Talk:Climate change

Historic Low of sub-400 ppm CO2 Levels

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that at 380 ppm today, we are at an historic low of CO2 concentrations when we look back at past CO2 levels? The only other time CO2 has dropped below 400 ppm has been the late Carbiniferous some 300 million years ago, but at all other times CO2 has been above 400 ppm. The graph here [1] shows CO2 levels with a black line, and temperature is the blue line. In fact it's been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was so favorable to life that it resulted in the famous Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. This seems to contradict the predictions that our 380 ppm level will result in dire consequences for life. It's a basic crime of omission by leaving these facts out. JettaMann (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The concentrations in prehistoric and prehuman times are relevant to paleoclimatology, but of only contingent relevance to the current warming. The current warming is not predicted to have effects such as mass extinctions and the like; rather, it's likely to cause changes that we'd rather, as humans, avoid. Costly changes lasting many human lifetimes.. --TS 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Or you could say that humans originated and evolved in a special niche in which CO2 concentrations were extraordinarily low. That's to say that one can speculate either way, so it probably shouldn't be included here. Awickert (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's also say that "historic" usually refers to written history. CO2 is at an all-time high for at least 100 times longer than written history, and possibly for 2000 times longer than written history. The 20 million years currently most likely is about 10 times the average life time of a species. And Tony, global warming is predicted to cause mass extinction, although it will be hard to separate it from the holocene extinction event that's ongoing anyways. An extinction event does not require every third animal species to drop dead and rot away immediately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption about "Historic" is erroneous - just convenient for your argument.Dikstr (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that this "historic low" is really relevant. However, it is yet another example of an issue that people should find if they search the article. Having found it, readers should be diverted to another article that (maybe) gives this feature the attention it deserves.

The list of missing key-words may not include "historic low", it most certainly does include words such as "Antarctic", "desertification", "Amazon" and many others which are currently missing from the article. Two of those in my short-list above were removed immediately when I put them in. (Comments on "advocacy" of this kind by me to my TalkPage, please). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the resistance you're encountering here is because most other editors don't share your view of what this article should contain. You can't just stand around and say "X is missing", "Y is missing", and so on. You have to persuade by presenting evidence that a significant aspect of global warming is omitted. --TS 12:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

JettaMann believes a discussion of this "historic low" needs inclusion, I've told him that a mention would indeed be valuable, but i couldn't support the whole nine yards. I trust others to contribute in a similarly balanced and article improving fashion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen, isn't it worth noting in the article that historically CO2 bottoms out at about the 400 ppm level. If you look at the Tertiary period in that graph it clearly shows CO2 levels starting at about 1000 ppm, then leveling out far before industrial production began. They have no where to go but up, at least it appears that way from past behavior of the planet. This just seems like relevant information that people reading up on Global Warming would want to know. JettaMann (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tell us the "key-words" that help guide people to find out about this feature, and I'd support including them. But there is said to be a problem with article-bloat, so the discussion presumably needs to go somewhere else. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Jetta, that is not true. CO2 levels during the last half million years (i.e. "historic period"*100) or so have been between 200ppm and 300ppm (during the warmest periods of interglacials). Our best current estimates are that CO2 has not been as high as it was today in the last 20 million years. Assuming you talk about the graph labeled "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time" at [2], that graph is intended to show, in broad strokes, CO2 and temperature over half a billion years. It simply does not have the resolution to show details on the million year scale. The uncertainty for the last 20 million years in that graph goes from about 0 ppm to approxiately 350 ppm. [:File:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr.png] shows the last 400000 years in some detail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yes that's true, we are at another low point in CO2 concentrations. As I said, the current period started at around 1000 and decreased gradually then *leveled off* far before industrial inputs, leaving no where to go but up. Likely if we had more accurate records the Carboniferous would also show levels bottoming out at a similar number (you can see the error bars in the graph go to about 0). On examination of the micro level it was probably spiking up and down as we see today. But my main point here is that it is important to give data in context. You can look at smaller periods of time such as the transition from winter to summer and predict a massive trend in warming, or 1940 to 1970 and predict a massive decline in temperature, etc... up to all different time scales and periods. Without context, it can make people panic unnecessarily. The context here that is important for people to know is that: 1) the earth is at historic lows of CO2 2) It's been as high as 7000 ppm 3) Life thrived during the warmer periods 4) CO2 levels have gone down and up without any industrial activity in the past. This is important information for the average Wikipedia reader to know. JettaMann (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. First, you write "the only other time CO2 has dropped below 400 ppm has been the late Carbiniferous (sic)" - i.e. you talk about hundreds of millions of years. Then you talk about the Tertiary, i.e. about time spans of 10s of millions of years (and CO2 was below 400 ppm for large parts of the Tertiary). Now you talk about a thousand years? Or a 1000 ppm? Anyways, no, the Earth is not at "historic lows of CO2". It is likely at unprecedented heights during the current geological age. Going back even 20 million years, you are talking about a different planet. The Mediterranean dried up about 6 million years ago. Both the Tethys Seaway and the Isthmus of Panama closed up during the last 20 million years. Sure, life "thrived" during higher CO2 concentration. But "life" the last time we had 3000 ppm was the dinosaurs, not humans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - JettaMann - the details of what you're talking about are not important for the reasons you've been told. No matter how good things may have been all those years ago, the re-imposition of those CO2 levels will likely be catastrophic to our way of life and possibly to our species.

However, it is an interesting and perhaps significant discussion. Rather than try to argue the details of these 'historic lows', we need to provide readers with a) a signpost they'll be able to spot amongst the forest of other signposts and b) a proper discussion of this effect. The latter will almost certainly have to be on a sub-page because it cannot be fitted in here at the moment (though later it might come to be more important and be fetched back). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

@JettaMann Can you give us a statement, boiled down to one sentence, with a ref so we can see it. I don't think the addition of one sentence will damage the page. We can point to the relative sub-article with a wikilink. Mytwocents (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a simple statement that's more-or-less consistent with the designated scope of this article: "The current rise in CO2 levels is unprecedented since the appearance of homo sapiens on the earth approximately 200,000 years ago." Don't have time to provide a citation right now, but there are secondary RSs out there for this. The last time CO2 levels were 1000ppm, dinosaurs and ferns dominated the Earth. ... Kenosis (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple statement C&P direct from Atmospheric_CO2 "Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 [million years] and certainly higher than in the last 800,000." How that adds up to 'historic low' is beyond me, but a statement that says something like "Even though ancient pre-historical atmospheric CO2 levels may have been higher, present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 [million years] and certainly higher than in the last 800,000." (with the same cite as that article) might be a useful addition? ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, per "These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[25][26][27] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago." already included. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is that we just present the data to the readers of Wikipedia, unvarnished. It seems to me like some of the people above are trying to interpret the data for people, which strikes me as problematic. Malcolm McDonald's statements above are bordering on original research and Kenosis' statement would be repeating what is already said in the article. The proposed addition would be something like, "In the geologic scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which resulted in the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered." The reference for this is provided above in my first statement.JettaMann (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What's "unvarnished" about "CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm [...] which resulted in the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity"? Moreover, why do you feel this data should be included? I'm not aware of any serious scientists who claims that conditions during the Cambrian or Carboniferous are in any way comparable to conditions today. Continents are configured differently, the biosphere is completely changed, heck, even the sun was significantly fainter back then. There also is no serious scientist who claims that the current increase is some kind of natural recovery. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

