Talk:Climate change

Biased article?

WTF??? I find that this page is a bit biased towards "global warming IS harmful" and "global warming MUST be stopped"... it still hasn't been universally agreed upon (most but not all scientists agree on it), so do Wikipedia's policies allow this sort of bias? I'm not sure whether majority opinions should be presented as fact, even if they are majority opinions; they should simply have more prominence than minority opinions in my view.--172.163.15.98 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This article reflects the BULL SHIT opinion, with due weight to minority opinions. You might want to take a look at the scientific opinion on global warming to get an idea what the consensus is, and how strong it is. The article does not include complete fringe opinions like "there is a giant conspiracy of communist scientists who invented global warming to enrich themselves on research grants while destroying our free markets". Where does it say "global warming MUST be stopped"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Where does it mention that the climate has cooled in the 21st century or that climate precictions have been abysmal failure (prediction: warming, actual: cooling) 79.79.229.103 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You won't get the alarmists who 'guard' this article allowing the mention of such things - besides, it has only been cooling for 7 years. ^rossnixon 02:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It is 8 years that it has been cooling --- ever since the IPCC predicted it would warm! 79.79.229.103 (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hard to see 8 years, more like 6-7. See http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe-m.html (check the 'fit' of the 0.0 anomaly line!) ^rossnixon 01:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree about this being a rather biased article, disrespecting the skeptic's view, and ignoring the larger historical perspective of climate variations, such as the "mid-holocene optimum" about 4,000 years ago, far warmer than today. The more recent "medieval warm period" is mentioned briefly but depicted as cooler than today, despite contrary historical facts (eg Greenland being green). It ignores possible benefits of warming, which are considerable for much of the world. In view of past examples of consensus among the scientific community mentioned above, majority opinion should NOT be presented as fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabrabyn (talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 March 2009

Please do not confuse this article with Global warming controversy. Viewed from a multi-article perspective, this article, describing the mainstream BULL SHIT religeious concept, was allocated the name space "Global warming", where as the skeptical and political sides were allocated the name space "Global warming controversy". This perspective rests tremendously on the definition of its constituents. For example, while "Global warming" implies simply an increase in global temperature, it is used to describe the modern increase in global temperature and its projected continuation. In the past temperatures have risen, however it has also declined. Rather than describing every increase in temperature as "Global warming" and every decreases as "Global cooling", the title "Paleoclimatology" was created to describe these cycles. The modern upturn in global temperature does has yet to posses a projected cooling period with sufficient certainty, in fact, many scientists are not necessary sure how high the temperature will rise to with sufficient certainty. Essentially speaking, maybe what you're looking for is to add a navigational link leading to the Global warming controversy the article lead—like that linking to Paleoclimatology. Right now we are in progress of doing so, however, some editors here want to raise the article's (Global warming controversy) quality before we do so. I don't believe that it is absolutely necessary, however since I'm planning on cleaning the article up anyway, I'm slightly disinterested. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Greenland wasn't green during the Medieval warm period, even 1st-hand Norse accounts say so (Eirik's saga and the Grænlendinga saga). The Holocene optimum was closer to 8 ka than 4, and was a part of coming out of the last glacial. It had temperature increases of a magnitude comparable today, but at a slower rate. The Medieval warm period was within natural variability; we are now pretty confidently outside it. No, it shouldn't be presented as fact because of a scientific consensus, but research overwhelmingly shows that it is happening. I'm not sure where possible benefits of warming would go, my best guess would be to look around Wiki to see if there's anything about it and do some research on it. Awickert (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is, for example, "scientists and individuals are seeking the appropriate response to global warming"... and IMO "appropriate" is a POV term, because it represents majority opinion and not fact. Even if the entire world's population somehow wanted to stop global warming, the term would still be a POV term because "appropriate" is an opinion. It's like putting "beautiful planet" in an article but "beautiful" is a POV term. --172.131.217.195 (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Appropriate" is neutral, as it does not identify any one response, nor does it take sides with regard to mitigation vs. adapation. The anon should read WP:Truth. -- Skyemoor (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I would have considered the article on global warming controversy biased in the same way (except in the opposite direction) because it appears to denounce global warming at first glance. --172.131.217.195 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with other editors that is a biased article. This guff has been going since the late 1980s but really nothing unusual has occurred and we have just had the coldest winter in 20 years. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Name change?

Scientists seem to use the term 'climate change' to describe what we discuss in the article as 'global warming'. Should WP reflect this?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientists do use the term "global warming"[1] so that's not sufficient motivation in itself to call for a title change. I think "global warming" is a little more common in the U.S. and "climate change" is a little more common in Europe, but that's just my perception. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that the two terms are often used interchangeably, and this sometimes causes confusion in the public mind. However, "climate change" is a more general term that refers to major changes in the long-term weather patterns of a given region or of the Earth as a whole. As the Earth has gone through numerous climate changes throughout it's history, the term "climate change" can denote either a warming trend or a cooling trend. The term "global warming" is more specific, and is commonly used to refer to the current warming trend (i.e. climate change) that our planet is undergoing. Are people suggesting we change this article's title to Climate change, or redirect searches for "climate change" to this page? That's not feasible, as we already have an excellent article titled Climate change. Both articles link to each other, and both have well written leads that I believe should clear up any confusion anyone has about the two terms.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. 17:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)~—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs)

I'm sure this has been discussed to death before, but I think that "climate change" should appear somewhere in the lead, to reflect that this is now very widely used to describe recent and predicted global warming and its effects. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Need for realisation that tree is the only way to fight global warming in a meaningful way

