Talk:Climate change

Notice: Nrcprm2026 is banned from editing this article for a period ending July 15, 2007.

The user specified was placed on probation by the Arbitration committee and has edited this article inappropriately. The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. At the end of the ban, any user may remove this notice. Posted by Thatcher131 02:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC).See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium.

This is the talk page for the article Global warming. If you are new to this page please take a moment and have a look at some of the frequently asked questions before starting a new topic of discussion. Thank you.

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 February – March 2007 March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 April 2007
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

Clearly Biased Language

The line "a few individual scientists also disagree with parts of it" should read "several individual scientists also disagree with parts of it", because the very article linked lists "several" rather than "a few." Since Wikipedia is apparently no longer a collaborative effort, and I cannot therefore remedy this obvious error, would the article owner (whoever that is) please do so? Thank you. --64.222.222.25 06:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed. This page is currently semi-protected, which means that you can only edit it 4 days after registering for an account (this is free). --h2g2bob 06:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've considered registering, but as this article so clearly demonstrates, bad things happen when people make Wikipedia their home. IMHO, the spirit of Wikipedia would be better served if we were all merely IP addresses. Wikipedia isn't about us, it's about content. --64.222.222.25 06:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we have the percentage of climate scientists instead of these vague few/several/many/etc. words? James S. 12:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no reliable source with that information. --Stephan Schulz 13:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that it is a minority of scientists who hold contrary views. At least, it seems it is a minority of scientists who are concerned with climate enough to make it their occupation who do. But I see no way to confirm whether it is a countable minority or not. And I believe to reduce edit wars, the article should entirely get rid of weasel words. So, I think that a good way to handle such things is to describe what we believe to be the mainstream or consensus or whatever point of view first, establishing it, as far as reasonable and supportable (without going overboard), as the dominant view. Then follow it up with a statement that does not count or weasel word the quantity of the opposition but simply says that the opposition exists, perhaps (but not necessarily) in just one sentence so as not to give undue weight. To me, this is a compromise position that could help reduce edit wars on the matter. --Blue Tie 14:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people would argue that still gives undue weight. Of course, I disagree completely. However, they (and I) seem content with "debate by proxy" (i.e. weasel words like few, several, etc. that are sourced). ~ UBeR 19:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to simply mention an "opposition" would give undue weight. So we are left with using weasel words or no mention at all--Skyemoor 03:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to weasel words. If for no other reason than this: It requires diligent reversion of contributions by honest editors who are following wikipedia policy. This is already a bad habit on this page and we should not leave opportunities for edit wars to continue. It is a bad idea to leave such weak things in the article. (Also, if a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view). At the very least, the inclusion of weasel words requires the template and that is not desirable. --Blue Tie 15:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with you Blue Tie, to say the least. But there remain a few who wish to use weasel words, so I see this as the only way to compromise. ~ UBeR 17:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Then the article should wear the tag.

In the NPOV guidelines, one idea really stands out to me: Let the facts speak for themselves. If we use weasel words, we are not doing that. --Blue Tie 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, obviously. The wording is fine and no tag is needed William M. Connolley 18:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I accept that we disagree. But you are also disagreeing with wikipedia guidelines -- guidelines that were fashioned to help prevent NPOV problems, something the page has been accused of a great deal. I understand why people would not want wikipedia standards to apply to articles... they can be annoying. But they help things work better. --Blue Tie 18:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, reading over the policy again, what we have is allowed by the guideline. It reads, "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources . . . Either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed." So clearly, sourcing opinionated language is fine, given the caveat that "where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." ~ UBeR 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That is also how I read the policy in connection with NPOV. That type of discussion -- quoting an opinion with a cite, is debate by proxy in many instances, but it is allowed. I believe that the whole area of "opinion" on wikipedia is mine field but particularly with articles about living people, culture, and unresolved history/current events. This one is in the latter category. I also think that where we can get away from weasel words, the better off we are. In most cases, just saying "there are" instead of saying "Some" or "Many" or "Few" avoids the weasel word. I would also point out instances where a word only appears to be weasel-like but is not. For example "most" countries signing the Kyoto accords is actually verifiable by a poll. There are just so many countries in the world and we can count them all and the number who signed. --Blue Tie 21:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, especially pertaining to this article, what's here is allowed (though the statement probably should be attributed to AMQUA). And I don't think the dissenters will budge, no matter how vehement you opinion. ~ UBeR 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the statement I had a big problem with ("tiny") is no longer in there. The article is much better in that regard. But look at my last two edits. I think that they just strip all POV out of those parts of the article. Whatever pov you might have, it is neither supported nor denied by those edits. To me that enhances the defendable stability of the article. Say for example, some new editor comes along and wants to add some modifier in there. Well, I would not first revert and ask questions later, I would say "Your modifier needs to be validated and avoid weasel words". If they can do that, then probably they can also produce something better than a vague or imprecise modifier. If they can't then the revert has substance and is not just a knee-jerk. This enhances the stability and value of the article. I have doubts my recent edits will survive because they do not support one pov or the other sufficiently, but let's see.--Blue Tie 21:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note POV can also be pushed by absence of a qualifier; e.g., stating "there are biologists who accept the theory of evolution and biologists who reject it" gives the impression that there are two comparable groups, when the reality is more like 99:1. Raymond Arritt 22:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, a completely neutral pov will not support one pov or the other. And thus, someone will feel slighted. If 99 out of 100 individual scientists accept the consensus of global warming, lets cite the poll. Otherwise your edit includes an unsubstantiated weasel word. --Blue Tie 22:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) I think Dr. Arritt is correct here. But I think we shuold go back to the original wording, per the source, if that is fine. There is also a problem with not using adjectives at all in an article. For example, your removal of "slight" in the explaining of feedbacks. But when a reader comes along and sees "X amount of C will result in warming, which leads to more warming," the reader will be left asking, "How much?" ~ UBeR 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What is Raymond correct about> What source is there that credibly describes the number of individual scientists that disagree? Has there ever been a poll? As for the reader asking the question "How much? that is exactly the point. If we say "a slight amount" of warming.. whose idea of "slight" is it? And why do they think it is "slight"? Much better to measure. At the very least, the footnote should explain why it is "slight". But when we just say it, then it is wikipedia's unsubstantiated opinion. How is that right? What does wikipedia "know"? --Blue Tie 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you be comfortable stating "some physicists accept Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and some do not"? Would you be comfortable stating "some physicians believe HIV causes AIDS, and some do not?" Would you be comfortable stating "some scientists accept that telekinesis is a proven capability, and some do not"? There are no polls in any of these cases, so far as I know. Raymond Arritt 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, your last edit that restores "few" no better. I have already outlined why an editorial should not be used as a source for a disputed weasel word. However, if it is "debate by proxy" then if another source says many, they must both be presented per NPOV. I seriously do not understand the need to add weakly supported, pov adjectives to the article. Why not just stay purely neutral? --Blue Tie 22:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Because omitting the qualifier is not neutral. Raymond Arritt 22:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And the "editorial" is not an editorial! It is neither commisioned nor written by the editors or publishers of Eon. Instead, it is a formal declaration of the council of a well-known scientific society. --Stephan Schulz 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am now convinced that this article is controlled by a select group of editors, with no room for influence outside that group. I trust that anyone who reads this article, along with the reams of accompanying talk archives, will come to the same conclusion. If we cannot agree when a linked article is clearly referred to incorrectly, there can be little hope for broader input. After reading the responses to my initial request, I could scarcely determine who was for it and who against. Yet the edit seemed so benign and proper to me. I am astonished, to say the least. What makes this all the more astonishing is that Wiktionary defines "several" as:

"...more than two, but not very many."[1]

