Talk:Climate change

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)

It's been re-named to "climate change" because it's not the whole globe warming - it's mostly just the northern hemisphere.

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)

Don't forget that phytoplankton in the ocean is a HUGE CO2 sponge. In fact most of the earth's oxygen come from the ocean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.92.87 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 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)

I'm all for keeping things tidy, which is why I've waited to link it. Now, it's already been picked over by lots of people and there's little current activity cleaning RGW. I'm therefore going to re-link it. If people don't like the article they should TP their comments in the appropriate place, or do some edits on it. (constructive ones, if possible!) Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:08, 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)

I put a little on this into the forcings section, hiving off existing text into an albedo section and expending it. I think we need a new article planetary albedo. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be in support of that if you want to make it. Are you thinking an extension of the "terrestrial albedo" section on the main albedo page, but much expanded? Awickert (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now had a good look at the albedo page and it's already pretty focussed and comprehensive. Do you think it's necessary to create another page? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think you have much more to add, then don't make the new article unless you have big ideas and are willing to spend a lot of time doing background research. You seem to be interested in aerosols; if you know about the effects of at least 3-4 different ones, perhaps creating a page on "Albedo effects of aerosols" or something like that would be good. Awickert (talk) 17:44, 6 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)

I the absence of an explanation I'll re-inserting it shortly. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:21, 6 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. Floating ice that melts will not increase ocean levels per se. But a large part of the ice in the arctic and antarctic is not floating, 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)

I am aware of WP policies. I'm not trying to advocate a course of action, but rather dispel the erroneous belief among lay readers that global warming will reverse, disperse or in some other fanciful way end quickly after emissions are brought under control. Please can we stop clouding the issue with 'personal attack of the day' and get on with sorting out the article? I was not attempting to describe my own personal 'blueprint for ending AGW', but rather the one advocated by scientists and promoted (when convenient) by politicians.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:18, 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)

I've tidied it up a bit. It was complete drivel so I borrowed the axe. Can someone who specialises in this area go and have a go please. All cites need checking. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I've also bannered it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's explained better at Urban heat island, IMHO. Merge or redirect Anthropogenic heat there. -Atmoz (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not really the same thing. I did a seealso tho. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Albedo

Changes to albedo result in net forcing of the climate system. Can Stephen pls explain why he's removed this edit? And, for pity's sake, will people stop reverting 37 edits to get rid of one or two words they don't like. It's lazy and creates totally unnecessary work.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit did not say "changes in albedo", it said "albedo". And the whole albedo section further down is redundant with respect to the feedback section. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's lazy and creates totally unnecessary work. Irony meter pegs scale and explodes; Boris injured by shards. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen, if you read my latest edit (which you reverted), you won't find the offending text. Check it here [[6]] So Stephen, could you kindly offer a reasonable explanation of why you reverted 2.5K of edits? I am happy to fix mistakes - but not ones that don't exist. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Drat, just spotted it hiding! I will get rid Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

AJL, you mostly added topics such as ice-albedo feedback that already are discussed in the article usually in clearer and more concise language than you used. Why say the same thing twice using different words? Do you actually read the article before you start shoveling things in? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ice-albedo chopped. Thanks for the specific and actionable feedback. Anything else you want doing? Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's me?

But....

• Is cold related deaths the same as hypothermia?
• Is the CLAW hypothesis the same as reduced Ocean uptake of CO2?

...maybe its me ... but it seems to me that hypothermia is a subset of cold related deaths, and that the CLAW hypothesis is a subset of effects that could reduce Ocean uptake. So is it me? Boris? WMC? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

De/re-linked pending resolution. Cheers for the detailed feedback. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Cold related deaths include more illnesses than freezing to death (hypothermia). See e.g., here. Depending on who's counting it can also include things like traffic accidents on icy roadways. (2) The CLAW thing, as I understand it, has to do with ocean production of dimethyl sulfide. DMS is important as a precursor to cloud condensation nuclei. Changes to the number and character of cloud condensation nuclei could then affect the reflectivity and longevity of clouds through the so-called first and second indirect aerosol effects. Here is a nice little summary of the overall issue. To my mind it's distinct from ocean uptake of CO2 with the proviso that in climate, everything is related to everything else... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree which is why I fixed it quick! Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If you agree - then why did you change it in the first place? And complain that it got reverted? As far as i can tell from the state of the article right now. Every single one of your edits, have been cut out, and not by an axe - but by individual changes. Perhaps now is the time to consider using the talk-page for edits first? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Loads of my edits have stuck. Little things like wikilinks are totally cumbersome to discuss. Bigger text insertions I definitely will discuss in future. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clathrate gun

Kim hacked this section - I don't really agree with his edit, but here's my suggested alternative:

Clathrate gun hypothesis

Over thousands of years, warmer deep ocean temperatures could release methane from deep ocean deposits of 'frozen' methane clathrate. A further release of methane from shallow cold water clathrates is also expected, and is predicted to be faster "releasing carbon on a timescale of 1 kyr or longer". Reserves of methane clathrate are vast, and "eventual releases of 2000–4000 {gigatonnes of carbon] in response to a ~2000 Gton C anthropogenic carbon release" are predicted.

Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then please answer this question: What is the timescale of a release of ~2-4 Tt according to A&B? I do not agree with your section, it is undue weight to things happening on a geological timescale. (according to the references - not me!) If you are going to push a CGH - then you will need references that suggest a CGH. You can't just take random papers that talk about large methane releases and do your own original research on it, and call it CGH. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The point of the clathrate gun is that it's inevitable once started, not that it's fast. I've never said it would be fast. If you want a fast runaway effect, watch the permafrost or the Amazon. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You missed answering a couple of questions, and to realize that your personal link of B&A to CGH is original research. As for the speed - perhaps you should read the CGH article? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that the present article is about "the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and the oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation." Things that may or may not happen 2000 years or more from now aren't on topic. The world will be a very different place by then and our present ideas of the "inevitable" will cease to be relevant. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've wanted this section hacked since it appeared. Originally, Andrew added this to many articles without a time-scale. After some work, time-scales were included as a caviat, but never stated right away (unless I edited the articles). At risk of being much more forward than I usually am, Andrew seems to have thought that this was an important feedback from the start, and only scaled back (slightly) after lengthy discussions in which I went through the papers he cited. I think it is important for geology, not for global warming - the uncertainty in what might happen in 1000-10000 years is way, way too big. Awickert (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. O(1000y) is way to long for the GW article. -Atmoz (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Shall we put it as a see-also link then, and remove the body copy? Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruddiman and the early anthropocene

The paragraph on Ruddiman in the recent temperature changes section seems out of place in the main GW article. It gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint. Besides William Ruddiman, is there a better article where this information can be presented? -Atmoz (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I been bold. Ruddiman's idea is interesting but we just can't include everything. Note his hypothesis already is mentioned in anthropocene. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to remove it later, but I had hoped it could be added elsewhere. But since it's already in Anthropocene... -Atmoz (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, we should link anthropocene from here but at the moment I'm not feeling clever enough to work it in so that it flows with the rest of the text. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Albedo stuff

I'm proposing to re-add:

Albedo effects

	new stuff put back

The albedo of the Earth is a measure of how much solar energy is reflected and how much is absorbed. Various human activities have changed the Earth's albedo significantly in certain regions. Albedo effects include the creation of black carbon, which may not have been properly considered in some climate models. Additionally, aerosol pollution causes cooling. Efforts to reduce this pollution may have unintended effects on global warming: "Strong aerosol cooling in the past and present would then imply that future global warming may proceed at or even above the upper extreme of the range projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." . old stuff moved Global dimming, a gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface, may have partially counteracted global warming during the period 1960-1990. Human-caused aerosols likely precipitated this effect. Scientists have stated with 66–90% confidence that the effects of human-caused aerosols, along with volcanic activity, have offset some of the warming effect of increasing greenhouse gases.

This has been chopped out - along with other albedo stuff which leaves the article unacceptably skinny on albedo. If anyone thinks it needs thinning or editing, pls let me know asap. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It needs thinning of order 90-100%. Global warming already is much too long -- to shove more and more stuff into the article moves us in the wrong direction. Here's a challenge: for every word that you propose to add, balance it with one word that you propose to delete. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like pointless dupl to me William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz just cut a whole bunch of albedo stuff from elsewhere in the article. Most other sections such as greenhouse effect, are short forms of other articles. I think that's worth putting in as is, but I'll try a shorter version in a bit Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this discussion began 17 hours ago, I haven't cut (or axed or bombed, etc.) anything related to albedo from the article. What I have done is rearrange some of the sections so that it reads better as a whole instead of reading like it was written by someone with ADD (IMO of course). -Atmoz (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, your cut was before the albedo debate started. I wasn't having a dig at you, just saying that the necessary word-trimming had been done already. I didn't like all your edits, and I'll be doing a run through them in a bit. Hope you don't mind. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that what readers could be interested in and what is not currently mentioned in the article, is how the energy balance would be affected if all the ice at the North pole is gone and how it would be affected if all the ice in Antarctica is gone. The article includes figures for the forcings due to greenhouse gasses and feedback effects which are of the order of a few W/m^2. Since the Earth receives something of the order of a KW/m^2 from the Sun, you would expect that if a big area like Antractica loses all its ice, that would have a significant effect.

