Talk:List of climate change controversies

Subpages:

• /sides in the GW controversy

Archives
February 2003 – December 2004 December 2004 – February 2007 Febraury 2007 – March 2007 /Archive_4 /Archive_5

Logarithmic effect of increasing CO2

Raymond deleted the following section saying that it was unsalvageable.

===Logarithmic effect of increasing atmospheric CO2===

Scientists on both sides of the controversy agree that increasing atmospheric CO2 has a logarithmic effect, meaning that the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This happens because the spectral bands where CO2 is active will eventually reach a saturation point.

The dispute arises regarding how fast the effect of new atmospheric CO2 is dropping and when the atmosphere may be effectively saturated. The majority of climate scientists believe rising CO2 is a long way from saturation. Many skeptics believe saturation is much closer or may already have happened and will prevent any catastrophe from global warming. Swedish astronomer Lars Kamél writes:

'The main reason why CO2 can only have a small impact on the climate of the world is called saturation… Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has exactly one important spectral line in the infrared part of the spectrum. This line is clearly saturated. If you increase the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, not much will happen.

Most climate scientists disagree with this assessment believing that the decreasing impact of CO2 is offset by the exponential rise in CO2 since World War II.

I am willing to admit that it may be poorly written, but it is a viewpoint of the skeptics (held at least by some of the minor scientists on the skeptical side, such as Kamél, Milloy and Motl). I do not know of any skeptics who have attempted to refute this viewpoint. What is the basis of excluding a minority viewpoint when that viewpoint is well sourced? RonCram 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that its meaningless. Once we're all agreed its logartithmic then everyone not mathematically incompetent agrees that it doesn't saturate, since the log function is strictly monotonically increasing - there is no asymptote. Since CO2 is (roughly) increasing exponentially, and since we all know what log(exp(x)) is, were all agreed that the CO2 forcing is increasing roughly linearly. So, as long as we point out the obvious - that this "log implies saturation" stuff is incompetent - I see no reason why it shouldnt go in. But it can't go in as anything that makes sense, because it doesn't William M. Connolley 13:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This sentence: "Most climate scientists disagree with this assessment believing that the decreasing impact of CO2 is offset by the exponential rise in CO2 since World War II" is wrong, as it suggess that climate scientists do agree with the reasoning about saturation in principle. However, the reason why climate scientists reject this argment is because the reasoning is flawed. I think that Real Climate explained in detail why saturation does not happen some time ago. My favorite way of explaining it is much simpler simpler than their explanation (I'm not a climate scientist, but I think that my argument makes it clearer that some basic physics is ignored by simplifying the problem):

Suppose you look at the infrared radiation emitted by the Earth from space using some satellite. If there is equilibrium the total amounbt of infrared radiation that escapes from Earth per unit time is the same as the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth from the Sun. Now let's add greenhouse gasses. Then, after the new equilibrium is reached, we must again find that the total amount of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth is the same as the total mount of radiation absorbed by the Earth from the Sun. If the latter hasn't changed, the former won't have changed either.

So, basically nothing seems to have changed. However, the infrared photons have some scattering lengh. When the satellite looks into the atmosphere, the photons it sees have last scattered off molecules at a certain height above ground in the atmosphere. The spectrum of the photons corresponds to the temperature of the layer from where they escape into space. E.g. if you look at the Sun, the energy distribution of the photons follows the black body spectrum at the temperature of about 6000 K because the photons you see have last scattered from ions in a layer just within the Sun in which it is 6000 K.

Now, when you add greenhouse gasses that will absorb a lot of infrared you'll shift the layer from which the photons escape upward. The higher you go, the colder it is. However, as argued above, in the new equilibrium as much energy must be emitted in the infrared as was emitted before. This means that it must become a bit hotter at these higher layers from where the radiation is now emitted.

