Talk:Climate change

Important notice: This is the talk page for the article Global warming. Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Global Warming FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this page please take a moment and have a look at some of the frequently asked questions before starting a new topic of discussion. Also bear in mind that this is not a forum for general discussion about global warming. This page is only to be used for discussing improvements to the Global warming article. Thank you.

Archives
Chronological archives
December 2001 – October 2002 October 2002 – February 2003 February 2003 – August 2003 August 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – February 2005 February 2005 – April 2005 April 2005 – June 2005 May 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – November 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August – October 2006 October – November 2006 December – February 2007 February – March 2007 March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

Outdated

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say all the graphs in this article can be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.181.187 (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What are the criteria for updating this data? The second paragraph mentions 2005. Should it be updated to the end of 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galabar (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Individual" Scientists Have Voiced Disagreement?

Please see this U.S. Senate Minority Report from Dec. 2007 of over 400 Scientists that either directly disagree or have strong concerns with the notion of a "consensus" of scientiest. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report Many of these scientists are part of the IPCC, have published work, are PHDs etc. I have posted other links in the past to other data which (conveniently) is wiped out by "proponents" of man-made global warming.

I request that you change the sentence "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]" to something more along the lines of "While many (or the majority if you can indeed actually prove so) scientists agree with the IPCC's main conclusions hundreds of scientists dispute man-induced global warming".

Now...that's from a reliable source, obviously contradicts the articles select "individuals" claim (although proponents of man-made GW love to portray everyone in the world agreeing with the evil humans raising the earth's temperature....put simply, they don't, and it's not just a select "few" (i.e. 3 people or thereabouts which is very misleading). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.222.98 (talk • contribs)

Inhofe's site is inherently not a reliable source on anything but his opinion, many of the people on the list are not scientists, and many of the scientists on the list do indeed agree with the IPCC. The existing statement, on the other hand, is sourced to one of the foremost scientific academies in the world. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is another link for another hundred scientists in an open letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations in Dec. 2007 (PHDs primarily in science related climate fields, and no i haven't cross-referenced them against the 400+ scientists in the US Senate Report) . http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002 http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

I'm not sure what "inhofe's" site is....it's a U.S. Government Senate Report for the Environmental & Public Works....that's not "credible". Did you bother to read what many of those "non" scientists said (the majority of which are PHDs in science/climate fields, work/worked for the IPCC, were authors etc....they don't count eh?).

If you can't prove that the listed 400-500+ scientists in public-forum open letters to the Secretary General of the United Nations and U.S. Government Senate Reports are false I expect either the sentence to be adjusted or for an additional sentence or two to be added indicating at the very minimum that there is not a consensus in "man-made" global warming being the cause for any perceived or real, short-or long-term related trending in either the earth warming or cooling. Anything less is simply....well...fill in the ____________ Thanks! Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.222.98 (talk • contribs)

The Senate Environmental committee minority consists of Jim Inhofe and company, who are *far* from reliable from any statements on global warming. No, we are not going to change that sentence. Raul654 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And yes, rest assured that many of the 100 are also on the list of 400 - and again many of them are not remotely climate scientists. In the first few there are already several social scientists, there is the famous Lord Lawson of Blaby, and there are many mechanical engineers, biologists, and physicists from obviously unrelated fields. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So because Senator Inhofe is a strong critic of global warming, you are willing to dismiss his report and quotes of 400+ scientists (is that the "company") he gathered and produced? Not sure I follow that logic completely I guess other then wishing to dispense with 400+ scientists who question the validity of man-induced global warming and the "consensus" that is repeatedly purported to the mass public, thereby shielding the mass public from opposing viewpoints which this article does quite nicely. As I'm not a registered user on Wiki, my sig is short, so sorry. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.222.98 (talk • contribs)

:So because Senator Inhofe is a strong critic of global warming, you are willing to dismiss his report "Critic" implies he knows what he's talking about. He does not. He's a crackpot who takes *a lot* of money from the oil industry. His comments (that global warming is a hoax created by the weather channel; that the EPA and climitologists are nazis; that the satellite record shows there is no warming; that the scientists agree with him) are so disconnected from reality that they should come with a warning label. As for the "scientists" he points out, as Stephan Schulz has already said - many of them are not scientists, virtually none of them are climate scientists, and most of them agree with the IPCC position. The fact is, the reliable sources cited in this article show that global warming is real, mostly man-made, and that the consensus of the legitimate scientific community - that is to say, excluding oil-funded shills like Tim Ball and Richard Lindzen - believe this is the case. Raul654 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The below are the first 20 people listed in the Senate Report. If these people aren't scientists in a related climate field...please point me in the direction of someone that would "qualify" as a "climatologist". From what I can see...it's a venerable list of who's who for climate science. As far as Inhofe or whover he is, even if he does spout of stuff he doesn't know...that is independent of 400+ actual scientists (first 20 below) giving their own opinions/quotes which are in fact more then qualified to give their own assessment. Don't confuse the two.

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards.

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt, Professor of Physics and an Environmental Science researcher at the University of Ottawa

Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University

One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India

Climatologist Dr. John Maunder, past president of the Commission for Climatology who has spent over 50 years in the "weather business" all around the globe, and who has written four books on weather and climate

Glaciologist Nikolai Osokin of the Institute of Geography and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Atmospheric Physicist Dr. Garth W. Paltridge, an Emeritus Professor from University of Tasmania, is another prominent skeptic. Paltridge who was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before taking up positions in 1990 as Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies at the University of Tasmania and as CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Center.

Climate Scientist Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona is a member of both the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth’s Executive Committee and the Committee on Global Change.

Prof. Francis Massen of the Physics Laboratory in Luxemburg and the leader of a meteorological station

Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul - Brazil

Ocean researcher Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and UN IPCC lead author and reviewer, who led work on five impact analyses for the IPCC including Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones. Everett, who is also project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans, received an award while at NOAA for "accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries."

Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks' Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center who has twice been named in "1000 Most Cited Scientists," released a scientific study of the Arctic on March 2007

Physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner co-authored a July 7, 2007 paper titled "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics."

Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC

Geologist Dr. David Kear, the former director of geological survey at the Department of Science and Industrial Research in New Zealand

Solar Physicist and Climatologist Douglas V. Hoyt, who coauthored the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change, and has worked at both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), h

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki,

Particle Physicist Jasper Kirkby, a research scientist at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research

Solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, of the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut and author of "The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World,"

And thus you are debunked Raul654 (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. And who's verified any of that? Anyone? I'm supposed to believe a "blog" over a submitted Senate report...? If I used that as evidence to refute anything on this page, I'd have 10,000 "blog" entries that would utterly refute everything on GW, lol, and you would laugh at me for even listing them. Even if true, it doesn't discredit their scholarly activities, experiences etc. Don't forget, likewise for anyone not being funded by any oil or energy companies and instead receives funding from governments or pro-activist organizations their findings, facts and figures would be just as construed as what you're indicating of critics of man-made warming. After all...research into GW and the effects, government policies etc. made produces TRILLIONS in revenue for either proponents of man-mad GW or those who offer solutions to it. But I guess it's easy to point to some as being funded by oil companies while ignoring all the other research funding is stemmed from the hysteria created by "man-made" GW or those who seek to profit off of selling that fear to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.222.98 (talk • contribs)

Although I'm not going to waste my time trying to run through the list of 400 people...I will however critique that "blog" and their research. They state:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101

84 People have taken money or been involved with "industry"...

--guess none of these people matter? Can we throw out most of the 2,500 IPCC scientists who put a roof over their head by accepting money for their jobs & research by pro-anthro-GW groups/governments? If that's "discrediting"...well..let's just say that argument would throw out any scientist that support's Anthro-GW

49 are retired

--oh yeah....these pepole are the dumbest...after spending a lifetime in their areas of science they turn to absolute mush and forget everything the day they retire....seriously....that's considered "discrediting", lol.

44 are TV Weatherman

--these people while may not be involved in research directly..most of them got degrees in meterology or some other climate science and apparently like GW and probably keep up with it as an active hobby. 44 TV weather people? Out of how many thousands upon thousands are there? Yeah...these probably aren't the "GW geeks" that enjoy the GW area of science.

70 of Inhofe's Global Warming Deniers Have no Climate Background?

--Here's a partial list of some of these "70" people who apparently are oblivous to climate or weather according to this "research": http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-climate-science-46011008

Dr. John W. Brosnahan, develops remote-sensing instruments for atmospheric science.

--(yep...what does he know about what how his instruments work, what their recordings are, or how their recordings are affected by weather...an idiot I say...)

Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences). Was one of the people who thought we were facing global cooling in the 70's.

-- (and people like you probably loved him in the 70's...yep, looks like an unqualified auto-mechanic to me)

Dr. David Douglass, Professor of Physics of the University of Rochester.

-- (Physics? definitely not related at all to weather, science or the pleathorea of equations used in the modeling techniques which try to predict the future climate without even having an understanding of the largest impactors to climate, as stated by IPCC, in regards to water vapor etc. Yeah...I'm sure this guy moonlights at Wendy's on Tues. night for family night wearing a clown suit)

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University. Retired.

--- (retired?!!! what is wrong with him! After spending his entire life analyzing geology, rock formations, striata and information gleaned from sediementary rocks he must have absolutely no idea what a "core" sample is. Whew..glad that's cleared up, maybe he can make me a Big Mac at the "BK" Lounge this guy is so unqualified)

20. Gerhard Gerlich, professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany.

---(just another smart guy that isn't smart enough to understand how in the world pro-anthro-GW proponents justify their modeling techniques I'm sure)

21. Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman, applied physicist and engineer. Blogs at http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/

--(just another smart guy that isn't smart enough to understand how in the world pro-anthro-GW proponents justify their modeling techniques I'm sure)

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden. Connected to industry-funded groups.

http://www.nrsp.com/scientists.html

--- ( a professor in Geogrpahy Geology....I'm sure "climate" has never helped shaped land masses, rising or sinking of islands etc. This person might as well be working at waffle house making the statement they make)

40. Arthur E. Lemay, a renowned computer systems specialist. Has no discernable climate science experience.

http://www.lemay.ws/lemay.htm

--- (This is probably the guy that wrote up your modelling program you have so much faith in...! lol).

51. Dr. Daniel W. Miles, a former professor of physics who earned his PhD from the University of Utah.

-- (just another wannabe smart guy)

53. Dr. Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace founding member turned industry consultant and promoter of nuclear energy.

--- (now this is interesting...someone "saw the light"... :)

64. Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria. Economist, with no discernable climate or earth science experience.

--- (here's another one with, i'm sure, has no clue whatsoever about climate. I wonder what counts as experience to this guy? ice-fishing on the artic for 3 years and publishing 20 papers?)

So....out of the 247 people they tried to discredit....I'm willing to maybe give them 20 people out of the 400. This doesn't "debunk" anything.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.222.98 (talk • contribs)

". After all...research into GW and the effects, government policies etc. made produces TRILLIONS in revenue for either proponents of man-mad GW or those who offer solutions to it." - and with that bit of conspiracy theory idiocy, I'm done with this thread. It's not worth wasting my time to try to educate someone whose that far gone. The article will remain as-is. Raul654 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"The article will remain as-is."

I'm afraid you do not get to make that decision, sir. The WP policy is to be bold. If an editor feels that they can improve an article, they are encouraged to do so. They do not need prior authorization from the peanut gallery, and certainly not from Raul654. "Stability" and "consensus" are not inviolable roadblocks, and nobody owns any article. Your intimidation tactics ring hollow. CreepyCrawly (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You're pathetic Raul. You just, in return, called yourself an idiot because you believe and just stated the exact same thing hinting at conspiracy theories about critics of GW who get paid by the oil and energy industries. A hypocrite who has yet to come back and reply with anything meaninful or of substance. Educate? I think you are the one that needs it, sir. This debate was over before it started with your lack of knowledge or ability to properly defend your position other then say "nah nah nah nah nah....the sentence won't change". Congrats. I'm blown away by your effort and attention to detail and educational points you have made, or rather the lack thereof. Good day to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.222.98 (talk • contribs)

This is a Governmental report. Doesn't it qualify as a notable source? I suggest that we mention it in the article along with the sources that dispute the report, so as to ensure neutrality. We could say something along the lines of: « the report says... it has been disputed... » --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a governmental report, and no, it is not reliable. Being served from a .gov server does not imply any special blessing... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Being served from a .gov server does not imply any special blessing..."

