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)

(edit: comments moved to different section by contributor Grimerking 19:29, 6 February 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)

"...is probably most of the problem" In other words, it's a definite maybe or approximately and exactly as determined by a concensus of scientists, experts, top scientists, the Professor on Gilligan's Island, and now President George W Bush.192.91.171.42 22:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit to move my comment to more relevant place Grimerking 19:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

Not too sure where to jump in with this. Everything has been archived. People keep rolling out the 'flat earth' argument regarding consensus - i.e. just because some people believe the Earth is flat, doesn't mean that Wikipedia should give them space to air their views on the 'Earth page'.

Personally, I think a better example of a 'consensus' in science is that of 'saturated versus polyunsaturated fat'. Anybody alive in the 1980's will remember the relentless TV and government campaigns telling us all to switch to 'healthier' polyunsaturated fats. There was a definite 'consensus' that this was the right thing to do. I was taught this at school. Anybody claiming otherwise was treated as a loon.

How things have changed! Now there is no 'consensus' and everything has been quietly dropped by all concerned. There were no announcements in the press, my teachers didn't get in touch to tell me to stop eating polyunsaturated fats, nothing, silence!

As I, and a lot of other people keep stating, a 'consensus' does not mean that we are dealing with scientific fact. Wikipedia should reflect this and give both sides of the argument. Grimerking 17:35, 6 February 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)

I would like to add that I've been studying weather a long time. The section on solar sun spot activity was given a very narrow window of solar light. In an earth directed cme (coronal mass ejection) energy is captured by the earth's magnetic field and directed toward earth. The amount of energy is in the trillion of watts. When I was young my father dabbled in ham radio. Even then there was acknowledged that there was a connection between solar activity and the weather.

Sun spot activity and weather are both measurable with historic records. There is an acknowledged relation which works over hundreds of years. For the same reason it is easy to eliminate as a reason for what is happening now. --BozMo talk 10:07, 5 February 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)

Noted, but looking in the even longer term, because of the way the continents are laid out, (top heavy in Alaska and Russia) much more land that will be freed up than will be lost (a narrow ridge through Central Africa and Central America being 'lost' vs a much wider swathe through Russia and Alaska being 'gained' + Greenland). Therefore the world will be able to support a much higher population than it currently does - a net gain in lives. So, to run with your analogy, is it acceptable to keep 5 old people in your neighbourhood alive in some sort of half life instead of giving 100 children a full one? Your view could also be seen as morally disconcerting. 88.104.186.98 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is pure guess work and original research, therefore not useful for the article. Meanwhile last night on the news there were reports of Pacific Islanders already having to abandon islands because of rising sea levels. --Michael Johnson 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The images in the article aren't what they are purported to be

The map of the global temperature anomalies (variation from mean) is said to be based on instrument recordings. This is highly misleading. The articles referenced explain that the maps are, in fact, based on models of expected surface temperature change, and not actual measurements of surface temperature.

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)

Same problem is repeated when articles refer to experts or top scientists. This lowly trend of journalism would be incredibly laughable if it were not so sad and widespread. My bribed scientists are better and far more numerous than your bribed scientists...and make no mistake, this is an encyclopedia article...brought to you by US Public Education and sponsored by an incredibly stupid, gullible public... cough cough choke192.91.171.42 22:08, 5 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 literature, 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)

Yes Galahaad, science literature does regularly refer to "Global Warming" when speaking about the "recent" increase in temperature. But that doesn't change the fact that "Global Warming" also may refer to a much broader historical trend. I personally came to this page searching for more historical Global Warming information, but it simply is not here. Even in the Geological Soc of America's Position Statement on Global Climate Change states that "The current nature and magnitude of global climate change should be evaluated in the context of Earth’s full geologic record." Global warming is NOT just a recent activity. Bryanpeterson 20:45, 6 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

Don't fall for this so quickly. If this is the statistical 90% then we need the standard deviation to know what 90% is 90% of. Is this 90% with +-.0001 or 90% with +-10.0. Big difference - and also +- from what estimate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs).

