*[http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm This] looks to me like Peiser actually admitting to being rather off the mark.
*[http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm This] looks to me like Peiser actually admitting to being rather off the mark.
--[[User:Slashme|Slashme]] ([[User talk:Slashme|talk]]) 09:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
--[[User:Slashme|Slashme]] ([[User talk:Slashme|talk]]) 09:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
== The appeal to the majority, which is a logical fallacy, hurts the argument for global warming. There is no need for it. ==
The appeal to the majority, or even "consensus," in no way improves the argument for human caused global warming. This logical fallacy should not be used. In fact, most people would easily agree that there needs to be cleaner air, less smog, and therefore less carbon released. Do most people need the vast majority of scientists to convince them of this? No. A few scientists are sufficient, or just look at the air quality compared to a clean air day. Many cities now have smog alerts as well. Why would you need a majority of scientists to prove that there is a problem with air quality? Air quality is partially related to the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere.
To sum up. Appealing to the majority of scientists is not helping anyone to acknowledge the facts about air quality, carbon release, and global warming. This logical fallacy will only make the argument weaker. --[[User:Josephprymak|Joseph Prymak]] ([[User talk:Josephprymak|talk]]) 00:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Important notice: This is the talk page for the article Global warming. Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Global Warming FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. 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.
Also bear in mind that this is not a forum for general discussion about global warming. This page is only to be used for discussing improvements to the Global warming article. Thank you.
This is the first Wikipedia article I've read all day that doesn't have a "Criticisms" section. Given that this is still such a (socially and politically, if not scientifically) controversial issue, I would think you should have something. Preceding unsigned comment by user:153.2.246.33
Are you seriously trying to equate the global warming controversy to the global pencil and global doorstop controversies? Bjquinn (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, its b*ll*cks. If you pause for a moment, you can work out how you could have realised this for yourself: that the graph of CO2 level in the atmos is smooth, and has no huge spikes corresponding to volcanoes William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The graph has been "smoothed" so naturally spikes from Mount St. Helens or Mt. Pinatubo would not show up. What about bark beetles in British Columbia. Their destruction of forest has released more CO2 than the last five years of human caused emissions in Canada.208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at the Keeling Curve. You can very well see the 5 ppm seasonal variation and even month-to-month changes. So any substantial volcano impact would have shown up as well. I'd like to see a source about the "bark beetles" before I comment on that. But whatever the details are, the ecosystem is, in the medium term, very closely balanced with respect to CO2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the same applies to you (see below). You are assuming that the output from one volcano (or from man, for that matter) is perceptible on a 5ppm variation on a global atmospheric scale. Hogwash. --GoRight (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, your assertion is hogwash. It doesn't really serve as a valid way of answering the question (i.e. comparing the volcano's impact to man's impact) because it assumes that the level of gas emitted by one volcano (or by man, for that matter) would even HAVE a perceptible level change on a global atmospheric scale. I recommend you read up on Affirming the Consequent, a well known logical fallacy. --GoRight (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your indentation is a bit confusing here - are both of these supposed to be answers to me? Well, surprisingly, we know how much CO2 man creates - it amounts to about 3ppm per year. Currently, about half of this is eaten by sinks. But it's no problem to see 1.5 ppm on the scale of the plot. The argument I replied to, as you can easily see, was " that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens pumped more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that we have since the beginning of the industrial revolution", i.e. it was talking about a single volcanic eruption. As you rightly see, this eruption is not visible on the graph, and hence the effect is obviously much smaller than man's emissions. The seasonal variation is also visible, hence the graph is not smoothed to a degree that would make a much bigger short-term spike invisible, so that claim is bogus.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanos don't pump out only C02. Another major gas that is pumped out of any erupting volcano is Sulfur Dioxide (S02) which creates a LOWERING of global temperatures. With a significant sized eruption, such as Pinatubo or Krakatoa, large enough S02 emissions will effectively lower global temperatures (such as the Year Without a Summer).71.210.21.44 (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not forget Michael Chrichton's speech "Space Aliens Cause Global Warming", arguing that the "science" behing global warming is on no more firm footing that the speculation that there *must* be life on other planets.
Can we stay on topic here? 153.2.246.33 has a good point, but Mr. Connolley bites the newcomer and makes him feel like an idiot. First, please be WP:CIVIL. Nearly every post you have made in this section, Mr. Connolley, could be seen as uncivil and counterproductive. First, you bite him, then when others come to assist him you point the discussion in another direction so that the main issue cannot be brought up.
Why? This article reports peer reviewed research and the conclusions of scientists based on that research. Much of the "criticism" is politically or commercially motivated, without a scientific base. We also have the article Global warming controversy. Anyway, personally I dislike "criticism" sections. They are often one dimensional responses to complex issues, and break up the logical flow of articles. IMHO they are lazy and amateurish editing tools. Better to handle criticism by integrating it into the appropriate sections of the article. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that "Global warming controversy" article is very much the sort of thing I was looking for. Perhaps it should be listed here under "See also:" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.32 (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is already linked thrice: once from "public debate" in the lede, once from the infobox in the heading, and once from the collapsible topic overview at the bottom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's because Wikipedia is biased and only has criticism sections in articles that aren't liberal. This definitely isn't the only article that's this way. BTW I tried adding a well-written and researched criticism section with several *cited* quotes from actual scientists and my edit/hard work got undone. Way to go Wikipedia! Mentalhead (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be very biased. You should have found reliable sources if that seemed to be a problem. If everyone was unbiased Wikipedia would be much better and a lot more professional. Mentalhead (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not supposed to allow personal beliefs to interfere with our editing, but I'll make an exemption here to help move things along. I'll be among to the first to admit that I am skeptical of global warming (at least of its anthropogenic influences). But Stephan, William, et al are correct in the stances they are taking here. Wikipedia is built on the foundation of reliable sources, and rooted in verifiability, not truth. Agree with it or not, but this is what is most widely accepted by the scientific community; thus, it is what Wikipedia is supposed to document here.
Unlike most Wikipedia contributors (myself included), Stephan and William are actual scientists, and we cannot underestimate or belittle the contributions of members with such qualifications who take this project seriously enough to spend their time here. If it seems that they are biting the newcomers, it may be because they are addressing issues which have been raised here countless times, and have on many occasions faced personal attacks or worse along the way simply for having the animosity to disagree. Wikipedia tells us to assume good faith in our fellow editors, and not to assume "bias" in those we disagree with. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion here, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote it. As a collaborative project, anyone is encouraged to contribute. But as a general rule, one can expect to receive the degree of respect and civility that they display to their fellow editors. It makes for a more pleasant editing experience for everyone. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs)05:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate them trying to help but since they have such strong stances on the issue I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for them to be in charge of the article. Unless of course we had someone who believes the other way with just as much power over the article. Mentalhead (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OWN, nobody is "in charge" of this or any other article, or at least should not be. On Wikipedia, contributors are free to edit whatever they want, and are typically drawn to articles on subjects in which they are interested or those which fall within their area of expertise. People may disagree with their beliefs, but they are simply applying Wikipedia's established policies to the article. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs)06:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not asking this to mean anything, but what do you mean when you say that William and Stephan are actual scientists?
To answer your question, I mean that they are Wikipedia contributors who happen to be scientists in real life whose work is concerned with the subject at hand. I do not fit this description, and doubt there are many contributors here who do. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs)15:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid a misunderstanding: I'm a scientist (see [1]), but not a climate scientist. William is a climate scientist. Our other resident climate scientist is Raymond. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, whereas I agree with your description of how material has to be included in WP, I take exception with Michael Johnson's comment above. There are several authoritative scientists who disagree with the mainstream of peer-reviewed papers. The reason why they're not in so far is essentially decided on an interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. As with any rule interpretation, it is liable to be 'soft' and subjective, and this is this interpretation that, good or wrong, has so far been 'applied' by a group of editors.
There are alternative models of gravity that have been and are published in leading peer reviewed journals. The article on gravity like this article on global warming does not mention some crticism that do not make it into the peer reviewed journals. So, MOND is mentioned (ther are many peer reviewed publications about this topic) but not a theory by Yilmaz (who was unable to get his theory published because it was seen to have a fatal flaw by most physicists). Count Iblis (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a definite need for a criticsm section. The fact that one editor is a scientist and administrator all the more should give it weight. Any editor/administrator could feasibly serve his own interests by wiping out different points of view. Perhaps one who is so clearly biased should not be considered an "authority" and all relative verifiable facts be presented whether pro or con. As it stands, this article is very biased to the point of religious ferver.208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by a "criticism" section. Alternative explanations such as solar variation are woven into the narrative as they should be. In fact they are over-represented in the article compared to their presence in the academic literature, contrary to the provisions of WP:WEIGHT. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just echoing the original comment about no 'criticism' section. It could be called something else though (doesn't have to be called that). Something that at least gives the other side a fare shake. I for one haven't seen enough evidence to believe that global warming is occurring on a grand scale that is caused by the burning of fuels and being able to read the thoughts from both sides would be helpful for me. Strawberry Island (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but we don't pretend that there are two equal sides to every issue. This article presents the evidence, and the evidence is compellingly one sided. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will retract my statement above in the general sense that such section doesn't exist. Reading the first couple comments in the next section "AEB (criticism section)" shows that such articles/sections do exist on Wikipedia. So now my general complaint is from what I can tell none of these are referenced very clearly in the opening of the article nor clearly marked in the TOC. Strawberry Island (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support adding this to the end of the intro of the article (this isn't perfect but I'm trying a state at it, improve by all means).
Controversy still surrounds the global warming debate. There are a number of articles that cover this topic.
Yes, there sure are. And yet, it's not clear from this article that they exist/ might be valid/ have many supporters. Also, the name "climate change denial" sounds like a POI problem- makes it sound negative right off the bat, instead of being neutral.
Those links need to be more prominent, and there needs to be both a mention of the debate in the intro paragraph and a mention that this is all a theory. Even the evolution page says it's a theory.
- Pop6 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are links to both Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming in the last sentence of the lead. The rest of the articles are linked in appropriate places throughout the article. Adding an addendum to the lead isn't a very organized way to link to related articles. We've tried having links on the right-hand side up on the top, but it was simply too cluttered and awkard. Personally, I think links throughout the article and the link template down at the bottom take care of the situation in the best way possible. However, I think the template at the bottom of the article should be default-shown instead of a default-hidden. - Enuja (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Criticism section IS needed, I am willing to work on the section myself, but am requesting help from other members, and am here and now asking other Wiki contributors who disagree to pledge that they will not vandalize the new section, but take complaints and concerns to the talk section. Almost every article on Wiki (that garners criticism) HAS a criticism section, global warming should be no different. Creating a page on the controversy is needed, but it does not replace a well-researched and appropriate criticism section.
By the way, labeling all scientists that disagree with the whole global warming propoganda "oil company lackeys" is both incorrect and libelous. For example, this from the Sydney Morning Herald: "Professor Easterbrook disputed Mr Gore's claim that "our civilisation has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this". Nonsense, Professor Easterbrook said. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century".
Getting personal, he mocked Mr Gore's assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. "I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company," Professor Easterbrook said.
As pointed out before, special criticism sections are discourages. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article_structure and Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section. In this article, we describe all scientifically viable viewpoints with sufficient weight and reliable sources directly in the main prose. By long-standing consensus, we we restrict this article to the science. For the political debate, see global warming controversy. We also rely on what is considered the most reliable set of sources, peer-reviewed scientific publications and consensus reports. Your example is thus doubly missing the point - first, the unpublished (in the scientific sense) opinion of Professor Easterbrock as reported by the popular press is not a good source, and, since we do not even mention Gore or use him as a source, the criticism would be a straw man, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is most certainly NOT straw man:
1. Professor Easterbrook (not brock) provided *factual evidence* about climate shift - research that has been published (long before the article here on global warming was, in point of fact).
2. Gore *is* mentioned on this talk page, and frequently, so your assertion that criticism of Gore is straw man (here on the talk page) is false.
3. We are not talking about "political controversy", we are talking about peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and plain, climate data.