This could be construed as being synonymous with "a few." It's not as though I'd asked the article to read "a lot," but only to use a word which most readers would probably interpret as slightly more than "a few." This should be perfectly acceptable and even obvious to anyone clicking the link. So, why all the fuss? --64.222.222.25 06:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it telling that nobody has responded to my above critique. Let's try again: how about "a number of individual scientists also disagree with parts of it" -- would that be acceptable? It would be the least biased wording possible, as it implies neither a small number, nor a large one. Although I feel silly trying to compromise to get a change that every honest editor should be lining up to endorse, especially since my initial request of "several" was a compromise in itself (because, as Wiktionary defines it, "several" is generally no more than seven, which is clearly not an accurate description of said list -- but I compromised, in light of the atmosphere surrounding this article). What kind of editor would click a link referred to as containing a list of "a few" scientists, see that it in fact contains a list of many, yet not only not fix the error, but fight to keep it from being fixed? Please explain to me how this is not a clear example of bias. Thank you. --64.222.222.25 15:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No one responded because we're bored with the same points again and again. Read the discussion William M. Connolley 16:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You're bored because I've called you to task and you cannot rebuff what I've said. "A few" is poor wording, the defense of which can therefore only be due to bias. --64.222.222.25 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not tonight dear, I have a headache. Raymond Arritt 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not amused. Some of you are quite obviously engaged in a vendetta. For example, since Mr. Connolley cannot defend the misleading wording "a few," he's decided to alter the linked article to fit that description[2]. This is shocking, even juvenile behavior. Some of you are suitable candidates for banning, on the grounds that you are engaging in a prolonged, focused campaign to influence the direction of this collaborative website. --64.222.222.25 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things seem to have been neglected in this debate. It is important to make a distinction between "scientists", who come in all shapes and sizes, and "climate scientists", of whom the vast majority regards the evidence for anthropogenic climate change as highly likely. There are indeed a few climate scientists who are skeptics, and this is legitimate to note. However, I would suggest that first of all, this fact should be viewed in the context of how science works (X and Z battle it out and one or the other eventually proves their case [i.e. successfully refutes the claims/objections of the other]), which is different than how, for example, a policy discussion works (X and Z battle it out for a "truth" Y that lies in the middle). There are still a few (otherwise legitimate) physicians and medical researchers who dispute the fact that HIV causes AIDS -- does this skeptical view merit the same weight as the consensus position on HIV that is surely correct (especially given that lives are literally at stake)? Surely not. Second, many of the skeptics brought out in the media to challenge the climate consensus are not actually climate scientists, but rather geologists, meteorologists (some of whom only hold a certificate in meteorology, not even an academic degree), paleontologists, and the like. They are certainly entitled to hold their views, and the fact that they are not climate scientists does not mean thay may not have valid points. But the view that simply "as scientists" their skepticism is of equal merit to the professional assessments of researchers who specialize in climate topics is simple minded and does a disservice to an understanding of how science properly works. Anyhow -- my two cents. Arjuna 01:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy it. One can just as easily argue that the climate scientists have self interest clouding their judgement, because their research funding benefits from the extreme rhetoric. Climatology is just not one of the more difficult sciences, there is little that physicists reading the papers would not understand. Remember is was the physicists that challenged the electrochemists on their cold fusion calorimetry. The only climate papers I have had a hard time reading were the ones that weren't well written or had mistakes that made it difficult to find their data or follow their methodology. --Africangenesis 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between "reading" and "understanding." You've certainly shown no evidence that you understand the implications of the Roesch paper that you've so often referred to. Raymond Arritt 04:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have a different interpretation or perspective, please share it.--Africangenesis 05:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Do I correctly surmise that Africangenesis is a physicist? (Ah, "the Queen of the Sciences"!) Apparently I was not aware that climate scientists -- unlike physicists, who must somehow be self-funded and thus immune from the tendentious real-world implications of their scientific research -- are singularly prone to dishonest science given that they are engaged in the sinister promulgation and pernicious dissemination of "extreme rhetoric". Funny though, I wasn't aware that climate science was "not difficult". Arjuna 04:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider impuning of the motives by the source of the funding a valid argument, I just noted that one could argue that, since that argument seems common here. No matter who does the funding, the substance should be judged on the merits. Now at least you know that climate science is "not difficult".--Africangenesis 05:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you have noted that you "don't buy" the argument, but you fail to specify what specifically you don't find compelling, other than a prima fascie case that a physicist's understanding of science is evidently superior to that of a scientist in any other discipline. You take others to task for the same thing, so your consistency is requested. Arjuna 05:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, what I didn't buy above, is the idea that the non-climatologists criticisms were not of equal merit with the climatologists. This is ad hominem, the points should be considered on their merits. The claims of the climatologists have implications for other sciences that are well within the expertise of those other sciences, in fact, arguably sometimes more so. It is analogous, to when the electrochemists were making claims of cold fusion, they trangressed into an area where others had equal if not more expertise. When climatologists claim to be able to attribute and project a complex nonlinear dynamic system, they are making claims that others with expertise in this area of mathamatics are justifiably skeptical of. Physicists, mathmaticians, astronomers, and even just the scientifically literate know something of the difficulties represented by mere multi-body problems. Imagine their skepticism when the climate modelers claim their models "agree", while simultaneously reporting that the model climate sensitivities vary by more than a factor of two. Then when the modelers claim their models are validated because they reproduce the 20th century climate well, when unfortunately they have serious discrepencies regionally, and have had to do it with very little information about the state of the ocean at the beginning of their simulations, not to mention spotty surface temperature data, and when they admit that the variation in solar forcing is poorly understood. Add to that the information that the energy imbalance responsible for the recent warming is under 1W/m^2, while diagnostic studies show the models have errors several times that, and that some of that error has been showed to a correlated bias shared by all the models. Should the non-climatologists just defer to the climate modelers when they claim to be able to attribute and project despite these model deficiencies? When/if climatologists make this claim, they are no longer talking climatology, they are claiming new mathmatics, something others are just as qualified to weigh in on, and be skeptical of. Frankly, it would be quite exciting if the climatologists could make the rigorous mathmatical case this would require, and we would all eagerly examine it. Until then, there needs to be better agreement between the models and the data, more resolution of discrepecies between the models, more realistic coupling of the forcings to the components of the climate system, etc. so that the models can earn some credibility.--Africangenesis 06:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this shows the problem rather well. To do thermodynamics "properly", one would have to deal with the multi-body interactions of all the individual molecules involved. And yet, if a specialist in mechanics challenges statistical thermodynamics, he will not show how it is all wrong, he will just display that he has no idea what he is talking about. Of course climate science is hard. Of course we do not have models that are exact at the molecular level, or even the local level. That does in no way imply that they are useless and climate scientists don't know what they are doing, it just means that you as a layperson in the field don't understand their toolbox (and the limitations of it).--Stephan Schulz 08:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There you go, an ad hominem attack. You don't know what I understand or don't understand. I didn't raise molecular level issues. I only raised issues of the same order magnitude as the phenomena the models are trying to represent and attribute. Rather, than attack, if you understand how models with the issues I did raise and that are documented in the literature, can be capable of the robustness and skill claimed for them, then explain it, that would be a more evidence based demonstration of something you or they understand that I and others "outside" the field don't. I implied only that the models are useless for attribution and projection, not that they are useless overall. I think they have achieved some remarkable climate behaviors and offered qualitative insights into different climate modes, they just aren't up to this quantitative task. You know there is a big difference between the local or regional level and the molecular level. That is a red herring. The Roesch paper demonstrates the significance of regional issues, and that these particular temperate zone snow cover and snow melt issues are significant even when averaged globally. He points out several specific issues in enough detail that the modelers should be able to fix them, or at least get a lot closer the next iteration. The correlated issues he documents, just show that the current models are not up to the task not just individually but also as meta-ensembles. The models have got even greater issues in cloud physics and aerosols. But that doesn't mean the problems are as intractable as your molecular hyperbole implies, but that they need a lot more improvement before they are quantitatively credible. Yes, I'm implying it would be new mathmatics if models this rough could achieve the robustness needed for attribution and projection of this small global energy imbalance. But I am not closed to the idea that skill could be achieved and credibility earned with enough further refinements. BTW, I am not denying that doing climate science is hard, these models are complex achievements. But what is not hard is understanding the techniques and theory that are published. The colloquialism would be "It ain't rocket science." And it ain't string theory either. Fortunately, most science isn't. Instead of a personal attack, why don't you defend the models or reference a cogent defense of the models, instead of assuming that the modelers have some mystical inside knowledge incomprehensible to the rest of us.--Africangenesis 08:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into substance: Africangenesis, clearly you have some very interesting if somewhat arcane points to make -- so why are you making it here? 1. Wikipedia is not the place for original research; 2. much of what you say would be more appropriate on the Global warming controversy article; 3. you will have better arguing partners over at http://www.realclimate.org (unless you're here mainly to impress the rest of us); and/or 4. why don't you get your analysis to a journal for publication and have it tested in the crucible of science? I'm not being (completely) sarcastic; I genuinely think much of what you have to say is probably very legit, relevant, and intended to be constructive. I just wonder why you feel it's important to make your points in this venue rather than elsewhere. Cheers, Arjuna 11:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at. My comments have been directly responsive to others in the discussion, the mathmatical nature of the climate system is well known, not original research and not being familiar with you, I don't know whether to be surprised that you didn't know it. Discussions of the mathmatics and the literature are relevant on the talk page at least. Note that I did not originate this thread.--Africangenesis 11:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Increasing severe weather is caused by increasing severe weather... huh?

This sentence still doesn't make any sense because it is basically circular reasoning:

Increasing extreme weather catastrophes are primarily due to an increase in population, and are partly due to increasing severe weather.

This sentence needs a rewrite because it's fairly given that increasing severe weather correlates with increasing severe weather... but that doesn't have anything to do with the cause of severe weather. --Tjsynkral 22:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Could do with a bit of clarification. The population bit refers to more human suffering caused by increased population in areas prone to severe weather even if the number of weather events doesn't change. But that probably wasn't very clear either :-) Vsmith 23:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it could probably be clearer if written, "Catastrophes resulting from extreme weather are primarily due to an increase in population, and are partly due to increasing severe weather." Nothing wrong with Mr. Arritt's version, if not a little verbose. ~ UBeR 01:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend rewording the context around the sentence so that you could say something like "The increase in such catastrophes is primarily due to population increases, but partly due to increasing severe weather". Then the repetitive and confusing "severe weather" can be avoided. —AySz88\^-^ 06:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would help because there's no context for "such catastrophes." ~ UBeR 07:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

...which is why I said to reword the context so that it could be done? :/ —AySz88\^-^ 16:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that increasing severe weather is a result not a cause. --Tjsynkral 04:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

An increase in intensity and severity of extreme weather is already mentioned in the previous paragraph. I'm assuming that this sentence is a segue from that statement to the discussion of tropical cyclones, in which case a better wording might be Damage caused by increases in extreme weather attributed to global warming may be exacerbated by increased population in areas affected by such weather. This is noted particularly in the case of tropical cyclones., and cite Pielke's study. Hal peridol 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

One more refinement, Increasing deaths, displacements, and economic losses caused by extreme weather attributed to global warming may be exacerbated by growing population densities in affected areas. Since the extreme weather will include heavy rains, high winds, drought, and other such phenomenon, we don't need to call out cyclones in particular. 'Damage' on its own is too vague. The damage to ecosystems is not related to population growth combined with extreme weather (though both play a role independently). And we can cite the ARM, Pielke is outside the consensus (such a suggestion shows too much POV).. --Skyemoor 00:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it - it seems to have been overtaken by events, though, judging by the section below. I prefer your sentence, but I'm happy enough with Raymond's change to the original. Thanks, Hal peridol 02:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Parsing of sentence on losses from severe weather

The sentence in question is

Increased losses resulting from extreme weather are primarily due to an increase in population, and are partly due to increasing severe weather.

The noun is losses; that is the subject of the sentence. The noun is modified by the phrase "resulting from extreme weather." Here "extreme weather" does not function as a noun or the subject of the sentence, so your insistence on interpreting it as "extreme weather is due to extreme weather" is unfounded (as you of course know). To write it more verbosely,

There are increased losses due to severe weather. These increased losses are primarily due to an increase in population. But the increased losses are also due in part to an increase in the incidence of severe weather itself.

Perhaps you will still insist on pretending not to understand, but I have done my best to explain. Raymond Arritt 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, say I give you everything you just said. Where exactly in the source is population mentioned, or losses? Some of us actually check sources to ensure they back up the text... and this one seems not to. --Tjsynkral 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You have to do more than grep for the word "population." Raymond Arritt 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

So, where do you find support for this sentence? I don't see it, so as far as I'm concerned the sentence should go. --Tjsynkral 00:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The new WGII report seems to verify it. ~ UBeR 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have a source saying that losses from severe weather are caused by severe weather (no matter how dumbfoundingly obvious and circular that may be) please give me a cite and page number on it. --Tjsynkral 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That was just a quick skim of the report, BTW. Haven't read it in full yet. Nevertheless, I don't think it's saying losses from severe weather are caused by sever weather. Well it is, but it's being modified by "increasing." That is, losses from extreme weather are partly due to increase incidence of severe weather, but mostly population changes. So if a researcher is seeing there are ever increasing losses coming from severe weather, he might ask, "why?" Well it's partly due because of an increase in severe weather, but mostly population fluxes (to reiterate). I hope this clarifies. ~ UBeR 04:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then we have to source the claim that severe weather is, in fact, increasing, and that losses are increasing. I found one thing that Raymond might have misunderstood, where it says that projected losses may be caused by a projected increase in severe weather. And even if we do that we need to reword the sentence so it isn't saying that increased losses from severe weather are due to increased severe weather. And I am still at a loss as to what increased losses due to severe weather has to do with global warming. --Tjsynkral 04:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather daft sentence. What are 'losses'? If they are primarily due to population why are they in the gw article? And it is circular. Why not just delete it? Paul Matthews 15:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I did but the owner of the sentence reverted it back in and started this discussion. --Tjsynkral 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported or poorly worded statement?

