Talk:Climate change

Archives
Chronological archives
December 2001 – October 2002 October 2002 – February 2003 February 2003 – August 2003 August 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – February 2005 February 2005 – April 2005 April 2005 – June 2005 May 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – November 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

See, that's the problem with "Fair and balanced"

Dubc0724 states:

It's funny, over the last few days when I Googled global warming, how many articles are written by right-wing groups denouncing GW and how many are written by left-wing groups holding GW as the most serious issue in the world. Honestly, this can't be a party-line issue. There's got to be some middle ground backed up by science that hasn't been bought & paid for.

See, that's the problem when people grow up on a medium that's always trying to represent itself as "fair and balanced". If group A says "the answer is 2.71828", the medium always feels the need to find a group that holds an opposing viewpoint ("The answer is -3!"). The medium then gives the -3ers the same weight in the story as the 2.71828ers and the audience leaves believing that the two positions hold equal weight in the real world and that the question is still being debated.

Unfortuately, in the real world, there are right answers and there are wrong answers, and reality is not amenable to political pursuasion. So even though media, for fear of annoying a big block of their readership/listenership/viewership still tries to present, for example, "Scientific Creationism" as being of equal weight with Darwinian evolution through natural selection, there is nobody in the true scientific community who thinks that debate is still open. And the fact that Republicans are far more behind Scientific Creationism and Democrats mostly more behind Evolution has nothing to do with reality. There's no middle ground here where, well, maybe God made the world 24,000 years ago instead of 6,000 years ago and it's evolved ever since, there's simply true facts and made-up fantasies. And the media is just too cowardly to tell you the plain, unvarnished truth that scientific creationists are crackpots motivated solely by religious faith.

(You just made your own left-wing opinion clear, thus negating your own attempt to sound fair and balanced. CalgaryWikifan 00:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no interest at all in sounding "fair and balanced". I have an extreme interest in being correct. And I'm tired of bullshit masquerading as "balance". -- Atlant 01:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, back to the rest of my comment that you felt the need to step into the middle of...)

The same is shaping up to be true of the question of global warming as a result of human activity. Because of the need to please their corporate masters, the media still presents their "fair-and-balanced" bull and reports stories as if "No global warming caused by humans!" was still as valid an idea as "One of the causes of global warming is human activity". But in the scientific community, the intellectual dominoes have long since fallen and there's essentially no debate left about the question of whether or not we're contributing to the observed warming. The only debate left is over the question of how big and how fast a disaster this whole thing is going turn out to be. And the fact that Republicans and other conservative parties world-wide disagree with accepted scientific theory, and American Democrats are running for cover while mouthing support for the idea, has nothing to do with the reality of what's about to happen to us.

Your comments are, of course, welcome.

• Unless of course you disagree with the almighty Atlant, in which case you are obviously too stupid to deserve a right to debate. 142.59.107.88 12:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Atlant 12:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

ha ha, what a stupid rant you think anyones gonna read it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.72 (talk • contribs) .

Good discussion. Creationism is an entirely different debate, however, so we'll leave that one at the door. My original post was meant to point out the fact that any special interest group can find a scientist to back up their views. Google it; you'll see. It essentially takes away any credibility from the arguments of both sides. I haven't seen compelling evidence from either side that leads me to conclude "hey GW is absolutely humans' fault" or "GW doesn't really exist!". All I hear is a lot of arrogant yelling from both sides and a lot of people with the attitude of "you must believe me, after all, I'm a scientist!" Sometimes all the BS involved makes me want to just agree with George Carlin: this world was around a long time before humans, and it'll be around a long time after we're gone. For us to think we can either doom it or save it exemplifies our arrogance and self importance. Cheers! Dubc0724 12:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A bit off topic: I always wonder how people do, only in theory, still deny or question the human's power to seriously harm their planet, and especially theirselves, just with a look at our some 10k of heavy nuclear missiles that can wipe out every life larger than a rat on the planet, was it three or four times?

More on topic: Well, if there is crucial evidence against anthropogenic global warming, it's welcome. Who would not like it much more if human's hadn't anything to do with what's happening out there? But sadly, that does not seem to be the case, given the large amount of evidence already gathered. Putting media or renegade's articles in the article is biasing it, not sticking to the known facts and widely acceptes theories. However, I have seldom seen an article so often being pushed into the same discussions every few weeks. Hardern 13:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? I've only been following this page for a week or so. The only thing I've been "pushing" is for the consideration that anthropogenic GW has not been completely proven as fact. But we're done with that argument (see above section). Secondly, nuclear war is an entirely different thing than the human pollution GW is attributed to. That's what I was referring to with my Carlin bit. You are right - we could likely do some real damage with nukes, but not the kind of damage being discussed on the GW article. Cheers! Dubc0724 14:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

George Carlin's comment is, of course, true, but you'll notice that he doesn't postulate whether we (humans, the species) will remain a part of the world. It is entirely conceivable that we could modify the earth to the point that it is no longer an environment suitable for the continuance of our species. (And I think that was the point of Hardern's "nuclear war" comment.)