Likewise, source #9[2] from the Royal Society is not so endowed, especially when it contains weasel words that are used to justify the use of weasel words in this article (see "overwhelming" majority @ lead-in). I'm mulling over how I'll be wording my edit summary when I pull that one. Brace yourself. CreepyCrawly (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Society is one of the oldest and most respected scientific organizations on the planet. It serves as the national academy of science of a major developed county. It's opinion on scientific issues has a lot of weight. A partisan report by a small number of politicians is not remotely comparable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That may very well be, but the source still uses weasel words (which are phenomenon of language, not just WP). The citation of [9] in the lead-in is done specifically to justify using same weasel word in this article. Clearly absurd. CreepyCrawly (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Stephan) I'd strongly advise you not to do so. The Royal Society is a heck of a lot more relevant than random government pages. The source in question represents the opinion of the society as a whole. Removal of that source would be POV-pushing and disruptive point making of the worst sort. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Strongly advise me"? That sounds like intimidation. WP is a community effort. CreepyCrawly (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you consider that to be intimidating you must have a low bar for intimidation; Wikipedia is a community effort run by consensus and subject to certain non-negotiable policies. Removal of highly relevant well-sourced content due to a bad comparison between politicians and a society composed of the world's most imminent scientists is not helpful to that effort.

JoshuaZ (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not constitute an inviolable roadblock to individual editors. WP is not a democracy. I am attempting to improve the article. And yes, I did detect thinly veiled intimidation there. Strongly advising me not to edit this wiki implies that there will be consequences if I do so. CreepyCrawly (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is run by consensus. That is one of the basic elements; we don't make edits against consensus without very good reasons. As to your claims of that you "detect thinly veiled intimidation" - there's no need for consequences; I don't like edits that go against consensus and ruin articles. So I'm advising you not make the edits (I note you did anyways, apparently it couldn't have been that intimidating). Now, stop complaining and give a decent argument for why this source should be removed or quit it. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given a decent argument. The source, as used in this instance, is being cited solely for its own weasel word, in order to justify same here. CreepyCrawly (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It should also be noted that the Royal Society, isn't arbitrarily chosen, since they have been a focuspoint for at least 3 consensus statements on climate change with most the major science academies of the world (see Scientific opinion on climate change - where you can find links to them). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against use of the source. I'm arguaing against use of the source to justify a weasel word. The Royal Society may be highly respected, and I don't doubt that, but they are also clearly prone to use of weasel words which this article does not need and which WP frowns upon. CreepyCrawly (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Overwhelming isn't a weasel word here, it is a statement of fact, no different than what we have at Intelligent design for example. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Overwhelming majority" reads like "over 50% off sale." How much more? 51%? 99%? I'd prefer "Large majority," but the source doesn't provide for it. I removed the offending word with a summary to that effect, but was inst-reverted by an article guardian (who conveniently netted several of my previous unrelated edits in the process, in a display of unacceptable bullying). CreepyCrawly (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly your other edits suffered from similar problems, I actually reverted also with an edit summary that said so by Ray beat me to it, so his less informative revert is the one that got in the history. Overwhelming majority is not an exact percentage, but we dont have an exact percentage at Intelligent design either, but the point is that whatever overwhelming is, the reliable sources are clear we've got it. And now for another strong suggestion: language about bullying and intimidation isn't helpful: make cases for your changes; don't just claim persecution. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind other articles. There is no policy stating that what happens at one article must happen at all. One of my other edits removed a source that didn't even contain the words it was being cited to support. Are you prepared to defend that? The reverter just wiped me out entirely, it was either bullying or laziness. Neither is helpful. CreepyCrawly (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The other article was a useful analogy; the situations are similar (my impression is that the majority is much larger in the other case; the dissent is probably a smaller percentage by at least an order of magnitude, but that's not too relevant). In any event, I suggest you try to assume a bit more good faith and try to be civil. If you think any of your edits that were reverted may be less controversial I suggest you make a separate section on this talk page listing each of those edits and explaining the logic for those edits. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to link policy to me, I'm aware. I feel you're the one who has been uncivil towards me. And if anything, tarring over all my edits it one fell swoop does not AGF. CreepyCrawly (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Oreskes study is about consensus as well, thus related to the sentence, it just approaches it from another angle - by examining the peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Stephan pointed this out to you already. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

He can point out whatever he likes, the source is being cited to justify language it does not contain. I'm afraid that is just absurd. CreepyCrawly (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Its specifically attributed to an highly respected authority on the subject. And further supported by both an article and a specific study. It would have been a weasel word if we'd just "invented it" - but we didn't. You may want to read through the talk archives, for background. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

