This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Important notice: This is the talk page for the article Global warming. Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Global Warming FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this page please take a moment and have a look at some of the frequently asked questions before starting a new topic of discussion.
Also bear in mind that this is not a forum for general discussion about global warming. This page is only to be used for discussing improvements to the Global warming article. Thank you.
This is the first Wikipedia article I've read all day that doesn't have a "Criticisms" section. Given that this is still such a (socially and politically, if not scientifically) controversial issue, I would think you should have something. Preceding unsigned comment by user:153.2.246.33
Are you seriously trying to equate the global warming controversy to the global pencil and global doorstop controversies? Bjquinn (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The graph has been "smoothed" so naturally spikes from Mount St. Helens or Mt. Pinatubo would not show up. What about bark beetles in British Columbia. Their destruction of forest has released more CO2 than the last five years of human caused emissions in Canada.208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at the Keeling Curve. You can very well see the 5 ppm seasonal variation and even month-to-month changes. So any substantial volcano impact would have shown up as well. I'd like to see a source about the "bark beetles" before I comment on that. But whatever the details are, the ecosystem is, in the medium term, very closely balanced with respect to CO2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the same applies to you (see below). You are assuming that the output from one volcano (or from man, for that matter) is perceptible on a 5ppm variation on a global atmospheric scale. Hogwash. --GoRight (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, your assertion is hogwash. It doesn't really serve as a valid way of answering the question (i.e. comparing the volcano's impact to man's impact) because it assumes that the level of gas emitted by one volcano (or by man, for that matter) would even HAVE a perceptible level change on a global atmospheric scale. I recommend you read up on Affirming the Consequent, a well known logical fallacy. --GoRight (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your indentation is a bit confusing here - are both of these supposed to be answers to me? Well, surprisingly, we know how much CO2 man creates - it amounts to about 3ppm per year. Currently, about half of this is eaten by sinks. But it's no problem to see 1.5 ppm on the scale of the plot. The argument I replied to, as you can easily see, was " that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens pumped more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that we have since the beginning of the industrial revolution", i.e. it was talking about a single volcanic eruption. As you rightly see, this eruption is not visible on the graph, and hence the effect is obviously much smaller than man's emissions. The seasonal variation is also visible, hence the graph is not smoothed to a degree that would make a much bigger short-term spike invisible, so that claim is bogus.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanos don't pump out only C02. Another major gas that is pumped out of any erupting volcano is Sulfur Dioxide (S02) which creates a LOWERING of global temperatures. With a significant sized eruption, such as Pinatubo or Krakatoa, large enough S02 emissions will effectively lower global temperatures (such as the Year Without a Summer).71.210.21.44 (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not forget Michael Chrichton's speech "Space Aliens Cause Global Warming", arguing that the "science" behing global warming is on no more firm footing that the speculation that there *must* be life on other planets.
Can we stay on topic here? 153.2.246.33 has a good point, but Mr. Connolley bites the newcomer and makes him feel like an idiot. First, please be WP:CIVIL. Nearly every post you have made in this section, Mr. Connolley, could be seen as uncivil and counterproductive. First, you bite him, then when others come to assist him you point the discussion in another direction so that the main issue cannot be brought up.
Why? This article reports peer reviewed research and the conclusions of scientists based on that research. Much of the "criticism" is politically or commercially motivated, without a scientific base. We also have the article Global warming controversy. Anyway, personally I dislike "criticism" sections. They are often one dimensional responses to complex issues, and break up the logical flow of articles. IMHO they are lazy and amateurish editing tools. Better to handle criticism by integrating it into the appropriate sections of the article. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that "Global warming controversy" article is very much the sort of thing I was looking for. Perhaps it should be listed here under "See also:" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.32 (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is already linked thrice: once from "public debate" in the lede, once from the infobox in the heading, and once from the collapsible topic overview at the bottom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's because Wikipedia is biased and only has criticism sections in articles that aren't liberal. This definitely isn't the only article that's this way. BTW I tried adding a well-written and researched criticism section with several *cited* quotes from actual scientists and my edit/hard work got undone. Way to go Wikipedia! Mentalhead (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be very biased. You should have found reliable sources if that seemed to be a problem. If everyone was unbiased Wikipedia would be much better and a lot more professional. Mentalhead (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not supposed to allow personal beliefs to interfere with our editing, but I'll make an exemption here to help move things along. I'll be among to the first to admit that I am skeptical of global warming (at least of its anthropogenic influences). But Stephan, William, et al are correct in the stances they are taking here. Wikipedia is built on the foundation of reliable sources, and rooted in verifiability, not truth. Agree with it or not, but this is what is most widely accepted by the scientific community; thus, it is what Wikipedia is supposed to document here.
Unlike most Wikipedia contributors (myself included), Stephan and William are actual scientists, and we cannot underestimate or belittle the contributions of members with such qualifications who take this project seriously enough to spend their time here. If it seems that they are biting the newcomers, it may be because they are addressing issues which have been raised here countless times, and have on many occasions faced personal attacks or worse along the way simply for having the animosity to disagree. Wikipedia tells us to assume good faith in our fellow editors, and not to assume "bias" in those we disagree with. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion here, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote it. As a collaborative project, anyone is encouraged to contribute. But as a general rule, one can expect to receive the degree of respect and civility that they display to their fellow editors. It makes for a more pleasant editing experience for everyone. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs)05:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate them trying to help but since they have such strong stances on the issue I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for them to be in charge of the article. Unless of course we had someone who believes the other way with just as much power over the article. Mentalhead (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OWN, nobody is "in charge" of this or any other article, or at least should not be. On Wikipedia, contributors are free to edit whatever they want, and are typically drawn to articles on subjects in which they are interested or those which fall within their area of expertise. People may disagree with their beliefs, but they are simply applying Wikipedia's established policies to the article. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs)06:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not asking this to mean anything, but what do you mean when you say that William and Stephan are actual scientists?