Atlant 14:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Carlin does say exactly that. I was paraphrasing. He actually said something to the effect of the Earth shaking humans off like a bad case of fleas. I'll look it up. Cheers! Dubc0724 14:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And possibly the reason we were put here is PLASTIC! The Earth couldn't make plastic itself, needed us to do it. Now we've served our purpose; time for us to go. (I love Carlin...) Tuckdogg 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point, Atlant. Bugs the hell out of me, too. There isn't always an equal or even opposite opinion. The sun is round, the sky is blue, and the earth is warming. The 'left' vs 'right' debate should now move on to what the hell we're going to do about it. Iorek85 00:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This left/right, pro/con global warming debate is very US orientated, I think much of the rest of the world see's the debate very differently. Although as the enviroment is inherently linked to social welbeing, left-wing parties tend to ve the initial advocates of enviromental issues, here in the UK for example, the main traditionally right-wing party (the Conservative Party (UK)) have lately been talking about solutions to global warming more than the traditionally left-wing party. In many European countries the right-wing party(ies) (although basically all European politics is far to the left of US politics) is more fearful of the consequences of Global Warming than the left-wing party(ies).

The point being it is not a universally left-right issue at all. Personally I fear that sponorship money (in countries where companies can sponsor political parties) and other vested interests are the real culprits for the hostility of some political groups towards the overwhelming scientific consensus. Canderra 03:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The BS goes both ways, though, with much of it driven by ideologues rather than scientists (not that scientists can't be ideologues, and vice versa). For example, it seems reasonably certain that there is climate change, and reasonably probable that at least a significant portion of this is due to human activities. What is not at all certain, however, is the effect this will have (Katrina and Swiss Re notwithstanding). While there has been climate change in the past, it was not this large in recent memory. On the other hand, the ability of humans to adapt to climate change has not been as significant either. The BS that goes both ways is: (1) we don't know for sure how big the problem will be (i.e., we don't know the cost of continuing to do what we are doing now). All we have are estimates, based on very sketchy models (Swiss Re's complaint is chiefly this uncertainty--if they knew with any degree of certainty how big the problem was going to be, they could just factor it into the premiums they charge). And (2) we don't know for sure how big of an effort it will take to stop climate change (i.e., we don't know the cost of not doing what we are doing now). Nonetheless, we get both sides of the debate acting like these are known knowns. In other words, for every Competitive Enterprise Institute shill saying that climate change isn't happening, there is an National Resource Defense Council shill saying that we can stop climate change with only the slightest change to our quality of life. Both seem very unlikely. Most estimates are that stopping climate change (rather than just slowing it down and delaying the process by a handful of years) will require massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This is something that those on the more left-wing spectrum rarely point out. This isn't about buying a hybrid car or installing fluorescent lighting, but convincing people to cut their automobile usage by 90 percent, and significantly increasing the prices of things like food and everyday goods (the production and transportation of which rely on fossil fuels). Another thing not mentioned is the likelihood that most of the costs of climate change will be borne by the more impoverished parts of the world (Katrina, again, notwithstanding). So, try running for office on a platform that says we need to pass a law that only lets us use our cars once every 10 days, and that significantly raises the price of food and conveniences, or else a lot of poor people in Africa and Asia are going to suffer. (And while your at it, good luck also on convincing all those teeming masses in China and India that they are just going to have to put off those dreams of development a few years, because they, too, have to cut their use of fossil fuels...) Fundamentally, we do not know if the costs of doing something about climate change are higher than the costs of climate change itself. And, until we have a better idea about these costs (and who will bear them), the policy changes will remain cosmetic. Epstein's Mother 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Funding as a source of scientific bias

A climate scientist who resigned from NASA wrote:

Our government heavily funds a marching army of climate scientists -- government, university, and private -- whose funding depends upon manmade global warming remaining a threat. The government agencies, like NASA, that the money flows through also depend upon these issues remaining alive for continued funding. This is not to suggest that there is a conspiracy going on. It's merely to point out that climate scientists aren't always unbiased keepers of truth. The arena of global warming overflows with more strongly held opinions than it does unbiased or scientific truths. [1]

Why do Wikipedians argue for money as a source of bias when it comes to "skeptics" but ignore it when it comes to "alarmists"? That sounds like a double standard. --Uncle Ed 20:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell us that the Bush gouvenment is funding people to be "alarmist" about climate change? Or is this just the old story about scientists who invent threats so that they can then research this imaginary threats? And it's all a giant international conspiracy? Most people who go into science are not motivated by money in the first place. If you have the brain to get a Ph.D. in any physical science, you also have the brain to become a lawyer, M.D., or MBA, all jobs that on average pay much more. Moreover, most leading scientists are tenured and on a fixed salary. They have no serious personal motivation to lie about their research. At least in Germany, their personal gain from extra research projects is extremely marginal and indirect. Contrast this with "think tanks" who essentially exist to create pseudo-opinons for their clients or donors... --Stephan Schulz 20:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to tell you that. Roy Spencer is, and not only the Bush Administration but also the Clinton Administration. The US Federal Government is a bureaucracy, and the president can't just make the EPA or NASA or any other agency dance to his tune.