It is not, and it also is not 90%, but >90% (and, implicitely, <= 99%). See the relevant IPCC document explaining how they handle and express uncertainties.--Stephan Schulz 18:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That document is clearly the most accurate description of the terms used in the IPCC report, however it should be noted that, per the document, "The categories defined in this table should be considered as having ‘fuzzy’ boundaries" and accordingly the language used is not meant to be taken as an exact description of the author's assessment of probabilities. Mike wiki 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Warming and solar variation

• When the sun gets dimmer, the Earth gets cooler; when the sun gets brighter, the Earth gets hotter. So important is the sun in climate change that half of the 1.5° F temperature increase since 1850 is directly attributable to changes in the sun. According to NASA scientists David Lind and Judith Lean, only one-quarter of a degree can be ascribed to other causes, such as greenhouse gases, through which human activities can theoretically exert some influence. [8]

Does anyone have the journal article this John Carlisle quote is citing? --Uncle Ed 03:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find it. Given the number of errors in Carlisle's article it could be a misquote, or simply made up out of thin air. You could email Lean and ask her if it rings a bell (I won't post her email address here, but it's easy enough to find). Raymond Arritt 04:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And how about Harvard scientist Sallie Baliunas? She said,

• Over the past half-century, the sun has become very active, and the sun is more active than it has been for 400 years. Therefore, the sun is likely at its brightest in 400 years.
• The ups and downs of each record match fairly well. The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change. For example, a strong warming in the late 19th century, continuing in the early 20th century, up to the 1940s, seems to follow the sun's energy output changes fairly well.
• The mid-20th century cooling, and some of the latter 20th century warming also seem matched to changes in the sun. [9]

If we can't find the journal article, do these quotes have to go in Global warming controversy instead of global warming? --Uncle Ed 04:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Her arguments already are mentioned in List of scientists opposing global warming consensus and she has her own article. Raymond Arritt 04:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect the first quote is meant to reference Lean and Rind, rather than Lind. His numbers might be based on [10], where they say "Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.558C surface warming since 1900 and one-third of the warming since 1970." However, one of the points they are trying to make is that anthropogenic effects have become more important than solar ones for explaining the most recent changes, so Carlisle is clearly spinning their work in a different direction. Dragons flight 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, of course Rind, not Lind. Apologies for not catching that one. Raymond Arritt 04:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

National Resources Stewardship Program

The National Resources Stewardship Program writes,

Four hundred and forty million years ago, when CO2 levels are estimated to have been more than 10 times today's, our planet was in the depths of the coldest period in the last half billion years. At other times, high CO2 levels coincided with warm periods. There is no meaningful correlation with temperature in the geological record.

Over the past half million years, the Antarctic ice core records show a remarkable link between temperature and CO2 . Yet, these records consistently show that temperature rises some 800 years before CO2 rises, not after it.

Even over the past century the CO2/warming correlation is poor, with significant cooling taking place between 1940 and 1980 while human-produced CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly. In all these records there is no evidence to show that CO2 has ever acted as a climate driver or even as a significant secondary effect to accelerate climate warming.

Is there any merit to this? ~ UBeR 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, its a std.skeptic set of half-truths William M. Connolley 09:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you care to explain? ~ UBeR 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact that they try to use the Ordovician/Silurian boundary nearly half a billion years ago to throw doubt on the current CO2/temperature link should be enough to determine that this is pure rhetoric. At that time, there were no multi-cellular land plants (i.e. the carbon cycle was very different), the composition of the atmosphere was very different, all the continents formed Pangaea, which was sitting on the south pole, and the sun was measuarably fainter. And the CO2 concentrations still dropped by nearly half (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm during the glaciation), a fact that one assumed might have slipped in there somewhere. --Stephan Schulz 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how serious you were about it. On the ice cores: there is a lag relation but its n ot as clear as they assert. Since the entire process takes 5kyr+ the ~800 start lag doesn't matter too much (in fact it makes sense: the default assumption is t change leads to co2 change leads to t in a feedback) William M. Connolley 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Questionable line of text in causes section

I'm new to this wiki thing, but I'm trying to help here.