400 people would still count as individual scientists (if all of them are scientists), and any discussion of which individuals believe what about global warming goes on the page linked in the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. - Enuja (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications, and by the way, the article rocks! Good work! --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd. This was a indeed a United States SENATE REPORT, which was released by the office of the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's, one to which Al Gore responded to within hour of it being released. If you do not like the ranking member (i'm assuming that's Infohe) doesn't mean you can singlehandedly discredit him, or state reports out of his office carry absolutely no weight whatsoever, are false, not reports, or whatever other excuse you come up with. You call this "not reliable" and although quoting specific individuals, it needs some sort of "special blessing"? You've got to be kidding me! Some editor's half-cocked laughable notion of "research" to discredit those on this list from "thedailygreen.com" whose slogan is "the consumers guide to the green revolution" holds as much or more weight then a US Senate Report? First of all, that's absurd. Secondly, I already showed the multiple fallacies of "thedailygreen"s editor's research and conclusions. As the name of the site itself implies...that site is so left-winged-liberal-save-the-trees-slanted it is nothing but a propaganda machine. Last but not least...if you want to lump the "supposed" 400 scientists as all "seperate individuals" which can be discussed outside of this page (and thus never makes it to probablyl 90% or more of the public researching Global Warming, which is your whole purpose for not including it or other points on this page btw), then you should classify all other scientists in your false "scientifc consensus" as individuals as well. The logic that seems to rule information that is put on this page is beyond me as it defies logic itself as is so contradictory this page is laughable to anyone not blinded by the mantra of proponents "antropgenic" GW. When I get the time to actually piece together a lucid complaint detailing the biasness of this page I am going to file a complaint with wikipedia asking the removal of and appointment of new, unbaised moderators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.222.98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.222.98 (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Moderators are not appointed. They are all volunteers. Many of us who are participating on this article are not moderators. The lead section of this article says that national academies of science (and other groups) support the consensus described by IPCC. These academies of science are important groups; they are not individuals speaking for themselves. See the Scientific opinion on climate change for more detail on that. No, US Senate reports are not reliable sources. If we can use the minority reports, we could also use the majority reports, (here's the majorities' subpage [3]), and those are also not reliable sources. The sources used in this article conform to the policies for the broader wikipedia community. Anyone who has had a registered account for four days can edit this article, as long as they are working with the ideals of Wikipedia's five pillars. Having collaborative editing where the consensus supported by reliable sources gets into the article is the correct way to do things on wikipedia. - Enuja (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If everyone can agree that the sources are reliable, I believe we should post them. Period. Readers should be allowed to make up their own minds. No one here is an expert and thus our individual opinions are of little consequence. Attempting to convince one or more Wikipedia readers of a specific scientific argument is just wasting everyone's time. 82.41.90.144 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters very much, but some of the editors here are experts on climate science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't matter. 80.194.146.50 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if all 247 of the scientists they list are discredited, that still leaves over 150 that they didn't even try to discredit. Possibly rather than just saying "a few scientists" which is misleading it that it seems to imply a very small number (ten or fewer) you could mention either the 400+ or possibly just the 150+ unchallenged scientist from the dissenting report but place that number in the proper context by giving a size of the scientific population as a whole. Stating that 150 out of 15,000 scientists disagree seems quite different from 4 out of 400 even though both are 1% of a population. Anyway, in scientific literature, adjectives such as "overwhelming" should not be usedm rather actual statistics should be given. It should be the place of the reader to determine if the given statistics indicate that something is "overwhelming." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.9.48 (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkout this interview with the founder of the weather channel!!

 http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7524#SlideFrame_1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.169.147 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 

After years of study, John Coleman is convinced that none of this is true. And thousands of scientists and other meteorologists hold this same dissenting view.

Currently, John Coleman is a TV weatherman for KUSI News in San Diego. But Coleman is most famous for being founder of the Weather Channel. He has had a long career in predicting the weather, working for the first time as a TV weatherman during his freshman year in college in 1953. With this extensive background, we might take John Coleman seriously when he states bluntly that global warming “is the greatest scam in history.”

He's been a strong opponent of Global Warming from the beginning. Though he is experienced, John Coleman doesn't fall into WP:RS or WP:SPS catergories. Infonation101 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Detailed NASA satellite global temperature data from the past decade

This graph should be included in the article. The red line shows detailed satellite measurement of global temperatures from the last decade.

NASA line plot of monthly mean global surface temperature anomaly from January 1998 through March 2008. The black line shows meterological stations only. The red line shows the land-ocean temperature index, which uses sea surface temperatures obtained from satellite measurements.

Grundle2600 (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No. This is an article about climate. Month-to-month variations don't tell us anything about climate, and a 10-year period is too short to represent climate change. Note the WMO climate normal period is 30 years. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an aside, it is really grating to see people swoop in and declare flatly "no" to things. Every word after that was great, but you began on a sour note. Also, are we really fact-tagging talk page comments now? I want my mommy. CreepyCrawly (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If 10 years is too short, then why does the article contain the map of temperature changes from 1995 to 2004? It's because only charts that show a warming trend are allowed. The censors here will erase anything that doesn't show a warming trend. Since my chart from 1998 to 2008 doesn't show a warming trend, it's not allowed. The map from 1995 to 2004 does show a warming trend, so it is allowed. This article is being censored. All politically incorrect information is banned. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the temp record graph at the top of the page, you will see there is plenty of noise within the overall warming trend, some years certain climatic factors contribute to a higher global average and in other years you will see factors which contribute to a lower global average. Thus the graph is not linear and takes on a more fluid shape that it does. Taking any 10 year range you can show warming, cooling, more warming, more cooling etc many times over. Like Dr. Arritt mentioned above longer time periods reduce this "noise" and a trend becomes clear. Over the past 100 years its clear there is a warming trend. Though why is the map 1995 to 2004 displayed? --198.103.161.1 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I now understand that the other chart compares a recent decade to a past decade. But my chart is still relevant. Global warming theory predicts that warming will accelerate . My chart shows that the real world evidence does not back up that theory. When evidence doesn't agree with a theory, a good scientist will admit that the theory was wrong. A bad scientiust will try to censor the evidence, and prevent people from findng out the truth. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Only data that shows it's getting warmer is relevant in the mind of the AGW propagandists. Data and science in general is inconvenient with the political and media indoctrination in full swing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this graph is relevant because the data isn't going to change because it has already been recorded, and so will be the same for the next ten+ years. I feel sorry for the guy who made this, the data is from NASA and is relevant now, and in the future, also because some jerk decided he was going to use the [citation needed] links in the discussion page, where citation are not needed, to make him look like an idiot, when all he was doing was trying to give up to date data. If your not going to use it I would say take out the out of date graphs, and take out the graphs that are just based on predictions on the article, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

I used the data NASA website listed as the source of the image in the article to compute the same graph, but using the "current" ten year period as 1997-2007 (the website, of course, does not have an annual average for 2008 yet as it isn't over). Here is the graph. [4] Now, this graph isn't of the quality of the current graph (the image page describes how User:Dragons flight made the image look nice, and I haven't done that). You can make this graph yourself, using the mapping tool [5] linked in the image description, for whatever dates you'd like to do. Authors have argued in the past that past-year data get updated and corrected, so it might make sense to skip 2007. I'm not sure what the most informative graph for the article would be, but it might very well be one that is newer than the current graph. What's the most appropriate base data to use? Again, I don't know, and in this case I suspect that Dragon's flight had some reason to use 1940-1980, but I don't know what that reason was. - Enuja (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Switch: "overwhelming" to "large" majority