Spencer's argument is an echo of other arguments that billions of dollars per year of US federal funds subsidize research which rewards findings in favor of the Global Warming Theory. How much funding supports research trying to disprove the theory or even simply evaluate its likelihood of being true? --Uncle Ed 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Spencer has no argument, he is making an insinuation. --Stephan Schulz 21:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Spencer has first-hand knowledge of what he is talking about, therefore his insinuation has some credibility and should be considered. There is historical precedent for a scientific consensus on the "issue of the day" that ended up fading away with a whimper. I remember during the '70's when the big alarm in mass media was the "Impending Ice Age." Here's some sources that were telling everyone to be "Very alarmed" about Global Cooling: Science magazine (Dec 10, 1976) warned of "extensive glacification," Science Digest (Feb 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we "must prepare for the next ice age," Christian Science Monitor (Aug 27, 1974) reports on the cooling of the earth's climate and the danger to us all, Newsweek (Apr 28, 1975) repeated the same warning, and the New York Times (Sept 14, 1975) said that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950." That's the danger of being so sure of your idea that you refuse to qualify it with words like "possible," "perhaps," "we believe," "it appears that," "in theory," etc. I guess speaking in absolutes is an attempt to give your ideas more credibility, which means that any differences of opinion must be dismissed outright, preferably with pejorative language. Does that sound familiar? If it doesn't, just read this and the archived discussion pages for this article to see what I mean. By the way, since this issue is so contentious and so rapidly changing, shouldn't the "Current Event" tag be placed at the top of the article? Cla68 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is certainly contentious (though 99.9% of it is in the court of public opinion, not in the scientific community). However, I wouldn't say it's rapidly changing. Current events tags are placed on pages that change on the time period of days (or, in some prolonged cases, a month or so); the scientific consensus on global warming has remained the same for more than a decade. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there something akin to True Origins for global warming septics? I mean, a central place where they keep refuted arguments for recycling? Science magazine (Dec 10, 1976) warned of "extensive glacification," indeed...on a time scale of 20000 years, and with the caveat that these predictions are ignoring "anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels"[2] (BTW, in 1976...looks like the topic was already a concern back then!). The rest of your sources is either pop science or even purely popular reporting. This reporting does not remotely reflect the scientific understanding at that time, just as your opinion now in no way reflects currenct scientific understanding of the issue.--Stephan Schulz 11:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What you say may be true, but it should be presented in an article that is devoid of POV, which isn't currently the case. The pop journalism arena, along with other political and cultural aspects of the global warming debate, are pieces of the overall subject, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not and should be discussed along with the presentation of scientific evidence, both pro and con. The article is slowly getting there, only, it seems, because of the dogged persistence of concerned community members who refuse to be hectored and browbeaten into submission. Cla68 17:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We seem to differ about the POV and NPOV perspectives in this article, and have done so for a while. I don't expect that to change soon. Anyways, the relationship between a minor and mistaken popular press bomb 30 years ago and the science of global warming today is to tenuous to have space in an encyclopedic article (which after all, is a condensation of the pertinent facts, not a collection of everything that can be remotely connected to a subject). --Stephan Schulz 18:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear how you perceive the material as relevant. You seem to agree that it's not scientifically relevant, which is the major focus of the page. If there was a section covering 'history of pop science views of climate change' in this article, I'd see how it fits in, but otherwise...? And, at any rate, it's at best an attempt at sophistry - there's no reason to mention this curio except to create a logical fallacy (scientists were wrong in the past about climate, so they're clearly not credible today.) Am I missing something, here? Graft 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course some sophistry is involved. "Absolute" truth, if it exists, and if I understand what the definition of it is, is almost impossible to prove. Therefore, we're left with "relative" and "sophistic" truth, which is why we should be open to discussing the definitions, terms, ideas, and metaphysical evidence for both sides of the issue so that observers can take away what they believe to be as close to the absolute truth as they can perceive with their senses. All that matters is that the evidence of either side be backed-up by creditable, third-party references. From what I've read, the skeptics of human-induced global-warming theory fall into that category. Although perhaps fewer in number, they are people with some credibility (Dr. Bill Gray, for example, of the Atmospheric Science Department at the University of Colorado, considered to be one of the chief experts in the U.S. on severe weather patterns and a virulent opponent of human-induced global warming theory. Source: The Washington Post Magazine, May 28, 2006, pp 8-24) Of course, it's okay to say that the proponents of a particular theory appear to outnumber their opponents. But, to suppress the "minority" view is unfortunate, and in this case I believe, inappropriate. Cla68 20:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Science is generally healthy despite the conflict of interest that comes from government money. For those who dont see the conflict of interest here is my Marxist socioeconomic class analysis of the situation: Businessmen see communists as Academics generally see libertarians ; they both think 'great... heres some jerk who wants to steal my money' Mrdthree 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I presume Cla68 is strongly opposed to Gray, on the grounds that he is govt funded and therefore biased... but is he biased pro- or anti- because of that funding? But to be serious: Gray *is* strongly anti-GW (for reasons that are unclear, but appear to include people being more interested in GW than in his research) and he *is* an expert on hurricanes (in a certain way) but he *isn't* an expert on GW, not even on GW-and-hurricanes (which is, on reflection, probably whats annoying him at the moment, because he can't really contribute to the scientific debate (which is why Cla is citing WaPo not science)) William M. Connolley 22:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never objected to any of the scientific evidence presented in the article, because I think it's all very well presented, illustrated, and explained. In fact, I think the scientific presentations in the article set a standard that other science-related articles on Wikipedia shoud emulate. My objection is that one side is presented as more fact than theory, and the other side is treated as if they didn't have any credibility at all. Thus, I don't advocate deleting any of the current content in the article, just making the language somewhat more qualified and adding the other side of the argument, which really is barely mentioned in the article. As I can see from reading past discussions, there are plenty of community members who are willing and able to add credible input to such an effort, but have been blocked from doing so. Cla68 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cla68, I disagree. What's important is not quid-pro-quo with regards to appeals to authority. Yes, it's true that we, as Wikipedia editors, must rely on credible third-parties as sources for articles. However, it is up to us to accurately reflect the scientific debate, which does NOT operate according to models of democracy. There are no minority rights, here; if the minority cannot buttress its arguments with irrefutible facts, then the minority deserves to be ignored. It is irrefutible fact that we ought to report here, and skeptics should be included only to the extent that they are able to provide that. So, Bill Gray is wonderful and all, but as that article points out, he's long on talk and short on scientific arguments. Why should we listen, then? Graft 22:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you, the minority doesn't deserve to be ignored, especially when they're having as much of an impact on the issue (as you're probably aware, several of the human-induced global warming opponents testified at the recent U.S. federal legislative hearings on the subject, which The Washington Post says was instrumental in persuading the U.S. Congress not to pass global warming regulation legislation) as they are. You're free to put in a retort to their side of the argument in the article. There are other articles on Wikipedia that show dissenting or contrary opinions or theories, even if not many support the alternative view. The Port Chicago disaster, or Attack on Pearl Harbor (see "Japanese views of the attack," which, incidentally, I helped write) entries are examples. I'm sure there are others. If the side you advocate is closer to the "real" truth, then the light of intellectual and open-minded inspection on the evidence of both sides will show that. Choosing to ignore alternative viewpoints is not only unnecessarily myopic, but, based on historical precedent (insert your own example from history here), dangerous. Cla68 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So, cla68, just so I understand you properly, it is your belief that any minority group should be able to enter what they believe to be truth, without any evidence validating their claims? Dogma vs. science, no? There are those who argue that we never went to the moon, that the holocaust didn't exist, and that volcanos are the home of imprisoned souls. Are you asserting that we should give equal voice to those people on the appropriate pages (i.e., the pages about volcanos or the moon)? Viewers likely want facts and peer-reviewed theories held likely true by the scientific community... I find it unlikely that they want to view every zealot's own personal beliefs. I believe wiki (like britanica) is not a forum that gives equal (or any!) weight to minority viewpoints that lack factual support and contradict generally accepted science. Just because they say it doesn't make it true... /Blaxthos 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