So, I would be in favor of including just a one or two sentences in which these figures are given, so that interested lay people can get a feeling of the order of magnitude of this effect. In the section about greenhouse gasses we also do this by mentioning: "Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable.[15][C]". Count Iblis (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

These are questions that only a climate scientist can answer. Are any professionals keeping tabs on this? What does the literature say? If it isn't in the literature, then is anyone looking for a topic for their Ph.D. dissertation? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I used to be :-). The question of what happens if all the Ant ice goes isn't very interesting, for the next millenium, because it won't happen. Arctic ice is more interesting, but not as interesting as you might think because (a) at max extent, its winter, and there is very little sun (b) it can be very cloudy in the summer (discount all the gorgeous pictures you see of glorious sun on bright snow; people only take pictures when the sun shines). As to figures, people must have done this (at least for the Arctic). I have a feeling RP Snr did William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

After the recent carnage, there's plenty of room to put in the above albedo section. It can be later improved if necessary Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I put it back as per discussion above. Feel free to prune it if needed. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You talking to yourself doesn't count for anything. Nobody agreed with you. -Atmoz (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

NASA and pollution laws

This was removed from the article. I haven't had a chance to look yet, but it's probably worth investigating what the article say and how best to represent any notable content in them...

In 2009, NASA reported that global warming is caused largely by laws that were passed to reduce pollution and acid rain. refAerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming, NASA, April 8, 2009 /ref refNASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap, The Register, April 9, 2009 ref

ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Register article is a complete misrepresentation, of course. Increased aerosols have masked some of the effect of greenhouse gases. Clean air acts have removed some of that masking. We do discuss the basic mechanism already. It's not particularly new, although the NASA study seems to be more quantitative than the IPCC coverage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The NASA ref specifically addresses arctic warming, casting no new light on global warming. --Nigelj (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The description is wrong to the point of outright deception. Global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses. Laws limit one type of pollution (sulfates) that happen to mitigate the global warming effects caused by another type of pollution (greenhouse gasses). This does not mean that those laws are causing global warming - the greenhouse gasses are the cause. Raul654 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevant journal article seems to be Climate response to regional radiative forcing during the twentieth century. -Atmoz (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the head of NASA at the time, appointed by President George W. Bush, is not a scientist. He was a crony of Bush, who could be trusted to use NASA to report anything the government wanted NASA to report. After the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, the investigatory team put the blame squarely on him, and on the other non-scientists at NASA, just as non-scientist Reagan appointees were found responsible for the Challenger disaster. Why anyone believes politicians over scientists, considering their record, has always been hard for me to understand? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

section carnage

Large blocks of text have been removed with little or no discussion. I'm not happy about this, and plan to re-insert them shortly. I understand the need for brevity, but think this is far better achieved by editing secitons down, not by hacking them out completely. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please let us know which sections, and what you plan to write. Re-inserting them will continue an edit war, and will not result in the discussion that the previous deletion lacked. Awickert (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

May I ask you to list the sections you've taken out and explain your reasoning for each. Almost like a mini-AfD, but retrospective. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

How about you try to explain yourself, instead of letting others do your work? Awickert hasn't edited this article for over a month, so your "demand" is rather strange. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, remember that this article is virtually a summary of many other articles. Additions would be appropriate in the main articles of any particular climate subject you wish to provide input on, subject to the all of the other WP policies and the consensus of the editors of those articles. --Skyemoor (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was Atmoz who was responsible for the killing spree. I keep doing that.... Too many people beginning with A. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the confusion. As Kim noticed, I exist here more to maintain sanity than to actually make edits. My question still stands, and the sooner the text shows up here or in a sandbox (I assume you can do a pretty easy copy/paste), the sooner things will be handled in a discussion setting rather than an edit-revert setting. Awickert (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Below is the full body count. I fail to believe that all of this stuff is unworthy of inclusion, and I'm amazed that a massacre on this scale has passed without comment. At the very least a lot of this stuff should be hived off into other articles. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