Clearly, the flaw in the saturation argument is to pretend that the infrared photons that escape to space originate from the ground. They ignore emission in the atmosphere while not ignoring absorption. But in thermal equilibrium at point in the atmosphere, the CO2 must emit as much radiation as it absorbs at any wavelength (principle of detailed balance). So, basically, the skeptics look at this problem from the wrong end where would you have to take more factors into account to correctly describe what is going on. This then gives them more room to deceive lay people into thinking that climate science is wrong. Count Iblis 14:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I came to the Talk page to say what William and Count Iblis already said: logarithmic functions don't saturate as they have no asymptote. Ron, this is the fundamental problem: lay-people who don't understand what a logarithmic function is misinterpret it to mean that there's some sort of asymptote (even if they don't know what an asymptote is). I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with a Ph.D. in any scientific field who would make that mistake, though. I'd also point out that Lars Kamél works in astrophysics and does not appear to have any scholarly knowledge of climate science. As far as I can tell, I see no evidence that he has a Ph.D. or equivalent in any field. He's not listed on the People at the UAO page, so it's quite ambiguous. Finally, his saturation comment is not referring to the logarithmic curve of CO₂ forcing. Frankly, it seems he knows as little, if not less, than I do about the topic. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

William, I appreciate your perspective that you see no reason it should not go in. Since that is true, please help me explain it properly. Count, thank you for your explanation. I cannot properly evaluate some of your statements but I assure you my intent is not "to deceive lay people into thinking that climate science is wrong." I truly do not believe that is the intent of these skeptics either. They come to this position honestly, even if they may be wrong. I again point out that the position of Kamél, Milloy, Motl and others is essentially the same position Rasool and other NASA scientists held in 1971. What has changed since then? If there is no asymptote, does that really change the fact that at some point new CO2 will make no meaningful change to the climate? RonCram 15:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron, if you care about the science please read this article which explains the saturation argument in educated-layman terms. I suspect your response will simply be the usual "but Kamél, Milloy, Motl say..." but some of those following along at home may find the article helpful. (Oh, and you do know that referencing Milloy doesn't help your case, right?) Raymond Arritt 18:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If Ron doesn't know what a logarithm looks like (or Lubos :-) then logarithm will help William M. Connolley 19:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, thank you for the link. I have read it before but needed to read it again and was planning to look it up. I know nothing about Milloy but know you hold a similar opinion of Motl. I don't have a "case" since I am not a scientist. I am merely trying to represent for readers what the skeptics believe. I am not aware of any top notch skeptic writing about saturation. I would feel like the viewpoint was much stronger if it was endorsed by Pielke, Lindzen, Christy or Spencer. The interesting thing to me about the saturation argument is that it always seemed to be the majority view long, long ago. Weart makes it sound like the saturation viewpoint had been abandoned prior to 1971. I am certain that is not true since Rasool still held it at that time. I am still not certain what science came out after 1971 to convince Rasool. Nor am I absolutely sure that Rasool was ever convinced. RonCram 14:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

William, thank you for the link. I should have known to look it up in Wikipedia. I cannot say I fully understand it yet, but it appears that skeptics and alarmists are calculating the logarithm with different bases. One can flatten out much more quickly than others. RonCram 14:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you dont understand it yet. Which base you use makes no difference to the degree of saturation William M. Connolley 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What then does the curve of the logarithm represent if not the level of CO2 and a measure of its radiation?RonCram 19:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Errrm... this isn't a great place for a basic maths lesson. If you don't understand logs, then trying to invent explanations like using different bases isn't going to help you. The curves are all similar. None of them saturate, whatever base you use William M. Connolley 20:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I will give Ron one quick logarithm factoid: the only difference between bases is a constant multiplicative factor. (log_n(x)=log_n(m)*log_m(x)=log_m(x)/log_m(n)) Hence, a change in base is not going to change the shape of the curve. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I not a better mathematician. The point is that skeptics and alarmists see a completely different curve at work. The skeptics see a curve that has flattened out considerably (essentially saturated) and the alarmists see a curve that still has a signficant rise. I do not think readers need to be become mathematicians to understand the concept. RonCram 13:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't give up too easily on the math. If you didn't get my point above, something I could have emphasized was that log_n(m) is just a constant number (equal to 1/log_m(n)), independent of x. So, log_n(x)=(some number)*log_m(x). Hence, changing the base only changes the scale of the graph and not the shape. Does that make sense?

Whether the curve still has a significant rise depends on multiple things, partly the nature of x. If x=e^t, then log(x) = log(e^t) = t. Hence, if forcing is logarithmic with CO₂ concentration, but CO₂ concentration is exponential over time, then forcing is linear over time. Obviously, CO₂ concentration can't be exponential forever, so some room for disagreement can arise over how long one expects it to be exponential—or to what degree it approximates an exponential rise.

