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

"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) .

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)

This from a Neutral Party... I haven't formed an opinion on Global Warming yet and I'm actively trying to do so. An observation about that; if the second pillar of Wikipedia states that "...we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately,..." and so on, then how come no mention of the controversy is made at all in the article?

Regardless of whether the disputers have "verifiable sources", which by reading these talk page entries seems to mean "<only> scientifically-qualified individuals", the view that "Global Warming is a hoax" is one that needs to be addressed for no other reason that a substantial percentage of people interested in the topic (I'll use Neal Bortz as an example; huge radio listening community and someone who views Global Warming as a hoax, yet no scientific training...)are out there. It appears to me that not addressing both points of view in the article of "Global Warming" makes the article itself one-sided, which is not in keeping with the "second pillar of wikipedia" of having a "neutral point of view". 70.148.40.179 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Richie

Perhaps you should read the article before you actually criticize it. There's a whole section on controversy (see the social and political debate section) with links to entire articles about controversy.

Furthermore, you should familiarize yourself with WP:UNDUE. While all points of view should be mentioned, undue weight should not be given to minority or fringe views. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight is not the same as zero weight. What's happened here is that a decision was made long ago that this article was "about the science." So other issues like politics, economics, and controversy were POV forked to their own articles. This is generally OK per WP:SUMMARY if the contents of the forks are adequately summarized in the original article. The problem is that the current section relating to three large articles is currently summarized in three paragraphs. The controversy article gets basically one sentence (other than the paragraph about Kyoto, which is more a summary of the politics page, and the cost/benefit sentence which is from the economics page): "Organizations and companies such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ExxonMobil have emphasized more conservative climate change scenarios while highlighting the potential economic cost of stricter controls." This sentence says practically nothing about skepticism at all, but does find time to mention big oil. I think that this summary section needs a rewrite. Why do "feedback effects" get 7 paragraphs to summarize a main article section that's barely that long while controversy gets so much less space? Oren0 (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"This sentence says practically nothing about skepticism at all, but does find time to mention big oil." Eh. I really can't imagine who would find it wise to put a mention about big oil that's larger than the skeptical science issue itself in an article about global warming. Any clue? --Childhood's End (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a question, how come there seems to be nothing on the GW page about this paper http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm ? DT777 (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it is entirely non-notable, non-scientific, non-peer-reviewed, and self-published by a notoriously unreliable source known for scam tactics strongly commented on by e.g. the United States National Academy of Sciences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a scientific consensus, or even close to one, on this topic. True, you may disprove every scientist that we have against anthropological global warming, but we will find reasons to disprove your's as well. There is scientific evidence on both sides, and both try to ignore it. You may say that all of our scientists are paid by Exxon Mobile, but many of your scientists are saying that their field is causing most of the global warming, and should get most of the funding (Unstoppable Global Warming, by Dennis T. Avery, S. Fred Singer). <<That book is good, for both sides of the argument. People who are for global warming will find what the skeptics are picking at, and the skeptics will find points to argue for. Lots of information, disproving the survey for scientific consensus, as well as unveiling a very shifty character who single-handedly resummarized the fourth IPCC assessment report, to fit his own agenda. Anyone have any good books for global warming? I want to read them. --Eniteris (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at scientific opinion on global warming. The consensus among reputable scientific organizations is unanimous. "Unstoppable Global Warming", on the other hand, is neither peer-reviewed nor published by an academic publisher. It's also an interesting turn-about for Singer, who until 2003 said there is no warming... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Very true, no matter how you look at the subject both sides have arguments that prove each point.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so. "In science, two things are not equal if one of them is wrong". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 17 April 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.[4]

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.[5] 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.[6]

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. [7] 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)

I am a devout believer that humans are not causing global warming. I believe that the Earth is warming, perhaps for another 400-500 years, then it will go back to cooling. This graph is interesting, though, because it shows that the temperature is not locked in with the carbon dioxide. The graph that Al Gore showed in "An Inconvenient Truth" showed the two going up and down together, but I think that the temperature is the driver of the carbon dioxide levels, not vise versa. In the 1970s there was also a cooling, but it went back to a warming afterwards. These coolings might be just a small flux, 8 years is not that long to get a definite answer. But at least it "proves" that carbon dioxide levels do not drive temperatures. Many people will still argue this, I bet. --Eniteris (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it proves no such thing. CO2 is a major climate driver, but not the only climate driver. In particular, the mid-century cooling trend was primarily caused by sulphate aerosols. --Stephan Schulz (talk)

You should try rational logic instead of devout belief. It's better. 78.105.220.50 (talk) 23:33, 15 April 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 [8] 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)

