken together with the increased emissions from non-Annex 1 countries that doesn't give 1990, that gives 2002. Talk about futility!

Get used to it. CarlSpalletta 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The authors never pretended that it would be the ultimate solution. They gave a practical 'shopping list' of 15 concrete options (in which 7 could be picked by any gvt willing to stabalize their emissions) as a first step, with the technology and means currently available! They obviously conclude that further technology development will be required in the mid/long term ... They are those who think and propose, even relatively modest steps, and those who whine and say 'I tell you it's impossible to fly...!'--Galahaad 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not whining. That implies asking for redress or complaining. I think the program is a good first step, but I don't see the slightest interest in it at a political level - is there even one country in the world, bigger than, say, Kiribati, out front pushing this? And if the world can not even take this "first step", how will it get to steps 2, 3 and 4? I allowed for the smorgasbord nature of the proposal by only describing about half of the options, together with the caveat "or their equivalents".

Global warming is here to stay, and while there is no excuse for not acting to reduce the pace of it's onset, there is equally no excuse for evading practical steps for mitigation of it's effects, which can and should be planned for, today.

Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes. CarlSpalletta 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the objective of this paper (and beyond, of all the similar studies around the globe we don't necessarly hear about) is to make the bridge between a 'beaureaucratic masturbation' and concrete and effective action. In other words to make the treaty 'implementable', by means of the current knowledge and technologies. Instead of being a source for despair, I see it as a very optimistic information: even if Kyoto will have a limited impact, it is at least something that can be technically achieved if only one have the political and economical will. Kyoto is not only about making big promises and 'politically correct' commitments that are impossible to fulfill, it CAN be implemented and it's a test of our capacity to get commited on the long run. The next steps will probably be more difficult ...--Galahaad 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Slight correction

If this article is about global warming, it must admit that to use a literal-and scientific- definition of global warming is more proper. Thus, global warming is a phenomena, regardless of whether it is happening now or not, and should be described as such. It is "an observed increase", not "the observed increase". Global warming has happened before, during the thawing after the Ice Ages for example, thus it is a phenomena that has happened before and can not be used to describe only the current warming. 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In the scientific litterature, it is regularly referred to 'Global Warming' when speaking about the recent increase in temperature. I guess the term is unambiguous and I am not convinced that it has been widely used in other contexts (i.e. for T variations at other periods, probably because of the different scales involved). I think this should be discussed before being making any change (which is too late anyway, I may revert it later ...) --Galahaad 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right on common usage of the term -- not to mention the context of the article itself. Done. Raymond Arritt 23:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to be very literal about the term global warming should we mention that it happens every year? I like to call it spring. --Calibas 01:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Spring only warms half the globe. (Actually less than half - spring does not occur in the tropics.) --Michael Johnson 01:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Monckton's analysis of 4AR

Lord Monckton has a very readable analysis. Here are some excerpts:

FIGURES in the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

Also, the UN, in its 2007 report, has more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. It suggests that the rate of sea-level rise is up from 2mm/yr to 3mm/year – no more than one foot in a century.

UN scientists faced several problems their computer models had not predicted. Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast. Concentrations of methane in the air are actually falling.

The Summary for Policymakers was issued February 2, 2007, but the report on which the Summary is based will not be published until May. This strange separation of the publication dates has raised in some minds the possibility that the Summary (written by political representatives of governments) will be taken as a basis for altering the science chapters (written by scientists, and supposedly finalized and closed in December 2006).

The draft of the science chapters, now being circulated to governments for last-minute comments, reveals that the tendency of computers to over-predict rises in temperature and sea level has forced a major rethink.

The report’s generally more cautiously-expressed projections confirm scientists’ warnings that the UN’s heavy reliance on computer models had exaggerated the temperature effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.

You can read the full report here. [7] RonCram 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Monkton was the guy who tried to convince us that the Viking settlers in Greenland were freezing under a layer of permafrost at the same time the Chinese were sailing around an ice-free Artic Ocean. See my comments above Talk:Global_warming#Attempt_to_Gauge_Consensus. Not a reliable source. --Michael Johnson 01:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent analysis if you want an extreme right wing view of the report. Yes, the original predictions were off but for some reason most climate scientists are still recommending we curb greenhouse gas emissions very soon. They aren't saying it's all gloom and doom, we still have time to stop this... --Calibas 01:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Monckton as you would expect, seems to be talking nonsense. He sez The UN’s 2001 report showed that our greenhouse-gas emissions since 1750 had caused a “radiative forcing” of 2.43 watts per square metre. Our other effects on climate were shown as broadly self-cancelling. In the current draft, the UN has cut its estimate of our net effect on climate by more than a third, to 1.6 watts per square metre. This is wrong: the SPM shows CO2 at 1.66, other GHG at 1, total 2.66 which is *larger* than the 2001 value not a *cut*. M appears to have confused the 1.6 at the bottom of the total net effect with the GHG contribution. His sea level analysis is wrong too: he is confusing 2001 top-of-range with 2007 mid-range: as the SPM sez: For each scenario, the midpoint of the range in Table SPM-2 is within 10% of the TAR model average for 2090-2099.. Looks like M hasn't got any better at this stuff William M. Connolley 15:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Graph update with new IPCC report

Are images like Image:IPCC Radiative Forcings.png being updated from the IPCC 2001 report to the 2007 report? I'm not sure about which other images can be updated also. —AySz88\^-^ 04:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

An updated image using data from the 2007 report is at Image:Radiative-forcings.svg, and has been substituted in on the Global warming page. -- Leland McInnes 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Likely or Very Likely

The new IPCC report says that humans are a "very likely cause"(90%) this article should be updated accordingly