interplanetary global warming

Global warming is *not* something that is limited to earth, that is, other planets can warm up as well, Venus being a classic example. To say, as the article currently does, that global warming is "the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades" is incredibly parochial and just plain wrong on the science. TMLutas 12:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (forgot to add sig originally)

"Global warming" without qualification invariably refers to warming of the earth, and nearly invariably to the current temperature increase. As far as I know, Venus is not currently warming, although it has experienced a runaway warming in the past, and has, of course, a strong greenhouse effect. --Stephan Schulz 13:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A second fault is that empirically, we've observed global warming on Mars and Jupiter which tends to support the solar variability theory. The data doesn't yet seem to be there to calculate how much solar climate forcing is going on but that just means that all of our predictions are missing a variable that has the potential to completely change the appropriate climate policy. Policy makers should be drawn to not only the known knowns but also the known unknowns that may make early action highly irresponsible. TMLutas 12:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Empirically, we observe nothing of the kind. There are some indications that climate on Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto are in some kind of flux. But that is extremely tentative. For Pluto, it is based on two incredibly weak measurements, and not really surprising, as Pluto is slightly past its perihelion, and expected to warm if it has any thermal interia. Mars temperature is estimated via the extend of the ice caps. We know next to nothing about Martian climate, but it seems to be dominated by dust storms that change the albedo and heat retention. I know of no demonstrated link to solar forcing. And for Jupiter, about all we know is that "something" may change. Again, there is no demonstrated link to solar forcing.--Stephan Schulz 13:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Surface temperature

This image is misleading. Sure, we know that surface temperatures are up, but global warming theory also talks about temperatures 5 miles, 10 miles and 15 miles up in the atmosphere, not just the 10 to 50 feet near the ground.

Another issue is the use of weather-prediction thermometers to measure long-term trends. How does the accuracy of these thermometers (and the diligence with which they are maintained and recorded) compare to the amount of the surface temperature trend?

And why do some scientists keep harping on (1) the idea that the higher you go in the atmosphere, the more warming should be seen and (2) the observation that there is LESS warming the higher you go, which contradicts the prediction?

I'd like to see the uncertainties about global warming given more attention in the article, rather than making a one-sided presentation which implies that the theory has been proven. --Uncle Ed 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, one reason surface temperatures are used is that it is without a doubt the most data-dense level. While we could do plots of the upper levels of the atmosphere (which I'm sure some people have done), the sparsity of the data both temporally and spatially would make it much less accurate than the surface temperatures. I'll let others speak about the accuracy of these thermometers and what the error bars would look like if they were added, but as an average of the surface temperature over the entire globe, the warming is very statistically significant. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the satellites we've had since 1979 were accurate to 0.001 degrees centrigrade. Isn't that more accurate than surface temp thermometers, which are often read in a hurry by underpaid civil servants?

