Talk:Global cooling

Introduction needs work

After stopping on this page and starting to read the content, I had to stop after only reading the Intro as there are many unattributed facts that appear to the uninitiated (me) as being hyperbole or original research. I started to flag the sections that were not cited as well as the bad references, but was immediately reverted because I was "damaging the article". This was not my intent and I honestly apologize for stepping on anyone. I think I did screw up one sentence, which after re-reading the IPCC article and finding the direct quote, I saw my error. I was in the process of undoing my edit when all my edits were reverted. So here are the issues as I see them.

The following are statements made in the Intro that are not attributed:

1) In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. - This is appears to be a puff statement that is not backed up.

2) The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate - this is probably true, but how do you verify it? Another puff statement.

3) The actual increase in this period was 29%. - reference for this statement?

4) Currently there are some concerns about the possible regional cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of thermohaline circulation - reference for this statement?

5) which might be provoked by an increase of fresh water mixing into the North Atlantic due to glacial melting. - again this is a statement of apparent fact that is not cited

6) The probability of this occurring is generally considered to be very low - again citation needed

These points are not made to gut the article or debunk global heating. They are made because someone who is not schooled on the intricacies of the science, like myself, would happen on this site and have no way of independently verifying the statements made. This is a key point of Wikipedia - no original research or opinion. Even if the items above are actual facts - and I don't know that - they need to be cited or they will give the impression of opinion.

In addition, the following two links are either broken or bad:

1) Erlich, Paul. "Paul Erhlich on climate change in 1968". Backseat driving. http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_backseatdriving_archive.html#112148592454360291. Retrieved November 17, 2005. - This reference needs to be fixed or deleted as it links to a blog. Blogs by definition are not approved references as it is inherently opinion - at least I've never seen a blog given the greenlight, so I could be wrong. If this blog then references to another site that has the actual article, then the actual source web page needs to be the reference.

2) World's temperature likely to rise; The Times; 22 June 1976; pg 9; col A - This reference needs to be fixed or deleted as the link ties back to Wikipedia's "The Times" page which is obviously not the "Pg 9, Col A" article. This reference could be a cricket box score for all we know which is why I had flagged it as broken.

The above items are legitimate challenges to the content or references and should be fixed in order to strengthen this page. Please read through all points and comment (or better yet, fix) as appropriate. As a side point, there are other examples of statement of fact with no attribution throughout the article, so the Intro is not the only guilty party.
I will hold off on ANY edits of ANY kind on this page until my above points are discussed. Thanks for your attention. Ckruschke (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I think you're being too picky. For example, you complain about 4 Currently there are some concerns about the possible regional cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of thermohaline circulation. But, you see the bit underlined in blue... yes, you guessed it. Now we could pointlessly repeat the content or the links of that article here, but it would be pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes - thank you for the condescension - I understand how Wiki links work and that I can follow the link to learn more about the shutdown of thermohaline circulation. However my point is that the sentence says Currently there are some concerns about the... shutdown of thermohaline circulation. So what you are saying is that one should goto the link, read through (maybe) the entire page, find the section that talks about the shutdown, find the reference (assuming there is one), and then follow it to figure out if this is a legitimate statement? IMHO this seems like an unneccesary and convoluted goat rope. However, I understand your point as well. Ckruschke (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

And another easy one: World's temperature likely to rise; The Times; 22 June 1976; pg 9; col A - you've completely misunderstood. That *is* the reference. The wikilink to the Times is just for convenience. But The Times; 22 June 1976; pg 9; col A is an exact reference to a piece of paper William M. Connolley (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree about The Times. For Ehrlich, I think the simple solution is to reference Ehrlich directly: Ehrlich, Paul (1968). The Population Bomb. Sierra Club/Ballantine Books. pp. 51–52.. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea User:Stephan Schulz. The reference as it was - AND pointing to the Wiki page - was not adequate.