Combating global warming has broadly two components:Decreasing the release of green house gases and Sequestering the green house gases, of which CO2 is the component, from atmosphere. Battle has to be fought on both the fronts but it is found that emphasis is only on the former. There is not sufficient emphasis on the later. It must be understood that even with best efforts we can only reduce the emission of greenhouse gas but we cannot eliminate it altogether. So the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere will only increase with time. Hence we need to concentrate on sequestering the green house gases also.When it comes sequestering CO2 there is nothing on the planet, it is repeated nothing, except a growing tree that can do it. The fact that one and only way to sequestrate CO2 is through trees, is a very important fact that must be understood if we want to fight global warming in a realistic way.It is a well known fact that a plant purifies environment but we need to understand how after all a plant does purifies environment. And is there any way to quantify the amount of purification done by various plants? There is nothing magical or unknown about the process. The process which purifies the environment is a well known process ie photosynthesis and there is an unambiguous way to measure the amount of purification done by a plant. Photosynthesis is natural processes that uses CO2, releases O2 and produces various forms of sugar ie C6H12O6.The amount of carbon sequestered by a plant can actually be measured without any ambiguity as explained below. The byproduct of the photosynthesis is cellulose or C6H12O6 or wood. Hence the physical manifestation of the photosynthesis is the increase in volume and weight of the plant. It is possible ie the rate of sequestration of CO2 may differ from plant to plant ,which is also evident from that fact that different tree/plants grow at different rates , but the sum total of the CO2 sequestered has to be proportional to dry biomass ie the biomass from which the water has been removed. In fact empirically it can be said that for every 180 tons of dry wood produced, 264 tons of CO2 is consumed and 192 tons of O2 is given out. Not so evident but another important contribution of a growing tree is that apart from conversion of CO2 to O2 a growing plant also absorbs heat. This is nothing but the sunlight that would have otherwise converted into heat had it not been used for photosynthesis. This is why we feel cooler under a tree. So a tree also helps the global warming by storing heat. Above stated facts can be understood by the reverse logic like as follows. Suppose we cut a tree and burn it. We get mainly two things: CO2 and heat. By simple logic of conservation of energy and chemical constituents it can be safely assumed that this was the amount of heat and CO2 absorbed by the plant while growing. Now the issue comes that if photosynthesis is the key to carbon sequestration then why emphasis on tree only as every plant does photosynthesis. Here it is important to understand that though there are various form of C6H12O6 like sugar, cellulose, carbohydrate, oil (as happens in say pine trees) etc but timber is the only way CO2 remains blocked for a longer period of 5-100 years. In all other forms either it is burnt, consumed or decomposed within a year or so releasing the entire CO2. Hence though all the plants excluding CO2 can sequester CO2 but the form in which it does, the same cannot be stored for long period of more than maximum 5 years and on average 1 year. Inferences that can be drawn from above analysis is as follows: There is nothing on the planet other than a growing tree that can reduce CO2. Meaning thereby that tree has to central to any program of combating global warming. For long term it is much more beneficial to promote use of timer rather than substituting as it is the only meaningful way to store CO2.If an item which is substituting wood consumes less energy during its production than what is produced by burning the equivalent amount of wood, then only it is beneficial to environment else it is more harmful, at least from environmental point. There is a need to promote plywood industry in big way which helps in using even the inferior quality of wood to be used as timber which otherwise would have been used as fuel-wood.A fully grown tree which is not growing in volume may be good for wild life but is doing no good to the environment as the sum total of CO2 taken in and given out almost balances each other. Hence felling of mature tree, using it as timber (not fuel-wood) and planting new trees is the best solution to global warming. But unfortunately this point is not being given its due importance in the CDM mechanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjaykrsrivastava (talk • contribs) 06:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

tldr. But one comment that struck my eye is There is nothing on the planet other than a growing tree that can reduce CO2 - wrong, wrong wrong, a thousand times wrong. CO2 can be reacted with Magnesium oxide or Calcium oxide, storing the carbon in mineral form and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. This is known as carbon mineralization. Raul654 (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's copy and paste from [2] with a little, but insignificant, rework on the prose taking it out of list form. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Combat Global Warming? Might as well fight a chinease lepricorn. If you can find one--114.77.203.166 (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lenton

Boris, please explain your rmv of Lenton in lead, when paper states "under some plausible decadal-scale scenarios of land use and greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing, switches occur between two highly nonlinear metastable regimes of the chaotic oscillations corresponding to the “active” and “weak” monsoon phases, on the intraseasonal and interannual timescales."Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Any change to the lede should be discussed first. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable argument, but not the one Boris made. Unless anyone can explain why the source contradicts the text, or suggest another reason for leaving it out, I will put it back.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. If your understanding of the words you quoted (much less the rest of the paper) really is this poor, please leave it to someone else. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The term 'monsoon failure' is widely used to describe even single season disruption. Note i didn't say 'permanent failure'. Would you be happy with 'disruption to' as opposed to 'failure'? If not, I suggest you find your own form of words, as currently the issue of abrupt climate change, in the form of disruption of ocean and atmosphere, is essentially missing from the lead.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the paper again. Hint #1: note the italicized words "under some plausible decadal-scale scenarios of land use and greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing." Hint #2 (from the paper): "Greenhouse warming that is stronger over land and in the Northern Hemisphere tends to strengthen the monsoon." Hint #3: "increasing CO2 stabilizes the monsoon." There are other important points as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, there is potentially significant disruption to the monsoon. Even a strengthening effect is a disruption, if you're trying to grow crops. I think the paper's pretty clear that major effects on the monsoon are plausible/expected. If you'd prefer, we could use the examples of the west african monsoon, or enso instead.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Then the issue is the word "disruption". Merriam-Webster defines disruption as "1 a: to break apart : rupture b: to throw into disorder <agitators trying to disrupt the meeting>2: to interrupt the normal course or unity of." Disruption implies a loss of continuity: the monsoon is not disrupted, although farming would be. Awickert (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, can someone suggest a form of words for this inclusion that is comprehensible to the general reader.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "Precipitation in the Asian monsoon region is projected to increase, and may become more variable from year to year." It shouldn't be in the lead, though. And I'm not convinced it should be in the article at all: there is no obvious justification for discussing one region of the world but not others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Why is it important enough to include in the lead? (or even the article?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It feeds a billion people! I'd favour including the ENSO, WAM, etc in the same concept. I think it does need to be in the lead, to give some 'flesh' to the concept. I also think that we need to explain the idea of ocean/atmospheric circulation changes, however briefly.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) Andrew, you're onto something here. Regional climate change shouldn't be a redlink. Would you like to start the article, summarizing past and projected changes to various regions around the world? That would be great! We could then link to it from the main global warming article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. But shuldn't this be in some regional section of the effects of global warming article? If you want something specific to global warming, then shouldn't the title be regional effects of global warming. bearing in mind the regional effects are by nature abrupt (on a climatological scale), then would abrupt climate change be better?Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

COP15

I'm planning to add a few words about COP15 to the end of the last lead sentenceAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What words did you have in mind? --Skyemoor (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Er.. how about: 'A successor to the current Kyoto protocol agreement is expected to be agreed at the COP15 talks in December.'Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Related climatic issues

In the section "Related climatic issues", the first paragraph covers ocean acidification. Perhaps it would be best to move that paragraph to "Attributed and expected effects" under the subsection "Environmental". In the second paragraph it covers Global dimming, I think it would be best to move this to the section "Forcing". The third paragraph is uncited, however, "Forcing" appears to be the best location. Essentially the section "Related climatic issues" is unnecessary. What do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Acidification is environmental not climaticAndrewjlockley (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it needs to be a climatic effect for it to be considered as an "Attributed and expected effects". Furthermore, "Economic" is not a change in climate. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I was endorsing you, not contradicting you.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I thought you meant something else. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Freeman Dyson quote

