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 May 2007
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

Widespread misunderstanding of revert policy?

A perusal of the history would appear to show an unfortunate misunderstanding (at best) or perhaps even deliberate abuse (at worst) of the policy regarding revert/undo/rollback/what have you. The policy is clear: you are not to revert contributions, barring vandalism, except as a last resort. A revert should be seen as a revolting thing, to be avoided wherever possible. Prior consensus, sometimes years old and established long before recent editors came on board, does not mean permanent consensus. Every time a visitor loads an article in their browser, it is born anew and is fertile ground for editing. That you or I may not like those edits is not grounds for reverting them. It is grounds for further editing.

I don't think this is a misunderstanding in most cases; WP policy is thrown around quite freely here, which would seem to indicate that it is understood by most. Therefore, I won't insult anyone by providing links you have already bookmarked. I also don't think it is abuse in most cases, because I assume good faith. What I suspect is the most likely scenario is simple laziness; it is easier to revert than to spend several minutes pondering a newly contributed sentence or paragraph, trying to reformulate it in a way that will incorporate it while remaining factual. If new contributions are suspected to be factually wrong, every effort should be made -- by the editor who is considering a revert -- to determine the veracity of the content. In other words, just because a new editor adds a sentence but doesn't source it, you should not delete that sentence. It may be factual, but the unsophisticated editor doesn't understand the need to cite his or her facts. You, as a sophisticated editor and in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, should seek ways to incorporate that fresh material, rather than reasons to revert it.

That last bit is key: your instinctive goal should be inclusion, not exclusion.

If, after attempting to verify a statement, you determine that it is indeed unsupported, you should bring it up in talk, so that others (including, hopefully, the original contributor) might have a chance to verify it. If this also fails, removal is of course justified. This process seems to rarely take place in the GW article; it would appear that a large percentage of regular editors of this article could use a refresher course on reverting, in particular how and when it is to be used. Maintaining prior consensus does not apply.

Thanks for your consideration. --Triple-Deuce 22:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You just reverted the page - are you our kettle for today? --Tjsynkral 01:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite a revert. ~ UBeR 15:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

All this is largely beside the point. Most of the time the argument isn't about factual errors but the appropriatness of including stuff William M. Connolley 16:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to include "few scientists disagree" without any good way to back that few up? --Tjsynkral 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you reinsert the reference if you yourself admit the source does not verify the statement? ~ UBeR 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is attributable, but I disagree with the research (or lack thereof) in the opinion article. --Tjsynkral 19:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not even attributable to AMQUA. ~ UBeR 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that the source doesn't hold water, we shouldn't use the word "few" at all. --Tjsynkral 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The circle completes itself William M. Connolley 22:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have nothing constructive to contribute, you're free to abscond from the discussion. I rather prefer it if you did. ~ UBeR 22:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what do you propose? --Tjsynkral 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Terminating this unprofitable discussion and working to improve the article in other ways; failing that, improve other articles or do something else productive William M. Connolley 22:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, Tjsynkral, neverminding calls to end discussion (sounds irrational, stupid, and contrary to Wikipedia spirit), I'm not saying AMQUA holds no water; they're entitled to their opinion. What I think Triple-Deuce and I are saying is we're not reflecting their opinion on this article appropriately. For the most part, having no source is better than having a false or misrepresented source. ~ UBeR 23:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, having no source is original research. Completely against Wikipedia policy. --Tjsynkral 02:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources isn't a policy, sir or madam. ~ UBeR 03:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not flat-out misrepresentation (and your beef is with the GW side on that cite, anyway) - it's just a little flaky. But again, it is better than saying something with no source at all. There are only two acceptable ways for few or small or anything of that sort to appear: 1. with some kind of source to back it up, or 2. not to appear in the article at all. Uncited claims deserve to be deleted on the spot. --Tjsynkral 17:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone erased my entry and falsely accused me of vandalism.

I noticed that the article on global warming had exactly zero mentions of nuclear power. So I added one sentence stating that the United Nations has come out in favor of nuclear power as a way to combat global warming, and I cited my source. It was a legitimate source.

After I did this, someone erased it. Their only comment was "rv." I assume that comment means they are accusing me of vandalism. I was not vandalizing. My contribution was legitimate.

--grundle2600 May 13, 2007

No, I think the user just doesn't fully understand WP:AGF or WP:REVERT. WP:BOLD lets users be bold in their edits, and Wikipedia's spirit is to allow the free flow of information and contribution. On a particularly ostentatious article, however, people are a bit quick on reverting contributions that have even the slightest of error. You did nothing wrong and the err fell on the side of Arjuna808. Take note the the intro is particularly sensitive to edits on this article. Your contribution is perhaps better suited in the mitigation section, and I'm sure someone like myself would put the reference in proper format. Best of luck, mate. ~ UBeR 04:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --grundle2600

I'm sorry to disagree with UBeR here. This information belongs in the subarticle Mitigation of global warming not here. And you have to do something about the text as well. The article that you are quoting doesn't say that "The UN has come out in favor of nuclear power as a way to combat global warming." (actually the headline seems to do so - but the content doesn't). The article is referring to the AR4 SPM WGIII, and is putting quite alot of undue weight to something that is mentioned in passing (iirc - nuclear is to rise from 16% of global electricity generation to 18%). --Kim D. Petersen 09:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid grundle2600 is mistaken; I accused him/her of no such thing, I merely deleted (by reversion) the not-well-thought-out addition of an inaccurate statement that "The United Nations has come out in favor of nuclear power as a way to combat global warming", which 1. mistakenly conflates the United Nations with the IPCC; 2. does not "come out in favor", but rather is a more nuanced position on nuclear power as one approach among many; and 3. was material that was inappropriately placed. Mention of the IPCC's position on nuclear power is certainly worth mentioning (as per KDP's comment above), but you had it in the wrong place. In future, please try not to leap to false accusations so readily. Aloha, Arjuna 09:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think UBeR means "contentious", not "ostentatious", although I remain confused as to whom s/he thinks "doesn't fully understand WP:AGF or WP:REVERT" -- a statement which seems self-contradictory. Arjuna 09:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with A and KDP. And "rv" is revert; "rvv" is revert vandalism William M. Connolley 09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I got the abbreviations mixed up. Sorry. Thanks for the explanation. --grundle2600

You see, none of the explanations you gave warranting deleting, Arjuna808. "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it." Just keep that in mind next time. ~ UBeR 17:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Uber, perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote, because clearly the reasons I gave were sufficient for deleting, regardless of one's attitude towards GW. Arjuna 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I found some new sources - the BBC and PBS - that are more reliable. And instead of putting the information in the global warming article, I put it somewhere else. If anyone disagrees with it, let's please try to fix it, instead of erasing it. Thank you for your advice everyone. Grundle2600 23:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

why no arctic global warming topic

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Study:_Arctic_ice_could_be_gone_by_2020 it states taht there would be no ice left in arctic by 2020.I edited the arctic article but some annoying users always reverts this and says it has no place here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic manchurian candidate 10:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The models are known to have their worst discrepancies with the observations at high latitudes. I will keep this study in mind.--Africangenesis 12:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall an article I read about arctic circle nations investing somewhat more heavily in surveying and staking claims. I can't recall where I read that though. Does anyone have any sources for this? --Kim Bruning 14:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Video explaining Global Warming

http://spacegeek.org/ep3_QT.shtml I was wondering if this video would make a good addition to external links which has no video resources. It explains GW by comparing Earth to Mars and Venus. The video is 8 min long and is very good; however, there is an ad at the end of it (for a book).

Goldilocks and the 3 planets". Heh. That's an interesting introduction to the concept! :) --Kim Bruning 14:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Kyoto Treaty and nuclear power

The article on global warming mentions the Kyoto Treaty several times, but there is no mention of nuclear power at all. It seems to me that this is proof of a bias against nuclear power in this article.

France stopped mining coal 3 years ago because it gets almost all of its electricity from nuclear power. Although several western European countries use wind power, when the wind isn't blowing they import their electricity from France.

Any article about global warming and the Kyoto Treaty which does not mention nuclear power simply cannot be taken seriously, because without nuclear power, it is impossible to enforce the Kyoto Treaty or solve the problem of global warming. Grundle2600 14:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragrpah on nuclear power to the mitigation section, and I included 3 legitimate sources: the BBC, PBS, and CBS. Given that the Kyoto Treaty is mentioned in several sections all over the page, I think my mentioning of nuclear power in one single paragraph is quite reasonable. I hope that no one will delete it. Grundle2600 15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no bias against nuclear power. The statement about wind energy is misleading, because it suggest that there are countries that generate a major fraction of their electricity from wind power. That's simply not the case. I agree that the only way to curb CO_2 emissions drastically is by using nuclear energy. But that can't be done by just building more nuclear powerplants, there are a lot of issues that have to be addressed.

E.g. you cannot start up nuclear powerplants as fast as coal fired powerplants to meet peak demands. This can be addressed by using nuclear power to produce hydrogen and build hydrogen fired powerplants. The hydrogen could also be used in cars etc. You can only have electric cars or hydrogen powered cars anyway in a CO_2 emission free world.

Another issue is where the nuclear fuel would come from. The known U-235 reserves won't last very long (about 50 years), so we'll have to use Fast breeder reactors to produce enough fuel from U-238 and Th-232 (there is then enough to power the world's energy needs for the next 30,000 years). Count Iblis 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Actually, nuclear power combined with electric cars such as the Tesla Roadster mean that we can completely end the burning of fossil fuels. I added a sentence and link explaining that we nave enough uranium to last until the sun blows up in 5 billion years. I also added a sentence on electric cars. Grundle2600 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It simply doesn't belong here - thats it. Expand the section in Mitigation of global warming instead. This article isn't a discussion of the various methods to generate electricity nor the individual countries implementation of such. The section "Mitigation and Adaption" on this page is for a WP:SUMMARY of the subarticles - and what you are including is too much for such a summary. There is no specific reason to mention wind, hydro or nuclear here. You are putting WP:Undue_weight on specific subject. (Nb: i'm pro-nuclear). --Kim D. Petersen 16:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Mr. Petersen that this should be a concise summary. Your work would probably be appreciated at Kyoto Protocol and Mitigation of global warming though! ~ UBeR 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice - all of you. Grundle2600 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Whose measure of exact temperature change is being used/cited?

Should the exact amount of temperature change at the beginning of this article have a citation? I'm not pretending to be an expert or even a scientist but I am very interested in Global Warming and I think the efforts made on this page to be methodical and exact are to be applauded. A citation for this exact amount of temperature change seems indispensable.Markisgreen 05:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

They are found, as Raul654 said, in the next sentence's citation, which is the IPCC's Summary For Policymakers of their Fourth Assessment Report. A link can be found here (PDF). Cheers. ~ UBeR 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I read through the report. Thanks for the link. I still think the sentence construction is unclear. Its a minor point I know, just trying to make it more compelling. Anyway, I see you guys are very involved in this issue and this article so I'll leave it alone. Keep up the good work. Sorry for the annoyance.Markisgreen 06:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... how is it unclear? I've read it again and thought it was pretty clear. Any insight would be helpful. Thanks. ~ UBeR 16:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question: From my first reading of this article, I found the second sentence of the article off-putting due to its lack of attribution and poor flow between the first few sentences. These are the opening sentences "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.

Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) during the past century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect."

Which I would re-write as follows: "Global warming is the observable phenomenon of consistently increasing average temperatures in the air and oceans on the surface of the earth. Over the most recent decades, numerous trends have been detected through careful measurement of environmental data suggesting that this phenomenon will continue.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74° +/- 0.18° C (1.3° +/- 0.32° F) during the past century. The IPCC, in an assessment report for policymakers, indicates in the conclusion of their report that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human-generated) greenhouse gas concentrations."[1] which lead to increased warming of air and water on the surface of the earth by exaggerating the atmosphere's greenhouse effect."

Just a minor suggestion. Nothing I'm real heated up about. I should be in bed.Markisgreen 06:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the only real problem I have with your suggestion is the "consistently increasing temperatures" since there hasn't been much change since 1998. ~ UBeR 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in getting into this with skeptics such as Uber who seem unpersuaded by hard facts, other than to state for the record that his statement is incorrect. Arjuna 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Since 1998, not 1800. Watch (and read) your words more carefully next time. ~ UBeR 08:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You evidently did not bother to check the article I cited, the chart and graph on which demonstrates my point, as intended: post-1998. Arjuna 08:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the data fully supports my conclusions.[1] Your simple attacks are but unfounded and ignorant polarizations. I ask that you stop. ~ UBeR 09:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Amusing. As I said, I had no intention of getting into this with you, and this is my last posting on this thread, whatever you may write in response. Suffice to say that you deliberately pick 1998, which as you well know was a major outlier year (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming), as your arbitrary baseline. This is a well known skeptic tactic of cooking the books. Remove that outlier year and the warming trend is not disputed. But nice try. Arjuna 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Now you see you are diverging from my original point. I don't think anyone disputes that there's been warming since 1999 (I certainly wasn't), so I don't see why you're arguing for it. If you look at the past 10 years though, the trend isn't readily obvious. You can pick the nine warmest years on record (which is what I really did) and you get the same thing. Picking the two warmest years isn't arbitrary. This was simply to say the statement "consistently increasing temperatures" isn't necessarily true, otherwise we'd see a straight line in the anomalies, which we don't obviously. There's a clear upwards trend, but that's quite different. You're attacking something that isn't there, I'm afraid. ~ UBeR 09:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, you are cherry-picking (and you know it). So ... there has been consistent warming since 1999 - how about since 1997? (how about every year except 1998?) Picking a particular outlier is cherry-picking. A reasonable approach is to pick 2 years that aren't El Niño anomalies - and then you'll get the nice slow upward trend that Arjuna808 is talking about. Look at the trend - please. --Kim D. Petersen 14:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already recognized the trend. You're arguing for something no one is arguing against. I've already differentiated between consistently increasing and upward trends. Why can't you? ~ UBeR 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Then i suggest that you explain yourself clearly - instead of making comments like this - which started the whole thing. (imho that one was disruptive then). --Kim D. Petersen 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC) [nb: and what on Earth do you mean by "why can't you"...(i can't differentiate about anything in your comment - since you only mention one thing "consistently increasing and upward trend" and .... what?) --Kim D. Petersen 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's two things, not one. ~ UBeR 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Over the most recent decades, numerous trends have been detected through careful measurement of environmental data suggesting that this phenomenon will continue. - this is wrong: there is no implication that the trends will continue just from what they have done in the past William M. Connolley 08:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and that. I missed that. ~ UBeR 08:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What suggests that the trend will continue is the global energy imbalance. If that continues, the trend will continue, for awhile at least. But that is a different from mere trend extrapolation.--Africangenesis 14:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, warming is expected even if we discontinue mass CO2 emissions. There's no clear sign that will stop any time soon though, so it's reasonable to expect future warming. ~ UBeR 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hockey Stick?

The fact that this articler LEADS WITH the hockey stick says it all, really. It's simply become funny.

That's not the hockey stick. Try hockey stick controversy first. ~ UBeR 08:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The section titled "Pre-human climate variations" uses the infamous "hockey stick" graphic showing a pronounced rise in global temperatures during recent decades. I suggest that this graphic should definitely not be used because serious flaws have been found in the methods used to create the graphic. See http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf for information. --76.2.44.243 14:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the hockey stick controversy. However, the graph you mention shows many different reconstructions: can you spot the hockey stick amongst them? Oh, and McK is a poor ref William M. Connolley 14:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you say so? 87.194.58.231 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a non peer-reviewed opinion piece written by an economist and presented at a politics conference? --Stephan Schulz 09:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this scientific proof that his opinion is wrong-headed? --Childhood's End 13:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but it is ordinary proof that it is a poor reference on a scientific topic. This would hold even if this were excellent work. --Stephan Schulz 13:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Their paper is published in Geophysical Research Letters, vol 32, in 2005. The graphic here doesnt really look like a hockey stick (M&M now call it a 'spaghetti graph'). I think it's OK to use it. But it's in the wrong place! Why is it in the section "Pre-human climate variations" when it relates to the last 1000 yrs? Also I think there should be a link to hockey stick controversy. Something like "Reconstructions of past temperature levels have proved controversial" maybe? Paul Matthews 14:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The paper cited up here is not published in GRL. The GRL paper is a better source (though not really a good one, given that several later publications disagree with it). "Reconstructions of past temperature levels have proved controversial" would be OR. We can agee that there is a controversy about one particular reconstruction... --Stephan Schulz 14:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Examination of the Hockey-stick so called flaws by an NRC panel : http://www.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11676.pdf --Galahaad 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they say: Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions of Mann et al that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" Paul Matthews 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And the picture is still in the wrong place.