This statement from the intro "Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950"' is unsupported by the provided reference number 1. There is no evidence that solar activity has had a cooling effect since 1950. Given the climate commitment studies showing much longer equilibration times, it is probable that the earlier increases in solar forcing are still contributing to the current warming. Why the strange and misleading conjunction of volcanic and solar in this statement? Is there any peer review literature supporting a cooling effect for solar activity in recent decades? --68.35.43.82 14:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Errm... have you read the discussion above? (Causes section issues AGAIN). The statement really should say "combined" William M. Connolley 14:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read it now. There are more problems with the statement than can be resolved with a "combined". The volcanic influence is neither continuous, nor periodic. Combining the two to argue that the net natural contribution is negative, makes the truth of the above statement dependent on the level of volcanic activity and probably false at this particular time. --68.35.43.82 17:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh good. Now you need to look at the SPM fig 4 and see that models forced by combined sol+vol show a negative trend since 1950 William M. Connolley 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

IPCC diagnostic studies show that the models have errors much larger than the net energy imbalance. Roesch showed that all the AR4 models had a positive surface albedo bias against solar that is arguably larger than this energy imbalance. The models are good for providing insight into climate behaviors but are not yet up to the task of attribution and projection.--68.35.43.82 17:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you write a paper saying so - until you do, your word counts for little William M. Connolley 08:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The diagnostic studies have already been published. Can they be responded to with any evidence of how the models can somehow be useful for attributing less than a 1W/m^2 of global energy imbalance? Consensus and faith are not evidence or science.--68.35.43.82 12:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

But as you know, the diag papers say nothing about attribution. If, in *your personal opinion* the diag studies invalidate the IPCC spm results, then that is very interesting for you but not for wiki, unless those opinions have been published. Which they haven't been William M. Connolley 12:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the diagnostic studies say nothing about attribution explicitly. They do say things about the models, and they are published after the key model studies relied upon for the WG1 work, since those model studies take months to years to run. When a study such as Roesch finds that all of the models have too much snow cover area and a delayed spring snow melt, that is significant its its impact on the global averages, that means that the models must be replacing that missing reflected solar energy elsewhere, in order to have matched the recent warming and energy imbalance. Roesch himself calls it a "bias", a positive surface albedo bias. It is present in all the AR4 models, with some also having a positive albedo bias in the tropical deserts also. If all the models are shown to be reflecting too much solar, then they must be miss attributing the warming they reproduce. You can claim that the diag papers say nothing about attribution, only if you refuse to think about them. However, back to the topic, no source has been provided for the statement at issue as phrased, and since the statement is incorrect, if we are to reproduce it anyway, it should be attributed to the proper opinion holder.--68.35.43.82 13:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Is there any peer review literature supporting a cooling effect for solar activity in recent decades?" None that I've seen. Actually there is a general increase in insolation at the canonical 65N for the last three hundred (five hundred?) or so years. But many studies (e.g Robertson et al JGR 2000 Hypothesized climate forcing time series for the last 500 Years) have used the combination of solar and volcanic forcings together as indicative of the natural forcings in the system so it is not surprising to see the refered to together like this.Ken 14:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me coming into the middle of this. I'm not entirely up on the specific details and nuances of this debate (particularly the stuff about volcanic activity; is this in reference to volcanic CO2 emissions or volcanic dust/aerosols?), but... For the record, the new IPCC WG1 Summary (http://www.ipcc.ch/WG1_SPM_17Apr07.pdf) indicates that solar forcing does make a small but significant contribution to current observed warming (see p. 4 of the summary). In any case, the article already mentions this, so what's all the hubub? Arjuna 09:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is about the radiative forcing during the last 50 years or so. Volcanic CO2 is nearly negligible on a non-geological timescale (though volcanic aerosols, as you rightly pointed out, are not). The SPM.2 figure you refer to has forcings compared to 1750 ("pre-industrial"). There is little doubt that a significant part of the 1900-1950 warming was due to solar, but it is unclear what influence changes in solar activity had since. Either way, they are small compared to sulfate aerosols, volcanos, and greenhouse gases.--Stephan Schulz 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you admit the solar significance prior to 1950, and not since, then you reject the climate commitment studies which show that the oceans take centuries to respond. No further increase in solar activity is required for the climate to continue warming.--68.35.43.82 12:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. Do please provide a clear reference stating this William M. Connolley 13:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. No skeptic am I. My only point was that an element of solar forcing does exist -- but as you rightly point out it is small relative to other anthropogenic causes. Arjuna 09:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Radiative forcings are coupled to the climate system in different ways. You can't just compare their absolute values or sum them in a non-linear system. The current level of solar activity is at one of its highest levels in the last 7000 years, per Solanki, and these size changes in solar activity have been large enough to apparently trigger past climate changes, hypothesized to be natural and not anthropogenic.--68.35.43.82 12:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

But like Yoda you speak ;-).--Stephan Schulz 10:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

68.35.43.82 - please get a wikipedia id and join the debate. It seems like you know what you are talking about. It is a rather bizarre statement and not properly supported by ref [1], as I argued above. In fact fig SPM2 in [1] shows solar as positive. I suggest we use Arjuna's wording. Paul Matthews 13:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe a more correct statement of the SPM position would be that "the contribution of solar forcing is poorly understood and thought to be small". In this complex non-linear system, we need models, better ones than we have, to assess whether the "effect" is "small". A small forcing does not necessarily imply a small effect. Given the "small" increase in temperature over the 20th century, even a "small" effect might be significant, especially if the models are attributing that effect to GHGs, and are managing to reproduce warming in the face of excessive snow cover. In projections, the errors will be magnified, as further warming eventually eliminates the snow cover restraint, leading to more extreme temperature excursions. I'm interested in a more proper representation of the state of the science. It is probably best for me to continue to pursue that elsewhere. I just occasionally get sucked in by how wrong some of the statements are, even by wikipedia's regurgitative standards. Even if statements dismissive of a combined solar and volcanic net impact can be found, the combination will still not be relevant to solar as a viable competing hypothesis for some of the attribution. --68.35.43.82 13:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. If you had a wiki account you could fix the incorrect statements yourself. The page could do with some more editors who know the science. I have edited the disputed sentence to "Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have probably had a relatively small effect.[1]" in the lead (where things need to be kept short and simple) and "Solar variation has probably had a relatively small effect on recent global warming, compared with anthropogenic effects" in the solar section. I hope that should be acceptable to most people. Paul Matthews 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got a wiki account now. Lets see how it goes.--Africangenesis 06:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the previous was better, but I can live with this for the moment William M. Connolley 15:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of the problematic atmosphere surrounding this article. Gentlemen such as Mr. Connolley feel that they own it, but they do not. I would invite these editors to retreat back to their personal webspace, and let Wikipedia get back to being a collaborative endeavor. "I can live with it," he says. Can you? "For the moment," he says. Indeed! --64.222.222.25 16:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with William. Old wording was better. ~ UBeR 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

68.35.43.82, are you the same person as 64.222.222.25? If so, this illustrates the need for you to get a Wiki account and to sign your name to your contributions to the debate. As for your concern as to whether the article as currently written is a "proper representation of the state of the science", I fail to see what your point is. (Pardon if I'm wrongly conflating the two IP addresses.) The fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour is not license for editors with a tendentious POV to present facts in a misleading fashion. It sounds as though many of the points you wish to make would be better suited to the separate article on Global warming controversy. Arjuna 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe the messages coming from Maine are from the same person making the comments from New Mexico. ~ UBeR 21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And even if they were, it doesn't "illustrate" any such need. As I've said earlier on this page, Wikipedia is about the content, not the editors. I'm not going to make an account just so Mr. Connolley's fan club can more easily ignore my rather trivial yet completely logical concerns -- it seems they've done so quite effectively anyway. Just think, if I had a name, you could immediately skip past my comments, without double-checking the IP first. My request to change one small, misleading phrase does not equate to "tendentious POV," but the insistence on keeping that phrase certainly does. See the disussion above, under "Clearly Biased Language," where Mr. Connolley's attack dogs spin a page-long web of mumbo-jumbo in order to justify the total dismissal of a seemingly insignificant edit request. --64.222.222.25 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

About section 2.3 Solar variation

End of first paragraph reads: Stratospheric warming has not been observed. when in fact it should read Stratospheric cooling has been observed. or something akin to that. Citation: Science 24 November 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5803, pp. 1253 - 1254 DOI: 10.1126/science.1135134 [3] Ken 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Request

Under "Attributed and expected effects", the paraphrasing of reference #37[4] fails to mention the positive effects which are spoken of in the very same section being referenced. Please don't refer me to Effects of global warming; if Global warming is going to make the reference, it should do so accurately and completely. A short sentence should suffice, so long as it alludes to the projected benefits of climate change in some areas, and the fact that these are expected to lead to fewer deaths. I'll leave the wording to the article ownership, but would like to see the phrase "fewer deaths" included, to balance that of "increasing deaths," as the referenced material so carefully does. Thank you. --64.222.222.25 02:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just get an account and do it yourself. Raymond Arritt 03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Posing a question: is the chart on pages 14 and 15 of the WG2 summary[5] public domain, and if so would it be appropriate to reproduce it in part? Mentioning the fact that fewer deaths are expected due to decreased cold nights is legit, but not if it is out of context with the (perhaps) greater number of increased deaths due to other projected effects. In other words, the whole picture should be presented, not simply that "increased deaths due to heat waves is balanced by reduced deaths due to fewer cold waves". I'm simplifying, but you get my point. Arjuna 03:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an out of context addition, I'm asking for the inclusion of a statement which was omitted. It is this omission which creates a contextual problem. --64.222.222.25 05:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why put off till four days from now what can be done today? Or better yet, why not assume good faith by unprotecting the article? The alternative involves me creating an account, waiting four days, making the edit, and crossing my fingers that it doesn't get reverted. Instead, I made an edit request, hoping that someone who agrees with the request and who already has a 4-day-old account might do it. --64.222.222.25 05:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well getting an account was pretty useless.