Personally, I think the evidence for global warming being caused by greenhouse emissions is strong. But NPOV requires us to present the best argument on the other side, and this is the best I know of. Read it. I think you will find it carefully researched and to the point. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Rick, we must base this article on whatever is published in the relevant peer reviewed journals. Science does not value the opinions of prominent scientist more than those of anyone else. All that counts are the results that are based on good science as judged by the reviewers for peer reviewed journals. So, the "best arguments" are precisely those that have been published in peer reviewed journals. Count Iblis (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a good idea not to tell us which quote you mean on talk, because then we can have all the fun of going to the edit history to find it. Anyway, I think you mean this [3] and the answer is the one you've already been given William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley: I would suggest, with reference to this comment and your comment in the section below, that sarcasm is not the best mode of rational discussion.

I'm sorry, Rick, but when a question is brought up without any reference to the specific quote, I think a little sarcasm is in order - think about how much longer it took those who replied to you to find it - common courtesy. Awickert (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, I'm a big fan of peer review, but I make an exception for Freeman Dyson, because he has bucked the peer review process in the past, and been proved right.Rick Norwood (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Being able to buck the peer review process does not imply that he is always right. Furthermore, my presumption is that you believe that his scientific concept will become accepted at a later time; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:NOT), we document things after they happen and not before. So after or if his concept becomes accepted and a scientific consensus emerges, then we'll document it here. Furthermore, if you want to add something, show us the sources and show us what you want to enter. This makes it much easier to concentrate on substance than on the beliefs. We can't have a COI unless we know what you're proposing in the first place. I'm assume you mean this diff[4], but making yourself clear is your job. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. --Seba5618 (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

After careful study of the movement pattern of parking cops, I've managed to park my car one night without a ticket! Now I'm immune to all traffic law! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of Freeman Dyson's notability, you may have noticed major articles about his new book, in the New Yorker and other magazines. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Which merits inclusion in the Dyson article - but not here, per all of the above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re adding a section header to avoid total incomprehensibility

I have run across this paper which suggests an alternate theory: Michal Kravcik, Jan Hronsky, Jaroslav Tesliar, Robert Zvara The New Theory of The Global Warming 2002-01-26 Is there any merit in including it?  kgrr ^talk 15:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be very badly translated from Foreign. Even allowing for that, it appears to have no merit at all - I'm afraid I couldn't work out what the "new theory" even was. You could tell us I suppose William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I can say on my own authority (though you folks don't have to listen) that the part about changes in the Earth's crust is absolutely absurd. 70 cm of water on the Earth's oceans will, when the system comes to equilibrium (~10,000 years) depress the ocean basins by about 70 cm * density of water / density of upper mantle = 70 cm * (1000 kg/m^3 / 3300 kg/m^3) = 21 centimeters. Orogenesis is mountain building. If they think that a 21-centimeter drop in the ocean floor will cause mountains to pop up like daisies... I don't know what to say. Well, I do, but I won't say it here. And new continents? Oh boy, oh boy. So based on the fact that it is 100% garbage in one section, I think I'm giving it a big thumbs-down. Awickert (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The "paper" seems to be primarily concerned with the contribution deforestation makes to global warming, which, of course, is nothing new. It's been recognized in the AGW science from the 1979 NAS report to the 2001 IPCC report. Additionally, it doesn't appear to be a reliable source, just an environmental NGO.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Since the mid-twentieth century"

The opening line of the article states that global warming has only be noticed since the mid-20th century. I seem to recall much, much older scientific literature describing this phenomenon, but I don't have access to my old university library anymore... Almafeta (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Anthropogenic warming has been noticed since the mid 20 century, before that it becomes harder to notice our fingerprint. The phenomenon per se has been known since the 18th century...quoting the article: The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[17] It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed even by those who do not agree that the recent temperature increase is attributable to human activity. The question is instead how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the atmospheric concentrations of particular greenhouse gases. --Seba5618 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

regional climate change

regional climate change is getting towards the point where it's possibly worth linking in. needs some further work tho.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

section makeover

I think we should have a pop at this bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Attributed_and_expected_effects

Responses to global warming

In the Mitigation to global warming, the degree of efforts made by different countries should be shown. A good map herefore is the Climate Cooperation Index by Michèle Battig. See http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-181138392.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.180.114 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: undo done by KimDabelsteinPetersen

Planting trees is not a minority view.--Chuck (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Carbon sequestration in general, and tree planting specifically, already are mentioned in the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote was not limited to his views on trees. His view that global warming might be good is most certainly a minority view. More to the point, Dyson is not a climatologist and this extensive quote is giving his amateur opinion far, far more weight that it deserves. Raul654 (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a quote. I wrote it. It's a summary of the article. Anything I paste is from my word processor. I'm trying to spell right. I'm glad somebody read it. I thought the info was interesting, i.e. that a scientist who met Einstein wrote a paper on global warming in the 1970's and recomended planting fast-growing trees. I worked hard enough on that edit that I feel it was sort of rude for a bot to remove it. I'm not sure what a bot is, but it sounds like nobody read what I wrote. As far as I know, bots not for locking articles. They're for erasing sandboxes. Well, I'm disappointed you didn't like the paragraph I wrote, whatever the reason was.--Chuck (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a theory is it not?

The title and description should be changed to state that it is a THEORY, not how it is stated like it's a fact. Only politics don't call it a theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer0273 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See the FAQ, here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've updated tha faq - check it out. Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

This has a lot of usefule links and needs to be added to external links page with an appropriate title.--Charlesrkiss (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesrkiss (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a political blog and as such fails WP:RS standards. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

People complain that there is not adequate representation of the dissent, and so I'm providing what I believe is a source. It's unfortunate humans will resort to some new set of obscure rituals thinking somehow they'll be preventing evil God of global warming from taking all their plants away, etc. I hope never to revist this page it's so full of ideological crap!! --CharlesRKiss (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have problems with the treatment of dissent at this article, since it would appear there are good scientists, intimately concerned with this topic (though not specifically qualified in it) who are not being referenced because they're not publishing peer-reviewed articles on the subject and are not being funded to be alarmist. However, that's due to puzzling twists in the use of WP:RS, not a complete abrogation of it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Heat Capacity of Planet Earth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wait on article and comments until the dust settles, archive discussion before civility degrades. Awickert (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Thi s paper challlenges "the large heat capacity of the oceans and the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[6][7]"http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf --Charlesrkiss (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some questions the paper posed in its conclusion; "Is the effective heat capacity that is coupled to the climate system, as determined from trends in ocean heat content and GMST, too low, or too high? ... Is the relaxation time constant of the climate system determined by autocorrelation analysis the pertinent time constant of the climate system?" It's not clear that this paper is taking a clear stand. What exactly are you suggesting in terms of article improvement? --Skyemoor (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For one, it states pretty explicitly that the CO2 does not have a "long lifetime,... in the atmosphere" that it is rapidly absorbed into the oceans, etc.