In the "causes" section of the article the statement is made "Outside the scientific community, however, this conclusion [greenhouse gases are the sole cause of global warming] can be controversial."

The sentence implies that every scientist agrees with that viewpoint, when the "consensus" on global warming referenced in the FAQ section is from only the UN's group of climate change scientists.

The sentence also implies that anyone who disagrees with that statement is not a scientist. If the statement were to be accurate it should state that "according to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming."

I edited it once and the change was undone by an admin, that's the only reason I'm putting this here.

Atshields0 13:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You should be aware this is a common bone of contention. Reading the sci opp on gw; or reviewing the discussion here; should explain William M. Connolley 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Atshields0, there are multiple misunderstandings here.

• First, it is a statement of what happens outside the scientific community. It says nothing about what happens inside.
• Secondly, a consensus does not have to be unanimous.
• Thirdly, the IPCC scientists are not "the UN's group of climate change scientists" in any meaningful way, but a large group (2500 or so, IIRC) of leading experts all employed by individual institutions (including e.g. NASA, various universities and research institutes, and so on), which are not dependent on the UN and receive no direct renummeration from the IPCC. Very many of them are fully tenured and hence very effectively isolated from any personal pressure. They voluntarily contribute to the the reports as part of their normal academic work.
• Fourthly, as e.g. Oreskes work shows, this consensus extends beyond the IPCC into a large part of the scientific literature.

--Stephan Schulz 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize this wiki had so much weight behind it. It would take me a week of reading just to catch up.

On a side note: I was reading into Wikipedia's mission and history and saw that it's based in St. Pete, 15 miles from my house! I'm a computer science major soon to transfer to USF and I'd love to volunteer some time. I was going to work for the local elections office but helping the Wikipedia project would be incredible!

Does anyone know if they accept local volunteers?

Atshields0 04:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Predicting CO2 emissions

Given the recent concensus that manmade CO2 is causing CO2, this article is in urgent need of a rewrite!

As an article there is a lot about the model of global warming, there is a very clear assertion that CO2 is caused by fossil fuel use, yet there is almost nothing about the predictions of fossil fuel use except in the first paragraph where it says: "The uncertainty in this range results from both the difficulty of predicting the volume of future greenhouse gas emissions."

I may be wrong, but I thought the purpose of the first paragraph was to summarise the article, not to make an assertion which is not referred to again. As predictions of fossil fuel use are stated as being equal in weight to the variability of the model, it is quite clear that this issue should have an equal weight in the article to avoid failing WP:NPOV.

• Words giving information on climate model: >564 words
• Words giving information on fossil fuel predictions: ZERO!

or, are we still denying that burning fossil fuels causes global warming? LordsReform 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit in the section greenhouse gases in the atmosphere... perhaps too little, but the article is long... --BozMo talk 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If they are useful somewhere, I've made a variety of plots addressing emissions scenarios: [11]. Dragons flight 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

BozMo - Great! They are clearly useful. As for the length of the article, perhaps it is time to break it apart into different constituents:

• Global warming (overview)
  • Global warming as an issue - history and information on political actions such as kyoto
  • Global warming - science
  • Global warming predictions
    • Climate models
    • Fossil fuel predictions
    • Other greenhouse gas predictions
  • Global warming mitigation - actions being considered to reduce global warming

LordsReform 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordsReform (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

NPOV tag

I have added the NPOV tag because of the following reasons:

• There is strong evidence that the earth's temperature fluctuates up and down on a 1500 year cicle. This is supported by many peer reviewed studies of arctic ice cores, stalactites, etc. (see Unstopable Global Warming by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery)
• The entire hypotethis that the warming is man-made, is based on computer predictions; however, the computer models used in the predictions, have not been proven accurate.