Looks like I am not allowed to edit. The first change I wanted to make was to change "predict" to "project". Next, I'm not sure why the model projections are in the introductory paragraphs, but if we are going to note that the IPCC used models which made these projections, we should also note that the IPCC used models which had a positive surface albedo bias relative to the satelite data. There is no particular reason to cite one fact about the models that the IPCC used and not the other, when reporting the state of the science--Africangenesis 06:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

New accounts can only work on semi-protected articles after about 4 yearsdays. And including one article which talks about only one aspect without evaluating it's overall effect is both a violation of WP:WEIGHT and, if its used to imply unreliability not explicitely stated in the paper, WP:SYN. --Stephan Schulz 06:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean 4 days (not years). More at WP:SEMI. --h2g2bob 08:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The weight is left to the reader, as it should be. The Roesch paper is an IPCC diagnostic subproject published after the papers that made the projections. It very clearly states that the models do not reproduce the surface albedo, due to several explicitly detailed factors relative to both ground and satelite data, and that all the models are biased in the same direction. The reason that there haven't been any articles in response that state that the models were able to reproduce the 1990 to 2000 snow cover area and snow melt timing, is that the community knows that they didn't, and they knew it before the Roesch study to diagnose the issue in detail was done. Is the fact that the IPCC used these models intended to imply reliability that they did not explicitly state? --Africangenesis 06:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"This reflects the long average atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide (CO2).". The continuing sea level rise reflects the large heat capacity of the ocean, which takes centuries to respond to a new level of forcing.--Africangenesis 06:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this a pronouncement or ...? --Skyemoor 11:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is an explanation informed by general principles of physics and the climate commitment studies such as those by Wigley, et al, and Meehl, et al. --Africangenesis 11:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyplace in the provided document where it states that volcanoes and solar had a "small effect"? I can't find any. This statement is apparently being used to imply that solar made only a small contribution to the recent warming, when that is not explicity stated in the summary for policy makers. The closest it comes is the statement that "most" is due to the anthro GHGs, but that does not mean that the remainder is "small". The model runs cited based on solar and volcanic does not explicitly address the issue. The correct way to address this issue, which SPM does not address, would be for there to be model runs which do not include the anthro GHG increases, but do include the other human forcings, aerosols, etc. Those model runs with solar would be tuned quite differently from the beginning and might reproduce more of the recent warming. But the SPM is silent on this issue as well as on the "small effect" statement. Of course, in light of more recent work, also available to the IPCC, it would be better if the runs were made with models without a positive surface albedo bias several times larger than the global energy imbalance.--Africangenesis 07:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we have another obsessed editor. Sadly its 4 days not years William M. Connolley 08:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, it is just easy for a fresh pair of eyes to spot these issues. Why are you uncomfortable with any of the points raised? I assume it is good practice to check the supporting documents to see if they really do support the statements, and to make sure the statements fairly represent the evidence.--Africangenesis 10:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is good practice. You just picked the wrong article to try to edit. Check out the talk history and you'll see what I mean. It's hard to believe this article is part of wikipedia, because of issues with civility and ownership issues. Thegreatdr 10:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncalled for. If I were able to issue a warning, or knew how, I would do so here. Please remain civil and assume good faith, just like I will assume that you're not really sad. Also, I would have to say that insisting on describing an article-length list of names as "a few," then hacking away at said list in an attempt to actually turn it into "a few," would better describe the deeds of an "obsessed editor." --64.222.222.25 09:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP, "heal thyself". --Skyemoor 11:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure how to take this comment. Please elaborate, thanks. --64.222.222.25 12:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I cant assess who's right or wrong, but I certainly can assess how disturbing it seems for William Connolley, Stephan Shultz and als. that this new editor, who seems knowledgeable in the topic, can be allowed to edit "their" article after only four days. --Childhood's End 12:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Squarely. Grimerking 10:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll be happy to educate them in the perils of WP:OR. And as for knowledgeable... they appear to be pushing one paper, which is common. And in fact I seem to recall that one being pushed before William M. Connolley 13:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC) (here and here William M. Connolley 13:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

Is there any reason you focus on just this one paper? Have you read it, do you have specific issues with it, assuming you mean Roesch? It is a paper solidly within the mainstream, why be particularly sensitive to it? As Pons and Fleischman found out, calorimetry is hard. Modeling the recent global warming is essentially doing calorimetry of the whole earth surface, ocean, atmosphere system to reproduce and attribute an energy imbalance of less than 1 W/m^2 when averaged over the whole surface and year. There are many diagnositc subprojects, do you doubt that others also document errors larger than this 1 W/m^2? Your reaction to this paper would seem to confirm rather than contest that one paper is enough, just as one scientist with a valid point is enough. However, single papers seldom stand alone, they derive strength or power from their context. The Roesch paper merely quantifies known issues with the models, and suggests specific improvements. Do you really suggest that modelers would or should ignore it, rather than making those improvements? Rest assured, that I will also be citing work by Wigley, Meehl, Solanki, Pierrehumbert, Hansen, etc, but if we dismiss any one paper, I hope it will be based on a discussion of the substance, not a mere count. If "weight" is an issue as suggested by Schulz, then hopefully it is also based on an issue found with the substance, and not on a mere paper count. Fortunately, it is rare that a paper stands alone, the Roesch paper stands in a context of documented model problems at the higher latitudes, adding confirmation and quantification based on satellite and other data sets, and in the context of Roesch's own prior work. You will find it a nice read that does not appear at all anamolous.--Africangenesis 16:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

William criticizes for using one paper when he relies on one paper more than any other, with the reference name of grida7. ~ UBeR 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oooohhh that was constructive. But no, you are missing the point. Poodleboy is indulging in OR based on the one paper, and we all know how much you dislike OR, so I look forward to you restraining him - just as you're doing here William M. Connolley 09:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely. ~ UBeR 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I dont know and I did not take position about this. What I noticed is that Stephan was openly enthusiastic about this editor being limited in his edits, and that you accused him if being obsessed. That didnt seem fair to me. --Childhood's End 13:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I was what? I tried to be helpful and pointed out why he was unable to edit just now (admittedly with a thinko in the time unit used). How can that possibly give the impression I was enthusiastic about his inability to edit? For the record, I neither felt nor expressed such enthusiasm. The 4 day lockout is to prevent spontaneous acts of vandalism from unregistered users. The fact that it restricts serious new editors is an unavoidable side effect.--Stephan Schulz 13:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Stub sections at end

Can we take care of those? Either fill them out or remove them. Ozone is one sentence... Marskell 08:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

They are there as the result of WP:SUMMARY. We need the link - is the sentence useful? --Stephan Schulz 08:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A section header plus one sentence isn't summary style. It's an abbreviated list. I'm thinking of turning the whole related issues section into two prose paragraphs. Marskell 09:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. I basically copied descriptions from the sub-articles to fill out the section. I threw a fact tag on ozone depletion. Refs can be got from the article itself, but I wouldn't know which ones.

That leaves Economics, Mitigation, and Controversy, all of which strike me as somewhat underweight. I know we need to let blue links do their work, but we should still provide sufficient descriptions here. We have a one sentence intro to the Kyoto Protocol, for instance; a couple more sentences on its reception and (lack of) implementation would be appropriate. Marskell 09:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I expanded Mitigation. Kyoto is now a short paragraph rather than one sentence. I don't think this is excessively long. Also, emissions trading deserves a mention IMO. Marskell 14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before in my edit summaries, but not in the talk page, I still believe Ozone and ocean acidification should be in the effects section. Very simple concept. ~ UBeR 22:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In the case of ozone there's not a clear cause-effect dichotomy, because ozone has a role in the radiation balance. See the section "Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." Raymond Arritt 22:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. My reason being is that if we're going to write "Additional anticipated effects include . . . reductions in the ozone layer," in the Effects section, we ought to explain in more detail what's going on here. Of course, ocean acidification is self-explanatory, I believe. ~ UBeR 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Economics and controversy

The controversy section seems very odd to me. It's too short, but at the same time it's naming names, which seems over-specific. Any suggestions on something fuller?

Economics is also a very short section. Can we give two sentences to the Stern report? And perhaps one or two on how the economics of the issue is often politicized? We ought to mention what gets mentioned a lot elsewhere.

With these two sections looked over, one outstanding issue on the FAR will be solved. Marskell 14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You could expand the Stern Report is you would also expand on the criticism of it. ~ UBeR 22:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a bit to the section. Again, nothing lengthy, but it's now less of a stub. Marskell 09:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A few more

All attempts to get "a few" replaced with something more descriptive of the linked article have been shot down based on reference #4[6]. I would suggest that this reference be removed from its current location, on the grounds that the source is being improperly referenced to begin with.

The source reads "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Indestrial Revolution", which is being used to justify the word "few" in the line "...and a few individual scientists also disagree with parts of [the IPCC's conclusions]."

The only connection between the source and the quote from the article is the word "few"; the source does not list any names, as the placement of reference #4, at the end of the sentence, implies that it should.

The article should be altered so that reference #4 is either removed, or placed directly after #'s 2 and 3 (where it is actually somewhat relevant, in that it confirms the AAPG's stance on AGW). This would allow for "a few" to be finally (and appropriately) edited to reflect the link in question (I would again suggest "several"). --64.222.222.25 10:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Your premise, "the source does not list any names, as the placement of reference #4, at the end of the sentence, implies that it should." is unsupported, hence I cannot embrace your conclusion or recommended course of action. --Skyemoor 11:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported? I don't understand. Have you read the source? It in no way justifies the insistence on the term "a few" as used in this article. Please read the relevant portion of the source, immediately followed by that of the article. It should then become quite clear to you. --64.222.222.25 11:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is what you're saying that more than only a few believe that incorrect? Aaron Bowen 11:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this list of scientists help? [[7]] ^rossnixon 11:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the correct term here is comparatively few. Of course, you can come up with a list. You can probably increase the one you've got. But it would still be dwarfed by "all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries".[8] Marskell 12:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Few," as used in the source, is wholly negative (e.g., "there are only a few who disagree"), yet it is being referenced as justification for insisting on the term "a few" in the article, where the word is used in a grudgingly positive light (e.g., "there are a few who disagree").

The placement of the reference number at the end of the sentence implies that the source substantiates the entire sentence, which it clearly does not, since the latter half of the sentence exists to not only mention the fact that there are dissenters, but to link to a list of [several / many / some / a number of / comparatively few / insert a descriptor we can all agree on here] of them. If the source could be properly used to justify the insistence on using the word "few," that would be the place to reference it (directly after that word). But this is not the case, as outlined above.

I again suggest that reference #4 be placed after #3 (if anywhere), as it [briefly] touches on the claim made by the first half of the sentence, and that "a few" be replaced with a proper descriptor of the linked article. --64.222.222.25 12:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. By the way, as a friendly suggestion, I also hope you get a user ID, so that you can really jump into this discussion, and the editing process, as a full user. Thanks for your great input. --Sm8900 14:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! None of the account benefits appeal to me, however. Editing this article might be nice, but waiting four days to do so, only to be insta-reverted, would be like counting the days till Christmas only to find a lump of coal in my stocking. My IP only changes if I power-down my modem, which I rarely do. And I'm sure I'll have lost the will to go on by the time the next power outage changes it involuntarily. So until then, I am very sincerely, --64.222.222.25 14:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there are other areas (besides the Global Warming controversy) where you can contribute to the encyclopeia? After all, at any given time, only a very small percentage of our content is protected or even semi-protected?

Atlant 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage 64 to rethink getting an account. It's minimal effort (expended just once), and the Watchlist alone is worth it. But it is, of course, your decision. --Stephan Schulz 14:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am of the same view. You only have to wait the delay once. Further, I feel that editing with an account name is usually seen as more credible than editing with an IP, which are more than often regarded with some "skepticism". --Childhood's End 18:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But this is the fault of those who place undo weight on e-rep and tenure @ Wikipedia. The content of words is greater than the alias behind them. --64.222.222.25 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, having a user name doesn't mean you have to use it. it just means that when you wish to, you can log in. you can still use your IP address to your heart's content. it simply menas that once you obtain an ID, after 4 days, you can do edits should the neeed arise at all. thanks. --Sm8900 18:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a fair enough point, and I really can't argue with it. I have a feeling that I'm being baited into witnessing a firsthand demonstration of who's in charge here (not by you, but by others who clearly will not like my edits and want to put me in my place officially), but I'll assume good faith and register an account. See you in four days! --64.222.222.25 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's a misunderstanding. You can edit with the same rights and priviledges than now during the waiting period. Only the additional power to edit semi-protected items will take (about) 4 days. --Stephan Schulz 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Argumentative statement? "Stratospheric warming has not been observed."