And "even less confidence" is specified as a 66% (2 in 1) confidence level. (Pf. Bloomberg at around 00:47:06-00:50:10 - at the press-conference as an answer to a journalist from Science) [url]http://www.nationalacademies.org/podcast/20060622.mp3[/url]). --Kim D. Petersen 00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent decades vs. the dawn of human settlement

The first paragraph defines the scope of the article as climate change in "recent decades" but a huge amount of space near the top of the article is dedicated to a review of "the present to the dawn of human settlement" -- why is that? Shouldn't that ancient stuff be moved to climate change? 75.18.200.11 08:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's quite an awkward section, because it mostly discusses temperature of 1850 to present, which is long after the "dawn of settlement." There's some small bits on the MWP and Ruddiman's hypothesis. At any rate, it provides some useful context, even if not appropriately titled. ~ UBeR 16:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to figure out the actual difference between global warming and climate change or global climate change. Well, I see that global warming is a sub-set of global climate change, but I think the issue is, at its heart, the contrasting view of global climate change due to man or due to natural phenomenon. (This, of course, separates industrialized man from nature...a concept in and of itself that is worthy of discussion). My point is that the articles don't distinguish themselves very well, in my opinion. --Alex.rosenheim 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Trees CAUSE warming -- trees must be cut down in northern climates

Now shown that trees growing in northern, snowy regions INCREASES global temperature. Any honest global warming fans should now be calling for all trees in the north to be cut down. junkscience.com for the story.

And then there's this... http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

Junkscience.com is a biased source with an anti-AGW agenda. And what exactly about that second source were you referring to? The whole "The Little Ice Age proves that greenhouses gases are not to blame" idea, the "Carbon dioxide is such a small percentage of the atmosphere that it couldn't possibly make any difference" argument, or the "Climatology = Weather forecasting" fallacy? johnpseudo 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not so much a fallacy as a lack of judgment. But, uh, where was junkscience.com mentioned? I reckon some bona fide persons have examined trees' potential to warm the planet,[2] but I don't think anyone's really suggesting we cut down all the tress. ~ UBeR 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, this article covered a climate model from a Californian team (if I remember correctly) that did suggest that cutting all the trees would help fight global warming. The article did not suggest, although, what to think about climate modeling... --Childhood's End 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source at all. Supplement your arguement for a better case. wkilis

The study was based on a computer modeling heat reflection effects. Even if the data was isomorphic to a real world scenario, it still would not take into consederation other, more devestating environmental effects. So no, "any honest global warming fan" would be a complete moron to say "hey, lets cut down all the trees!" It'd be a bit like saying "we should just extinguish the sun: problem solved!". Brentt 03:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, wouldn't want to trust computer modeling. (SEWilco 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

POV in the intro

The intro seems to be heavily weighted toward promoting the views of the IPCC, and disparaging any skepticism. The IPCC is very trendy, but hardly the most significant development in the history of climate science. It is already on the wane in terms of its influence. Placing such emphasis on it makes this look like an advocacy article. --Don't lose that number 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

See scientific opinion on climate change. The IPCC opinion is endorsed by essentially all relevant scientific societies, and the vastly overwhelming number of climate scientists. Serious criticism is mostly restricted to minor points (and goes both ways). --Stephan Schulz 15:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the IPCC is right or wrong, does it make sense to feature it so prominently in the intro? Global warming did not begin with the IPCC. It has happened intermittently for millenia. I could see having the IPCC in the intro for Global warming controversy. Actually, I could see merging this article with Global warming controversy, because this article seems more intended to persuade than to simply be a neutral source of information. --Don't lose that number 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Big Bang didn't begin when scientists started to publish about it either. Count Iblis 21:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Poor analogy. Climate scientists have been publishing for a long, long time. However, the IPCC is a political advocacy group, and this article is being used to promote it. --Don't lose that number 14:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes this article seems biased. Using many cites from an advocacy group in itself seems suspect. FatherTree 19:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we still have Friends of Science in there? Or which "advocacy group" are you talking about?--Stephan Schulz 19:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC. --Don't lose that number 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC is not a advocacy group.--Stephan Schulz 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC is an advocacy group. See "Main Products and Activities" on their website (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm) ... it specifically states that they publish reports where it "supports the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change" which happens to include the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC is in no way an impartial body and although their full version assessment reports are extensively peer edited, the "Summary for Policymakers" is vulnerable to bias as a result of the IPCC's ties to the UN, UNFCCC and Kyoto. Boarderex 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Small warming effect"

There still doesn't seem to be any justification for the words "small warming effect" when referring to combined solar and volcanic forcings since several centuries ago until 1950. The "small cooling effect since 1950" is justified by AR4 Chp9, which states, "Recent estimates (Figure 9.9) indicate a relatively small combined effect of natural forcings on the global mean temperature evolution of the second half of the 20th century, with a small net cooling from the combined effects of solar and volcanic forcings." The SPM states that for prior to 1950, "A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere interdecadal temperature variability [of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950] is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance." No mention of "small warming effect." William appears to suggest the "small warming effect" can be found in the forcings table, but the forcings table isn't discussing the forcings for "the seven centuries prior to 1950" like we are. The "small" should be deleted, so the sentence reads "Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950." This is a fully justified and reasoanble. ~ UBeR 19:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Pre-industrial means 1860 (or 1750-ish), not 7 centuries. Whats you cite for "warming" at all, then? William M. Connolley 20:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Pre-industrial spans before the Industrial Revolution, I reckon. If you mean from 1750 until 1950, perhaps it's better to write from the Industrial Revolution until 1950. The warming, of course, is the warming since then until 1950 (Esper et al.). ~ UBeR 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Uber we discussed these sentences a while back. I though we had agreed to cut them out completely? Paul Matthews 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would we do that? In the meantime, I've restored the accurate small. I don't quite see how you can object to the unref'd small whilst retaining the rest of the sentence with no refs William M. Connolley 18:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Matthews, the previous discussion was based around the SPM, which you did not think supported the sentence, "Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950." The first half the sentence was indeed fully supported by the SPM, the latter half was based on William's interpretation of a graph in the SPM. Currently, however, we have referenced chapter 9 from the WGI contribution to the AR4. In it, they do clearly state the combined forcings have probably had a small cooling effect since the 1950, just as we have here. The chapter makes no mention of the "small warming effect" prior to 1950, bur rather say the variability is largely attributable to the combined forcings. We know that the net effect was a warming up to 1950, hence the sentence "Based on modeling results, natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950." ~ UBeR 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm curious how the "small warming" bit got added, because the original made no such mention. I'm sure it was William, and yet he still continues to add it despite the fact he knows he has no justification for it. ~ UBeR 18:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. But I am still not convinced that a comment from page 690 of the AR4 WGI belongs in the lead of the article. And I'm even less convinced that it needs to be repeated again in the solar variation section. Paul Matthews

Small is based on the SPM table showing forcings from 1750. As for PM: it makes sense to mention the effects of natural forcings - it would be odd not to. Since we have a ref for their relative magnitude, why not use that? William M. Connolley 19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And I've already explained to you the forcings table isn't describing what we are. It's describing solar irradiance forcing of 2005 relative to 1750, while we're discussing temperature from pre-industrial (seven centuries prior to 1950 according to the IPCC) through 1950 as a result of volcanism and solar forcing. ~ UBeR 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Forcings" are not "effects". Whether the climate warming was small or not, it is "significant" in the climate record and was noticed even before the modern instrument record. Unfortunately it is hard to come up with any attribution other than mere statistical correlation analysis, that isn't contaminated by the models. It is much easier to come up with information about how bad the models are. Even qualitative insights from the models, serve mainly to show how seemingly minor contributions cannot be ignored, or their effects predicted. The attribution and projection has no clothes.--Africangenesis 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm unable to detect a consensus one way or another on this question. Where are we on this? Arjuna 02:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't necessarily need to be a consensus for what's right--we just stick with what's right. ~ UBeR 02:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WIlliam Connelly and reverted it. Aaron Bowen 02:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with what? Can you be more specific? You agree the AR4 mentions a "small cooling effect" since 1950, I assume? You agree the SPM shows radiative forcing for 2005 for solar irradiance relative to 1750, I assume? Maybe you could provide some helpful insight. ~ UBeR 02:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Uber, rather than being so quick to assert that you are "right" -- though perhaps you are -- I suggest that those opposing the change have another opportunity to challenge the addition. I have no dog in this one, just trying to stop the reverts. Arjuna 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I respect that, and I'm curious as to what other people have to say. It's been almost four days now though, and Will has already stated he knows the "small" has no ref. But I'll wait and see. ~ UBeR 03:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. Arjuna 03:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, I agree the citation needed work there. I have added a citation which perhaps butresses the sentence and does describe the impact as small. --TeaDrinker 04:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, TeaDrinker. Thanks for the ref. I haven't read the whole paper yet, but it seems to be discussing solar impact from 800 to 2000. Here we're talking about pre-industrial (i.e. 700 years prior to 1950, according to the IPCC) until 1950. This paper does espouse much of the same previous stuff though, i.e., solar not responsible for much of later half of 20th century. So I'm wondering which specific spot in the paper is describing what we are here. ~ UBeR 04:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(moving left) I will admit that I am something of an amature in climate, so don't take my word for the definitive read of the paper. One quote which seems to illustrate the point which appears to butress the sentence is "Without anthropogenic forcing, the 20th century warming is small. The simulations with only natural forcing components included yield an an early 20th century peak warming of \approx 0.2\deg C (\approx 1950 AD), which is reduced to about half by the end of the century because of increased volcanism." From the last full paragraph on pp3717. --TeaDrinker 04:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a good cite for "smaller". I've adding supporting quotes to the cite, not just for "smaller", but also for "medium" solar forcing, which is larger than the reconstructed solar forcing based upon the Foukal model. Foukal, et al, only explains about 80% of the solar variability over last 30 years, a relatively unchanging period of solar activity. I also not that the model does not include interactive ozone, so probably does not represent the higher UV solar variability, which is poorly understood anyway. I may use the support for medium solar variability later.--Africangenesis 09:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm we already know 20th century warming is "small" when you take out GHGs emitted by human activity. We know natural forcings are responsible for a significant amount of the fluctuations in climate since (at least) about the onset of the LIA until 1950. We also know it warmed between those two points. Even if you don't want to take the IPCC definition of 700 yrs and instead use 1750 or 1850, there still was a net warming till 1950. Whether you want to call this warming small or not is rather subjective. ~ UBeR 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Does no one disagree? ~ UBeR 08:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? ~ UBeR 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus on global warming and this article should reflect that.

Many eminent scientists have disagreed with the "consensus" about global warming. For example, read this article in the Wall Street Journal by Richard Lindzen (Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, one of the world's most prestigious scientific universities) in which he most strongly disagrees with the scientific underpinnings of the so-called global warming.

Other dissenters with the scientific underpinnings of the global warming theories include:

• John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, in Huntsville. Alabama State Climatologist. NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and American Meteorological Society Special Award. Fellow in the American Meteorological Society.

• Henk Tennekes, former research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society.

• Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization.

• Dick Morgan, Researcher in Climatology, University of Exeter, United Kingdom and former Advisor to the World Meteorological Organization.

• Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia. Past President of the American Association of State Climatologists and former program Chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology for the American Meteorological Society. Contributing Author and Reviewer of U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

• Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes, University of Colorado. Contributing Author to the IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report.

• Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama Huntsville. Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. Recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, American Meteorological Society's Special Award.

• Robert Davis, Associate Professor of Climatology, University of Virginia. Member of EPA Global Change Research Strategy, and the NOAA Data Management Advisory Panel. Contributed to the 1995 Report of the IPCC. Past Chair of the American Metrological Society’s Committee on Biometeorology and Aermeteorology.

• Robert Balling, Jr. Professor, Department of Geography and former Director of the Office of Climatology, Arizona State University. Climate Consultant to the United Nations Environment Program, The World Climate Program, World Metrological Organization, UNESCO, and the IPCC.

• William M. Grey, Colorado State University Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State Universities’ Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

• Boris Winterhalter, Professor of Marine Geology, University of Helsinki, and former Marine Researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland.

• Igor Polyakov, Professor at the Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska.

I think that we cannot ignore the opinions of so many highly qualified scientists such as those above. This article definitely needs a new section about the lack of consensus and that section should include the above information. Otherwise, the article clearly does not have a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) as called for by Wikipedia policy. - mbeychok 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Project Steve for comparison and then just consider that you may just be talking about a tiny incoherent minority to anyone who is reasonable numerate. The NPOV discussion has been discussed at length. I suggest you start by reviewing. --BozMo talk 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

BozMo: With all due respect, when you use language like ... incoherent minority to anyone who is reasonable numerate.', you provide an excellent example of a biased, non-NPOV statement. There is nothing incoherent about Lindzen's article. At least the next two responses (just below) to my comment use moderate, reasonable laguage with out telling me that I am not being reasonably numerate. - mbeychok 22:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you misunderstand BozMo. Lindzen may be coherent (at least he is reasonably consistent). But the so-called sceptics as a group are not - they vary from "there is no warming" (now getting rare, but rather frequent only 5 years ago) via "it's the sun", "it's cosmic rays", "it's cosmic rays modulated by the sun", "it's clouds induced by cosmic rays modulated by the sun", "it's unstoppable cycles" to "maybe it's human, but there is nothing we can do about it" and "it's good and we should do nothing about it". --Stephan Schulz 23:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what incoherent meant in the context of a group. --BozMo talk 12:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone considered that the reason there is such "incoherence" among so many qualified skeptics is that there really are a number of possibilities that need further research before the science is "settled"? For an interesting series of profiles of these skeptics, visit Here. I think it's pretty clear that when you get beyond the loud and consistent repetition of "consensus" and "settled science" on the part of greenhouse theory advocates. 71.217.77.41 00:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See scientific opinion on climate change for an overview of who supports the consensus and how few disagree. Lindzen is one of the very few competent scientists to question significant parts of the consensus. His article is a year old, as is the source of your list (which, moreover, is a political, not a scientifc one). Christy is at best a lukewarm sceptic. There is nothing in your contribution that has not already been discussed to death and back again. This article is the result, and is a reasonably fair representation of the state of science. We discuss the controversy in global warming controversy.--Stephan Schulz 21:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A problem with the list of names above is that they are simply asserted: there is no evidence William M. Connolley 21:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

An interesting quote from Rupert Murdoch might be considered notable, even if he is simply a media mogul;

"I think when people see that 99 percent of scientists agree about the serious extent of global warming, it's going to become a fact of life." [3] --Skyemoor 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Too bad he chose to accept it through a fallacy rather than examining the evidence. ~ UBeR 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, what did Frauenfeld in particular say? I notice that he actually contributed to the IPCC's 4th report, whyich was quite a significant work; "Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes, University of Colorado. Contributing Author to the IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report." --Sm8900 19:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that he is lumped in because he wrote Chapter 7 'Predictive Skill of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Related Atmospheric Teleconnections' in Michaels' book 'Shattered consensus'. --Kim D. Petersen 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that Wikipedia policy does not allow deletion of content from Talk pages.

I note that Raymond arritt appears to have completely deleted two comments from this Talk page because, in his opinion, they were irrelevant. I thought that was not permitted.