^^^ That ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

AEB

The statement above is not interpretation of any kind. It is a fact that CO2 was at 7000 ppm and the Cambrian explosion followed. There is zero interpretation there. Whereas the claim that CO2 levels today are unnatural and deadly is controversial to say the least, as you are well aware. That claim is not an observation, it is an interpretation. So I'm saying let's just put these facts in the article, which are not interpretations, which put current CO2 levels in proper context to the earth's past, and which put the interpretations of AGW scientists in context as well. I'm also not sure why you are saying scientists don't think the earth's past is comparable to today. In many ways it is comparable, and in some ways it is not comparable. For you to say it is in no way comparable is your interpretation and sounds like original research to me. JettaMann (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? I thought we're discussing an article on global warming not an article on historic (or even current) levels of carbon dioxide. If the current or historic levels of CO2 are relevant to this article, as established by reliable sources then it should obviously be included in a relevant context but otherwise it doesn't matter whether it's 'a fact'. It's also a fact that Venus has an atmosphere 96.5% carbon dioxide by volume and has a surface tempeature of 740 K; and evidentally that "Republicans have received 75 percent of the oil and gas industry's $245 million in political contributions during the past 20 years" [3] and evidentally, at least as of 2005 [4] that "Bush, who has received more from the oil and gas industry than any other politician" (in the US); and that in 2006 the US had the highest per capita emissions of CO2 of any country with a population over ~6 million; but in all cases again, not something that particularly belongs in the article unless there's some established relevance Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• That the current CO2 level is unnatural is a fact, not an opinion. We don't claim that it is "deadly" in the article, so that's a straw man. If CO2 levels were 7000ppm in the Cambrian explosion is uncertain - look at the error bars. However, this is picking nits. The main problem is that you wrote "resulted", suggesting a causal link for which you have provided no evidence, let alone reliable sources. But that still misses the point. The "explosion" took some 70-80 million years. The dinosaurs left us 65 million years ago, leading to an explosion in the diversity of mammals. Does that make a major asteroid strike desirable? Granting you your nit, yes, the precambrian Earth was in "some" ways comparable to today's Earth. However, you cannot usefully compare the climate system. The sun was about 6% less luminous than today, equivalent to a forcing of approximately 20W/m², or more than 6 doublings of CO2 compared to preindustrial modern levels. The continents were configured very differently. Oxygen content started at 3% and rose to 15% or so - something that might be much more reasonably be connected to the Cambrian explosion. In short, it's a different system, and trying to frame parameters as "normal" because they are within boundaries experienced within the eep geological past is fallacious. For that concept of "normal", an Earth without humans is normal, as is one without mammals, as, indeed, is one without multicellular life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of saying "resulted in" we could say "was followed by", which contains no interpretation. You mention above that it "is a fact" that the current 382 PPM level is unnaturally high. Could I ask you how unnaturally high it is? In other words, how much ppm higher than what it is supposed to be today? This seems like a difficult thing to answer without a significant amount of interpretation because the history of CO2 levels is that it is bumping up and down all the time without any industrial or man made input. Sometimes it bumped up to as high as 7000 ppm, sometimes it was under 400 ppm, and all without industrial pollution in the past. So to me this seems like a very relevant thing to mention in an article that talks about CO2 levels with the earth today. You need to put in perspective what the earth has done in the past. You've kind of argued against your own case in my opinion by talking about what is "normal". Is it up to you to decide some arbitrary cutoff point in which "modern conditions" exist? You can't just arbitrarily select a narrow date range that Wikipedia readers are allowed to see data from. Like I said before, if you select the date range from June to December, it looks like massive global cooling! Yet it would be wrong to just focus on one small slice of data to try and convince people of a trend. JettaMann (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate 'slice' for this article is the one which includes where there most recently seemed to be a natural (non-human affected, for the sake of debate) balance or steady-state in CO2 levels for an extended period of time. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The currently proposed statement is something like, "In the context of the geologic time scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered naturally." JettaMann (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I regret encouraging you. Yes, it would be nice to have some "key-words" (eg historic low) that led the reader to some kind of explanation of this argument. (Even though I'm pretty sure it's a straw-man of the deniers). But you seem to want a discussion on the page, and that would be completely WP:UNDUE. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this paragraph as being more discussion than any other part of the article, but what specifically do you see as being discussion? Perhaps we can examine this paragraph in parts to identify which is discussion adn which is not. 1. "In the context of the geologic time scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity." Do you consider anything in this first part discussion? "The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered naturally." Does this second part contain discussion? JettaMann (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Statements like "In the context of the geologic time scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered naturally" smack of "discussion" (as in "explanation of detail") that is excessive (even in a 100Kb article). Call it WP:UNDUE. The solution is a sentence that only includes the key-words, such as "historic low" + Cambrian + Carboniferous, with a link to the "discussion" (as in "explanation of detail") at another article. Maximum informative potential without article bloat. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

alternate approach

This follows on from Talk:Global warming/Archive 57#change to intro - restarting from archived version

I've had one editor who has suggested that I might forgo revising the lead and instead work the idea of global warming as a scientific theory into the main body of the article. Since I think that will need to happen eventually anyway, I'd be happy to begin there and table the discussion of the lead to some future point. It's a bit more work, of course, but that's alright. if there's consensus that that would be a better approach, I'll post some specific revision suggestions here for comment. Is that what you all would prefer? --Ludwigs2 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

no response to this. should I interpret that as agreement and begin revisions? --Ludwigs2 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Specific suggestions for revision are always welcome. Those suggestions that gain consensus can be enacted. --TS 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig. Why not state the obvious: "global warming is commonly used to refer to the rapid warming of the earth at the end of the 20th century that led to huge public concern and resulted in the IPCC in 2001 issuing a report suggesting that unless action was taken to limit the production of manmade CO2 from burning fossil fuels that it was (likely, highly likely whatever they used) that there would be further warming of between 1.4 to 5.8C over the next century." It's a simple, factual definition which everyone - skeptic or believer ought to be able to agree with. 85.210.3.125 (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Equal timism? How quaint. --TS 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

85.210.3.125: that strikes me as factually untrue (at least with respect to temporal ordering), and seems to be trying to pack about 6 different ideas into one sentence. I wouldn't support adding the political and public concern elements into this article (not as this article is currently constructed - they'd work better elsewhere); the scientific points seem to be already included. or am I missing something?