Thank you for the change. That's what I tried to do in the first place (if you look at my first edit you'll find I had originally made that change, but it didn't show up on the page when I was done, so I reverted it because I was afraid I'd broken something). Then I figured I'd just remove "overwhelming," pending a source for "large." CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" is citeable and factually correct, but I changed it to "large" to keep the peace. It can be corrected later. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree there. "Overwhelming" suggests, to me, that all opposing views are effectively null and void. For example, there is no longer any serious debate about the shape of the Earth; while there does remain a tiny minority who believe that it is flat, the overwhelming majority believe that it is round. With global warming, the debate is ongoing, although not raging. You may personally relegate the opposition to the kook fringe, and you may be able to cite a thousand scientists who agree with your assessment, but the fact remains that they are still being given a place at the table. That tells me that they have not yet been rendered irrelevant, as "overwhelming majority" implies that the corresponding minority must have been, and that they are certainly not to be openly mocked in the same way a flat Earther or young Earth creationist is and should be. "Large majority" is perfectly appropriate and accurate. It neither lessens the reality nor overemphasizes it. CreepyCrawly (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with such a change. The reliable sources say overwhelming. The consensus is overwhelming. This isn't that complicated. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The source uses a weasel word, and is only being cited as justification to use same weasel word here. I would have thought this to be patently obvious. Veritas agreed, and said as much in his edit summary (his name has mysteriously been changed to "Nonexistant User" and he's apparently totally deleted -- I don't know what the deal is there, but his edit history remains). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreepyCrawly (talk • contribs) 08:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" modifies "majority of scientists working on climate change". If it modified "scientists", then large majority would make sense. However, it is factually true that, of people working on climate change (not just meterologists, physicsts, geologists and biologists but just the subset of those who study global change) it is the overwhelming majority who think that things are at least as bad as the IPCC says. It is cited in the source. It should stay. There is no debate that the current anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is changing global climate. How much the earth has warmed so far, how much it will warm in the future, what the effects will be in different places, how humans and other animals will adapt or suffer, what the best course of action for human to take; all of these are under strong contention. The idea that the burning of fossils fuels isn't increasing the global temperature of the earth is just as inconcievable a position amoung climate change scientists as the flat earth idea was amoung 14th century scholars. - Enuja (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever suggested that it referred to scientists in general. We're clearly talking about climate science here. The wording says that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists (which I believe a reasonable reader would interpret as a majority so strong as to render the topic closed) agree with the primary conclusions of the IPCC -- meaning all of those conclusions. This is simply not the case, or there would not still be the strong contention you speak of. Even a relatively minor contention, if it were occurring among respected personalities and in respected arenas, as it is being done (unlike the flat Earth "debate," such as it is), would imply a less than overwhelming majority. It would imply a large majority, perhaps even worthy of "very" large, although that would also be weaselly. CreepyCrawly (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I note user Brusegadi reinserted the weasel word with the simple summary "this is better." As user Veritas (now "Nonexistant User") had previously and wisely stated, "while [overwhelming] is in the source, it is also a highly subjective word used by the author that should not be allowed to bleed into the article as fact." I ask Brusegadi to specify how inclusion of the highly subjective weasel word is "better." CreepyCrawly (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Its better because its in the source. If a reputable and serious organization uses a 'weasel' word in their statement then such a word should be taken more seriously then if Madonna uses it. Yet, this is all speculation, the thing is that it is in the source and the source is highly regarded. We are not allowed to use such words but we are allowed to quote someone using them, the same way that we are not allowed to take sides but we are allowed to quote someone saying what they think even if the quoted person takes sides. Brusegadi (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We can also estimate the numbers and write, say, "out of the 3000 climate scientists, 24 disagree with the main conclusions". So, I guess that the fuzziness of the word "overwhelming" does work in the skeptics here. Count Iblis (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We could say all kinds of things, but we should say the more objective, non-rhetorical thing: "large majority," as opposed to "overwhelming majority." On the one hand, we eliminate all possible claim to weasel wording, but lose a cite. On the other hand, we get to keep the cite, but we're stuck with the overly excited language of the rather glib source author. Then again, why not change the word and keep the source; it's not as if [10] contains either "overwhelming" or "majority," but hey, it looks better with two numbers at the end of the sentence, amirite? CreepyCrawly (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may introduce, the other problem is that even if it is true that among 3000 scientists, only 24 have made known their disagreement, we still cannot presume, as did Oreskes, that each of the other 2976 scientists necessarily agree because of their silence. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Overwhelming" is not a weasel word in the first place. The overwhelming majority of the precipitation I've experienced in my life has been rain. Yes, I've been in snow, but only a few times. To say that the large majority of the precipitation I've experienced has been rain is actively misleading. Now, personally, I don't like using the same words that a source uses; I think it's evidence of poor writing. But I think it is very important to indicate, in the lead, that essentially no-one in the field thinks that the IPCC reports exaggerate the extent or certainty of future global warming. Lots of people think that the IPCC is too conservative; that the IPCC underestimates risks. The inclusion of (maybe too much) uncertainty is why, even though lots of information about future global warming is highly uncertain, there is near unanimity about the IPCC reports. Where I live, it doesn't look like it is doing to rain today. Therefore, we could get unanimity from weather forcasters or even people on the street that "there is between a 0 and 80% chance of rain today." Yes, everbody can agree with the IPCC even if they do disagree substantially on the climate change science. People who think there is a 7% and 70% chance of rain disagree, but they still both agree with the highly uncertain statement I just made. The IPCC is the same kind of thing. - Enuja (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to be a broken record or anything but, again, if you enclose "overwhelming" in quotes (to properly identify that the word is taken directly from the source) then this issue is dead. It boggles my mind that this is still being discussed. And, finally, I think the inevitable "scare quotes" argument is juvenile, self-serving and unjustified in this case. 82.41.90.144 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How can you say "recent warming" when the cooling trend is confirmed?