Or do you mean that the theory that GW is manmade and significant would be undermined by showing a graph of the mid-to-upper atmosphere? --Uncle Ed 20:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Satellite temperature measurements you will notice that they are fraud with error and that by now the best corrections leave them in full agreement with GCMs. I'm putting that graph back in. --Stephan Schulz 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed to put it back in, graph makes sense. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Ed, your talking points are out of date by like a year. Get with the program. Also, you'll note the graph goes back to 1860. I think you'll agree that the satellite record doesn't go that far back. Graft 22:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think pretty much everyone has picked up the slack where I may have made minor omissions in my comments (I had to rush off). Satellites have allowed us to get more accurate and global measurements very recently, but obviously not dating back nearly as long as the surface measurements. As Stephan said, Satellite temperature measurements sums it up pretty well. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 22:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the current Global Warming crisis is because everything right (or really wrong) has occured at about the exact same time period such as Human activity, the geomagnetic pole reversal, the solar variance, and other natural and external cycles. The only problem I have with Global Warming as being bad is that I actually favor it over the long time (though it is always bad when species are lost) because I do not believe that our current climate is where Earth really should be compared to where it was before. Of course, Earth was very different one hundred million years ago with a much warmer climate where Antartica had a subtropical climate and if Earth went back to that climate millions of years from now, many if not all of the species alive now would become extinct and a whole new range of species would have their chance to survive on Earth to face a new mass extinction and a new range of species exist and so on and so on. Many fear that the Earth can't live on with us, but I believe the Earth will learn to live on without us. In the end, we may just doom ourselves and several hundred thousand fellow species, but the Earth will still live on. It is evolution and I favor it, but I still don't want to pollute the Earth at the moment.

Changes & Reverts in Alternative Theories?

I've been following the history and it looks like there's a lot of back and forth regarding Alternative Theories, including what appeared to be one very biased anti GW editorial. Maybe the changes and reverts could be discussed here and a solution could be fleshed out? Cheers! Dubc0724 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history, it looks like the main problem arises because some view that section as not being neutral. Most of the bickering has been over the last sentence because it implies (or at least some believe it implies) that these theories have no merit and that they should not be considered. When a section is labeled as a POV, it is best not to just dismiss it without first acknowledging that there is some opposition to that section of the article. User:Lord_Hawk

I agree, there are two problems here: (1) the article isn't written in NPOV, and (2) the contrarian opinion as to whether global warming really exists, is actually a bad thing if it does, and/or is really caused by human beings hasn't been allowed to be presented. Numerous people, including myself, have tried to fix number 1, but have failed for various reason. I don't see a resolution in sight on this one, because the opposition to fixing number 1 is better organized and more dilligent in the matter. Problem number 2 is probably more resolvable, because I think most in the community will support giving at least a short section to contrarian, scientifically-supported, information, along with rebuttal evidence from the other side. There's nothing wrong with that, because it allows people to see both sides and form their own opinion on the issue. Therefore, I invite anyone to take-up Dubc's offer and post here their suggestions for a contrarian section to be included in the main article. I suggest that evidence from independent researchers such as MIT's Richard Lindzen be utilized instead of any information from an anti-GW lobby website or anything like that. I think that any political/socio-economic/idealogical/conspiracy theories be reserved for the Global warming controversy page, because the main article appears to be reserved for science-based reasoning. Cla68 16:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, on both points. Thanks for what you point out and propose. --Uncle Ed 16:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Minority POV

Points of view which disagree with what a majority of active researchers in the field say, are not "biased" points of view, they are alternatives. There is a dispute (however tiny Kyoto Protocol supporters think it is) between the pro-GW-theory POV and the POV that GW theory is "not yet proven" or just plain wrong.

Deleting expressions of this minority POV can only serve to give readers the impression that there is no dispute whatsoever, itself a disputed point! Let's not get carried away with our bias here. --Uncle Ed 02:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The existence of skeptics is noted in the intro. Beyond that, I think the debate should proceed on actual facts. Which disputed facts do you think are lacking? Graft 04:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Note Eds confusion of the politics/economics (Kyoto) with the science (which is what this article is mostly about) William M. Connolley 07:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confused. I'm interested in the politics of the relationship between the Economics of the treaty (which involves trading emissions credits) and the Science of the matter (which politicians use to justify the trading scheme). As you know, there is a long-running political dispute (particularly in the First World) over whether sufficient "scientific consensus" exists to justify an attempt to lower CO2 emmissions. --Uncle Ed 14:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're not confused, then leave "Kyoto supporters" out of the scientific pages William M. Connolley 14:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that many are just asking that the last sentence be reworded and have accomplished thus, but that effort is brought down in just one edit. Come on people. We all know that there are better ways to state a fact since we were children. You don't just go up to a person who is having difficulty with a problem and say they are stupid.....you encourage them to succeed despite their failures. It seems to me that this is not the case here and it is causing much resentment among the “minority.” Just remember there are better ways to word a statement and the wording now is biased. Lord_Hawk 07:18, 2 June (UTC)

Exactly which statement do you mean, and how are you 100% certain that its biased, based on... what? William M. Connolley 15:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• William K. Stevens: Once science moves beyond the relatively deterministic processes of physics and chemistry, prediction gets more complicated and chancier. The earth's atmosphere, for instance, often frustrates efforts to predict the weather and long-term climatic changes because scientists have not nailed down all of its physical workings and because a substantial measure of chaotic unpredictability is inherent in the climate system. The result is a considerable range of uncertainty, much more so than is popularly associated with science. [3]

Based on the above quote, how well can laymen (particularly policymakers) rely on scientific predictions? I'd like to invite you all to Talk:Scientific predictions so we can plan an article on this topic. --Uncle Ed 15:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, conflating weather and climate is a poor start, as is asserting chaos in the climate. I suggest you find a better source, possibly one who knows something about met? Junkscience is... junk

