Talk:Climate change

Temp rises

Suggest the +/- figures are chopped from the lead and put as a note. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely against. The uncertainty is as important as the rise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the wiki link on the +/- sign? I thought there used to be a link to the definition of uncertainty? Count Iblis (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well can we write it in prose then? Eg global warming is the recent increase in global average surface temperatures. When measured from 19xx to 20xx there has been a rise of around xC. This figure may be slightly inaccurate, and the true figure is beleived to lie in a range of xC to xC. Quite frankly I think this is much more accesible to the kids and moms and car mechanics who might want to read this article. Virtually everyone who edit's this article has got a science/maths/engineering degree and we should write for people who haven't. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No. See Strunk and White. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Strunk and White take priority over readability? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mu. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'll be more explicit than. The proposal by Andrew seems easier to understand for non-science/math people. In so far as that, it seems preferable to using +/- even if +/- is the technically preferred style standard. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

More explicit than what? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant stating my point more explicitly than it was done by question which did so implicitly. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you repeat that? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Because I clearly need more sleep. Have a goodnight. I'll explain myself in the morning if it turns out I had something resembling a coherent thought. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The unscientific folks with whom I associate happen to be comfortable with +/-. I also think that it gives much more information. Awickert (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let us not dumb this thing down. Wasn't there a proposal to create a simplified article for the children? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the uncertainty in the uncertainty of 0.18°C? If it is something like 0.05°C or larger, then we should replace 0.18°C by 0.2°C. Count Iblis (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

it needs %confidence on the +/- tooAndrewjlockley (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - does anyone know if these are 1-σ or 2-σ? Awickert (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's on page 2 of the SPM, if one cares to look. -Atmoz (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I figured that would deserve a snark. I will care to look. Awickert (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

90%. Anyone else think this should be added? Awickert (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As a note perhaps. -Atmoz (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awickert (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Back from Wikibreak, good to see you guys. I know I'm coming in late, but page 2 of the SPM calls it "uncertainty intervals", and no necessarily "90% certainty." I've reworded it to "[...] These values are constructed with a 90% uncertainty interval." This is a little different wording for me, I'm used to calling it a confidence interval, is there a reason for this difference? ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing; no difference AFAIK. I personally prefer confidence interval, or even better, "standard dev" or "standard error" so I know how they calc'ed it - but I think (?) this might be too complicated for one of those. Awickert (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged scientific fraud in Urban Heat Island Effect

Adding:

Douglas J. Keenan has “formally alleged that he committed fraud in some of his research,including research cited by the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (2007) on “urban heat islands” (a critical issue).”

Web sites with further information:

• Douglas Keenan's remarks on his exposé, “The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang”. Informath.org

• Douglas Keenan, InformathAllegations of fraud at Albany - the Wang case scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com

• Climate Science Fraud at Albany University? WattsUpWithThat.com DLH (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Shortened to: (Keenan alleges that Wang's UHI research is fraudulent)

Putting the longer statement under Urban Heat Island

I'd suggest finding a reliable source to backup these claims before trying to get them in the article (and, for that matter, misconduct claims regarding a single obscure researcher don't really merit inclusion here. Try the article on UHI instead). Given that the researcher's University officially cleared him of any wrongdoing, there is a pretty high bar to overcome before the evidence of any fraud (or willful coverup by his University) is valid. Zeke Hausfather (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And since these are only two of several studies on the UHI, it does not belong here at all, unless reliable sources pick this up and claim it significantly affects the temperature record. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:BLP: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material" etc etc etc. If it's quoted from a reliable source that's one thing, but the self-published sources you cite here are right out, period. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a factual case where a complaint has been on substantial evidence alleging fraud. However this is not the first time where figures have been fraudulently changed and I recommend watching this[1] video to anyone interested in the subject. I was particularly interested to read that many of the main conclusions of the IPCC reports were not from scientists and in several cases the scientists disagreed with the conclusions. In line with previous comments this would make the IPCC reports themselves unreliable sources for this article. Bugsy (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh heavens to Betsy, will you guys get off this "the scientists disagree with the IPCC" nonsense? We're not a timid bunch and you can bet that if the IPCC misrepresented the science a lot of us would be howling bloody murder. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is a REALLY big problem. If the GISS numbers are unreliable (and remember, they already contradict trends in both the modern proxies and the satellite measurements) global warming theory loses its primary evidential support for the assertion trace amounts of CO2 are driving climate temperature. The surface station surveys suggest the heat island effect may be quite large. TallDave7 (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Celcius degrees versus degrees Celcius