You may call this trolling. But I first believed that "divorce" in this context was a sophisticated scientific concept I was ignorant of... It is exactly this kind of silly speculations and extrapolations that make people skeptical of AGW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.254.182 (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely absurd. It sounds more like religious rhetoric than anything even remotely scientific. If divorce is a major cause of AGW then so is education; so is dating for that matter and marriage leads to honeymoons and even people take vacations from work. If we stay dumb and don't socialize, dont work and never go on vacations, we can solve AGW? While were at it, let's hold our breaths and make it go away....I55ere (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly an indirect effect. Its similar to saying, 'SAT score correlates positively with shoe size', as in, 16 year olds will have bigger feet and will do better on the SATs than 10 year olds. If you can control all other factors and still prove that divorce causes global warming, then it may be noteworthy.--63.241.190.32 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Then do it. Nobody's getting paid to maintain the article, so if you want something done the best thing is to pitch in and help! Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I see a couple of problems with updating the main graph at the top of the page and the 2005 quote/footnote in the second paragraph. First, I don't know how that graph was created (the image mentions Robert A. Rohde), so I'm not sure I would be able to faithfully reproduce it. Second, the 2005 temperature data footnoted in the second paragraph comes from an IPCC report and it seems unlikely that we would see a similar report unless/until global temperature increases above the 2005 mark (of course, I may be a little paranoid there). Does anyone have advice on faithfully reproducing the graph at the top of the page with the latest (end of 2007) temperature data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.204.150 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just a graph of the HadCRUT3 data set, which is available in near-real-time from the Met Office web site. Anybody can download and graph the data -- no evil IPCC conspiracies there. I've made plots of it myself many times in Excel, but of course Excel tends to make bad-looking graphs so it's better to use different software. (Robert once told me what software he uses, but I've forgotten.) You'll want to superimpose the running mean and so forth. It would be even better to graph the GISS data set on the same plot, so we can get an idea of uncertainty in the obs. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Matlab and Adobe Illustrator mostly. Dragons flight (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The top most graph does include the end of 2007. The Hadley Centre estimate has 2007 colder than 2006 which may be a source of your confusion. A number of the other graphs are older. Some of these are more noticable than others. I have been vaguely planning to do a systematic update but I haven't gotten to it yet. Dragons flight (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I see this now. I think what threw me was the five year average line (which stops at 2005). This makes sense for a moving average, given that the graph starts in 1850. I'm not much good with Matlab or Adobe Illustrator, so I'll leave it to others to update the graphs (but I'm glad to know that this is being considered). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.204.150 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For a fair and balanced graph we need data for the last 2000 years, or at least the last 500 years, which includes the post NASA data error (1998-2007) to show the overall trend, and how the temperature change has stopped since 2000. Further, just the corrected NASA data will nullify the overall trend of warming from 1930-2000. I have emailed NASA in an attempt to gain data from before 1880 ( the end of the mini-ice age) in an attempt to make a more balanced graphic. Gorestradamus (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Any source for the NASA contention? I'm not aware of a significant error in NASA's global temperature series. There was a smallish glitch in the US record, but that was insignificant for the global temperature. Anyways, the graph in question shows the instrumental temperature record (in one of its two major incarnation, NASA GISS and HadCRUT3). We use HadCRUT3, so whatever error you think is in the NASA data does not affect us. If we had a longer record, we would use it. For pre-1850 data, you have to look at reconstructions, as in this graph. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The lack of neutrality in this artical is overwelming.

The fact that disagreement with it is a mere footnote shows this better then any way I ever could. --70.152.25.58 (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be undue weight to give it more than that, given the consensus of the scientific community is overwhelming. It'd be like giving emphasis to Creationism in an Evolution article, or to people who believe the Earth is flat and the center of the universe in every astronomy article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you compareing people who think the Earth is flat (something that was a silly notion even before it was "proven" false) to people who think man made global warming does not exsit? Something tells me you are not a good judge of neutrality for this artical. --Deuxhero (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Creationism is a better analogy. There are probably as many biologist who believe in creationism as there are climate scientists who believe that CO2 does not have much impact in the climate, like we could make CO2 levels go up to 0.1% with only negligible global temperature increases.

What matters for wikipedia is what can be found in the peer reviewed literature. You cannot find the most views of climate sceptics or creationists there. The few things that can be found, like solar variation theory, are already included in this article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely true, which is sad at times because it excludes articles written by scientists such as Lord Monckton. But, Wikipedia has it's standards, and if someone doesn't like them there are a lot of blogs out there people can join. Honestly I'll be happy when I start to see articles of that sort appearing in WP:RS and WP:SPS material. Infonation101 (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Scientists" such as Lord Monckton? Don't make me laugh. Raul654 (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