He seems also to have deleted much content from his own Talk page without archiving the content. Again, is that permitted?

Please don't mis-interpret this posting as a criticism of Raymond arritt. I just want to know whether or not such deletions from Talk pages are permitted. - mbeychok 02:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Both are permitted. In articles such as this, where many of the comments do not relate to improving the article content, removing irrelevant comments is a necessary way of keeping the size of the talk page down. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

--Akhilleus: Having just read WP:TALK, in the section on "Others' comments", it states Editing others' comments is not allowed. Exceptions are: ... and the following list of exceptions does not include irrelevancy as an exception. Are you sure that we are permitted to unilaterally judge someone else's Talk comment to be irrelevant and then delete it? - mbeychok 02:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been told that deletions from talk pages are not permitted. I can understand if major vandalism or abuse is removed. Does anyone have a link to the relevant policy? ^rossnixon 02:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally what he did is frowned upon. We don't want edit wars on talk pages. Complete irrelevancies such as trolling or personal discussions are generally OK to delete. Whether what he deleted was irrelevant was a judgement call, so probably should not have been done, I didn't feel strongly about it, but I will feel strongly if he insists upon these particular deletions, if someone restores them.--Africangenesis 02:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite sure that irrelevant comments can be removed. WP:TALK is a guideline, by the way, and the most relevant part of the guideline is "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." In the spirit of that quote, I hope that someone will delete this thread, as it doesn't have anything to do with improving the Global warming article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages should be reserved for discussing the article and how to improve them, NOT the topic of the article. See, e.g., {{talkheader}}. WP:TALK is a guideline that suggest we should discuss how to improve the article. Whether the two threads deleted by Dr. Arritt were just that or "irrelevant" is up for discussion. The key line I think we're looking for is the following, "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." P.S. there is no rule that states you have to archive your user talk page. ~ UBeR 03:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to explain my reasoning here, but Akhilleus and UBeR have already done so. It's hard enough to follow all the threads on this page without stuff like "WOW the size of california melted in antartica in 2005." But if community consensus is that anything goes, I'll not oppose it. Raymond Arritt 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what information was deleted, but I have seen relevant info deleted from Talk pages. IMHO, the best course of action is to restore the information and explain why it is relevant to improving the article. It will generally not be deleted a second time. RonCram 04:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the interpretation should be generous. Science that may eventually make it into the article or help reach or change the consensus of the article should be open for discussion. Dicussion should not always have to be about a proposed change.--Africangenesis 04:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I follow Africangenesis and RonCram, and thus disagree with Uber and Akhilleus. Relevancy is a subjective judgment call. From the moment that you give discretion to anyone to delete talk pages because they find comments irrelevnat, you open the floodgates to arbitrary deletions and edit wars. None here, not even Mr. Arritt, holds the truth about what is relevant or not, or is exempt from subjective bias, or can always guess what may come out from a discussion that seemed irrelevant at its early stage. Except for the obvious, deleting talk pages can reasonably be construed as forbidden by WP policies, for good reason. --Childhood's End 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, "Whether the two threads deleted by Dr. Arritt were just that or 'irrelevant' is up for discussion." I was merely answering the question of whether or not Wikipedia allows deletion of content from talk pages. ~ UBeR 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Biased or Lacking Evidence in Article

I am more then sure that a few of the posters here have a zealous desire for proving Global Warming as being through and through fact, but there are just to many flaws right now for it to be considered as such.

With that in mind I tried to read this whole article without trying to express my own opinion but when I see right off the bat that it is stated that only a few scientists, most being un-credible, think that it is false is just outright false and more annoying then anything else. A large number of scientist (mainly prior supporters or (in some cases) some of the origional founders of the theory) have now left the alarmist camp and are now saying that Global Warming has now been greatly exagerated. It is not just a 95% majority in the scientific community that believes in Global Warming, it is closer to 60%-75%. Saying things like "a few" and "uncredited" scientists gives the impression that if you believe Global Warming is a misinterpentation of the facts then you must either be on your own or stupid, or both. To say such things is not only ignorant, but biased. --Joshic Shin 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read it and pay special attention to the sources used. Also check scientific opinion on climate change. This article is well-supported, while your claims seem to be without any source. And scientific theories are not "proven" is a strict sense, although many may well be considered "fact" in an every day meaning. --Stephan Schulz 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Joshic, your statements are vastly exaggerated, incorrect, and contrived beyond belief. A strong and notable majority of the relevant scientific community firmly believe that global warming is real and that humans are an integral part of why it is happening.UberCryxic 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I shall cite sources for you to read.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070208c.html has an article talking about how many climatoligists are having their jobs threatened if they do not go with the consensus.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id= talks about several prominit scientists who were once alarmist and are now critics. A very intresting person to note in this article is Dr. Claude Allegre, one of the first to sound off on Global Warming. (The person I was refrering to earlier)

• You do realize that this article was authored by Marc Morano and posted to the blog of James "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" Inhofe, right? And that those two people don't exactly make the most objective sources of Global-warming related information. Raul654 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And lastly, a very long series of articles by the National Post, http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0, talked about how Global Warming is not happening in the way it is currently describe, if at all.

Thanks for the objective, neutral and authoritative sources. Raymond Arritt 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Optimum average temperature

What is the consensus among climate scientists on the optimum average surface air temperature of our planet? Iceage77 22:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My uneducated guess is that they will claim that the question is unspecified. Optimal with respect to which criterion? The current concern is more with the rapid change than with any absolute temperature.--Stephan Schulz 22:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The article as it stands does not make this clear. For example it suggests that warming will lead to an increase in the rate of species extinction. This implies an optimum temperature at which the rate of species extinction is minimised. Iceage77 23:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it merely implies that warming causes species to go extinct. Any change on such a grand scale is bad for us and bad for nature. johnpseudo 23:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the species with us today have been through a few ice ages and interglacials. In such a history evolution selects for robustness, nevertheless we are probably in the middle of a major extinction event that is caused, not by climate change, but by human habitat destruction and population pressures. What credible scientific approach will be able to distinguish an incremental AGW addition to this background rate? Any life form that couldn't tolerate another degree was probably going to succumb to other human land use pressures anyway. Fortunately, most of the change is going to be at the high lattitudes where there isn't much diversity anyway.--Africangenesis 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the species today have been through the last ice age, but real question is how many are not with us since the last ice age. Of course, climate is probably one of the smaller reasons for such extinctions. ~ UBeR 04:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there have been many mass extinctions in the past. And many of them have most likely been caused by global warming and man's injection of CO2 into the atmosphere by driving Ford brand SUVs. However the consensus is not unanimous on that and more research must be done before conclusions can be made. The machine512 06:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Most of the species with us today have been through a few ice ages and interglacials" - of course, typically those climate swings were slower than today, and habitats could move with the climate zones. Now many habitats can't keep up, and even if, they are bound to hit some urbanized or cultivated aera. I somehow don't see Miami razed to make place for the Everglades National Park....--Stephan Schulz 06:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

However, the heating up may not nescesarily be bad. As nice as it is to have everything be the same evolution may hold the key for new species to adapt and survive. Much of the time before the last Ice Age was hotter then it is today, yet the diversity of species was by far wider then it is today. Perhaps the true problem is that we have caused animals to be forced togethor and no longer can large diversity happen, for instance the Cheetah.--Joshic Shin 22:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"forced togethor"? the Cheetah? What are you talking about? johnpseudo 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't understand that? Come on now. The machine512 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

CO₂ emissions 2000-04 worse than IPCC worst-case scenario

Spotts, P. (May 22, 2007) "Global carbon emissions in overdrive" Christian Science Monitor

CO₂ emissions from cars, factories, and power plants grew at an annual rate of 1.1 percent during the 1990s.... But from 2000 to 2004, CO₂ emissions rates almost tripled to 3 percent a year – higher than any rate used in emissions scenarios for the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)....

75.18.208.222 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's good news. Unfortunately, as science has found, CO2 has a diminishing influence on temperature. The curve rapidly tails off once you get a bit past 150ppm. ^rossnixon 02:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not good news! ~ UBeR 02:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

External review

Quote from article:

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.

--BMF81 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. This is a few weeks old, and was duly noted back then. ~ UBeR 02:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Global Premium Carbon Bonds

Novel ways to decarbonize our economies need to be discussed because this promotes more efficient use of fossil fuels and lower amounts of all atmospheric pollutants including greenhouse gases. There are a variety of ways to finance the decarbonization process. Please see the entry "Global Premium Carbon Bonds". I would like the following statement added to the "Mitigation and Adaptation" section of the Global Warming page at the end of the discussion of emissions trading: The market for tradeable carbon economic instruments will be in the hundreds of billions within years. A novel approach to carbon financing is through Global Premium Carbon Bonds.

Jimmyookpik 00:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. What might seem novel to one person might be complete rubbish to another. Without a reliable source (which unfortunately is not much because of some people), I doubt you'll be able to get anything included. ~ UBeR 02:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats strange advice/text UBeR since you know that it doesn't belong on this page, both because it would be undue weight here - but mostly because it belongs on the Mitigation of global warming page. (what does "some people" mean?) --Kim D. Petersen 05:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's strange advice at all. It's been Wikipedia's policy since the get-go. If you don't have verifiable or reliable sources for information, it cannot be included in an article. And by some people I mean people who arbitrarily and foolishly felt it prudent and acceptable to use shoddy sources for scientific material in this article, despite a fairly long and logical de facto trend that was just opposite of that for this grandiose article. ~ UBeR 06:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Uber. Arjuna 04:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its notable (yet?) William M. Connolley 17:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like the phrase below added to the Mitigation and Adaptation section of this page because there is no mention of the types of economic instruments that can be traded. Examples of such instruments should be given because if carbon emissions trading is acknowledged to be important, then what are examples of the instruments that are tradeable?

After the phrase: "One important innovation has been the development of greenhouse gas emissions trading through which companies, in conjunction with government, agree to cap their emissions or to purchase credits from those below their allowances."

There should be the phrase: "Global Premium Carbon Bonds would stimulate saving, investment and trading in long term global emissions sparing capabilities because of their broad public appeal and their powerful incentive toward extended holding periods." 66.79.240.218 19:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

First discuss this on the Mitigation article; the section here is a summary of that article. Once (and if) included, then if it is appropriate at a summary level, it can be included in this article's Mitigation summary section. --Skyemoor 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For some useful details on this topic, try this search for the phrase "Global Premium Carbon Bonds." Raymond Arritt 19:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Extent to Which Humans are Involved

I know I am opening myself up for major attack here, but there is a video (Watch at Google Video) from the BBC that disputes that claim made in the sentence under "Cause" that reads: detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[8] identifies increased levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence.

No dispute on Global Warming, just disputing the extent to which humans are involved. The video is an hour long, but well worth watching for anyone who feels they should be commenting on this topic solely based on what they had seen in An Inconvenient Truth.

It would be nice if the Global Warming article cited some of the dirty misdoings of the IPCC that are cited in this video, before offering IPCC findings as scientific consensus. Shaunco 07:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The video comes from WagTV and director Martin Durkin, broadcasted on Channel 4, not the BBC. We actually have an article on it here. For further information, you might want to read global warming controversy. ~ UBeR 07:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Should have a "Critique"-section

Hello.

The ice caps are melting on Mars as well. This article should feature a section where critique is featured.

Later...

Global warming's boring picture

Hey Dude! I think the Deutsch Globale Erwärmung article is better than the english Global warming.. The pictures are really boring. See this http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellemetlen_igazs%C3%A1g (An inconvenient Truth)-Al Gore page's pictures. Boots, ships is the desert, Roger Revelle is an important person too, and so on.. --Tamás Kádár 09:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Very true, the pictures in the deutsch version are much much better. Wkilis 06:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The first graph

I believe shows a distorted representation of the situation.

Should there not be a graph showing the little ice age etc?

And there was a great global warming after the ancient ice ages should not that also be included?

FatherTree 14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Look a little further down. Raymond Arritt 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes the 2000 year chart should be first. And the black line should be elimiated because it is so out of sync with the other lines. FatherTree 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, because the black line represents actual temperature records that have been physically measured. ~ UBeR 20:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But only back to 1850. What would that line be in 900AD. It might be much higher than in 2000 AD. The black line is POV. It seems we are about as warm now as we were in 900 AD. And in a unbiased representation one line of data so skewed would be thrown out. FatherTree 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The black line is POV?? wow. the black line is directly measured data, and it is directly comparable with the rest of the graph. bikeable (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We do not have that same type of measurement from 900 AD the last period of global warming. So it makes the global warming now look worse that what it was in 900 AD. And if the black line is so accurate then the others must be erroneous. FatherTree 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case the first graph should not be first. It jus shows recent trends and does not show the warming in the middle ages. And this graph was designed by a group who believe that global warming is a problem and are presenting the data to push their POV. FatherTree 21:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which diagram are you now talking about? The first image shows the instrumental temperature record. The red line in that diagram is equivalent to the black one in Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png further down. And the black line there is in good agreement (within error estimates) with all the temperature reconstructions. The instrumental temperature record is not seriously under debate, and similar versions have been published by more than one organization. --Stephan Schulz 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What is under debate is whether global warming is caused by humans or is it a naturally occurring thing. We cannot make conclusions on that by using data that only comes from the present period. Data that comes from all periods shows that global warming happens without intervention from humans FatherTree 13:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• What is under debate is whether global warming is caused by humans or is it a naturally occurring thing. Not in the scientific community. If you want to inject political debate, go to Global warming controversy. --Skyemoor 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Moreover, attribution is not only or even primarily based on the temperature record. We do have a reasonably good (though far from perfect) understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms that cause warming. Svante Arrhenius has predicted it long before anybody could measure it. The current warming corrobates the theory, it is not used to induce it.--Stephan Schulz 14:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Explain why you believe there is no debate on this in the 'scientific community'? FatherTree 15:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change. --Stephan Schulz 15:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No scientist now doubts the anthropogenic origin of global warming. Right? ~ UBeR 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As you and I know, a few do. But extremely few are doing it in peer-reviewed publications. Newspaper editorials and think tank publications do not make a scientific debate. --Stephan Schulz 19:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be nice to have no scientists disagreeing, as Skyemoor would have it, but that's not the case. ~ UBeR 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I went througt that. However did not see a double blind controlled study. And some of the comments were more like 'humans probably have a part in global warming' The graphs in the article show that global warming happened before industrialization. So how can we really be sure now? I remember in the 70s the scientists said we were headed for an ice age. What happened to that? FatherTree 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, "scientists" didn't, or at least only very few of them, in a very weak manner (strictly speaking, minus AGW, we probably are, albeit it's a long way off). Newspapers sensationalised it, and were wrong about it. And we are "really sure", again, because we understand the underlying physics to a reasonably degree. In real science, there is no "proof", and there always is an element of uncertainty. But AGW is extremely well supported. --Stephan Schulz 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No controlled double blind study means its a guess. We had cooling in the 40s and at that time CO2 was going up. Why did the temps go down then? FatherTree 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you need a controlled double-blind study to know you put your pants on this morning, or do you just have to guess? For the answer to your question, try reading the article- "Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[29] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability." (Global warming#From the present to the dawn of human settlement). johnpseudo 18:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not Science has to follow the scientific method. The studies you showed me did not. Does not mean they do not have some truth but they are not conclusive or even highly probable. FatherTree 18:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(redent)Indeed, and the scientific method does not require controlled double blind studies - indeed, "double blind" studies only make sense if the subject of the research is a sentinent being (traditionally human). General relativity has not been tested in double blind studies, and neither has statistical thermodynamics or Quantum electrodynamics. --Stephan Schulz 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

General relativity, statistical mechanics, QED: all these theories can be tested with controlled experiment or natural observation. AGW can be tested by natural observation as well, but we have to wait quite awhile to record enough data to obtain a conclusive result. As I've stated before in here, climate science and all heavily model driven scientific fields are dependent upon real data as feedback to perfect the model. It's naive to think "understanding" is great enough to account for all variables. History has many theories which proceeded relativity, statistical mechanics and QED. However, during their day these model were neither wrong nor right, just filled their niche at the time. The same can be said for the current state of climate science with particular regard to AGW.