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

"°C" ("degrees C" or "degrees Celsius") is the official convention for both temperature and changes in temperature. Awickert (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

---

I disagree with this edit re symbols for temperature changes. I can't find a source for this at the moment, but as I was taught, there is a distinction between "degrees Celcius" (symbolized as °C) and "Celcius degrees" (correctly, I believe, symbolized as C°). The former is used for reporting temperatures, as in "it's now 20 degrees Celcius outside". The latter is a unit of changes in temperature, as in "The temperature has gone up three Celcius degrees since this morning." (The same distinction applies re Fahrenheit. No such distinction occurs for the Kelvin scale because it starts at absolute zero.) The WP:MOSNUM doesn't appear to me to contradict this: it's only talking about units for temperature and is not mentioning the symbols for units of temperature changes. To me, the edit makes the text seem to nonsensically claim that the warming effect brings the temperature up to a temperature of 3 degrees (rather than stating that it raises the temperature by three degrees). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, though I feel that's already apparent. Kerrow (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what you have been taught, but I've never seen this distinction anywhere. The correct unit, for both absolute temperatures and temperature differences, is °C/°F respectively. And, as a minor aside, the man the unit is named after is Anders Celsius. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec a go go) Your interpretation contradicts usage in both the professional literature and in the popular press; e.g., Newsweek says "average surface temperatures have increased 1 degree Fahrenheit (.5 degree Celsius)." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So putting the ° before of after the word "degree" changes the meaning. Man, this is weird and confusing. But if it's the right to write it then let's. --McSly (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I dislike it, and have reverted back to the version that has been stable forever. K has broken 3RR, but doesn't seem to have been warned, so I just have William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I object sir, I did not break 3RR. Please check first before assuming. Also, William, I don't care about your personal feelings regarding the convention. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Kerrow (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you that you did. If you think admins are going to be fooled by you writing "this is not a revert" [2] you're wrong. And you cannot mix "sir" with first-name terms. We are not on first name terms William M. Connolley (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Stephan, i've never seen C° .... ever (well now i have (here)). The "celsius degree" thing (if it exists) seems to be an americanism (or britishism). None of my physics or chemistry books use this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec/ec) Can we get at least one example of a usage of C°? (i have to say that i'm extremely sceptical of the existance) But even then its a moot argument, since °C is the overwhelmingly common usage. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[3] (as explained in Celsius#Temperatures and intervals). -Atmoz (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Most scientists ignore such stupid conventions. If you publish in a scientific journal then they may have some guidlines for notations but no referee or editor will object or even notice if you do not stick to such ridiculous guidlines that stipulate how to use the degrees symbol. What tends to happen is that if you do something that most authors do not do, then you can get some comments. In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if you used the degrees symbol "correctly" that you would be asked to change it back into the "incorrect" form, simply because everyone uses this symbol that way. Count Iblis (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My personal experience with both publication and editing is otherwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There are differences between different fields. In theoretical physics journals you can get away with almost anything. Count Iblis (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've often suspected as much... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Atmoz wanted to give an example of C° - both his sources state that the same unit is used for temperatures and temperature differences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's °C, not C°, and the unit is spelled "Celsius". See 99.9F° for an interesting exception, though I doubt it is applicable to this discussion. --John (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protecting the talk page

I've read through the transcripts in Archive 49[4] that WMC got tired of anons essentially spamming the talk page. I am not polarized on the issue however this is in direct violation of WP:PP, where in it states "[...] A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time." There does not appear to be a community sanction, nor any reports from arbitration. I'm asking for some explanation. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