He may not be quite in the same league as a scientist as Michael Crichton, but still... MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul, your right. I guess that's why he was able to take An Inconvenient Truth to court; now requiring all schools that show the movie in England to point out the numerous inaccuracies [9] [10] [11]. Man, those British must be behind [12]. I'm playing fair, don't dis my comments. Infonation101 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Given you can't actually cite reliable sources, and the paper you cite is full of inaccuracies (for instance, claiming Tuvalo is not in danger, when it is estimated that a 40 cm rise in sea level, which is well within the range of the IPCC even assuming continental ice sheets don't fall into the ocean) and is generally worthless propaganda. Its even funnier when he claims that Hurricane Katrina and the like were not caused by global warming; it is impossible to tell whether or not they were. He even goes so far as to blame Gore for it, which is out and out hilarious, and suggests environmentalists are destroying costal trees in order to avoid embarassment. If this is the sort of evidence you put credence in, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are no WP:RS concerning the contrary was an affirmation I made earlier about the original point written by Count Iblis. As for whether we should even consider the court case, they seem to be quite happy with doing the same on the Creationism page, using Kitzmiller v. Dover. And if all these reports are just worthless propaganda, they did really well convincing the court in England. Infonation101 (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Tuvalo is not in danger. They dig holes in the ground that fill with water, to make it look like it's sinking. (Unstoppable Global Warming, by Avery T. Singer). And propaganda? How about saying that humans are causing global warming. Look around you! The only side of the argument you see is that we are causing global warming, that David Suzuki is holding a fundraiser for drowning kids, that the temperature reached an all time high, that hurricanes are hitting the coast, all caused by global warming. And you don't call that propaganda. (Ok, it's not propaganda. It's advertising, which is not as bad but still.) Hurricane Katrina was caused by a cold front meeting a warm front, not by global warming. All hurricanes are made that way. But true, hurricanes will be stronger. But there will be less hurricanes. I don't blame Gore, he does everything in good faith. But why did he win the Nobel Peace Prize when he lobbied against sending AIDS drugs to Africa?--Eniteris (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, you might want to read Tropical cyclogenesis, especially before you continue accusing other people of making stuff up. Jason Patton (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

One actually has to practice science to be a scientist, as in conduct some sort of research, collect, analyize data and publish those findings amongst a community of peers. I would think that would be the minimal required to meet a definition of "scientist". Going to court does not a scientist make, its not a dis, its more like reality. Blogs are not expert reviewed for the most part nor should they be included in scientific wiki articles especially blogs from non experts. --205.200.226.35 (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, before you post again, read more throughly. The comment of a blog was for those who disagree with WP standards. Nothing more. So really, your comment only affirmed mine own. And about what is a scientist, "a person with advanced knowledge of one or more sciences" (Princeton University), and Monckton has certainly shown more knowledge than Al Gore. Infonation101 (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Monckton claims that increasing temperatures will not increase the range of malaria, despite the fact that A) malaria is bourne by mosquitos and B) increasing temperatures will, in fact, increase the range of the aforementioned mosquitos. I'm not sure you want to listen to a guy who doesn't get why increasing global temperatures would increase the range of malaria. He also claims carbon dioxide is not pollution. Heck, have you even READ that paper you linked to? It has such facetious statements as "Yet adaptation is easy for the flycatchers: they merely fly a few tens of kilometers further north and they will find caterpillars hatching at the appropriate time." Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Gore is not a scientist either, course I dont quite recall actually saying he was. That definition is rather loose dont you think, where does advanced knowledge come from....actually practicing science, conducting science, and then defending said scienctific work I would think. Putting out press releases and doing error ridden mathematics isnt science nor does it make you an expert and thus the vicountness is not included as a credible scientific source of information for wikipedia or in general the scientific community of experts.--205.200.226.35 (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor is Gore, for that matter. He's a popularizer, not a scientist. I don't think this article cites him for scientific things, does it? Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No thankfully it doesnt, not should it, and like it said by Count Iblis, the article is based on published peer reviewed science, in other words the best most accurate information currently available.--205.200.226.35 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Insurance industry and insurance premiums

In the article there is a sentence "In a summary of economic cost associated with climate change, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) emphasizes the risks to insurers, reinsurers, and banks of increasingly traumatic and costly weather events." Yet The Guardian [13] writes "Lloyd's warns of a lack of natural disasters (Lloyd's of London warned yesterday that an absence last year of natural disasters or man-made accidents was putting pressure on firms to reduce premiums in 2008.)" Maybe some insurance industry experts have got a take on this? --Doopdoop (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that global warming ultimately makes the weather less predictable, which is a problem for insurers, because it makes it harder to come up with a good insurance premium rate. Consider the year that gave us Katrina; that year we had a medley of natural disasters, and the hurricane season was abominable. Then we got some years of weak hurricane seasons. Thing is, the risk of getting slapped hard by a category five hurricane is increasing, but it is hard to tell the odds in any particular year in advance. People will whine about high insurance premiums against natural disasters, but years like that have to be made up for in the years where cities aren't disappearing beneath the waters of the oceans. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

UN report has specific predictions about extreme weather events, that the insurance industry can use to increase its premiums, and the industry will have a potential for larger profits. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Which, as Lloyds points out, people are complaining about. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That would only be true if the UN reports were wrong. If the disasters happen, there is no profit for increased premiums. Lloyd's is concerned that the long range prognistication is correct but without near-term weather events, other insurance carriers will lower their premiums and put the underwriters at risk. The last two hurricane seasons have been a bust in terms of prognistication as well as the estimate for the intensity of the current La Nina system and this puts pressure on the insurance companies to bring their rates down to historical rates even if the risks are increased. --DHeyward (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Katrina was caused by global warming, nor any other disaster in recent years. The IPCC propaganda in this regard is hotly contested, and insurance companies who will be wise enough to discout it in their risk assessments will, over time, offer the best product and get the best results. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly are you mixing a specific weather event in? The discussion is on insurance companies saying that the the risk has increased. You can never attribute a specific event - but you might attribute a trend. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is I who mixed? I was merely referring to an edit just above. As to your comment about attribution, if no single part of a trend can be scientifically attributed to a given cause, then it appears unscientific to attribute the trend itself to the said cause, does it? But you would be right to say that this is exactly the kind of propaganda that is being pushed on the public by some. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the ones that are most "scared" are the insurers of insurers. I believe there are few of those, so they were probably charging a profit maximizing price. So there is a good chance that increasing the price further actually hurts them... given a few other assumptions (elastic demand, etc). Thats the good thing about soap-ing in wikipedia, it boils down to opinion and opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Brusegadi (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, as far as I know, Lloyds offers both insurance and reinsurance. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This [14] source should be used instead of UNEP. According to KPMG, insurance is in the "middle of the road" zone for climate change risks. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Two papers that are "alternative"