William M. Connolley 15:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the definition of "junk" science? Why don't we engage in some Socratic Questioning to truly define what "junk" science really is? I think if an experienced Socratic questioner (not me, I'm an amateur at it) led such a discussion, the resulting definition would be so narrow as to render that pejorative term almost unusuable in a contemporary , reasoned debate. However, it would probably be acceptable to use such a term in, for example, a closing argument in a legal proceeding, where sophistic-style reasoning is encouraged and acceptable. However, I think you like to talk about science, which, if I understand what the definition of science is, tries to stay in the realms of "absolute" and "relative" truths, not sophistry. I said earlier that it's inescapable that some sophistry will exist as least partly in this debate. But I think sophistic evidence should be left to the Global warming controversy page. Also, when we discuss scientific evidence here, I think we should try not to use sophistic, or pejorative for that matter, terms. That is, if we claim to be concerned about the true "science" of the issue. Cla68 17:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you've ever read the socratic dialogues, you'll realise that they are deeply biased and unfair, and reach absurd conclusions. But fortunately you're only an amateur at doing that :-). Happily, there is no need to define junk for our purposes William M. Connolley 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Those who use a word or phrase to belittle other ideas or people probably don't care about the "true" definition of the word they're using, because, they probably have a different purpose in mind for using it, than a reasoned search for truth. Cla68 17:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Apply your words to yourself William M. Connolley 21:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks recently, my esteemed sir? Anyway, have a good weekend. I'm bored with science now. --Uncle Ed 21:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or Cla? William M. Connolley 21:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Make that, "Have a great weekend!" :-) --Uncle Ed 21:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. One. I really don't appreciate it when someone who views a section as not being neutral has another wikier pretend like they have no clue why it is not neutral when they know the exact reason. Two. We won't get anywhere unless an atmosphere of respect is generated and all acknowledge it. And three. Maybe we should just have a link to a site just for Alternate Views so those people can have more say on that site, given that it is not attacked and posts reverted from those who believe in anthropomorphic Global Warming. Well that is my two cents. Lord_Hawk

Well, William and I have respect for each other. He's rather a good bloke, aside from his inability to write neutrally about his work. His being here is part of a longrange experiment I proposed of attracting working scientists to the project, and I won't listen to anyone who tries to "run him off the ranch". I may sometimes suspect him of POV pushing, but at least he's good natured about it. He's my buddy, and I'm glad he's here. --Uncle Ed 14:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that neutrality is the key component of Wikipedia. Everything on Wikipedia builds from this foundation. Without it, Wikipedia is just another non-credible, rant site of which there are too many on the Internet. Wikipedia is finally starting to be looked at as a credible source because the quality of the articles is definitely improving, especially in the past year, and also, probably in part due to efforts such as yours to invite involvement by learned academics in various fields. However, if someone can't contribute to Wikipedia in a neutral manner, it really creates a lot of frustration for those of us who try to do so. I don't really believe it's that difficult to suspend one's own opinion when writing about a topic. Plus, we have our fellow community members who are more than ready to point out to us when we've unwittingly written something that isn't truly NPOV. Thus, I find I don't have much patience for those who are either unable or unwilling to do so themselves. Am I the only one who feels this way? Cla68 23:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No you're not. Unfortunately, some people don't seem to realize that skepticism is essential to good science. Without it, people forget to keep themselves open to the possibility that some -- or even all -- of what they think they know might be wrong. Then they start to pick-and-choose data to fit their hypothesis, rather than adjusting the hypothesis to fit the data. Ultimately, they come to reject out-of-hand any information that doesn't agree with their pre-conceived conclusions. That isn't science, it's religion and those who practice resemble cultists more than they do scientists.

(NOTE: This is not directed any any specific person. Individuals like this pop up on all sides of every contested theory.)130.36.62.129 19:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Theorized To Be"

Please discuss the additions/reverts here.

The current sentence reads:

The increased volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, and other human activities, are the primary sources of the human-induced component of warming.

Whether or not you personally believe that there is a human-induced component or that it's significant, why would you need "are theorized to be" when merely discussing the "human-induced component," especially when there's the qualifier "other human activities" ? Are there other human activities that release greenhouse gases that you feel should be added to the sentence? EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Any human-induced component of warming would be due to these factors. Whether this component is significant is theorised to be. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Has it been proved to everyone's satisfaction that GHGs are causing warming? If so, then the article would need to say how much warming they are causing. And the article would not have to mention any opposing views because there would not be any.

But I have found dozens of reports of scientists who do NOT feel it has been proven that GHGs are causing warming. I want these reports mentioned. if there are too many of them, then write one paragraph and use the {{main}} template to refer to Global warming scepticism (or whatever we call it), an article about scientists who do not accept the GW hypothesis and why they don't. --Uncle Ed 15:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously Ed, if you have a list of publications saying this, I'd like to see it. Please list them here. Dragons flight 18:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Ed: Has it been proved to everyone's satisfaction that GHGs are causing warming? If so, then the article would need to say how much warming they are causing. Actually, no, that is fallacious logic. C.f.: To know that cigarettes cause lung cancer, do we need to know exactly how many instances of lung cancer they cause each year? Obviously not. - Abscissa 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bad Chart"

The sum of the various percentages in the pie chart labelled "Anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fuel combustion - contributions to total CO2 emissions, 1990. Source: UNFCCC." is 78.7%. Obviously the sum of the percentages should be 100% (or roughly, due to rounding). This chart needs to be removed/replaced. Does anyone have a good substitute? -summa

Uh, I think the other 23% would be natural emissions (breathing, decomposition, etc.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 13:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol, anyway you slice it, a pie chart that doesn't add up to 100% is wrong! As it is, though, "natural emissions' aren't counted in anything I've ever seen as Anthropogenic GHG Emissions.