4. While your citation of the Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section is germane, the fact remains that this is not worth the hard drive it is stored on as it pertains to that actuality of Wikipedia articles. Criticism sections are rife in almost every (controversial) article, which sets forth a defacto standard, expected by Wiki readers. Also, while Criticism sections might be "discouraged", they are in fact necessary because of the habit of a few, dedicated contributors to erase, edit and otherwise maneuver content they find distasteful out of existence. Point being, while criticism sections are "discouraged", they are not disallowed and a significant minority of contributors desire such a section on the page, and it is not the providence of the majority to squelch such an effort.Supertheman (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whomever is or isn't mentioned on the Talk page is immaterial, I'd like to say. I could mention Hitler all I want here, and that doesn't make him referenced in the article itself. That's really all besides the point, though. This article does need a criticism section, if only due to the fact that there IS a large amount of criticism and controvery surrounding global warming. That is noteworthy, just as it should also be noted that both the validity and neutrality of much of this criticism is in question. How about instead of bickering back and forth like this, you actually propose a draft of a criticism section here in the talk page. That way it can easily be viewed, edited and discussed before being inserted into the article. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do. The leading contender is solar variation theory, which is discussed in the article. In fact it's over-represented here compared to its weight in the scientific literature. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this is an article of interest not only to scientists, it should also try to cover the science of what is being discussed fiercely by the public. Bridging the jump between public debate and scientific literature should be one of this article's aims. As there is a lot of attention surrounding the solar variation theory amongst the public, it is important to address it properly here.Narssarssuaq (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a link should be placed linking to the Global Warming Controversy page. Somewhere noticeably visible rather then in the bottom of the page with all the references and the See Also section. Where, I'm unsure, but it's an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.67.7 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if this article was even making a show at attempting accuracy it would have to follow the first sentence wit "It stopped in 1998 & there was a slight cooling effect up till winter 2007 & a sharp fall back almost to the level 20 years ago this year. Sceptics say this is caused by the failure of the sunspot cycle. Warming alarmists ignore it."(Neil Craig) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.88.26 (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading graph
Recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). The monthly CO2 measurements display small seasonal oscillations in an overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum is reached during the Northern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during the Northern Hemisphere growing season as plants remove some CO2 from the atmosphere[graph is misleading].
I tagged this graph with a "graph is misleading" tag because its Y origin should be at 0 in order to avoid sensationalizing the data trend. See Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs. Whoever drew this graph instead put the Y origin just below the low point, which causes the upward curve to be greatly exaggerated, which misleads the reader. The Y origin ought to be at 0. Certainly a less exciting data slope, but less misleading.
The temperature graphs, by contrast, don't have this obvious error, since 0 degrees is an arbitrary number. Parts per million, though, ought to have its origin at 0. There is an argument that 0 is silly - what if the planet has never had 0 parts per million? That argument fails here because the rise in parts per million is about 20%, whereas the graph visually states that there's about a 1300% rise. Tempshill (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you are doing OR, since its your take versus published material. Google Keeling curve. I think those are the years for which the measurments were taken. Also, its relative, I have never seen business cycles graphed in the context of hundreds of years, you would lose what you are trying to observe.Brusegadi (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting essay there. From Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs: "However, one should also avoid insisting on a misleading '0'. For example, when plotting the temperature history of Boston, it makes no sense to start the plot at 0 K, since 0 K is far removed from physically obtainable values and will only obscure the actual range of variation." Seems this issue is already covered in the essay Tempshill cited. MastCellTalk20:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are all interesting inferences, however, from a geological standpoint, this is a vanishingly small period of time. Given the earth is 4.5 billion years old, this graph could qualify as statistically useless. There's no context. What if this CO2 level is still lower than what existed at the height of any glacial maximum? The graph gives a gnat's breath amount of data in the lifespan of the planet. I'm hardly a global warming denialist, but this graph, from a scientific point of view, is kind of useless. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't (and frankly can't) expect every plot to be complete in itself. Presumably if you are showing such data you are also discussing its context. Dragons flight (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orangemarlin. I also recognize the point being made by MastCell. So why not set the temperature scale to the known historical limits. I am not suggesting that we use this exact graph, but here is a graph showing the limits (http://biocab.org/CO2-Geological_Timescale.jpg) as being 280ppm up to >5000ppm. Surely on a known scale that large this graph must be considered misleading since it clearly exaggerates the level of increase as compared to historical knowns. --GoRight (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, mine seems to agree with the opening sentence of the Wikipedia entry on history, specifically "History is the study of the past, particularly the written record of the human race, but more generally including scientific and archaeological discoveries about the past." Regardless of the term you wish to describe it by, do you dispute scientific legitimacy of the levels cited as having actually been attained throughout the history of the planet? --GoRight (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The context of the graph is what is important. In addition to the fact that it was done by Keeling. Finally, I gather that the magnitude of the change is not as important as the lags of the series. The last time CO2 spiked up so fast, bad things happened. Orangemarlin's point is good, but it boils down to how ergodic the series is. When we forecast economic downturns we hardly care about what went on 50, 20, 10 years ago. So, despite the fact that the earth is "old", to statistically judge if something 'weird' is happening, the 50 most recent observations may suffice. Brusegadi (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Oh, I have no more than the usual scepticism about these past CO2 limits (which means I accept them provisionally while keeping in mind the error bars - our own Image:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png is quite good). I dispute the scientific legitimacy of including them in a diagram that shows the anthropogenic CO2 increase, which happens on a completely different time scale. If you talk about millions and billions of year, the complete biology and geology of the planet changes - indeed, even the sun evolves significantly over those time scales. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept the argument about the context of the graph being AGW specific, so time scales outside of human existence wouldn't apply. I don't think that this graph is actually misleading to anyone smart enough to actually interpret the graph, which would no doubt include most of the contributors to this article, I am less confident of that fact with respect to the general readership of Wikipedia.
So, if the intent of the graph is to show the CO2 increases due to human activities, is the reader intended to assume that this graph is showing increases solely attributable to human causes? If so, is that in fact what the graph shows or should it also provide a separate line showing the human caused effects for comparison purposes? --GoRight (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point, actually the original commenter's point, is that the graph is misleading. I should have thought that obvious.
Stephan asserts that the purpose of the graph, or at least the context of the graph, is AGW specific. So, is it your contention that the curve shown in this graph represents solely human caused increases (i.e. that no portion of the curve shown is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes to cite one example)?
If this curve represents the cumulative effect of both natural causes AND human causes this should be made clear, and if possible the relative proportions should be called out. It would seem relevant to a discussion of overall CO2 increases that we understand the human caused increases in relation to the natural ones, would it not, given a stated context of AGW? Based on your comment it appears that you are assuming that humans are responsible for 100% of the increase shown. Is that correct? If so, I assume that you have some evidence to back that up? --GoRight (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but in the US a decent education does not come for free. The graph makes no claim about the source of the increase, so there is no onus to provide a reference there. But the topic is entirely uncontroversial, and references are easily available, some only two clicks away. So please stop wasting our time with trivialities and do your own research. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow the links to GHG, and the section natural and anthro, you'll find the assertion that the inc is anthro, and a ref thereunto. As I said, humans are responsible for 200% of the increase, not 100%. We could make all this more explicit, but Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the concentration of various greenhouse gases seems fairly explicit already. I'm unsure as to whether you are ignorant of all this, and would like to learn, or igrnorant, and would like to push your ignorance into the article. Your recent edits suggest the latter William M. Connolley (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. If WP:RFCU had any chance of being effective you would have been exposed long ago I am sure. WP:RFCU would be easy enough for a knowledgable user to evade. There are only so many ways that two accounts can be correlated, all of which are easily defeated. IMHO WP:MEAT (minus any derogatory implications) is a much more likely scenario, although I am certainly not accusing you of actually being such (in case there was any doubt). :) --GoRight (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carbon dioxide changes during the last 400,000 years.
I have no idea when it was removed, but the chart shown at right used to also appear in this article, and could provide additional context. Dragons flight (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The axes are properly labelled and chosen. The data starts in 1960, so it should start there; the concentration starts at around 300, so the Y-axis starting around there is not unreasonable, given that it only goes up. You could also present it as % increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration WRT 1960s level and get a graph which looks the same.
The graph covers a relevant time period.
That other graph shows CO2 over a very long time span, and thus doesn't really show the increase in modern times well at all because of how short modern times are from a geological standpoint. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]File:Sémhur draft1.svgSame graph as the first above, with a zero Y origin.
Titanium Dragon, to restate my original point, the reason the graph is misleading is because to the eye, it shows a rise in ppm of about 1300%, and not the 20% borne out by the data. If I could go down the hall and grab Edward Tufte then he would agree with me and settle the argument, but I can't. Tempshill (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an improvement, personally, though I suspect that in order to be more relevant, it should probably cover a greater time span. Tempshill (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Keeling data only exists for the period shown in the graph. Older measurements are sporadic and unreliable. For long periods, we use e.g. ice core data, but both the accuracy and, in particular, the temporal resolution are much worse. I somewhat prefer the original graph. Zero is not a realistic value (we don't plot climate tables in Kelvin, either). The original graph shows the development of CO2 in a much better resolution. Everybody can read the labels to understand the values. The new plot is somewhat better at showing the increasing slope of the plot, but it is much worse at showing the annual variation - which gives an important visual clue about the quality of the data. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your last sentence except I would change to "somewhat" to "far". Would it fix your concerns if the inset annual-variance graph were made larger? Tempshill (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it is silly to plot this data with all that white space, especially since 0 is not a historically or physically relevant value. I know Tufte's opinion (which Tempshill mentions above), but I generally believe that slavish adherence to that view makes data like this more difficult to understand (rather than less) because it inevitably obscures the physically & historically important variations. I also think it is bad (in an OR / POV sense) to think that Wikipedia knows "better" how to display the Keeling Curve than the many examples produced by other organizations [2]. The plot axis is labeled in a way that is legible even in thumbnail, and in my opinion that is the natural thing to do here rather than sticking in a lot of empty space. Dragons flight (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you. This is getting ridiculous guys! The fact is that this is how the graph is presented in reliable sources. It would be like demanding that gdp graphs on the article of the business cycle were made to include hundreds of years. Brusegadi (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then the 'reliable sources' are drawing graphs that are misleading to the eye. This is not a surprise; 'reliable sources' draw terribly misleading graphs all the time; look at the Wall Street Journal, which usually puts the origin just beneath the current data, presumably to inject excitement with a sharp up-curve.
What if this graph were re-plotted as a plus-and-minus percentage graph over the previous data? I wouldn't object to that. Tempshill (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about a simple statement on the note asserting the % change? You could say x% from year n to year m. But first, why 0? MastCell makes a good point above that 0 is not necessarily the right base value (using the essay you cite.) I think its fine as it is, because it is a heavily referenced graph intended to show recent increments. Brusegadi (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion on the natural vs. anthropogenic sources clarification.
In response to User:Count Iblis on my RFC talk page, here are a few additional questions:
Does the concentration of CO2 shown in the graph represent an equilibrium point relative to ALL sources and ALL sinks for CO2?
Do there exist natural sources of CO2 in the atmosphere? Do there exist natural processes which result in a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (a.k.a. natural CO2 sources)?
Does the graph in question make any attempt to adjust for those natural sources such that it can be properly said that the graph represents the effects of only anthropogenic sources, as is clearly implied by the paragraph immediately adjacent to the graph which begins with "Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the concentration of various greenhouse gases ..."?
We know (from your own sources) that humans have emitted enough CO2 to account for 200% of the observed increase, so obviously there are CO2 sinks at play here. Is it your position that these CO2 sinks only operate on CO2 increases from anthropogenic sources? If so, please provide some justification for this position as I see none.
Assuming that the CO2 sinks are NOT selective, does the CO2 concentration shown in the graph not represent the net effects of changes in ALL sources and ALL sinks over time?
The graph is the Keeling curve. Both the label and the linked article describe it clearly. It shows the concentration of CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa. I don't think your second question is what you want to ask. There are some sources of CO2 "in the atmosphere", namely the oxidization of precursors like CO and methane. They are are natural in as far as the the precursors are. The graph, as explained multiple times, shows the measured concentration of CO2. No one claimed that the graph shows the effect of "only anthropogenic sources" - as should be obvious from the caption that describes the natural seasonal cycle superimposed on the increase. The increase shown by the graph is indeed purely due to human sources, and is moderated by an increase in sinks. Unfortunately, these sinks have limited capacity (about half goes into the ocean, where the surface layer will become saturated) and negative impacts (see ocean acidification). CO2 sinks work effectively the same for natural and anthropogenic CO2 (there are some very slight preferences for certain isotopes in some sinks, and CO2 from different sources has different isotopic composition). As for your last leading question: May I remind you that your edit read "Recent increases, from both natural and man-made sources,..."? The increase is indeed attributed only to anthropogenic sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The graph, as explained multiple times, shows the measured concentration of CO2. Yes, I know, and this is exactly the point. It does not differentiate between natural and man-made sources of CO2. If there are both natural and man-made sources of CO2, the rise in the figure presented is the net result of ALL sources of CO2, not just the man made ones. By the time the CO2 arrives on Mauna Loa their measurements do not know the source. So it is fair to say that the net change as measured there is a function of ALL sources and sinks, not just anthropogenic ones as suggested by being presented in a section which says "Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the concentration of various greenhouse gases ...". Why you object to making this implicit fact explicit for the reader eludes me.