Both by Hansen. "Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario" by Hansen and Sato. Other is "Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study" also by Hansen and Sato. As I understand it, the alternative scenarios involve explanations of some of the observed warming to be related to GHG's other than CO2. These GHGs are estimated to decline this century so the estimated warming appears to be significantly less than IPCC estimates to the year 2100. How should this be included? --DHeyward (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand Hansen's paper. His basic analysis is not substantially different from the IPCC (no wonder, since his data has been used by the IPCC). He just interprets the result, saying that in the current time frame, aerosols and CO2, both caused by burning fossil fuels, roughly cancel out, and that one can thus see the net growth as due to other effects (mostly black carbon, CFCs, Ozone (generated from precursor emisions) and CH4). These other forcings (except for CFCs) are not predicted to decline, but the paper suggests that it is easier to reduce them than it is to reduce CO2, and that this directly brings tangible benefits, as these pollutants have other negative consequences. This may offset CO2 forcings to some degree to buy us more time. It suggests politics to target those low-hanging fruit first. The paper is frequently misinterpreted as "CO2 does not warm" or "IPCC scenarios are too pessimistic", but neither of this is true. You can read the full paper here, its not long and not very complex. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand now. This is the more interesting paper. Figure 8 is what caught my eye. It has filled in some observations past the estimates in IPCC. They seem low so I thought there was a correlation to the alternatives. For example, mtehtane seems to be following the alternative scenario a lot closer than the IPCC estimate 6 years after the scenario was presented. This is why I thought it was significant but I didn't realize that the earlier paper was a policy proposal, not science. --DHeyward (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hansen's first paper is already in the article. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something though in Fig 8 of the second paper? --DHeyward (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tipping point

Does anyone have journal sources for this ? It would improve the credibility of the statement. Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly isn't the most popular term in the literature. Irreversible does just as fine. But using either term is a bit risky. That said, it does appear in a few papers. It is mostly associated with Arctic sea ice loss (e.g. Lindsay & Zhang, 2005; or Hasen, 2006). Also on that note, I do not believe it would be exactly accurate to claim Hansen believes we are at a point of no return. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The "main article" Tipping point (climatology) was created just today by the same contributor who added the section in this article. The article, itself a stub, may require validation and expansion before we can direct reader attention to it. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The term is being increasingly used by journalists and some scientists like Hansen. I have been adding references to the article stub. Lumos3 (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence needs in-line citation

The definition of "global warming" needs to be verified by an in-line citation. The Wikipedia-wide consensus is that important statements must be sourced, and the whole article rests on this definition of global warming. I don't dispute the definition. I'm just trying to improve an excellent article. --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything you find in the intro should be found and expanded upon in the body, thus removing the need for an inline citation in the intro. Whether or not that actually occurs is another matter. ~ UBeR (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article only states this in the "terminology" section: "In common usage, the term "global warming" refers to the warming in recent decades and implies a human influence.[12]". This definition does not mention the part about the "predicted continued increase in global average temperatures." indicated in the intro sentence. It should. --Phenylalanine (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I corrected that. --Phenylalanine (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In-line citations in the lead paragraphs

I think we should be consistent. Either we use in-line citations in the lead or we don't. Otherwise, it's could be misleading. --Phenylalanine (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Then don't. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. I requested a source because most of the other sentences in the lead are sourced. [edit] --Phenylalanine (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that either all sentences in the lead should be sourced, or none should be sourced. That's my proposal. --Phenylalanine (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A reference for every sentence? This is getting absurd. I have a crazy alternative idea. We reference potentially controversial facts? The lead is fine... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is reasonable. I agree. --Phenylalanine (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead is not fine. It overstates the level of agreement among scientists ("overwhelming majority"). Also, it says "Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century," but that statement is not balanced by mentioning that average global surface temperatures have actually cooled slightly so far in the twenty-first century. NCdave (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is just as well, since they haven't William M. Connolley (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Overwhelming majority" comes from the source, which isn't indicated in the sentence, though it should be. What makes the projections unbalanced? We haven't yet reached the end of the twenty-first century. Don't you think it's a bit premature to base projections for over 90 years from now on just 7.3 years of the century? But you're not even right when you say it's cooled since 2000.