Plot of temperatures after the 1960-91 temperature datum. -Isonomia/Bugsy

Note: The CO2 line is completely arbitrarily put in here, and the slope could be anything, higher, lower, whatever... It in fact makes no sense here. It could have started at 0.1 and ended at 0.4 - matching the temp curve, and still be arbitrary and make no sense in context.] -KimDabelsteinPetersen 19:35, 15 March 2008

Note 2: The CO₂ scale ranges from a low value of 356 ppm to a high of 382 ppm[1] -NCdave 08:03, 21 March 2008

Note 3: for statistical correlation, CO2 is monotonically increasing and that is all that matters. The slope value or units are meaningless. However a reversal in the dataset that it is supposed to correlate would inidcate a bad "fit". For what it's supposed to show, the CO2 line makes perfect sense in context. What is unknown is whether there is an underlying temperature dataset, corrected for normal variation and any time shift causation, that is also monotonically increasing. It is too early to tell whether this "reversal" is statistically significant to alter the correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature. -DHeyward 07:17, 23 March 2008

First the good news for the evangelists. The January 2007 HARCRUT3 figures have been "adjusted" from +0.037°C to +0.056°C, the bad news is that that still makes January the coldest month in 14 years and the February figures continue to confirm the cooling trend this decade at 0.193°C giving a massive 0.555°C degrees cooling from 10years ago, or to put that scientifically this decade so far is showing an average of -0.1°C per decade. For those who don't understand what this means I have a graph. The simple fact is that it is now clearly wrong to say global warming is the rise "in recent decades". It may be the rise "between decades" but it definitely is not a rise IN recent decades because IN the last decade there has been cooling! Bugsy (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll await the publication of your article entitled "Recent global cooling casts doubt on AGW" in Nature. Count Iblis (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if he could get a research grant he could make that happen. Wait...never mind. CreepyCrawly (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a research grant if you already have a result ready to be submitted to Nature. Count Iblis (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you admit that the money only flows in one direction at present. CreepyCrawly (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't need grant money to submit a finished project, so any claimed differential in grant allocation is irrelevant. Jefffire (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

He does not have to admit that money flows in either direction. Logically, his statement does not imply this. Brusegadi (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

IN NATURE meaaning that the article would be within the magazine. But IN RECENT DECADES seems to mean between recent decades. Or do you publish articles between journals when you say in nature or does language mean precisely nothing? Bugsy (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this original research, or is it published? Jefffire (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeffire, are you for real? You show me original research about the meaning on in and I'll show you someone in need of a life! Stop being absurd, if you want research about the meaning of in, then you go and find language department that specialises in "in". In is a simple English word it has a simple meaning: ". (used to indicate inclusion within or occurrence during a period or limit of time): in ancient times; a task done in ten minutes." Warming in recent decades. Recent: " 1. Of, belonging to, or occurring at a time immediately before the present." If there has not been warming in the last decade, then it is fraudelent to use the term "in recent decades" and then not to mention recent cooling!88.109.94.156 (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain Jeffire was asking if the climate data interpretation being discussed was published, not if there was published research on the word "in". The shortest period I can possibly images "in recent decades" referring to is thirty years. A single decade is just that; a single decade. If the article included the wording "during the past decade" then, yes, the wording would need to be changed as factually inaccurate, using the published data and without any necessarily published interpretation. However, we DO need a something published in a peer reviewed journal in order to say that the essentially flat temperature of the past decade is inconsistent with the observed warming over the past 3 + decades and its projected continuation in the future. Do follow the link above and try to come up with a map that shows cooling when using intervals of 5+ years and looking at temperatures between 30 + years. I can't do it. Temperatures really are increasing, and if they (contrary to all current climate understanding and the delay between global warming gas increase and equilibrium global temperature) plateau now, the temperature will have increased. - Enuja (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Added commentary to the graph. The CO2 line is completely randomly placed here, it makes absolutely no sense in context. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fuck, let's just change the first sentence to something more concrete. "Recent decades" literally invites trolls (if this decade, for example, is a tiny bit cooler than the last). But, ho hum. It keeps getting suggested and nothing done. Marskell (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

IPCC AR4 commonly refers to warming "since the middle of the 20th century" or equivalent wording. Deal? Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It sounds good, but you will never get rid of the trolls or most of the "skeptics" here. Thats why I think it should be left as it is. We will have to deal with them anyways. Have you not seen their "logic" ? Brusegadi (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it'll just be a different form of nonsense that we have to deal with. So I have no illusions. But at least we can point to AR4 in our response. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The logic is quite simple to make sure the article is honest and not entirely biased by a myopic belief in warming. The problem for the cooling denialists is that month after month the evidence will grow that warming has ceased, and month after month they will find it ever harder to justify the numerous phrases they defend so aggressively implying that warming is inevitable. And whilst I can see that if your livelihood depends on global warming you might not be happy to make these changes, frankly that is no excuse for fraudulently using Wikipedia to spread such nonsense. 88.110.212.47 (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You are new here... The logic extends back, way back... If you are right about the future months, lets wait a few months then, and stop the nonsense as of now, since wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Please understand that what you say is equivalent to going up to a bunch of finance economists and telling them that the stock market will now decrease indefinitely because it lost a couple points in the past few weeks... I'll see you when La Nina is over, or maybe I wont. Brusegadi (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a few comments: the CO2 line is monotonically increasing. The values are somewhat irrelevant as the correlation is what matters and monotonically increasing CO2 and reversing temperature trends would seem to be significantly less than R=1 correlation (i.e. R=0). CO2 and warming have a complex and time based relationship so the timescale might be too short to assess a change in the correlation that is the basis for anthropogenic global warming. Secondly, all the global warming art that is in the article is "original research." The art doesn't appear to be peer reviewed but seems to be an interpretation of data that is widely available. While the conclusions of the graph are suspect, the graph itself isn't any better or worse than any other "Global Warming Art" project graphs as it's just another non-peer reviewed presentation of published data. --DHeyward (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the graph that should be the first graph in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

For me, "since the middle of the 20th century" is fine and dandy. Folks who object to the current wording, do you have fewer grammar and clarity problems with this new wording than with the old? - Enuja (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Oren0 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To a sensible suggestion I will give a sensible answer. I think you could legitimately talk of average (meaning average per decade) change in temperature from the "the middle of the 20th century" (as a laymans term for the 1960-91 average), which although not strictly what it says, would give a clear statement of the meaning of the article both in common parlance and strict testable terms that will allow me to read beyond the first sentence without swearing. However, to be honest, when it comes to writing the history books about this short chapter, I think the historians will refer to "global warming" as the rise in temperature from the middle of the 20th century up until the end of the 20th century, so in a sense, I think it would save time just to put all the sentences in the present tense into the past and to start a new article on 21st century cooling. 88.110.212.47 (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. When the science academies and other bodies change their minds, we'll change the article accordingly. But in the meantime see WP:CRYSTAL. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On reflection the phrase should be "significant warming", rather than just any old warming.