It doesn't seem that you could have possibly had enough time to read it. That's the problem. Seriously.--CharlesRKiss(talk) 15:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The points you raised are already well covered; note that warming oceans release more CO2 than they absorb. And which journal did you say this was published in? --Skyemoor (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

JGR - Atmospheres. Awickert (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm only seeing two references to the lifetime of CO2, one at p.16, wherein "... because of the long lifetime (ca 100 years) associated with excess atmospheric CO2" and one at p.3 "... because of the long lifetime of excess CO2 in the atmosphere-ocean system". I'm not sure either use justifies any change to the article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Equation (18) leads to the conclusion on page 12, first paragraph; and continues. That's the whole point of the article, how could you miss it! --CharlesRKiss (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) All right - I looked at it, and while the paper looks all right, I was afraid that it seemed like an oversimplification. So I checked out the article, and found three comments on it, and a reply. The first comment shows that the proposed results don't seem to line up with other data. (Foster, Grant (2008). "Comment on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system" by S. E. Schwartz". Journal of Geophysical Research. 113: D15102. doi:10.1029/2007JD009373.) The second comment shows a much longer analyzed time-scale than that given by the original article. (Scafetta, Nicola (2008). "Comment on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system" by S. E. Schwartz". Journal of Geophysical Research. 113: D15104. doi:10.1029/2007JD009586.) In the response to the comments, the original author almost doubles his predicted time-scale, and questions the value of "climate sensitivity" as an indicator (Schwartz, Stephen E. (2008). "Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system"". Journal of Geophysical Research. 113: D15105. doi:10.1029/2008JD009872.). A third comment suggests that the premise in both the article and the response is over-simplifed. Knutti, Reto (2008). "Comment on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system" by S. E. Schwartz". Journal of Geophysical Research. 113: D15103. doi:10.1029/2007JD009473. So with this much batting back and forth, I would like to let the dust settle before adding something like this. Awickert (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You decied where it should appear, that's fine. To be honest, I haven't fullly read it, analyzed it, I don't live by it, I don't pray to it, I just think that "climatalogical modelling" if it is to make conclusions, a) needs to reveal error, b)needs to be plenty in number.

Frankly, I'm actually afraid of what I think is going on! I'm not a schizophrenic, but this whole mob mentality scared the Jesus out of me, I don't recall ever seeing the one seminal, conclusive experimental proof of this global warming hypothesis. I mean this in a most sincere way! Climatology has a long history, a chart going back to 1880A.D. doesn't work for me... especially if the relaxation time is really about 5yrs., maybe 3yrs. In any case, due to the global economic downturn, we may see a change in C0₂ levels and changes in mean temperature soon. Now, THAT would be interesting!!--CharlesRKiss (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, then you should read Arrhenius paper on CO2 and temperature from the late 1800's; it's a good intro. You should also read my reply before you start talking about "5 or 3" years again - disproven. Awickert (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Disproven? Interesting comment, considering Anthropenic Global Warming has never been proven. It's foundation is modelling, like Communism, the Atkins Diets, Christianity, Slavery, and other grand principles. People just pick the models that are consistent with their opinions, never the contrary. Do what you want with the article, I'm just bringing it in. --CharlesRKiss

(talk) 02:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I was clear that the "5" that they state (well, 5.1), or "3" as you make up, is what I say is disproven. The original authors make it more like 10 in their reply to their own paper, as I state with a reference above. First you don't read my well-researched comments, and then when I mention it, you throw rhetoric my way. This is unproductive. Awickert (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Look. I'm not able to travel to a library right now. Nor shell out $40 for the articles. I liked the article, and I wanted to share here, that's all. If you don't want to include it, fine; I didn't write the damn thing! As far as I'm concerned, they're probably all wrong.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You could ask nicely, and others would be willing to help you with articles. Or you could read what I write when I say that in their reply, they doubled their estimate. If you think they're all wrong, I suppose there isn't much of a point of us debating this. What I see right now is aggressive defense of an article until someone takes the time to look deeper, and then a quick 180. Later, man - looks like we're just arguing and I don't see how this will improve the article. Awickert (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse you don't. It's already perfect in your opinion. If you're going to include one wrong model, you need to include all of them. As it is, I think this Wikipedia Global Warming article is controlled pseudo-scientific garbage.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You force me to rescind my goodbye to protect my name. You put words in my mouth that are not true, based on what, my belief that the 5-year response time is untrue because its own authors rescinded it? And this seems to be based the fact that I brought up comments on a paper that you started a discussion on. You know next to nothing about my opinion on the topic. Let me give you a hint: I am a sedimentary geologist. What is one thing that sedimentary geologists do? And in spite of not being an expert on climate science, you call this article pseudo-scientific garbage. I simply exist on this talk page to try to bring science and reason to the debates, but I am archiving this section now before the civility degrades further.

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.

Interesting Table

I think this table should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesRKiss (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC) --CharlesRKiss (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

These values are already covered in the article's link to Atmospheric gases. --Skyemoor (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The point of the table is to elucidate, emphasize, the change in unit CO2 over 200 years. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The article already states what the table illustrates, that there has been a 33% increase in CO2 in the last century. To put the matter in a larger context, the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is 33% larger than it has ever been in the past hundred thousand years. The last time the CO2 was at a maximum, much of the United States was under water. The purpose of your table seems to be to spin this information in the form "only one extra molecule". But that one extra molecule still represents a 33% increase. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd find this table both confusing and misleading. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean that the point of the table is to mislead? All of those gases except Water vapor and CO2 are completely inert with regards to the greenhouse effect. Its like saying that there is nothing strange about a dinner with 1 extra molecule of strychnine per 10,000. There is hardly any change - so what me worry :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is long enough already. I see no need to add a table that repeats information that's already clearly stated in the body.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

When I have a chance to wade through the many possible fallacies one can make during an argument, I'll give you the list of which ones your "Strychnine" argument falls into. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, while you are looking, I can give you yours. It's "Unstated Major Premise". Your premise is that since the concentration of CO2 is low in the atmosphere, its effect will be necessary small. This is a logical fallacy because we know of a lot of substances having a great effect even at very small dosage, as Kim perfectly illustrated. --McSly (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My point was, "to elucidate, emphasize, the change in unit CO2 over 200 years." Kim's point was, "You mean that the point of the table is to mislead?" [Poisoning of the wells].