A final problem, of course, is that many of the more vocal skeptics aren't scientists at all. Most of these skeptics probably understand the math no better (and possibly worse) than you do (or, hopefully, did). For those who aren't following the journals, it can be difficult to separate the scientists from the interested laypeople. (E.g., I really hate it when people use Al Gore to try to critique AGW theories. He's not a scientist, and shouldn't be treated as one.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ron is probably right: the skeptics really do see the curve flattening out to saturation. But they are of course wrong, on this as on so many other things William M. Connolley 16:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't the shape of the actual curve. That's pretty clear from the basic theory of the greenhouse effect. The problem is that the models are using approximations of that curve, based on assumptions about where on it we are. For very low concentrations of greenhouse gasses, the temperature response is approximately linear. For very high concentrations, the CO2 dependence of temperature is approximately zero. The way to tell which approximation is valid (if either) is by looking at the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are presently being absorbed. (That's an oversimplification, actually--what you'd really want to do is a frequency-dependent integration, since photons' energies vary with their frequency.) My understanding is that, presently, approximately 85% of those photons are absorbed--mostly by water vapor--which strongly suggests that the assumptions in most IPCC models are not properly accounding for the saturation effect. It therefore appears to be a significant driver of most computer models' lack of predictive power. User:QBeam 11:20 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007

You need to read up on how models actually parameterize long-wave radiation, instead of just guessing. A good example is the NCAR CAM3 model (the atmospheric component of the NCAR Community Climate System Model). See Collins et al. (2006), J. Climate, vol. 19, pp. 2144–2161 and especially references it cites on details of the parameterization. Raymond Arritt 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This argument is a good illustration of why the climate models have zero predictive power. In this thread, you have someone arguing that saturation is impossible because logarithmic functions don't have an asymptote. That is a circular argument. The greenhouse function isn't really logarithmic, precisely because there is a real world asymptote on the greenhouse effect. It is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons in a given spectrum. Any model that uses a function that does not reflect that fact will systematically over-estimate the greenhouse effect. Which, incidentally, fits the imperical data; the models have been overestimating future temperature changes for years now. User:QBeam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.84.86 (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats not true. If the logarithmic goes from 1 to infinity [1, inf) (non-saturable) then you can have a distribution of photons absorbed that goes from [0, 100%). So, your cumulative distribution will approach 100% absorption asymptotically. This is because the the two spaces are homeomorphic, [1,inf)~[0,100%). What this means is that logarithmic functions have an asymptote, but it is positive infinity :) Also, read Stephan's comment above. If 100% were absorbed the earth would keep heating up unbounded. Brusegadi 00:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There's really no point in arguing this, because it's based on fundamental misunderstandings of how the radiation parameterizations in climate modeling are constructed. It's rather like an argument that modern automobiles are wasteful because they don't burn their coal efficiently. Please read the Collins et al. (2006) paper that I cited above for an example of a radiation parameterization in a present-generation climate model. Raymond Arritt 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the choice of the term Logarithmic is incorrect, it should have been Exponential Decay. Note that many exponential curves do have asymptotes ... and light absorption is one of them. Given a column of gas, a change in its length (or concentration) will have a linear change in absorbance (A=-log10(I1/I0)). However, this is *because* the change in the amount of light transmitted is exponential (T=I1/I0=exp10(-klc)) (Beer's law). The reference given above for logarithmic curves provided correct, but somewhat incomplete information. I suggest contrasting "Exponential Decay (increasing form)" and "Logarithmic Model" at http://www.richland.edu/james/lecture/m116/logs/models.html From what I've read, it appears that the troposphere is saturated with CO2 and that the stratosphere is not.

I also disagree with the statement made above

But in thermal equilibrium at point in the atmosphere, the CO2 must emit as much radiation as it absorbs at any wavelength