Are you unaware that the lead of an article is intended to summarize key facts stated elsewhere in the article, and it is acceptable, even desirable, for those facts to be referenced in the body, rather than the lede? See WP:LEAD You said you “had to stop after only reading the Intro as there are many unattributed facts “. If the facts in the lede are not supported in the body, there may be an issue, but it is quite acceptable to omit references in the lede.Oops, I thought you were talking about the lead, I see you are talking about the intro.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You said “Blogs by definition are not approved references as it is inherently opinion “ That’s not true. Blogs are rarely acceptable references but there are exceptions. This isn’t one of them, so I agree with Stephan that the reference should be changed, but please don’t memorize that blogs are never acceptable.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct - I just haven't seen one. However, thanks for the clarification. IMHO the blog ref should be ditched and a stronger reference should be used. Either that or open up the page to someone else coming in and saying "what are you doing citing someone's opinion in a blog. Ckruschke (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

We're not citing the blog for opinion. We're using the blog as a convenient source for the text William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - I was unfortunately at a place until just now where I could not read the blog. After pulling it up, I agree that it is perfectly fine as a reference so I withdraw that comment. Ckruschke (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I do support the need for a reference for the 29%--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree re the blog, but the ref should be changed to something like "<erlich ref> [text available at <blog>]" William M. Connolley (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

Conjecture is used incorrectly here. From Wikipedia itself, "A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven."

I don't think we mean to say that Global Cooling is "unproven" but thought to be "true?" Do we?

As an aside, global cooling is a competing "theory" to global warming theory that presuposses that the sun, aerosols, orbital forcings and other factors might be about to push the world back out of an interglacial into a glacial period. Another aspect of this tihnking is that there is a lot more variability to the world's climate than what other proponents think and that geologic records show that we go through periods of warming and cooling every 30 to 60 years which fit into broader glacial and interglacial cycles. There are very eminent scientists like Don Easterbrook and others who subscribe to this and there is also lot of talk of solar cycle 25. Global Cooling is not "just" about what people were thinking in the 1970s. It's very much alive today. Just Google Global Cooling and we get quite a few articles from major news outlets citing respected scientists. Granted some of the writings can go so far into fringe science but there are reputables ones as well. There is no IPCC like body that studies global cooling and the theory is an certainly outlier theory but for all we know it might be proven correct in 50 years....plate tectonics was an outlier to the scientific consensus for a long time but Alfred Wegener was right in the end.

The topic is treated unfairly here as it is written and in the process of trying to water down the theory, with the word "conjecture" we've gone so far as to mis-define where this topic stands.

Perhaps a rewrite of the intro is in order to make this more balanced? Let's discuss here.174.49.84.214 (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your tense is wrong: the lead says "Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s..." which is correct: it was briefly thought, by some but not all scientists of the time, to be the likely outcome. The IPCC studies global cooling: it's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which includes cooling as well as warming. The current science and current findings indicate overall warming: sufficient volcanic eruptions or nuclear war could shift the balance to cooling, but at present there's no evidence that such change will take place. Of course Wegener was wrong in that the continents don't drift, they're pushed by plate tectonics. All of which is in line with the current article: please show sources to support any changes you propose. . . dave souza, talk 17:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

my tense is not wrong, the tense of the article is wrong. Don't have an outline. If and when I do, I'll post it here so we don't have an edit war. I know there are a lot of stakeholders on this. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Mixed / little

I've reverted some anon error [1] that didn't get reverted then William M. Connolley (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. One thing; we seem to cite the TAR, presumably AR4 gives a more up to date assessment? There has also been recent research, judging by this news release, but perhaps to early to include. . . dave souza, talk 20:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