casualty #1 - GH effect The scientific consensus is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity has caused most of the warming observed since the start of the industrial era and that the observed warming cannot be satisfactorily explained by natural causes alone. This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, which is the period when most of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations took place and for which the most complete measurements exist. casualty #2 - solar stuff - important for skeptics Stott and colleagues have suggested that climate models overestimate the relative effect of greenhouse gases compared to solar forcing; they also suggest that the cooling effects of volcanic dust and sulfate aerosols have been underestimated. They nevertheless conclude that even with an enhanced climate sensitivity to solar forcing, most of the warming since the mid-20th century is likely attributable to the increases in greenhouse gases. Another paper suggests that the Sun may have contributed about 45–50 percent of the increase in the average global surface temperature over the period 1900–2000, and about 25–35 percent between 1980 and 2000. In 2006, Peter Foukal and colleagues found no net increase of solar brightness over the last 1,000 years. Solar cycles led to a small increase of 0.07 percent in brightness over the last 30 years. This effect is too small to contribute significantly to global warming. The general view is that the combined effect of the two main sources of natural climate forcing, solar variation and changes in volcanic activity, probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 but a cooling effect since. casualty #3 - solar variation - could be bumped into another article??? Hegerl, Gabriele C. "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. p. 675. Retrieved 2008-02-01. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)</ref> The observed trend since at least 1960 has been a cooling of the lower stratosphere. Reduction of stratospheric ozone also has a cooling influence, but substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s. Svensmark and colleagues have proposed another hypothesis related to solar activity, which is that magnetic activity of the sun deflects cosmic rays that may influence the generation of cloud condensation nuclei and thereby affect the climate. Another paper found no relation between global warming and solar radiation since 1985, whether through variations in solar output or variations in cosmic rays. Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, the main proponents of cloud seeding by galactic cosmic rays, disputed this criticism of their hypothesis. A 2007 paper found that in the last 20 years there has been no significant link between changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth and cloudiness and temperature. Hegerl, Gabriele C. "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. p. 675. Retrieved 2008-02-01. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)</ref> The observed trend since at least 1960 has been a cooling of the lower stratosphere. Reduction of stratospheric ozone also has a cooling influence, but substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s. casualty 4 - Temperature changes Main article: Temperature record Recent Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century, though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability. James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have, for the short term, largely offset one another, so that net warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman has argued that human influence on the global climate began around 8,000 years ago with the start of forest clearing to provide land for agriculture and 5,000 years ago with the start of Asian rice irrigation. Ruddiman's interpretation of the historical record, with respect to the methane data, has been disputed. Pre-human climate variations Further information: Paleoclimatology and Climate change See also: Snowball Earth and Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum Curves of reconstructed temperature at two locations in Antarctica and a global record of variations in glacial ice volume. Today's date is on the left side of the graph. Earth has experienced warming and cooling many times in the past. The recent Antarctic EPICA ice core spans 800,000 years, including eight glacial periods timed by orbital variations with interglacial warm periods comparable to present temperatures. A rapid buildup of greenhouse gases amplified warming in the early Jurassic period (about 180 million years ago), with average temperatures rising by 5 °C (9 °F). Research by the Open University indicates that the warming caused the rate of rock weathering to increase by 400%. As such weathering locks away carbon in calcite and dolomite, CO2 levels dropped back to normal over roughly the next 150,000 years. Sudden releases of methane from clathrate compounds (the clathrate gun hypothesis) have been hypothesized as both a cause for and an effect of other warming events in the distant past, including the Permian–Triassic extinction event (about 251 million years ago) and the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago).

Most of the content you specify has been moved within the article; it has not been removed from the article. -Atmoz (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, I think we should revert to a version preceding this slaughter and wait till there's general agreement before eviscerating the article. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, can you mess with the box above so it only contains deleted text, and not text that has been moved? I'm really struggling to follow your work. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Casualty 1: The first sentence is redundant to other material in the article. I have no idea what that second sentence means.
• Casualty 2: Still in the article. I just reworded it a little.
• Casualty 3: Ozone stuff kept, the rest is WP:FRINGE.
• Casualty 4: Recent was discussed above. Paleo was overly detailed for this article. It should probably still be linked though.

-Atmoz (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Stylistically, I'm hugely not a fan of X study says Y for encyclopedia articles. What I prefer is "bla bla bla"[cited with respect to what is representative of general consensus in literature]. However the main Solar forcing article is written as X says Y, so that might be a decent place to put the solar material, especially since there still is a section here devoted to it. The solar forcing article also needs love.

I also agree with Atmoz on the paleoclimate stuff: to keep the GW article focused, we should link to paleoclimate. Again, you might want to put some of your info there.