To answer your question, I mean that they are Wikipedia contributors who happen to be scientists in real life whose work is concerned with the subject at hand. I do not fit this description, and doubt there are many contributors here who do. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs)15:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid a misunderstanding: I'm a scientist (see [1]), but not a climate scientist. William is a climate scientist. Our other resident climate scientist is Raymond. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, whereas I agree with your description of how material has to be included in WP, I take exception with Michael Johnson's comment above. There are several authoritative scientists who disagree with the mainstream of peer-reviewed papers. The reason why they're not in so far is essentially decided on an interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. As with any rule interpretation, it is liable to be 'soft' and subjective, and this is this interpretation that, good or wrong, has so far been 'applied' by a group of editors.
There are alternative models of gravity that have been and are published in leading peer reviewed journals. The article on gravity like this article on global warming does not mention some crticism that do not make it into the peer reviewed journals. So, MOND is mentioned (ther are many peer reviewed publications about this topic) but not a theory by Yilmaz (who was unable to get his theory published because it was seen to have a fatal flaw by most physicists). Count Iblis (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a definite need for a criticsm section. The fact that one editor is a scientist and administrator all the more should give it weight. Any editor/administrator could feasibly serve his own interests by wiping out different points of view. Perhaps one who is so clearly biased should not be considered an "authority" and all relative verifiable facts be presented whether pro or con. As it stands, this article is very biased to the point of religious ferver.208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by a "criticism" section. Alternative explanations such as solar variation are woven into the narrative as they should be. In fact they are over-represented in the article compared to their presence in the academic literature, contrary to the provisions of WP:WEIGHT. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just echoing the original comment about no 'criticism' section. It could be called something else though (doesn't have to be called that). Something that at least gives the other side a fare shake. I for one haven't seen enough evidence to believe that global warming is occurring on a grand scale that is caused by the burning of fuels and being able to read the thoughts from both sides would be helpful for me. Strawberry Island (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but we don't pretend that there are two equal sides to every issue. This article presents the evidence, and the evidence is compellingly one sided. Raul654 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will retract my statement above in the general sense that such section doesn't exist. Reading the first couple comments in the next section "AEB (criticism section)" shows that such articles/sections do exist on Wikipedia. So now my general complaint is from what I can tell none of these are referenced very clearly in the opening of the article nor clearly marked in the TOC. Strawberry Island (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support adding this to the end of the intro of the article (this isn't perfect but I'm trying a state at it, improve by all means).
Controversy still surrounds the global warming debate. There are a number of articles that cover this topic.
There are links to both Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming in the last sentence of the lead. The rest of the articles are linked in appropriate places throughout the article. Adding an addendum to the lead isn't a very organized way to link to related articles. We've tried having links on the right-hand side up on the top, but it was simply too cluttered and awkard. Personally, I think links throughout the article and the link template down at the bottom take care of the situation in the best way possible. However, I think the template at the bottom of the article should be default-shown instead of a default-hidden. - Enuja (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Criticism section IS needed, I am willing to work on the section myself, but am requesting help from other members, and am here and now asking other Wiki contributors who disagree to pledge that they will not vandalize the new section, but take complaints and concerns to the talk section. Almost every article on Wiki (that garners criticism) HAS a criticism section, global warming should be no different. Creating a page on the controversy is needed, but it does not replace a well-researched and appropriate criticism section.
By the way, labeling all scientists that disagree with the whole global warming propoganda "oil company lackeys" is both incorrect and libelous. For example, this from the Sydney Morning Herald: "Professor Easterbrook disputed Mr Gore's claim that "our civilisation has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this". Nonsense, Professor Easterbrook said. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century".
Getting personal, he mocked Mr Gore's assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. "I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company," Professor Easterbrook said.
As pointed out before, special criticism sections are discourages. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article_structure and Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section. In this article, we describe all scientifically viable viewpoints with sufficient weight and reliable sources directly in the main prose. By long-standing consensus, we we restrict this article to the science. For the political debate, see global warming controversy. We also rely on what is considered the most reliable set of sources, peer-reviewed scientific publications and consensus reports. Your example is thus doubly missing the point - first, the unpublished (in the scientific sense) opinion of Professor Easterbrock as reported by the popular press is not a good source, and, since we do not even mention Gore or use him as a source, the criticism would be a straw man, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is most certainly NOT straw man:
1. Professor Easterbrook (not brock) provided *factual evidence* about climate shift - research that has been published (long before the article here on global warming was, in point of fact).
2. Gore *is* mentioned on this talk page, and frequently, so your assertion that criticism of Gore is straw man (here on the talk page) is false.
3. We are not talking about "political controversy", we are talking about peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals and plain, climate data.