It is a bit odd. Whatever is missing should be identified, and it should be better sourced too William M. Connolley 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

See, this is what happens when people other than me are allowed to contribute figures ;-). (Incidentally, Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png has a substantial time scale problem as well.) I can't find the source of the numbers but [4] (page 12) contains a similar figure. It would appear from those data, that the figure presented here actually has the right proportions (i.e. there is no missing slice), but for some reason all of the precentages in the labels on our figure got scaled by 0.78. Dragons flight 19:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a much better chart here: http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/anthroghg.cfm , which includes all GHG gasses (not just CO2), and its numbers add up. I don't know how to make a "postable" version of this chart, but if someone can do it, it ought to replace the bad chart.

N.B. when I say the chart I provided the link to is "much better" that doesn't necessarily mean "good" insofar as there are some significant issue with the underlying data (see http://www.rivm.nl/edgar/documentation/disclaimer/ ). For example, I have read, but cannot cite, sources which say that wood burning in Southeast Asia is a significantly undercounted source of GHG's. That's consistent with the "uncertainties" shown at that link.

New pie chart

I have finally gotten around to creating a figure to replace the "bad" chart. Dragons flight 09:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Texiii's comments

This article is way to dependent on the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There appears to be a bias that, because the IPCC is a UN organization, it DEFINES what scientific oppinion is. There are many organizations, many of which have much better credentials than the IPCC, that contradict the IPCC. It is also apparent that many of the "editors" of this page are them selves environmental activists, i.e. environmental alarmists, who are hijacking this article to promote there own political agendas. I second the call to have this article scientifically peer reviewed by apolitical scientists, not activists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texiii (talk • contribs)

You seem to be confused on a number of points. The IPCC documents the scientific consensus - it does it accurately, and is thus enjoys broad support among global change scientists. In addition, the major authors of this page are climate scientists. Guettarda 05:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you name these organizations which have better credentials than the IPCC? Hundreds of scientists contribute to IPCC reports; would you exclude all of them from a review as being biased? A good summary of the consensus can be found in a letter in Science by Oreskes, 2004, [5], in which the author points out that in an analysis of "928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords ‘global climate change’ ... none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. I don't think anyone here is bowing to the UN. The consensus is solid, and the IPCC is doing the best work synthesizing that data that I am aware of. bikeable (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What harm could a peer review have? Dubc0724 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course a peer review is a great idea, unless (as I worried Texiii is getting at) you exclude every scientist who has ever done work with IPCC or anything else related to the consensus. bikeable (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. A biased peer review is no better than biased research. Dubc0724 19:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Let us start with the current chief of the IPCC Rajendra K. Pachauri. The wiki page indicates he is an Industrial Engineer. If this quailifies as a "climate scientist" then almost any one could be considered a climate scientis, thus rendering the term void. I would expect a "climate scientist" to have a degree in fields SUCH AS physics, meteorology or biology. He is also on record as stating: a consumer boycott of ExxonMobil for its stance on global warming, saying it was "a good way to put economic pressure on the US." This is the type of statement activists make, scientists do not advocate boycotts, or any other action, intended to coerce people into accepting a particular opinion. They present the facts and justify their conclusion based on those facts then let others decide for themselves.

The only "credential" the IPCC has is it's UN sponsorship. The UN is a purely political organizaton of dubious character and competence. (Example, Kofi Anan (sp?) and Oil for food bribes/kick backs.) It has no authority to dictate the scientific consensus. And, about 95% of the articles I find supporting global warming can be traced back to the IPCC/UN. This sounds suspicously like the supporters of global warming ARE bowing down to the UN. Second, I will point out that finding "NONE of the papers disagreed with the consensus position" is a red flag indicating a high probability the papers in question were hand picked to support the conslusion. A truly unbiased article would have found at least SOME papers disputing the conclusion.

As an example, I would draw every one's attention to the Petition Project which lists the names of 17,000! who dispute the "consensus" espoused by the IPCC. Even if the "hundreds of scientists" who worked on the IPCC report works out to 1700, it is still small compared to the number who signed this petition. Obviously, I can not track down the bio's of all signators, but I will note that the introduction is written by: Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., President Emeritus, Rockefeller University which I believe is a sufficient credential to at least listen to what he has to say. Also, a quick scan of the signators reveals that about half have a Phd which, again, I believe is a sufficent credential to at least refrain from dismissing their opinion out of hand. I am tempted to list this petition in the actual article, but to do so, I would have to edit the article to say that there is no consensus on global warming which would result in an immediate counter edit by Connolley, et al, in an effort to prevent the public from hearing of any opposition to their opinions.

As for peer review, if the number of signatures on this position is any indication, and I find it hard to imagine otherwise, I would expect any, unbiased, referred scientific journal to have %80 to %90 percent authors/readers with an opinion opposing the so called Global Warming consensus. As an aside, if a peer review by a group with an opposing bias, either justified or unjustified, ends up supporting the position, it would GREATLY strengthen that position: i.e. convincing your friends is easy, convincing your opponents is a true victory.