Wouldn't you have to be able to predict the future to make that statement? ~ UBeR 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Moreover, attribution is not only or even primarily based on the temperature record. We do have a reasonably good (though far from perfect) understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms that cause warming." The warming is larger than can be accounted for by the underlying mechanisms, so positive feedbacks are needed, and models are needed to "understand" them. Those models have to be better than "reasonably good" to be useful for attribution and projection. The models are being doubted "in peer review publications".--Africangenesis 09:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can find papers douting the attribution studies, do please direct attention to them, probably at the attribution page. OTOH if all you have are papers discussing the merits of GCms, don't bother William M. Connolley 09:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, if we also didn't have any attribution and projection based on the models in the article. If you dig below the IPCC surface, models are all there is. Now that we have the WG1 final reports, lets migrate all the "summary" conclusions down to their supporting WG1 peer review citations.--Africangenesis 09:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all there could be a double-blind on this. These results are interpreted by 'sentient' beings. Now also there could be stat analysis of the graphs. I am sure they would not be statistically significant. I can tell just by looking at them but that would be verified by a stat analysis. Global temperatures have a natural level of variance. And what is being said is that in the last 50 years the variance greatly exceeds the natural variance which is not true. This could easliy be shown by a stat analysis. Of course there is a funding issue here. There is no incentive to show that global warming is not a problem. Does not make poliical hay. The first graph is POV and most of the others are. FatherTree 11:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"This could easliy be shown by a stat analysis" >>> only if it was badly done. There is a problem even if badly done though, which is that a post-hoc analysis of data can only be hypothesis generating (since if you look at data post hoc you are bound to see patterns somewhere). If you want to infer something from data within meaningful error bands you have to do a predictive study which ain't really open to you on historical data. But I am sure you know all this and are enjoying waving your branches. --BozMo talk 12:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Then what you are saying is that there is no way to tell if humans are causing global warming. We can look at the past data and see say that during the non human time there was a variation of +/- 10% then if we look at the human data and see that it goes beyond 10% it might be causal. below prob not. now if the human data is like 50% above almost certainly we have a causal. lower % s would have to analyzed by z scores or t tests or whatever. FatherTree 12:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice try again. I did not say "no way to tell" I implied that you cannot get there with post hoc statistics, which is broadly true, you can't. You also cannot use conventional falsifiable hypothesis. These however are poor man's science, popular only with people who haven't noticed how the real world works. I suggest you start by reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. --BozMo talk 12:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is how most scientific studies are done. I suggest you analyze some research studies in various disciplines. Go over about 50 of them and tell me what you find. FatherTree 12:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The published articles on these data actually do use statistical analyses that are quite a bit more advanced than a z test or a t test, and they show statistically significant warming. Actually, the very statement that anthropogenic variance exceeds natural variance directly implies what type of test they used, and it's neither a z nor a t. 193.190.253.150 10:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Casual passer-by

What stat analysis do they use? What type of test was implied? FatherTree 23:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

PCA (Principal component analysis) is the main one.

Based on modelling results...

Looks like the next edit war is shaping up over the "bsed on modelling results bit". I regard this as deceptive: its based on modelling, obs and theory. To describe it as only based on models seems odd William M. Connolley 11:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Come up with observations and theory (independent of models), that support the contention of small. Such will be at least controversial, since non-model correlation evidence tends to support a larger role for solar than the AR4 models do. The provided citations, including the IPCC conclusions are model based and the model evidence is hampered by poor representation of solar influences.--Africangenesis 11:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is bound to be model based because of the lack of repeatability. But you need to provide good support for a statement like "model evidence is hampered by poor representation of solar influences" unless you mean it trivially (i.e. you just mean it in the sense that every model is inevitably hampered by poor representation of most of its elements). I don't have a deep understanding of climate but I have seen too many people believe they spotted the flaw in too many theories not to recognise an Urban Myth phenomenon about how these kinds of beliefs get adopted. --BozMo talk 11:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, all the models have poor representation of solar influences, but not trivially, but by IPCC diagnostic subprojects, that showed they all have a positive surface albedo bias against the observations, we've discussed Roesch above. Also note that all poorly reflected the ice albedo positive feedback also discussed above. I am also following a new paper on solar influences which showed all the AR4 models (except two?) lacked the solar pattern of warming detected in the observations. I will document all of this when I move to put this in the article. Of course there are lots of other serious documented problems with the models.--Africangenesis 12:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Roesch has been archived off. Search for Roesch on [4], for the ice albedo positive (warming) feedback that the models fail to represent,search on Arctic above, and read that paper.--Africangenesis 12:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars are indeed silly, as are people who think they are one-sided. First of all, I have no objection to the idea that these are model based: of course they are. But they are not purely model based: the models themselves, the numbers they crunch, come from observations. To describe them as purely model based is thuse deceptive. "The model evidence is hampered by poor representation of solar influences" - there is no evidence for this (its irreleveant to the discussion of course, please try to be disciplined and not drift off). "since non-model correlation evidence tends to support a larger role for solar than the AR4 models do" - I think we're all agreed that correlation by itself proves nothing. The solar people really don't do attribution stuff at all, because they aren't that sophisticated. They really do seem to be stuck at the level of drawing two graphs and mathcing the wiggles (or rather, drawing lots and lots of graphs and selecting the ones with the best matches) William M. Connolley 11:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Model problem denialism rears its unsupportable head. Ad hominem attacks on the solar people. Let's stick to the subject, how do you get to "small" without the models, after all you had a heck of a time documenting the small until the recent cite, and it was very model based. The bottom line is, I add appropriate and informative text supported by the pre-existing cite, and you revert without any supporting cite. --Africangenesis 12:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the new paper I am following [5] The relevant interesting quote for solar and models is:

• "Our procedure for the solar-cycle signal yields an interesting pattern of warming over the globe. It may be suggestive of some common fast feedback mechanisms that amplify the initial radiative forcing. Currently no GCM has succeeded in simulating a solar-cycle response of the observed amplitude near the surface. Clearly a correct simulation of a global-scale warming on decadal time scale is needed before predictions into the future on multi-decadal scale can be accepted with confidence."

--Africangenesis 12:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, "ad hom" would be if I argued against the people themselves. Arguing against their methods isn't. Please don't throw stupid accusations around. And do please read what I say: of course you can't get to small without the models: you can't get anywhere without the models. But neither can you get to small without the obs... you can't get anywhere without the obs. As for the paper: I *do* hope that its a draft rather than a published one, cos there is a terrible error at line 27. These mathmos really ought to talk to some cliamte people before submitting William M. Connolley 13:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a draft, and hasn't been published yet. That is why I have been waiting. The UV is more variable than the TSI, but I would have liked more references for this part. That issue would tend to lower their derivation of climate sensitivity. I also don't like their factor of 20 on relative to the CO2 doubling forcing. I'd prefer a comparison at the surface, where CO2 requires a much larger adjustment due to the lapse rate feedback.--Africangenesis 13:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets hope it gets some competent referees then to knock out the obvious errors and leave only the subtle ones William M. Connolley 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets hope it is decided on the science and not the politics.--Africangenesis 15:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A weird comment, which further has nothing obvious to do with the article. So, have you spotted the obvious flaw yet? I even gave you the line number as a hint William M. Connolley 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No I guess not, they don't give references for their figures, so I'm not sure they're using the right figures to calculate what they claim. The correctness of the figure would impact the sensitivity they calculate, but not the pattern they detected as far as I can tell.

Given how political the IPCC was, with reports that language was specifically disputed because skeptics would latch onto it, even though the language was correct, it is natural to be concerned that statements such as I quoted above would come under some pressure.--Africangenesis 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume their numbers are correct, what have they forgotten? As to your quote: since no-one has yet *demonstrated* a solar-cycle response in sfc T, as they themselves note, its probably just as well that no GCM has found it William M. Connolley 16:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

William, let's end the guessing game. I don't know whether you have something profound or pedantic in mind. I hope it isn't the use of units of power for energy, because Hansen does the same thing. I'll be a good sport and go for the semi-profound, they write as if the power they calculated gets deposited in the troposphere, but they are not taking into account albedo, at least not explicitly, etc. --Africangenesis 16:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Global warming theory

I was reading this article and came across a few things I thought should be brought to attention.

First off, global warming is a theory, and I believe that should be put in the opening statements.

"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."

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

I say it is a theory because it is not universally accepted and still disputed, much like Evolution.

Further more, I was disappointed not to see any of the negative global warming content posted.

Koepnick012787 16:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. And this is very unfortunate. Now I am not a conservative but I like to see the truth displayed even if at times it helps my opposition. The graphs tell the story: there is no conclusive evidenced that humans are causing global warming. Now maybe we are. But it is inconclusive. Sure we should reduce admission because of the health issue. But a lie is a lie. I think a more honest approach we be to say 'we are not sure' but lets cut down the gases just to be on the safe side. FatherTree 16:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the entire article. Also, if you think evolution is seriously under scientific dispute, perhaps it would help to do some more general reading on science and the scientific method. Raymond Arritt 16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please :: Well tell us what we are missing. FatherTree 16:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What is actually in dispute is the extent to which the climate is sensitive to the accumulation of human greenhouse gas emissions vis'a'vis other climate forcing factors and internal climate variation. Assuming it is more sensitive results in higher projected future warming and more implications for our future. There is a hypothesis or theory here, but I don't think the proposed text captures it. I'm not too concerned about what it is called. --Africangenesis 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Text Macros?

What is the point of all these "TEXT" comments? johnpseudo 16:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed those and assumed they're a workaround to get the graphs to align properly on the right. Anyone know for certain? Raymond Arritt 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

They are to make the editing of the source easier. The source is pretty hard to read with the long references interleaved. By placing the text macro at the end of a reference, before starting the text of the article again, we can separate the text at the beginning of a line, yet still have it separated from the preceding paragraph flow by only a space. Note that for references at the end of a paragraph, there is no need for the text macro. It is only needed for references in the middle of a paragraph. It makes finding where the text of a paragraph picks up again, easier. BTW, I don't know for "certain", I've only inferred this from usage. It works and it helps if we adopt this practice. --Africangenesis 16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If find the the "text macros" rather unhelpful and perhaps a bit worse than before. ~ UBeR 08:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes using and sometimes removing them is making diffs rather hard to read. I went ahead and removed them since that seemed they were inconsistently used and removal seemed to be the direction folks were leaning here. I don't think they are a big deal, although I too lean against their use. --TeaDrinker 07:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You and UBeR form a consensus? The prior state was that they were sometimes used and sometimes not. I upgraded it to fully consistent use, until UBeR did a piecemeal removal. BTW, they are not really macros, just comments labeled in such a way that makes their mere formatting use consistent. Perhaps if we went through and made the citation formats into a consistent one field per line, we could achieve the same effect of making finding the text easier. I am just surprised that you two cannot adjust. I didn't introduce the text, I just made it consistent. --Africangenesis 10:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand, I have no strong feelings either way. Thanks for taking the time to reformat the citations. My primary concern was having people revert to versions which used them differently. Since your version prior to my removing the hidden text did not use them, and Arjuna808's revert re-introduced them, I thought it would be reasonable (and uncontroversial) to simpy remove them from Arjuna808's version. Let me know if there is more I can do to address our concerns. -TeaDrinker 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanx, I think it was all for the best, because just formating the citations is cleaner. I'm learning this as I'm going along. I don't know who came up with the text idea, but we need some kind of formating to help with the citations so tightly interleaved with the text.--Africangenesis 18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is completely biased, and does not provide balance or impartiality for this pseudo-scientific term

You should watch the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle". You'll discover that as humans, we are a tiny speck in the whole existence of the universe. How can we think we're so big that we'll influence something so great as the earth? Solar and cosmic activity control the temperature, we can't do a thing about it. "Global Warming" is a media driven term used to create hype around a non-existent issue. 203.213.238.191 05:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You should read The Great Global Warming Swindle (an apt title, if taken to be self-referential), and especially the scientific reactions section.--Stephan Schulz 06:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your point?

World temperatures are cyclic; do you think that the temperature has been constant for the past few billion years, and that it only started changing when humans came along? Ice ages were followed by a warming of the earth, species died out, and was it because we all drove around in cars and had industrial plants? No, because we didn't exist. It's really only been in the past 50 or so years that we have had a number of cars and factories. We really don't take up that much space on the earth, the majority of it is water. So to think that WE can change the climate in only half a century; when for billions of years it has been uncontrollable forces dictating the temperature; is ridiculous, and quite frankly, a bit bold. We aren't that great. The ocean is a great temperature stabiliser as water has such a high specific heat capacity, i.e. it takes a great amount of energy to heat a volume of water. As if the polar ice caps are going to melt! Why would you think that this would increase the volume of the ocean, anyway? If the ice melts, then it doesn't take up more space, it actually takes up less as the crystalline structure of the ice is lost and therefore volume is lost. Look it up. Why does everyone take this "global warming" as a given? Do YOU know the facts? Are ALL scientists right? No. In fact some who were believers of global warming have since become sceptics. There is no general "concensus" that global warming is real. We are coming out of a mini ice age, in fact. 203.213.238.191 05:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the TGGWS is proven crap, and any argument based on it has no weight. Look, your honour, I may have had a smoking gun in my hand, but billions of people have died before I even could handle it! Why should I now be responsible for this death? And moreover, the bullet was only 0.08 pounds. How could that have killed the 200 pound alleged victim? Your arguments are stale, and either plain wrong or irrelevant. Your comment on melting polar ice shows a lack of understandig both of Archimedes' Principle and of the geography of Greenland and Antarctica at the same time - usually people get at least one of those correct. --Stephan Schulz 11:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just what makes you think that you are completely right and I am completely wrong? Must be a German thing. Only time will tell. If we all burn up because of a rise in the temperature in the next few decades, then you'll be right. I very much doubt we will, however. Oh, and I'll be around much longer than you, then you won't be able to talk back. 203.213.238.191 14:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy shooting fish? Interesting structure of your argument, I hope you recall it later, except I wouldn't go so far as to say "the models are proven crap", because I believe they have value, just not for attribution and projection this small a warming yet. I'm not sure the argument has a valid structure though, although it may be more valid vis'a'vis the models given their complex nonlinear nature. The burden of proof when serious problems are documented, falls on the modelers.--Africangenesis 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. You caught me in a bad mood. We would probably get fewer interlopers like this if we lead the article with the science rather that what looks like polls. When a visitor disagrees with the result of polls, it is natural to just ask for a revote. If we got down to a solid presentation of the actual science, instead of the politics, then maybe more visitor would read before disagreeing. --Africangenesis 12:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Top U.S. climate scientist says alarmism is appropriate

James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies and the top U.S. climate scientist, has issued a new warning about the threat of a catastrophic rise in sea levels. He warns further that many scientists aware of such a rise are reluctant to discuss it out of fears of appearing "alarmist."

Hansen, J.E. (2007) "Scientific reticence and sea level rise" Environmental Research Letters 2(2): 024002.

I suggest that a 'scientific reticence' is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control....

75.35.115.68 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But, get this! His immediate superior, NASA administrator Michael Griffin says, "To assume that it is a problem is to assume ... that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take." Some reactions: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and my favorite, "White House Blames NASA Chief’s Global Warming Denial On His ‘Wry Sense Of Humor’". :D 75.35.115.68 22:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclature: "Temperature Anomaly"

Hi, I was just wondering if someone could please define the term "Temperature Anomaly" in the opening figure of this article. I suggest this because the term has no definition elsewhere in the article. It is misleading and very much open to interpretation, people need to know what it is to understand that graph correctly, if it is a temperature change (i.e. delta T) could someone please say explicitly what the change is relative to. I would search and add ad the definition myself, but I'm sure there are many people already editing such a relevant article with much more expertise than myself. Thanks in advance. ChurchwellJH 22:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the anamolie just means that the actual temperatures are not being reported, but rather the deviations from the temperature at some zero date.--Africangenesis 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so but the graph still shows nothing until that date and temperature are cited clearly, it could be from the coldest period we know of in recent history, or from the hottest... On reading the article further I am of the opinion that the more complete absolute temperature graph over many years should be shown first anyway...