Where did I ever make a premise, "Your premise is that since the concentration of CO2 is low in the atmosphere, its effect will be necessary small." ! ! !

I was simply stating the facts in the form of a simple table !!! It's others' work to deduce what it means. But if you're somehow curious of my opinion? It is that Global Warming may be another False God, ie. Jesus H. Christ, Mo, Zues, etc. in the guise of a Secular, Psuedo-Scientific, Materialistic Religiosity. So there. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't make that premise, hence the word "unstated" in the logical fallacy. But anyway, let's not waste time on rhetoric. The article already shows in great details the evolution of the concentration of CO2 and its effect in the atmosphere, so I don't think adding this table would provide anything useful. --McSly (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"The article already shows in great details the evolution of the concentration of CO2 and its effect in the atmosphere," Whoa, okay. Sorry. I missed that part. You mean it's clear.. like E=mc², clear. or like Maxwell's Laws clear. I'm Thanking the Existence of God for people like Wikipedia Moderators, for controlling all the information that goes into this site in such an unbiased, unopinionated, and rigorously scientific manner.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed this debate, but I suggest if progress is to be made, tempers be checked.

I see no reason to not include information on the concentration of variable gases with time in addition to CO2 (which is given), but I'm not sure why relatively unchanging non-greenhouse gases should be included; it seems like it wouldn't be a good use of space, and would be outside the scope of the article. Awickert (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that ridiculous chart, pardon me, has no "zero" (only shows from 310ppm to 380ppm) -perhaps in the legitmate interest of saving space, even though the Wikipedia president makes the claim that all of human information will be here somehow displayed, - so, the chart appears to have measured a multitudinous number of increases in CO₂ levels, when in fact the increase is rounded to 30%, with error -also not included.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The axes are labeled, no? Newspapers, stock markets, etc., don't show "0" either. I wouldn't like to have 4x the height of the chart in blank space underneath. Awickert (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know! It just looks so bad, though. There is very little perspective, and less history. It's the same chart the alarmists use. I'm just saying it looks bad, maybe it can be a crop of a larger image somewhere offsite, or reduce the resolution of a larger image with more history and a zero.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to lose resolution; maybe it would help to list in the caption the "to" and "from" concentrations. Awickert (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely why I created the table. It doesn't show a slope, that can be manipulated. Nor does it need a "zero". It's literally a unit change in CO₂ relative to other gases. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another proposed article

As regional effects of global warming was such fun, why don't we do historical impacts of climate change? Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this might overlap with articles like paleoclimatology and the geologic time-periods? I have a feeling that there is an overview of more recent climate change, but can't find it, so if there isn't one, I think there would be a niche for an overview of the last thousand or so years. Awickert (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking maya, greenland, celts in devon, that kind of thing. A bit jared-Diamond-esque. I can't find anything on WP and it's a cool topic. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - if you can't find anything, I'd say that you could probably paraphrase the main articles on the topics and create an index to them... or create them if they're not created. Sounds good - Awickert (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like y'all are talking about a something like Brian Fagan's books The Little Ice Age and The Long Summer, about how climate has shaped human history. If that's right...sounds like a great idea.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

worth incorporating?

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/US_mid_range_abatement_curve_2030.pdf

This is interesting. In the "The Certain Cost of Maybe Reducing Global Warming," section. There should definitely be a place for it. A correspondence between cost and CO₂ production reduction. Make a section of this article and throw it in, that's what I think -section on Cap and Trade, Emissions Trading, etc.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how to make sure that the use of this particular source doeen't violate copyright, then ten commandments and the highway code? Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Including Relevant Greenhouse Gas Experiments

Could we include publications based on greenhouse experiments? (long wp:SOAPBOX violation removed per wp:TALK) Let's find those publications and include them here.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

See Greenhouse effect#Real greenhouses. -Atmoz (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The most relevant part seems to be "Greenhouses thus work primarily by preventing convection; the atmospheric greenhouse effect however reduces radiation loss, not convection." This suggests to me that such experiments would not work very well. You keep saying (CRK) that you just don't believe it. Well, if you're looking for articles you should check the wp:REFDESK. They love to help people find articles. This isn't the place to come and say "hi, I don't know of any articles that support my original research, but let's talk about it." NJGW (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did I write, "hi, I don't know of any articles that support my original research, but let's talk about it."

I was pointing to, by almost enumerating, the gaping holes in research and providing advice. Why don't you just leave it alone and let it stand instead of invoking arbitrary wp. and blockading the flow of information? Or why don't you just go to management and "tell-on-me", and delete my account, because I'm just going to keep pasting this forever as many times as it is deleted -so people can think for themselves about its importance.

Could we include publications based on greenhouse gas experiments?

Perhaps there are papers out there where someone built a greenhouse, and conducted experimnents, and we can include the results here. Maybe someone built a huge one with a geodesic dome over it, like we see in all those 1950's textbooks that tell us what the world would be like in the 21st century. You know the ones. They are like 1/4 mile wide, cost of several hundred million dollars. Or tens of billions of dollars. But were cheaper, and more immediate, in comparison to budget forcasts with respect to CO2 abatement, so it must have been done somewhere. Maybe some experimenters added a lake. Some animal life. Whatever. Measured temperatures, atmospheric gases, etc. And took measurements for a couple years. Can't we add those publications here? What's that place in Arizona, Biosphere(?) where they all started sleeping with each other; didn't they do some global warming experiments?

Maybe they added an additional 100ppm CO2 . Measured the temperature increase by a full number of degrees? Maybe that's what got them all hot and bothered, but there should be some data we can include.

It can be included here as an external link.

Okay, I'm familiar with the invocation of feedback mechanisms. That's pretty new. Maybe someone else included feedbacks in their experiments and we can include those papers here, too. If they didn't think the temperature went up enough, they just added a feedback mechanism variable, or so. I think there are experiments with missing feedback mechanisms as sources of discrepancies, right? So certain other experimenters added them in other papers.