TAR is very dated and even AR4 is showing its age. The sun is becoming more of a factor as our understanding increases with research from SORCE and other sources but the level of scientific understanding is still "low." The article you reference is one of several out there that shows the field is going through a rennaissance. Take a look at this [2]. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Easterbrook today enjoys "little" support for his theories and he likely couldn't get on the front page of TIME with a global cooling spread. Back then there was more than "little" support because we had front page stories on this. That much is clear. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure "little" is the correct term, everyone from Newsweek to National Geographic was writing main-page articles about the coming ice age. If a TIME Magazine journalist today tried to write that we were 1/6 of the way towards an ice age, 3 phone calls to scientists would probably "kill" that story before it got started yet back then these things made it to the front pages. Nobody killed the Newsweek Story back in 1974 so....there must've been more than a "little" support both in scientific circles and journalism.174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You're mixing up journalism with the scientific community, which is where we say there was little support. Journalists sell stories rather than accurately reflecting scientific views, evidence from peer reviewed literature is relevant. By the way, the Daily Mail, The Australian and Fox News ran a story a few days ago about the coming ice age. Wildly unreliable sources, of course. . dave souza, talk 21:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully I'm not. Yes Daily Mail, Australian, and Foxnews published their stories recently but the opposition came right back out with their responses, clarifying points and engaging in opinion journalism - which is largely prevalent. By your standards then back in 1975 there should've been a backlash against the Newsweek story with the opposition coming out. Show me the 1975 backlash to the Newsweek story. Those backlash simply don't exist. There was no widespread repudiation of the Newsweek stories. The same wordsmithing is going on here btw. Little is the wrong word. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Another example, the times atlas recently published a wildkly erroneous map of Greenland. Within hours, the scientific community was up in arms. Why, because there was little support for the outlandish claims. If in 1975 the stories published enjoyed "little" scientific support like the Times Atlas cartography, where was the scientific community cryout? It didn't exist because there wasn't "little" support. There was perhaps, "mixed" or other kinds of support but not "little." Little support would've ellicited backlash from the scientific community.174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet another example, Cosmos Episode 4 Ice Age - by Carl Sagan where he talks about the coming ice age in part due to albedo effects in 1980. "Little Support?" I think we're looking for a different word. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You exaggerate how prepared scientists were to respond to press exaggerations at the time, or indeed to overblown claims by Sagan in what presumably is a TV programme. We show more academic publishing, what peer reviewed studies can you point to? . . dave souza, talk 23:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Scientists have never been a timid crowd. I was the one who asked you to provide proof that there was backlash to global cooling - there obviously was not at the time and by 1980 even the preeminent popular scientist of the time (carl sagan) was doing documentaries on it. Also, obviously if Newsweek, Carl Sagan (popular scientists) of the time are putting this front and center - it was the predominant thinking of the time not for one year but for multiple years during the late 60s, 70s, and early 80s. You show me backlash from scientists documenting their dissent and I'm willing to consider that this wasn't mainstream thought back then. Until then, the overwhelming evidence is that global cooling was very "mainstream" and supported by the popular scientists (Carl Sagen) of those times. It's dishonest to state that this was a "fringe" thinking with "little" support when the preponderance of the evidence shows that it was "mainstream" thinking. Based on that, this article is grossly in error and does not accurately reflect the history of what was going on back then. (I don't care that the theory was right or wrong but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to act as a revisionist propagandaist). It was what it was: a mainstream movement and theory that has largely fallen out of favor under AGW - which is just fine. But to try to erase it like the MWP, is academically and journalistically criminal. This is a clear example of what is wrong with Wikipedia - it turns history into propaganda and that's just plain wrong. Also if you don't know what Cosmos was, perhaps you shouldn't be editing this article....most of us lived through that period. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, your conjecture is wrong (WP:OR) - see: Peterson, Thomas & Connolley, William & Fleck, John (September 2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9). American Meteorological Society: 1325–1337. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We should not use the word consensus -- it's just propaganda jargon. But the mainstream journalism reported for a decade the concern and scientists did not seriously refute it. The WMC bulletin you cite is self serving. So, you are wrong Kim 174.49.84.214 (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - on the one hand (yours) we have unsourced assertions and synthesis and on the other hand we have a rather reliable source stating the opposite of you. Guess which one Wikipedia has to go with? Do come up with equally reliable sources that support your stance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the article? We're talking about numerous books, multiple TV documentaries, and countless magazine and newspaper articles over a period of over a decade highlighting the coming ice age! What synthesis? These are facts. It was mainstream. Read the article. It's the tab that reads ARTICLE at the top left of this page right next to TALK. This global cooling was mainstream and the scientific community was ok with it because the world had been cooling. These are facts, not synthesis. Therefore the intro is wrong and seeks to minimize the popular and scientific thinking of the time, regardless of what WMC would like us to believe with his bulletin.174.49.84.214 (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In the article they are used as examples - and they are not "countless magazine and newpaper articles", they are in fact quite finite. We give 2 examples in the article, so "countless" is your own personal WP:OR. I'm wondering what other article you are reading, since we aren't covering "multiple TV documentaries" (in fact we cover none). You are confusing anecdotal evidence, with statistical evidence. The WP:OR you commit here, is to assume "there are multiple, therefore it must have been mainstream", which is not a given. Do a statistical analysis of the subject, get it published and come back... otherwise all you are doing is synthesizing, which is not allowed on WP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The way word "scientific consensus" is thrown around in the climate debate, it doesn't have any real meaning, or rather it means something like, "the people who agree me." If you want to know what the consensus is on the shape of election orbitals or the effect of gravatation on space, you would not take a poll, nor would you pull out 600 journal abstracts, as Oreskes famously did. You'd look in standard scientific references, for example Van Nostrand's or McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia. Kauffner (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, you would not look in Newsweek, National Geographic, or the WSJ. However, your assertion about scientific consensus is blatantly wrong, and of course an encyclopedia as a tertiary source is of limited use. . . dave souza, talk 06:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The "consensus" of people who looked at the temperature records up to 1970s showed that the world had been cooling. So there was no dissent from scientists. Therefor, that led to multiple books, multiple magazine articles in prominent rags, multiple scientific documentaries to come out and "alert," nay dare I say it, "alarm," the public to the coming ice age. It was mainstream. Much like what is going on now only from the AGW side today. Yes, this history is inconvienent to the AGW crowd and poses an interesting cautionary tale. But it's history, it did happen. It should be correctly documented as having happened, not watered down by the AGW crowd and if we look at most of the contributors on here, they are largely green activists -- it should be correctly reflective of the period regardless of whether it was right or wrong and only time will tell on that front.174.49.84.214 (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry - do you have any references for all of this? Something that isn't a synthesis, such as the one you make here. Sprinkling your argument with quite a bit of vitriol and conspiracy theory, doesn't make your argument have more weight btw. In fact it almost certainly ensures that you will be marginalized - so stop it please. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do, click on the ARTICLE page and you'll see all the references. 36 at last count. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy in In Search Of, Season 2 episode 23 devoted an episode to the coming ice age saying, "climate experts now believe that the next ice age is on its way." What experts? they don't say. It's hilarious, highighting the winter of 1977, the worst winter in a century, struck the United States. Sound familiar? Of course Season 3 started with alien abductions but that's neither here nor there -- legacy from the Roswell scares of the 1950s ;-). This culture of fear of global cooling was real and prevalent back in the 1970s. The list goes on and on and we can dig the stuff up and it really wasn't completely drained until the master Carl Sagan tried to do poetry to it against the background of exposions, frozen tundras, icebergs collapsing, and images of the pale blue dot. It's all the same stuff. We should at least document it so that people 1,000 years from now can laugh at us and the idiocracy we had built. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Oh wow - did he really? And what does that mean? That Roswell is real and mainstream as well?</sarcasm> --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a bot Kim. Roswell is certainly ingrained in the psyche of at least American culture as are alien abductions and wikipedia has an expansive article on it. Alien abduction. If you'll notice, the article does not start off by saying that the scientific consensus is that abductions are fabrications. Imagine, the alien abduction article on Wiki is more forgiving to the abduction claims than this article is to global cooling even as a historical narrative. Tells you how far off the rocker you guys are here. Should we go to the alien abduction article and edit it to start off by saying that alien abductions are a conjecture? I mean, they can't possibly be real right? 174.49.84.214 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical context