When you read the Archive you would have (or should have) noticed that this was done with unanimous consent, even from those engaged in serious ongoing conflict with WMC. Policy should never trump common sense. More at WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:IAR, etc etc etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As you probably saw, an anon was being a total waste of time by posting a skeptic's laundry list and refusing to engage in polite productive conversation; I think the talk page has become more efficient since then. I like it this way; maybe a healthy compromise would be a semi-protection that doesn't require an autoconfirmed account (does such a thing exist?). Awickert (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think such a feature is presently available (though in principle it would not be hard to implement). I don't recall how long it's been since our friend was disrupting the page. They tend to get bored and wander off, so if it's been a few weeks we could try lifting the semi-protection on a trial basis. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I know about WP:IAR and WP:BURO Boris. The wording of you comment implies that I do not. I didn't say that I was in direct disagreement with the action take, I stated that I'm asking for explanation that goes beyond what has been described in the archives. Consensus among a limited group of editors—that is within the article talk space—cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. This is taken almost word for word from WP:CON. While it certainly makes sense to lock the article for a cool down period, the protection level is "indefinite". This holds strong negative implications. Look, I'm not going to judge, if you want, I can ask WP:AN for a neutral administrator to see what he or she thinks. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, barring the account-not-autoconfirmed type of protection, which I would like because it would allow anons to make accounts and provide input right away, but disruptive accounts could be blocked and subsequently sockblocked if necessary, but which seems not to exist, maybe it would be best to lift the protection ASAP and see what happens. It's been a few weeks, so I think it would be OK (as per Boris, above). Awickert (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy aspect isn't very interesting. But if the anon has got bored, we can try unprot William M. Connolley (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's do it. If anons start soapboxing here again, we (you) can reprotect. Awickert (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Life as we know it

The following is a direct quote from the IPCC.

"Thus, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible." p 23 of 36

Thus, it does not matter if it is true, only that it is found in a reliable source. Q Science (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

First, the current text is subtly but significantly different. But more importantly, we do not have to add everything that is verifiable - we have to reflect all major pertinent views. I don't think this half sentence adds anything worthwhile, thus, per Strunk & White, I'd rather see it go. The article is long as it is, there is no reason to add every or even any embellishments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Wikipedia: the propagation of wrong information. Because someone else said it first. -Atmoz (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, life as I know it includes attractive girls sun-tanning on the beach... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to make sure I have this straight. Someone adds something from an IPCC report and you delete it because "it is not true". Funny, that's what most of the skeptics also claim but you won't let them do the same thing. If you think this is not true, then please provide a proper reference and we can use it in a section (or page) on known lies in the IPCC reports. Otherwise, we should leave the information there. Q Science (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume WP:IAR if everyone agree something isn't true. Above rule is to resolve content disputes. Also sentences should reflect the spirit of what's being said in the source as well so it's not being taken out of context I mean. (Not that I have an opinion in this particular case.)
—Apis (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the phrase was used in context exactly like the IPCC used it in the reference provided and I don't know of any reference that says that it is not true. Yet, these 2 people have claimed that this statement is a lie without providing ANY reference. What I don't understand is why it bothers them so much. Q Science (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See Hydrothermal vent#Biological communities.[5] And it's not a lie, it's an idiom. -Atmoz (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As I tried to point out, maybe a bit to subtly, above, it's a matter of how you interpret "life as we know it". If you take it as "no known form of life would survive without the natural greenhouse effect", then yes, it is plain wrong. But it can also be interpreted as "the current biosphere would not exist in this form (but there might be another one that we don't know)". Without the natural greenhouse effect we might not have come out of snowball earth, implying no liquid water on the surface, hence little to no photosynthesis and no oxygen atmosphere. I'd call that life very different from "as we know it". Anyways, I don't take this half-sentence as having any particular relevance. For me, it looks like something that has been added for rhetoric flourish, not like a carefully sourced scientific statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I understood your point. My point is that the phrase "as we know it" is pointless. "We" "know" that life can exist without the natural greenhouse effect because "we" have evidence that it does. In the event of a snowball earth, surface life would probably still exist because it exists in really cold places on the surface now. See McMurdo Dry Valleys#Biota too. "We" (humans, mammals, animals) probably wouldn't exist, but I don't think that's a valid interpretation of "as we know it". If the IPCC wanted to say that human life is dependent upon the natural greenhouse effect, that's fine. But they didn't. -Atmoz (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but that is not how most people would have interpreted that phrase (since that is not where WE live). Perhaps it is worth including just to explain that it only applies to "normal" life forms as opposed to extremophiles. Q Science (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not worth adding this at all. It diverges from the topic of the article, which is, after all, global warming, not the greenhouse effect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO it serves a very useful purpose, in that it clarifies "normal" levels of warming as distinct from global warming - the two are often conflated, and/or used as an argument that global warming cannot exist, since warming due to greenhouse gases is necessary to life as we know it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And why wouldn't it have the opposite effect of making people confuse "the natural greenhouse effect" with global warming instead?
—Apis (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's self evident from the 33 °C part, so it would only add unnecessary bulk... and it's not particularly relevant to the article anyway (global warming).
—Apis (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest changing the lead to something like 'GW is caused by increases in Earth's natural greenhouse effect' to clarify this point. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not my first choice, but certainly that would be acceptable to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GW isn't caused by increases in Earth's natural greenhouse effect. And it's already included in the lead as "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the twentieth century". -Atmoz (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, it will need some tweaking, he only said "something like..." it was not meant to be a finished edit. So how would you rephrase for accuracy, and to try to avoid misunderstandings on the part of the reader? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's my go at it: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the twentieth century"... -Atmoz (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Author and Publisher internal links