4. While your citation of the Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section is germane, the fact remains that this is not worth the hard drive it is stored on as it pertains to that actuality of Wikipedia articles. Criticism sections are rife in almost every (controversial) article, which sets forth a defacto standard, expected by Wiki readers. Also, while Criticism sections might be "discouraged", they are in fact necessary because of the habit of a few, dedicated contributors to erase, edit and otherwise maneuver content they find distasteful out of existence. Point being, while criticism sections are "discouraged", they are not disallowed and a significant minority of contributors desire such a section on the page, and it is not the providence of the majority to squelch such an effort.Supertheman (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whomever is or isn't mentioned on the Talk page is immaterial, I'd like to say. I could mention Hitler all I want here, and that doesn't make him referenced in the article itself. That's really all besides the point, though. This article does need a criticism section, if only due to the fact that there IS a large amount of criticism and controvery surrounding global warming. That is noteworthy, just as it should also be noted that both the validity and neutrality of much of this criticism is in question. How about instead of bickering back and forth like this, you actually propose a draft of a criticism section here in the talk page. That way it can easily be viewed, edited and discussed before being inserted into the article. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do. The leading contender is solar variation theory, which is discussed in the article. In fact it's over-represented here compared to its weight in the scientific literature. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this is an article of interest not only to scientists, it should also try to cover the science of what is being discussed fiercely by the public. Bridging the jump between public debate and scientific literature should be one of this article's aims. As there is a lot of attention surrounding the solar variation theory amongst the public, it is important to address it properly here.Narssarssuaq (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a link should be placed linking to the Global Warming Controversy page. Somewhere noticeably visible rather then in the bottom of the page with all the references and the See Also section. Where, I'm unsure, but it's an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.67.7 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or stop calling this stuff a free encyclopedia.
You are FULL of criticisms, yet none passed on the main page.
Oh yes, now please wrote pages of bla bla bla.83.103.38.68 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In your entry concerning global warming, under the heading "causes", the last sentence says "Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) would still occur". The statement cites the 2005 article by Meehl, Gerald et al in the 3/18/05 edition of Science entitled "How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise".
I wonder what Mr. Meehl (PhD?) would have to say about the 0.2 degrees F global cooling which has supposedly occurred over the latest ten years? Given the ocean's known heat capacitance, there seems to be a major cooling trend occurring as you read this... and it isn't caused by decreased greenhouse gases; indeed, if it weren't for the increase in greenhouse gases, the world of today might be in the beginnings of another ice age, as was the "scientific concensus" of decades ago.
"Consensus" of scientists does not equate to good science. Just ask Christopher Columbus... the world was flat by consensus in his day.
I think Dr. Meehl would say that warming is not predicted to be monotonic and choosing only ten years to claim something about a long-term climate trend is not good practice. (If you disagree, please point to a reliable source stating otherwise.) Moreover, there was never a consensus about global cooling in the 70's, as seen in the published work of scientists [2]. And please do ask Christopher Columbus about the consensus of the Earth's shape in his time. Jason Patton (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussions we had in WP:ANI after Raul protected pages (basically, strong blocking in this set of pages, instead of full protection) I would block now if I had the tools. Brusegadi (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it was obvious to you guys that Xjet (who popped into this page immediately after you blocked Nacor) is another Scibaby sockpuppet. And, you should make a habit of checking the log. Using one logged-in account to register another is tactic used by Scibaby (and nobody else). It also tells you what other accounts he has lying around. And last, tagging a sockpuppet but not blocking him (e.g, as Kim did with User:Stenge) is not suffecient. Raul654 (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and lastly - I suggest you guys start a long-term RFCU page, get all the checkusers to watchlist it, and start bringing these cases there. Specifically, every time Scibaby pops up, you need to get a checkuser to block any IPs he's used for one year (a full block - no account creation, no anons, no logged in users), and then check the range and issue a range block (/24 at least, full block or anon-only depending on whether or not there are innocents in the range). Raul654 (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who the heck is Scibaby and why was he blocked? I am just curious. Is there a place to go to find out the details? --GoRight (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). The monthly CO2 measurements display small seasonal oscillations in an overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum is reached during the Northern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during the Northern Hemisphere growing season as plants remove some CO2 from the atmosphere[graph is misleading].
I tagged this graph with a "graph is misleading" tag because its Y origin should be at 0 in order to avoid sensationalizing the data trend. See Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs. Whoever drew this graph instead put the Y origin just below the low point, which causes the upward curve to be greatly exaggerated, which misleads the reader. The Y origin ought to be at 0. Certainly a less exciting data slope, but less misleading.