Tony, give me a bit in your bed: I need to think about body addition more thoroughly. --Ludwigs2 00:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, Tony: if you want me to address changes in the body itself, there are a number of small to medium changes that would need to be made. just for a smattering, the last paragraph of the Temperature changes section needs to be expanded to note that both of the claims therein are claims based on the current theoretical models of global warming. this paragraph could be further expanded to the next section and the climate models sections, both of which contain a number of theoretical assertions that have been presented as overt facts. The Attributed and expected effects section is almost entirely and exclusively theoretical in nature, nd could use a broad (if subtle) rewrite to sugeest that more clearly.

however, I'd probably start with a more-or-less conventional 'history' section near the top, which outlines some of the theoretical disputes which gave rise to the current research. Science doesn't occur in a vacuum, and it's important to take note (if only minimally) of the history of the idea. no need to get into the fairly mindless political battles that have sprung up around global warming in any detail, but some of the more solid scholarly questions - e.g. is global warming human-derived or a natural phenomena - should be outlined in order to put the research into proper context. We can wpell this out in more detail if you are interested. --Ludwigs2 07:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What's this article for?

Archiving of this discussion, which is not yet 1 day old and is about the content of the article is completely unacceptable. Please do not archive it until the discussion is complete. It is not up to any one editor to decide when all the points have been made. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is touring Australia making some very non-believer statements, a synopsis of which is presented here "Mr Rudd, your misguided warming policies are killing millions"[5] He's going to come out with this bilge 8 times from Sydney on January 27th through to Perth on February 8th

I won't try to precis his so-called arguments, you can imagine the kind of thing he's claiming. Or look them up yourselves. The important part is that lots of people will see him or his misleading article and will be coming to this Wikipedia article with questions they want answered as a result. Is the article going to answer their questions, or else lead them straight to other articles which will answer their questions? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• This article isn't here to debunk misleading statements about global warming. It's just an article in an encyclopedia. It's a pretty good description of what global warming is. People who are inclined to believe statements about science by people who have no relevant scientific qualifications will not get much out of Wikipedia and there isn't much we can do about that. We are absolutely not here to promote the scientific point of view or to debunk alternate views or minority science. We just describe the prevailing scientific consensus, and if that ever changes to "global warming was a scam, an ice age is on its way" we'll say that. --TS 23:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• (ec)The aim of this (and any) article is to concisely describe its topic - in this case global warming - in an encyclopedic manner. Its aim is not to react to each individual lie, fantasy, or unsupported claim out in the world. Such an approach would make it completely useless, in that it would bury what we know under mountains of stuff that is mostly irrelevant. If you want to explain 2+2=4, you don't start by refuting the claim that 2+2=5, or 2+2=7, or 2+2=Gonzo, or even 2+3=5. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I might lead you to where the source presented could be better included in Economics_of_global_warming, this article appears to ignore economics for the time being. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because it's about the science. --TS 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Really it does cover economics, however it might take about a dozen sources to successfully included the market failure issues raised in the soource. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does have a section economics, but doesn't mean we have to brood over it. Enescot and I talked a while back about improving the section,[6] and if you're looking for the "controversy," this is it. Right now Enescot is working the main article, which makes a good summery section easier to write, you should help him. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - Zulu Papa 5 ☆ - you want me to believe that this article is written about the science.

Please tell me how this article helps me with this scientific claim from Monckton: "Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades - changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration - show that it was this largely natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused."

Or, if you prefer, answer me the question I posed first, "What's this article for?" MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Scientific" claim? As for your other question, see my answer above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have taken this problem to User talk:MalcolmMcDonald#.22I_didn.27t_hear_that.22. --TS 11:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This article claims to be about GW, scientific evidence for it and its causes, responses to it, and debate an scepticism. Monkton's letter is mainly about the human response to global warming. It essentially argues that mitigation is pointless and counterproductive. It is therefore of considerable relevance to the claimed content of this article and some mention of it in this article, with any specific response from those who disagree, is warranted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a comment from a person with absolutely no relevant scientific credentials promoting a tiny fringe view. To put it into this article would be undue weight. It might fit into other articles such as Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley or global warming conspiracy theory, where Monckton's ideas are already discussed because they are relevant to those articles. --TS 14:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all Monckton belongs on the rather extreme fringe side of this, once reliable secondary sources begin taking him seriously, then we can discuss where (or if) it belongs on one of the many subarticles to this one. Secondly human responses to global warming belong (as i said) on one of the subarticles, that get summarized here, it doesn't merit inclusion directly. There is an extreme amount of information on this particular subject, and that is why there are so many sub-topical articles to this one. If Monckton's views where significant, then they would have relevance for one (or more) of the following: Mitigation of global warming, Politics of global warming, Economics of global warming, Climate change in Australia. But the only sub-article where this might currently be on-topic and in-weight is Global warming conspiracy theory (the last part of the article, where he basically accuses most climate scientists of fraud) Now could we please get back to something that is on-topic? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, much of the letter does not question the science, it simply points out that, even with the most pessimistic IPCC predictions and the most optimistic mitigation expectations, the expected benefits of mitigation will be insignificant. Where is this issue addressed in 'mainstream' literature? What could be more on-topic than this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless his argument is picked up and discussed by mainstream scientists, it's fruitless to argue from the position that it's "on-topic". This is an encyclopedia article and the Neutral point of view is in operation on this encyclopedia. --TS 14:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not on-topic. That would possibly be on-topic at the article Mitigation of global warming not here. And could we please drop it. This is an Op-Ed for goodness sake, it is thus relevant only to the opinion of Monckton, and he is not relevant within a scientific or political context (sorry). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My description of what this article is about was taken essentially from the current article contents, which includes a main section on responses to GW, which includes a sub-section on mitigition.

Monckton makes a point about mitigation being pointless. This is not based on an argument about science but on published results, including information published by the IPCC. If there are no reliable sources giving a contrary view to that expressed by Monkton then reference to his report should be included in the article. What sources are there saying that Monkton is wrong? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you appear not to be listening: Please read up on what constitutes a reliable source and how wikipedia determines proportional weight of sources. When you are talking about sections, then please notice the little "main article: <subarticle>" on top of those sections, they are there because the sections are summaries of sub-articles. Monckton's Op-Ed is reliable only for his personal opinion, and that opinion is undue weight here (and almost everywhere - since it is a fringe view), it doesn't really matter whether he is right/wrong/whatever. Finally what "report" are you talking about? We are discussing an opinion article in the Australian. Drop it please! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In order for WP:WEIGHT to be relevant you need to give some sources that specifically disagree with what he says. You have not done so yet. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Erh? You seem to have gotten something wrong. The onus is on the person who wants to add or readd material to demonstrate due weight. Not the other way around. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If I have a source that says something, and no one else has a source that disagrees with my source, then there is no due weight to be considered, it can be added to the article without further ado. Weight is only a consideration of there is an opposing view. So far you have not mentioned one. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Huh? The whole of this article is about the enormous weight of scientific opinion the disagrees with Monckton. --Nigelj (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't change the topic, I think Kim D. Petersen is wrong and it is not helpful to claim what he is doing. The policy WP:IMPERFECT covers exactly Martin Hogbin is telling us.