In the following version[6] the IPCC is linked over forty times, and likewise to many magazines and journals. Linking and relinking increases load times, parse time, and hampers reading with the "sea of blue". This is WP:OVERLINK. While it certainly makes sense to provide the reader with a means to determine who is behind the source, especially those less notable authors. I've delinked most of the common publishers, publishing dates, and several authors within references (there has been no edit to the body) in the following diff[7] in accordance with our MoS. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Chart error?

On the first chart, the 5 year average line, last point, appears to be high by about 0.02 C°.

The degree symbol, °, stands for the word degree, just like % stands for percent and is read as the word. If the degree symbol is before C (or F, K, or R) it is a temperature. If it is after the letter it is a temperature DIFFERENCE. For example, if the temperature changes from 21 °C to 23 °C it has increased by 2 C°. It is surprising to discover that this usage/meaning is not universal. However, correct interpretation can usually be determined from context. If I had read/heard that it increased by 2 °C that would be OK too. So, shrug. Dan Pangburn (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Not universal" is a remarkable understatement: I have never once seen the degree sign follow the unit specifier either in the professional literature or in the popular press. Are there subfields where this is common? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures has lots of pages on "degree celsius"[8] - but not a single one on "celsius degrees"[9] (with or without "s" at end). And that really should be the end of that discussion.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Boris and Kim. I've never seen °C except for a recent discussion right here. Our article Degree symbol is completely silent on ° as a postfix. ℃ and ℉ are individual unicode code points, while C° and F° are not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And the argument makes absolutely no sense in an SI context, since C is Coulomb not celsius. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you look at the link given by Atmoz in the archived section above, you will see that the actual official usage is °C for both. Awickert (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never ever ever never ever seen it either. As Kim said: it makes no sense in a SI unit context. Although it's kind of funny in a strange way. :)
—Apis (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean, it could probably be useful in some case if there was a widespread convention to write like that but there clearly isn't so it shouldn't be used in my opinion.
—Apis (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I just thought it was a typo. Never seen it done like that before in uni degree, wiki, or whilst doing lefty-greeny treehugging.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Seven comments on the shrug. I thought that the chart error would be more important. Dan Pangburn (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing the See also

All links within the See also section is duplicated in the Navigation footebox {{Global warming}}, it is therefore unncessary. The "Books" template has been moved to the External links. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the 'See also' section. In Wikipedia articles the 'See also' section is the place where a reader would look for related articles. The two links, glossary and index, are excellent lists of related articles of this broad topic. Without those two it would be almost impossible to keep an overview of all the global warming related articles. Therefore they are important. Its not sufficient to link the two articles in the global warming footer box. That box is humongous and unless you know exactly what you are looking for, you will not notice these two links in there. (However I support restricting the 'See also' to those two links only) Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 07:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - de facto standard Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored the section, and agree with the reasoning described in the 2 oppose posts above. Mishlai (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Using page view statistics of the two articles linked within the "See also" section, Glossary of climate change recieves fewer than 100 page views[10]. Likewise Index of climate change articles receives fewer than 10 on average with an outlier on May 13[11]. Global warming oscillates between twenty thousand and ten thousand [12]. Several other articles link to these two pages besides Global warming, and accepting these values as the high bound, less than half a percent move from Global warming to Glossary of climate change, less for Index of climate change. Our readers are not using the "See also" section, it is invaluable to this article.