I also think the "grand absolutism" of the opening paragraphs should be tempered with the words "theory" and that it should be made clear that there is no clearly undeniably proven connection between human gas emissions and the recent observed increase in temperature. Don't state things as absolute truth when they are only based on models, not <observation/theory/prediction/repeatability> the fundamental pillars of scientific philosophy. People should not have to read over half the article before they get a taste of the other side of the argument ChurchwellJH 22:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The content herein is based on observation, theory, prediction, and, of course, models. ~ UBeR 22:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The absolute temperatures are not as meaningful, they are contaminated by the heat island effect. It took years of work to validate that the heat island data could still be used to confirm the trends. That is when global warming became more accepted.--Africangenesis 22:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I challenge someone to show me a primary scientific reference where human gas emissions are undeniably proven to be the primary cause of the current increase in global temperature with the abstraction of all other possible factors. There is no debate about this it either can be proven or it cannot, until then temper the articles introduction, it is clearly biased in one direction as does not accurately depict the current nature of this controversial and much debated topic. Current trends and consensus are based solely on computer models where the causative factors are estimated, interpreted and added as parameters and not proven irrefutably to be direct causes. ChurchwellJH 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, the models all have correlated bias larger than the energy imbalance thought responsible for the recent warming. So, it can't be proven with the current models. --Africangenesis 23:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Here. ~ UBeR 01:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

assume good faith

I have added the roesch and stroeve cites, showing all the AR4 models getting the surface albedo and ice-albedo feedbacks wrong. Arritt has done a revert of properly cited material that has been discussed. He should assume good faith. He assumed these would be non-consensus, when the community has not evaluated them. If the community is intellectually honest (I am assuming good faith), they will have no problem with these additions. I am open to having them either in the intro or in the model section, but they should be with the projection numbers so they are in proper perspective.--Africangenesis 21:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be rather contradictory of WP:BOLD to have request permission to add content every time. ~ UBeR 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a point where WP:BOLD runs head on into WP:TEND. Raymond Arritt 02:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As Africangenesis surely knows, such large, substantive changes should be properly discussed first. Although some/many/all (?) of Africangenesis' edits may be perfectly acceptable, given the complex nature of the material, in order to continue to assume good faith, incremental changes, rather than such large-scale revisions, should be the approach here. I second Arritt's comments. Arjuna 03:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The changes would not have seemed large scale in the diffs if UbER had not shifted the material into the model section. The material added was neither bold nor tendacious, it was cite material that had been discussed here above and in the material just archived. No one has pointed out any problems with the cites.--Africangenesis 10:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The only content change I made was moving Africangensis' new content to the "Climate models" section, which was something like two sentences. ~ UBeR 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In one edit [11] You moved text, deleted several text "macros" and lost the "increased warming feedback" footnote, which is why in a subsequent edit summary I asked "UbER, you deleted a footnote, I'm restoring, can you check your work to make sure you didn't delete anything else? -- thanx" It is easier for you and others to check your work if you do it in simple parts. Separate text moves, from macro deletions, from footnote deletions. It is also the reason substantive contributions should not be immediately removed. The full edit may still be in progress, being done in parts to make it easier for the community to follow.--Africangenesis 10:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what I did. I moved you text to climate models section, where it belongs (I actually suggest you begin working at the article titled climate model). I also deleted your note you were using as a reference. You're free to make a notes section if it really warrants it. I deleted the text macros, but like I said, it wasn't a content change. ~ UBeR 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You did not disclose the deletion of the note, there are other notes in the reference section.--Africangenesis 21:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Where? ~ UBeR 06:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My bad. It must have been on a different article. Deleting a note is still a content change.--Africangenesis 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Solar radiation as a cause of global warming

The last two sentences of the first paragraph in the "causes" section currently (2007-05-26) read: "Contrasting with the scientific consensus, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain most of the observed increase in global temperatures. Among these hypotheses are that the warming is caused by natural fluctuations in the climate or that warming is mainly a result of variations in solar radiation." This wording states two views which are not supported by primary references. First it suggests that some research views solar radiation as a primary cause of global warming. Secondly, it suggests that a belief in solar radiation as a contributing factor to warming are outside the scientific mainstream. The current reference is to a media article (secondary reference). If these views are supported in research literature, such references should be added.

There are peer-reviewed research articles which support that solar variation is a contributing factor (Solanki 2004, Stott 2007). But neither of these sources claim that solar variation is the major cause of global warming. Stott et al. say, "results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse gas incresases explain most of the global warning observed in the second half of the twentieth century." Solanki et al. arrive at similar conclusions, saying "Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusal climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."

I made edits regaring this issue which were reverted. I won't attempt to make edits again, but I request that other editors find a satisfactory way to resolve this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peanutvampire (talk • contribs)

I believe I saw an edit summary saying your information was already in the article in a different place. I haven't checked myself. Although, Solanki did say at one time that solar variability was unlikely to have been the dominant cause for the last three decades, it is unclear whether he was familiar with the climate commitment literature.--Africangenesis 22:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Peanutvampire. Recently, Dr. Arritt changed "some" to "most." I don't think it was unwise, as I don't think anyone doubts the Sun plays a role. Perhaps, think it's being underestimated would be better phrasing. As for secondary vs. primary references, WP:OR suggests secondary over primary. However, I agree with using primarily primary sources. ~ UBeR 22:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was because of the context "Contrasting with the scientific consensus..." Stating that "some" of the changes are due to solar variation, etc. is part of the consensus view. The departure from consensus arrives when these factors are argued to dominate over the anthropogenic contribution; i.e., they produced "most" of the temperature increase. Raymond Arritt 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that UBeR's wording--the contribution of solar variation may be "underestimated"--would be an improvement over the current. Maybe better yet: solar variation amplified by cloud feedbacks have been proposed as an alternative cause. This wording is consistent with the detailed section on solar variation. Regarding primary vs. secondary sources--they are complementary, include both!

Africangenesis the Solanki&Krivova paper specifically takes this into account [12]. Solanki btw. doesn't just dismiss solar variability as a dominant cause - he also dismisses the cosmic ray/cloud hypothesis as being a major cause. (in toto: both combined a max of 30% of the warming since 1970) --Kim D. Petersen 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Solanki only shifts by 11 years, the climate commitment studies show that temperature can take decades to equilibrate, and the energy imbalance from a new forcing continues for centuries of heat storage into the ocean. So, Solanki did not show familiarity with the studies. As to cosmic rays, he also claims more than he actually demonstrated. --Africangenesis 23:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Africangenesis, the graph is shiftet 11 years, as it shows a nice correlation - that doesn't mean that other shifts wasn't tried. And in fact the text specifically states that it was, and the reason for it (ocean-atmosphere lag). I'll overlook your personal opinion on Solanki's claims about cosmic rays, as that is purely WP:OR - it would be really nice if you could stop making these, since this isn't a forum for opinion. --Kim D. Petersen 00:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the main results of climate commitment studies, was that even if the forcing went flat, the climate is committed to an increasing temperature for decades and to storing heat into the ocean for centuries, and you are here talking about trying shifts to achieve correlations. Since climate commitment was barely mentioned in the tar, and the studies of Meehl and Wigley weren't until 2005, perhaps Solanki in 2002 should be given a break.

Under this climate commitment understanding, what you look for in the charts, is not matching slopes, but a new level of forcing having been achieved and maintained above the level of prior centuries and the temperature rising in response. The periodic nature of solar forcing, and even slight dips in solar forcing, that are still above levels that have not yet been adjusted to by the oceans, still can result in a monotonically increasing temperature. Even in a circumstance in which solar forcing should be causing monotonically increasing temperatures, other intervening influences such as volcanoes and aerosols, etc can give the curves quite different shapes which would frustrate simple curve matching exercises such as this. Even more sophisticated analyses such as the new one I am looking at by Tung and Camp, that find a solar signature over the short term solar cycle, underestimate the total climate sensitivity to solar, since they would filter out the DC (flat) contribution.--Africangenesis 09:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

citation formatting completed

I have just completed a section of citation formatting for readability and ease of finding the end of a citation. I know it make the differences look screwy, so I took care to do all the formmatting at once,without any other edits for a one time transition. The formatting takes advantage of two characteristics.

• Within references, we can have a space at the beginning of a line, and within the text we cannot. So I leave the ref at the end of the text and begin the first line of the reference with a space.
• Paragraph spacing requires two newlines. Therefore, at the end of ref, which is a /ref, we can have the /ref on a line by itself. The text can resume at the very beginning of the next line

Therefore we can find the next ref by looking for the <space> at the beginning of a line. We can find where the text resumes by finding the /ref by itself on a line, and the very next line is the resumption of the text. The only exception is where there are two references in a row, in that case, I put the /ref and the new ref on the same line, and then also make sure to being the next line of the new ref with a space as usually. I do NOT suggest that we enforce this on editors, just that we fix it, for our own benefit when we see it. -- regards,--Africangenesis 14:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a horrible idea, in my honest opinion. It was fine as is (i.e. before the "text macros"). ~ UBeR 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And actually, looking at it now, it's even harder to read! ~ UBeR 22:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should share your techniques, how is having to only look for markers the beginning of lines, "harder" than having to search through blocks of text for the markers?--Africangenesis 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Because looking at a properly formatted article for long enough, you're used to the proper format. It's quite a bit more difficult looking at sentences that break after each full stop. Could you imagine writing a paper with a break after each sentence? Probably not, so there's no reason to with this article, which hundreds of people seemed to edit just fine, except for you. ~ UBeR 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed fix for the Model Projections Paragraph

I have added a POV tag to the article page, because without something of the kind like I propose below, undue weight is being given to the projections, by featuring them without qualification and in the introductory section of the article. I have added this after the discussions up to the date/time in my signature. --Africangenesis 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the tag off. The proposed text below is, in my view and that of a number of other contributers below, inappropriately emphasising one of many critiques of a complicated set of modelling problems, is OR in the nature of its emphasis and is POV whereas the original text represents models as models with a range of outcomes and doesn't try to claim that there is a systematic uncorrected flawing. --BozMo talk 20:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the peer reviewed literature that documents uncorrected AND correlated errors. Read the POV page, undue weight is a part of POV, the tag I added was valid and the evidence shows it. You don't counter citations I have provided by saying it is just one of many documented problems in the models, you counter it by rehabilitating the models in some way with the peer reviewed literature, frankly, I don't think that can be done, so having the projections at all, other than as a matter of curiousity, is probably giving them undue weight.--Africangenesis 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"don't be huffy because your OR is being rejected " evidently William M Connelley would like to close the discussion of the evidence prematurely, perhaps he fears people will be able to shed their "preconceived ideologically driven opinions" --Africangenesis 21:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Its the edit of the beast [13] :-). Meanwhile, your implied assertion that the albedo error is (a) be models biggest error and (b) significantly relevant to the projection range remains OR, until you can find it from a reliable source William M. Connolley 21:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't imply (a) so that is taken care of. Roesch is a reliable source "These substantial deviations are still far too high to meet the required accuracy of surface albedos in GCMs.", presumably Stroeve's co-author Scambos is also: "Because of this disparity, the shrinking of summertime ice is about thirty years ahead of the climate model projections." How is this OR?--Africangenesis 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course you imply (a) - putting the albedo stuff there is meaningless otherwise. I haven't read the paper (I assume the R quote is from the paper?); the S quote appears to be from a press release about sea ice, not model T projections - where do you source the S quote from? William M. Connolley 22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't imply (a), and I don't believe (a), and the error doesn't have to be the largest error to be larger than the energy imbalance. In a nonlinear system you can't hand wave away errors of this size. There is no evidence that other or larger errors can restore the models skill. The only hope for cancelling this error somehow was meta-ensembles, and the fact that this bias is correlated in the same direction in all the models, eliminates any meta-ensemble benefit for this error. This error is large enough. Yes the S quote is from their press release. The other quote from the citation is from the paper. The Roesch quote is from the full text of the paper.--Africangenesis 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The existing text

Climate models referenced by the IPCC project that global surface temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The range of values reflects the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions and results of models with differences in climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. This reflects the large heat capacity of the ocean

The proposed text

Climate models referenced by the IPCC reflect too much solar energy into space when compared to the actual climate, due to a positive surface albedo bias, and an ice-albedo feedback to global warming that is too low. These models project that global surface temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The range of projections reflects the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions and results of models with differences in climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. This reflects the large heat capacity of the oceans.

References

Discussion

Note, the existing paragraph is the third paragraph of the introduction and projects a range of global surface temperatures produced only by models of different sensitivities under different greenhouse gas scenerios. The range does not reflect any of the known errors in the models. My proposed text adds some perspective, to the rather idealized POV that has been presented, based upon model diagnostic work published in the peer reviewed literature. I am for brief introductions, so I am open to the whole paragraph being moved to the model section, but it is POV to allow the projections without the perspective in near proximity. I tried having the projections as the first sentence, but chose having the perspective first as it read better, because it did not break up the flow of the later sentences. This is because the rest of the paragraph goes on as if the projections are true. I am open to an intelligible reordering that reads smoothly. I limited this to two citations, that are particularly relevant to relative attribution among the competing forcings but there are numerous other citations among the IPCC diagnostic subprojects, and earlier work.

Keep in mind that the errors found by Roesch are several times the global energy imbalance that we are trying to attribute and project with the models. See the discussion by searching the May archives [14]

The article cited for the model ice-albedo feedback problems was discussed above and is the subject of its own article [15], although it doesn't seem to be wiki-linkable. --Africangenesis 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I extract from the May archive, the relevant part of the Roesch information forward here along with a longer quote in the citation than I proposed for the article proper, for your information:

• Another result of that paper was that the surface albedo feedback was, as expected, also a positive enhancer of the warming in *ALL* the models. This, despite *ALL* the models evidently still getting the surface albedo too high, i.e. biased against the warming, solar, CO2 or otherwise, relative to two sets of satellite observations, as reported in the Roesch diagnostic study. For perspective, this correlated mean positive surface albedo bias of 0.016 or 0.019, when applied to the globally and averaged solar flux at the earth's surface of 198w/m^2[16], is over 3w/m^2, when the total energy imbalance the models are being used to attribute and project, is less than 1w/m^2.

• Roesch, A. (2006). "Evaluation of surface albedo and snow cover in AR4 coupled climate models". J. Geophys. Res. doi:10.1029/2005JD006473. The mean annual surface albedo of the 15 AR4 models amounts to 0.140 with a standard deviation of 0.013. All AR4 models are slightly above the mean of PINKER (0.124) and ISCCP-FD (0.121)." "The annual mean surface albedo of the AR4 models is 0.140 with a standard deviation of 0.013. All climate models are slightly above the average derived from the PINKER and ISCCP climatology. The participating models all capture the large-scale seasonal cycle of the surface albedo quite well. However, pronounced systematic biases are predicted in some areas. Highest differences between the models are found over snow-covered forested regions. The winter surface albedo of CNRM-CM3, averaged over the latitude zone from 50N-70N, is nearly 0.3 lower than in MIROC3.2 and INM-CM3.0. Comparisons with ground-based and remote-sensed data reveal that most AR4 models predict positive biases over primarily forested areas during the snow period. These substantial deviations are still far too high to meet the required accuracy of surface albedos in GCMs. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

--Africangenesis 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

oppose - WP:Undue weight. I've emailed Dr. Roesch about the paper, and have received an answer - which i'll willingly forward (i've tried to forward to Africangenesis - but you haven't got an email addy registered with the wiki). I hope Dr. Roesch himself will chime in here, but i can quote relevant sections if not. Here is the last part:

Summarizing, it can be stated that the forcing error due to surface albedo is not overly important compared to other common errors in state-of-the-art climate models. However, I don't want to state that we can neglect the errors in the surface SW energy balance induced by biased surface albedos. This certainly applies on a more regional scale.