As i said on my talk-page, imperfect is not about weight. What you should be looking at, is WP:WEIGHT/WP:BURDEN and WP:REDFLAG in Monckton's case, since he does make some outrageous claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, Monckton claims to have peer-reviewd science on his side on cloud-cover, so an article (particularly one artificially constrained to only address scientific issues) has got to inform people and deal with the scientific issues. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Monckton can make as many claims as he wants... and while he is a bit more relevant than John Doe, he is still only an individual making claims. He isn't an expert, and he has no scientific relevance, sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see nothing in this article that disagrees with Monckton's main point, which is that if mitigation proceeds to plan it will have a tiny effect on GW, according to published data. Where is the argument against that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Try Mitigation of global warming (as has been pointed out to you several times), Talk:Global warming (or t:MoGW) is not a WP:FORUM to discuss "main points" in opinion articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the objection to including reference to Monckton's letter in this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Moncktons pointless claim

The Monckton source [7] point that mitigation is pointless possibly a waste of time, could be disruptive (like a troll) seems to ring an ironic Wikipedia symphony to me from my global warming article experience. Where should this point be included? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Monckton's speaking tour doesn't need inclusion, since even influencing 100s of 1000s of people doesn't get him into the big league alongside some of the editors here. However, he claims that peer-reviewed reports say that cloud-cover has decreased since the early 80s, and that is the cause of most (?) of the warming we've seen in the 20 or more years since.

So readers of this article need to be able to search and find out whether he's lying or not. If the article doesn't help people find and test for scientific information then I think it's pointless. Nobody has answered my original question - what other point does it have if it's failing to inform it's readers? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought the focus was on scientific sources, not general news (even if the effects section cites ABC News). The mitigation section cites UN papers for what mitigation will do and then cites more general sources for what policy makers are doing. I don't know which way the section should be written ("here's what all sources say about mitigation, scientific or not" or "here's what the scientists say the policymakers' plans will do"). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece by a fringe, non-expert commentator expressing a fringe opinion. It may merit a mention in the biography of the commentator. --TS 23:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to keep this discussion focused on improving this article with the view that mitigation may not work as intended as guided by Monckton writing. Yes, the point could make it to his bio. This reader of this article might benefit if that view is included here. I guess there might be other sources to find for secondary support. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

An opinion piece by Monckon is not a reliable source on mitigation. The NPOV says we include all significant views, but on this subject Monckton's view is fringe. --TS 23:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So undue weight doesn't concern you at all, then? --TS 23:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Monckton's point is that, based on IPCC predictions (so no new or controversial science here) and assuming that proposed international CO2 reduction targets are met, the effect on global warming will be very small. Am I missing something here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to precis Monckton's opinion. I'm asking you why you appear to be arguing that we ignore due weight and discuss his opinion in the article. Should we also include Ken Ham's view of evolution in the article on evolution? --TS 00:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

MH makes a good point about established science and really, Monckton's opinion(s) would require a few other reliable sources for objective inclusion with weight for here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Monckton says, "adaptation to climate change, if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation" while this recent source [8] says, "We find that even for very large reductions in emissions, temperature reduction is likely to occur at a low rate. I suspect another source or two, and there may be a relevance here. (I haven't seen an "adaption" strategy discussed in the wikipedia articles.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to move on to possibly more contentious claims like the one you quote above but, for the moment, I would like to know if there are any reliable sources that give alternative opinions on this subject:

Thus, if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today's emissions will be reduced by about half of that 15 per cent, namely 7.5 per cent, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 parts per million by volume/ year, or 20 ppmv over the decade. Now, 7.5 per cent of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv. One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve.

In other words is there an 'official' statement of how much GW reduction the Copenhagen Accord is expected to achieve? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5 has not fully understood the source, J A Lowe et al 2009, which he cites. The letter talks about how difficult it would be to reverse temperature increases from dangerously high levels. I'm just not seeing above any demonstration of an understanding of the state of the science or capability of understanding the difference between Monckton's beliefs and the state of the science. Absent this, the chance of obtaining consensus to change the article as a result of this discussion seems limited. I don't want to put you off, but the level of scientific literacy in this discussion is wanting. --TS 12:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

TS, please don't insult me. If I must disclose, I hold 3 scientific degrees and 12 years past employment in this field. I currently coach doctors on improving medical quality with new diagnostic and prognostic applications. Now, the idea that control inputs to the carbon cycle is governed by a highly damped global capacity is were Monckton's points are going. Additional sources could move this forward productivity. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't often mention the fact on Wikipedia, but I am the queen of France. Since somebody has raised Monckton's beliefs, it just doesn't do to raise random papers and try to make them conform with whatever it is he's saying. --TS 17:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then someone could answer a simple question, according to what you call the state of the science, what global temperature change would be expected in a the next decade if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complied with its obligations to the full, compared with business as usual? And what after that? We know Monckton's beliefs what other answers are there? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a simple question. Ask ten climatologists and you'll most likely get ten different answers. --TS 13:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that meant to make me feel confident in climate scientists?

The article says, 'The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference met in Copenhagen in December 2009 to agree on a framework for climate change mitigation'. They must have had some idea of what they expected to be achieved if everybody signed up. Is this published anywhere, or is Monckton the only one to even ask the question? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Take your confidence or lack of confidence in climate scientists to a blog or forum. These constant diversions into rhetorical expressions of personal opinion have to stop.

To answer your question, the main focus of mitigation is not to make things better (which seems unachievable) but to stop things getting worse (which obviously is achievable). Limiting and reducing the output of greenhouse gases can achieve that. --TS 14:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Growing mitigation is coming; however, the idea that adaptation has better cost effectiveness is viable for the mix in this article .... much like the growing idea that "wait and see" is a viable option for cancer control. What concerns me is little faith in natural remedies, due to a bias in studding man made causes over natural sources. (Really, the problem may solve itself when we run out of fossils fuels.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. My question was asking how much better the situation would be compared with business-as-usual. This is the question that Monckton addresses. Whether that is actually getting better or just less worse is not relevant. So, is anybody going to give me an answer to my question or is Monckton the only one to do this calculation. What reduction in global temperature, compared to business-as-usual, would be expected if every Annex 1 party complied with its Copenhagen Accord obligations? It is quite important. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are arguing the topic. The important point is that Monckton is person with no relevant scientific qualifications arguing well beyond his depth, so his opinion doesn't belong here. --TS 16:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Monckton's credentials are relevant and what makes them so is how reliable sources attribute them. He seems to be acknowledged by sources for the Global Warming topic. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It would seem from the lack or response to my question that Monckton is the only person to address the question of exactly what benefit would be expected from conformance to the Copenhagen Accord. The Copenhagen conference was the most important meeting of the decade regarding mitigation of AGW. It is mentioned in the article already, but no figure is given for what this very important conference was hoping to achieve. It would clearly benefit the article to quote a figure for the expected benefit in terms of global temperature. I am therefore trying to get a figure that can be added to the article. So far, I only have the figure from Monkton, which is based on IPCC published data. This is the most reliable source so far. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) "Copenhagen conference was the most important meeting of the decade" Seriously? COP15 is just one of over fifteen annual meetings, and they hardy got anything done. Monkton is one person, if you want to cite the IPCC's AR4WG3, here it is.[9] You can view it online, or as a pdf. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said that it was intended to be the meeting at which new agreement to mitigate GW would be made. It is the only meeting, other than Kyoto, mentioned in the mitigation section of the article. Surely we should state what affect on GW was hoped for as a result of this conference. That is the specific issue that Monckton addresses. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask this question. Is there any reliable data for the expected GW benefit from any concrete mitigation programme that has actually been proposed at a conference attended by the worlds major greenhouse gas emitters? Such information should be included in the article in the mitigation section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Monckton isn't the only person to discuss mitigation: IPCC Working Group III is charged with summarising the prospects for mitigation and Monckton himself refers to the Stern review (which he believes to have been discredited). The AR4 article says this:

