Talk:Climate change

Archives
Chronological archives
December 2001 – October 2002 October 2002 – February 2003 February–August 2003 August 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – February 2005 February–April 2005 April–June 2005 May–October 2005 October–November 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January–April 2006 April–May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August–October 2006 October–November 2006 December 2006 – February 2007 February–March 2007 April 2007 April 2007 (2) April 2007 (3) April 2007 (4) April 2007 (5) April 2007 (6)
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

this can be dismissed immediately, of course. Agreed?

I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss The Register Jan. 28, 2009

Dr John Theon, the retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs who supervised James Hansen -- the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention -- has come out as a skeptic about man-made global warming. "My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is... http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=10044&m=12472

Global Temperature graph

Perhaps this has been discussed before. Regarding the global temperature graph, how about including NCDC and GISTEMP temperature trends along with the HadCRUT data currently displayed?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmb92 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The graphs produced by any of the the global data sets are almost identical. So it doesn't make much sense to show more than one. -Atmoz (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Improving Signal to Noise Ratio

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

---

We need to resist the urge to all re-say the obvious and just point people to previous discussions.

---

Folks, its all jolly good fun pointing out the errors in peoples ways, but it does fill up the talk page. I think we need to resist the urge to all re-say the obvious and just point people to previous discussions. That way discussion aimed at actually improving the article won't get lost William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Name one example of "discussion aimed at actually improving the article", please ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, theres ... no ... then .... no .... errr? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article requires there be paragraphs that say there are some number of non-specialist scientists who think that the science is not being properly interpreted (human-induced global warming is not proven?) and climate specialists don't suffer from alarmism. Until that happens, people like me will be tempted to suppose this article suffers from bias though for no understandable reason. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Its already there - read the lead: "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings,[10] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[11][12]" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I can see the problem - it's this phrase in the lead here: "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings,[10] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[11][12]".

So the word individual has been used to stigmatise quite large numbers of scientifically minded people and make it seem as if their views are marginal, while the article is written on the basis that scientists working on the problem all agree there really is a problem and it's right to be alarmist.

The trolling I can see is a small number (is it three?) of long-standing editors determined to make this article biased. I just looked at what people were saying in the last month (it's hidden away[1]). It's obvious that there are lots of scientific people (1000s?) who dispute (and some who think they can disprove) the alarmism, and lots of potential editors who would like to properly balance this article. Global Warming may be real, but a close look at what's going on here makes it look like a scam. I'm not the only person who thinks so, far from it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your definition of "scientific people"? You might want to take a look at scientific opinion on climate change to get an idea of how well-supported the mainstream (IPCC) position is. "Individual" is not stigmatizing - I'm an individual, and proud of it - but entirely correct. And your use of the term alarmism is a bit troubling. The mainstream position is not particularly alarmist. See the FAQ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Stephan – I’m sorry, thousands of scientists and tens of thousands of related professionals does not correlate with “individual”. Be it the current large number of scientists that have recently come out against the AGW theory (as discussed here and data provided many times) or the large number of likeminded professionals as referenced in the Oregon Petition, “individual is a miss characterization. < Mk > 68.56.189.91 (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with the debates in the now-archived portion, which I tried to iterate ad nauseum, is that the majority of those disputing global warming entered the talk page debate with either (a) dubious sources, (b) a lack of understanding of climate science, (c) a deep belief that global warming is not an issue, (d) a lack of politeness (which likely alienated some of those who opposed their views from trying to objectively work with them), or some combination thereof. The best way to go about things would be for those with disputes to put them on the table with links to good scientific sources, and for a respectful discussion to occur in which changes may occur to the article. In that way, an adequate discussion can be built, and whatever the result, there is a general benefit of knowledge that can most likely be built into the encyclopedia. It is a slower way of going about things, but I think that especially on a topic like global warming, where opinions are strongly held, forcing debates to be about some concrete piece of scientific evidence would be both useful and important. Awickert (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Let me look at that map of the Near East again..." ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey! No crushing my dreams! :) Awickert (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick question. Given that "troll" is generally recognized as being a term of derision with the intent to insult the one or ones being referenced here (who are by definition wikipedia editors), does this section violate WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, possibly WP:SOAP, and/or any number of other related policies? --GoRight (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please help me to understand why? I mean this seems to be a clear case of a WP:NPA violation against some subset of the contributors here. Why do you think it is not? And the entire need for such a section seems questionable if one adheres to WP:AGF. Why do you believe these editors are acting in anything other than good faith (which is pretty much implied by the use of the term "troll")? I think some explanation here would benefit those involved and perhaps improve the situation overall, which I assume is the ultimate goal here, correct? --GoRight (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but if people feel offended by the title, it would be easy to re-name it to something that's more polite and still states that this is basically a "re-boot from generally unproductive discussions" Awickert (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, refer to improving the signal-to-noise ratio if you like. The purpose is to clear rubbish from the page and make room for discussion of the article. --TS 00:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(@Stephan) See, now this is the type of response that makes it all so confusing for people. You have chosen to focus on the "P" part of that, which would seem fine with me but for some reason when I used the term "AGW scientologists" I was told by some prominent contributors to this very page that THAT was a WP:NPA violation even though there was no specific "P" there either. Indeed, this point was recently brought up in an WP:AN discussion started by Raul. Can you please reconcile these two positions for me, if you can? I am sure that other editors on this page would be interested in the response as well in the interests of avoiding WP:NPA violations all around. --GoRight (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, this is turning into voidness. ¿What does scientologists, trolls and the "P" part has anything to do with improving the article?. --Seba5618 (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