The temperature graphs, by contrast, don't have this obvious error, since 0 degrees is an arbitrary number. Parts per million, though, ought to have its origin at 0. There is an argument that 0 is silly - what if the planet has never had 0 parts per million? That argument fails here because the rise in parts per million is about 20%, whereas the graph visually states that there's about a 1300% rise. Tempshill (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you are doing OR, since its your take versus published material. Google Keeling curve. I think those are the years for which the measurments were taken. Also, its relative, I have never seen business cycles graphed in the context of hundreds of years, you would lose what you are trying to observe.Brusegadi (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting essay there. From Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs: "However, one should also avoid insisting on a misleading '0'. For example, when plotting the temperature history of Boston, it makes no sense to start the plot at 0 K, since 0 K is far removed from physically obtainable values and will only obscure the actual range of variation." Seems this issue is already covered in the essay Tempshill cited. MastCellTalk20:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are all interesting inferences, however, from a geological standpoint, this is a vanishingly small period of time. Given the earth is 4.5 billion years old, this graph could qualify as statistically useless. There's no context. What if this CO2 level is still lower than what existed at the height of any glacial maximum? The graph gives a gnat's breath amount of data in the lifespan of the planet. I'm hardly a global warming denialist, but this graph, from a scientific point of view, is kind of useless. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't (and frankly can't) expect every plot to be complete in itself. Presumably if you are showing such data you are also discussing its context. Dragons flight (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orangemarlin. I also recognize the point being made by MastCell. So why not set the temperature scale to the known historical limits. I am not suggesting that we use this exact graph, but here is a graph showing the limits (http://biocab.org/CO2-Geological_Timescale.jpg) as being 280ppm up to >5000ppm. Surely on a known scale that large this graph must be considered misleading since it clearly exaggerates the level of increase as compared to historical knowns. --GoRight (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, mine seems to agree with the opening sentence of the Wikipedia entry on history, specifically "History is the study of the past, particularly the written record of the human race, but more generally including scientific and archaeological discoveries about the past." Regardless of the term you wish to describe it by, do you dispute scientific legitimacy of the levels cited as having actually been attained throughout the history of the planet? --GoRight (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The context of the graph is what is important. In addition to the fact that it was done by Keeling. Finally, I gather that the magnitude of the change is not as important as the lags of the series. The last time CO2 spiked up so fast, bad things happened. Orangemarlin's point is good, but it boils down to how ergodic the series is. When we forecast economic downturns we hardly care about what went on 50, 20, 10 years ago. So, despite the fact that the earth is "old", to statistically judge if something 'weird' is happening, the 50 most recent observations may suffice. Brusegadi (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Oh, I have no more than the usual scepticism about these past CO2 limits (which means I accept them provisionally while keeping in mind the error bars - our own Image:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png is quite good). I dispute the scientific legitimacy of including them in a diagram that shows the anthropogenic CO2 increase, which happens on a completely different time scale. If you talk about millions and billions of year, the complete biology and geology of the planet changes - indeed, even the sun evolves significantly over those time scales. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept the argument about the context of the graph being AGW specific, so time scales outside of human existence wouldn't apply. I don't think that this graph is actually misleading to anyone smart enough to actually interpret the graph, which would no doubt include most of the contributors to this article, I am less confident of that fact with respect to the general readership of Wikipedia.
So, if the intent of the graph is to show the CO2 increases due to human activities, is the reader intended to assume that this graph is showing increases solely attributable to human causes? If so, is that in fact what the graph shows or should it also provide a separate line showing the human caused effects for comparison purposes? --GoRight (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point, actually the original commenter's point, is that the graph is misleading. I should have thought that obvious.
Stephan asserts that the purpose of the graph, or at least the context of the graph, is AGW specific. So, is it your contention that the curve shown in this graph represents solely human caused increases (i.e. that no portion of the curve shown is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes to cite one example)?
If this curve represents the cumulative effect of both natural causes AND human causes this should be made clear, and if possible the relative proportions should be called out. It would seem relevant to a discussion of overall CO2 increases that we understand the human caused increases in relation to the natural ones, would it not, given a stated context of AGW? Based on your comment it appears that you are assuming that humans are responsible for 100% of the increase shown. Is that correct? If so, I assume that you have some evidence to back that up? --GoRight (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but in the US a decent education does not come for free. The graph makes no claim about the source of the increase, so there is no onus to provide a reference there. But the topic is entirely uncontroversial, and references are easily available, some only two clicks away. So please stop wasting our time with trivialities and do your own research. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow the links to GHG, and the section natural and anthro, you'll find the assertion that the inc is anthro, and a ref thereunto. As I said, humans are responsible for 200% of the increase, not 100%. We could make all this more explicit, but Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the concentration of various greenhouse gases seems fairly explicit already. I'm unsure as to whether you are ignorant of all this, and would like to learn, or igrnorant, and would like to push your ignorance into the article. Your recent edits suggest the latter William M. Connolley (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. If WP:RFCU had any chance of being effective you would have been exposed long ago I am sure. WP:RFCU would be easy enough for a knowledgable user to evade. There are only so many ways that two accounts can be correlated, all of which are easily defeated. IMHO WP:MEAT (minus any derogatory implications) is a much more likely scenario, although I am certainly not accusing you of actually being such (in case there was any doubt). :) --GoRight (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carbon dioxide changes during the last 400,000 years.
I have no idea when it was removed, but the chart shown at right used to also appear in this article, and could provide additional context. Dragons flight (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The axes are properly labelled and chosen. The data starts in 1960, so it should start there; the concentration starts at around 300, so the Y-axis starting around there is not unreasonable, given that it only goes up. You could also present it as % increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration WRT 1960s level and get a graph which looks the same.
The graph covers a relevant time period.
That other graph shows CO2 over a very long time span, and thus doesn't really show the increase in modern times well at all because of how short modern times are from a geological standpoint. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]File:Sémhur draft1.svgSame graph as the first above, with a zero Y origin.