Certainly, if computer modeling is so precise and so accurate, how could it be so difficult to just make a greenhouse and conduct real experiments? Oh, it is much more difficult... that's a point. But many universities must've done that anyway, and published articles that we can provide to the public. Even though I'm highly skeptical that an additional 100pm C02 in any greenhouse will either a)last very long, or b)raise temperatures significantly someone must have conducted experiments and published results otherwise! Let's find those publications and include them here.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just press the revert button, please. This whole article can be regarded as a wp:SOAPBOX —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesRKiss (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Charles, if you did a little research you would find answers to most of your questions. There are lots of related papers. What you wrote indicates that you haven't read enough yet. The fact that you are asking someone else to do the research for you justifies removing your comments. For what its worth, greenhouses work by trapping hot air, not by trapping heat. If you increase the CO2 to ten times the current value, there would be no measurable temperature difference. Q Science (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I was vigorously brandishing the importance and relative low cost of conducting experiments under controlled condtions, albeit with imperfect individuals and incomplete knowledge. Not communicating the design of any particular experiment, but simply asking that if there are any, it would nice to include them in the article alongside the lavish excess of computer modeling hocus-pocuses and character of their conclusions.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting Crystal Ball Paragraph wp:NOT

I propose deleting, or at least modifying, the folowing paragraph:

Increasing global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, likely including expansion of subtropical deserts.[8] The continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice is expected, with the Arctic region being particularly affected. Other likely effects include shrinkage of the Amazon rainforest and Boreal forests, increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, species extinctions and changes in agricultural yields.

As per, Global Warming Discussion Section entitled, "Freeman Dyson quote," paragraph (7)

"Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:NOT),ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)"

This Global Warming article is sooooo bad, please can't it be cleaned up. Moderators can't even obey their own rules!!!

--CharlesRKiss (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:RS. We are not speculating, we are summarizing what reliable sources are saying. There is a not-so-subtle difference between "Obama may close down Guantanamo" and "Obama has set a deadline to close down Guantanamo [Source here]". And there are no "moderators" on Wikipedia, at least not in any official capacity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the page is locked, so your "we" definitely does not include everyone, or me. "Moderators", "Administrators," whatever you want to call the people who control the WP:SEMI should obey the WP:NOT.

Secondly, in the first sentence, the word "will" expresses no doubt and is deliberately used to describe a future event as a fact. A clear a violation of WP:NOT [Crystal Ball] considering the controversy of the issue is enough to merit its own page: Global warming controversy.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, people with 3 year old accounts have no problem editing semi-protected articles. Secondly, where are your sources? NJGW (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"...sources" for what?? In this section I'm only expressing two issues I consider failures, and would like to see changes: 1) the complete breaking of the rules, WP:NOT and 2) Complete locking of the page for people with accounts of less than three years WP:SEMI. I'm not interested in the reasons for the failures, I'm sure there are plenty. --Charlesrkiss (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong about the three years. You are wrong about WP:NOT, or WP:CRYSTAL. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, the page is LOCKED tight, due to "VANDALISM" -undoubtably the catch phrase for controlling submissions that "administrators", who can obviously predict the future (WP:CRYSTAL), won't agree with.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan

--CharlesRKiss (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The irony is earth-shattering. Oh, and you are wrong about the page being "LOCKED tight" (or even "locked tight") as before. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Charles - 2 things. First, the difference in the above debate is that, while Wikipedia reports peer-reviewed science, it does not report unpublished speculation by individuals: Peer-reviewed journals fall under the use of reliable sources, and qualifiers like "likely" and "expected" are used to show less than 100% certainty, even though they are reliable sources. The issue with the quotes is not expecting statements that aren't in the form of a well-thought-out scientific paper to adequately predict anything. Second, if you continue to conspiracy-theory insult those editors who watch this page, I can assure you that this discussion will go nowhere, and will archive or delete it. If you would like to participate in the evolution of the page, the way to go about it is to bring up reliable sources and talk about what could merit their inclusion; this is what I tried to do with you in the now-archived section above. The way to be sure that there is no change to this article is to carry on as you are: lecturing and conspiracy-theorizing without adding your own reliable sources. Awickert (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I proposed two sources, one table, several edits, all were denied by a small number of individuals, a very tiny fraction of readers. This experience is not new.

I'm somewhat provoked by the premise of this page, the manner in which the information is controlled, the threats of banning, but mostly the flimsy basis upon which such calamitous conclusions are drawn. The reponsibility of its administrators is to exercise rigor and restraint in proportion to the evidence and the claims, and this topic, Global Warming, is sufficiently controversial in its own right, as it is important, to warrant less obstruction and to encourage more voices.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Boring. Get on to the substance William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Page Locked

Can the administrator unlock the main article please. I would like to make some corrections I consider important, but in the upper right hand corner of the main article, there is a icon of a locked lock, and when I put the cursor over it it says, "This article is semi-protected due to vandalism." even though the Home page of Wikipedia says, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Can someone please explain to me why I'm being told I can edit this article, despite all the previous experience I have of being locked out?. Thanks.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss the changes you want to make and perhaps someone in good standing will carry them out for you. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Pages are semi-protected to protect against vandalism. It goes against the philosophy, but it is a necessary evil on high-traffic articles. I believe that there is a certain small number of edits (10?) needed to edit these pages in order to deter vandalism-only IP's and accounts; I imagine that you have enough edits to edit the article, though removal of sourced information without consensus or addition of unsourced information will likely be immediately deleted, as this is a hugely-watched area of Wikipedia. Awickert (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The requirement is 10 edits and 4 days since registration before editing semi-protected pages. Charles fails the second half. Dragons flight (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait until your account is 4 days old and you'll be able to edit, when doing so avoid any original research and quote reliable sources please. --Seba5618 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of accounts over two years old, with multiple edits, that still are unable to edit the Global Warming page. That said, if the lock is to prevent vandalism only, then any other edit, not violating WP:NOT should be encouraged, not be forced to ask for permission from administrators who may exercise their own interests, have their own opinions, ie. control information.

In addition, I am particularly disturbed that violations such as WP:CRYSTAL can freely exist protected by a lock under the pretense of vandalism while any corrective actions must confront the above, including possible banning.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Ronald Reagan

--CharlesRKiss (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem to be in possession of the absolute , have you considered a career as a politician, TV evangelist, or lottery winner? And please let us know which "accounts over two years old, with multiple edits [...] are unable to edit the Global Warming page". Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism lock is universal; I don't see a way to automatically take it down for well-intentioned edits. I don't know what is going on with the over 2-year old accounts - could you tell us which ones they are in case there is some kind of mistake? I tried to politely explain WP:CRYSTAL above; if that explanation isn't sufficiently informative, I would suggest you read over the guidelines on reliable sources, etc. Awickert (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

4 days old and 10 edits are necesary to edit semi-protected pages, ¿maybe those account can't edit the page for some other reason?. For what is matters, my account is a bit over 2 years old and I'm able to edit. Btw, the mere use of the word "will" does not mean we are doing unverifiable speculation. Increasing global temperature will cause sea levels to rise... is simply stating a consequence of climate change, one that is properly sourced. Of course if you find some reliable sources that says otherwise do share it here. --Seba5618 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what it may seem, I am not "in possession of the absolute truth", though I am certainly knowing of what is not necessarily true that is here being argued as truth: that simple climatological models of complex ecological systems are sufficiently precise to 1 part in 10,000 CO₂ to accurately predict outcomes.