I don't believe the graph caption is at all misleading as it stands. If there is a problem in the accompanying text, then that should be dealt with, but the graph does not have to state that it is the result of both natural and non-natural sources - that fact is implicit. ATren (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are looking for the information at right. Before the onset of anthropogenic forcing there were only minor natural fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. However, anthropogenic emissions have drove CO2 concentrations unnaturally higher since ~1875. In response to higher atmospheric concentrations some natural sinks also increased their drawdown. Hence the net change is less than would be anticipated from looking at anthropogenic factors alone. Nonetheless, the change that has occured was entirely triggered by the anthropogenic effects. Dragons flight (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict over NPOV in the introductory paragraphs
There seems to be a minor edit war over the wording in the introduction, and I apologize if my edit(s) sparked it. However, there are a few things that, in my opinion (and that of Slym Gym, although William M. Connolley, Raul654, etc. appear to disagree), should be slightly modified for the purposes of neutrality. Specifically, the phrase "overwhelming majority" seems to have the intent of leaving the impression that nearly all scientists agree with the IPCC. This implied message contradicts some of the statistics cited in Climate change denial, such as:
A 2007 Newsweek poll found 42% believed scientists disagree "a lot" that "human activities are a major cause of global warming."
Both removing the word "overwhelming" and attributing it to the Royal Society have been met with opposition. May I have the opinion of a third party on this matter? Thank you. With all due respect to those who believe that anthropogenic global warming is an absolute truth, that there is complete consensus, that the debate is over, UberScienceNerdTalkContributions01:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction. What you are citing is a poll of the general public about their perceptions of what scientists' think, that's not at all the same as what scientists themselves think. You are right though, the intent of the current wording is to convey that nearly all scientists agree. Dragons flight (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read this. May I suggest that you also read the work cited by the dailytech. I think he (the author of the original study) did something sketchy. Can you see it (when you read it)? Brusegadi (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is kinda weird. For some reason, Oreskes doesn't point out the mistakes Schulte may have or may have not made, she just says that Schulte has to be wrong because he published in “a known contrarian journal” (Energy and Environment), and because he's a medical researcher. To me, that doesn't sound convincing at all. ––Bender235 (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably true, but if Energy and Environment isn't a reliable source because it's not peer-reviewed, then what is RealClimate and why is it used as a source on Wikipedia? ––Bender235 (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's what we call applying reasonable standards. You might want to compare the opinion of the scientific community to both venues... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the "opinion of the scientific community"? How? Has there been an opinion survey on that? Fact is: E&E is a non-peer-review journal and thus not a reliable source. But it's also a fact that RealClimate is a blog, with no peer review either. So we shouldn't count it as a reliable source as well. But I guess you kinda bought into that idea of "good science" and "bad science", huh? ––Bender235 (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my distinction is "science" and "no science". I've looked at a couple of articles in E&E, and found most of them crap. I looked up E&E, and found that even some of the authors now consider it crap and that even the editor in chief admits that her political agenda determines what gets published. I've read some articles on RC, and found them well-references, without obvious errors, and written by acknowledged experts. I looked them up and found favorable opinions in Science (journal) and Nature (journal). 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". As far as I can tell, RC qualifies.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just avoid using real climate as a source, despite the fact that many things posted there make lots of sense. Let's stick to things that fit clear categories of or are widely agreed to be reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with reading real climate and grabbing reliable sources from there to use here, or even with using it to make arguments/figure things out on the talk page. But I really think we shouldn't cite it on the article page. - Enuja (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Enuja: ACK.
@Stephan Schulz: I don't share your biased point of view. Not that I'm saying E&E is a high quality journal, but RealClimate.org is often times just polemic commentary. We should avoid using RealClimate as a source, just as we should avoid E&E. ––Bender235 (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Building on Stephan Schulz's point, another advantage of using realclimate is that it is easily accessible. For most readers if you cite an article in a journal they will not have access to it or they will not understand it. So, I think of realclimate as a survey of the literature at times, which is useful. Brusegadi (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got to disagree with this one. Sources should be used to verify text, not incorporated as additional reading. Therefore they should be the best available source, which in most cases in science topics are peer-reviewed journals. The average reader should not have to understand the source, that is what the text in Wikipedia is there for. They only need the source to verify what is in Wikipedia is accurate, if they feel so inclined. OTOH there is nothing wrong to referring to other publications in a "further reading" section or similar. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very familiar with climate journals. It sometimes feels (in other disciplines) as if papers are doing their own thing and citing them is like citing one person. Whereas surveys carry much more weight. I understand your point, and I agree with it, but I have to wonder how we can convey broad acceptance of an idea by citing an individual paper? Brusegadi (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent, but this is still a reply to Brusegadi) Use review articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and use the IPCC. - Enuja (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Energy & Environment rejected Schulte's paper [3]. That in itself is fascinating given that E&E has consistently provided a forum for publishing the work of climate change sceptics. [4]Dragons flight (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They rejected it originally, but if I understand correctly they published it later more or less unchanged: Schulte, Klaus-Martin, "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? " E&E 19.2, 2008, pp. 281-286(6) N p holmes (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It was rejected in September of 2007, but then published by ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT in VOLUME 19 No. 2 2008 see here SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE?
As it happens, it is quite common for a paper initially submitted to be rejected for various reasons, usually for minor changes. Once those are made then a paper is then accepted. That appears to be the case here. SunSw0rd (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...it is quite common for a paper to not be printed in the first submitted draft, but rather to be conditionally accepted, and to circle between authors, editors, and reviewers for a while. But rejection is usually final. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on the journal. Some reject and encourage re-submission. But normal peer-reviewed journal behaviors are quite irrelevant in this case, as Energy & Environment isn't a peer-reviewed journal. - Enuja (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out elsewhere in this section, E&E is considered a peer-reviewed journal. And if you want some external evidence of that factoid, please see FNI Articles in Peer-reviewed Journals. Then search on "Energy & Engineering". You will find four listings between 2001 and 2007. SunSw0rd (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's this journal with an impact factor indistingushable from '0' that can be found in only 25 libraries worldwide? And who is doing the peer review there? The publisher herself and her husband who 'has a Ph.D. degree in Physics'? Seems to me this journal hardly deseves the label 'peer-reviewed'... Splette :)How's my driving?15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unident) Excuse me for pointing out what will likely be an unpopular fact, but a fact none the less, and that is that the debate over whether a consensus exists or not is NOT a debate over a scientific theory. As such the pseudo-science argument in favor of only peer reviewed sources goes out the window. Whether a consensus exists or not is a political and not a scientific, topic.
On the issue of whether E&E is a reliable source, the fact that they print material that many of you disagree with is not germane to that discussion. Any claims made by you that you personally have read the material and consider it to be crap is totally irrelevant as those points are purely WP:OR on your part and have no place in this discussion. Since this issue is not a science issue only the issue of E&E being WP:RS and WP:V are germane here.
The burden of proof rests with those making the charge. If you believe that E&E is NOT WP:RS find a WP:RS that makes that claim to back up your position and please leave your personal opinions at the door. Thus far I have seen only WP:OR above to suggest that E&E is not WP:RS. It is clearly WP:V so that, at least, should not be controversial here.
Not in general, but I did read this one. I found it to be quite straightforward and to the point. Oreskes' reaction listed above refutes claims that aren't even made in the article ... she has thus thrashed a straw army. But again, neither your nor my opinions on the quality of the material are germane. What is germane is WP:RS and WP:V which seem to apply as far as I can see (personal opinions aside, of course).
I see from the wikipedia article Energy and Environment that the journal does, in fact, appear to be peer reviewed: "The journal's peer-review process has at times been criticised for publishing substandard papers ..." Charges of having printed a substandard (a term coined by the wikiauthor) article here or there are hardly grounds for rejecting them as WP:RS. For example, one of the articles listed as having complained about E&E, [5], includes the following regarding Climate Research's own peer review process: "When von Storch, who was then the journal’s editor, read Mann’s critique, he recalls that he realized his journal should never have accepted the study. “If it would have been properly reviewed, it would have been rejected on the basis of methodological flaws,” von Storch admits." So I guess substandard material makes it through even in the best of journals at times.
So if E&E is actually peer reviewed then I see even less of a valid rationale for rejecting it. Just because they focus on contrarian material does not mean that they are not WP:RS. --GoRight (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NP. I don't know what the contrast on your screen is like, but on mine the visual difference between the black text and the slightly purplish text of a link is nearly indistinguishable to me ... especially when reading quickly. So I didn't notice that you had provided a link there ... or as Raul would say ... I didn't even bother to read it. At any rate, the answer is yes, I read them ... except for the ones regarding number of citations and libraries and such as I don't much care on those points (because they are not a determining factor in being WP:RS).
As you can see from my reply, those same sources can be used in both directions so they seem rather moot. Bottom line is that the journal is peer reviewed, according to our article, and it specializes to some extent in contrarian views. This latter point is not a disqualifying attribute, although given your viewpoints on the topic I can see why you would consider that as evidence of being non-WP:RS but it isn't really. It's just your opinion which is not germane in making that determination, being peer reviewed is. --GoRight (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This wiki article on global warming and most other wiki articles on scientific topics use pretty much the same standards for reliable sources as articles published in the top journals like Science and Nature use. So, basically we don't care about what WP:RS says or doesn't say. If what we do agrees with WP:RS, then that means that WP:RS is a good scientific standard. If not, then that means that WP:RS is not compatible with the standard scientific definition of a reliable source. Count Iblis (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can try to assert this position as often as you like but wikipolicy is what it is, and like it or not it IS the controlling policy. Even the arbcom decision Raul relies upon only mentions scientific theories in the context of requiring peer reviewed journals. Whether or not there is a "consensus" is not a scientific question, not even close. But we don't even need to settle that here since E&E IS a peer reviewed journal, or are you now asserting that you also get to cherry pick which peer reviewed journals are going to be accepted? --GoRight (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems sufficiently disingenuous to mean I wonder whether the conversation should continue. Anyway, I thought the issue with E&E was declared POV rather than peer reviewed per sae? Scienitific journals do not generally have declared religious or political standpoints. --BozMotalk08:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see GoRight's point here. Whether E&E is reliable for its scientific opinions and whether it's reliable for its political ones are different. Whether or not a consensus exists is not a matter to be decided by scientific peer review. I also find Count Iblis' idea above that "we don't care what WP:RS says" and that basically the authors of this article can decide what they please regarding the reliability of sources to be contrary both to logic and policy. Who is "we" here and who gave "them" the right to say what sources do and don't belong on this page irrespective of policy? WP:IAR doesn't mean "do what you want." Oren0 (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is also an issue that the number of serious editors on this article exceeds the number of editors across Wikipedia who have spent a lot of time recently reworking the policies. If RS starts conflicting with what is a no-brainer in terms of article quality indeed the policy has the problem. Most people kind of work on the version of WP:RS from a few years ago in their head and perhaps more of us should go there and ensure that rot doesn't set in. On the "don't care" I think there is an issue that the endless repetion of arguments (not just on sources but the "I have just discovered a flaw in global warming no one else had thought of ones etc.) is tiring so people get a bit causal about how they dismiss them. That looks like WP:OWN etc but really its just a "that one has been properly explained several times somewhere in the archives and I have better things to do than go through it again. On balance people here seem very patient. --BozMotalk08:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec^3): Of course we pick and choose which allegedly peer-reviewed sources we use. Why on earth would you accept something like the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal (claims to be peer-reviewed) or the Journal of Creation (claims to be peer-reviewed) as sources on biology and evolution? "Peer reviewed" in a proper scientific sense, with qualified, neutral peers and an editor who based his decision on the referee reports, leads to reasonably reliable sources. Going through the motions but publishing politically correct dreck just distinguishes an advanced propaganda outlet from a more primitive one. The difference shows in the reception by the scientific community - and that has widely rejected E&E, as can be seen from the fact that nearly no library stocks it, that some of the authors regret ever publishing there, that it is not carried by the ISI web of science, that there are actual publications criticizing the journal as a whole (as opposed to the occasional slip-up), and that nearly all papers published there are essentially ignored. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few counter points:
""Peer reviewed" in a proper scientific sense, with qualified, neutral peers and an editor who based his decision on the referee reports, leads to reasonably reliable sources." - We have no evidence to suggest that this has not occurred except for a stated intent to provide an outlet for contrarian views which it has been alleged are systematically denied acceptance by the sources you cite. In that sense those sources are being equally biased in their selection process. Again, contrarian viewpoint is not a litmus test for being considered bad science. Trying to make it one is merely a form of ad hominem attack.
It really depends on how serious you think the contrarians are. You point above can easily be applied to Intelligent design - Evolution, a context in which the contrarians would be considered, by most, as wackos. So this really boils down to how serious we think the contrarians in GW are, and debating this point will most likely produce no fruits. Brusegadi (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Going through the motions but publishing politically correct dreck just distinguishes an advanced propaganda outlet from a more primitive one." - A charge which springs from your own POV more than anywhere else. In many ways the reverse can also be said about the bias of the sources you favor.
"... reception by the scientific community - and that has widely rejected E&E ..." - Given that the publication is focusing on contrarian viewpoints why would you find this surprising when your definition of "scientific community" is primarily made up of IPCC backers, and selectively so?
"... as can be seen from the fact that nearly no library stocks it ..." - Are you actually saying that the librarians who make the subscription decisions are the arbiters of what the scientific community accepts or rejects? Because that is what you statement implies.