Titanium Dragon, to restate my original point, the reason the graph is misleading is because to the eye, it shows a rise in ppm of about 1300%, and not the 20% borne out by the data. If I could go down the hall and grab Edward Tufte then he would agree with me and settle the argument, but I can't. Tempshill (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an improvement, personally, though I suspect that in order to be more relevant, it should probably cover a greater time span. Tempshill (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Keeling data only exists for the period shown in the graph. Older measurements are sporadic and unreliable. For long periods, we use e.g. ice core data, but both the accuracy and, in particular, the temporal resolution are much worse. I somewhat prefer the original graph. Zero is not a realistic value (we don't plot climate tables in Kelvin, either). The original graph shows the development of CO2 in a much better resolution. Everybody can read the labels to understand the values. The new plot is somewhat better at showing the increasing slope of the plot, but it is much worse at showing the annual variation - which gives an important visual clue about the quality of the data. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your last sentence except I would change to "somewhat" to "far". Would it fix your concerns if the inset annual-variance graph were made larger? Tempshill (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it is silly to plot this data with all that white space, especially since 0 is not a historically or physically relevant value. I know Tufte's opinion (which Tempshill mentions above), but I generally believe that slavish adherence to that view makes data like this more difficult to understand (rather than less) because it inevitably obscures the physically & historically important variations. I also think it is bad (in an OR / POV sense) to think that Wikipedia knows "better" how to display the Keeling Curve than the many examples produced by other organizations [3]. The plot axis is labeled in a way that is legible even in thumbnail, and in my opinion that is the natural thing to do here rather than sticking in a lot of empty space. Dragons flight (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you. This is getting ridiculous guys! The fact is that this is how the graph is presented in reliable sources. It would be like demanding that gdp graphs on the article of the business cycle were made to include hundreds of years. Brusegadi (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then the 'reliable sources' are drawing graphs that are misleading to the eye. This is not a surprise; 'reliable sources' draw terribly misleading graphs all the time; look at the Wall Street Journal, which usually puts the origin just beneath the current data, presumably to inject excitement with a sharp up-curve.
What if this graph were re-plotted as a plus-and-minus percentage graph over the previous data? I wouldn't object to that. Tempshill (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about a simple statement on the note asserting the % change? You could say x% from year n to year m. But first, why 0? MastCell makes a good point above that 0 is not necessarily the right base value (using the essay you cite.) I think its fine as it is, because it is a heavily referenced graph intended to show recent increments. Brusegadi (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion on the natural vs. anthropogenic sources clarification.
In response to User:Count Iblis on my RFC talk page, here are a few additional questions:
Does the concentration of CO2 shown in the graph represent an equilibrium point relative to ALL sources and ALL sinks for CO2?
Do there exist natural sources of CO2 in the atmosphere? Do there exist natural processes which result in a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (a.k.a. natural CO2 sources)?
Does the graph in question make any attempt to adjust for those natural sources such that it can be properly said that the graph represents the effects of only anthropogenic sources, as is clearly implied by the paragraph immediately adjacent to the graph which begins with "Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the concentration of various greenhouse gases ..."?
We know (from your own sources) that humans have emitted enough CO2 to account for 200% of the observed increase, so obviously there are CO2 sinks at play here. Is it your position that these CO2 sinks only operate on CO2 increases from anthropogenic sources? If so, please provide some justification for this position as I see none.
Assuming that the CO2 sinks are NOT selective, does the CO2 concentration shown in the graph not represent the net effects of changes in ALL sources and ALL sinks over time?
The graph is the Keeling curve. Both the label and the linked article describe it clearly. It shows the concentration of CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa. I don't think your second question is what you want to ask. There are some sources of CO2 "in the atmosphere", namely the oxidization of precursors like CO and methane. They are are natural in as far as the the precursors are. The graph, as explained multiple times, shows the measured concentration of CO2. No one claimed that the graph shows the effect of "only anthropogenic sources" - as should be obvious from the caption that describes the natural seasonal cycle superimposed on the increase. The increase shown by the graph is indeed purely due to human sources, and is moderated by an increase in sinks. Unfortunately, these sinks have limited capacity (about half goes into the ocean, where the surface layer will become saturated) and negative impacts (see ocean acidification). CO2 sinks work effectively the same for natural and anthropogenic CO2 (there are some very slight preferences for certain isotopes in some sinks, and CO2 from different sources has different isotopic composition). As for your last leading question: May I remind you that your edit read "Recent increases, from both natural and man-made sources,..."? The increase is indeed attributed only to anthropogenic sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The graph, as explained multiple times, shows the measured concentration of CO2. Yes, I know, and this is exactly the point. It does not differentiate between natural and man-made sources of CO2. If there are both natural and man-made sources of CO2, the rise in the figure presented is the net result of ALL sources of CO2, not just the man made ones. By the time the CO2 arrives on Mauna Loa their measurements do not know the source. So it is fair to say that the net change as measured there is a function of ALL sources and sinks, not just anthropogenic ones as suggested by being presented in a section which says "Human activity since the industrial revolution has increased the concentration of various greenhouse gases ...". Why you object to making this implicit fact explicit for the reader eludes me.
You are looking for the information at right. Before the onset of anthropogenic forcing there were only minor natural fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. However, anthropogenic emissions have drove CO2 concentrations unnaturally higher since ~1875. In response to higher atmospheric concentrations some natural sinks also increased their drawdown. Hence the net change is less than would be anticipated from looking at anthropogenic factors alone. Nonetheless, the change that has occured was entirely triggered by the anthropogenic effects. Dragons flight (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Global Warming Causes Earthquakes
You guys sound so skeptical. :)
Look, MSNBC is even reporting it http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25222766/. Don't let the fact that CBS News and the AP have backtracked stop you. MSNBC is considered a credible news source, is it not?