True that. Renamed - thanks to TS for the name idea. Discussion over, I hope. Awickert (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The Hadley Centre Albatross

As many people know, I have made many graphics related to global warming, including the introductory chart in this article which is based on data from the Hadley Centre. As some of you know, I also sometimes make imagery for commercial publishers (books and things). A while ago, in relation to a different project, I had an extended discussion with the Hadley Centre regarding their position on commercial use.

The Hadley Centre position, in a nutshell, is that their data is free for private and scientific use but that the commercial use of their data may entitle them to royalties. [2] [3] (page 2)

Their documentation leaves something to be desired. In particular, they distinguish raw data (by which they basically mean weather reports and unfiltered measurements) from "added value products" (which includes basically everything where Hadley Centre resources were used to collate, condense, and interpret the data). But the gist of it is that they believe Crown Copyright gives them control over how the data in "added value products" are used.

This is an unusual position from my point of view. US law does not allow one to control scientific data through copyright. However, the UK is generally amongst the most permissive of nations when extending copyright to all works. Quoting from UK copyright law: "The UK copyright distinctively emphasizes the labour and skill that has gone into the work, which is why some of its basic principles are referred to as the 'Sweat of the Brow' doctrine. This stands in contrast to the usual emphasis on creativity..." Not being an expert on UK law, I can't claim to know if the Hadley Centre position is correct, though I will concede that "labour and skill" is involved in creating a global temperature record. In my discussion with them, they clearly believe they are entitled to financial compensation for the use of their data in commercial imagery. (As an aside, their licensing fees are reasonable and non-discriminatory, so it isn't much of a hardship for real commercial projects.)

However, if one accepts their position, then one is basically forced to conclude that plots using their data are necessarily non-commercial (at least within the jurisdiction of UK law), and hence not "free" in the sense Wikipedia intends.

As a result of this, I have basically decided not to use Hadley Centre data in any future imagery I create for Wikipedia. I hope to provide replacements for all the major images using Hadley Centre data before too much time passes.

However, I am somewhat disappointed with this conclusion since there are several reasons for preferring the Hadley Center temperature series to the major alternatives (e.g. GISTEMP and NCDC), namely a somewhat longer record and better track record at avoiding embarrassing errors. Dragons flight (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see the potential problem. But by that same reasoning, we could not freely quote the King James Bible (still under crown copyright), or its many derivatives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What "we" do is yet to be determined. What "I" intend to do is to stop releasing imagery under my name that has an ambiguous status in the UK. Dragons flight (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand, and of course it's entirely your decision. But HadCrut is the best data set we have, and you are the best visualizer. It's sad that we loose this great resource due to an unfortunate and unclear legal situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

IANAL. But to me the last part of the PDF (on scientific cooperation) reads like the GPL copy-left. As long as its for a scientific purpose, and that the results of the scientific purpose (ie. enriching (such as making a graph)) is available under the same copyright. (ie. can't be commercialized) Then we can use it. That would be compatible with the GPL requirements for Wikipedia - but again IANAL. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Stephan's legal interpretation is correct, but if it is, then it certainly is not Wikipedia compatible. Specifically, you are not allowed to limit what you can do with Wikipedia content to certain endeavors (like science) while prohibiting it from being used in others. That simply isn't free enough for our purposes. It's an extremely unfortunate situation with no good choices (except to get them to change their policies). Raul654 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia, as far as I understand it, applies copyright according to Florida law, where non-creative collections of data are not protected (to my knowledge). So legally we might be in the clear. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point - I forgot that. But it's (arguably?) not true for Commons, where the picture currently resides. Raul654 (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this also applies to the commons - "free" as per Florida law. Notice [4]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See this lovely little discussion. Raul654 (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Enwiki requires that content be free in the US. Commons requires that it be free in the US and in the country of origin. Dragons flight (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Which means that we are good, as far as I can tell. The country of origin of the images is the US (or is it?), where you prepared them from data that is free in the US. Of course this gets lawyerly ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Met Office have always been a bit cr*p like that; its the govts fault; they want them to look nice and commercial, and try to earn money, even in situations where there is no possible hope of earning money, and it costs more to try to earn the money that it would to just give the data away. They do (or did) similarly dumb things with their climate model. So it goes William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Current Data