The content carried by departmental libraries is mostly decided by departmental faculty. For example, any econ department should have a subscription to the American Economic Review, considered the best journal by many. Brusegadi (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"... that some of the authors regret ever publishing there ..." - You are attempting to mislead people with this statement. The rationale for their regret was the lack of visibility their papers received based on their being included in E&E, and NOT anything to do with the quality of the science published there. In fact, the authors you rely upon for making this statement are, in fact, well respected and have publications in the sources that you favor already. Is the quality of their science in the article they published in E&E automatically substandard simply because it was E&E who published it?
"... that it is not carried by the ISI web of science, that there are actual publications criticizing the journal as a whole (as opposed to the occasional slip-up), and that nearly all papers published there are essentially ignored." - This is the same issue as expressed above. You know perfectly well that the IPCC backers are not going to reference contrarian material, so your argument is ideologically biased and flawed as it pertains to the quality of the science published in E&E. You are, in effect, simply stating that the science there is "bad science" simply because it is "contrarian science" without even evaluating it on its merits.
I don't dispute this as being a legitimate sign of good quality. The question is, is it to be made a litmus test of acceptability? I would not favor such a litmus test, obviously. The question is whether you intend to simply exclude scholarly written papers by individuals with appropriate scientific credentials just because they happen to hold a view contrary to yours. The procedural maneuvers here appear very much to be to simply use policy as a barrier to inclusion of dissenting material and now, when even that barrier is being breached you simply move the goal posts, yet again (i.e. wikipolicy becomes local consensus on peer reviewed material now becomes local consensus on only majority favored peer review sources). Is it just me or does that look like a trend with a certain agenda attached (regardless of whether that agenda has been consciously applied or not)?
So is it the consensus here that anyone who publishes in E&E is, by implication, a charlatan and a crackpot and their science thus tainted? Does that include any of the scientists listed at [6] who might have published in E&E as well? --GoRight (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I third this. Quite some time ago, I discovered for myself that Energy and Environment didn't appear to be a normal peer-reviewed journal; here's the diff [7], where it's archived and here's the relevant part of my post:
I'm not having a lot of luck with the journal "Energy and Environment." This website [8] does not read like the website of a peer-reviewed basic science journal, and the journal doesn't appear to have a publisher; the link to abstracts goes to a self-publishing bussiness. If you follow that link and glance at the titles, a trend becomes instantly obvious; this appears to be a self-published climate change skeptic journal. So I'm not going to pay $18 to read the article. I can find other publications by C. Loehle that are in genuine peer-reviewed literature, but ISI's combined database search does not appear to include "Energy and Environment." So, I can't evaluate the article, but the source is suspect.
However, I don't think ISI should be the one-and-only arbiter of journal-ness. How widely read it is (which is somewhat equal to how many libraries carry it), and how it is viewed in the relevant field are also good markers. We really can't just take a journal's word; I could find some friends, write things, pass them around to my friends, pay a self-publishing business to publish it, and call myself the editor of a peer-reviewed journal. That wouldn't make the stuff I published fit to go into a wikipedia article. And I don't think we should be using Energy & Environment as a source. - Enuja (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I might as well drop it at this point unless some other editors find merit in my points. This seems like an excessive amount of effort to simply strike the word "overwhelming" from the summary which is where this all began ... although I also think some inclusion of the criticisms of Oreskes (perhaps even on other pages) is warranted. We all know that there is ample criticism out there, and it has thus far been kept out purely on procedural grounds. This particular article meets the established criteria for inclusion, albeit in a minimalist fashion, and yet we are seeking still further procedural grounds to exclude it. --GoRight (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was previously unable to read "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?" by Schulte, publised in Energy & Environment in 2008; now that SunSw0rd has provided a link to a reprint, I've read the article. The purpose of Schulte's article is to see whether clinically problematic fear of current direct human health effects is supported in the literature. That's a strange question to ask, as of course the global climate change literature is not at an overwhelming consensus that humans are currently experiencing serious negative health outcomes due to global warming. It is very odd that, which such an aim, Schulte explicitly proposes to carry out an update of Oreskes 2004. Oreskes' general question was Is there a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming exists? and the methodology was to see if published abstracts accepted or rejected the satement "Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" (a quote from IPCC 2001). Oreskes found that 75% of the papers from her search implicitly or explicitly endorsed this quote and that the remaining 25% did not address it. Schulte found that 45% of (this newer set of) abstracts explicitly or implicitly supported this statement, and six percent explicitly or implicitly rejected the consensus, leaving a whopping 48% that don't address the consensus. So, if I accept Schulte's reading of the literature completely uncritically, the major change is that papers about global climate change now address sub-sets of the question and not the question of whether or not anthropogenic global warming exists. Interesting, but not really relevant to a consensus, except implying that if the major question isn't worth addressing, it's probably settled. Schulte found that, of 275 articles that address the question, 206 (75%) implicitly endorse the consensus, 38 (14%) explicitly endorse the consensus, 25 (9%) implicitly reject the consensus and 6 (2%) explicitly reject the consensus. This is the paper touted as saying that the new literature doesn't support the reality of anthropogentic global warming? Oreskes said that the literature was unanimous, Schulte's data seems to say that it's just overwhelming (89% endorse, 11% reject), not unanimous. The phrase in dispute is about scientists, not the literature, but assuming that scientists are people who publish in the literature, and that they share the opinions of the abstracts they publish, the data from Schulte 2008 appears to support that scientists overwhelmingly endorse the consensus, if they address it.
The six dissenting papers (I think; the grammar is a bit confusing), according to Schlute, are ...
Cao, M. K., Yu, G. R., Liu, J. Y., and Li, K. R., Multi-scale observation and cross-scale
mechanistic modeling on terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycle. Science in China Series D-
Earth Sciences, 2005, 48, 17–32.
Gerhard, L. C., Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics.
Aapg Bulletin, 2004, 88(9), 1211–1220.
Leiserowitz, A. A., American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk
Analysis, 2005, 25(6), 1433–1442.
Lai, C. C. A., Dietrich, D. E., and Bowman, M. J., Global warming and the mining of
oceanic methane hydrate. Topics in Catalysis, 2005, 32(3–4), 95–99.
Shaviv, N. J., On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 2005, 110(A08105).
Zhen-Shan, L. and Xian, S., Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend
of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 2007,
I am unclear if you are making a point here or not, please clarify.
Let's avoid all of the slight of hand number games and keep things very simple:
Oreskes found that between 1993 and 2003 75% of the articles assessed explictly or implicitly supported the consensus view. Shulte found that between 2004 and 2007 this number had dropped to just 45%.
Oreskes found that between 1993 and 2003 0% of the articles assessed explicitly or implicitly rejected the consensus view. Shulte found that between 2004 and 2007 this number had risen to 6%.
Oreskes found that between 1993 and 2003 25% of the articles assessed were neutral with respect to the consensus view (i.e. neither supported nor rejected it). Shulte found that between 2004 and 2007 this number had risen to 49%.
So to recap here, (1) the percentage of explicit or implicit support for the consensus view fell significantly, (2) the percentage of explicit or implicit rejections of the consensus view rose significantly, and (3) the percentage taking no position either way rose significantly. I find it hard to see this as a trend suggesting increasing support for the consensus view over time.
More specifically, a figure of 75% support for the consensus view might justify the use of the "overwhelming" qualifier but a figure of only 45% clearly does not. Am I missing something here? --GoRight (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my primary point was to put, on this talk page, an analysis of the text of Shulte 2008 (not where it's published, just the text itself) as a source to use in this article when discussing scientific consensus about global climate change.
You say that the articles not implicitly or explicitly rejecting or accepting the consensus view are therefore "neutral" to the consensus view. To make this a bit more concrete, I just did an ISI search on global climate change, looking for abstracts that don't say one way or another. I found "A two-parameter climate elasticity of streamflow index to assess climate change effects on annual streamflow" whose abstract is
"This study extends the single parameter precipitation elasticity of streamflow index into a two parameter climate elasticity index, as a function of both precipitation and temperature, in order to assess climatic effects on annual streamflow. Application of the proposed index to two basins indicates that the single parameter precipitation elasticity index may give a general relationship between precipitation and streamflow in some cases, but that it cannot reflect the complicated non-linear relationship among streamflow, precipitation and temperature. For example, for the Spokane River basin the climate elasticity of streamflow index varies from 2.4 to 0.2, for a precipitation increase of 20%, as temperature varies from 1 degrees C lower to 1.8 degrees C higher than the long term mean. Thus a 20% precipitation increase may result in a streamflow increase of 48% if the temperature is 1 degrees C lower but only a 4% increase if the temperature is 1.8 degrees C higher than the long-term mean. The proposed method can be applied to other basins to assess potential climate change effects on annual streamflow. The results of the two case studies can inform planning of long-term basin water management strategies taking into account global change scenarios."
Reading Shulte 2008, it looks like there is a larger percentage of peer reviewed abstracts like this one in the 2004-2007 than in the 1993-2003 period. That's your point #3. This, in of itself, does not mean a declining consensus about the reality of anthropogenic global warming. This is why I used the number of abstracts that did mention the consensus view when analyzing Shulte's results. I didn't mean to do any "slight of hand number games"; hopefully, you should get the same results I do if you try to analyze the results yourself.
Since Oreskes found complete consensus, yes, the presence of a little bit of disagreement "reduces" the amount of agreement. But there is only one way that can go; when you start at 100%, you definitionally can't get any more agreement. Whenever you have a 0% or 100% of anything, you have to be really concerned about sample size bias; the fact that it's "changed" doesn't necessarily mean anything. As Shulte says, there is now a lot more global warming literature. A small percentage of it is skeptical. Even it if didn't "start" from 100%, focusing on the differences between two paper-abstract analysis studies done by two different people (even if they had the same biases, which we know they don't) is a really, really poor methodology. How do we know any two people would classify an abstract the same way? We don't. Instead, we should look at results of Shulte 2008 itself, and see what it says. That's part of what I did above, and 89% supporting the consensus sounds pretty overwhelming to me. - Enuja (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, creating an apples to oranges comparison, however, by ignoring the neutral abstracts. It is not our job to conduct WP:OR on the numbers found in the published papers, but merely to report the results found therein. This is exactly what I have done in an apples to apples comparison. Even if you wish to quibble with my points 2 and 3, which are apples to apples with Oreskes findings, you seem to have ignored the most obvious result which was a reduction from 75% support to 45% support for the consensus view among all of the abstracts analyzed. Given the number of papers involved in both samples I seriously doubt that this result is NOT statistically significant, and it obviously does demonstrate a reduction of support for the consensus view between the two samples. --GoRight (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't put our own original research on article pages. We absolutely must try to fully understand all of the sources we use; blindly accepting the conclusions of any paper is not the right a way to read it, much less cite it in any context, including Wikipedia. First, you do your best to understand a paper, and if it makes sense, is relevant, and is the best source you can find, you use it. We can do simple arithmetic with published sources (as long as any reader can easily follow it) and put that into the article, but I'm not suggesting that we do so in this case. I'm arguing that nothing from Shulte 2008 should go on any article pages.
I did not make any apple-to-orange comparisons; Oreskes says 100% of the abstracts that address the consensus endorse it while Shulte says that 89% of the abstracts that address consensus endorse it and Oreskes found that 25% did not address the consensus while Shulte found that 48% did not address the consensus. Both of these are "apple-to-apple comparisons" in that they both claim to be done by the same methodology, but both of these comparisons are apple-to-orange comparisons in that the methodology is very sensitive to interpretation of abstracts. It is not obvious to me that either a reduction from 100% to 89% would be statistically significant nor that an decrease in papers addressing the consensus would constitute a "decrease" in consensus. - Enuja (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to return to this point, "We shouldn't put our own original research on article pages. We absolutely must try to fully understand all of the sources we use; blindly accepting the conclusions of any paper is not the right a way to read it, much less cite it in any context, including Wikipedia.", for a moment. I believe that you are actually incorrect on this point for the following reasons:
The clear intent of wikipolicies such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:OR is that the encyclopedia should be representative of the views found in the 3rd party sources in rough proportion to their relative frequency in the literature. The intent is that we, as wikieditors, are basically passive elements in the process who simply transcribe what we see in as WP:NPOV a way as possible.
Conducting WP:OR behind the scenes as you are doing here and using that WP:OR to introduce a selection bias on what gets reported puts that WP:OR into the articles just as much as if it had been reported directly. The clear intent of the wikipolicies is to present all of the views fairly and in rough proportion to their weight in the literature ... an intent that is being thwarted here by behind the scenes WP:OR, at least IMHO.