Here is another paper from the same scientist: http://nujournal.net/core.pdf where we learn that the Earth might actually explode because of global warming. Who knew?
Even so, my addition is sourced according to Wikipedia standards (see WP:RS). I think you should let it stand.
My bad on the capitalization, no offense intended. I'll have to remember to put the double quotes around it, though, when discussing Global Warming "Scientists". Thanks for the recommendation. :) Even so, my addition does meet Wikipedia standards, WP:RS, so it seems unfair to impugn my intentions as being WP:POINT. I am just being WP:BOLD and you should be WP:AGF.
Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.
Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles.
The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes.
In science, single studies are usually considered tentative evidence that can change in the light of further scientific research. How reliable a single study is considered depends on the field, with studies relating to very complex and not entirely-understood fields, such as medicine, being less definitive. If single studies in such fields are used, care should be taken to respect their limits, and not to give undue weight to their results. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews, which combine the results of multiple studies, are preferred (where they exist).
OK, so we have "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." MSNBC is a respected mainstream publication, is it not? --GoRight (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we had to decide for this and many other wiki articles on scientific topics that non-academic sources are notoriously unreliable when they make statements about science, particularly when there are very few peer reviewed sources that confirm such statements. And, as you should know, Global Warming is a special case. The Wall Street Journal is a very reliable source on almost everything, except on Global Warming. :)
For a start, the newspaper account on the research as completely flawed. Including the preprint of the research article would have been possible, but then we needed to discuss the actual physics in the article and violate the usual rules on Original Research.
So, in general (not just in case of this global warming article), I don't think we should allow non-peer reviewed sources when they report on a new scientific result that as of yet has very few peer reviewed sources. Count Iblis (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let this drop at this point so as not to disrupt the article needlessly. It is not like this was a major point in the whole debate, but it certainly is relevant, if true. --GoRight (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously agree and I, personally, remain skeptical of the purported causal effects presented in the paper. But given the alarmist nature of the AGW proponents a claim of AGW causing earthquakes seemed like it would be uncontroversial, and indeed welcomed. So when I saw the article was reported in a respected mainstream publication I immediately thought of the more prominent group of AGW contributors here at Wikipedia. Just trying to help. :) --GoRight (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you suggest that? Regardless of my motives it was a legitimate entry on this page sourced from a WP:RS. I was clearly adhering to Wikipedia standards when I made the entry. The fact that I have decided not to continue a futile fight with the Connolley Gang doesn't diminish that in any way. I simply don't have the numbers required to over-rule your group's coordinated censorship of the GW pages because of WP:3RR. --GoRight (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speculate on your motives. But if you seriously try to push this MSNBC and "NuJournal" articles as reliable sources, you are terminally stupid. If not, you are violating WP:POINT. Either way, stop it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already dropped it above, something I am sure you are completely aware of. You are the one who seems bent on continuing this conversation. Either way, please don't misrepresent my position. I have never asserted that the "NuJournal" was WP:RS, I only asserted that MSNBC is WP:RS and it is, regardless of your self-serving opinion. --GoRight (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not a regular participant here, but I can't see why global warming can't cause earthquakes. Melting shifts the ice, such as with the glacial rebound, and can stretch the Earth's crust. Are there any scientific publications about this, though? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does cause seismic activity on Greenland, so called ice or glacial quakes [4]. But i doubt if there is enough ice-melt to have any significant impact on the crust yet. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no basis for excluding credible reliable sources like MSNBC or the Wall St Journal, regardless of whther they are academically peer-revewed or not. Doing so will greatly harm this article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That it appeared in MSNBC or the WSJ isn't the reason that its being removed. It's because it raises the red flag, and that subsequent examination of the source (the "scientist") shows us, that it is indeed fringe view appearing in a non-reliable "scientific journal". And that apparently the MSNBC brought the article, because it was a really slow news-day (i hope ;). May i suggest that you check the talk-page, and the discussions before reverting, and repeating an argument? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, GoRight tried to make a point by trying to edit this into this article. And perhaps it isn't that bad that he tried to do that. He genuinly believes that the scientific consensus on global warming is not a result of good science, that critics are systematically ignored and that this consensus is driven by alarmism combined with the desire to implement left wing liberal policies.
So, he thought some fringe article about earthquakes would easily make it into this article because of the alarmist conclusions. But he failed and perhaps he will now reconsider his ideas about climate science. Count Iblis (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. You hardly know me so don't try to represent my positions, please. I still maintain that my addition met wikipedia standards and thus is, in fact, a legitimate edit. I simply lack the incentive to actually waste time fighting the Connolley gang over it. I knew that they would object despite it being properly sourced, as is evident from the commentary above. I am well aware that Wikipedia standards mean very little when the material supports a POV other than their own.