In the solar variation section these sentences appear, which are apparently intended to be an argument to support a conclusion:

• "A difference between this mechanism and greenhouse warming is that an increase in solar activity should produce a warming of the stratosphere while greenhouse warming should produce a cooling of the stratosphere. Stratospheric warming has not been observed."

However, the Haigh does not assert or argue that a lack of warming in the stratosphere would argue against a solar contribution to the recent warming. In fact, the paper does not even cover the first half of a century when the rise in solar activity to the current plateau would have occurred. The stratosphere responds quickly to increases in solar activity, and the little variation in solar activity in the last half century would probably have been dominated by other influences. Further warming of the stratosphere would not have been expected. The two statements above are manufacturing an argument that the author (Haigh) is not making on an issue she is not addressing. These are at least partially unsupported statements and partially original research. Is there another reference that can support the above statements?--Africangenesis 11:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Another diagnostic study

An "Intercomparison of the northern hemisphere winter mid-latitude atmospheric variability of the IPCC models" by Lucarini, et al, appears to have found serious problems with the AR4 models. Here is the final line of the abstract, and the full text article:

• "This study suggests serious caveats with respect to the ability of most of the presently available climate models in representing the statistical properties of the global scale atmospheric dynamics of the present climate and, a fortiori, in the perspective of modelling climate change. " [9]

And this excerpt from the conclusion:

• " In particular, when considering the total variability of the wave fields of the GCMs, we have that the biases on the intraseasonal and interannual variability are positively linearly correlated: for larger average signals the variability tend to be larger. When considering the process-oriented metrics, we have that the baroclinic waves are typically overestimated by the climate models, while the planetary waves are usually underestimated. This closely resembles the results of many diagnostic studies performed in the past on global weather forecasting models (Tibaldi, 1986). The climatologies of the wave activity of only two models – GFDL-CM2.1 and MIROC(hires) - are statistically consistent with that of the reanalyses both for the global and process-oriented metrics."

Note, that once again correlated error has been found, that results in a bias, even in the meta-ensembles. The good news is that two of the models have done well. Elsewhere in the paper, the model used by Hansen, et al, in his 2005 Science paper, GISS-ER, did not fare very well.--Africangenesis 14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the abstract for the publication, I don't know if the above full text represents the final version. [10]--Africangenesis 14:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again. It's not "the abstract for the publication", it's a conference abstract. Raymond Arritt 15:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again?? I don't know where that comes from. Thanx for the correction.--Africangenesis 15:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Followup, it looks like it has been accepted for publication in Climate Dynamics, but I can't tell if it has been officially published yet. I guess I didn't discover this paper, it is all over the internet. Roesch could have made statements as strong or stronger, but didn't, at least in the abstract or conclusion, leaving the implications for the credibility of the models to the reader.--Africangenesis 15:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

FAR + link farm + "Contrasting with this view..."

The last issues on the FA review are slowly being worked through. UBER's ref formatting tidy-up is especially good. I have just cut the See also to the glossary alone. I think this is a simple solution—nothing left to revert war over. With a global warming Cat, template, and glossary, we don't need a link farm here. The same should also be done for the external links section.

There are two cite requests and one clarify in the article. The one that absolutely must be cited in my opinion is:

"Contrasting with this view, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain some of the observed increase in global temperatures, including: the warming is within the range of natural variation; the warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period, namely the Little Ice Age; or the warming is primarily a result of variances in solar radiation."

In fact, I'd say each of the individual hypotheses should have its own cite. Anyone? Marskell 09:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

global warming controversy I suspect William M. Connolley 09:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, the proposed statement itself violates WP:NPOV in giving undue weight to a tiny minority scientific opinion. How many notable scientists support any one of those? At a minimum, the sentence should read;

' Contrasting with the scientific consensus, minority hypotheses have been proposed to explain some of the observed increase in global temperatures, including:

I agree with William Connelley, the best link for this is GWC. --Skyemoor

I'm not disputing that it gives undue weight and you can change the phrasing if you like. I'm only saying that if we list them we have to source them, and not just to an internal blue link. I'll look through GWC for refs. Good God, we have a lot of redundant pages around this topic. Marskell 10:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That because people here are inclined to create POV forks. ~ UBeR 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? So you're saying you feel there's too much inclusion of alternate views and topics? it's hard for me to get a read on where you are on this issue. differing with specific sub-topics is one thing, but now you seem to be generally against overly diverse sub-topics in general? I thought you felt differently on this? --Sm8900 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, at least partially. Marskell 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just to get it all done can someone cite "not strong" in relation to ozone depletion. Marskell 13:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Kim D. Petersen 19:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Global warming only about the last three decades, or about the whole last century to century and a half? If the latter, a natural and solar contribution to "some" of warming is not a minority or weight issue at all. There is no controversy about a solar/natural contribution at all. The amount might be in controversy, but there is also no controversy that the amount is poorly understood.

Are we limiting "Global warming" to the last three decades? The contribution of land use changes is not controversial. Although the publication of the analysis is recent, the idea that the albedo change from the restoration of the temperate evergreen forests make a warming contribution that exceeds the benefit from their sequestration of carbon is likely to be accepted, is it not entitled to "some" of the contribution? The slight recovery of solar output from the slight mid-century dip, also will be allowed by most scientists to have made a contribution, even if some other mechanism such as aerosols likely accounts for most of the midcentury dip or pause in the warming trend.

Perhaps also, the IPCC can be used as a supporting citation, or is it original research to note that "Most...very likely", leaves room for "some". --Africangenesis 14:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to start off with attribution of recent climate change if you're primarily interested in attribution. But in either case, you're better off quoting text from refs rather than your own paraphrase William M. Connolley 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

While we're all talking here, does anyone have a better section for Controversy and politics? I'll just repeat that it seems much too brief and over-specific at the same time. I'd suggest a sentence or two on developing versus developed world debate. Marskell 20:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest we allow this article to evolve through the inclusion of many diverse contributions, and topics. That is the best way to see it flourish, no matter how bumpy that process may occasionally be sometimes. --Sm8900 13:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with adding much to the controversy section is that most of the controversy is in the US and Canada; the other industrialized nations, now including Australia, are taking steps, with the latter not yet part of a larger accord like Kyoto but charting mitigation solutions. While there is alway some political disagreement on the details, the EU has for the most part settled the direction they are taking, with any 'controversy' centered around how far to go (i.e., 80% cuts? 60% cuts?). If there was an article on US and Canadian controversy, then you would have a point, though there would still be the issue of globalization in the GW article summary. --Skyemoor 12:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sm, thats an insightful comment. I look forward to you chiding people for worrying too much about "small" and so on. Oh look - you have a chance to do so just below. Have at 'em William M. Connolley 12:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Small again

Uber removed "small" [11] on the grounds that "A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphereinterdecadal temperature variability [from pre-Idustrial to 1950] is very likely attributable to . . ." vol/sol". There are two probs with this: first, "sig" probably means stat sig, not sig in the everyday sense of large. Secondly, its "sig frac" - so even if you use "sig" to mean "large" its only a "large fraction" - no comment is made as to the size of the change itself. And third, "pre-ind to present" (or 1950) (as used in the GW intro) means the 1750/1860 type times to PD - for which the SPM table-2 shows solar forcing as about 1/10 of GHG forcing William M. Connolley 21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this solved with an adverb? "Comparatively small"? Or perhaps "statistically significant...but comparatively small..." Marskell 22:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this is the intro, we don't want to get into excess qualification William M. Connolley 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. I was misunderstanding. But then again, as you say, if there's no mention of size change, then perhaps we shouldn't mention it either. ~ UBeR 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A single adverb isn't excess qualification. As I read it, people are saying it's not absolutely "small." But it's small in comparison to anthropogenic change. So put an adverb in. I don't like "relatively", because people misuse it so often. Marskell 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

All subjectivity, especially if it isn't in the source, should be avoided. ~ UBeR 22:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

NREP poll

Blue Tie has added a reference to an NREP poll, i have a question about that: Where exactly in this poll does it say that "Polling shows that 41% of Accredited Environmental Professionals ... disagree with parts of them"? I've searched the text for all occurances of "41" and the 2 hits that do show up doesn't fit. How are you getting to this conclusion? --Kim D. Petersen 08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was a bizarre reading of the link. Marskell 08:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if I erred, I am willing to correct it. Here is what I read:

The causes of global warming

• 59 percent respond that current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Blue Tie (talk • contribs).

Then you are conducting WP:OR here (and i expect you to self-revert) - the 41% would include people who are answering blank (ie. have no opinion). In effect you are citing soemthing that the survey doesn't say. --Kim D. Petersen 08:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To point out one obvious problem with your method, you are inferring the negative result with out a complete breakdown. It might be, for instance, 59% yes, 20% no, and 21% uncertain. In any case, it's obvious statistical cherry-picking. Marskell 08:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think I might see what you mean. Give me a bit to review first, because I think I read somewhere else where your view would not be the case. --Blue Tie 08:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again, as blatantly misleading - quite apart from M's point above William M. Connolley 08:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's a coincidence. I have just discovered this on the talk page after adding in the "59%" quote! I had seen that the original quote did not match the reference, but that the reference was a good poll source. I still do not see how the 59% quote is invalid though.