This issue of what's "consensus" and what is "scientific" is a distraction. The point is that same group of people who were promoting global cooling in the 1970s suddenly changed their tune around 1978 and starting promoting global warming. Kauffner (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your point is wrong: read the article, and Weart's history. . dave souza, talk 08:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed remark
K knows the WP:TRUTH. He does not need to read the article and least of all does he need facts William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, Stephen Schneider was just a guy who wrote an obscure paper about global cooling back in 1971. Nothing to see here, move along. All through the 1980s and 1990s, Schneider was one of four to five people quoted in AGW news accounts as a kind of man-on-the-street scientist, the Greg Packer of climate science. Kauffner (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was sadly lacking in sources and balance: improvements point out that Schneider's errors about cooling were pointed out within six months, and he himself published corrected figures in 1975. As for Kauffner, his or her unsourced opinions have no validity whatever. . dave souza, talk 10:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This way of telling the story removes the all the political context. The green issue in 1971 was the supersonic transport project. Schneider's theory was that SST would trigger an ice age. The project was canceled later that year, so his paper's political usefulness was short-lived. It's a good thing he corrected himself. It might have been embarrassing if Schneider had still been prophesying doomsday when the Concorde went into service in 1976. As far as sources go, you've already turned up your nose at Van Nostrand's and McGraw Hill. Kauffner (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, assertions without reliable sources. Naming some volume you like doesn't meet WP:TALK requirements, please provide proposals for improvements with citations including page numbers or links. . dave souza, talk 09:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet more pointless chit-chat
Golly, more allegations against me. I'll have to make a list. Kauffner (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC) "Who are these allegators?" he snapped. . . dave souza, talk 15:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC) A dave souza without a personal attack. I guess these things happen from time to time. Kauffner (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Pointless chit-chat, no intent to improve article