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

---

See FAQ entry: "Image X needs updating"

---

Might not the article benefit by having some reference to current data on Global warming? I don't seem to see much in the article dated to observations since 2005 and most go back to research done at the end of the last millenium. Rktect (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

2009 Updates Needed

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

---

New FAQ entry: "Image X needs updating"

---

I've noticed that nearly all the evidence presented in charts and from panel rulings has upper limits of 2004 or 2005. I believe the charts need to be updated with the newest information, since it is hard to show a trend whilst in the middle of it. Besides, updated information may paint a clearer picture of the theory itself. If you can find more up-to-date information, then work it into this existing article. --Triadian (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This keeps coming up. A new FAQ entry would be advisable. Raul654 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I took a stab at writing the new FAQ, although I think it could use some fine-tuning. -Atmoz (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:NOT#NEWS should cover it. In terms of climatology, four years is the blink of an eye. --TS 14:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I might suggest that the mean temperatures 1994-2004 image is the source of the problem. People see that particular figure and conclude the data is out of date and should be updated. I realize this figure is here to show that the last 20 or so years are significantly warmer than the previous (even if its a 10 year interval), and that a 1998-2008 interval would show no real difference if compared to the same time period as 1994-2004 (just by eye balling the temperature trend).... but I believe this is the source for all those update the data comments. --Snowman frosty (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Etymology

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

---

(A) "Global warming" was not coined in soylet green. (B) There is no need for an etymology section. Raul654 (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

---

This article [5] says the first use of the phrase "global warming" was in a 1973 movie called Soylent Green. Is that true? The article also discusses whether to call the phenomenon. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't know what is the first use, but on December 21, 1969 the NYTimes wrote: "Physical scientist J O Fletcher warns man has only a few decades to solve problem of global warming caused by pollution", so clearly the phrase "global warming" is at least that old. Dragons flight (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The term "deniers" needs to be debated

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

---

This is not the correct place to discuss global warming in general, or the meaning of the word "denier", which does not appear in the article.

---

The term “denier” is often used in discussion of this article as well as related material in WP. In the current environment I have a question as to how one should interpret the use of this term ? Does denier refer to:

1.) those persons denying global warming is occurring ?, or…

2.) those persons denying global cooling is occurring ?, or…

2.) those persons who deny that the cycle we are experiencing is a recurring natural cycle (such as defined by Milanovich), or…

3.) those persons who do not deny global warming, but deny the AGW (man-made or induced global cooling) theory ? < Mk > 68.56.189.91 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

See Denialism for a description of the term and its application. The words "deny", "denier" and "denialism" are not used in the current revision of the body of this article, though some of the references use the terms, and there is a section hatnote reference to another Wikipedia article called Climate change denial in which denialism in the context of global warming is discussed. See WP:NOTFORUM for an explanation of why this isn't an appropriate place to get into a discussion not directly related to the content of this article. --TS 17:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Global Warming vs Global Warming theory

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

---

Covered in the FAQ Raul654 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

---

This seriously needs to be changed back to Global Warming Theory. Just stating it as fact is unscientific and is further supporting the poor journalism and research that revolves around this issue.--Baina90 (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What?^ --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

^Can you be a bit more specific? Changed "back"? The warming is a fact, the explanation is a "scientific theory". This is a well-defined term that is quite different from the vernacular use of "theory" - one reason why "theory" is a word to avoid. --Stephan Schulz

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

FAQ explination irrelevant

I understand why my point was archived and not open to further discussion. However, the response which is given by the FAQ is simply irrelivant. It states that "the warming is a fact". This I don't dispute, but the Global Warming Theory concentrates on man-made CO2 as the cause for this warming; this is theory.