As to how increased mean global air temperatures may not increase sea levels, I would allow that to your own imagination of current, and all the other proposed calamaties, not to mention whatever positives may result, also allowed. --CharlesRKiss (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss global warming, there are plenty of other sites to play this game, but not here... --Seba5618 (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

CharlesRKiss: Do you know enough chemistry to be aware of just how silly your "one part in 10,000" comment is? Chemists regularly measure ppm (parts per million). Ten thousand molecules is an absurdly small standard. A thimblefull of air contains billions of molecules, including billions of CO2 molecules. What is measured is a large (33%) increase. To express it in terms of a single molecule is spin, not science. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Blimey. CharlesRKiss: Blogger and Wordpress are free and easy to use, and will get you feedback on your original ideas without filling up this talk page, which is for discussing changes to the Wikipedia Global warming article based on verifiable reliable sources. Seriously, get a blog, go nuts. Rd232 ^talk 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A few points if I may.

1)I wasn't really interested in this GW issue until I came here and realized how crappy the science was, and the writing, all of which based on models as far as the eye can see: the real quality of which is inversely proportional to the control of the information -mostly by people whose careers depend on it, namely modelers.

2)As far as the table is concerned, like I said before, it's a unit increase in CO2, as in "unit vector of change", for whatever use that might be, I just liked it; felt happy to create it, that's all it is.

3)I'm also asking that if there is at least one single article, on any actual physical experiment, conducted in a microcosm, for instance, that could compliment the overwhelming propensity of models, it would be nice to include it here... provided it could get in. Seems the world is already being controlled by programmers.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I finally understand. You think we can change the science here. Well, sorry to let you know you've been wasting your time (and ours), but the body you should be talking to is the IPCC. They're the ones who can take your ideas and do something with them. You can contact them at: IPCC; Phone: +41-22-730-8208/84; e-mail: IPCC-Sec@wmo.int

Now that you know which tree to bark at, it's been fun. Come back and see us when you have some sources to talk about. NJGW (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

NAO caused MWP?

Is there anything we want to update based on this or would it be premature? --Skyemoor (talk)

I usually like to give things at least a few months, or even longer, to see if responses or criticisms come in. If you want to put it in somewhere, maybe Medieval Warm Period would be better, with the caveat that it is recent research. This article seems to have a tendency to bulk up very quickly, while some of its linked articles could use some love. Awickert (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course none of this can be included. It goes against the pro-hockey stick party line. Just forget you ever saw it. Kauffner (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

First, please don't troll. Second, I don't see how it goes for or against either "party line" - I, at least, have always read that the Medieval Warm Period was within the range of natural variability. A second reason that I said the study shouldn't be on this page is that it seems outside the scope - if it were an article that said present-day global warming was a result of natural variation, I would have probably gone for the "let it wait or tag it as recent" reply, but not said that the article was too bulky. Awickert (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Within the range the range of natural variability"....no more need to look at supernatural explanations, I suppose. The article currently denies that there was any "Medieval Warm Period" or "Little Ice Age," except as "possibly regional fluctuations." Of course, this text seems to be contradicted by the chart that appears just to the right of it. "LIA" is used in the Science abstract linked to above as if there was no question that they were real phenomenon. Kauffner (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this summary of the full paper at New Scientist seems to actually reinforce the Hockey Stick - during the MWP, "in the tropical Pacific, the El Niño system was in a negative La Niña mode, meaning it was colder than normal", thus to a certain degree balancing European warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This idea was presented in 2001 by Drew T. Shindell, Gavin A. Schmidt, Michael E. Mann, et al. Q Science (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tilting of the Earth caused by global warming?

I seem to recall reading a recent paper in Science or Nature indicating that global warming will lead to the breaking off of a large ice shelf at the North Pole, which will then cause the tilt of the Earth to change. It seems like this important fact should be included in this article. Needstime (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I read the article: there's that, and the redistribution of mass by the collapse of one of the ice sheets would cause different patterns of sea-level rise because of the change in the global gravity field. Being a somewhat conservative Wikipedian, I'm letting it marinate for a little while. But gravity calculations are much more straightforward than climate change, and I've seen previous work that the authors have done, and I'm as sure as I can be that they got it right. The big question is then, when will the ice sheet in question collapse? Awickert (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not read the article, but I don't think it says what you think it says -- the entire mass of water on the Earth is a very tiny fraction of the mass of the earth. A large ice shelf moving north might change the axis of spin by a fraction of a degree, but certainly not by much. Are you sure this paper wasn't published on April first? I remember a paper on a past April 1 that speculated that the accumulation of old National Geographic magazines in American attics would cause the tilt of the Earth to change. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It was published a couple of weeks ago, so there's a section in the talk archive about it.

I did read the article, and being a geophysicist/geologist, I'm very sure it says what I say, though I summarize it a little better in the linked archive - I'll try to do so here again. It's not about the ice shelf moving - it's about it collapsing and disappearing, and how that could cause different patterns of sea-level rise than expected. The geoid would change because of the loss of the ice sheet mass and because of a 100-km-scale change in the rotation axis (I think they mean true polar wander, as that's what would fit their results). This would cause meter-scale differences (positive or negative anomalies) in the predicted global sea levels. Unfortunately, since it's in Science, it doesn't address anything in detail. Awickert (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Regional effects of global warming

This page was built at Boris' request for a link-in. It's been gone over with a fine toothed comb several times be several editors. Why, then, are the links to this article being rmv'd from the article by WMC & Skyemoor? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (ignore timestamp, it's from a couple of days earlier than that)