Sigh. Its blatantly undue weight, as well as an inaccurate summary of the poll. We cannot fill the lead of the article up with this stuff. I forsee a tedious edit war over this, followed by the skeptics going to the FARC and saying "see! its not stable! we keep starting edit wars!" William M. Connolley 10:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We still don't know the breakdown (it's unfortunate they would only publish one figure on that statistic). If you don't know the % DK/Neutral responses, whether it was scale or list etc., it is indeed misleading; and that 82% consider "global warming a real, measurable, climatic trend currently in effect" is elided in your sentence. Further, it's self-published, not journal submitted. And finally, the whole thing serves to reinforce American systemic bias, which is already a problem with this article: it's not 59% of "Accredited Environmental Professionals" but 59% of American Accredited Environmental Professionals out of not quite 800 surveyed. Marskell 11:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And who are these people anyway? William M. Connolley 12:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There's more info at the NREP site: [12] - of the 793 respondents, a fairly large proportion seem to be management. Hal peridol 12:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oversimplifying just a little, they fill in forms. They mostly deal with applying for permits, keeping records, and the like. See the sample question on their FAQ. Raymond Arritt 12:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This poll could perhaps go in somewhere, but certainly not in the lead. There is also an interesting article in the latest New Statesman, of a MORI opinion poll: "Of those who had heard of it, half thought it was at least partly a natural process". "There is growing scepticism that any of it is true, and the dissenting voices are getting louder". Again I dont think this belongs in this article but perhaps it could go in one of the related ones. Paul Matthews 13:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A few individual scientists

The quote that "A few individual scientists" in the first section, should probably go. The reference is unattributed and does not quantify "a few". Someone should be able to find a better quality reference perhaps? ^rossnixon 09:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have agreed for a while. The reference is to the editorial (proponents refuse to accept that a statement is an editorial) which inexplicably says "few". --Blue Tie 10:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is the same old discussion that comes up again and again and always with the same result William M. Connolley 10:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above by 64.222..., the citation is entirely bogus, since the statement here in the wiki article is " a few disagree with part of it" while the citation says "few doubt that humans have influenced". These are quite different statements. For example, I myself have no doubt that human activity has influenced the rise in temperature, but I disagree with parts of the IPCC report. This is only one of many completely bogus citations that discredit this article. Paul Matthews 13:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as repeating previous discussion goes, that was a good start. Anyone else want to say the same things all over again? William M. Connolley 13:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

William, it is said, over and over again, by different people because it is a problem. It does not meet wikipedia standards. Saying that it has been discussed before is not the same thing as recognizing the problem or working to fix it. Indeed, you seem to aggressively work to retain the problem. --Blue Tie 11:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done, that was pretty good too William M. Connolley 12:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

William, here's another one: I agree with Blue Tie, as usual. I suggest we try to keep this somewhat serious, and respectful of each other's statements, shall we? Thanks. --Sm8900 13:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet another loop. To be serious, whats the point of having exactly the same discussion all over again - look, I can do it too! William M. Connolley 14:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, there's nothing wrong with going on the record occasionally, just to restate that an existing issue is still in dispute, even if it was already covered previously. I take your point about repeating discussion, and I see nothing wrong with you making that point, of course, but I feel there is a legitimate reason for raising topics in this manner. --Sm8900 14:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that WP:CON describes discussion as the mechanism for consensus. So it is part of wikipedia policy to discuss these issues. That it keeps coming up, over and over, is an indication that it is a problem and should change. In my opinion, when you have such problems, it is often over adjectives and adverbs. These may make writing colorful, but removing them can improve neutrality. Just remove the word "few" from the sentence and the problem goes away without giving undue support to any position. I have recommended this previously, but some people think that neutrality gives too much credibility to one pov or the other. To me, this is the fundamental problem with this and many other climate change articles: The widespread opposition to neutrality based upon the weird claim that it lends too much weight in one direction.

What William appears to be saying here and many other similar posts is that he supports that view and his mind is made up and he cannot see any benefit to engaging in a conversation where there is no chance that he will change his views. I have to agree that in the face of intransigence, discussion is not useful.--Blue Tie 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement is somewhat contradictory to the citation. And "few" is both vague and relative. As we saw in previous discussion, many people have thought this language biased. I agree, it should be changed. I also find it amusing the Connolley wants to ignore further discussion simply because this has been discussed before. The previous discussion didn't bring about a definite result, and if it did, please direct me to it. As far as I see, "few" is an indefinite term that can vary quite a bit. I also agree with something stated much earlier on this page. There needs to be more discernment between 'scientists' and scientists who are actually qualified to speak on the matter. For instance, if these scientists who disagree are zoologists, their opinion hardly deserves to even be mentioned. --124.157.168.8 13:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Some discernment should also be made between scientists who support the whole IPCC reports and those who simply not oppose them. It is easily forgotten that there may be no scientist in the world who is scientifically knowledgeable about all the areas covered by the IPCC reports, which means that none can actually support them in whole. --Childhood's End 14:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"almost all of whom are not climate scientists"

This statement appears to be original research, perhaps based upon a personal analysis. Climate science is a multidisciplinary field, with physicists, chemists, geologists, oceanography, astronomy, biologists, etc, all publishing research in the area. What definition of "climate scientist" is being used? --Africangenesis 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

People who regularly publish articles on climate science in the leading peer reviewed journals. If you had thirty or more dissenting climate scientists instead of the two or three, you would have a steady stream of skeptical peer reviewed articles in journals like Science and Nature. The study by Oreskes rules this out. Count Iblis 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So your definition of a climate scientist is someone that includes "climate change" in their abstract, and they only question global warming, if they comment upon it in their abstract. Adapting these Oreiskes criteria to become a new definition of "climate scientist", would still appear to be original research.--Africangenesis 15:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your basis for adding this information to the article? An assumption relying on the fact that you haven't seen many articles about the matter. I'm sorry, but if that's how you conduct your editing, you don't belong here. --124.157.168.8 15:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

124.157.168.8, Africangenesis, there aren't that many peer reviewed studies about climate science research. But it is rather trivial to see that there is almost no dissent to the consensus position in the climate science community. If there are a few physicists who think that Einstein was wrong about special relativity, then how would we mention that fact in the Special Relativity article? That there are "some" physicists who dispute this theory, just because no one actually did a peer reviewed study to actually verify that there are only a few? Count Iblis 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Examine General Relativity for a better example. There is not a lot of discussion of polls, or whether or not someone is a cosmologist.--Africangenesis 15:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And General Relativity also doesn't bother with mentioning how "some scientists disagree" (and there are scientists who disagree). At times I feel the best cure for this edit warring over "few" could be best resolved by simply dropping any sentences trying to quantify acceptance one way or the other (since however it is done it is apparently contentious). If you can't say it in a manner that is reasonable, don't say it at all. -- Leland McInnes 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the evidence for alternative hypotheses, and the problems with the arriving at a proportion of anthropogenic attribution, should just be presented on their merits. Problematic model based future projections should not be in the introduction.--Africangenesis 15:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly that leads to WP:Undue_weight - again see all of the previous discussions. --Kim D. Petersen 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence will actually reduce the undue weight given to climate model results. See the IPCC diagnostic subprojects.[13]--Africangenesis 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly does that have to do with the discussion at hand? --Kim D. Petersen 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reset indent. It has to do with focusing on using evidence, rather than numbers and kinds of scientists to assess the weight to be given to particular points. For instance, just because the IPCC used model results in their reports does not negate evidence that the models have errors larger than the warming they are being used to attribute and project. Such evidence will allow the reader to assess the weight to be given to model results on their merits.--Africangenesis 16:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, yet another circle recurs. So I get to say all over again: And when that appears in attribution papers, it will be interesting and reportable. While it remains your pet hobbyhorse, it won't belong here William M. Connolley 17:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The it ain't "in attribution papers" criteria, looks more like a pledge to edit war than a legit wikipedia objection. There are several diagnostic subproject papers confirming the surface albedo issue, the Roesch paper quantifies it. Yes, they won't be attribution papers, who would do attribution knowing there were such errors in the models? Hopefully the next attribution papers will be based upon improved models. The papers used won't be cloud physics papers, sea ice papers or aerosol papers, either, but they will be papers supporting the statements giving proper weight to the evidence, there is nothing special about attribution papers, except perhaps they are unusually dependent on model credibility, a dependence you can perhaps edit war about, but not contrary evidence, that I can find. I will be happy to consider any evidence you find.--Africangenesis 18:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "climate scientists"

Coming back to Africangenesis's first concern with the above-mentioned statement, it has been shown previously that "climate scientists" is weasel wording and should be avoided (see this discussion). As it has been pointed out, there is no precise definition of 'climate scientist'. This vague phrase is spin used to give a false sense of authority to some climate-related statements, while avoiding to attribute the opinion to any identifiable source. As of now, any geologist, ecologist, physicist and so on, who's work brings him to study some aspect of the climate is a "climate scientist" and included in the "authority". This is obviously misleading. Also, as Africangenesis pointed it out, "climate science" (another weasel-word, imho) is a multidisciplinary field. There is no science of climate, unless by this you mean climatology (then that's the right word and it should be used). A geologist is a geologist is a geologist, no matter if his work brings him to study some aspect of the climate or not. A gelogist does not become, like this, a scientist specialized in climate as a whole like this, as this weasel-wording can imply, and he cannot support the IPCC reports in whole. --Childhood's End 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would offer a NASA definition of climatology [14];

"This term has two meanings. The basic meaning is the science or study of the climate. The second meaning, which is used within the MY NASA DATA project, is a long-term average of a variable in the Earth system. For weather-related information, at least a 30-year average is preferred."

To resolve the issue of 'climate scientist', a more appropriate term would be 'scientists engaged in climate research'. --Skyemoor 15:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed first sentence change

The current first sentence is:

• "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."

I propose to change it to:

• "Global warming is the increasing average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and the hypothesis that it will continue."

The main change is to reduce this sentence's dependence on the models. Presumably there is a hypothesis of continued global warming inspired by the recent trend, and the continuing increases in GHGs, whether we currently have models capable of credibly projecting it or not. Given the complexity of the climate system, specific projections are usually model based.--Africangenesis 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with either "increase in" or "increasing," as I don't see much a difference. I think, given the the expected continuation of GHG emissions, it is assumed temperatures will continue to rise. So you got an assumptions based off an expectation, which is overall pretty intuitive, and not necessarily dependent on models. That's my view. ~ UBeR 17:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with this edit candidate. Climatology uses modeling as a primary projection tool, so any attempt to separate modeling from climatology is puzzling, to say the least. If you are looking for an acknowledgement of uncertainty, 'projection' is inherently so. --Skyemoor 17:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but it is more than just a "hypothesis" that it will continue. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My proposal might be too generic, since the significant solar forcing hypothesis also has the warming continuing for another cycle or more, although perhaps less unidirectional with more allowance for internal variation than the IPCC. The global warming movement hypothesis might be better stated: "The anthropogenic component of the warming is so dominent over other influences that the warming trend will continue unabated reaching levels of serious concern, unless mankind takes significant measures, or unless unusual levels of volcanic and solar activity intervene." The solar hypothesis would be "The anthropogenic component of the warming is overweighted in the models, internal variation and solar activity may account for enough of the warming, that the warming is likely to reverse or significantly moderate relative to current model projections when the current plateau of solar activity subsides."--Africangenesis 19:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not stray into giving undue weight to small minority opinions. --Skyemoor 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not give weight to any opinions, just stick to the evidence.--Africangenesis 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV as an answer to your above statement. And note that original research is precluded here at WP. See WP:OR. --Skyemoor 11:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Africangenesis' edit seems a bit wordy, but otherwise, I think it is more precise. I think that the sentence needs more work than that though.--Blue Tie 11:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The prior effort to define the lead sentence took quite a bit of time and involvement to resolve. Unless there are significantly more editors that establish a consensus of the above, the current language should remain. --Skyemoor 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, enough talk about prior consensuses, and "how long the section is getting." here's a radical idea: how abouyt if someone wants to add new valid information, we just let it be. How does that sound? And I suggest we stop suppressing and removing others' ideas just because we deem a section to be too long. We need to try being respectful of others' ideas here. --Sm8900 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Longevity of CO2