Hurricanes

The article states that "increased hurricanes..." is expected. Dr Dongle(?)'s edit, I think, showed that a hurricane expert has (recently) changed his mind. Has there been any subsequent discussion among hurricane experts? ^rossnixon 02:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The article makes separate statements of tropical cyclones. First is that their global frequency may not be increasing, though some regions may see increases or decreases, and second, that increasing hurricane intensity is expected. Emanuel's latest publication still supports an increasing intensity statement, although it mentions uncertainty in quantifying global warming's contribution to the modeled increase in tropical cyclone intensities. The Houston Chronicle article covering the publication, which was the Scibaby sock's second reference, grossly overstates the conclusions of the publication, though. It waits until the end of the article to mention Emanuel's "take home message" that increases/decreases in frequency and intensity will still occur regionally. Anyway, what needs to happen first is an edit to Effects of global warming since that is the parent article to which the discussion in Global warming is linked. The publication does not need its own paragraph, just a rewording (if necessary) of the current one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Patton (talk • contribs) 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked over the Emanuel BAMS article once more and put the major conclusion on Effects of Global Warming[15]. Based on the update there, I don't think Global warming needs a change to its wording. GW currently mentions trends in observed cyclone intensity in recent decades whereas Emanuel's article deals with trends in downscaled climate model output. Jason Patton (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report Controversy

The IPCC in 2001 wrote it's third assessment of global warming and climate change using proxy temperature data was compiled by an American research team. Upon further assessment and scrutiny of the data, which was the center piece of the IPCC's 2001 report, was found to have countless mistakes and data which repeated. Also the program used to graph the data was non standard and was found to produce a profound "hockeystick" effect in which a dramatic increase in the most recent years was noticed. This "hockeystick" effect was dupilicated with random data and is a terrible example of the scientific process.

Also in that same report conflicting lines indicate at one point that climate is somewhat predictable and in the next sentence the report contradicts itself saying that the variables are too unpredictable to predict making the larger issue of climate unpredictable.

"Climate variations and change, caused by external forcings, may be partly predictable, particularly on the larger, continental and global, spatial scales. Because human activities, such as the emission of greenhouse gases or land-use change, do result in external forcing, it is believed that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate change are also partly predictable. However the ability to actually do so is limited because we cannot accurately predict population change, economic change, technological development, and other relevant characteristics of future human activity. In practice, therefore, one has to rely on carefully constructed scenarios of human behaviour and determine climate projections on the basis of such scenarios."[[16]]

In the very same report the models used to predict climate change are said to be subjective, which indicates that this is not scientific method and cannot be proven as fact or used even to predict as the results would most certainly contain an enormous amount of error. In the report they make a prediction for 2100 with %400 error. Meaning 15 degrees can turn into 60 degrees. This is irresponsible on the part of the report.

"While we do not consider that the complexity of a climate model makes it impossible to ever prove such a model “false” in any absolute sense, it does make the task of evaluation extremely difficult and leaves room for a subjective component in any assessment."[[17]]

This to me shows a lack of credibility on the part of IPCC to use data it has not scrutinize itself or had independent comfirmation of the data and the results. Also the statements about the predictability of global climate change leaves me to further question the credibility of the IPCC and leaves many questions as to the credibility of their recommendations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmalueg (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but read again what you wrote and what the IPCC wrote. The report is in no way contradictory, but rather is formulated in the tentative way typical for good scientists. Also read our article on Hockey stick controversy and Scientific opinion on climate change. Do you really think it plausible that these alleged problems are obvious to you, but not to any of the major academies of science in the world, all of which explicitly support the IPCC position? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're a few years late. We're on to the Fourth Assessment Report now. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IPCC Main Conclusions

I noticed that the article states that "the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions" but I can't find anywhere that states clearly what those main conclusions are. Wouldn't that be an important thing to have in this article?

I believe that relates to the sentence in the lede that states, "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes ". . ." though that's not entirely clear. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AR1 to AR4

Can anyone explain how the IPCC AR1 report from 1990 went from this to this in the subsequent report? Where did the medieval warming period and the little ice age go? InfoNation¹⁰¹ | talk | 06:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just found Description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports (wow that is a long name), but if anyone would like to still throw in their two cents I'd be happy to listen. InfoNation¹⁰¹ | talk | 06:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It was MWP and LIA in IPCC reports when I wrote it :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You did a fine job at writing the article. Thank you for the information. InfoNation¹⁰¹ | talk | 07:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