There is much more evidence than this, pointing to a natural rise in temperature, due to variation in the sun's output, and not due to CO2 concentration. It is therefore highly POV to state in the intro, that the warming is due to CO2, likely to continue rising. -- Dullfig 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion on the talk page. I have taken the liberty of removing the tag from the article, since this has been discussed many times in the past. There is substantial scientific consensus on climate change, including the most recent IPCC report which stated the Earth is warming, and that warming is anthropogenic. See Scientific opinion on climate change. The Wikipedia page should reflect the scientific consensus on the matter; the opinions of the handful of (well-funded and well-publicized) opponents of the global warming consensus are covered in the other hypotheses section, but giving them more space is undue weight given the magnitude of the opposition. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To add further to this opinion: A non-peer reviewed pop-"sci" book by arch-denier Singer is not "strong evidence" on any scale, much less in this well-referenced article. The rest of of Dullfig's claims is completely unsourced. And we don't state "that the warming is due to CO2", we state that the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations", with further explanation at scientific opinion on climate change and attribution of recent climate change, and an attribution of this statement to the most recent IPCC report. --Stephan Schulz 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is precisely why Wikipedia endorses the logical fallacy of appealing to authority, and always will. ~ UBeR 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you do not understand what an appeal to authority is. An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. The IPCC reports are extremely well supported (by virtually all the evidence, both observational and model-based). Therefore, using it as the basis for this article is not an appeal to authority. I hope this has been enlightening. Raul654 21:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, you are very good at copying and pasting from Wikipedia. If you went on to read at all, it is a form in which propositional knowledge is gained, but still remains a logical fallacy. The notion of truth, for Wikipedia, is derived from validity of authors (sources rather), ergo argumentum ad verecundiam. Conversely, to deny the notion of one finding based on the person (e.g., Singer & Avery) is is to commit argumentum ad hominem. ~ UBeR 21:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, is, by definition, a tertiary source, and strives for verifiability, not truth and eschews original research. That's not an "appeal to authority", it's recognizing the hybris of assuming that amateur editors can validly overturn the work of the scientific community. --Stephan Schulz 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that the word 'consensus' creates a lot of confusion, people tending to take it as an absolute, an unanimity. Maybe using an expression like 'a large consensus' or 'a substantial scientific consensus' as TeaDrinker refered to, would make the sentence not so 'apparently' biased. As for getting into details for the other scientific hypothesis for global warming (Solar activity, ...), considering that they don't appear to have even a small fraction of the amount of evidence that the man-induced Co2 hypothesis has, I see no reason to go into details in the article at the present time. --Galahaad 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How about - no, for the same reasons discussed ad infinitum already. Raul654 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may indeed be about reporting on the concensus, but science itself has never been about concensus. There used to be wide concensus on the existence of the Luminiferous aether. Science is not about concensus, it is about the truth. The truth is not arrived at by polling a certain number of scientist. The article does acknowledge that there may be other explanations for the warming, so why is so much weight given to the IPCC's position? And is it not at all possible that the IPCC may have political reasons for taking the position that warming is man-made? The earth has been much warmer than today in the past, for example during the Roman empire. When the Vikings found Greenland in the Middle Ages, it was warm enough to plant crops and sustain a colony. So exactly why does it have to be man made this time arround? The question is not accademic, as the IPCC seeks to fundamentally change the way we use fosil fuels. Treaties like Kyoto would probably destroy the economy of countries like the US, while exempting third world countries. That is a very big price to pay, to then find out it didn't really matter. The article gives way to much weight to the greenhouse gases explanation, as if it where a done deal. I think the article should just stick to the facts in the intro: that the earth is warming (I never said it wasn't), and that there are several explanations for this, and then go on to present all the different theories, and let the reader make up his mind. -- Dullfig 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, science is not about truth, it's about best guess, especially when talking about predictions (even if the best guess involve some kind of truth, or I would say honnesty). Most of the alternative theories rely on simple correlation between signals: that's much less evidence than what has been demonstrated with the man-made CO2 hypothesis. So until now, science's best guess is that most of the warming is coming from anthropogenic CO2 and that T will continue to rise. As for the IPCC having politicial motivations, that according to you seem to be a kind of world conspiracy against the US and its prosperity (because of jealousy, most certainly), to be scientific I wouldn't say that 'it's not at all possible', but it's very unlikely ... ( ;- ) --Galahaad 23:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To return to the start of your note: Wikipedia is indeed about reporting the consensus from a NPOV. You might as well include no science at all anywhere in Wikipedia and leave the reader to make up their own mind between alchemy and chemistry. --BozMo talk 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested in why its man-made, then you should follow the pointers to attribution of climate change and read the research listed there. If you're interested in Roman or MWP, then you want temperature record of the past 1000 years. The IPCC gets a lot of weight because it summarises a lot of papers. Just turning up and sticking on an NPOV tag will win you no friends. The old "give all views equal weight" idea won't do, because not all views have equal credibility. The wiki page should reflect the state of the research: which is summarised by the IPCC. Note that your The truth is not arrived at by polling a certain number of scientist is a confusion: AFAIK IPCC doesn't work by voting. Though if you're interested in that then you may want sci op on cl ch William M. Connolley 23:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Global warming/FAQ#It_was_obviously_much_warmer_when_the_Norse_settled_Greenland. And you do now that the IPCC reports are prepared by a voluntary group of thousands of independent scientists, not by anybody employed by the UN or IPCC, right? --Stephan Schulz 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And they couldn't possibly have an agenda, right? remember in the seventies how the general concensus was that we where headed for global cooling? why was that concensus wrong, but this one must be right? -- Dullfig 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you cite some scientific references showing the consensus toward a global cooling please? --Galahaad 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just go look in your own backyard. ~ UBeR 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, exactly what I remembered about the topic:

Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[8]). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports.

Global cooling has never been a scientific consensus, it just was a popular press myth ... And this argument is used again and again by the skeptics as an example of the unreliability of the current scientific consensus about the warming. I don't know if people can't hear what they are told (again and again), or if it is a sad deliberate attempt to induce and perpetuate confusion and doubt ... :-( --Galahaad 23:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you ever have the time, read this! ~ UBeR 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"And they couldn't possibly have an agenda, right?"...lot's of things are "possible". It is, however, highly implausible that thousands of highly respected, mostly independent scientists, many tenured (i.e. unfireable), from all over the world, would conspire to somehow create a bogus report. What is the motivation? And what is the mechanism? Do they all get instructed by the guy from Albania, or is it more like chinese whispers, where one tells the next in alphabetic order? --Stephan Schulz 23:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ad-hominem attacks don't make you right. Just to give an example, millions of democrats arrive at a concensus every year, without getting instructed by no one. To assert that scientists are impartial observers, not swayed by political considerations, is ridiculous. -- Dullfig 23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see an Ad-hominem attack? By whom? Against which person? --Stephan Schulz 00:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I did sort of mention it in my earlier reply about Wikipedia's fallacies above (in this same topic). I do not know if this is the same thing Dullfig is talking about, however. ~ UBeR 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming FAQ?