I realise that I may be coming across as a far-right extremist, I can assure you that I am not, infact I am far from that. The point which I am trying to make is that the title should concentrate on the reasons for the warming and NOT the warming itself.--Baina90 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this article deals with the phenomenon itself and the different theories that try to explain it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Global cooling" should be added to the See Also for historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thustrae (talk • contribs) 08:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in the infobox at the end of the article, together with a lot of other and at least equally important links. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Baina90. This page deals exclusively with the scientific theory of anthropogenic warming. I would suggest that changing the name to 'Global warming (Anthropogenic)' and the first sentence to 'Global warming is the human induced increase...'. These two changes will contribute to the public understanding of what this article is about; while not diminishing the scientific status. --Gonardia (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo

In the phrase such as the Ken Caldeira the word "the" should be removed. 192.55.54.37 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Carl D

Fixed. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Unduly Optimistic?"

The last sentence in the first paragraph of this article now states:

"However, there is significant evidence that the climate models currently in use are unduly optimistic, as they fail generally to include non-linear effects such as the clathrate gun, which may lead to runaway climate change."

I object to this statement residing there and certainly object to it being unsourced. Given the information preceding it, it is a pretty bold claim that needs strong, legitimate sources to back it up. If nobody adds sources, I definitely think it ought to be removed. Eebster the Great (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's true that present generation models don't include clathrate gun and the like, but the "unduly optimistic" wording is inappropriate. You can fix it yourself, if I don't do it first. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but good luck getting it changed. They locked this article and the people that control it are unlikely to make any changes. This totaly defeats the point of an open source "free" encyclopedia.--Baina90 (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out that he was quite welcome to make the change himself, so your "locked" accusation is mystifying. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The page has already been satisfactorily changed; thank you. Eebster the Great (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It was entered yesterday at 7:35, 27 January 2009 by Andrewjlockley. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the need for citations. However, IMO this is a classic case where a 'fact' tag should have been used instead of an edit. I've now put a whole slew of citations in, and edited the text to make similar points to those which were stripped. Hopefully there will now be no arguing, but please feel free to put in more citations if you don't think 6 is enough.Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

An edited draft is not a reliable source. This article is about Global warming, not about the IPCC, so having a sentence about the process of creating IPCC reports and details about problems with the IPCC reports should absolutely not be in the lead section of the article about global warming. In the text of the article about global warming, yes. In the lead of the various IPCC articles, yes (I'm not sure which article, though). Personally, I don't think it makes sense to use large numbers of sources in the lead is not appropriate. Put one good source in the lead (for information that should be in the lead) and the detailed sources in the body of article. If you contribute to Wikipedia, you must be willing to have people edit your contributions or disagree on the talk page. - Enuja (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed some of the sources used that I did not think were reliable (we're pretty big sticklers for using reliable sources, by which we mean in part "no news articles or blogs" when editors put in things critical about climate change. We must have exactly the same reliable source standards no matter the "perspective" of the sources or how they are used. I don't think the press release is a reliable enough source, but I'm not editing it out myself because I want to get a consensus on this talk page before making any major changes to the lead section. The Calthrate gun hypothesis is mentioned in the next paragraph. I think that the structure without Andrewjlockey's recent contributions to the second paragraph of the lead is a much better structure. Paragraph 1: definition. Paragraph 2: actual temperature changes, scientific consensus on broad outline of views. Paragraph 3: remaining uncertainties (which are Andrewjlockey's recent contributions to the second paragraph). Paragraphs 4 & 5 Adaptation and mitigation. Let's keep the intro as straightforward, simple, readable, and broad as we can. The details should go into the text of the article and into the more detailed articles. - Enuja

(talk) 21:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I used the press-release as it's a lot more digestible than a raw paper. I don't agree that the IPCC process shouldn't be commented on here. The IPCC is seen as the most notable global standard for Global Warming projections, but its process means its conclusions are out of date by several years. It's absolutely essential' that the recently-identified risks of runaway climate change are mentioned in the lead of this article otherwise it will seriously misinform readers. I'll have a go at cleaning up the other issues you mentioned to make it compact and readable. BTW, multiple citations are already used in the lead, so I don't see why you singled out my edits for amendment.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've tidied it up. I think it's clean, compact, adequately referenced (for a lead) and it reflects the consensus without ignoring the worrying recent evidence. Hopefully people will agree this is basically OK for now - until the next batch of terrifying data comes out! Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with citing sources is this: although a press release is more readable, an article as controversial as Global warming should maintain the gold standard of having only peer-reviewed scientific publications as much as possible. If this gold standard is not upheld, every agency that issues press releases - or worse, ever news agency - becomes fair game, from the apocalyptic to the "global warming isn't anthropogenic" to "it isn't happening".

On another note, I deleted a sentence from the part of the lead edited by User:Andrewjlockley, as it basically re-stated the previous sentence.

Awickert (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)