I restored text that mentioned the well known fact that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries (unless consumed by plant life). Methane is another matter, of course. --Skyemoor 11:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Commitment stuff

Re recent small changes and revert [15] - I think the problem here is that future warming reflects *both* the long lifetime of CO2 and the large effective heat capacity of the ocean. I'm reluctant to see this section get too long though... however the link to the long atmos lifetime of CO2 is useful William M. Connolley 11:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that future warming reflects both, but the statement was about future sea level rise even with *stabilized* GHGs, according to the supporting IPCC SPM reference. There should be someplace in the article for the longer lifetime of CO2, which is a legitimate contibuter to concerns arising from the AGW hypothesis. It just wasn't relevant in the context of stabilized GHGs. --Africangenesis 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Only after you edited it to say so [16] William M. Connolley 15:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the original statement was completely unsupported. At no place in the document is there discussion of the scenerio where *no further greenhouse gases are released*, i.e., only sinks for GHGs and no further sources. Both methane and CO2 levels will start declining, admittedly methane faster than CO2 due to CO2s longer lifetime. Are you aware of projections of sea level rise under this unlikely scenerio? I am not aware of this scenerio being explored even in other literature.--Africangenesis 16:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Africangenesis - I believe the SPM statement is stronger than just for stabilized GHGs, i.e. "Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere. {7.3, 10.3}" (p.17), which seems to have the meaning that even for zero future emissions, the past emissions will continue to contribute... Hal peridol 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement is in the context of further emissions, not *no further...emissions*. This scenerio is one rapid trip to an ice age.--Africangenesis 16:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No: even in the absence of any emissions, atmos levels stay high for a long time William M. Connolley 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You need another source then. The SPM does not support this. --Africangenesis 16:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement that past emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise seems plain. How is it that you are reading this in the opposite manner? It's analogous to taking your foot of the gas of a car; it will continue rolling to a stop, it will not stop abruptly.Hal peridol 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we have not yet reached equilibrium with respect to current CO2 levels. So if we stop anthropogenic emissions now, CO2 levels will drop slowly, while the Earth will keep up warming. At some future point, temperature equilibrium will be reached. CO2 will continue to fall, and there will be a negative radiative forcing, so that temperature will then start to fall again. --Stephan Schulz 16:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reset indent. It depends one what one means by a long time. The half life of methane in the atmosphere is on the order of a decade. It is more akin to turning off the water faucet in a tub with an open drain. The water level starts droppng immediately. Yes, Stephan, temperatures may rise for a few years yet, but the methane drop will quickly drop net GHG effects below equilibrium levels. But this is hardly a scenerio where the sea level rise continues for centuries, which is text unders discussion. Methanes contribution, while less than CO2s is still significant, there is not unrealized climate commitment without it.--Africangenesis 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe my latest text should satisfy, since the lifetime reference is retained, and is correct in its new location.--Africangenesis 18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. --Stephan Schulz 18:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

removed the ad hominem fallacy material from intro

We need to clean up the intro. The ad hominem appeals to authority, to the extent there is any validity to it, can be elsewhere in the article, perhaps just as other pages to check out. There is no evidence that the other societies endorsing the IPCC position, did so based on consideration of any different evidence. While it is also good to know that some (a few?) scientists have stated reasons to disagree with the IPCC conclusions, perhaps the reasoning and evidence they put forward can be handled in the appropriate sections.--Africangenesis 22:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I have read ad hominem. The appeal to authority is the one of the argument in favor forms of the fallacy. You state that we need it. Do we need it in the intro, it gives this scientific article a very POV pusher feel. Why not mention some evidence instead, unless that is weak? --Africangenesis 22:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the 30 societies endorsed the TAR statement and not the conclusions, they are being cited for here.--Africangenesis 22:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) I think you're actually thinking of the appeal to authority (ad hominem is an argument by personal attack). We could debate the status of expert opinions in argument (most argument, in fact, is not strict deduction), but that is not immediately relevant. Since Wikipedia reports on the views of authorities on a topic, I see nothing wrong with it. --TeaDrinker 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No the fallacy has forms that have nothing to do with personal attack. Consider the ad hominem argument that one should use a product because a celebrity has endorsed it. It is an argument by appeal to persons rather than to the merits.--Africangenesis 23:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for the general interest, an argument by "by appeal to persons rather than to the merits" is called an appeal to authority. The ad hominem argument is different. But the terminology is not what is at issue. I think it is perfectly valid for Wikipedia to indicate the views of experts, that is more or less what we do. --TeaDrinker 23:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I see my generalization of ad hominem was incorrect, the favorable ad hominem fallacies, go by the own names "appeal to authority", "appeal to celebrity", my bad.--Africangenesis 23:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan. This information is among the first and most fundamental sought by the general reader, and it does a disservice to stick it somewhere else. I know A is of a different opinion as to the value of a scientific consensus (and indeed is trying to problematize the very concept), but what "most" scientists who are studying the issue think about GW is of great interest to the general reader. The article should serve their needs as well, not merely those of scientists. I think this disconnect reflects a different conception of what the value of "consensus" is; the term has a different value in terms of the scientific debate, but in terms of how science gets translated into policy, consensus is highly relevant and appropriate. A is also going overboard with the adhominem thing -- this is used, with justification all the time in the "real world" (not to make an invidious comparison, but eg., criminal witnesses are not accorded the same credibility as in giving legal testimony). Don't take this the wrong way, this is not a personal attack, just pointing out the limited utility of ad hominem/appeal to authority. TD is right. Arjuna 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your right, but "expert testimony" might be a better analogy. Still, does this need need to be in the intro? Doesn't the misuse of the statements of the societies in support of the TAR by applying them to the FAR SPM statement need correction?--Africangenesis 23:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A feeble point, but a point. I've changed it to "basic conclusions", which, at the level of abstraction we are talking, have been stable since before the TAR. --Stephan Schulz 23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Wikipedia allows for such fallacies, and I don't argue against them. (Almost anything from a reliable source is allowed, given there aren't ownership issues.) Perhaps though, it shouldn't be in the intro. I don't know. "It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition." ~ UBeR 00:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Slight expansion of Controversy, politics

I have added a para on the global emissions debate to make for a fuller section. I understand the desire to keep focused on the science; this is a small addition and covers one base that a reader would expect to find in our intro to the topic. I'm pleased with the last four sections now—much less stubbish. Marskell 08:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Increased awareness of the scientific findings surrounding global warming has precipitated much political, economic, and academic debate. Very vague and overly encompassing. Where is the 'much debate'? U.S. and Canada, primarily, since Australia is now reeling in drought and has dropped it's intransigent anti-AGW stance. And the insertion of academic debate is misleading; the consensus is clear. This section is primarily focused on the US and Canada, and need globalization.

At the global level, the relative roles and responsibilities of the developing and developed areas of the world have been controversial. To which countries? This is redundant to the sentence At the same time, developing world exemptions from provisions of the Kyoto treaty have been criticized by the United States and been used as part of its justification for continued non-ratification and can be therefore be removed, especially since this is a summary. --Skyemoor 12:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Very vague and overly encompassing"—I'd call it a topic sentence. *Shrugs*. I added academic b/c I was considering the Oreskes call-and-response in the sub-article. I didn't add it, ultimately.

The political debate is not confined to Canada and the US, quite obviously. Marskell 13:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that the better edit would have been to change "Canada and US" to "Worldwide". --Blue Tie 13:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, vague and general. How could you support such a statement? This is supposed to be summary of GWC, and there is no support there for such a statement. --Skyemoor

Note the climate researcher's praise for keeping the political controversy out of most portions of the article. If anything, we need to cut more from this summary. --~~

There is a debate everywhere, but only in the US is the science itself a main subject of the debate. This is not the case in other parts of the world. There the debate is more focussed on what best to do about Global Warming. Count Iblis 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How and why would you want to support such a statement. There are scientists participating in the debate on the science from several countries. Much of the scientific research is funded by the U.S., so it would be natural for most of the debate to take place there. Several of the realclimate.org authors are not based in the US, yet are still participants in the debate. I'm sure Connelley can confirm this. The fact that the web site is hosted in the U.S. would seem to be of minor import.--Africangenesis 17:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this sentence for discussion here; One method to address this has been emission trading, in which a nation is permitted a certain level of industrial emissions; it can gain further allowances by buying them from countries with excess unused allowances. It explains one approach at mitigation, which intrinsically belongs in the mitigation subarticle. --Skyemoor 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What does "intrinsically belongs" mean in this context? Having it here or having it there is not an either/or. Anyhow, it has a sentence under mitigation, which is sufficient. Marskell 17:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I agree with removing the bit about editing reports, warning off scientists etc. as over-specific here. But I think the Chinese government stance needs a sentence. It's set to be the largest emitter this year, apparently. And its per capita total is not a "fraction" (in the figure of speech sense) of the U.S.'s, but somewhere between a fifth and a quarter. Marskell 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1/4 to 1/5 is a fraction, but I agree we should be more specific. I'll update this section, though the subarticle needs syncing with this reference. --Skyemoor 18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Note my parantheses. Marskell 18:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Marksell. China expected exceed U.S. in total emissions of GHGs by 2010 and India soon after, I believe. ~ UBeR 18:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. My thought was to provide basic information on the more fundamental prominent measures which shape the basic debate. emissions trading is the fundamental process which serves as a guidelline for emissions controls by most major international bodies. so that's why I included it. my goal is to provide basic data on the most prominent concepots which an average user might need to know. i agree that we should not try to list every single mitigation procedure or method. So I hope that that is helpful to the question. --Sm8900 18:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

you're correct, it is in the mitigation section. didn't see it before. thanks. --Sm8900 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

When considering the effect of solar radiation the article Confuses two completly seperate solar effects those between solar heat radiation(solar luminosity) and solar winds effect on cosmic radiation

""Solar flares generate storms of solar-magnetic flux that partially shield the Earth from cosmic radiation. Evidence suggests that this cosmic radiation promotes cloud formation, either by ionizing the atmosphere, or by affecting the atmosphere’s electrical circuit. Thus high levels of solar wind have the effect of blowing away the cloud cover, giving the Earth a sunburn. Add that solar activity has been very high since the 1940's, and the slight global warming observed since the mid 70's could easily be due to this effect.

None of the global warming alarmists take this effect into account. All of the recent alarmist studies are based on the GCMs (General Circulation Models) employed by the IPCC (the International Panel on Climate Change). These IPCC GCMs have never included the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Back in 1996, at the time of the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report, this omission was marginally tenable. Sunspots generate a slight increase in solar luminosity (the relatively cool spots are surrounded by super-hot “faculae”) but this increase in radiance is not enough to create significant global warming. The correlation between sunspots and cloudiness was also known, but since no one had any idea what the causal link might be, they did not built it into their models. "" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.143.219.194 (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

And this is on the authority of whom? And the implications are what? I'm sure you can provide pointers to peer-reviewes articles discussing this issue.--Stephan Schulz 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This variation in cloud cover from cosmic ray variation could explain climate variations. Where as the variation in solar luminosity alone could not due to the lack of expected stratosphere temperature variations. So its an issue of stressing the first more likely possibility, rather than the latter.