Several Wikiprojects discourage the use of the "See also" section[13] within their MoS; likewise the leading authority on this section WP:LAYOUT, states that some high quality articles "may not have a "See also" section at all". It is not a de facto standard. This section uses potentially valuable ToC space, redundantly reproduces those links within the Navigational footer box, and remains largely unused. I would much rather use this space for good content, which is often debated within this article. Nevertheless, I'm not going revert, but I still want to know what you think. Remember that this article sets precedent for articles within its series. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

While I generally do not get involved in style debates, I agree with ChyranandChloe for this one: if they're already listed, there shouldn't be a see also. Awickert (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fully developed articles should not have a see also section. Incorporate the links into the text if they're important. -Atmoz (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The see also section ought to refer readers to other articles on similar climate and energy issues. Whilst it does refer to climate issues, it singularly fails to refer to energy issues and peak oil is clearly something that anyone with an interest on the constraints of energy use would wish to read. 88.109.64.30 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think the 'See also' should stay. The page visit argument doesn't convince me. This article 'Global warming' is the very first article anyone will find when looking up the topic on WP, therefore the many hits. In fact its one of the most frequented articles on WP afaik. So, its unfair to compare it to the index or glossary. However if you compare it to some of the other global warming articles the difference in hits is not that big anymore. And I think its clear that not everyone who stumbles across the 'Global warming' article will click on every single link in this article... But that's not the point, the point is that the GW subject is extremely broad with lots and lots of articles. Unlike the regular editors here, the average reader of the article will have a very hard time to keep an overview of all those articles and therefore we should help them to find their way around. If you don't know exactly what you are looking for, you will never notice the small print links at the very bottom of the navbox. 'See also' is the natural place where WP users look for for follow up articles. So, this is not about incorporating the links somehow in the text, that won't help anyone who is just looking for an overview of topics or a glossary (not every reader reads the entire article. Its pretty long, too.) Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who reads this article for the first time, overwhelmed by the scope of the topic. I mean how often do people here on the talk page complain that there is no 'criticism' section or this-or-that aspect is not covered in the article. And then we do point out that there in fact are separate articles for these topics and always they are also textlinked somewhere here, but people still overlook it all the time.

I understand the guideline that discourages this section but I think the idea of discouraging 'See also' is the fact that it tends to get cluttered with a lot of links that are only remotely relevant. This, however, is clearly not the case here. We have had only the two links to index and glossary in 'See also' for a long time. And the article made it through the FA process and revision with the See Also section, so it can't be such a problem.

Also the space argument doesn't convince me. It uses ToC space? Come on. And the section itself takes only 3 lines. The fact, that its already linked to in the navbox doesn't justify removing the section. If that was so, we should also remove all the 'Main article: XXX' lines at the beginning of each section. After all this is also nothing else than a 'see also' link. And those 'Main articles: XXX' are also linked to in the navbox. I count 13 of those! The 'Main article/See also' line at the beginning of the 'Economic and political debate' section alone takes 3 lines. And it links to such arbitrary articles such as 'List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions'. If we can afford that space - to link to a few individual articles - I really don't see why we can't link to a complete list of the global warming related topics at the end of the article in the form of a 'See also'. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 21:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Splette, in my opinion you last comment is incoherent, taking a shotgun approach against secondary points in order to defer from the fundamental disagreement. You are asking for a criteria of exclusion, I am asking for a criteria of inclusion. The article has {{main}} and {{seealso}} links throughout. The central intent of the section is satisfied rendering it unnecessary. It feels that we're keeping this section out of some compulsory or personal expectation. We have iterated all essential points. What are our positions? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I get your point. I thought I gave reasons for an inclusion. Incoherent where? Anyway, where does it say again, that articles should avoid a 'see also' section? The rules of Wikiproject Medicine do not apply to us and among the general rules I found only this and that. It doesn't discourage 'See also' outright but suggests to keep it short, use common sense and that a perfect article doesn't have to have a 'See also' section. But you are right, lets hear the opinions of the others... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 05:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)