Per WP:V the goal is not truth, it is verifiability. This WP:OR is inherently about pushing a particular view of "the truth" and in so doing ignoring the obvious WP:V of Shulte. --GoRight (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"... nor that an decrease in papers addressing the consensus would constitute a "decrease" in consensus." - Well, if a change in the value of a metric is not meaningful then I would have to argue that the metric itself must be meaningless relative to its stated purpose. So if your assertion is correct, then we can only assume that the Oreskes finding is meaningless as an assessment of consensus to begin with. Right? --GoRight (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot determine how many people agree with a consensus by how many people talk about whether or not there is a consensus. Staying silent about a subject does not reveal what your opinion about a subject is. The percentage of papers on the topic of "global climate change" that say nothing about whether the earth has warmed recently or not says nothing about what those authors believe about whether or not the earth has warmed recently. (Except maybe that it's not controversial enough to address). This fact does not effect the value of Oreskes' report that 100% of the papers addressing the question supported the consensus. - Enuja (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am confused by what your real position is, then. In either my interpretation of the study results, or yours, the metric for determining the level of consensus appears to be "the percentage of published papers that either explicitly or implicitly support the consensus view". Is this not the case? In my interpretation of the results, this implies in a decrease of the metric from 75% to 45%, and by yours it represents a decrease from 100% to 89% (leaving the statistical significance thereof aside for the moment). Is this correct? Yet you assert "... nor that an decrease in papers addressing the consensus would constitute a "decrease" in consensus.". But if a decrease in the metric being used does not represent a change in the asserted "level of consensus" then how can you make the claim that the original value has any meaning? Obviously the metric is fatally flawed as a metric, right? Your assertion amounts, in effect, to saying that there is no correlation between the percentage of papers published that support the consensus view and the actual level of consensus, and if this is true then Oreskes finding is likewise meaningless. What am I missing here?
On the issue of "(Except maybe that it's not controversial enough to address)", there is, of course, another equally, if not more, reasonable interpretation of the facts. Namely, that the issue is so controversial and the science so unresolved as to not justify taking a stand either way. Also, note that there will remain under either interpretation a certain percentage that fall into categories, such as Oreskes remaining 25%, which were focused on methods and/or paleoclimate results that don't even address the topic of anthropogenic warming either way. --GoRight (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Just as an FYI to clean up the discussion a tad, I think your 51% should actually be 100% - 45% - 6% = 49% if I understand your computation correctly ... not that this difference is significant to your argument. --GoRight (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opps. I did get it backwards. Thanks for catching that. I'm editing the numbers above to clarify the issue (to 48% because of rounding if you use the raw numbers). - Enuja (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(indent out) A general word on the neutrality assessment of the abstract of a paper: It is in that part of the methodology that comparisons across the papers may be most misleading. What is a neutral paper? Also note that one paper was written much later when the interest could have shifted too much more specific problems. Perhaps some of the neutral papers as judged by Schulte were asking questions that are so specific in nature that untrained individuals cannot see the direct relation to the topic at hand. Perhaps a paper on a calibration technique that is seemingly unrelated, I dont know, but that is why I would rather be careful with the comparisons. There is also the additional point that as consensus gets stronger, there is a lower chance of having it explicitly mentioned, partly due to the increased "specification" that will occur in the research process. Brusegadi (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness I can understand your concern about two different people making neutrality assessments. But your (collective) reaction appears to be to simply accept Oreskes assessment as accurate and to dismiss Schulte out of hand. Can you at least acknowledge how that can appear to be a bit self-serving on your part given the results obtained in each study?
You (collectively) appear to be arguing that Oreskes should be accepted on face value and thus included but seem unwilling to do the same for Schulte and hence his results are excluded. I, on the other hand, am arguing that both should be accepted on face value and presented neutrally to allow the reader to asses for themselves what the differences actually mean. We are not here to do the thinking for the reader, but rather to report the relevant material in a neutral manner. Which of these two approaches is more in line with WP:NPOV in your opinion? --GoRight (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"There is also the additional point that as consensus gets stronger, there is a lower chance of having it explicitly mentioned, partly due to the increased "specification" that will occur in the research process." - As I point out above, this is certainly one possibility. But it is also possible that the consensus is declining rather than increasing as you suggest. If we simply accept the metric set forth by Oreskes (i.e. that the percentage of papers published that explicitly or implicitly support the consensus view is an indicator of the level of consensus) and accept Schulte's results on face value then it seems fair to say that by that metric the level of consensus appears to be declining as per the discussions above. This is true regardless of whether you include the neutral articles or not. Do you disagree?
On the other hand, if you (collectively) now wish to assert that the Oreskes metric is flawed and thus the Schulte results are thus meaningless, does that not then also call into question the validity Oreskes' claim of there being a consensus in the first place since that assertion rests on a flawed metric? --GoRight (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another meaningless edit break
Assume, for Argument's Sake, that GoRight is (as his name suggest :)), right, and that the majority isn't "overwhelming". Let's say that we have a significant minority let's say 5% or more of the climate scientists who disagree on substantial points, not just minor details, on the basic IPCC conclusions. Then we cannot write this global warmning article in the way it is written now. I'm not referring to the word "overwhelming", but rather about what is covered in the article.
Compare e.g. the case of dark matter. In that case there is relatively small minority of astrophysicists who work on alternative models in which no dark matter is needed. That minority is perhaps just a few percent of the people who work on that field. But this already generates a lot of papers, conference proceeding etc. etc. The wiki article on dark matter mentions this. It actually get's a disproportionately large amount of space, because some of these theories are more difficult to explain and there are quite a few of them so simply listing them takes up space.
So, I would sugest to GoRight to either drop his objection about the word "overwhelming" or to take it serious himself and think through all the consequences of that. We would be happy to delete the word "overwhelming" if GoRight can come up with a record of publications in the leading journals on climate science that shows that there indeed does exist a (small) subfield of alternative theories besides the already mentioned "solar variation", that comprises of a few percent or more of all climate scientists. Count Iblis (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with you on the implications of there being a small minority of (legitimately scientifically oriented) skeptics. I actually gave up on the issue of striking "overwhelming" quite a while back unless other editors found merit with my arguments, and indeed I have not made any attempt strike it from the article itself. But given that there are on-going responses to my points I see no reason not to continue to engage in the discussion here on the talk page in hopes of gaining the support that I seek. Is that a problem?
On the issue of being skeptical of the current IPCC view, there may be some alternative theories which are analogous to your dark matter example, and I shall give that point some thought and research. The most notable such theory is the Solar Variation theory and as you point out it is, to your collective credit, already included.
I disagree, however, that one has to posit alternative theories to be skeptical of the IPCC claims. Indeed, many of the statements found on the list of skeptical scientists are not so much positing alternative theory's as merely expressing disagreement with the extent of the scope being attributed to the current one's by the IPCC. For example, no one seriously doubts that man is producing greenhouse gases and in so doing is having SOME effect on their concentrations in the atmosphere. Similarly, no one seriously doubts that to the extent these gases produce a greenhouse effect they are, in fact, contributing to the current warming trend. The disagreement is in relation to the extent that these human influences are the primary drivers of the current warming or merely noise in comparison to natural causes such as solar variation. This is not a trivial point when it comes to setting policies that affect social and economic priorities, and thus it remains important to make these concerns adn disagreements explicit within the articles in a WP:NPOV manner even if those concerns are not positing new theories, at least IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you say that
The disagreement is in relation to the extent that these human influences are the primary drivers of the current warming or merely noise in comparison to natural causes such as solar variation.
then you actually prove my point. Because if it were true that there is some sizeable fraction of the climate scientits who think that CO2 emisions are not the primary drivers of the rcently observed climate change, then that would have to be apparent from the record of published papers, otherwise such opinions are irrelevant as far as the science on global warming is concerned and that is what this article is all about.
Note that this article has to be written based on what can be found in the relevant peer reviewed papers. Here "relevant" means that the climate scientists themselves actually use these papers for their own research, which is nit true for papers published in some journal set up to give skeptics a voice like E&E, because such journals have an impact factor of almost zero, they are only cited by Sen. Inhofe. Count Iblis (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say give it a brief sentence, noting that Oreskes (sp?) responded, and be done with it. It is not the end of the world; most likely it is not going to change anyone's mind. All the study "refuting Oreskes" shows is that scientists are explicitly talking about anthropogenic global warming as much as Oreskes implies -- which I frankly would not find that surprising, but it also doesn't really say much about the science. II | (t - c) 12:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weasel Words and Ambiguous Vagueness
A part of the introduction is unclear in that it leaves it to the reader to guess at what is meant and quantitatively so by "overwhelming majority". Does this mean over 50%, 80%, 98%? I don't know and it is presumed upon the reader to simply accept this assertion without any data or qualification and for them to guess at what percentage this implies. Whilst references are included the characterisation is open to interpretation by a varied readership some of whom will interpret overwhelming to mean greater than 50%. The percentage when stated explicitly places the data in a qualitative range framework. Also "overwhelming" may be interpreted as dominance. A better formulation would "over n% of climate scientists" where n is the supported percentage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo Pardilla (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I not aware that you can speak of percentages when it comes to this matters. So, good luck finding a source that words this matter that way. There are many sources, however, that use the word 'majority' or the word 'consensus' (not to imply that these terms are equivalent) and the above was chosen because it can be attributed to one of the most prestigious scientific societies in the world. Brusegadi (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst these sources may very well use the word 'majority' or the word 'consensus' a better source for a percentage value would arise from a peer reviewed survey that asks the scientists directly in a standard way rather than interprets their work. Whilst i agree that the word 'majority' or the word 'consensus' is correct and that the scientific respectability of the source is not disputed it still leaves it open to the guesswork of the reader to determine what the percentage is. For a scientific article this seems rather vague. Its fair enough to say "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]" but once again the accuarcy and dare i say strength of this statement would be enhanced by having a numeric component. Perhaps you can tell me what figure you would apply 50%, 80%, 98% or another number? i guess it would be over 95% but whos to say? Maybe these surveys dont exist in the required form however we wont know with accuracy until its available for study. I will keep a lookout for such.Theo Pardilla (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am confident that no survey exists that directly polls the opinions of scientists on the issue of global warming in a way that is widely accepted as reasonable by the scientific community. (The few times direct surveys have been tried, the results were heavily disupted.) Hence, we are often reduced to repeating qualitative statements about the perceptions of "consensus" issued by major scientific organizations, which hopefully are able to credibly convey the state of affairs in the scientific community. I also would prefer something more concrete and direct, but it simply doesn't exist. Dragons flight (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, That seems a fair appraisal.
After further consideration it seems to me that the majority of climate scientists believe that the IPCCC findings are understated given the very conservative process and the direction in which new scientific studies are trending. Therefore it seems a mischaracterisation to simply say overwhelming majority agree when in a sense they disagree because its too conservative. Or perhaps i can put this another way, of 100% of climate scientists 2% believe that its overstated and 29% believe its about right and 69% believe its understated. To frame the direction of agreement to the limited range of a perception by scientists of (overstatement <> about right) excludes opinion of scientists that believe IPCCC is underestimating, and is therefore inaccurate at least.Theo Pardilla (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true but only because you are framing it from a point perspective. So if a scientist believes the the increment in temperature to be 2 degrees and the IPCC says one degree then he disagrees. But if we change this to the scientist believes a two degree increment will take place and the IPCC believes that an increment of at least 1 degree will take place then we are fine. I have not read the entire report, but I do know that it has been judged to be overly conservative. So, my perception is that it is the lowest common denominator. I believe that Bill Gates has billions, so if someone asks me if he has $1,000.00 I would say yes. It might be a bad example, but I hope it transmits my idea. Brusegadi (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main chart is up to 2005 or 2006. Clicking on the image will take you to the image page, which in turn links to the most recent HadCRUT data. Adding one or two years will not significantly alter the graph, so I don't think it's worth the effort. But try for yourself. The graph from icecap does not look like anything I have ever seen. It seems to be unsourced, too. Compare our Image:Satellite Temperatures.png, which covers the same data in more detail and gives the sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the main chart at the top of the page is all the way up to 2007, and since it uses yearly averages and we haven't completed 2008 yet, it obviously can't be much more up to date than it already is. -- Leland McInnes (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, anyone who really wants to do this right should be looking at the lower troposphere, rather than the middle troposphere which is at an altitude of 4-7 km. Dragons flight (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Icecap chart seems to be based on http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2/uahncdc.mt - Ross, that is a table of uncommented numbers, not a useful source. I dug around the web site a bit, and from the readme file it looks like those are Christy's data, but I could not find a clear description of it anywhere. Do you have a source that a) describes the data and b) links it to the image? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is not one line, there are three, one for the surface trend, one for Christy (et al)'s interpretation of the MSUs, and Schabel et al's different interpretation. Which of the trend lines do you disagree with? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically that opinion accuses us of being doomsday leftists and "global-warming alarmists".
Although I agree that a single opinion must not influence our proceedings I felt that that small edit could show readers that we are impartial.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦Talk09:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't edit to appease idiots. And saying it is from CBS News is rather misleading; it is an OPINION column which is actually from the National Review Online, which is, and I quote: "America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion." The fact that he was unable to cite any articles in his article which actually supported his opinion says something about its value, and why his edits were reverted on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that misleading? Are you "rather" retarded? How can you say something like that?
I wouldn't call Lawrence Solomon an idiot; he's a global warming skeptic. I don't see the problem with adding a link to global warming controversy to this article; on the other hand, looking at the article I see that it already goes further than that, including a section called "Social and political debate" which has a "main" link to global warming controversy and several other articles on the debate. --Jenny10:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to denigrate parties in the global warming debate. The fact is that complaints that the controversy is downplayed or censored are poorly founded. That fact doesn't depend on the credibility of the person claiming otherwise. --Jenny13:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought about doing some damage control, I wanted to address some of the criticism.