The article at its present stage isn't very informative. Once it's in a reasonably stable condition it can be linked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please can you explain on the article's TP what's wrong with it. It's been beaten about a lot, but not so much recently. It was formerly much longer but it got shredded. I regard it as good enough atm. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I just added some info on polar bears to the "arctic" section. It's meticulously cited, and while I think it currently gives them undue weight, if the goal is to beef up the article, it should be OK. I think that it could do with more material, provided it is well-cited from a variety of sources and says what it has to say concisely. Awickert (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The way I understand it, any article in WP can be linked from anywhere - even red links. That way, more people are made aware of the other articles and so their quality will be improved by all the new visitors they get. There are no minimum quality standards that have to be applied before an article can be linked from any other. --Nigelj (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I generally prefer that not-ready-for-prime-time articles not be given prominence, but making them more visible could lead to others chipping in to improve things. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of aerosol effects influence on mitigation

Please explain why the scientifically supported role of aerosols is being treated as WP:POV when it clearly isn't. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is, too! Your addition to this is a clear example of OR - you're quoting a paper out of context and ignore other aspects (e.g. black carbon) to come to a non-supported conclusion. You have a tendency to ignore the qualifier in (implicit or explicit) "all other aspects being equal, ... "-situations. All other aspects are rarely equal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I get you. Let's bring black carbon into the equation too. Got any good cites for your comments? Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, let's not further complicate the issue. Emissions, both of soot and of sulphur aerosols, are only weakly coupled to CO2 emissions - Western Europe and I suspect the US manage to create a lot of CO2 with much reduced aerosol emissions compared to 30 years ago. If you want this in, find a reliable source that clearly states what you want to include. I'm not aware of such a source - and indeed, I suspect you cannot find a simple, one-size-fits-all solution. If you close down a modern German coal-fired power plant with full scrubbers, you will reduce CO2, but not significantly reduce aerosols. If you replace a Diesel car with an Electric, you will remove CO2 and black soot, and aerosol reduction depends on the kind of fuel it burned, which usually depends on national regulations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's too complex to be treated properly in this section. Maybe we should do an article on aerosol global warming or albedo effects of pollution. Maybe you can think of a better place to put it? Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of runaway climate change

Please explain why the scientifically supported phenomenon of runaway climate change is being treated as WP:POV when it clearly isn't. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming Will Cause Sea Levels To Rise.

Please state the source used about that statement. And please, ice melting will not increase the sea level, but in fact the level would stay the same. LEARN PHYSICS PLEASE PEOPLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.203.166 (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. People should learn physics, and how to apply it. Swimming ice that melts will not increase ocean levels per se. But a large part of the ice in the arctic and antarctic is not swimming, but sits comfortably on land, e.g. Greenland. Also, water expands quite significantly as it warms. This thermal expansion is a major cause of sea level rise. A source is provided in the main article (the IPCC SPM, which itself links to the main report, which links any number of original sources). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Emissions reduction

We need to get across the concept that you can't stop global warming by stopping emissions. I've attempted to include this and it hasn't stuck. I'm not risking any 3RR dramas, so I thought I'd discuss it here. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First, it can't be added at the beginning of a section that doesn't discuss it: it's about writing - topic and body paragraphs - not content. Second, it should be sourced, preferably with a good (e-fold?) residence time in the atmosphere. Then a sentence could probably go in an appropriate section. Awickert (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's about emissions reduction, then surely that's the place? What sources do you like on lifespan of GHGs? Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I meant an appropriate place within the section. I'm guessing an atmospheric chemistry book would have it? Otherwise, if you find a paper or something, send me an email and I'll send it to you; I honestly don't know what the lifetime is (besides long), but figure that having a solid number would make your contribution more useful and give it a source. Awickert (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search yielded http://greennature.com/article281.html which itself referenced http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3825.php Then there was http://www.moe.gov.lb/ClimateChange/p1_greenhouse_gases_inventory.html There's no need to email each other, this information is everywhere in the public domain - how much proof do you need?? --Nigelj (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you try to source? The atmospheric lifetime of GHGs is only somewhat relevant here. Andrew's claims seems to be wrong on the face of it, or at least it misses an "immediately". If we stop all GHG emissions now, global warming will ("very likely") stop as well, although not this very moment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then, his contribution didn't need repeatedly deleting as WP:POV and WP:OR, it just needed the word 'immediately' adding to it? Is that correct? Oh, look! His first sentence was 'Emissions reduction cannot immediately stop or reverse global warming.' [5] --Nigelj (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It did need deleting as it was an inserted first paragraph of a section, that didn't relate to the section. It didn't need deleting for what it said. But on controversial wiki featured articles (i.e., this), it should be sourced IMO.

I don't get Stephan's comments though - maybe I'm being simplistic - I'd assume it would be important to know over what time-scale CO2 and other GHG concentrations would decrease if all emissions were stopped, so it seems more than "somewhat relevant" to me. Awickert (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, GHG concentrations would probably fall immediately. But we are not in equilibrium yet, i.e. it is too cold for the current GHG concentrations. That's why we would have some warming even if emissions would stop now. But all this should not go into the mitigation section - it already is covered in the forcings section. And lifetimes of GHGs and what they mean are discussed in Global warming potential. Andrews POV is clear: "nothing else helps, we need geoengineering", but I've yet to see a decent source for that claim that does not involve a lot of WP:SYN. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to get across the concept that you can't stop global warming by stopping emissions. Where's your source that says this? Because I bet I can find a source that says we can. Hansen comes to mind. Individual scientist tend to disagree, that's why an encyclopedia should document the consensus, not cherry-pick from individual papers. -Atmoz (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to address the fact that a large number of people seem to believe that we can deal with global warming 'once it starts getting bad'. As we all know, that's rubbish - but this section fails to address this common misconception. Atmoz - the wording I included was based on stuff you actually wrote, so it's a bit ironic that you're slating me. Once everyone's finished accusing me of being a POV-pusher (and whatever else it is this evening), can we get on with the serious business of improving the section? I don't want lay readers to think they can leave AGW to their kids to sort out. How do people suggest we clarify the proper place for emissions reduction - i.e. urgent, necessary but not a 'get out of jail free' card. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. Comments like "I don't want lay readers to think" are exactly the sort of thing we should be stopping. If it's a question of weight to difference responses, that's appropriate but to want an article to suggest a course of action is highly inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Anthropogenic Heat

I created a new article. But I'm not sure it isn't already placed somewhere else under another name? Can you guys check it out? I hope you can somehow link this Global Warming page to it, as it must be a factor.

[personal attacks removed] -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I object to the words "increase in the average" in the first sentence. I think it should read "apparent increasse in the mean" as more professional scientific periodicals would.

:))--CharlesRKiss (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reporting you again at AN/I for your insults and use of language. This is not about content: the article looks fine, your behavior is totally unacceptable. Awickert (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed his personal attacks and he has been blocked indefinitely until he learns to act appropriately. I've leave Anthropogenic heat for others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)