So my overall thought is that the peripheral articles should be beefed up, and that your info looks like it is in great shape to do that. My reasoning is that the main points are already covered here, while the other articles are not as well-refined. Awickert (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Svensmark stuff (galactic cosmic rays) has been deleted somewhere along the way but I think it should go back in. There have been enough peer-reviewed pubs both pro and con, and enough mentions in the popular press, that we should note that the idea exists. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides Svensmark and the usual suspects, I cannot recall seeing a pro paper. (Don't have time to do a proper lit search right now to verify that though.) I really don't think this is taken seriously by the cloud physics community. I'd say it's a lot like the sunspot correlations of the past. Popular press is fluff. They'd report that GW would cause more earthquakes if it'd sell them 1 more copy. The Iris hypothesis exists, had papers pro and con, and was mentioned in the press. Does this deserve mention on the GW article too? Or the Gaia hypothesis? Any mention in the GW article is giving this hypothesis undue weight. -Atmoz (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to put in fringy stuff, and then show why it's refuted, or not widely believed. Surveys show that a large section of the population doesn't bleive AGW, so I think we should show why it's the paradigm. What say we have a section on 'fringe science'?Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not, as per WP:WEIGHT. Fringe and refutations can go in the FAQ - that's what it's for. Perhaps it can go in the global warming controversy. I see your point, and I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but I've seen too many areas on WP turn into battlegrounds for fringers and anti-fringers, and I'm sick of it. We should stick to reliable sources here unless we want this to become a debate of why the "GW isn't happening" crowd is wrong. Awickert (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming

I would like to submit a link request to Scientific American or www.sciam.com on the topic of Global Warming. Scientific American is an established authoritative site with up to date news, research and information on global warming. Scientific American also provides photos, videos, podcasts and a 60 Second Science Blog. Thank you for considering a valuable source to your Global Warming page.

JaramazovicBladerunner27 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A link to specific Scientific American articles would be ok, but not to the whole web page -- it isn't specific enough. Also, Scientific American is a major secondary source, but primary sources are preferred. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

COP15

AJL has reinserted this into the lead. [7] It's been removed by myself and Stephan Schulz. Soliciting other opinions. -Atmoz (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, when I put it in originally, it was a bit geeky and inaccessible. I simplified the languague and did a bad job, so Stephan rightly rmvd it. I re-did it with new wording and banged it back in. Hope y'all like it. If not, I suggest it's put in another section, as it's important. However, I do think that the general reader will be intersted to know the state of play. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha, the Brit said "y'all". Awickert (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It may have a place on the Kyoto article, in an article about the UNFCCC or about COP meetings (or all). It certainly doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the political context is important to the general reader. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I believe it does deserves a place, not in the lead just yet, but in the Economic and political debate section. --Seba5618 (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

earthquakes

I don't want to cloud the above discussion, but I thought that this merits a mention - I think the phenomenon was said in jest but it's apparently credible http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025531.300-climate-change-tearing-the-earth-apart.html Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription, so I can't read the whole thing. Any chance you could copy/paste the studies that they cite?

Thoughts right now: Climate change will definitely change the hydrologic cycle, which will affect rates of erosion and therefore, quite possibly, tectonic processes. To a first order, I don't see how rising sea levels would result in more underwater landslides: it seems like that's just increasing the hydrostatic stress, which should push it farther from Mohr-Coulomb failure. I'm not so sure about the whole earthquake and volcano thing other than the erosion/convergence deal - but tectonic plate motions are measured to be relatively consistent over recent geologic time, so I'm not sure about that either. Awickert (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Updating the warmest year bit

I just reverted to remove two sections of added text which appeared to be unsupported by the citation.

2007 also tied 1998 as being the second warmest year in recorded history, which is noteworthy because there was a stong La Nina present during the second half of 2007 and not an El Nino which occured in 1998. 2008 was the ninth warmest year according to NASA because of a strong La Nina pattern and reduced solar irradiance. NASA's Goddard Institute states that because of increasing human made greenhouse gases, a record warm year exceeding 2005 can be expected by at least 2012.

And

The majority of climate models can only simulate the observed warming since the 1970s by increasing greenhouse gases.

I would have left them in with fact tags, but I am not sure that an accounting of the ninth warmest year, etc. is necessary, and I am unclear on what the second addition means (increasing above anthropogenic levels, increasing in general, etc.?). Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The first section is pretty accurate (except for the bit on "because of a strong" which should be "despite a strong"), and it wouldn't be too difficult to reference it. But it doesn't belong here (imho), but would be more appropriate on Instrumental temperature record (which we summarize here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)