Regarding the future climate scenarios: It is fundamental to note that predicted CHANGES in the climate are not (necessarily) related to present-day errors and vice-versa.

--Kim D. Petersen 16:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've mostly kept quiet on this, wondering if AG would eventually catch on that the implications of the Roesch paper aren't what he thinks they are. But it's helpful to have Roesch's input. Raymond Arritt 17:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I have set up my email now. Please forward the message. Thanx. I think you are underestimating what Roesch is saying. I agree with him, and may have stated it here myself, that other model errors are much larger. However, that is different than saying the implications are not what I say they are. It is Roesch himself in his paper that puts the errors he found in global perspective, just as I quoted. While there are larger errors, you won't get him to deny that these errors are larger than the global energy imbalance of 0.75 to 0.8W/m^2 per Hansen. Perhaps he can help us get that into the article. Yes, this global implication comes from errors that are far larger locally, 10s to 100s of watts/m^2, and mainly in the higher lattitudes. While these errors certainly apply "on a more regional scale", the regions are coupled non-linearly, and as his global error figures show, they are large enough to dwarf the energy imblance. He is correct that the predicted changes in the climate are not necessarily related to present day errors in one respect. That is, once the model climatologies get warm enough to signficantly reduce the temperate snow cover, the surface albedo error he documents will be much smaller. However, the predicted changes in the climate ARE NECESSARILY connected to the future predicted changes, because these are the same models. The models were able to match the present day climate while having these large surface albedo errors, they are getting that missing energy from someplace else where they weren't supposed to. Once they are warm enough to significantly reduce the snow cover, that wrong compensating source of energy will no longer be restrained. The release of this constraint is probably why the temperature rises projected take off in the latter half of the century.--Africangenesis 21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you will find that having the errors Roesch documents be smaller than the other documented errors in the models does not help your cause. In addition to being easy to related to the energy imbalance, the other signifance of the Roesch results is that ALL the models have the bias. Note that in my other cite ALL the models are also involved. I do hope Roesch shows up, because perhaps he can also help us get the larger model errors in the article. I thought they would be harder, because they differ between the models and for the most part are not correlated like these. Keep in mind that whatever Roesch's intuition is (and that is all it could be at this time), about the coupling of these regional errors to the oceans and the rest of the climate, he can't know what the coupling to the climate is of the compensating errors that the models used to match the recent climate energy imbalance, unless there is new research that we are unaware of. That compensating error coupling may be both quite global and direct.

There are two types of handwaving the modelers try to do when confronted with errors such as this. One is that the errors overall are far larger, and the other is that the meta-ensembles where "independent" model results are combined will tend to cancel out the errors. The important thing about the two studies I have cited is that the errors are correlated and cannot be claimed to cancel out. --Africangenesis 21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. The fact that your OR is erroneous is beside the point; even if it were correct, it would still be OR. (Free hint: d/dt.) Raymond Arritt 23:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for the original research compliment, however, you are going to have to be more specific, I am unaware of what you are characterizing as OR.--Africangenesis 23:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspected that could be the case. Raymond Arritt 01:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can't back up your statement, it doesn't matter what you suspect.--Africangenesis 01:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. What you've done is essentially to give the pearagraph a new topic sentence:

Climate models referenced by the IPCC reflect too much solar energy into space when compared to the actual climate, due to a positive surface albedo bias,[2] and an ice-albedo feedback to global warming that is too low.[3][4]

Point by point: (1) What merits this being the topic sentence? In other words, do you have sources that say these two errors are the unifying or most important aspect of climate projections? If you do not, giving them pride of place as the topic sentence in a discussion of warming projections is OR. (2) What's the relationship of the albedo bias to the rate of warming? The author of the cited paper doesn't connect the two; thus, your implication that they're related is a textbook example of OR. (One can easily show that to first order there's no relationship of the albedo error to the rate of warming -- but that's not relevant to the present matter, and indeed it would be OR on my part to show this.) (3) The low ice-albedo feedback is supported by two footnotes. Footnote [3] is an unreferenced statement, which although probably correct, in its present form is OR. There are some other issues but that'll do for now. Raymond Arritt 03:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First, let me compliment and thank you on being unafraid to bite, we should have the freedom and courage of the whiteboard here.

Point (1), no pride involved, unless it is that of the modelers who have pride that the models can run for a few centuries without falling off a cliff. That is no mean achievement, however, it does not prove model skill for projecting this warming. Both cites are on albedo feedbacks to warming, in both, the models get the sign of the feedbacks right, i.e., both are melting the snow and ice. In both, ALL the models get it too low and reflect too much solar energy into space at this part of the climate. The most important part of climate projections is whether the modelers are just conducting this as an intellectual exercise, or whether the projections have something to do with the climate. The IPCC and the modelers are using the projections for the latter, so the quality and independence of the models are of the utmost importance. I don't know whether these two are the most important aspect of the climate projections. I know that the Roesch result is several times the global energy imbalance reported by Hansen, since Roesch presented the globally and annually averaged bias vis'a'vis the observations. The arctic feedback may not be as important since it is at such a high lattitude and is chiefly in the northern hemisphere, and some of it due to thinner ice in the observations, and not completely due to reduced ice extent. I'd like to ask Roesch if some of this albedo effect is also in his calculations. The arctic citation has been a widely reported criticism of the models, although most of the news focus has been on the increased rate of melting and the concern that the cap will entirely disappear seasonally. While other model errors should perhaps also be given primacy over the projections, and perhaps also cause the model projections to be de-emphasized back to the model sections, these two have the advantage of giving enough pause and proper perspective to the reader, by being a correlated bias against the chief competition to the AGW hypothesis for the warming component, a significant solar component.

Point (2), I don't connect them to the rate of warming. I suspect that the rate of model warming will be right for a decade or so, and that one can probably get the rate of warming correct to a 1st order just by projecting the observations. Keep in mind that the models are trying to project a nonlinear system, so they have to get more than just a "rate of warming" right. The arctic paper definitely emphasizes the tipping point to the complete cap melting and the models likely having that wrong by decades. Even if one assumed linearity the errors Roesch documents are larger than the energy imbalance.

It was Roesch's conclusion that the models did not get the surface albedos accurate enough. "These substantial deviations are still far too high to meet the required accuracy of surface albedos in GCMs." Presumably their accuracy is needed for projection and attribution, and not just because this is a pet specialty of his. I don't have the citation handy, but I believe there are published recommendations for how accurate the surface albedos need to be.

Point (3), I was only explaining, in case it wasn't clear, what was the referent of the term "low" in the statement. This is not OR. I didn't want to burden the text with a statement that might be too pedantic. It might be a bit confusing to the readers that albedos that are too "high" mean that the model feedbacks are too "low". Not, OR, just an explanation.

Thanx again for the feedback.--Africangenesis 13:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The need for such a long explanation only reinforces the appearance that your original statement was WP:OR. Look at some of the language you're using: "may not be as important...", "I'd like to ask Roesch if...", "Presumably their accuracy is needed...", etc. etc. Again, I think you mean well, but you are genuinely unable to distinguish the basic information given in citations from your own interpretation and synthesis of said information. Raymond Arritt 19:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when is a long discussion of the evidence OR? There is nothing wrong with understanding the research and its implications. My proposed text is rather tame, and contains no OR that you have been able to point out. We could be more verbose and actually quote the peer reviewed text about how bad the models are. Yes, it does make the projections look rather worthless, but what evidence is there that is not a natural and justified conclusion? Many who have been labeled "deniers" have said as much. But this is being said in peer reviewed literature, although not in abstracts the Orieskes would have picked up. Instead of addressing the language and length, can you point to something that is OR?--Africangenesis 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for the email Kim. I assume after reading that, that we'll be going for some stronger statement. The surface albedo bias is just maybe one-third of the total positive radiative bias in the models of 9W/m^2. I'll have to track down that paper. However, with the wide variation he mentioned perhaps they are not all biased in the same direction, despite correlated bias in the surface albedo.--Africangenesis 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Turns out I already had the full text Wild papers, just hadn't gotten around to reading them yet.--Africangenesis 01:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Opposed, this is OR without some connection (via good sources) of the errors to the projections. All models have errors, this is no surprise; there is no reason to pick out this error William M. Connolley 14:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to participate honestly or not? Which sources weren't good, you haven't read the comments if you say there is "no reason". The errors are connected to the projections by the size and importance of the errors and the use of the models for this purpose. Here is a cite which hopefully will inspire you to participate. From a BookTV interview on Al Gore's book "The Assault on Reason"

Gore, Al (2007-05-22). "Book TV". If reason, based on our best ability to analyze facts and knowledge, counts for so little, that it can be easily brushed aside, by a preconcieved, ideologically driven opinion, that is then persued without any regard for what the facts might otherwise dictate, then the problem is not simply to get a new president, or to elect a different individual or different people, the problem is the news media, with the politicians, with us, we the people, ..., the fact that evidence and facts, themselves are just so easily shunted aside, that is the real underlying problem. And so, we will fix our democracy when we restore the integrity of the way we communicate with one another about the choices we have to make as American citizens, that's the underlying problem, there is crack in the foundation of our democracy, and it has to be fixed by the restoration of respect for reason, fact, knowledge and truth. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

--Africangenesis 14:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that accusing an editor who simply disagrees with you of dishonesty ("Are you going to participate honestly or not?") isn't helpful. Raymond Arritt 19:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of flinging around accusations of dishonesty, why not read what I wrote? Your sources are good scientific papers. What you don't have is a connection to the projections at all, let alone via good sources. Your asserting the connection is OR, as several people have pointed out to you. And citing irrelevant chunks of book review won't make it any less OR William M. Connolley 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It was intellectual honesty I was referring to. You were not assuming good faith. I did read what you wrote, you accussed me of proposing changes with "no reason", the sources you are saying are "no good" are peer reviewed, unlike the IPCC process. And unless you find evidence that the projections were not model based, the errors are connected to projections. So instead of uncommunicative dismissals that don't show any consideration of my good faith efforts, why don't you explain how in a nonlinear system, models can be validated for attributing such a small energy imbalance, given that they disagree with the observations and each other to this extent. If doing so would jeapardize your job, come back anonymously, so we can improve the article.--Africangenesis 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole exchange is beginning to border on the surreal. Raymond Arritt 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you had to see this. This is what happens when someone threatens WP:OWN, evidence no longer matters. We get, denial and dismissal, rather than discussion of the evidence.--Africangenesis 22:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Holocene maximum

File:Temp10000years.jpg

Regarding the holocene maximum (which occured approximately 6000 years ago); how come there is no mention of this in the current article? It seems like a very significant piece of information in relation to global warming, and there already exist other graphs in the article which deal with time periods before the holocene maximum. Perhaps some mention of this, plus this image may improve the article? --Rebroad 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The holocene maximum has little relation to present global warming. See e.g., this reference. As an aside your graph looks like it was taken from The Great Global Warming Swindle, which cannot be relied upon for factual information. Raymond Arritt 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, thanks for the link, but unfortunately it's rather too much to read. Fancy quoting the relevant section please? Many thanks, --Rebroad 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a more up to date image using a wider range of more recent reconstructions from diverse sources would be better than the outdated chart that was picked up and re-used for The Great Global Warming Swindle. You'll note that exact temperature reconstruction over this time range is sketchy, but averaging globally over the various local proxy records gives a relatively low Holocene maximum, with which modern temperatures (2004 is labelled in the chart) are on par with. It also shows how current warming compares with the general trend of the last 6000 years. -- Leland McInnes 15:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raymond & Leland. Thanks for your quick replies. I understood that the "Great Global Warming Swindle" graph is using IPCC data. Is this correct? Is this data not reliable? If not, why not? Thanks, --Rebroad 16:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Rebroad, The Great Global Warming Swindle doesn't exactly have a good record on graphs. At least two of those shown in the movie where either fakes or manipulated. (see the article). The graph "might" be from the IPCC - but in that case its from a very old report, at a time where the proxy evidence was rather small. Arritt might chime in on this. --Kim D. Petersen 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain but I think it's a schematic cartoon from the first IPCC report back in 1990. It's not based on data as such, but is more of a conceptual illustration that "we believe this is roughly what the temperature record looked like since the last glacial maximum." (Notice how smooth the curve is. Real geophysical data tend to be noisy.) One might ask why TGGWS didn't use a modern reconstruction but chose to use an obsolete graph that -- by pure coincidence, of course -- happened to support the point they were arguing. Raymond Arritt 17:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is correct? CO2->Temp or Temp->CO2?

Ok, simple and quick question. Which follows which? Temperature lags behind CO2 levels, or CO2 lags behind temperature levels? Many thanks!! --Rebroad 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Both. In logical terms, "A causes B" does not preclude "B causes A." Or in everyday terms -- which came first, the chicken or the egg? Raymond Arritt 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In historical records, CO2 followed temperature. Temperature was changing for entirely different reasons in the past. Today, I tihnk it could be reasonably said that temperature follows CO2. ~ UBeR 17:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Under the right conditions, both statements are TRUE. Notice that the statement

(A causes B) AND (B causes A)

is the definition of "positive feedback". The fact that the planet did NOT overheat 100 years ago is proof that either

Something is preventing positive feedback (and NONE of the models indicate whatever that something is)

or that

Positive feedback started about 1650, but it is very slow

or that

CO2 has already reached saturation and that increasing it no longer has ANY effect on global temperature.

Deciding which statement is correct IS the "Global Warming" argument.

It is relatively easy to produce a lab experiment where adding some CO2 increases temperature. But, at some point, adding more has no effect. It is not clear how to apply these results. With respect to the real world, the Ice Core data is pretty clear - temperature changes either lead CO2 changes, or they are not correlated. However, note that "cause and effect" ... either way ... is an unproven theory (at current temperatures and pressures). Correlation must never be used to suggest "cause". Q Science 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to the solar people! William M. Connolley 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

minor, (minor) query about grammar

This featured article is well presented (very well presented, what I could get before my browser went to sleep) — G- W- is, muddles use/mention; could be something like "G- W- is used to refer to an (observed)<ref1>> increase in..." Of course, there is no hard and fast rule about minor grammar matters, so any improvement could be marginal either way. The style in the para below, Terminology is correct as to use/mention, though expressed a bit pedantically. Any comments? About the grammar; (no editing by this user is intended presently, till I can read at least the whole article, and some refs). — Newbyguesses 02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Would one say that "Global Warming" is 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) during the past century. Or would one say

"The amount of Global Warming" is 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) during the past century. So the first sentence could read —

Global warming is a term used referring to the increase...Newbyguesses - Talk 15:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"potentially serious inconsistency"

I'm going to add a section under the Model subheading which describes the serious inconsistency that's been pointed out in Temp Trends in the Lower Atmosphere. The gist is 'all models project tropical amplification' which is consistent with the Greenhouse Effect Theory, but no observations show tropical amplification.[[17]]....unless someone else would rather take a stab.65.12.145.148 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Belongs on Satellite temperature measurements where it also is already. The gist here (iirc) is that the conculusion of the CCSP is that its more likely to be an observation error than a model error. --Kim D. Petersen 02:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It belongs here too. Under Climate Model, the discussion of the limitation of climate models.65.12.145.148 03:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That it is a limitation in models would be your own WP:OR i believe, since the CCSP says: "The favored explanation for this is residual error in the observations, but the issue is still open.".