The IPCC estimates that stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases at between 445-535ppm CO2 equivalent would result in a reduction of average annual GDP growth rates of less than 0.12%. Stabilizing at 535 to 590ppm would reduce average annual GDP growth rates by 0.1%, while stabilization at 590 to 710ppm would reduce rates by 0.06%. There was high agreement and much evidence that a substantial fraction of these mitigation costs may be offset by benefits to health as a result of reduced air pollution, and that there would be further cost savings from other benefits such as increased energy security, increased agricultural production, and reduced pressure on natural ecosystems as well as, in certain countries, balance of trade improvements, provision of modern energy services to rural areas and employment

More on this at IPCC Fourth Assessment Report#Working Group III .28WGIII.29: Mitigation of Climate Change

As for Monckton, his opinion isn't influential and would not be included in any article at this very broad scope, because of weighting concerns. --TS 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I (and Monckton) was talking about the global temperature saving that would result from the specific mitigation action proposed at the Stockholm conference. This is the only international mitigation action that has even come close to agreement for implementation. As for weighting ,Monckton currently seems to have 100% weight on this topic as there are no answers at all from anyone else. The quote you give is from the document that Monckton based his calculation on. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NASA says 2000-9 was warmest decade on record; 7 disappearing glaciers

I was astonished that Kenosis removed these sources today.[10] The first is a brand new news item. And the second, while perhaps flawed, is a useful illustration.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/256/story/82867.html "WASHINGTON — A new analysis of NASA temperature data collected from more than 1,000 weather stations around the globe, from satellites monitoring ocean temperatures and from Antarctic research stations shows that 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record...."

http://www.mnn.com/technology/research-innovations/blogs/top-7-disappearing-glaciers "Here for 10,000 years ... gone in 10. Seven glaciers that are melting before our eyes. Some photos (and a few charts)...."

What is the rationale for removing them from this talk page? The Edit summary ("Removing irrelevant talk section. Outside the scope of WP:TALK") is clearly untrue because these sources need to be discussed. Malcolm McDonald said they were flawed, but called the first one "IPCC 2007" (it is not) and offered unsubstantiated allegations against the latter. Do these sources deserve to be discussed or not? 99.38.150.198 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasonably fair enough, and I'll stand corrected on this one for being a bit too quick to the gun. The reason was that this talk page is increasingly and regularly becoming a WP:FORUM with many in violation of the policy WP:NOT and the guideline WP:TALK. Kindly recall this article is under WP:Article probation for reasons that have been well discussed and documented-- central among which are repeated patterns of disruptive and tendentious article and talk-page editing. Anyway the original thread was as follows (Malcolm's comment reproduced here in its original form):... Kenosis (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"NASA says 2000-9 was warmest decade on record; 7 disappearing glaciers"

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/256/story/82867.html "WASHINGTON — A new analysis of NASA temperature data collected from more than 1,000 weather stations around the globe, from satellites monitoring ocean temperatures and from Antarctic research stations shows that 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on record...."

http://www.mnn.com/technology/research-innovations/blogs/top-7-disappearing-glaciers "Here for 10,000 years ... gone in 10. Seven glaciers that are melting before our eyes. Some photos (and a few charts)...." 99.38.150.198 (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

People are getting increasingly sick of falsities passed off as "scientific" results. As two commentators have already noted, the two photos alleged to show the Matterhorn (one covered in ice, one bare) on that blog are completely different mountains. After the scandalous flaws in the IPCC 2007 document (5 more listed today in the Times newspaper) a bit more scientific rigour is in order. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the two pictures both show the Matterhorn. If somebody claims differently, they don't know what they are talking about. However, they show the Matterhorn from very different angles - the left one is the famous view from Zermatt (roughly NE), while the right one is the view from the Kleines Matterhorn (roughly SE). Trust me, I've snowboarded there often enough. Now of course different sides of the mountain, possibly photographed at different seasons, make it hard to compare the glaciers...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, it's still very, very sloppy work from believers, as was in the news again yesterday.

Tell me, how am I supposed to find out the latest position on glacier loss now that the IPCC 2007 report has been found to have at least 5 more significant errors about Himalayan ice-caps? Inserting those links is not politics, it's science, the very kind of thing the reader wants to know about. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you that the picture from Glacier National Park in 2005 is accurate - I helped take that picture. I was a volunteer on the team that went up to the summit to do the repeat photo. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't listen to believers - listen to scientists (and preferably via peer-reviewed publications or direct dialog - don't rely on newspapers or lobbyists to get it right). No human endeavor is completely error free. There has been one fairly minor problem been found within thousands of pages of the IPCC reports. It's still by far the best summary of the state of climate science we have. You are, of course, free to study the field, read the original publications, and come to your own conclusions. Calculate about 5-10 years if you have a solid primary education. And accept the fact that there may not be answers there at all. That's the normal state in science, unfortunately - climate change is more or less unique in having such a broad, up-to-date summarizing process. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What is then, you would like to add or detract from the article that will improve this project?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Take out the detail, put in links. I want the article to be informative, if I go in there looking for "Amazon" or "desertification" I want to find links to the science. Same for "Antarctic" and "Himalayan glaciers". Then, since removing detail leaves so much more room, mention "Dr Will Happer" and "Lord Monckton" and provide links to their concerns. The latter suggestion is not "politicising" the debate, it's recognising that these guys bring us readers, and we need to be servicing them. GW may be rocket science, but writing a good article about it is not. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, after Happer and Monckton have had their 15 minutes of fame the article will still be here. I'm not enthused about continually revising the article to accommodate whatever misinformed egomaniac happens to be in the news at the moment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is 101 kilobytes long already and I'm reminded of Stephan's point above, "If you want to explain 2+2=4, you don't start by refuting the claim that 2+2=5, or 2+2=7, or 2+2=Gonzo, or even 2+3=5". I'm also unconvinced by "recognising that these guys bring us readers" - we are not commercially chasing readers here, or their daft ideas. Here we explain the science as concisely as we can. There are other (sub-)articles where this week's celebrity gossip gets enough coverage. --Nigelj (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and refuting the claim that 2+2=5 may be impossible. Count Iblis (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please use this page to discuss how to improve the article. Do not use it to discuss the topic. --TS 23:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming individual sceptics