But I guess self-confidence here is so high that any criticism can just be ignored and brushed aside.
Stephan, don't you realize that when you derisively mock the other side of the debate, you yourself turn this place into Conservapedia? ATren (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I "derisively mock" Solomon in his capacity as a (bad) journalist, not as a Wikipedian. The man has a track record of misrepresentation, and I feel free to point that out. I'm all for open debate. Conservapedia blocks even slightly divergent opinions. How is that remotely comparable? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to formally object to your personal attacks on a fellow wikipedian. Please try to WP:AGF and be WP:CIV and remember WP:NPA which as we all know too well can get you blocked ... well at least some of us. --GoRight (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed elsewhere, becoming a Wikipedian does not protect an otherwise public person from legitimate criticism. The point stands. Claiming e.g. that Nigel Weiss is a denier requires an unusual degree of carelessness. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er... OK. We don't need to worry about what op-ed columnists from the National Review think about Wikipedia's coverage of global warming. Since their official line disagrees with the scientific assessment, they will likely disagree with any accurate representation of the scientific assessment. People will read the op-ed and either find it reinforces their preexisting beliefs on the topic, or they will discard it as an uninformed polemic. Name-calling isn't necessary. Global warming controversy is adequately linked. Next content issue? MastCellTalk19:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly should it go there? It doesn't mention this article. Its already added to the Oreskes,Singer and Connolley articles - which are mentioned. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i am serious. Otherwise we have to link every article that touches upon the subject of climate change/global warming in the media section above. The article mentions 3 specific articles - in those 3 specific articles a mention has been added to the media section. But the article doesn't mention this one. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about wiki coverage of Global Warming. This article is naturally the focal point of wiki coverage of Global Warming. Your logic that every article that ever mentioned global warming would have to be linked is ludicrous, do they all mention wiki? Wiki's coverage of global warming has been mentioned in the media in this article, and not linking it as such is excluding commentry because you disagree with it, nothing more. Jaimaster (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page already had a link to climate change controversy where it was appropriate. I don't see why there is an issue. Solomon doesn't even bother citing his sources in his article, and I actually LOOKED at Naomi's article (both of them, actually) to see what they were. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updating Graphics
Just out of curiousity, when will the graphics be updated up to present? There are various graphics now, like this one that show current temperatures dropping. Whoever generated the uploaded graphics, can they be updated with the GISS, UAH, and HadCrut data points? I'm not saying that the graphic to which I just provided a link is definitive, but multiple sources are showing that the temp numbers are declining. It is now 2008, we should have graphics that move beyond 2004. SunSw0rd (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While global mean surface is uptodate at 2007 the graphical depiction of warming 1995-2004 mean temps just below it is obviously not. It is a good picture of course to show how warming is not universal, or evenly distributed but it would be one that could be updated. I dont even understand the description of how the image was created to begin to think of how to update it. --207.161.30.161 (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually -- I am not sure that even the first image is accurately up to date. If that image is clicked, going to the image page and looking at the text it says "Data set HadCRUT3 was used". A link is provided. But if one then follows that link to the HadCRUT site it shows several graphs. Look very closely at the values in the first graphic, from which the wikipedia graphic appears to be derived. You can see a clear error bias in the wikipedia graphic compared to the HadCRUT graphic. For example, the last red bar (2007) for HadCRUT is right at 0.4. But the wikipedia image blue dot for 2007 is clearly above 0.4. Also, looking at 2005 (hottest year since 1998) HadCRUT clearly shows it as less than 0.5 but the wikipedia image is clearly greater than 0.5.
But even further looking closely at the multiple HadCRUT images the trend lines are moving downwards (see 2nd, 3rd, and 4th graphs at the Met Office site). Clearly 2008 is going to continue that trend.
Now referencing the image called "Reconstructed Temperature" showing time back for past 2000 years and labeling "Medieval Warm Period" -- realize the vast majority of the lines end in the 1960's or 1980's. The black line alone goes to 2004 and again is CRUT data. But following the link to that site once can see the CRUT data is up to date through May of 2008. Actually I would suggest dropping the black line though because all of the other lines are, as it says, temperature reconstructions, while the black line alone is satellite data. Therefore we are comparing apples to oranges. But if the black line is to be retained, it should at least be brought up to date. SunSw0rd (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded one a couple months ago. My complaint was that the 5 year average isn;'t published data, it's made up by the graphic artist. I used the HadCRut3 smoothed data that is provided by HadCrut3. i think it's as recent as march. The objection was that it wasn't vector graphics.
--DHeyward (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first graph includes all yearly averages including 2007. It says so in the edit history of the picture or you can count the blue dots yourself. Why the second image shows data only between 1995-2004 I don't know, but I guess that figure is less meaningful than the timelines. Dragons flight has created it, so he would know... Splette :)How's my driving?00:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right the first graph does go to 2007 as I said but -- when going to the original HadCRUT graphic the wiki graph is inaccurate as I pointed out. As in -- the blue dots for 2005-2007 in the wikipedia graphic are higher (warmer) than in the HadCRUT graphic. SunSw0rd (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a good reason vector graphics need no tbe used, I like the DHeyward version. It feels much the same, its "pretty" and uses the same filter on smoothing.......--207.161.30.161 (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors not familar with this page will keep trying to replace .png images with apparently equivalent .svg images because of the image use policy. It makes sense to make any new graphics in .svg formats to conform with the policy. I don't care about which "average" line is used, so DHeyward's image would be fine with me with the following changes: 1) image saved as .svg 2) black dotted line at y-axis 0 (instead of current yellow line with hashes) 3) larger y axis numbers (drop the last 0 to make more room), preferably larger x axis numbers 4) no edge black spots (see center left for an example) 5) no dots next to the markers for y-axis numbers 0.2 and 0.4 6) thicker lines between annual averages, and the line should be smooth. DHeyward, what graphics program did you use? Could you just save the image as a .svg file? - Enuja (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just used excel. I updated it. Still not svg as I don't think excel will do svg. As far as I know, svg image creation of data is very tedious and requires programs that are more geared towards graphics artists than scientists. I tried it with an open source tool and it was too painful. --DHeyward (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've said things like this before without my plans really panning out, but I have some vacation time planned at the start of August. One of the things I am hoping to do then is revisit as many of the older images as I can (e.g. those showing ~2005 data) and get them updated, so hopefully that part of the argument will die down. Dragons flight (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure you automate and keep your tools around. I'm expecting to see a modest revision in the standard temperature series some time in the next year or so as a result of Thompson 2008Smptq (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. The thumbnail displays grossly oversized fonts. Of the full image, I got a short glimpse, and then my browser crashed (reproducibly). "Not ready for prime time", I'd say ;-). Have you tried gnuplot? That does have an svg terminal type. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G.png that is currently being used in the article, at the size that is being used.DHeyward's new .svg image; hopefully everyone can see it here, the size that the current image is in the article, and discuss it.
Not quite ready for the prime time, but certainly getting there! I've downloaded it, and started messing with the text. The y-axis label and general graph label are waaaaay too big, not fitting on the graph when I look at the image with Safari and having the letters all run into each other when viewing the image with Inkscape. The y-axis labels should still be bigger, and the grid in the graph should be larger/bolder so that it is visible in the thumbnail. Other than that, 1910 and 1917 are unfilled circles, the top and left borders (b/t graph and grey) are strange and messy, and the dashed line for 1890 doesn't go all the way down to the x-axis. When the size of the label on the graph is finalized, some fixing of dashed lines in that area will probably be necessary. Personally, I really think that the bold marks on the x and y axes are helpful, and should be added. It's really cool that you're willing to do this work; thanks so much, and I think you will have an article-ready version soon! - Enuja (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wildfires
I would think wildfires would be an important mention in this article. If you go to the Wildfire page, it somewhat talks about the atmospheric effects of wildfires. During an Indonesian fire, 1/3rd of all the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere for that year was from that one fire according to the article. --75.183.75.227 (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been nothing said as yet about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As a thermal imager I am cognizant of this law, perhaps more so than most others.
The Second Law simply states that heat will conduct, convect or radiate from warm to cold only. In this way the heat would be equalized in a closed system by the time all of the system is in temperature stasis. If there is energy being added to the system (for example by the sun), the temperature may reach a stasis of a sort, with the transfer of heat and power at a continous process. This is how the earth warms and cools.
From the article on Wikipedia we get the quote for global warming: "It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface." The key words of interest here are absorbtion and emission of infrared radiation.
Infrared Radiation is a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum much like light and radio waves. As such, these radiation waves travel at light speed. When the sun warms our earth the radiation is absorbed mostly by water. As soon as this radiation is absorbed it begins to be radiated away again at the speed of light. The destination of that radiation is outer space which has an average temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (or almost -270 degrees Celsius). The loss of radiation follows the Second Law.
As seen in this thermograph, the sky is almost always colder than the earth in infrared. If we want to know why this is perhaps we should go back to grade 5 geography where we learned that for every thousand feet of elevation, the air temperature is about 2 degrees Celsius cooler. This temperature change is due to the increase in elevation and the confoming drop in air pressure and temperature which results. This is true summer and winter. Cloudy days are also included as clouds are colder than the earth. The only time this 'may' not be true is in localized conditions where sublimation or condensation are taking place.
Shot taken towards the horizon (Summer)
Shot taken directly above (Summer)
As seen in this thermograph. The temperature of the sky is cooler than the earth in infrared.
Conclusions- Because the earth is warmer than the atmosphere, the only direcction that the heat in the atmosphere can go is outer space. This conclusion supports the Second Law of Thermodynamics and contradicts the philosophy of The Global Warming panic merchandisers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotflashhome (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the preceding were an accurate and complete description of the Earth, the temperature of the Earth would long ago have dropped to be identical to that of the sky. It hasn't.
This is because the Earth is not a closed system. Energy is constantly delivered from the Sun, and constantly radiated away into space. The details of how much and how quickly these happen control the temperature of the Earth. Smptq (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse than that. The temperature of the earth and the oceans are more-or-less constant year round (the deep-sea temperature of the ocean 1 or two degrees above freezing year around. "At depths below six feet, ground temperature stays a constant 50 to 55 degrees Fahrenheit year-round." - http://www.alliantenergygeothermal.com/stellent2/groups/public/documents/pub/geo_how_001211.hcsp) The temperature of the air fluctuates with the seasons - sometimes it is warmer than the earth (in summer), sometimes it is colder (in winter). Therefore, his whole premise that the air cannot warm the earth because the earth is always warmer is patently, obviously false. Raul654 (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although ground temperatures only stay 50 to 55 degrees Fahrenheit in the temperate zones. In polar regions, the ground can freeze solid year-round up to thousands of feet below the surface. FCYTravis (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, wiki articles on scientific topics have to be based on peer reviewed publicatons. So, write up a decent article refuting the "philosophy of The Global Warming panic merchandisers" and submit it to Nature. If accepted for publication, well rewrite this wiki article. Count Iblis (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we have this argument before? The argument is wrong, and indeed laughably wrong. The second law forbids a net energy flow from colder to warmer (in a closed system, and with the usual caveats, of course). Net energy flow is from the sun (hot) to the earth (medium) to space (fairly cold). A small part of the large outward energy flow is held back by greenhouse gases (with the primary mechanism being undirected re-radiation), resulting in a warmer planet. All is in order. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, to a point. The effect you discuss may create a small increase in temperature at the surface but over-all the net radiative outflow for the planet over the long run will remain unchanged. Basically the amount of energy absorbed from the sun will have to equal the amount radiated to space or the temperature would continue to rise indefinitely which obviously isn't going to happen. --GoRight (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no - that's false. The net radiative outflow of a planet can be, and is, significantly affected by the composition of its atmosphere. Go take a look at Venus - its atmosphere is extremely dense and almost entirely made up of carbon dioxide, with a small amount of nitrogen. This results in an extreme greenhouse effect, raising the temperature to over 460 degrees Celsius at the planet's surface. It's hotter than Mercury, despite the fact that it receives only 25% of the solar irradiance that Mercury gets. There is nothing which says temperatures on the Earth's surface can't continue to rise indefinitely, given the proper atmospheric conditions. There's nothing special about the Earth. Assume an extreme long-term change in the composition of our atmosphere, and the oceans could boil off permanently. Life on Earth is not some preordained permanence. We exist because this particular rock happens to have extremely favorable conditions for the development of life as we know it. Any significant change in those conditions such that any of the things that allow life to exist (liquid water, copious amounts of oxygen, relatively moderate temperatures at the surface) go away, and the system can quite easily collapse temporarily or permanently. Mother Earth might heal herself, given time - but to paraphrase an old saw of economics, "The Earth can stay inhospitable longer than we can stay alive." FCYTravis (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that greenhouse gas composition can have an effect on surface temperatures, obviously that is correct. I was merely quibbling over the notion that "the atmosphere is heating the planet" which, in precise terms, is incorrect. The atmosphere is insulating the surface of the planet which can cause that surface temperature to rise, but as Stephan discusses below the radiative effects will eventually come back into equilibrium and the associated rise in temperature is NOT indefinite exactly as I said above.