But under all circumstances its not something that you'd add here - you should add it to the correct subarticle(s), and then given that the weight of the issue is large enough, it will be mentioned in the summary of that article. --Kim D. Petersen 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Satellite record surely is not the place as there is rightfully no section for GCMs there. I'll check GW Controversy page.67.141.235.203 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ag fiddling

Unfortunately I'm out of reverts, but Ag has broken the page with this edit: [18]. The original wording was correct. Based on scenerios bracketing uncertainies is wrong - they are certainly intended to do this, but since the uncertainties are uncertain, this cannot be stated for sure. And secondly he has removed Including uncertainties in the models and for no apparent reason. This seems to be pointless fiddling on Ag's part without understanding William M. Connolley 08:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I drew the same conclusion, and was actually considering reverting it, but I wasn't confident enough. I've now reverted. --Ashenai 08:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you get your confidence vicariously. Are you confident enough to find the supporting source yourself?--Africangenesis 08:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, not really. I'm no expert on global warming. I do recognize and respect Dr. Connolley as a WP:EXPERT on the subject, however, and when in doubt, I'll usually defer to his expertise. --Ashenai 09:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are a volunteer sock puppet then. Let me encourage you to read the source and make a determination yourself which phrase correctly charcterizes the basis of the range. I believe you can do it if you try. Of course, it may be that neither of us have characterized it correctly.--Africangenesis 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do try to be civil, I have extremely delicate sensibilities and may start weeping bitterly at any moment. 3RR has a nasty flaw in that in a one-on-one edit war situation, it biases towards change. This is not normally a problem, but in the case of featured articles with long and complex histories, WP:BOLD suggests establishing consensus before making changes. Thus, for articles like Global warming or Human, I like to discourage edit warring by counter-biasing towards the original version. If you wish to make a change, please discuss it on the talk page first. I will certainly not stand in the way of consensus. --Ashenai 09:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't close to using that advantage, and I never have. I don't trust people to count them correctly. He wasted his reverts elsewhere. If a science article is to maintain its credibility it has to be committed more to the evidence than to consensus. I corrected a phrase that was at first without any cite and then was unsupported by the provided cite. I correctly characterized the source, although more detail could be even more correct. It is a judgement call what kind of correction needs to go to the community, I've made several changes in the past that were not reverted, so where was the need in those to get consensus first. These things are best left to those that follow and understand what is going on. However, let me encourage you to participate, climatology is a multidisciplinary field, and thus the peer reviewed papers are often well written with non-specialists in mind. It is an enjoyable field.--Africangenesis 09:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You did well Ashenai. AG: "corrected" is a little generous to yourself. Trying to make a distinction between different model ranges and error ranges for unincluded model error is also not really a basis for "unsupported": you have to make an OR claim for consistent ommision or consistent bias in order to contest the assumption that the range of ranges output from each model gives a reason view. The OR claim could be right of course but its still OR. --BozMo talk 10:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I do have a problem with people making reverts "because they trust someone else" without being able to support them themselves on the talk page. An apetite for "counter-biaising" in favor of the original version is no reason to spoil the legitimate efforts of another editor. --Childhood's End 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you provide a source showing that the range includes uncertainties in the models, I will revert it myself. The range presented is from the low end of the B1 scenerio to the high end of the A1F1 scenerio. The reason there are several scenerios, is there are uncertainties in the future levels of greenhouse gasses. There is no evidence that they have expanded the range for model uncertainties, such as those documented in the diagnostic subprojects. --Africangenesis 08:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"For no apparent reason"? I put the "citation needed" in there twice, you provided a source that didn't support the phrase, which is exactly what I expected. You shouldn't be surprised.--Africangenesis 08:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop being silly, read the SPM, table 3 will do you. [PA removed] William M. Connolley 09:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Table 3 supports my statement not yours, there is nothing there documenting or even mentioning that they are including uncertainties in the models. The ranges within the scenerios are from the different models with different senstitivies [PA removed] --Africangenesis 09:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Table 3 says These estimates are assessed from a hierarchy of models that encompass a simple climate model, several Earth Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs), and a large number of Atmosphere-Ocean Global Circulaion Models (AOGCMs) - these *are* uncertainties in the models. Unless you have some private definition designed to exclude these William M. Connolley 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, those are not uncertainties in the models, those are different models. No attempt is made to assess or report the uncertainties in the models in these ranges. Is what you are attempting OR? The term seems to have a rather broad definition. You still need a cite, you are hoping that I will make some kind of leap from different models to model uncertainties, and it isn't there to be made.--Africangenesis 09:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are dancing on pinheads here. If you'd like to rephrase it as "modelling uncertainty" that would be fine William M. Connolley 10:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Asheni, your deference to WMC as an 'expert' on global warming is misplaced. I believe he has published on Antarctica, if you'd like to discuss the climate there, feel free to cite him as an expert. Blogging doesn't make someone an expert.67.141.235.203 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WMC is a mathematician from what I've found, not a climate scientist. ^rossnixon 02:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(a) This isn't an appropriate line of discussion. (b) You're wrong. Raymond Arritt 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your admonition would be better directed at Ashenai if WMC's expertise is inappropriate, I agree that each of his actions should be evaluated on its merits, after all, he has been wrong a few times. That said, climate science is a multidisciplinary field, that physicists, geologists, mathmaticians, astronomers, chemists, meteorologies, computer scientists, accountants, statisticians, climate scientists, etc. all have made valuable contributions to. I don't think of someone with a numerical analysis degree as any less qualified or less a climate scientist than the other disciplines.--Africangenesis 21:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the whole SPM, at no time is uncertainty used with respect to the models. Perhaps the IPCC uses so many models because despite the disagreement among the models, none can be ruled out by observations. If they hope they serve as a surrogate for the uncertainty in the knowledge of the climate, they don't discuss that here. Perhaps there is more guidance in the TAR or in the full AR4 WG1 report. I can perhaps see what you are getting at, if you view the disagreement amongst the models as representing model uncertainty, even though there is no explicit attempt to represent model uncertainty for the individual models. However, we need language that doesn't misrepresent the extent to which model uncertainty is included in this range derived multiple models running multiple scenerios. It is strange that you characterize this as "dancing on pinheads", when you would not acknowledge the direct implications of model biases for model projection credibility.--Africangenesis 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The comparison of the results from various models is of common usage in physics to estimate the uncertainty on the modeling. The use of multimodel ensemble is of common usage in climatology to esitmate our uncertainty on climate models. Anybody in the concerned fields knows that for an obvious fact ... As you apparently are working with simulation and modeling, I really don't get your point here!? --Galahaad 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you know something about modeling. Please see this section above [19], which documents correlated error in ALL the models, which you probably realize is not an uncertainty characterizable by the multi-model ensembles. Also, in the particular case of source supporting this text, there is no mention by the authors that they are intending their range to address model uncertainties, rather than uncertainties in the knowledge of climate senstivity. Enjoy.--Africangenesis 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so have you found a source for your idea that the IPCC's model deficiencies significantly affect their conclusions? johnpseudo 22:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider the two sources discussed in my proposal here [20]. The surface albedo bias is three to four times larger than global warming itself, and the arctic ice cap researchers, think the cap may disappear three decades earlier. In a nonlinear dynamics system the former is larger than the energy imbalance itself, and the latter is certainly larger than a butterfly flapping its wings in China. The burden of proof is on the modelers. There are those in the scientific community that think that climate prediction is just not possible by the very nature of the problem. I have an open mind about it. Even given the projections under discussion, a 1960s geography text is likely to only be off by a hundred miles or so in its climate maps, except perhaps in the Arctic. That seems pretty predictable to me. However, with the types of biases against solar forcing documented, there is no reason to accept on faith that the models have GHG scenerio projections right. Since all these models are "validated" against recent climate observations, which evidently is not very much of a constraint given the differences between the models and against the observations, they must have compensating errors elsewhere that balance the anti-solar biases. That is likely to be in their GHG sensitivies or feedbacks. Given that the models are similuating a warming trend constrained by snow and ice albedo negative feedback, that warming trend is eventually going to be freed of that constraint.--Africangenesis 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. I understand that some deficiencies in the model have been found. Do you have a reputable source that even suggests the link between the model deficiencies and the final conclusion? Otherwise, the IPCC's claim that model uncertainties are taken into account is undisputed. Show me where someone is saying "the IPCC is not taking model uncertainties into account". johnpseudo 22:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, look at the WG1 projections chapter, the Roesch paper is not cited in the references, even though it was submitted and brought to their attention.--Africangenesis 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You want to use the absence of something as a source? johnpseudo 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You want to reverse the usual wikipedia standard, of requiring a citation for text that has been disputed. The cites I've already provided address the AR4 models, you aren't going to get much more specific to the IPCC than that. You might also want to look Lucarini and Camp results discussed on this page and in the May archive. There was an ethical breach by some of the WG1 authors in going ahead with the projections despite knowledge of the Roesch results and rather "convenient"ly avoiding referencing them. The freedom to not address contrary evidence brought to their attention shows that the IPCC reports are not peer reviewed.--Africangenesis 23:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not reversing any standards here. You want to introduce the idea that there were uncertainties that the IPCC didn't take into account, and the best you can do for a source is a primary document that has no mention of the synthesis-level conclusions that we are talking about here. Who's to say that the IPCC didn't take Roesch's results under consideration and decide they were negligible? You're effectively questioning the entire validity of the IPCC's conclusions. Strong claims needs strong sources, not vague passages out of semi-relevant primary documents. johnpseudo 01:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the cite supporting "uncertainties"? If you understood nonlinear dynamics you would know there is no way to legitimately dismiss as negligible, errors of the size that Roesch has found. Perhaps other peer review research could be produced that would show his analysis was wrong, but that has not happened. You have reversed the standards here at wikipedia. Perhaps some intellectually honest person will step up in support of the compromise I have reached with Galahaad below.--Africangenesis 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point- where is the cite for claiming that the IPCC took model uncertainties into consideration? I just assumed from the way others were discussing it that the IPCC made that claim somewhere. johnpseudo 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. You have established a pattern of assuming that anyone who disagrees with you does so out of dishonesty -- or if you prefer, "intellectual dishonesty." It would be in everyone's interest if you cease such accusations. Raymond Arritt 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Prove me wrong by supporting the compromise, or providing a cite for the "uncertainties" phrase. You don't think reversing the standards, reverting out of ignorance in support of an "expert", refusing to acknowleding legitimate, cite supported points is uncivil?--Africangenesis 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Last version proposed by Africangenesis, 'including some uncertainties' seems an acceptable compromise to me. --Galahaad 23:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanx, it was offered in good faith. I accept the understanding expressed here by those knowledgable on the subject, that some model uncertainty is intended to be represented by the use of different models, even though a cite has not been provided the explicitly states that. I don't see how modelers could credibly adjust their error ranges for correlated error such as that I have cited, that is why I think we must retain the weasal word "some". The modelers certainly don't claim the ability to make such adjustments.--Africangenesis 23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The denotative difference between some combination of "Including uncertainties in climate modelling" and "Including some uncertainties in climate model sensitivities" is fairly minor and at this point the debate seems largely semantic. Ag's compromise proposal (the latter of the two examples, as I understand it) seems reasonable enough to me. Arjuna 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this: the former text is vaguer and better; it isn't as if CS is a tunable number of specific function William M. Connolley 13:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

By being "vaguer", the uncertainties give the misimpression of being all inclusive. Yes, the modelers don't exactly know where their CS differences come from, but whereever they came from, the IPCC chose to use the all the models to represent the uncertainty they have about the CS of the actual climate. The purpose of using all the models is not to represent all the model errors. There has been no attempt to extend the ranges to include the additional uncertainty due to model errors.--Africangenesis 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Count Iblis's "1.1 °C to 6.4 °C is based on the uncertainties. If it is claimed that the IPCC did not include other uncertainties that would make the interval significantly larger,then that statement must be sourced" fails to recognize the distinctions which have already been established in this discussion. First of all, while the range is based on "uncertainties", is it not "model" uncertainties, the range is due to different GHG scenerios, and due to the IPCC wanting to include models with different sensitivities, because they are uncertain about the climate's sensitivity. If they were confident, that some models were just outside the range of possible climate sensitivity, presumably they wouldn't use those models. Count Iblis seems to have fallen into the same mistaken belief that Pseudo eventually realized and acknowledged, the "uncertainties" mentioned in the text does not have a supporting cite, and Count Iblis is reversing the usual burden of proof.--Africangenesis 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's assume that there are additonal sources of uncertainties that the IPCC did not include. Then including that fact without furher qualifications will change the meaning of that sentence that gives the range of the temperature changes to something different from what the original sentence in the IPCC report intends to say.

E.g. Suppose I write up a scientific paper about investigations of the value of some quantity X and I conclude that X is between 1 and 2, the uncertainty being based on a number of effects. Of course, I may not have included all effects you can imagine. Suppose that a wiki article appears about my research that says that "based on some uncertainties the value of X was found to be between 1 and 2 by Count Iblis". That sentence would then be completely misleading as it casts doubt on the estimated range of X by me.

I, of course, had my reasons for determining the uncertainty of X in the way I did. If there are major other effects that I ignored that would significantly affect the range of X, then that would invalidade the result of my paper. A wiki article that suggests that this is could be the case is OR, unless it can be shown from reliable sources that the effects I ignored do have a significant impact.

If the wiki article just wants to make clear that I did not include all effects, it must then go through the rationale for doing that. Count Iblis 14:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. There is no citation for the pre-existing "uncertainties" phrase, and there are documented problems with the models, that were not documented until after the research the range is based on was published, but before the IPCC reports were published. There is no way the range could take account of these uncertainties, there is no citation that the IPCC took into account any "model" uncertainties, and the IPCC does provide references, that you are free to consult if you doubt this. Of course, your edit summary shows that you were unaware of the issues that the edit and compromise you reverted was about.--Africangenesis 01:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation wars

You hacked away the citation formatting and again failed to check your work. Others seem to have more robust adaptations to this new format than you. If you break your changes into small parts and do diffs after your work you may spot some of the mistakes you make.--Africangenesis 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to anything that was deleted? Nothing was deleted. ~ UBeR 19:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that you found your error in the intro, you don't check your work, so how do you know nothing was deleted? Just because you didn't intend to?--Africangenesis 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually sir, that typo came when I was formatting the new link with a citation template.[21] Again, nothing was deleted. ~ UBeR 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, so is this whole edit war over whether to split references into separate paragraphs from the text they're referring to? johnpseudo 20:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Folks, please stop edit warring over the citations. I'm happy to say that I don't care about the ref format, so I will be happy to block either or both of you if you can't settle down and talk nicely about what should be done, without being snide. Or is it sorted out now? William M. Connolley 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Uber says he has now left wiki, so I guess this war is over William M. Connolley 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Human flame out. He left us with a 4th revert, I guess not having the citations globbed together with text was the last straw for him.--Africangenesis 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Again please mind WP:CIV. Congratulations on driving away an editor who contributed to the project through meticulous copyediting, reference checking, and the like. Raymond Arritt 00:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound like he was the first person driven mad by this article. So many have been shown the door ruthlessly by the "establishment" here that I can't count anymore. I'm not saying that Uber wasn't good for this article... he certainly was. But he's just another fish in the sea of those driven nuts by both sides of this controversy. 67.49.13.166 07:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there have been times when I too have had to take a break to maintain what is left of my sanity. Raymond Arritt 16:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I had plenty of run-ins with UBeR but when I reflected afterwards, I often found I'd been forced to improve things. JQ 03:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You are fond of that accusation Raymond, what are you up to?--Africangenesis 04:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally hate the templates they add pointless code, clutter up the article, and add several KB to the article's size. Aaron Bowen 04:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Third paragraph proposal

Uncritical acceptance of IPCC findings is a serious problem with this article. The IPCC underestimated 2000-4 CO2 emissions by a substantial amount.[22] Why does the lead make a big deal out of surveying the few remaining dissenters instead of providing counterpoint to the IPCC in accordance with the magnitude and direction of their errors? If I was allowed to edit this article, I would certainly include the IPCC's error in explicit numerical terms in the second or third paragraph. James S. 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Emissions estimates wouldn't be expected to match reality over short periods, any more than temperature trends over short periods would. This article doesn't really deal with emissions much, so I don't see why this minor matter should go into the lead. Is this the only error you think the IPCC has made? William M. Connolley 08:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