Global_warming#Debate_and_skepticism has acquired a list of named prominent sceptics. I've taken out Dyson, who is prominent, but not prominent as a sceptic, and, while a self-declared sceptic, has not actually said anything that is in conflict with the consensus opinion. I've also taken out Christy. He is an IPCC lead author, and while he is concentrating on other aspects than the IPCC, he is not in serious disagreement with the core IPCC results. All of the entries are currently unsourced, and we should add sources for the remaining ones if we keep them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I took out Balling and McI. I'm not really sure we want a list there, for the obvious reasn that there is a list elsewhere. Balling I would argue is no longer very prominent. McI I suspect would assert that he is not a "skeptic" in the way the term is used in the GW wars world, so labelling him as one there is a potentail BLP hazard (not that I care, but some people do). Also McI isn't obviously prominent, outside the blogosphere William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to make the point elsewhere, and not been able to crystallise it clearly enough yet, that there should be some distinctions and clarification made between 'schools' of scepticism. I think the term is too vague and so it's too easy to paint people with too broad a brush. Sceptics have to be sceptical about something, e.g. not man-made, not rising since 1998, hate IPCC, think all scientists are crooks, think it's a left-wing conspiracy, etc. My analogy is that you can't just be a 'jazz musician', it's hard, but you have to be be-bop, trad or something else in particular. --Nigelj (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree there are distinctions within what are called "skeptics" William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WMC i reverted your last edit, please explain why you would remove those two names from the sceptic list? --mark nutley (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I find this kind of removal particularly alarming, since it deprives the article of the very kind of key-words that I searched for when I first came across it. The number of skeptics (over the weekend the Times documented scientific and financial scandal) must be rocketing, it seems churlish to deprive people of finding what they'll often be looking for. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are any individuals listed? Who decides who is important enough to list? Why 5 people, why not 30...It would seem best to not list individuals at all in my opinion...what makes these people special over say anyone else. They all should go.--Snowman frosty (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot get any of my questions answered, either scientific eg "What's this about changes in cloud-cover in the last 30 years?" or article-concerned eg "How are people supposed to use the article in order to find the peer-reviewed literature on cloud-cover?" I've even been told that that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia, which I find astonishing indeed.

But I believe my purpose here is to be informative, so I'll tell you. The names need to be there because people need key-words to do their search upon. We even know that that is the correct way to find information, because we were told it here: Good grief, how much spoon-feeding do you need? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If people want to learn about cloud cover or Person X, then they should visit cloud cover or the article on Person X. We don't cover relatively unimportant things because some readers have the misconception that they're important. I fail to see how this is astonishing.— DroEsperanto (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

@MN: try reading before writing. I've already explained why, just up above here William M. Connolley (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I took out Balling and McI You took them out without discussion. Your reasons are spurious at best. McI has been on major news channels and has been questioned by congress over the whole hockey stick debacle, how you can say he is not well know outside of the blogosphere is beyond me. --mark nutley (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Does McI define himself as a sceptic? Is there any evidence that he is a climate change sceptic? (i was trying to find a post from him, that i distinctly remember, where he states that he isn't rather clearly). Being critical of the HS, or thinking that the MWP was warmer, does not translate into AGW is bunk.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two types of climate change skeptics. One type is scientists who have looked at the evidence and have doubts. The number of these is shrinking rapidly, because the evidence is growing stronger and stronger. The other type is people who listen to the news, and believe everything that is against climate change and doubt everything that supports it. That kind of selective skepticism doesn't belong in the article. For example, to use the citation of MalcolmMcDonald above, he seems to reason as follows: Not every scientist is honest, therefore the number of people who distrust scientists must be rocketing. But sane people never thought every individual in any large group of people was honest, and so one fraud does not make them doubt all science. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought there were more types: lobbyist comes to mind. . . dave souza, talk 10:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to take them out. People involved in "major news channels" aren't necessarily relevant to the science. Mark, I think your describing the hockey stick as in any way a "debacle" suggests also that you're carrying considerable baggage on this that you're unaware of. To be honest I'd rather see a brief description of the major grounds for skepticism. As suggested, it would be difficult to pigeonhole McIntyre as a skeptic. He has some methodological critiques of some paleoclimate models that are, to a large extent, orthogonal to the question of whether there exists a warming trend. To include Balling, too, seems inappropriate. He has some reservations but doesn't seem to deny the warming trend and think the rise in greenhouse gases may play a part. Both of these cases highlight the difficulty of inserting bland lists of "skeptics" into this pivotal article. --TS 15:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the notable arguments disputing mainstream views should be included along with the names to those who hold those views. Failing to do so would be to distort this article the way the Climategate article has been so that it doesn't cover the subject and reflect discussion in the reliable sources, instead promoting a particular perspective so as to propagandize on viewpoint. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've re-removed these two names. MN's objection appears rather confused, since he said please explain why you would remove those two names from the sceptic list? and I've already done that. Indeed, I had already done it when he wrote that. There seems to be some dispute as to whether McI is a skeptic or not. His wiki page doesn't say he is. Given that "skeptic" in the GW wars is generally a term of opprobrium I would have expected the BLP folk to be here *demanding* his withdrawl, but oddly they are silent. I know, I'll go ask one William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you to self revert if you have taken them out again as you do not have a consensus to do so. You may have explained why you did it, but i do not agree with that explanation. I believe it is important to have a list of the more prominent sceptic`s against AGW on the global warming page.

Also His wiki page doesn't say he is wikipedia is not a reliable source is it. --mark nutley (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a list of prominent proponents of the theory, so why would we have one of detractors? And how do you defend keeping the list in without sources, especially considering WP:BLP? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Your kidding right stephen? I see the word sceptic used in plenty of blp`s. If it`s that much of a worry we can always add some refs. Given the whole article is about global warming (AGW) then of course readers should have a list of those who do not believe in AGW. I see the IPCC mentioned in this article quite a bit, what bigger proponent of AGW is there? --mark nutley (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with William et al. here. I don't see the value in having Lindzen, Singer & Michaels made as examples of here as skeptics. I can't see that it's adding anything, and can't really see why we'd be arguing about it. At any rate, whilst all of those three would at least happily wear the label "skeptic" I think, I am not sure that Steve McIntyre calls himself a skeptic. He's more of a critic of climate science, and I don't think he dogmatically holds to any position on what is actually causing global warming. For instance, I've never actually seen him commit to a position on what climate sensitivity is. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well as the consensus is against then ok, however a link to the list of scientists who do not believe in AGW would be suitable, what say you? mark nutley (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed the link to global warming skeptics is good, remove 1-5 specific names, as per what I stated above--Snowman frosty (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mitigation requirements and progress

The second paragraph in the mitigation sections says, 'Mitigation of global warming is accomplished through reductions in the rate of anthropogenic greenhouse gas release'. It does not give any figure for:

1) How much reduction in anthropogenic greenhouse gas (AGG) release is required to achieve the stabilisation levels referred to in the paragraph above? This figure can probably be obtained from IPCC reports.

2) What level of reduction of AGG release has been proposed at international conferences, such as Copenhagen, and how much GW mitigation this would be expected to achieve? It would seem that the only source to address this is Monckton.

3) What level of AGG release reduction has been achieved to date and how much GW mitigation has been achieved by this. Is there a source that gives this figure?