On the issue of the planet reaching some disastrous "tipping point" with respect to CO2 levels, see [9] for a nice graph of Global Temperature vs. CO2 over Geologic Time. As you can see CO2 levels have been as high as (roughly) 1800% of what they are today and yet here we are. And given that the global temperature appears to top out at around 22 degrees C I think that concerns of the oceans boiling away permanently may not be at the top of our priority list.
This graph also demonstrates that the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature is a weak one at best. The global temperature doesn't seem to track the CO2 levels much at all here. And before you complain about this not being applicable to today, the graphs for the 20th century that we are all familiar with by now show exactly the same thing, see for example [10]. Note the obvious downturn in global temperatures from roughly 1945 until 1970 despite the monotonically increasing levels of CO2. If CO2 were the primary driver for surface temperature this could not occur, so again it is evidence of a weak correlation at best. Given this background it seems unlikely that the planet is in danger of a catastrophe of the order that you seem to be articulating above. --GoRight (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, in the long term the net outflow always equals the inflow (+insignificant geothermal contributions). What changes is the surface temperature at which this balance is achieved. If there is a net energy inflow (in other words, a positive forcing), the temperature rises, and as it rises, thermal emission rises as well (proportional to T4), eventually restoring balance. Of course "eventually" may be far too warm for our comfort... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as I am willing to accept the distinction between a fixed finite temperature and an infinite one as being a "slight exaggeration", I agree.
Yes, if the Second Law of Thermodynamics applied directly to the Earth... we would be looking at a rather cold, barren piece of rock, except that we wouldn't be here to look at it. This funny little (well, fairly small by the standards of stars) fusion reaction about one astronomical unit away somehow manages to keep our chunk of rock reasonably warm and comfy. FCYTravis (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit Conflict) Small correction. It is only to the extent that solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and then begins to re-radiate in its own right that it can be said that the atmosphere is "heating" the earth. Either way the source of the energy in question is solar in origin. If we had no atmosphere the energy in question would still be absorbed by the planet. --GoRight (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it would be re-radiated so rapidly as to render our planet a cold, barren rock. Our atmosphere is of a precise composition that creates favorable conditions for life to exist on the surface. It traps enough heat to allow liquid water to exist, but does not trap so much as to raise the temperature beyond those at which life as we know it has evolved to cope with. Throwing that balance off one way or the other in a significant fashion, will have dramatic impacts on the ability of the Earth to sustain its current ecosystem. FCYTravis (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GoRight, out of semantic curiosity when I grow tomato plants in reflected sunlight would you say it is the Myla reflector or the sun which is radiating them? Isn't "both" a reasonable answer? In which case reflection (e.g. off clouds) as well as re-radiation seems justified? I only mention it because we have had a long discussion in the past here from someone just starting to grasp thermodynamic basics about the fact the part of the atmosphere which heats the earth is colder than the earth...--BozMotalk11:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking I would not agree that the Mylar is the source of the radiant energy in question, only the Sun is. The Mylar is NOT providing radiant forcing on its own, obviously. In practical terms one might loosely accept that "both" is somehow reasonable, but in the more precise scientific terms it is not. That is the point I was making above. I noted it as being a small point. --GoRight (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What happens to the energy that we use to walk around? (by that I mean power anything that moves...) I guess its negligible. Umm, I should try to stay out of these things... Brusegadi (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting question, actually. There are a number of potential sources that indirectly contribute (in insignificant ways) to the total thermal output of the planet.
The theory that the planet has an internal heat source driven by nuclear fission of heavy elements such as uranium would contribute some level of radiant output, albeit indirectly. The heat would first be transmitted to the surface via conduction and then ultimately radiated as infra-red radiation.
The fact that the moon, via tidal action, is slowly syphoning off kinetic energy from the Earth's rotation and is therefore slowly spiraling away from the planet will ultimately create some amount of thermal radiation due to friction between the water and the planet's surface. Again this would most likely be insignificant relative to the solar component.
The fact that burning fossil fuels also produces thermal output would, as you point out, have some minuscule effect as well. But interestingly what is the source of that energy in the first place? The fossil fuels are organic compounds which have stored energy in the form of chemical bonds. The energy to create those bonds actually came from the sun using photosynthesis as a catalyst. So ultimately it could be said that even the heat generated by burning fossil fuels is solar in origin. :) The generation of organic compounds has acted as a net thermal sink, of sorts, by absorbing the solar radiation and converting it to stored chemical energy which is only liberated many many years later via oxidation.
Even so all of these are likely insignificant relative to the direct solar component. They are listed here for entertainment value only. :) --GoRight (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion"
The term "considerable presence with the scientific community" may be a reasonable statement to appear somewhere on the Global Warming page:
The APS has issued a statement indicating that their official position remains unchanged:
APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
I am very sorry I did not get a chance to post the thermographs I took for this section. I am new to the discussion group on Wikipedia and had to learn how to do this.
Several comments have been made in the interm that I would like to address. First, clouds are not water vapor but are condensed water. Water vapor is invisible in light and infrared until it condenses into clouds. As a liquid,water is one of the best emitters and absorbs of infrared radiation. In light, the clouds reflect light radiation which allows us to see them. This is how we see most of the objects in our lives (except for light bulbs and such other light emitters). The infrared camera sees only the emissions of infrared radiation from water. Because clouds are water droplets they will absorb and radiate infrared and this is the image you see.
This is the same with the horizon thermograph which is now posted in the original discussion. The warm areas shown directly above the horizon in tht thermograph are small droplets of condensing water due to the high humidity of the late night when the thermograph was taken. Because the water is dewing, it is releasing tremendous amounts of energy into the air which is powering the radiation of that part of the horizon. However, the sky directly above is much colder as can be seen in both thermographs which I took just last night. This is where the radiation will go as seen in the Second Law.
The winter horizon thermograph is an example of a normal sunny day when the earth is warmed by the sun. The Earth will always be warmer in this environment. As such it will always radiate at the coldeer sky.
As for the statement made by one gentleman about the air being warmer than the Earth on a hot summer day, I would say that this fellow has never walked on a dry sandy beach on a hot afternoon.
The Earth is made up of compounds which absorb infrared. At night the heat from these compounds will almost always radiate out because they are warmer. Please think of the late fall morning when you have to scrape the ice off the front windshield of your car. You look at it and wonder way the windshield needs to be scraped but the side windows do not. This is because the windshield is radiating at a very cold sky and has caused the sublimation of ice on the windshield. However, in the fall the side windows are warmed by the Earth's radiation as frost has not yet set in the ground so the ground is still warm and warms the side windows.
Thank you everyone for all your comments. I want you all to know that I appreciate these. I started this thread to introduce a new side to the Dilemma of Global Warming. I will be posting more thermographs here in the future. I hope to foster as much discussion as possible on this. I will say right now that as a thermal imager, I do not see the vaunted emissions from space that we are supposed to be causing by the buildup of Green House Gases. They simply are not radiating in the infrared environment.
As for the statement made by one gentleman about the air being warmer than the Earth on a hot summer day, I would say that this fellow has never walked on a dry sandy beach on a hot afternoon. - On a hot sandy beach, the top-most sand is not appreciably hotter than the air - it's about the same temperature. (90-odd degrees F, give or take). And if dig down into the sand about 3 or 4 inches or so, you'll find (GASP!) that it's a lot cooler. That's why people bury their feet, or their whole bodies, in the sand. The top few inches of earth are equalized in temperature with the air, but the earth goes quite a bit deeper than that, and it's both stable and cooler if you go beyond the first few inches. That cool earth acts as a sink for heat from the air, which radiates into the (colder) earth. So once again your claims have been debunked. Raul654 (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lets consider a few of your points here (focusing only on the case of a hot summer day):
"On a hot sandy beach, the top-most sand is not appreciably hotter than the air - it's about the same temperature. (90-odd degrees F, give or take)." - This is incorrect. The primary source of energy to heat up the surface sand is solar. It is clearly possible for that sand to heat up well beyond the surrounding air, on the order of tens of degrees, in fact. At that point the sand will be radiating and conducting thermal energy into the air not the other way around.
GoRight, here you are spot on. As someone who has lived in Africa I can confirm sand in the sun was frequently not only above the pain level for standing without shoes (pain threshold is about 60C) but also way way above this, with fast blistering burns on the foot, requiring 80C at least. Air temperature (near the coast) was rarely as high as 40C. The sand temp would be true for the whole Sahara for example. --BozMotalk20:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to be a spoilsport, or a know-it-all, but I think this is a matter of semantics. While the environmental air may be quite low in temperature, the air that is in direct contact with the sand will be very nearly in thermal equilibrium with it, and hence at nearly the same temperature. Of course it cools down very fast as you move away from the sand. And of course the sand can be quite a bit warmer than 33° Celsius. On the third hand, my pain threshold for sand is way below 60° Celsius... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have no problem accepting that just at the boundary between the sand and the air that the air temperature is close to that of the sand. But unless you have some way to explain why that hot air convected DOWN to the sand it should be sort of obvious that this is an example of the sand heating the air and not the other way around. This, of course, would then be the complete opposite of what Raul asserted, would it not? --GoRight (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"And if dig down into the sand about 3 or 4 inches or so, you'll find (GASP!) that it's a lot cooler." - This is correct.
"The top few inches of earth are equalized in temperature with the air, ..." - This is incorrect. The surface temperature on the ground and the temperature of the surrounding air can easily differ by tens of degrees.
"...but the earth goes quite a bit deeper than that, and it's both stable and cooler if you go beyond the first few inches." - This is correct.
"That cool earth acts as a sink for heat from the air, which radiates into the (colder) earth." - This is not a accurate description of the processes involved. Strictly speaking, the cool underground is acting as a sink for the surface sand, not the air, and the transmission mechanism is conduction not radiation. For the case where the surface sand is cooler than the air temperature the surface sand will act as a sink for the air and the method of transmission will involve conduction, convection, and radiation. For the case where the surface sand is warmer than the air temperature the air will act as a sink for the surface sand and the method of transmission will be conduction and radiation.
"So once again your claims have been debunked." - I think that this declaration was a bit premature on your part.
Bill, may I point out your thermograph of the overhead sky? Thinks carefully: What exactly makes this picture? Yep, indeed. It's photons coming down from the cold sky into your warm thermograph apparatus. Likewise, your explanation of the windshield phenomenon is incomplete. The windshield and the side windows are radiating heat at the same rate. However, the overhead sky is radiating less energy back at the windshield than the ground and other objects do at the car. Hence the net energy loss is less for the side windows and more for the windshield. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
"However, the overhead sky is radiating less energy back at the windshield than the ground and other objects do at the car." - How is this substantively different from saying, as was done above, that the windshield is radiating at the cold (i.e. less radiative) sky whereas the side windows are warmed by the (more radiative) ground and surrounding objects? These amount to the same thing as far as I can tell. While you have described things in terms of net energy losses those losses seem to be completely consistent with the description provided above. Am I missing something here?
Note, however, that the use of sublimation in the above description is incorrect, deposition would be the correct term assuming, of course, that the liquid phase of the water is actually avoided in the process of forming the ice on the windshield. --GoRight (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
temperature fluctuation
there used to be a graph in this article on the increased fulctuation of tempurature, which really is the issue moreso then increase in temperature, despite the name. this increase was more then ten times as extreme as that of global average temperature.
why is it taken off?· Lygophilehasspoken17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is odd how the pages change. This is a very dynamic site.
The article entitled Global Warming was headed by an explanation which was "It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface." . When I started this discussion thread on Wednesday July 16, this statement headed the article.
Many web sites, including the one in Wikipedia, are devoted to this topic and have used infrared radiation as the basis for Global Warming theories. I have often taken umbrage with this statement only because, as a thermographer, I have taken notice of My Radiating Environmentand with the exception of localized conditions mainly due to condensation and sublimation, have never seen the sky warmer than the Earth. This is the reason I started this discussion.
On reviewing the article today Friday July 18, any evidence of this statement in the Global Warming article has been removed. I must have hit a nerve somewhere.
Perhaps who ever did this would like to leave an explanation for their actions.
I have had problems with the idea of man made climate change since the early 1980's. At that time, a prominent Canadian Genetisist postulated that the cold winters we were experiencing at the time might lead to a new ice age. Funny how things have changed in 20 years.
As a result of this change, I no longer see the need for continuing this thread of discussion. I want to thank you all for your input. It has been very interesting. BillHotflashhome (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are a bit confused. All the history of this page is available at the history tab at the top of the page. No recent version has started with a statement on infrared radiation, and as far as I can make out, neither has any old version. However, the section titled Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere did start and still does start with a statement similar to the one you cite. It is factually correct, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CO2 ...