"Global warming is the significant increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the middle of the 20th century and its projected continuation.

I've had a look at the figures and unfortunately, such a definition is significantly in favour of the evangelists as any decade with higher than 0.037C could be considered significant if analysed using noddy statistics given the data series. So you might then ask "why don't you believe it is significant", and the reason is that the frequency components of the temperature series show no lower limit, which means that the signal is characteristic of a process with random changes taking place over a longer period than the whole sampling period, so that the standard deviation does not include lower frequency components and therefore will inevitably be set too low (even without shortening to the absurdly short 1850-1950 timescale). And, please don't quote any crap figures with proxy measurements, because I know proxy measurements tend to increase uncertainty and reduce variability which makes them all but useless in this discussion! But I'm a patient man, and I'll live with that definition knowing that it will just take time before this rubbish is thrown on the scapheap of history. 88.110.157.216 (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

there is nothing we can do about the riseing sea levels. but the day the sea levels drop is the day we should really be worried because that when the ice age we start —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.173.253 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You should be worried, if there is a day the sea doesn't drop at least twice a day ... but then again, I went to Sweden, and instead of the 3-4 meters of tide, it just sat there with no discernable tide. And, it wasn't the Baltic - it was the North sea and the only discernable movement whilst I was there was due to atmospheric changes - I still can't quite believe it! It's a funny old world, tides that don't go out, longterm temperature change when we are taught to believe them to be stable. 88.110.157.216 (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Bit of nitpicking - Sweden doesn't have a coastline to the North Sea. Denmark,Norway and Skagerak is in the way. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

NO!!!! Thats what the liberals say. Wait a few months and we'll see if Skegerak is in the way, and remember, he who laughs last, laughs best... Brusegadi (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My nit: The Skagerrak is part of the North Sea.[6]

I think "middle of the twentieth century" would be an improvement. Why don't we thrash out a covering note at the same time? We can state a) that the anthropogenic forcing predates the mid-20th century and b) that the term is not meant to be applied to short term weather events. If we have good wording, I think it would save at least some of the talk chatter. Marskell (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to the original post. I have a question about "...we DO need a something published in a peer reviewed journal..." I was disputing an article by Barbara Forrest used as a source on the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed page, and they threw me WP:SPS. I'm sure many of you remember my previous posts (see above) but I'm not here to dispute anything. Still compiling the research before I present it here next, and I'm going to make sure it holds to WP standards. What I'm wondering is how much research will be held up if privately published by a prominent author in the field who has published in peer-reviewed articles prior. Just for example, if the graph above was published in an article like that. Infonation101 (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this graph is that it isn't anything out of the ordinary relative to the graph on that's in the article. There are lots of short segments that you can plot like this and "conclusively demonstrate" cooling/no warming. But put it in the context of the whole series and you get a very different pattern. Based on the last few decades of data, this "decline" appears to be well within the normal variability in temperature. Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really.

If our 1850-2006 graph is to believed, 1880-1910 showed a pronounced 30 year long cooling trend, which was followed by a pronounced 30 year warming trend (1910-1940), which was followed by a 35 year long slight cooling trend (1940-1975), which was followed by a very strong 25 year warming trend (1975-2000). So it is certainly true that we've seen much longer cooling trends than the current one.

However, this latest slight cooling trend is the longest we've seen since before the warming trend that began in the mid-1970s. Based on the ~30 year periodicity in the temperature graph of the last 125 years, this current slight cooling trend might well mean that we've seen the end of the late 20th century warming period.

OTOH, this slight cooling trend is it is not longest by very much, so I'd have to agree that it is too early to declare the warming trend over. What's more, there's a small but noticeable periodicity in the temperature graph with a period of about 8-12 years, which has been nearly synchronized with the sunspot cycle for the last couple of cycles, suggesting that the current cooling might be due to a decline in solar flux. If so, temperatures will probably start climbing again within the next couple of years, since sunspot activity & solar output is expected to start climbing again this year.

That will be a good test for the various theories. If temperatures resume climbing when sunspot activity and solar flux increase, it will be supportive of the dominant theory, that climbing GHG levels are forcing global climate change, and the current cooling is just a fluctuation (perhaps connected with solar flux changes, or perhaps due to other unknowable random factors). But if temperatures don't start climbing again soon it will cause a lot of people to take another look at the skeptics.

BTW, this slight cooling trend is also a good personal test for adherents to the dominant view on global warming. (Yes, I'm drifting from the topic, but please be tolerant.) To take the test, examine your heart, by asking yourself: what news are you hoping for? If news of stable or falling temperatures pleases you, then congratulate yourself: your heart is in the right place. But if news of stable or falling temperatures makes you frown, then you have a "pride problem," because "being right" is apparently more important to you than the welfare of mankind. NCdave (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More confirmation of recent slight global cooling

For over five years, the ~3000 Argo Buoys have been providing us with solid ocean temperature data. To the surprise of many, ocean temperatures have actually gone down slightly during that time.[7] NCdave (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A newspaper opinion piece is not a reliable source for scientific content. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, the one scientist they interviewed in the piece says "the temperature drop was "not anything really significant.'" Raul654 (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The newspaper article is a reliable third-party source, Raymond, but here's the NPR piece, if you prefer it.[8]

You're right, Raul, the temperature drop was slight (as I said, twice). Additionally, you might not know that we've been in a period of (slightly) declining solar flux, for the last few years, due to the sunspot cycle, which might be enough to account for the small measured drop in temperatures. But, nevertheless, the newsworthy fact is that temperatures have dropped rather than risen, so far, during the 21st century.