As for my views on climate change regarding the validity of the science being espoused by the alarmists, it is not the raw data that I question ... only their conclusions and the obvious political motivations that drive them. When it is all said and done the temperature will do whatever it is going to do and then the story will be told. --GoRight (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The arbcom says that for scientific articles (read: this one) sources should be textbooks or peer reviewed articles. Your edit included a hypothesis pushed by one fringe scientist published in a non-peer reviewed source. So no matter how many times you say your edits have abided by Wikipedia policy, it doesn't make it so. If you continue to push this nonsense, the next stop is going to be the administators' noticeboard. Have a nice day. Raul654 (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. If this is true (the arcom bit) it hasn't made its way into the officially documented policies, as we have seen above ... no matter how many times you repeat it. And what am I pushing? I have already agreed to drop it as you no doubt know. All I am doing now is keeping the record straight against the continuing onslaught of false accusations such as yours. --GoRight (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since my efforts to replace the Global Temperature PNG graphic with a SVG version have been reverted a couple of times, I like to figure out: why? Wikipedia:Image use policy says vector graphics should be prefered to raster images. ––Bender235 (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has come up a number of times. I think the last discussion is here. Vector graphics are preferred if all other things are equal. But the general feeling has been that the PNG is much superior aesthetically, and is clearer and easier to read. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those who watch this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/oren0, since One major reason I'm applying for this is that the recent unprotection of several global warming pages and the subsequent retirement from the issue of a checkuser admin has left a void which needs to be filled by more admins to protect from sockpuppetry and vandalism.William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CAn someone add this in the solar variation page.
08:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Tiny
Concerning this, I left out "mean" because I gather that global temperature is already a mean. Hmm, but maybe you (ubersciencenerd) are referring to a mean of means (of that averaged quantity that is global temperature over different points in time.) Brusegadi (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a buzz surrounding what is usually summarised as Peak Oil these days. The concept was earlier mostly discussed by the tin-foil hat crowd, but now seems to be a recognised and tangible fact. I guess peak coal is an equally important concept. Does SRES take these into consideration? If not, has there been or is there any research on this? I'd say this should be a quite important question, both when it comes to warming estimates and future energy supply. (Sorry if it's already been discussed here). Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The SRES scenarios incorporate a range of what they describe as "resource availability", but it is not a strong constraint on the possible futures described in SRES in large part because in the late 90s there wasn't a lot of agreement about when resource limitations would start to matter. Dragons flight (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would the (supposed) increased knowledge today influence anything in the article to a noteworthy degree? Should it be mentioned at all? In that case, does anyone know any citations we could use? By the way, a rather academic site on oil production, demand and prices seems to be [www.theoildrum.com]. Although one-sided, it refers to empirical knowledge to back up claims. Maybe it can be of some help. Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expect improved knowledge will influence the range of projected scenarios, but I don't know of any places where this has been discussed in detail. I expect that SRES will be updated before the next IPCC report though (although such an update may still be well in our future). Dragons flight (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope someone with a thorough overview of literature and current research can look into this, because the article will probably be requested to contain something about this pretty soon. Narssarssuaq (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict over NPOV in the introductory paragraphs
There seems to be a minor edit war over the wording in the introduction, and I apologize if my edit(s) sparked it. However, there are a few things that, in my opinion (and that of Slym Gym, although William M. Connolley, Raul654, etc. appear to disagree), should be slightly modified for the purposes of neutrality. Specifically, the phrase "overwhelming majority" seems to have the intent of leaving the impression that nearly all scientists agree with the IPCC. This implied message contradicts some of the statistics cited in Climate change denial, such as:
A 2007 Newsweek poll found 42% believed scientists disagree "a lot" that "human activities are a major cause of global warming."
Both removing the word "overwhelming" and attributing it to the Royal Society have been met with opposition. May I have the opinion of a third party on this matter? Thank you. With all due respect to those who believe that anthropogenic global warming is an absolute truth, that there is complete consensus, that the debate is over, UberScienceNerdTalkContributions01:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction. What you are citing is a poll of the general public about their perceptions of what scientists' think, that's not at all the same as what scientists themselves think. You are right though, the intent of the current wording is to convey that nearly all scientists agree. Dragons flight (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read this. May I suggest that you also read the work cited by the dailytech. I think he (the author of the original study) did something sketchy. Can you see it (when you read it)? Brusegadi (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is kinda weird. For some reason, Oreskes doesn't point out the mistakes Schulte may have or may have not made, she just says that Schulte has to be wrong because he published in “a known contrarian journal” (Energy and Environment), and because he's a medical researcher. To me, that doesn't sound convincing at all. ––Bender235 (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably true, but if Energy and Environment isn't a reliable source because it's not peer-reviewed, then what is RealClimate and why is it used as a source on Wikipedia? ––Bender235 (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's what we call applying reasonable standards. You might want to compare the opinion of the scientific community to both venues... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the "opinion of the scientific community"? How? Has there been an opinion survey on that? Fact is: E&E is a non-peer-review journal and thus not a reliable source. But it's also a fact that RealClimate is a blog, with no peer review either. So we shouldn't count it as a reliable source as well. But I guess you kinda bought into that idea of "good science" and "bad science", huh? ––Bender235 (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my distinction is "science" and "no science". I've looked at a couple of articles in E&E, and found most of them crap. I looked up E&E, and found that even some of the authors now consider it crap and that even the editor in chief admits that her political agenda determines what gets published. I've read some articles on RC, and found them well-references, without obvious errors, and written by acknowledged experts. I looked them up and found favorable opinions in Science (journal) and Nature (journal). WP:SPS says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". As far as I can tell, RC qualifies.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just avoid using real climate as a source, despite the fact that many things posted there make lots of sense. Let's stick to things that fit clear categories of or are widely agreed to be reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with reading real climate and grabbing reliable sources from there to use here, or even with using it to make arguments/figure things out on the talk page. But I really think we shouldn't cite it on the article page. - Enuja (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Enuja: ACK.