... comprises some 0.037% of the atmosphere. I know that there is small clique here of those wedded to the currently fashionable view that that CO2 is causing global warming but it would nice if there was some mention of this fact somewhere in this biased article. 20 years from now no-one will even remember this strange idea of CO2 causing global warming anymore than they recall the headlines that screamed "New Ice Age Coming" 30 years ago. Still it would be agreeable if Wiki was ahead of the game. SmokeyTheCat •TALK•20:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this article and the cause of Global Warming ITSELF is because the concentrations of greenhouse gases (such as CO2)in our atmosphere are increasinggotcheeze5793 (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20 years from now no-one will even remember this strange idea of CO2 causing global warming anymore than they recall the headlines that screamed "New Ice Age Coming" 30 years ago
Thank you Steven. I was looking all over for that quote but I could not find it. I guess my work here is not quite yet finished. BillHotflashhome (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm jumping into this with some degree of trepidation, but I think this is worth commentary. I've not had a chance to examine this thoroughly, but I've noticed that in some sections that claims made by newspaper articles appear side-by-side with results of peer-reviewed scientific publications. See for example, the last two paragraphs of the section "Attributed and expected effects."
Additional anticipated effects include sea level rise of 110 to 770 millimeters (0.36 to 2.5 ft) between 1990 and 2100,[82] repercussions to agriculture, possible slowing of the thermohaline circulation, reductions in the ozone layer, increased intensity (but less frequent)[83] of hurricanes and extreme weather events, lowering of ocean pH, and the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. One study predicts 18% to 35% of a sample of 1,103 animal and plant species would be extinct by 2050, based on future climate projections.[84] However, few mechanistic studies have documented extinctions due to recent climate change[85] and one study suggests that projected rates of extinction are uncertain.[86]
Global warming is expected to increase the potential geographic range and virulence of tropical diseases.[87] Climate change could cause a major increase in insect-borne diseases such as malaria throughout Europe, North America and North Asia.[88]
The effects detailed in the first paragraph are suggested by articles in journals like Nature, BioSciences, etc. The sources for the second paragraph are CBS News and MeriNews. The CBS News article appears to be an interview with the authors of a study published in Science, while MeriNews appears to be an outlet for "citizen journalism," and I would therefore question its reliability as a source in this matter. In the case of the CBS article, I would think that the study itself should be used as a reference, rather than the author's unpublished (in a scientific sense) comments to the Associated Press.
I'm not making any changes to the article itself at this point, but I'd be interested on others' thoughts on the matter.
Why is the wikilink "Global warming controversy" only under the section "Social and political debate", since the article "Global warming controversy" contains a large section on the "Controversy concerning the science", which deals with the scientific opinion on climat change? Perhaps the section "Social and political debate" could be renamed "Social, political and scientific debate" to take the scientific perspective into account. --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy regarding the science is not a scientific controversy at all, i.e. it is not a controversy that exists within the realms of the peer reviewed journals. It exists mainly on right wing blogs, in newspapers editorials were people attack the science. Shielded from the peer review, they make the case directly to the lay people who are unqualified to judge the arguments. Count Iblis (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of peer reviewed articles that disagree with the conclusions or extent put forward in the wiki Global Warming page. Do you want us to fill this page with links? It can be arranged. I support changing the section title.Jaimaster (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want us to fill this page with links? - yes, please. To save time, bring a few of the best ones first. Believe it or not, we aim to include all reliably sourced positions with their due weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder if, in some sense, restricting "reliably-sourced" scientific criticism to peer-reviewed journals is overly restrictive. If -- and I think this is true regardless of the subject -- Dr. X, an expert in some field Y publishes Z in Monthly Y Review or some such, and then Dr. A, equally expert in Y, uses some other avenue, say a blog at realY.org or Ysci.org, etc., to raise substantive scientific criticism of Z, Dr. A's comments should be considered reliably sourced, and notable, although not given the same weight as they would if they were also published in Monthly Y Review. Along similiar lines, if Dr. A gave a talk at, say, the annual meeting of the American Y Society -- and there doesn't seem to be much peer-review to give a talk or prepare a poster -- where he claimed not-Z, that would certainly be "scientific" controversy as opposed to political or some other kind of controversy. Bascially, I'm just saying that absence of criticism of a particular scientific theory from peer-reviewed journal does not constitute prima facie evidence of absence of scientific controversy -- it's a necessary but not a sufficient condition. In this case, the very fact of the existence of a "back-and-forth" on scientific issues between RealClimate and ClimateSci belies the notion that the science is "settled."
I suppose it comes down to what aspect of AGW are we arguing about. The central claim that Earth has warmed and that humans are partially responsible seems to be nearly universally accepted. The scientific "controversy" -- perhaps uncertainty is a better word here -- exists in the details: extent of future warming, sea level rise, effects on extreme weather events, regional changes, etc. As I understand it, there is as yet no scientific consensus on these issues, as is pretty clearly demonstrated in the wide range of predictions for, say, increase in global average temperature presented in the IPCC report. The scientific debate over these issues doesn't seem to be adequately represented in either this article or Global Warming controversy. I wonder perhaps if those who feel that wikipedia's treatment of global warming is "skewed" might be mollified by increasing the amount of discussion of the scientific issues that are still unresolved.
Having written all this, I really should try to dig up sources and propose some specific changes. Unfortunately, between work and trying to clean up some of the exoplanet articles (which is the field where I actually know what I'm talking about!) it'll be a while before I can get around to it. So, all I'm going to do for now is ramble on here on the talk page.
Global Warming and the Second Law (continued again )
Hello again everyone.
I am sorry for my absence for this discussion over the last several days but the weather here has been abysmal with clouds, high humidity and rain. Since I have already posted pictures of My Horizon in a high humididty situation, I have been awaiting a day when a more balanced climate exists.
We can see from the last pair of thermographs that even with the high humidity apparent in the pictures, there is still a colder sky for the ground level radiation to transmit at.
Infrared Radiation is part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum. X-rays, Gamma waves, Light Waves, Micro Waves and Radio Waves are also a part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum. As such they all travel at the speed of light. That means that within one second, the Infrared Radiation emitted by ground objects is already more than half way to the Moon or almost 200,000 miles from Earth unless it is absorbed by an element in the upper atmosphere. If this happens, it will not stay around for long since the temperature in space is almost -270 degrees Celsius and anything in the upper atmosphere will radiate at that huge heat sink.
My contention has always been that infrared Radiation cannot be the mechanism that powers Global Warming since the Second Law states that heat will always radiate from warm to cold.
In visible light, we see mostly reflected light radiation. The clouds, our sons, daughters and grandchildren, friends our house or all reflections of light that is emitted from a light source. When we drive our car, the road is seen because the reflected light of our headlamps is visible to our eyes.
Infrared is different. For the most part the objects we see are not reflected. They are manifestations of the heat that an object emits. That heat is recorded by the infrared camera and then turned into a picture we can see. So the 'light' in infrared is for the most part is the 'infrared light' that actually comes from the object. But the camera actually sees the infrared radiation of the object at a temperature.
On a dark and cloudy night with no moon we stumble around in the dark because there is no light to reflect off the objects we fall over. So we get a flashlight to light the way.
However, on the darkest and coldest night there are always objects that are at different temperatures and the thermal camera can see these different temperatures. I have used my camera to take pictures of wildlife on a dark night and I can say it is easier to sneak up on a deer or a swan when you don't need a flashlight.
The upshot of all this discussion thread has been the same from the first. Infrared Radiation cannot power Global Warming as stated in the article. If allowed by the administrators of the article, I would like to continue posting thermographs of My Horizon. I would also like to invite other thermographers to post Their Horizons.
Second: The 2nd law applied to closed systems. The planet is not a closed system.
Third: You are proposing adding original research to the article, and this is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. If you can find reliable published sources confirming your ideas, feel free to propose adding them then.
Fourth: Your camera doesn't see the entire infrared spectrum. I expect it's probably LWIR only, not NIR or MWIR.
(ec)Please try to follow standard Wikipedia convention and do not start a new section for every comment. Please also use proper sections, not just bolded headlines (proper sections can be edited independently). Also, please keep in mind this is not a forum. Read WP:FORUM. Now on to the substantial debate. Infrared radiation is a kind of radiation like all the others. Wether is "powers" global warming is a misstated question. The ultimate power source for global warming is the sun. What creates (most of) the energy imbalance that leads to warming is the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The mechanism by which they do this is indeed (mostly) emission and re-radiation of infrared radiation. Once more: Whenever you take an infrared picture of the horizon, you have an example of radiation from a colder place (the upper atmosphere) transmitting energy (in the form of the infrared photons that create the image) to a warmer place (your camera). This works without any trouble with the second law because the net energy flow is still outwards. But, due to increased greenhouse gases, it is slowed, since photons are, on average, more often absorbed and (randomly) re-radiated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a direct quote from the Global Warming Page
Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the concentration of various greenhouse gases, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. Molecule for molecule, methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but its concentration is much smaller so that its total radiative forcing is only about a fourth of that from carbon dioxide. Some other naturally occurring gases contribute small fractions of the greenhouse effect; one of these, nitrous oxide (N2O), is increasing in concentration owing to human activity such as agriculture. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s.
You will note that there is not one reference for this assertion in the body of this quote. Therefore it would probably be considered as a discussion on the page if it were written by anyone else. There is no reference for the research that must have been done to generate this quote.
Yes you are right when you say that a short wave camera is necessary for seeing the gases which you say are in the atmosphere. However the long wave camera is able to see emissions from those gases if the gases produce infrared radiation. As well any emissions from those gases would interact with the solids and liquids present in the atmosphere and would cause increase in temperature and the resultant radiation of those substances. The result would show up on a long wave camera which can ordinarily record temperatures from - 40 to + 250 degrees Celsius and would see all the radiation in this area of the spectrum. That would be evidence of radiative pushing.
As for The Second Law and an open system, part of that system still has to be the 3 Degree Kelvin Temperature which completely surrounds the Earth and takes away our heat as well as the Sun that gives it. We are part of the universe and the universe is a closed system.
Try looking at the first citation after the section you quote. [12]
Whether the universe as a whole is a closed system doesn't tell us anything about human-time-scale temperature fluctuations on the Earth, since our local part of the universe is very clearly not in equilibrium, and won't be until after the sun exhausts its fuel, some billions of years from now.
The quotation you have listed does address some of the causes involved in the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However it does not address the 'theory' of radiative pushing nor does it address the conjecture put forward in the article that Greenhouse Gases radiate back to the Earth. This is the crux of my argument.
It is all well and good to cite me for not providing published work in this area. However to actually publish this work without corroberating evidence is just as erroneous. I have looked through much of the literature on this subject published on the net and have found no substantiation for this argument. Perhaps as publisher of the article you could enlighten me. I can only believe what my eyes and camera show me. Thanks again BillHotflashhome (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. I will not post any more pictures unless you give me permission. I feel very strongly about this subject but you cannot fight city hall. Thanks againHotflashhome (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no mention of the term "radiative pushing". What I think you are talking about is referred to as "Back Radiation" in the diagram at the top of page 96 (page 4 in pdf numbering) of this reference[13]. IMHO, you would do well to take some physics courses. Smptq (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was reading one article on the subject which referred to the prossess as radiative pushing. Your article refers to it as radiative forcing. To quote the source cited, it MAY cause global warming. I might suggest that this is stunningly vague. The article was written in the early part of the 21st century.
Gases in the troposphere will still cool with altitude. The article states that the troposhere would mix and become homogenious in composition. So it would be correct to state that the temperature of these gases mixed in the troposphere would be the same temperature as the rest of the air and that would be cooler than the Earth.
Greenhouse gases such as corbon dioxide and methane are only visible to an infrared camera in a very narrow range of the infrared spectrum. Special cameras have been developed to image these gases. However, when they radiate they would affect air, water molecules and suspended particulates (smog) that are present in the air. That radiation would be visible to a long wave thermal camera. My pictures show little if any affect from these gases. thanks again. BillHotflashhome (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to learn about radiative forcing, the place to go is the Radiative forcing article. It cites a section of an IPCC report[14], which in turn cites a paper studying the properties of various gasses[15]. Smptq (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal to the majority, which is a logical fallacy, hurts the argument for global warming. There is no need for it.
The appeal to the majority, or even "consensus," in no way improves the argument for human caused global warming. This logical fallacy should not be used. In fact, most people would easily agree that there needs to be cleaner air, less smog, and therefore less carbon released. Do most people need the vast majority of scientists to convince them of this? No. A few scientists are sufficient, or just look at the air quality compared to a clean air day. Many cities now have smog alerts as well. Why would you need a majority of scientists to prove that there is a problem with air quality? Air quality is partially related to the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere.
To sum up. Appealing to the majority of scientists is not helping anyone to acknowledge the facts about air quality, carbon release, and global warming. This logical fallacy will only make the argument weaker. --Joseph Prymak (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shot taken towards the horizon (Summer)
Shot taken directly above (Summer)
![[10]](http://www.tcsdaily.com/images/Library/None/010405M2.gif){kind=link}