If change in solar flux is responsible for this cooling, then we should know it within 2-3 years, because the sunspot cycle & solar flux are thought to be at bottom right now, and are expected to start increasing very soon. NCdave (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're pretty darn confident in your data. More confident than the scientists anyway. :-P Weather is a notoriously jumpy and random phenomenon. Try plotting some confidence intervals and see what happens?

Hmm, this graph seems to be what we're looking for? Looking at that, I could just as easily fit a strong upward slope, or a drastic downward slope (with varying levels of confidence for the fit. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I proposed that graph a few days ago. How do we get it turned into the Global Warming Art piece? As an aside, the interesting part (or rather the unknown part) is that while all the ocean temp data says cooling, sea levels have still risen. This implies that there is something unknown going on in that the rise that has so far been attributed to ocean warming is not supported up by measurement and not accounted for by melt water. Something else is responsible. --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not an earth scientist, but I figure that the ocean can cool in many parts and warm in others, so if its warming in the poles only, then the ice would still melt. Global warming is not so much about temperature, it is about energy which manifests itself in many different forms... So, GW would explain melting even if the overall ocean temp cooled slightly in a few years. Brusegadi (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but Willis says that melt water can't account for the rise. Neither can a temperature drop. It's a budget problem. Willis and Hansen published a paper that was quoted widely a few years ago when the ocean was measured as warming slightly as being the missing link between the temperature measurement and hte predicted forcings. [9] If the recent measurements debunk that link, Willis' seminal work would be called into question and there would once again be a discrepancy between predcited temperature and measured temperature. The thing that I find interesting is that 10 years of data is deemed to be conclusive beyond any doubt while 5 years is not long enough to even consider (a "speed bump"). It seems that there is a lot more to be learned before the forcing models can be verified. --DHeyward (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems the Hadley Centre didn't like the way their chart was looking so they updated their methods. Seems reasonable adjustment. The monthly smoothed chart still has the january dip, but the yearly chart is ignoring 2008 until more data comes in. --DHeyward (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The effect of chlorofluorocarbons on global warming

I am thinking of adding information on how chlorofluorocarbons contribute to global warming because I did not see any information about them in this article. --Ilikemangos (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I'm surprised we missed this. We do cover the topic in Greenhouse gas. I suggest adding a short sentence in the section titled Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere here, in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It used to be in "the relation between GW and ozone dep" but got shuffled out into ozone depletion William M. Connolley (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing on related page

See LewRockwell.com and the associated edit history. Raul654 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing at your 3RR limit doesn't become you. --DHeyward (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) I've reverted twice, not three times, and (2) It's most certainly relevant to this page, seeing as it's *exactly* the same issue that has been argued to death here. Raul654 (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, "canvassing" is an appeal that is restricted to individual editors likely to have a certain point of view. A general notice that anyone can read is not canvassing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Lew Rockwell is... um... well, I don't think Wikipedia's rules about civility permit me to finish that thought.

But, nevertheless, the phrasing you've been reverting, Raul654, is IMO better than what you are replacing it with. There is a mainstream or dominant scientific view on the topic, but there are a lot of dissenters, which is to say that the mainstream view falls short of being what the dictionary would call a consensus view.

That's my opinion. You might disagree with it, but "mainstream" or "dominant" is inarguably accurate, and "consensus" is at best arguably so, so why not go with what everyone can agree is accurate? NCdave (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the word "consensus" is used by impeccably reliable sources, including the U.S. National Academy of Science and the national academies of all the other major industrialized countries. See Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Misused, according to the dictionary. NCdave (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Then file an RfC: you and the dictionary against the National Academy of Science... Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New article on Solar Variation

Testing the proposed link between cosmic rays and cloud cover

T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale

(Submitted on 15 Mar 2008) Abstract: A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infra red data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesise that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the presently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.

Count Iblis (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but it apparently hasn't gone through the peer-review process yet. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Which does not mean that we will not see Sloan and Wolfendale being added to Inhofe's list with a quote of "23% of global warming due to solar changes alone" ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Would everyone consider Environmental Research Letters WP:RS? Infonation101 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to do so. The editorial board looks competent, and it is covered in major indexing services. It is, however, very new, so we can't be sure how it will be received in the medium term. It also is pay to play, which I personally dislike... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and agree on the pay to play. I'm leaving it to all of you to decide. Looks like the article above will be published in April. Just so you know. Infonation101 (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The effects of divorce on global warming

There has been some talk on scientific studies proving that divorce accelerates global warming and I wondered if a section ought to be added to the article (see [10] for instance - I could not find the peer-reviewed paper but obviously, scientists have quantified the extent to which divorce damages the environment). --Childhood's End (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some other articles to back that up: Divorce Pains the Planet, Divorce bad for planet, A Really Inconvenient Truth. I think it's legitimately worth looking into. Infonation101 (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Only in the sense that having babies causes global warming, or founding new families instead of staying with your parents. It's a very indirect effect (and at least the Times article misses a proper control group and correction for other socio-economic variables). There is a general trend in the West for smaller households and higher affluence, and correspondingly higher consumption. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The actual study, for anyone who's curious, is PMID 18077392. Since it deals with the overall environmental impact of divorce in terms of resource usage, rather than with global warming specifically, this is probably not the most appropriate place for it. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood. And good job finding the specific study. Infonation101 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. Thanks, for my part also, for finding the paper. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And even if it did have a direct linkage to global warming, i really fail to see how it would fit into the generic global warming

This has already been discussed--when the article first cam out. See, e.g., here and here. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned somewhere. MastCell, what do you think is the most appropriate place for it? NCdave (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone prove that through further scientific studies? Is this something like nonsense? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 09:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait.. divorce as in a mom and dad are breaking up forever? Like... Divorce harming the enviroment? Someone is seriously are thinking about adding that to a global warming article? I'm no scientist but I think that's just a little bit of an exageration. And I thought the tripling elephant populationw as funny... no offense but am I subject to sarcasm here or are you guys serious? I mean... even in terms of resource usage that sounds ridiculous. IronCrow (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is trolling. Ignore it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WmC, please (1) tell me what you think is trolling & why, and/or else (2) WP:AGF. To me, this seems like just the sort of odd and interesting "who would have thought!" tidbits that sometimes make Wikipedia articles uniquely charming. NCdave (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} —Preceding comment was added at 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)