China vs US as biggest polluter

I expect this will be challenged again by 'some' so I chose to bring it here instead of editing the article. The reports that China is now the biggest polluter are being confirmed [18] [19]. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree they are being repeated, also that it is bound to happen eventually but despite the headline this still says there is no data available after 2004 and that China is estimated to have overtaken the US in 2006 by one model. The BBC articles also emphasises it is a contraversial finding. US polution per head is five to six times higher according to your links and US polution per unti of manufacturing is higher too. --BozMo talk 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that CO2 sticks around for a century or two, so it's historical emissions that are more relevant. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt anyone genuinely believes China has not surpassed us in current emissions. It is probably noteworthy for this article, as well historical emissions, per Dr. Arritt above. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is not that I think this information is true, false or anything. I don't believe this can be accurately or reliably calculated. But the article assumes it can, so... The article currently states the following : "China's gross national CO2 emissions are expected to exceed those of the U.S. within the next few years, and may have already done so according to a 2006 report." So if the article is set about current gross national emissions, historical emissions are irrelevant here (and rightly so since all the fuss is about reducing emissions from now on rather than reducing past emissions I suppose). Same goes for emissions per capita, per head, per unit, etc., save for China's contention that follows the sentence above. Since there's more than one report now, the last in line being from U of Calf., some changes seem to be in order. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The paper isn't out, reference two refers to the BBC article which only says probably so we have to stick with that if we want to include something clise to hearsay. By the way this reference ^ India's glaciers give grim message on warming, by Somni Sengupta, 7/17/07, New York Times via oregonlive.com doesn't seem to work. Anywhere I can look at it? "one of the biggest industrial..." sound like clever wording (or is it one of the biggest outright)? --BozMo talk 14:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be swimming against the tide... Do you suggest that the BBC is not reliable about what the report will say when it's out? And the word "probably" shows uncertainty as to the time when China surpassed the US, not with regard to the occurence or not of this event... --Childhood's End (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you say faut pas aller trop vite en besogne in English? I don't doubt that China's pollution per head will reach 20% of the US pollution per head at some point soon, hence put China ahead. I do doubt that it is even really a clear calculation given questions like should Taiwan be included, is accidental coal pit fires included etc., how should methane releases be treated, do we include CO2 from US convenience flag shipping blah blah. Hence, I think basing on an advance synthesis on something this subjective is pushing it. I don't think it unlikely others will do other calcs and come to other conclusions especially others who don't live in the US. --BozMo talk 20:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just remember, global warming doesn't discriminate. ;-) ~ UBeR (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

BozMo, all the issues you raise are relevant just as well when it comes to calculate the US's emissions. Perhaps New Zealand emits more CO2 than the US whereas it happens that sheep flatulence are not accounted like they should, hence the US was wrongly considered a bigger emitter, we can't know for sure. What we know is that reliable sources are now reporting a confirmation that China has overtaken the US, and that's what the article should reflect. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually its yet another "suggests" / preliminary study. There is an authoritative source for CO2 emissions - and that is the UNFCCC. Once they release the figures that place China above the U.S., we can state that its a certainty. In the meantime a "several preliminary studies have found that China may have ..." is rather sufficient. And might i add: Correct. (Nb. wording is not set in stone - its only a suggestion). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The UNFCCC isn't particularly authorative in this area. Nearly all they do in this area is to collect and summarize the official national estimates reported by each country. One of the things that has been discussed by a number of scientists is that China seems to have a very limited capacity for tracking its own emissions, with some arguments that China's past numbers need to be upwardly revised by 10 or 15%. So even if another "official" report were to come out, that is not necessarily the end of the story. Really though, which country has the highest emissions is not of any real practical relevance. Dragons flight (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected on that. My understanding was that the collection was the authoritative source, and the one that is used on CDIAC. The last report was done by a collaboration of Pew and the Chinese government (iirc), maybe this will get integrated as well? My main point was that we should wait until we have all the figures though (on CDIAC or UNFCCC). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was to ask what makes the UNFCCC so authoritative, but I guess that's not needed. Now, why shoud we wait for the CDIAC or UNFCCC figures and not use the BBC's report of the U of Calif. study and the other reliable sources just as we do elsewhere? --Childhood's End (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Washington Post Times article

is there any way to incorporate the folowing from the washington post: Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder...Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered....

Dou you have a source? This looks very much like an editorial or a letter to the editor. I'll take a guess that it's written by or based on Robert M. Carter. Anyways, since this is a very contentious field with a lot political quibbling, we try to stick to high-quality peer-reviewed scientific articles, so the answer is "probably only if there is a real scientific paper behind it, and we use that as a source directly". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha...found it. It's indeed an editorial, not in the Washington Post, but in the Times[20]. It's not by Bob Carter, but by David Deming, with the National Center for Policy Analysis. No, this is not a reliable source, and not even well-spun. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

why is NCPA automatically 'not a reliable source'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.25.73.2 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a partisan think-tank? ~ UBeR (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

...and because it takes money from the oil industry. Raul654 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

...and because its not remotely scientific? Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Temprature readings on the page need updating

It's been 8 years sinse the charts that are on this page, I will update them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratanuva66 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Which graph are you updating? Please see this discussion above about updating the first image. While updating graphs is a wonderful contribution that will be very appreciated, please be sure 1) to save graphics files as .SVG files 2) to use reliable data (many people prefer not to use the most recent year, as they say that the data is often corrected later) and 3) to make the images as visually pleasing and easily understandable as the current graphs. - Enuja (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the first one is up to date to 2007, and most of the others are long-term projections... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed a lot of the temperature graphs seem to be a bit old. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif seems like a good source. just a suggestion. Erich (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming only refers to the current episode

Hi,

Apparently there's been a long discussion about the wording of the first sentence, which decided that events such as the PETM, in which a rapid worldwide (global) increase in temperature (warming) was observed are not anything to do with global warming. I don't want to dredge that up again, but if the term is defined in a context which restricts it to arthropogenic anthropogenic the current period of global warming, as suggested by recent edit summaries, these "reliable sources" should be provided alongside the definition.