Kauffner makes a fair point and WMC should apologize for attacking him. I apologize for any aggressive posting on my part, I'll try to be fairer. In the defense of the scientists, they were trying to wrap their arms around what was (and is) going on with our climate. Largely I agree, scientists broadly changed their tune (when the facts change, people change their minds). The concern here is that this article seeks to revise the scientific and popular thinking of the time. The preponderance of the journalistic evidence (and it's journalists who are tasked for better or worse to chronicle), is that there was mainstream thinking that we were headed into an ice age. Why is this so difficult for some people on here to accept. It's not a criminalization of AGW. It's what people were thinking back then. Does it raise the "fallibility" of scientists, yes but that's ok too. We are not dealing in absolutes here. The Global Cooling theory came and went and now the AGW theory is here and tomorrow it might be gone. Science continues to progress. Why is it that in all other scientific fields we can question everything including as Gaiver says, the mass of the proton over time, but AGW is immutable fact with 100% confidence and Global cooling was now mere conjecture. No. it wasn't mere conjecture and Newsweek, Time, Cosmos and numerous other sources tell us that it wasn't and if newsweek and time were talking about it, you know it was in the evening news channels to. If scientists disagreed, there is little record of them expressing their dissatisfaction with what mainstream media was promoting (unlike the times atlas fiasco) So let's stop this watering down of this article and represent it for what it was. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Kaffner's assertion was wrong and contradicted good sources, as WMC indicated. Your arguments are at best original research on the basis of your own evaluation of a number of primary sources which you don't actually provide as references. Not acceptable, see WP:SOAP . . . dave souza, talk 17:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC) From what I've read it seems that the scientific study of climate change was a lot more vibrant back in the 1970s. Someone proposed a theory or a thought and in short order, gaps were found and theories emerged and knowledge improved. This isn't refutation that we're seeing with cases like Stephen Schneider. What we are seeing is the "scientific process" at work. This article makes it look like he was "refuted." If we had a sentence for every scientific paper that was expanded upon or refined, we'd have a very big article. And, his initial findings contributed to the global cooling alarmism of the era -- going all the way up to the New York Times. At least back then it was ok to put forth a theory and not be attacked merely for where the data had taken you. I think that is the case in point here: that the field was evolving. NOT that they were mostly closet ProAGW people as this article as it is written would like to lean us towards. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC) If you've read it in a secondary source, please provide citations to that source and proposals for improvemnts to the article, per WP:TALK. . . dave souza, talk 17:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Weart

p. 43 re the early '70s – "Noting that in the natural course of events the planet was due to settle over the course of the next few thousand years into an ice age, a few scientists speculated that pollution would block sunlight and accelerate the process." Further down the page, "By the late 1970s scientists found good reasons to dismiss the theory, never widely credited, that pollution would bring a rapid global cooling." . . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Modern understanding in lead

An editor has twice removed a section describing the current scientific status of this view. I think this is critical to understand the article. I restored it once, but would be open to discussion here. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with the mod, I don't see how an IPCC policy document in any way relates to the subject. --212.159.68.116 (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)