That is absolutely not true for any gas that has more than one infrared absorber - the heat absorbed by any molecule adds kenetic energy to the entire mass of the atmosphere and any emitter can create a photon. Q Science 07:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing the radiative energy transfer and the effect on temperature. Of course the amount of light transmitted through a semi-transparent medium decays exponentally with the opical thickness of the medium. But If Earth stops emitting any radiation (while still absorbing some), it's temperature will rise without limit. For the second part I think you misread this. It's talking about the integral over all wavelenghts, and in that case is indeed true, although not necessarily the most clear formulation. --Stephan Schulz 09:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Q Science in thermal equilibrium the principle of Detailed balance holds. Anyway, what I wrote above was a simplified thought experiment that addresses specifically the flawed saturation idea. Instead of considering the real atmosphere of the Earth, you can just as well consider a hypothetical atmosphere containing some greenhouse gas that is optically thick in all wavelengths in the infrared. This only exaggerates the supposed saturation effect. However, per my argument presented above, you don't get saturation. Count Iblis 18:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the Earth emits thermal radiation with a Black Body distribution. The graphs I've seen show that one of the water vapor absorption bands is near the Black Body peak frequency and the CO2 emission band way off to the side. Because of this distribution, it sort of makes sense that increasing CO2 will increase its emission more than it increases its absorption. If true, then Detailed balance should require a temperature decrease so that the black body peak frequency moves closer to the CO2 absorption band. At any rate, this is why I was questioning the way that was written. Q Science 08:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Risks of passive smoking

I don't think this should be in here. It is not related. Simply because there are scientists that are active in both issues does not lend anything to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.86.78 (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's part of the controversy. That's exactly why it belongs here. Many notable sources have discussed this connection. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid i have to agree with anonymous up there, it doesn't seem to contribute much, if anything, to the article. If it's gonna be kept then the first paragraph should be removed at least (with the possible exception of the last sentence). Overall it seems a little pedantic to have a whole section about second hand smoke, perhaps it could be integrated inti the rest of the article?Aamackie 12:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

An argument could definitely made that too much weight is being attributed to it. I was just arguing about why it was relevant at all. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought about trimming it, but it is very concise and well sourced. I would like to see some more opinions before feeling comfortable with a removal. Brusegadi 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, here it is. Brusegadi 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Read it and not impressed. The consensus seems to be that this stuff makes the article look bad. Colonel Warden 22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In an article about a controversy, the fact that partisans of one side have made such strenuous efforts, over a lengthy period, to remove a particular piece of (factual, well-sourced and concise) information is pretty clear evidence that it is relevant. The links (intellectual, organizational, personal and financial) between the antiscience positions on global warming, CFCs and tobacco have been a major part of this controversy, and the article should reflect this. JQ 00:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that partisans of one side have made such strenous efforts, over a length period, to retain such information is pretty clear evidence of a biased POV. Me, I just looked at this piece and immediately decided that it was mudslinging about an issue which has no scientific relevance (unlike the ozone/CFC matter). I read the comments here and in the discussion cited by Brusegadi and it seems that most other editors don't like this too.

If you leave this stuff in then it will be a magnet from similar pieces from the other side, finding associations between global warming activism and other issues. Some of these might be relevant failed prognostications of doom (Club of Rome, say) while others might be totems of the left (Marxism, say). The other side then responds by finding associations with fundamentalism and neo-conservatism, say. All this would just be telling us that some sceptics tend to be sceptical about other things too while some alarmists tend to be alarmist about other issues. And that political extremists latch onto issues which they feel supports their general position. Colonel Warden 08:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 08:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair. Here's a list of the members of the Club of Rome [1]. Why don't you check how many of them are lead authors on the IPCC or otherwise prominent climate scientists holding the mainstream view. If there's a big overlap, you can probably find a source saying so. Similarly, I'm sure you can find a source saying that most members of the National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society and so on are Marxists. In fact, if you go to Global warming conspiracy theory you'll find plenty of such sources on the skeptical side of the debate.JQ 08:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• One doesn't need to find many/most people - just some prominent examples, as in the smoking smear. I just made a spot check on the Royal Society, to take one of your examples. This proved to be easy meat because its president is Martin Rees who recently published Our Final Hour in which he predicts that humanity will be extinct by 2100 with 50% probability. This makes him both an alarmist prophet of doom and gives him a financial interest in talking up the matter. One can easily spin some similar agitprop out of this. Colonel Warden 12:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

DDT is a good counter-example. But would not add in any way to the article, which is supposed to be about global warming. Iceage77 12:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Mr. Rees an IPCC author? I dont see that in his page. So, it is not really the same case, is it? Also, are the scientists in the IPCC involved with the DDT stuff? Many of the political activists for a ban on DDT may be the same guys for CO2 regulation. But not the scientists (so the lab guys are clean.) On the other hand, the gw skeptic scientists are the same guys who were skeptic of CFCs, second hand smoke, etc.... You see, many gw skeptic scientists behave like liberal politicians. Great finding. Brusegadi 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