Thanks

Verisimilus T 10:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard global warming attributed to Arthropods before? --BozMo talk 11:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Lol". Thanks. Verisimilus T 11:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously though I think the discussion was not that it means Anthropogenic but that it means the current and future phenomena. We should certainly be prepared find the discussion for you but I am not sure about putting in large number of definitions into the initial summary. There are references given further down the article for the meaning of the term. talk 11:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My point was not anything to do with whether the current global warming is arthropogenic, anthropogenic or otherwise... the term "global warming" is not restricted to the current phenomenon. I think it's important to note that we're using the "slang" definition of the term as the basis of the article in the first paragraph, so that people used to using terms in their scientific capacity are not confused. I've amended accordingly, hope that is acceptable. Verisimilus T 12:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Back when we discussed this, we checked the scientific literature, and even there the vast majority of uses referred to the current episode. So I don't think your "common parlance" is correct. As often with compound terms, they acquire a meaning beyond the strictly literal reading. The discussion is in the archives somewhere, but I'm as (un-)qualified as you to find it there ;-). Checking Google Scholar, the first 10 papers all seem to refer to current and projected warming, and only one or two qualify the use explicitly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the interpretation depends on the context. No harm in providing some, given that the current introduction misleads and suprises some readers (e.g. me). We don't want skim-readers coming away with the impression that global warming has only happened now, and not in the past, which is the effect the lede gives at present. Besides, most of the top ten articles regard responses which are considered general responses to global warming, using data from the present as its our best dataset. But I bet the modellers would like their models to explain past global warmings... Anyway, I don't see what harm it does to make blatantly explicit what the article concerns itself with in the first sentence - even if some people will find this unnecessary, we may as well cater for those who don't. Verisimilus T 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, what about adding a "for other uses" tag at the start of the page? Something along the lines of:

This article refers to the current period of global warming.

For other global warming events in Earth's history, see Palaeoclimatology and Geologic temperature record.

Verisimilus T 17:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that proposal a lot. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

yep, nice one. --BozMo talk 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientific sources don't usually use the term global warming at all. So there is no need to worry about confusing science-based people William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

With some tweakage this could be OK. Use of the term "events" for a trend that unfolds over decades (in the present case) to millenia (in paleo cases) doesn't seem quite right. The term "other global warming events" back-constructs the definition of GW from its conventional meaning to a broader one. Maybe something like "for other periods of warming in Earth's history..." Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Arritt's version seems fine. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff. Implemented. Verisimilus T 09:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. I think it's an improvement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What, no "Criticism" section?

This is the first Wikipedia article I've read all day that doesn't have a "Criticisms" section. Given that this is still such a (socially and politically, if not scientifically) controversial issue, I would think you should have something. _{Preceding unsigned comment by user:153.2.246.33}

You need to get out more. Maybe read rainforest or perhaps pencil or even doorstop William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I just heard about this 15-year-old girl who has a web page debunking, at least human-caused global warming, called PonderTheMaunder.com, I think. She collects all the articles and stories she can find to debunk the idea that we are causing climate change. She says that all her friends believe in human caused global warming, but they can't tell her why -- it just social dogma. This girl doesn't believe it and she *can* tell you why.

My co-worker this morning argued that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens pumped more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that we have since the beginning of the industrial revolution -- it's a nice story, is there any truth to that at all?

No, its b*ll*cks. If you pause for a moment, you can work out how you could have realised this for yourself: that the graph of CO2 level in the atmos is smooth, and has no huge spikes corresponding to volcanoes William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And let's not forget Michael Chrichton's speech "Space Aliens Cause Global Warming", arguing that the "science" behing global warming is on no more firm footing that the speculation that there *must* be life on other planets.

I'm sure there's a good joke in there somewhere, but nothing else William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, I expect more from Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.33 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, and what do we make of this comment by Bottle:

Bottle says:

9:32 AM

Hey, can we stay on topic? Which is, "Global warming is caused by the cosmological constant."

Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we stay on topic here? 153.2.246.33 has a good point, but Mr. Connolley bites the newcomer and makes him feel like an idiot. First, please be WP:CIVIL. Nearly every post you have made in this section, Mr. Connolley, could be seen as uncivil and counterproductive. First, you bite him, then when others come to assist him you point the discussion in another direction so that the main issue cannot be brought up.

Why don't we have a criticism section? - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? This article reports peer reviewed research and the conclusions of scientists based on that research. Much of the "criticism" is politically or commercially motivated, without a scientific base. We also have the article Global warming controversy. Anyway, personally I dislike "criticism" sections. They are often one dimensional responses to complex issues, and break up the logical flow of articles. IMHO they are lazy and amateurish editing tools. Better to handle criticism by integrating it into the appropriate sections of the article. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's because Wikipedia is biased and only has criticism sections in articles that aren't liberal. This definitely isn't the only article that's this way. BTW I tried adding a well-written and researched criticism section with several *cited* quotes from actual scientists and my edit/hard work got undone. Way to go Wikipedia! Mentalhead (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your "sources" were two articles from Newsmax and a WP:SPS book sponsored by a right-wing think tank. Try the peer-reviewed scientific literature... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be very biased. You should have found reliable sources if that seemed to be a problem. If everyone was unbiased Wikipedia would be much better and a lot more professional. Mentalhead (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not supposed to allow personal beliefs to interfere with our editing, but I'll make an exemption here to help move things along. I'll be among to the first to admit that I am skeptical of global warming (at least of its anthropogenic influences). But Stephan, William, et al are correct in the stances they are taking here. Wikipedia is built on the foundation of reliable sources, and rooted in verifiability, not truth. Agree with it or not, but this is what is most widely accepted by the scientific community; thus, it is what Wikipedia is supposed to document here.