4) How much has been spent on mitigation to date? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

These would seem to me to be some of the most important questions regarding the subject of GW. We need answers in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is quite ingenious, but it doesn't go far to disguise the fact that you're quite blatantly looking for an excuse to insert the fringe opinion of an unqualified person into this article. --TS 10:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It also would seem that he hasn't checked the primary literature, Mitigation of global warming or noticed that M is "cheating" by only giving figures for the next decade, which are irrelevant since effects of reductions are primarily long-term. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a little more assumption of good faith would be appropriate. Do you not agree that the above information would be of considerable interest to readers? Regarding point 2, I have persistently asked for a more reliable source to answer the question but have got no answer. There is no dispute that mitigation will cost billions of pounds; it is not unreasonable to ask what will be achieved and what has been achieved so far by it. I have added a question on the mitigation spend to date. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have persistently asked for #2 in the wrong article. Can you please stay on-topic? And start acknowledging that article talk-pages aren't Q&A sessions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Again all of this is something that should be handled in the primary article for that subject: Mitigation of global warming. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, how much mitigation has cost and will cost. and what effect it has had and will have is a fundamental issue to the subject of GW. A more detailed discussion of the subject may be appropriate in Mitigation of global warming but basic figures should be presented here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a myriad of different stuff that is "fundamental to the subject of gw", that is why this article has been split so many times. The primary article for mitigation issues is Mitigation of global warming, and it is there that the weight issues are handled, before relevant material is summarized here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. All I am proposing is that we show the figures giving answers to the questions that I have asked above, detailed discussion should go in the appropriate sub-article. We already have a section on the subject of mitigation. The expected costs and benefits are fundamental to this issue and should be briefly presented here. Alternatively, drop the section altogether. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No warming in 11 years

I noticed there was no discussion of the fact there has been no warming for the last 11 years. Should this be included? Amir Tashekian (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Global warming/FAQ Q3, as well as the second paragraph of Global_warming#Temperature_changes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact should be included, based on reliable sources, with a comment from the same. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Global warming/FAQ Q3, as well as the second paragraph of Global_warming#Temperature_changes. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It is one of Wikipedia's core policies for articles to have and remain in a NPOV. If you like to add there was no warming in 11 years make sure it remains neutral. South Bay (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you remain neutral regarding a simple fact, either there has or there has not been any warming in the last 11 years. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To repeat what has been said many times here, the value for 1998 was anomalously high, the underlying trend is still upwards. Also note that the temperature graph in the article (taken from the NASA datset) shows 2005 as a (slightly) warmer year. Mikenorton (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a reasonable case for saying there has been no warming for 100 years ('urban heat island' areas excepted). Who want to get references for that to add in??? ^rossnixon 01:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that a smaller fraction than originally estimated of CO₂ remains in the atmosphere (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm). So why are the temperatures still rising? Amir Tashekian (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is clear that you don't understand. You need to know the distinction between airborne fraction and CO2 concentration. I notice that you've effectively thrown away your assertions from your first comment in this section: well done William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

....and even for the airborne fraction that paper does not say it is lower than expected, only that the authors did not yet detect a statistically significant upward trend (yet). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, not only was the warmest year in the recent period 1998, but the winter of 2008/9 was the coldest for 20 years and this present winter of 2009/10 is the coldest for 30 years. Any more warming and I will need snow shoes. But none of this will shake the warmists here.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that it's significant, but do you have any sources for that? And are you aware that "winter" is a localized phenomenon? Australia suffered under a record-breaking heat-wave during that "coldest winter in 20 years" [11], and there is another one going on right now.[12]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this the same australia which got snow for the first time in their recorded historys? WHUT taken fron the AP And why is it cold weather is never climate but a heatwave is always attributed to AGW :) I think as there has been to warming for such an extended period really warrants a mention here mark nutley (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your last sentence no grammar. And I'd suggest you get your news from, well, news outlets, not blogs. Here is the full story, which makes it clear that this is just a freak event in an otherwise hot summer. And just to clarify something: Do you think anybody here has attributed the Australian heat waves to AGW? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A heatwave is never climate either Mark. Can you come up with an instance where anyone claimed or said otherwise here? Single weather events are reflections of climate, but can never be attributed to climate. Just like a single roll of a die cannot tell you if the die is loaded or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, i was joking about the whole weather thing :) But not about the no warming for 11 years going in :) mark nutley (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This really isn't the place to argue the topic, but you do realise we've just seen the warmest decade since records began, I hope? --TS 15:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this warmest decade on record based on the cru data? or the giss data? cos to be honest that is not what you would call reliable data is it :-) But onto the matter at hand, should an article about global warming mention the fact that the planet has not in fact warmed for eleven years a simple yea or nay should suffice here :) mark nutley (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is the warmest decade in any dataset. And you really should take notice of what is being linked (quote Stephan): "Talk:Global warming/FAQ Q3, as well as the second paragraph of Global_warming#Temperature_changes". And no matter what you think about GISS or CRU, they are still reliable sources (take it up on RS/N if you want to discuss it - this is not the place). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The more basic problem is people not understanding the difference between weather and climate (or choosing not to understand). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

IPCC exaggerating global warming

Why is there nothing in the article about this? No one is debating that CO2 is a green house gas, because it is a green house gas but every week there are more news articles revealing that the IPCC has greatly exaggerated this phenomenon. Do not say something dumb either like where is my evidence. Watch/read/listen to the news!The Lamb of God (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the significant majority of scientists disagree with it, most climate scientists in fact think the IPCC underestimates it.[13] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from the article cited, "There was even a significant minority that claimed the IPCC tended to under estimate things". This states minority not majority, so most is not justified by your source.Atandb (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that KDP's synopsis of that article is significantly more accurate than yours. There were more "scientists" concerned that the figures in IPCC AR4 were under-estimated than over-estimated.

However, since we now know that almost none of these people actually checked what was said (at least the section that concerned the water supply for 2 billion people, which should have had some small significance) the survey results look completely worthless. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In order for an intelligent discussion to happen we do need the evidence. Calling other editors dumb before they say anything is why this discussion has not gone anywhere. Start with which specific IPCC "greatly exaggerated phenomenon" you are talking about, then present the evidence for your claim.Atandb (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The main one of course, "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation". That quote was from the Wikipedia article. The argument is not whether or not global warming exists. Rather, the argument, or question, is how much of an affect has man caused CO2 emissions really had on global temperatures. See the little ice age and the medieval warm period, and let me remind you that that time period is generally considered to be pre-industrialized. Additionally, here is a link to an article that suggest that solar activity may be a more dominant cause of modern global warming phenomenon, [14]. The Lamb of God (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There is of course just the problem that the Usoskin et al. paper says no such thing (they show long-term correlation, but not short term (which here is < century)). But it does strengthen the 1000+ year temperature reconstructions, specifically the MBH and MJ reconstructions. And thus strengthen the argument that the MWP was colder than the present. But then this is not the place to discuss GW in general. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

One last thing; I apologize for the, "do not say something dumb..." comment, I was just being lazy...The Lamb of God (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Svensmark and Friis-Christensen

Another paper refuting the GCR-cloud linkage. Sudden Cosmic Ray Decreases: No Change of Global Cloud Cover. How many more are needed before we remove that paragraph from this article? (Yes, it's in press.) -Atmoz (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

When it gets published I suppose :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already been accepted... but the recent Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation seems an appropriately strong title, among others. -Atmoz (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We need to give this time to develop. It is not appropriate to include it at this time. Amir Tashekian (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have elsewhere done my best to argue that new research shouldn't be used until it has time to "settle", which certainly means post-publication and ideally some time after. When the issue is the latest skeptic nonsense I usually lose, and we just remove it a little while later when it proves to be twaddle (see Schwartz) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Past participle and uncertainty intervals...