DDT is an excellent example of how the same smoking industry hacks like Milloy (yet again!) and thinktanks (notably AEI) that push global warming delusionism have created a spurious controversy to attack environmentalists. [2]. So I guess we could include it if you like. But I think the existing examples make the point OK.JQ 21:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about global warming, it is about the controversy about global warming. If many leading climate scientists of today had a history of making statements about other issues in the past that later turned out to be an unwarranted alarmist attitude, then that would be highly relevant in the current global warming controversy. Count Iblis 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think y'all make a good point about the counter-examples. If there are noteworthy sources that make these points, they should be included, too, as they would be part of the controversy. Just make sure it's not WP:OR or WP:SYN. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The recent reply of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen to Lockwood and Fröhlich

The 2007 Proc. R. Soc. paper by Lockwood and Fröhlich is quoted in the Alternate Theories section as the definitive rejection of any solar variation influence during the last 20 years. A recent comprehensive reply has been brought out by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen and published as a preprint on the Danish National Space Center web pages, but so far not in a peer-reviewed journal. I had added a link to this paper and a description of its contents, duly pointing out that it's not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal, to the quotations of the LF paper in both the Global warming and the Global warming controversy articles. My contribution was simply deleted and there was some ensuing discussion on Talk:Global_warming, to which I'd like to refer those who have not participated, especially for why I think it is in accord with WP:SPS and WP:WEIGHT after all.

For one, Ben Hocking agreed that my contribution was at least "appropriate on the Global warming controversy page. ("Appropriate context" being that a very brief mention that the reply has not yet been peer-reviewed, and/or that the reply being used to indicate chiefly that they disagree with the assessment of their work, which this is clearly a reliable indication of.)"

As one can see from this diff from before and after its deletion, my addition explicitly mentioned the fact that this reply has not been published in a peer-review journal so far.

Ben Hocking then advocated "shortening it a bit, and altering the wording to make it slightly more neutral (an admittedly tricky task)" and to continue this discussion here.

I am therefore proposing to reinstate this deleted contribution of mine, and to work together to make it more appropriate if necessary, but without defacing or completely suppressing it. I think it would be interesting to readers of this page to learn that the much quoted L+F paper may not be the final word on the cosmic ray hypothesis. It would be worthwhile to also point out that S+F-C leave in particular a linear trend of 0.14 K/decade unaccounted for by their cosmic ray correlation, where they concede that it is reasonable to attribute that to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but they also present their reasons for scepticism. However, this could only be done by expanding my contribution, rather than shortening it. N.Nahber 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my recommended shortened version:

Svensmark and Friis-Christensen disputed this by arguing that tropospheric air temperature records, as opposed to the surface air temperature data used by Lockwood and Fröhlich, do show a significant negative correlation between cosmic-ray flux and air temperatures up to 2006. As of October 2007, this reply has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

I believe it hits their most important argument without giving undue weight. It mentions that it has not yet been peer-reviewed, but also alerts editors that this is dated information (I think most of us expect that this will be published in the same journal that published their original article). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, I see your point regarding the weight issue. With the link present, people can anyway read the rest of the arguments of S+F-C and form their own opinion. I would not be surprised if it takes a rather long time before this reply gets published, though. As far as I'm concerned please go ahead and add this to the article. N.Nahber 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait a little while to get Stephan's input. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

After havig read the paper, I'd strike the "yet" from "not yet been published". I don't know if any journal will accept it, at least in its present form. We probably should also point out that they are now esentially down to claiming that the 11-year sunspot cycle is tracked by the climate - they explicitely remove the long-term trend from the temperature. As far as I can make out, they also use a very much questionable ocean temperature time series, but I don't know enough about the topic to be certain (and that would be WP:OR anyways). A suggestion old be:

Svensmark and Friis-Christensen dispute this by arguing that after the removal of a long-term warming trend and disturbances like El Nino events, tropospheric air temperature records, as opposed to the surface air temperature data used by Lockwood and Fröhlich, do show a significant negative correlation between cosmic-ray flux and air temperatures up to 2006. As of October 2007, this reply has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