Unlike most Wikipedia contributors (myself included), Stephan and William are actual scientists, and we cannot underestimate or belittle the contributions of members with such qualifications who take this project seriously enough to spend their time here. If it seems that they are biting the newcomers, it may be because they are addressing issues which have been raised here countless times, and have on many occasions faced personal attacks or worse along the way simply for having the animosity to disagree. Wikipedia tells us to assume good faith in our fellow editors, and not to assume "bias" in those we disagree with. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion here, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote it. As a collaborative project, anyone is encouraged to contribute. But as a general rule, one can expect to receive the degree of respect and civility that they display to their fellow editors. It makes for a more pleasant editing experience for everyone. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate them trying to help but since they have such strong stances on the issue I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for them to be in charge of the article. Unless of course we had someone who believes the other way with just as much power over the article. Mentalhead (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN, nobody is "in charge" of this or any other article, or at least should not be. On Wikipedia, contributors are free to edit whatever they want, and are typically drawn to articles on subjects in which they are interested or those which fall within their area of expertise. People may disagree with their beliefs, but they are simply applying Wikipedia's established policies to the article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 06:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not asking this to mean anything, but what do you mean when you say that William and Stephan are actual scientists?

To answer your question, I mean that they are Wikipedia contributors who happen to be scientists in real life whose work is concerned with the subject at hand. I do not fit this description, and doubt there are many contributors here who do. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very confusing for me (who gets to be considered a scientist in this and who doesnt) but I suppose it's not important. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to avoid a misunderstanding: I'm a scientist (see [21]), but not a climate scientist. William is a climate scientist. Our other resident climate scientist is Raymond. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, whereas I agree with your description of how material has to be included in WP, I take exception with Michael Johnson's comment above. There are several authoritative scientists who disagree with the mainstream of peer-reviewed papers. The reason why they're not in so far is essentially decided on an interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. As with any rule interpretation, it is liable to be 'soft' and subjective, and this is this interpretation that, good or wrong, has so far been 'applied' by a group of editors.

So, there could be a criticism section in this article per WP's rules. Gravity has one. It all comes to how WP:WEIGHT is interpreted, and who interprets it. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There are alternative models of gravity that have been and are published in leading peer reviewed journals. The article on gravity like this article on global warming does not mention some crticism that do not make it into the peer reviewed journals. So, MOND is mentioned (ther are many peer reviewed publications about this topic) but not a theory by Yilmaz (who was unable to get his theory published because it was seen to have a fatal flaw by most physicists). Count Iblis (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find the article is fully referenced to reliable sources. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This should not be "fact" per se.

Global Warming is more of a theory, you cannot predict the future. I'm a little confused, there is credible evidence out there also showing it as a natural occurring phenomenon. It shouldn't be treated as fact, yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.195.26 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as fact in science; if you're referring to "fact" as "accepted reality", though, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that Global Warming is real and manmade. And yes, you can, in fact, predict the future; we do it all the time. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Predicting the future isn't fact. Enough with the "Science doesn't prove anything so we can say anything we want is truth" nonsense. This article is biased, period. Mentalhead (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased towards the considered opinion of the scientific community, maybe... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But there are hundreds of scientists who don't believe in it. Guess they don't matter. Mentalhead (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess they don't exist, more like it. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it depends how broadly you define Science. --BozMo talk 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on, don't be so strict about this science thing. After all we also prominently present Michael Crichton's view on things in the lead of the Antarctica cooling controversy article... :-) --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 11:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Optical Spectroscopy and AGW

It may be of interest to see graphs that show the average global temperature for the last 120 years or so along with prior temperatures determined by proxies from ice cores. Graphs of this and the carbon dioxide level are shown at http://www.middlebury.net:80/op-ed/pangburn.html . All of the data graphed there are from NOAA and other credible sources. The graphs show a best estimate of climate history. The current temperature and rate-of-change of temperature are not unusual. The text accompanying the graphs concludes, based on the climate history, that the carbon dioxide level has no significant influence on average global temperature.

An analysis of the physics of greenhouse gasses by Dr. John Nicol is presented at http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc . This paper shows why the current or higher carbon dioxide level has no effect on average global temperature. An understanding of optical spectroscopy is helpful in understanding the influence, or lack thereof, of greenhouse gases on global warming. Nearly all of the electromagnetic radiation that is absorbed by the atmospheric greenhouse gasses is absorbed within a few meters of the emitting surface. The popular perception of carbon dioxide acting like a blanket causing the planet to get warmer is a mistake. Dan Pangburn (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)