Hi everyone! To me it seems that same demands, suggestions, and arguments are presented on this page over, over and over again. How about a FAQ page for Talk:Global warming? It could gather summaries of past discussions under topics (instead of dates) and provide links to the entire discussions. While perhaps somewhat taxing to execute (though once done it would be relatively easy to maintain), this would relieve the page from having to answer the same questions and accusations for the trillionth time, leaving more room and space for discussion that has actual potential to improve the page. (And by the way, a huge personal thanks to everyone working on this article, you're doing a great, important job! Keep it up!) –Zinjixmaggir 22:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

...and of course I missed the fact that such a page already exists – though 1) it isn't linked to in the top of the page and 2) it doesn't provide links to talk page discussions. –Zinjixmaggir 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the "same demands, suggestions, and arguments" come from people attempting to promote a point of view contradictory to the current state of scientific knowledge on this topic. Since they're already aware that the scientific evidence is not in their favor, I doubt the existence of a FAQ will stop them (or that they will even read it). Raymond Arritt 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced all these people truly understand (or accept) the accurate meaning of "scientific knowledge", "scientific evidence", "consensus", IPCC or even "science". Some might, you're right. I'm not saying what I suggested would stop everyone from re-writing what has been already said, but it could help. Would a link to the FAQ on top of the page hurt so much? :) –Zinjixmaggir 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD it there ;-). --Stephan Schulz 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, the scientific evidence is far from conclusive. All we can say with certainty is that the earth is warmer, and that there is more CO2 in the air. What other evidence are you aware of? Computer models are not evidence, they are predictions based on theories. If the theories are wrong, so will the predictions.

Umm....what about the well-knows absorbtion behaviour of greenhouse gases? Easily and repeatedly testable in the lab? And of course the result of a verified computer model is evidence. If the model repeatedly performs well in modelling know climate variations, we gain trust in it's skill to predict future variations, and in the explanation it offers. That is how scientific theories gather support: By making predictions and comparing them with the observable reality.--Stephan Schulz 23:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the model is not proven. Computers only run scenarios, based on what you think you know. In addition, you never prove theories in science, you can only disprove them. It is a well established principle of science that for a theory to be called a theory, it has to be falsifiable. You cannot prove a computer model false, you can only prove the theory behind the model false. The computer program is written by a human, and it reflects our current understanding of how the climate works. But our understanding could be wrong, and that would invalidate any predictions the computer makes. -- Dullfig 23:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And? Evidence != proof! And of course I can prove a computer model false (i.e. falsify it). It is false if the theory it is based on is false, or it is false if it does not faithfully implement the theory. Both cases are possible, and both are, in principle, detectable. But the fact is that our current GCM models are rather good at explaining past and current climate variations, both temporarily and spatially. That's why we put some trust into them. That is the scientific method. You create a theory, and you test it. If the test succeeds, you gain confidence. Do it often enough, and you gain a lot of confidence.--Stephan Schulz 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But you can only prove that it implements the theory faithfully. The computer model cannot prove the theory correct. That would be circular logic. So it goes back to the theory itself. And as I understand it, the model does not in fact explain past climate variations, unless you pick and choose what period in history you limit it to. -- Dullfig 00:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Second, I take issue with assertions that people trying to promote a point of view contrary to the greenhouse theory, have some kind of agenda. Why is it that those opposed have an agenda, but those in favor could never possibly have an agenda of their own? -- Dullfig 23:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Those "in favor" as you call it are simply adhering to the current state of scientific knowledge. It's not a belief system -- if sufficient contrary evidence comes in tomorrow, we change our mind. That's how science works. For my own part, in the early 1990s I thought greenhouse warming was valid from a physical point of view but that its effect would be small, even negligible. By the late 1990s the evidence became more convincing, and in the past few years the evidence has become overwhelming. Most of us so-called believers are simply tracking the state of the science (notwithstanding a few scaremongerers thrown into the mix, but those are mostly nonscientists). Any of us who could convincingly disprove the greenhouse warming wrong could immediately retire from academia or the lab and make a fortune on the lecture circuit; we could even get a Nobel for it. Raymond Arritt 00:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Issue Tag

This article on "Global Warming" is a controversial subject and the article should be tagged as such. --Britcom 05:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)