--Stephan Schulz 07:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say Benhocking's version is much better besides being shorter. S+F-C have a significant negative correlation of -0.31 before they apply their debatable removal of El Nino, North Atlantic oscillation, volcanic aerosols and a linear trend. The latter increases the negative correlation to impressive levels (-0.47), but already the uncorrected correlation is significant enough to rebut the sweeping conclusion of L&F that no link whatsoever existed. N.Nahber 10:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that it's yet more disinformational, crackpotty nonsense when you factor in the weight it's being given relative to its scientific merit relative to what the best evidence shows. It not only serves to distract from much more important science and research, but it also gives comfort and aid to the global warming skeptics/deniers who tend to sieze upon any crumb, however small or dubious, to support their views. -BC aka Callmebc 13:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest, then, that you should communicate your concerns to the people who run the CERN accelerator - after all, having allocated a permanent atmospheric research unit based on Svensmark et al's work, they should really be told that it is 'crackpotty nonsense' - at least in your opinion. Sorry, I might just put my faith in CERN on this one ;-) BadCop666 11:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually prefer Stephan's version. Also, I'd note that not even -0.47 is an impressive correlation, as it is on the upper end (or lower end, if you want to be pedantic) of "medium correlation" (and -0.31 is on the other end of "medium correlation"). Whether it is statistically significant depends on the statistical power of the study. As for BC's comment, I'd like to argue that this article is about the controversy and not just the science. We need to address disinformational statements, but in as neutral a way as possible (which includes proper treatment of weight, of course). Ignoring them does not help. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned previously I'd prefer the shortest possible version; i.e., a simple "S&F-C dispute these findings" with a link to their web page for anyone who wants the details. That the appropriate level of attention for non-peer reviewed findings on what is -- let's face it -- a fringe hypothesis. Raymond Arritt 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it disinformational to try to denounce the few serious scientists in the skeptics camp as crackpots. Furthermore, total irradiance data from satellites however beautiful are not so relevant when the issue is the cosmic ray mechanism which is supposed to act through cloud formation. N.Nahber 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the longwinded discussion here and at Global Warming demonstrate my point: when you factor in the undue weight it's being given -- as is done on Wikipedia -- relative to its scientific merit when compared to what the best evidence and most recent research shows, it is disinformational, crackpotty nonsense for all the "good" it's doing, especially in the face of the relentless, cynical & dishonest politics and deliberate misinformation at play over the topic. -BC aka Callmebc 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fringe is not the same as "crackpot". The more we write about this, the more other sources and lines of investigations need to be mentioned, otherwise it will look like the solar variation issue is for a large part a discussion between Lockwood and Fröhlich vs. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen. E.g. this study looked at the problem from a different perspective. Count Iblis 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed an interesting and relevant paper. However, the reason why I think that the S+F-C reply deserves mention is that the Solar Variation sections of both the GW and GWC article present L+F as the final definitive dismissal of the cosmic ray hypothesis. It is only fair to note, briefly, that S+F-C, one of the main targets of L+F, dispute that. By the way, I don't see myself a member of the GW sceptics/deniers camp, even though I had to act as devil's advocate here. N.Nahber 18:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: I didn't protest against "fringe" but at the previous "crackpotty". I don't know why the enty by Raymond Arritt appears just before mine although being dated as later. N.Nahber 19:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think that the shortened version of my contribution by Ben Hocking is appropriate for the Controversy page. To just insert the link is a bit too terse for my taste given that L+F are quoted verbosely in the text. N.Nahber 19:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest at the least somebody pay more attention to the article page -- there are some weaselly edits collecting. -BC aka Callmebc 19:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry: where? Can't see anything related to our discussion here. N.Nahber 08:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm trying to wrap up this discussion now. I can agree that in the Global Warming article, the recent as yet unpublished reply of S+F-C to L+F does not deserve more room until it too got published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, in the Global Warming Controversy article, it is rather misleading to quote L+F at length and to give the impression that the issue of solar activity is now definitely closed and that L+F have put the final nail in that coffin (as L+F described their work). There has been quite some criticism of L+F, which could be referred to, but I think that at least the recent S+F-C reply needs to be mentioned, since these authors have been the center of the criticism of L+F and they have now brought out a formal reply which is not just a blog contribution but a scientific preprint. WP:SPS says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." and so seems to me to justify a reference to this reply prior to publication, and WP:WEIGHT seems to me to make it even indispensable to do so, at least in the Controversy page, since otherwise the explicitly quoted conclusion of L+F receives an unjustified 100% weight. A good compromise seems to me a shortened version of my original contribution which I am going to include in the article. It's of course fine if other's find that its wording can be improved and they are invited to try. Simply deleting or completely defacing it would not be appropriate. N.Nahber 12:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been quite some criticism of L+F - if true, this should be included I guess, if its credible. What sort of things are you thinking of? William M. Connolley 14:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blog contributions such as Nir Shaviv's "Why is Lockwood and Fröhlich meaningless?" or the extensive posting at scienceandpublicpolicy.org, which I found only after having heard of the S+F-C reply. Nir Shaviv is an astrophysicist; I don't have any idea about the author of the latter "publication". Do you? N.Nahber 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's one perspective on the latter author.[3] Raymond Arritt 16:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I know about Motl, but he's not the author of the scienceandpublicpolicy.org thing, whatever that is. N.Nahber 18:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Antarctica