I had edited the article intro somewhat, partly in an attempt to improve its English, and for better accuracy:

1. From "IPCC concludes" to "IPCC has concluded" since the panel is certainly not sitting around as we type concluding what they've already concluded in 2007...

2. From "most of the observed temperature increase" to "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures", as the IPCC discussed averages, not each temperature observed (see IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers report, at p. 10)...

3. From "was caused by" to "was very likely (>90% probability of occurrence) caused by", again, since that's what the IPCC explicitly published (Ibid)

Then ChyranandChloe decided to undo my edits allegedly for the following reasons:

1. "measurements of certainty are in the footnotes, see #Notes" (referring to Note A)

2. "not past participle, conclusions are still around"

No reason was given to deleting my edit regarding observed temperatures and averages.

I disagree with ChyranandChloe for at least the following reasons:

1. Note A is presumably referring to footnote 5 of p. 2 of the IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers report. That footnote was specific to how uncertainty ranges were presented, e.g. 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8] where the numbers in the square brackets represent a range within which values have a 90% likelihood to fall. Whereas the IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers report had another footnote, (FN 6, at p. 3) that discussed the various definitions of terms. And very likely was defined as greater than 90% probability of occurrence. Not within 90%, but greater than 90%. Therefore, it's not enough to rely on Note A of the article, as ChyranandChloe has suggested, since not only does it reference an irrelevant issue, but it also underestimates the anthropogenic effect on global average temperatures in the 20th century.

2. "not past participle, conclusions are still around"... So let me get this straight. Is ChyranandChloe saying that because the conclusions have not changed, they must, therefore, be expressed in the present tense ("IPCC concludes..."), as if the IPCC is still performing the act of concluding, some 3 years after their report publication!? This is sounding a little absurd, and somewhat poor English. The IPCC has concluded, and their conclusions stand today. The obvious attempt at politicizing seems, at best, juvenile.

I will not revert to my edits yet. I wanted to discuss first.Ikerus (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the tense question from someone who just popped in, I think the reason 'concludes' is used rather than 'concluded' is because, as you say, their conclusions have not changed. Since they do continue to function as an entity, the idea may be that to merely say they once concluded something could leave the question open as to whether they have newer conclusions that are different, and thus using 'concludes' removes that possible reading from the realm of reasonable interpretation. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do I get good faith? You're leading the discussion, it's up to you, and I'm fine if you want to make this pleasant chat or a court case.

1. Somehow the hypothesis test got cut leaving only the confidence interval in the note, found it in the oldversion, thanks for catching it! The Summery to Policy Makers is a simplified version of the full work. I'd prefer if you'd use the technical summery for the technical note. If you'd look on page 32, although they use simulations to get the probability distribution function, it's basically statistical power, or 1-β (false negative). Hmmm... You need to realize the difference between a parameter and a statistic. The parameter is set, greenhouse gases did cause or a did not cause an increase in temperatures. The statistic is what's likely/unlikely, although not something "actual". "Certainty" follows a power-law relationship, if you want to half the error bond/whatever, you've got to increase the sample size four times. Third it, nine times. The conclusion is an is or is not question, costs constrains, and to increase it anymore wouldn't make economic sense. You've satisfied your alpha-level or whatever the IPCC is using. Thinking back, it's been discussed before,[15][16] and I think this might have been one of the reasons for the cut. Article isn't an insurance policy statement. What do you think?
2. There's a difference between simple present and present continuous, the "-ing" you added misrepresents the two. The IPCC isn't concluding now. "had concluded" is simple past perfect more precisely, and the conclusions didn't end sometime in the past. It's still applicable. Simple present works.

I'm sorry if I made you angry, I hope this answers your question. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the tense question why not give the date of the relevant report, ' in ... the IPCC concluded'? And surely we should have the IPCC wording with a footnote giving the numerical interpretation, as in ,"was very likely (in footnote - >90% probability of occurrence) caused by". Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my intention merely was to improve and attempt to repel criticisms of any perceived article subjectivity. I read the relevant discussions here, plenty has already been said and much of this discussion is redundant. And now, I'll have my fair share of pretzels with no beer...

(outdent) Well thanks, Ikerus. Simple past indicates a completed action. Arriving at a conclusion isn't an overnight thing Martin. They can still increase the certainty, above very likely is virtually certain remember. Do I think we should add the footnote about the hypothesis test? I don't know, I'm interested in your reasoning, not your conclusion. If you could explain. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

John Beddington and retort

Sorry, but I don't really see why this comment needs to be in. First, the current formulation is not really covered by the source. It's unclear what Beddington is referring to in the Times article. Secondly, the uncertainty is routinely reported both in the original publications and in the IPCC reports. So this is really a non-message. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You reverted one of my edits. That's censorship and blatantly NPOV. You are a terrible person and should be forced to eat pretzels with no beer. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm deeply sorry and will perform virtual self-flagellation by drinking beer with not pretzels as a penance! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that climate change models/temperature predictions are not 100% unreliable (and this should always be borne in mind) seems to me to be relevant. Can this article not find somewhere to reflect this? If so, I would like to propose the Beddington reference as one way of achieving this. Jprw (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to make sense. What do you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should reference the fact that climate change models/temperature predictions are not 100% unreliable. Jprw (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There aren't any "predictions" in the text (there are projections though, which are slightly different animals), nor does the article claim that models are accurate (not 100% unreliable is a strange wording, could you expand?) Both the lede and the section on models make it very clear that there are uncertainties (and describes some of them), indepth descriptions of models and uncertainties, are in the child article Global climate model. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure however that the issue of uncertainty is given adequate attention -- for example, in the introduction, which you say “makes it very clear that there are uncertainties” we find:

An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, probably including expansion of subtropical deserts. Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects include increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, species extinctions, and changes in agricultural yields. Warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe, though the nature of these regional variations is uncertain. [Here in this last sentence the implied meaning is that the changes will nevertheless be different scales of increased warming].

In light of John Beddington's comments this week might it not be more desirable (from a neutral and objective point of view) to be trying to strike a slightly different tone?

Why? The "will" statements are as certain as science can make them, the other are already properly qualified. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to sign the last post. Will as a modal verb denotes certainty. It seems to be therefore not the best choice. Jprw (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The statements which have an unqualified "will" are certain bar supernatural intervention. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So you say. IPCC has quite a few credibility problems right now. 75.119.229.22 (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)