@Stephan Schulz: I don't share your biased point of view. Not that I'm saying E&E is a high quality journal, but RealClimate.org is often times just polemic commentary. We should avoid using RealClimate as a source, just as we should avoid E&E. ––Bender235 (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Building on Stephan Schulz's point, another advantage of using realclimate is that it is easily accessible. For most readers if you cite an article in a journal they will not have access to it or they will not understand it. So, I think of realclimate as a survey of the literature at times, which is useful. Brusegadi (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got to disagree with this one. Sources should be used to verify text, not incorporated as additional reading. Therefore they should be the best available source, which in most cases in science topics are peer-reviewed journals. The average reader should not have to understand the source, that is what the text in Wikipedia is there for. They only need the source to verify what is in Wikipedia is accurate, if they feel so inclined. OTOH there is nothing wrong to referring to other publications in a "further reading" section or similar. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very familiar with climate journals. It sometimes feels (in other disciplines) as if papers are doing their own thing and citing them is like citing one person. Whereas surveys carry much more weight. I understand your point, and I agree with it, but I have to wonder how we can convey broad acceptance of an idea by citing an individual paper? Brusegadi (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent, but this is still a reply to Brusegadi) Use review articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and use the IPCC. - Enuja (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Energy & Environment rejected Schulte's paper [5]. That in itself is fascinating given that E&E has consistently provided a forum for publishing the work of climate change sceptics. [6]Dragons flight (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They rejected it originally, but if I understand correctly they published it later more or less unchanged: Schulte, Klaus-Martin, "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? " E&E 19.2, 2008, pp. 281-286(6) N p holmes (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A part of the introduction is unclear in that it leaves it to the reader to guess at what is meant and quantitatively so by "overwhelming majority". Does this mean over 50%, 80%, 98%? I don't know and it is presumed upon the reader to simply accept this assertion without any data or qualification and for them to guess at what percentage this implies. Whilst references are included the characterisation is open to interpretation by a varied readership some of whom will interpret overwhelming to mean greater than 50%. The percentage when stated explicitly places the data in a qualitative range framework. Also "overwhelming" may be interpreted as dominance. A better formulation would "over n% of climate scientists" where n is the supported percentage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo Pardilla (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I not aware that you can speak of percentages when it comes to this matters. So, good luck finding a source that words this matter that way. There are many sources, however, that use the word 'majority' or the word 'consensus' (not to imply that these terms are equivalent) and the above was chosen because it can be attributed to one of the most prestigious scientific societies in the world. Brusegadi (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst these sources may very well use the word 'majority' or the word 'consensus' a better source for a percentage value would arise from a peer reviewed survey that asks the scientists directly in a standard way rather than interprets their work. Whilst i agree that the word 'majority' or the word 'consensus' is correct and that the scientific respectability of the source is not disputed it still leaves it open to the guesswork of the reader to determine what the percentage is. For a scientific article this seems rather vague. Its fair enough to say "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]" but once again the accuarcy and dare i say strength of this statement would be enhanced by having a numeric component. Perhaps you can tell me what figure you would apply 50%, 80%, 98% or another number? i guess it would be over 95% but whos to say? Maybe these surveys dont exist in the required form however we wont know with accuracy until its available for study. I will keep a lookout for such.Theo Pardilla (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am confident that no survey exists that directly polls the opinions of scientists on the issue of global warming in a way that is widely accepted as reasonable by the scientific community. (The few times direct surveys have been tried, the results were heavily disupted.) Hence, we are often reduced to repeating qualitative statements about the perceptions of "consensus" issued by major scientific organizations, which hopefully are able to credibly convey the state of affairs in the scientific community. I also would prefer something more concrete and direct, but it simply doesn't exist. Dragons flight (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, That seems a fair appraisal.
After further consideration it seems to me that the majority of climate scientists believe that the IPCCC findings are understated given the very conservative process and the direction in which new scientific studies are trending. Therefore it seems a mischaracterisation to simply say overwhelming majority agree when in a sense they disagree because its too conservative. Or perhaps i can put this another way, of 100% of climate scientists 2% believe that its overstated and 29% believe its about right and 69% believe its understated. To frame the direction of agreement to the limited range of a perception by scientists of (overstatement <> about right) excludes opinion of scientists that believe IPCCC is underestimating, and is therefore inaccurate at least.Theo Pardilla (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true but only because you are framing it from a point perspective. So if a scientist believes the the increment in temperature to be 2 degrees and the IPCC says one degree then he disagrees. But if we change this to the scientist believes a two degree increment will take place and the IPCC believes that an increment of at least 1 degree will take place then we are fine. I have not read the entire report, but I do know that it has been judged to be overly conservative. So, my perception is that it is the lowest common denominator. I believe that Bill Gates has billions, so if someone asks me if he has $1,000.00 I would say yes. It might be a bad example, but I hope it transmits my idea. Brusegadi (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading: request
Request addition of more currrent available sound material. Case in point:
The main chart is up to 2005 or 2006. Clicking on the image will take you to the image page, which in turn links to the most recent HadCRUT data. Adding one or two years will not significantly alter the graph, so I don't think it's worth the effort. But try for yourself. The graph from icecap does not look like anything I have ever seen. It seems to be unsourced, too. Compare our Image:Satellite Temperatures.png, which covers the same data in more detail and gives the sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the main chart at the top of the page is all the way up to 2007, and since it uses yearly averages and we haven't completed 2008 yet, it obviously can't be much more up to date than it already is. -- Leland McInnes (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