I will trim much. As it stands, its undue weight and it is not factual in the sense that I recall Crichton misrepresented the paper cited. Brusegadi 02:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone think this was way out of line? If so, speak up. I thought it was undue weight, and not properly sourced. It looked like an easy one to me. Brusegadi 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it still in? Some mention might be made of it, because it was an issue, and even sourced Crichton as a populariser of it could be fair. BTW, the sea ice section is currently weird - there is an "antarctic" section that is mostly about the arctic, and doesn't tell you what is actually happening William M. Connolley 09:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

fixed. I think it was a confused header. Brusegadi 23:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Q Science brought up a good National geographic link that actually calls the whole thing a controversy. This takes care of some of my WP:SYN concerns. I will try to build a subsection in this page around that source. Brusegadi 23:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

By "this", Brusegadi means that he deleted the entire section rather than edit it. Most of the information is now being discussed at Antarctica cooling controversy where Brusegadi is trying to have the entire page deleted because he claims that "There is no controversy". Q Science 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I claim the controversy is so small that it does not merit an article. Hell, I thought it did not merit a section here. If you think it merits a section here go for it. If someone had reverted my edit I would not have gone back without first getting opinions from others here. Finally, you are taking the AFD too seriously. Its not like I deleted the article. I know you probably put a lot of work into that article, but I have doubts it belongs and I want others to take a look. Well within my rights as an editor. Brusegadi 22:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added some stuff back in the least verbose way I could do it. I suggest expanding a bit more by: i) adding things I neglected (in my view, perhaps 4 or 5 thick lines, just for proper weighting) ii) once we have everything we want to say, expand the paragraphs by adding detail (eg, instead of saying "in 'State of Fear' we can say "in his novel 'State of Fear'" which adds volume without disrupting weight balances.) Brusegadi 00:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think reference 108 is wrong, is talking about ice not temperature cooling. The right reference is National Geographic, but the article of interest is [4]. Mariordo 02:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I used "108" to source the word 'controversy'. I thought it was important to show the reader that someone has referred to this in such terms given the researches have not really indicated that what is happening is rare, regarding Antarctica the consensus seems to be that better data would be awesome! (I thought this sounded cool, but I am a strange geek, so laugh with me or at me!) Brusegadi 02:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

TV shows

Recently - on PBS or CSPAN - I saw a show with a young Danish guy ( he spoke excellent English )( don't remember his name but he must be will known. His show more than easily shots down most of the pro-global warming science. It was kind of embarrassing to listen to him - his mastery of the details - a regular trivia champion. Things like the fact ( unknown to me before ) that the sea has been rising for more than a century 1 foot in 150 years I believe he said. Cutting co2 will save 1 polar bear a year ( we hunt and shoot 1000 every year ). If we do all we could - no co2 etc etc etc the temperature will reach the same level very soon after the year 2100 that it would if we do nothing ( a few years 7? ). His point was that spending the money on preparing for what was going to happen anyway was a lot smarter than supporting your local climate scientist. It appears, as I thought, that the scientists jumped onto a wagon they already knew about in order to suck some money from the public - with Al Gore as their leader. Good job if you can get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.181.165 (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that "a recent show on PBS or CSPAN" is not really a verifiable source, and that it is very easy to raise scepticism about complex topics on TV, where you can throw around unsourced soundbites and out-of-context quotes with impunity, your statement is not even self-consistent. If the unknown Dane (I suspect it was Bjørn Lomborg - see the image in his article) "shot down most of the pro-global warming science" (amazing feat that, refuting just the thousands of pages of text in the IPCC reports in a single TV show, not to mention the thousands of papers these are based on), how would reducing CO2 (to what level?) delay the warming even a few years? Of course, if adaption or mitigation is a better course of action is a valdid discussion. But neither of the positions rejects anthropgenic global warming. --Stephan Schulz 11:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Food for Thought