Variations of cosmic ray flux and global cloud cover, Observations and Correlations, Scientific response on critics , Journal of atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics, 1997

similar work is also cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation Effects on clouds —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.143.219.194 (talk • contribs).

Aha, this is Svensmark et al. Their work is rather tentative, and much of it has been refuted/disputed. While they have published a pop-sci book, not much has been accepted by the scientific community. See [17] for a discussion and additional references. In short, the claimed corellation is not there, and the mechanisms are unconvincing. --Stephan Schulz 12:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Some good news about our article!

From the Denver Post:

http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_5786064

Grading Wikipedia

By Michael Booth

Denver Post Staff Writer

...

To try a more objective test than my own need to find Martin Scorsese's birthdate, The Denver Post asked five Colorado scholars to review the Wikipedia entries on Islam, Bill Clinton, global warming, China and evolution.

...

On the much-debated topic of global warming, Colorado State University's Scott Denning called the Wikipedia entry "a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia. Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen," said Denning, the Monfort Professor of Atmospheric Science.

Denning said he was pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy." Students who want to study up on the controversy, however, find plenty of links if they want them. Denning wishes Wikipedia offered better links to basic weather science. "Apparently there is still a role for real textbooks and professors!" he said.

...

(posted by Atlant 12:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Although I have problems with the article, that's a very nice report. --Blue Tie 13:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This indeed confirms our approach to minimize political controversy in this article. --Skyemoor

Or, alternatively, that the small amount of politics and other topics which some finally did agree to include did not even slightly detract from the quality of the article. Anyway, whatever the result, glad to hear that we got some recognition. Good group effort, everyone. Thanks. --Sm8900 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, that those reviewing the articles agreed with the politics, and failed to recognize the statements as poorly supported by the evidence.--Africangenesis 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, Wikipedia! Where we can take lemonade and turn it back into lemons!

Atlant 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see the comments by Dr. Denning. ~ UBeR 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations, attributed and expected effects, and Africangenesis

Recently Africangenesis requested citation for dengue fever, and Dr. Arritt supplied one. Most recently, he requested a citation for malaria, but it appears to be in the linked-to article, effects of global warming. The given citation is here. Additionally, the citation Dr. Arritt provided appears at the end of the sentence, perhaps giving the illusions that the reference covers all of the effects listed, when it does not. I suggest that perhaps dengue fever be added to Effects of global warming (along with the ref), so that we may remove the ref from here (for no other reason than its location is deceiving). Additionally, it'd be pretty ridiculous to cite references for every effect listed there. Just read the effects of global warming article, and if there's still something you're not content with, discuss it here on the talk page (or there too). Thanks. ~ UBeR 19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

When I added the dengue fever cite I moved the cn tag to follow malaria (since as you say the cite I provided only covers dengue fever) but somehow the tag got deleted. There were a bunch of edit conflicts while I was working, so I don't know if someone else removed it or if it got lost in one of the ECs. If anyone still thinks a cite is needed it's easy enough to find. Raymond Arritt 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If UBeR reads my edit summaries, the citation needed was not just for dengue fever. There also appears to be a problem with these same issues being redundantly discussed up above in what is presumably the attribution part of the section. The anticipation of the spread of disease, is poorly worded, diseases spread even when the climate is cooling, they're contagious. Presumably what is meant is that the range of certain diseases endemic to certain climates will increase, with the extension of that climate to higher latitudes. We need to get specific here so that this is not just vague fear mongering. This issue does not apply to the mainland US for instance, since tropical diseases are already controlled on the Gulf Coast, and mesquito control is already in place all the way up to New England for West Nile Virus and St. Louis Encephalitis.--Africangenesis 20:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Read effects of global warming. The references are there. We don't have to repeat them on this article if we follow the WP:SUMMARY guidelines. Plus, you can read the TAR. ~ UBeR 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A summarization that generalizes from specifics to something as non-specific as the "spread of disease", distorts the source. Additional, Stephan made the point in an edit summary accompanying a revert that *NOT* all the anticipated effects are model based directly or indirectly. Specific supporting citations would assist in deciding his point. If he knows which are model based, he could assist with clarifying language, rather, than a revert. --Africangenesis 22:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now, we have "Additional anticipated effects include . . . the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue fever." What the effects article states is "Global warming is expected to extend the favourable zones for vectors conveying infectious disease such as malaria and west nile virus." The given source is here, like I stated above. Although it's a pretty shoddy source, it's accepted by many health organizations, such as WHO (of course, it's been criticized by quite a few as well). ~ UBeR 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Two paragraphs above that, without any citations, and both redundant and inferior to the statement you cite, we have "Other expected effects include water scarcity in some regions and increased precipitation in others, changes in mountain snowpack, adverse health effects from warmer temperatures, and the spread of disease." "Expected effects" and "anticipated effects", seem to all be based on expectations based on climate models. So, do you have any problem with the text I proposed, that Stephan reverted? We probably should also eliminate the redundancy.--Africangenesis 01:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To make my "models" remark clear: Ocean acidification depends on CO2 concentration, and not (or only in very minor ways) on the temperature and hence on climate models. Disease vector spreading depends on climate models only indirectly. --Stephan Schulz 06:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I will agree with Africangenesis that the section in question could stand to be condensed to reduce redundancy. However, he/she also needs to read WP:SUMMARY as has been mentioned more than twice to understand the requirement for references in summary sections is not required on the level that it is in the associate subarticle. For example, the subarticle associated with this section is Effects of global warming; there you will find the references you seek. Of course, some people still put some references in the summary, so it is easy for new editors to become confused, understandably. The summary and the subarticle could stand some syncing to remove the summary references. --Skyemoor 13:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

relative vs absolute humidity

In the feedbacks section, there was a confusing reference to a slight increase in humidity as part of the water vapor feedback mechanism. Presumably this is true for absolute humidity, but that would probably confuse the readers, since relative humidity is far more familiar. Futhermore the citation used relative humidity, and found it interesting that it was lower in all the AR4 models. We probably should qualify "humidity" whereever we use it.--Africangenesis 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Swapping to slight dec in RH was even more confusing, though. Inc is the important bit; I dont think it needs to be qualified but it can be if you really want William M. Connolley 08:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To expand, relative humidity measures the percentage of humidity in the air for a given temperature. The hotter the temperature, the more water vapor can be absorbed by air. Absolute humidity, on the other hand measures the amount of water vapor in the air without regard to temperature. --Skyemoor 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Being tediously pedantic, air does not "hold" WV, though the amount of WV does depend on the temperature of the air William M. Connolley 15:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Feedbacks

This article says

cloud feedback is second only to water vapor feedback and is positive in all the models that contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.[17]

First, the report is not yet available online, only the summaries are available ... and this paper.

Second, the sited article says that even though only positive feedbacks were included in the report, no one actually knows the sign or magnitude of these feedbacks ... which is exactly what the Third Assessment Report said. The following is quoted from the last sentence of the summary of the sited article

Our results further indicate that while the change

in cloud forcing may not accurately represent the sign

or magnitude of cloud feedback, ...

Since "cloud feedback" is a major, if not the most important, difference in the available models, I think this uncertainty should be mentioned. It should also be pointed out that scientists who hold contrary views are no longer participating in the IPCC.

--Q Science 08:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What is "Global mean surface temperature anomaly"?

Sorry if I'm being dense here, but what exactly is the first graph in the article showing? What does "anomaly" mean in this context - what is the norm against which it is being measured? Or is it showing the changes in temperature at each year across the period, in which case I'd suggest the caption needs clarifying? QmunkE

This does keep coming up. Perhaps it should be explained somewhere. Following the common practice of the IPCC, the zero on this figure is the mean temperature from 1961-1990. says the figure. That should mean that all the data is expressed as anomalies from the 1961-90 average (for that station) before being averaged up William M. Connolley 11:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Added global warming on other planets and documentaries

Somehow the great global warming swindle is not accepting it a s alink. I hope you dont delete,major news outlets have covered this topic and imo there should be a seperate page about global warming on other planets.

I have removed. This was just discussed at the review. The links and See also were drastically too long and they need to be kept short per guidelines. Add to the glossary, if need be. Marskell 12:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

man tis is not fair,let me post the other side of the story.i am a noob at wiki so i cannot make a topic on global warming on other planets.plz help me in creating a topic about GW on other planets.

Dont silence the truth,in the end truth will prevail.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

If you want to make a page on global warming on other planets, I'd suggest starting on talk on an astronomy article. Maybe Mars. Or work up something in User space (User:Manchurian candidate/sandbox) and ask somebody about it when you're done. Marskell 12:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess he gave up on his earlier theory? Aaron Bowen 12:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my bad I misunderstood him. Aaron Bowen 12:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed this issue before. There is no serious evidence of "global warming" on other planets, much less warming caused by a common mechanism. See e.g. the section in Climate of Mars#Evidence_for_recent_climatic_change. There where a few mentionings of "global warming" to describe unrelated climatic events on other planets in the popular press, but digging a bit deeper has always shown the actual researchers to reject the analogy, often quite explicitely. We had an article, but it has been AfDed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar system warming. If you try to recreate it, make sure you use reliable sources and thoroughly understand them. This is a field where a lot of misinformation is around. Good luck! --Stephan Schulz 12:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But Stephan, nor do we have any serious evidence that global warming will have the economic impacts that are reported in the article. We report them because they are covered by the news if my understanding is correct. Yes, there is the Stern Review and some UN reports, but there's no "serious evidence", as you ask here. These reports are political and were criticized in economic circles, but we nonetheless present them because they're news, arent we? --Childhood's End 13:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You have presented points to revisit removing the Stern report from this article, which I support. However, slipping in some UN reports under the door is vague and does not fall in the same category. What peer reviewed journal articles would you like to reference for the climates of other planets? --Skyemoor 13:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not suggest to report climate on other planets. I am merely suggesting that if our standard is to present actual theories for which we have serious evidence, then the economic stuff must go. It's there right now because it makes the news, not because it's scientifically proven. --Childhood's End 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of less econ in general. However a modicum should be reported, as there have been serious reports on the subject. By contrast, the GW-on-other-planets has *not* been the subject of any serious work - there is some science around the issue, but its badly misrepresented by the press. Interestingly (if you like) one thing the solar-type proponents have *never* done is to suggest looking at other planets William M. Connolley 14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The FARC has been closed...

...and despite 50% of the participants still objecting to multiple points, FA status has been retained. With all respect for the closing admin's opinion (and by no means questioning his motives, let that be clear), but his statement saying that the numerical vote is indecisive and then summing up the reasons why he decides to keep the aricle featured, strongly gives me the impression that we have discussed this for over a month with tens of people, to then have the entire critical decision being made by a single person. I always believed Wikipedia worked by consensus, not by being told [t]his discussion is closed... It's going to take me a while to reflect on whether my involvement can survive this new development. Nick Mks 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)