They have made plenty. In terms of the effect on outcomes, is underestimating the CO2 trend the largest? 75.35.115.68 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a bit vaguer please? William M. Connolley 12:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Working proposal:

Climate models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) project that global surface temperatures may be likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The range of values reflects the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions and results of models with differences in climate sensitivity. The IPCC underestimated 2000-04 CO₂ emissions by a substantial amount, with their worst case scenario much better than observations. CO₂ emissions from cars, factories, and power plants grew at an annual rate of 1.1% during the 1990s, according to the Global Carbon Project, but from 2000 to 2004, CO₂ emissions rates almost tripled to 3% per year. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. This reflects the large heat capacity of the oceans. An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including sea level rise, and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. There will also be increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Other effects will include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

James S. 11:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What does 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) over the next 93 years become if we correct for the IPCC error in predicting the correct trend? James S. 12:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Since these are model based, you might also ask what do these become of the surface albedo biases, and the ice/albedo feedbacks are corrected. BTW, I notice you used more affirmative language, saying there will be increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. You perhaps forget some some extremes are cold, and perhaps those may decrease, and also that the higher lattitudes are expected to have greater temperature increases, which will reduce the temperature differential vis'a'vis lower lattitudes. Reduced temperature differentials is not necessarily a recipe for increased intensity. Any intensity increases found in model simulations may be an artifact of the energy deficit at high lattitudes caused by the positive albedo biases. See the Roesch and Stroeve references I cited above.--Africangenesis 12:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Same comments as before: if you're only looking at 2000-4 this is irrelevant. If you shift SRES up or down by the difference, it makes hardly any difference at all. Also, I'm not at all sure I believe your numbers: http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/printedmatter/Bulletin2005/ghg-bulletin-2-red.pdf or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/09/co2_airbourne_fraction.php (yes I know its my blog but you can check the numbers yourself). Atmos CO2 is going up at about 2 ppmv and has been for years William M. Connolley 12:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Starting off with some years of underestimation should not be that significant, the IPCC wasn't trying to predict booms and presumably there will also be some economic bust years. However, China and India are eastablishing a pattern of exceeding expectations that might persist. --Africangenesis 12:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How much is "hardly any difference at all" in terms of temperature at 2100? Do you believe that increasing fossil fuel utilization in China and India is correctly anticipated by trends drawn only from past observations and not national economic growth projections? James S. 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the main point is that I don't believe your numbers: actual atmos CO2 levels don't support them. And actual atmos CO2 is what goes into the models. Second, if you're talking about 2000-4, then it makes little difference. If you were to factor those numbers in - say you were to decide that trebling all SRES was sensible - then clearly that would make a difference William M. Connolley 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't those numbers from GCP rates of growth consistent with trends in the data you posted? James S. 14:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if you think that atmos CO2 going up by less than 1%/y is consistent William M. Connolley 14:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the first derivative, not the second. James S. 23:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Spotts shared this: "CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate increasing from 1.1%/y for 1990-1999 to >3%/y for 2000-2004. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s..." Raupach, M.R. et al. (2007) "Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

OK, thanks for that, now look at fig 1. 2000-2 are all *below* all the SRES. 3 is mid; 4-5 are on A1F1 (for CDIAC; EIA are higher). Within the context of "to 2100" this is invisible (fig 1a). Focussing on the growth rate is going to amplify wiggles. Otherwise, I re-iterate my previous William M. Connolley 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is mistaken. The amplification is to the magnitude which is, after decades, much larger than the periodic component. The change in growth rate was observed independent of its periodic components by using data since 1980 (page 5.) James S. 15:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Periodic comp? You mean the annual cycle. I'm not talking about that, but about the wiggles. Just look at fig 1 William M. Connolley 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

They may very well be wiggles, but Fig. 5 suggests the overall rate is increasing. The trend time series analysis agrees. James S. 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If the rate is changed from 1.1 to 3 in the model, then what does 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) become? James S. 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody knows. You'd need to do the experiment. Raymond Arritt 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The carbon dioxide concentration has a very direct relationship to atmospheric energy input:

$\Delta F=5.35\times ln{C \over C_{0}}$

where C is the CO₂ concentration in parts per million by volume and C₀ is the reference concentration. ΔF is the change in watts per square meter. (Myhre, et al. 1998.) James S. 15:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think one of us is confused. The equation you gave is for the increment of radiative forcing due to CO2, not temperature (which is what you asked for). The implications of such a change in radiative forcing for the eventual change in temperature, including at least the first-order linear and nonlinear feedbacks, are far from obvious. Raymond Arritt 22:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about why, given the facts of ice melting faster than the IPCC predicted, ocean sink saturation occurring faster than the IPCC predicted, and trends contrary to IPCC findings -- not to mention their demonstrated capitulation to negotiators from the US and China -- so few people are in favor of presenting the views of us who believe that the IPCC is underestimating the problem, in favor of undue weight given to the few remaining skeptics. But, given the political sway and wealth of the government and corporate skeptics, they should not be allowed to bias this article to the opposite side of the IPCC position than what repeated peer-reviewed reports indicate.

As for the relationship to feedbacks, the largest is water vapor. Contrary to what many people who post on this page think, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Adjusting the rate of change just the small amount indicated will make a huge difference in the concentration in 93 years, and the change in atmospheric energy input alone, even if we ignore all feedbacks, will be quite large. So would the temperature change.

I am also confused about WMC's capitulation to those who would give weight to the skeptics at the expense of weight given to the so-called alarmists -- skeptics on the other side -- who believe the IPCC is underestimating the problem. Mr. Connolly has suggested that his opinion about changes in the rate of carbon emissions growth is not informed by the economic reality of the developing world. His comments suggest he prefers to predict future trends by past observations alone, turning a blind eye to expected hydrocarbon fuels supply and demand, perhaps because he considers himself a natural scientist and shuns economics. James S. 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

I agree with RA, and feel this straw poll should be ignored. However, to the extent that it may be (inappropriately) used to argue that a consensus has been reached (ironic, no?): No to A and B. Arjuna 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil.As much as I sympathise with the view of the poll designer, this really isn't the way to achieve it. For a start, the first question states a fairly contentious premise! Yes, the consensus nature of IPCC means that it excludes a lot of new and outlying research, but lets discuss this rather than pushing through changes. Mostlyharmless 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore straw poll. AS above, plus note that James is banned from this article for a good reason and should not be attempting to stuff text in by other means William M. Connolley 08:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason was that I had edited this article inappropriately. When I asked you and Thatcher131 which edit(s) were inappropriate, you refused to answer. Again, how have I been editing inappropriately? Such accusations, when not substantiated by facts, are personal attacks. --James S. → talk 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no more appropriate way to attempt to "stuff text" in the article than by convincing the community on the talk page. Unfortunately, there are deletionists around that don't participate on the talk page or attempt to understand the issues, and others who reach agreements on the talk page and then don't participate in implementing them. Proper editing requires a community committed to improving the page, whether they agree with the science or not. --Africangenesis 12:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The poll already has more "votes against the poll" than votes for either option. Time to archive the poll and continue with productive discussion instead. >Radiant< 10:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether you believe it is a good poll or bad, you closed after just over a day -- 26 hours -- and so I ask that someone else re-open it. --James S. → talk 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please point out any policy that straw polls must stay open for more than 26 hours, thank you. >Radiant< 11:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say there is one, but I suspect there would have been more legitimate opinions and discussion of the issues I am raising if the poll had been left open, as all the straw polls in the recent archives are. Is there any policy or guideline that would preclude me or anyone else from re-opening it? --James S. → talk 12:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, yes. Wikipedia is not a democracy, Polling is not a substitute for discussion, How consensus is formed and Voting is evil. The point is that this really isn't a good way of deciding things. It is a very good idea to get more legitimate opinions and discussion on this issue; it is not a very good idea to require that those opinions and discussions conform to the pigeonhole categories mentioned above - it creates a false "us vs. them" mentality. >Radiant< 12:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly none of those policies would prevent re-opening the poll. For WP:PNSD the poll does not preclude discussion and clearly, based on the second and subsequent answers, was encouraging it. If I re-open the poll, will you take any retributive action against me? In the mean time, I will try to create a structured discussion without polling which I hope you will support.--James S. → talk 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Worseness worse than expected

Melting glaciers, ice sheets and snow cover could speed the rate at which the planet heats up, causing rising sea levels, flooding and water shortages that impact as many as 40 percent of the world's population, a U.N. report said Monday.... "An estimated 40 per cent of the world's population could be affected by loss of snow and glaciers on the mountains of Asia," the report said. The rate at which the Greenland ice sheet is melting has doubled over the past two or three years, and glaciers are receding in most of the world.... Hunters in parts of Greenland have switched from traditional dogsleds to small boats because of changes in the ice.[23] --James S. → talk 09:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a UN report, so is bound to be completely misleading. You can completely ignore a trend of "two to three years" with regards to climate change. ^rossnixon 11:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well clearly what we need is the ice melting rate chart so people can see for themselves. --James S. → talk 11:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this snow and ice is already warming the climate, and that this warming is not represented in the models, yet the models match the warming, so are incorrectly attributing the warming to something else. See the Roesch and Stroeve references above.--Africangenesis 01:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

US rejects German G8 climate goal

Washington says it will not agree to climate change targets ahead of a G8 summit in Germany.... Rejecting proposals to slash emissions, top US climate official James Connaughton said the G8 should not dictate members' policies. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, hosting the summit, has set what is seen as an ambitious personal goal of persuading the leading industrialised countries to commit to cutting emissions by 50% by 2050. She also wants them to increase fuel efficiency by 20% and limit the world's temperature rise to 2°C.

James Connaughton ... made clear the US did not believe the G8 should be the forum for setting targets.

"There is significant agreement that those should be established on a national basis, and the only area of disagreement is that the G8 should dictate the national policies of its members," he said.[24]

How is reducing emissions by 50% in 2050 anywhere near a 2°C cap? I recommend asking the scientists and politicians in Venice, not Germany. --James S. → talk 13:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Worseness worse than expected: Yes. So THe article's name is a big mistake. We have to change the article's name to Global Climate Crisis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamás Kádár (talk • contribs).

Panic-mongering is not helpful and plays into the hands of the skeptics. This article should be based on proper science, not newspapers, Yahoo news or politicians like Angela 'Canute' Merkel. Paul Matthews 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The top U.S. climate scientist does not agree. See Hansen, J.E. (2007) "Scientific reticence and sea level rise" Environmental Research Letters 2(2): 024002. --James S. → talk 04:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case (so far) Hansen has a minority view - so should be conceded weight accordingly. --Kim D. Petersen 10:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that based on a survey of climatologists or your personal opinion? --James S. → talk 12:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, my opinion is based on a very large assessment report that has just been finished, which considered the current state of the science, by experts in the science. --Kim D. Petersen 13:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Did that assessment report include any statements on the appropriateness of alarmism or reticence? --James S. → talk 15:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Global Climate Crisis

In 2007 we cant speak about global warming, we can speak abou just Global Climate Crisis. We have to change the article's name to Global Climate Crisis.--Tamás Kádár 13:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we then go back and change the global cooling site title to global cooling crisis? --72.165.98.194 18:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we include the inaccuracies of the IPCC?

Since my straw poll which included this question was closed after only six responses and 26 hours, by an administrator who claims that several policies would prevent me from re-opening it, I am soliciting discussion of the most important of the questions here. --James S. → talk 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for

• WP:NPOV -- presenting IPCC findings as unbiased truth when empirical observation, time series analysis, and economic projections as reported in primary and secondary peer-reviewed sources all disagree with them is against one of the pillars of Wikipedia policy.
• the IPCC has substantially underestimated:
  • CO2 emissions [25];
  • icepack and glacier melting [26]; and
  • the rate at which the oceans are saturating with absorbed CO2.[27]
• Attacks on the IPCC and conventional scientific views abound in the mass media by global warming skeptics as being alarmist. General readers need to know that the mistakes they have been making understate global warming, not overstate it.
• The CO2 projections [that] WMC has made in his blog, are based only on past emissions trends, and are not informed by the expected rapid increase in fossil fuels in China, India, and other parts of the developing world, seriously understating the expected increase. apparently irrelevant --James S. → talk 13:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• The underestimations are so serious that they could hasten sea level rise by decades and result in an underestimation of multiple or several °C by 2100. --James S. → talk 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale against

• would take space in the article. --James S. → talk 02:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• the above comments have an element of OR about them. Also whilst anyone who wants to prove their research valuable has to find a way it extends or contradicts IPCC, I don't see a substantial enough set of opinions. I am afraid in my view this has to wait until someone serious publishes a review article on these bits; or possibly this should go in the controversy article not here. --BozMo talk 08:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the statements I've proposed including are fully attributable to the peer-reviewed literature. --James S. → talk 10:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As usual, many of your statements are heavily OR/wrong. For example The CO2 projections, as WMC has made clear in his blog, are based only on past emissions trends is simply wrong. Its pretty clear that no-one wants to include your stuff William M. Connolley 11:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You clearly say here that you update your projections with historical data -- where is the evidence that your trend analysis involves anything other than past data? --James S. → talk 12:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're hopeless. Thats just *my* picture. We were talking about the SRES/IPCC estimates - they don't just use my data William M. Connolley 12:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly refrain from personal attacks? I was referring to the blog page you specifically directed me to read above -- if it was not relevant to the question you were answering, it would have been nice if you would have said so. The fact remains that IPCC projections have been very low, for emissions, ice melt, and ocean saturation, and those facts are reported in the peer-reviewed literature. Would you mind telling me how presenting IPCC assertions without including the reports that they have been repeatedly wrong is not a violation of WP:NPOV? --James S. → talk 13:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"How" or "why"? The "repeatedly wrong" bit is an OR synthesis, I mean you might as well argue that science itself is repeatedly wrongly because in fact lots of things weren't got right first time in History. You need to provide a decent review showing systematic bias to even interest me at all in the idea this might be worthy of including in the article. --BozMo talk 13:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the PA but its really frustrating talking with you as you don't seem to understand. You were talking about temperature *projections*. Ie, into the future. My blog says nothing whatsoever about what goes into those projections. You still don't seem to understand that fluctuations over a few years just aren't relevant; your assertion that IPCC proj's for ice melt and ocean sat are low are wrong: you're as bad as the skeptics, picking out one paper they agree with. You got banned from this article for a good reason and the way you're arguing here its easy to see why William M. Connolley 13:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you direct me to read your blog post in response to my question about temperature projections? As for my assertions:

"Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that satellite and other observations show the Arctic ice cover is retreating more rapidly than estimated by any of the eighteen computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in preparing its 2007 assessments."[28]

"Climate change has arrested the Southern Ocean's ability to absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.... 'This finding could make a significant difference in some of the IPCC projections,' said co-author Thomas Conway of the Global Monitoring Division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).... Other oceans may also be reacting in a similar way and absorbing less CO2, says Le Quere, noting that there is evidence to that effect in the North Atlantic. This means that the climate models the IPCC uses are overestimating how much carbon the oceans are absorbing and underestimating the rate at which CO2 will rise in future."[29]

How are those wrong? They are both reports on peer-reviewed papers. And if I was banned for such a good reason, how is it that you aren't able to say which edit or edits you consider inappropriate? --James S. talk 13:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Could Nrcprm2026/James's ban on this article be extended to the Talk page? I find his actions here to be highly tendentious and disruptive. Raymond Arritt 13:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  We get a dozen outright deniers a month, with nothing more than propagandistic TV shows to back them up, and when I ask for something stronger than the IPCC, with peer-reviewed sources in three different areas, it's time to bring out the banhammer? Sheesh. Please review WP:TEND and note that arguing for a point on a talk page, no matter how much it might upset you, does not fall under the definitions therein. --James S. → talk 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)