I just watched What is Normal?. It makes some good points but I wonder if anyone has tried to refute this video yet? Is it accurate? Should some of the points be listed in the controversy article? I would appreciate a response. --Jayson Virissimo 20:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a video summary of this which deals with most of the main AGW issues. We would have to find other sources though to include in the article as this is self-published. There is another good video on youtube by Bob Carter Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?. Iceage77 13:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. The "theory" section is especially troubling. It would be helpful if they actually read some articles on the topic, instead of just making things up. Raymond Arritt 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Its point about diminishing returns is a good one. Colonel Warden 16:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

...except that the statement about the asymptotic effect is wrong, of course. Not supringly, since the quote a Motl.... --Stephan Schulz 18:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Urban Heat Island

From the article:

Stephen McIntyre analyzed Peterson's raw data. He claimed to find "actual cities have a very substantial trend of over 2 °C per century relative to the rural network - and this assumes that there are no problems with rural network - something that is obviously not true since there are undoubtedly microsite and other problems." [85] McIntyre has not published his results in a peer-reviewed journal.

The source cited (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1859) is self-published (a blog). This appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources. Comments? Leehach 03:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case one could say that it is a primary source because Stephen McIntyre's opinions and ideas are a large part of what this controvery is about. What matters is if the source gives relevant information regarding the controversy, not whether the information is correct from a scientific point of view. Count Iblis 22:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Was the IPCC Summary really "approved line by line"?

Under "Political, economic, and social aspects of the controversy", the quote by Kevin E. Trenberth starts

The SPM was approved line by line by governments

Having recently reviewed IPCC AR4 WG1 Summary for Policymakers Second Order Draft Comments and Final Draft Comments, I agree that the summary was reviewed line by line, but there is no way to conclude that it was approved line by line. I suggest a modification to make this clear. Q Science 20:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't modify Trenberths quote, obviously. If you can find someone to disagree with him, you could put that in. What are you proposing? William M. Connolley 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming and Environmental Catastrophe and Cataclysm as Public Moral Panic

I've suggested in Talk: Moral Panic that public perceptions of the science and predictions of AGW constitute a moral panic. In particular-

• sensitivity to and tendency to accept suggestions of risk
• diminished capacity to assess risk
• acceptance of the thesis of 'human hubris'
• Projection of indeterminate or unconscious fears onto external phenomena - eg., fears of the 'other' once focussed during the Cold War on anti-community ideas, now focussed on terrorism, islamic fundmentalism, illegal immigration, drugs and underclass, environmental disaster, epidemic etc

[Sorry, not sure how to cite: Culture of Fear Revisited, Furedi, Continuum Press, 1997] If this is accepted as a suitable example of moral panic I would like Global Warming Controversy or a more suitable Global Warming subsection to include a link to moral panic. As far as AGW is concerned, this is intended only to illustrate the perception framework already in place before, and developing during, the epoch of the AGW issue. Commentary on and analysis of the media's role in transmitting the substance of public perceptions will be examined. Are public perceptions accurate? If not, what mechanisms might operate in this case? Thx. BadCop666 (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:OR to me. --BozMo talk 10:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

negative. Without actually writing the whole thing what do I do, summarise? And so it looks like WP:OR because...you haven't heard of it before? Please illustrate your suspicions. Thx. BadCop666 (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This article by Benny Peiser seems relevant. Iceage77 (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't have a "Humor" section yet. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create one, as an antidote to the doom and gloom of the IPCC :) Iceage77 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! This article is a mess anyway, so a few good chuckles would help to redeem it. ;) Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

humor? chuckles? dismissivness is only slightly below sarcasm as a shallow veneer on ignorance, in my opinion. No, the suggestion of Moral Panic is quite separate from the debate(s) around the science of GW. If people are living in fear due only to perceptions rather than reality, then it is a blight on their enjoyment of life, and if their ability to assess risk objectively is reduced, then they can be prayed on and manipulated simply through the suggestion of risk. This is a serious suggestion. Serious suggestions only in this section please. Humor it is not. BadCop666 (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)