And I final remebered how to sign these things.Texiii 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The petition is widely regarded as having been deceptive. See for example [6] and our article on Oregon Petition. Among other problems "17000 scientists" included anyone with Bachelor of Science degree or higher, and makes no distinction whether they are an active scientist or in a climate related field. They have admitted that only 13% of signers came from "physical or environmental sciences" and that most of those were physicists. Scientific American surveyed a random sampling of signers claiming to hold a PhD and estimated that only ~200 were active climate researchers. Now, 200 is not an insignificant number, but it certainly no where near the grossly inflated 17000. As for the IPCC consensus, please see scientific opinion on climate change for a list of major scientific organizations endorsing their position, including for example, the National Science Academies of every G8 country. Dragons flight 01:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

CO2 Chart

Can someone put up a recent CO2 chart that shows the historical changes in CO2. I think this is very illustrative, but I'm afraid I don't know how to do it (See http://images.google.com/images?q=increase+%22carbon+dioxide%22&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images). --Ssilvers 06:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I find this one very enlightening:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm

130.36.62.122 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Slow Down

The introduction may as well be adapted to the body of this report. According to Jimbo Wales on his user pages discussion forum, the very definition and/or summary of global warming should be stated in the opening paragraph; turning the article into a much more readable topic.

Global Warming? A Myth?

I suggest you all take a look at these articles: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html http://www.cei.org/pdf/5288.pdf http://www.crnc.org/index.php?content=beach I think because of this evidence the wikipedia page should recieve some heavy editing. The wikipeida page says that a majority believe that global warming which is completely opposite to what the first article says. Ergzay 16:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no peer-reviwed articles in scientific journals from the past 10 years -- none -- that suggest that global warming is not occuring. If you believe there are, it would be nice if you could list them here. Articles that appear in the mass media are not peer reviwed and certainly not articles from "think tanks" either. - Abscissa 16:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If people would use their spare time reading the IPCC reports just as carefully as those papers Ergzay presented, a lot of discussions here could be much more advancing-the-article-oriented. Hardern 17:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, people prefer to read that which flatters their own world-view, and most people have a very difficult time differentiating science from editorial commentary. - Abscissa 17:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also the problem that many people worldwide have been fed a load of, umm, propaganda about this issue, both from their political leaders and their media. It's hard to overcome the big lie, especially when it is (still) repeated so often.

Atlant 17:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

To Abscissa: I suggest you read the articles before you hype your baseless argument. In the second article I listed there is a link to an article in Science which, correct me if I am wrong, is peer reviewed. While it does not say that global warming is not occuring, it says that the ice in Greenland is increasing inland. To quote the second article "Time ignores another paper in Science by Ola Johannessen of the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Bergen, Norway, who found that ice is accumulating on Greenlan's interior glaciers." Now give me citation on where your opinion comes from.

To add to the list of articles I gave above I have two others, one from DenverPost and another from CEI.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

"The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contents Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominit in the field, agree."

"Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming 'hoax' makes him an outcast."

"'They've been brainwashing us for 20 years,' Gray says. 'Starting with nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was.'"

"Both Gray and Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up."

Well so much for the unbiased scientific community.

And for my second article: http://www.cei.org/pdf/2317.pdf

"Myth: Global Warming Will Produce More Storms"

"Another warning is that global warming will cause more frequent or more intense severe weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts, and floods. There is no scientific basis to support this claim. Dr. William Gray, a Colorado State University scientist and one of the world’s foremost hurricane experts, does not believe that global warming is affecting hurricanes: 'It sure as hell ain’t global warming,' he bluntly noted on MSNBC."

I copied only small excerpts from the above articles, there is much more info in the fifth one I posted than which I copied.

Ergzay 06:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Ergzay

I have just looked over the history of the Global Warming page and there have been many reverts of information that could quite possibly be excellent points on debunking this myth. I think that the people who edit out this information should stop doing so to keep the squelch off for this bursting issue.

Ergzay 06:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Quoting: To Abscissa: I suggest you read the articles before you hype your baseless argument. In the second article I listed there is a link to an article in Science which, correct me if I am wrong, is peer reviewed. While it does not say that global warming is not occuring, it says that the ice in Greenland is increasing inland. #1 - the article you linked to is not from the journal Science. If there is a link to the journal Science within it, so what? The CEI is funded exclusively by private companies--mainly oil companies--to promote a specific agenda. #2 - whether the ice inland in Greenland is increasing or not, I don't personally know. But if it were, that would not be an unexpected consequence of global warming since cooler temperatures are expected in many parts of the world and "warming" refers to the overall average temperature increase. -Abscissa 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also NB that the CEI has released commercials that say we do not need to worry about CO2 emissions because CO2 is essential to life, which is a wonderful example of an invalid argument. - Abscissa 14:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether global warming is a myth or not, I cannot say. However, it is clear this article is only presenting one side of the story. One of the most important functions of wikipedia is to serve as a research tool . While this article offers several excellent sources of original research to support global warming, I have not yet found any that oppose the view the mankind is responsible for global warming or that the warming we see will not lead to catastrophic consequences. If Gray and Pielke are being truthful when they call global warming a hoax, then this article needs to reference the studies they rely on for their opinion. Gray also says there are a variety of opinions on the subject. I would like to know what these other opinions are exactly and what research has been done to support them. RonCram 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron - Been there, done that. It's not going to happen on this article any time soon... Dubc0724 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron, what catastrophic consequences are suggested by the article? TimL 18:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tim, the catastrophic consequences are laid out in the article under "Effects."

• 3 Effects
  • 3.1 Effects on ecosystems
  • 3.2 Impact on glaciers
  • 3.3 Destabilisation of ocean currents
  • 3.4 Environmental refugees
  • 3.5 Spread of disease
  • 3.6 Financial effects
  • 3.7 Biomass production
  • 3.8 Opening up of the Northwest Passage in summer

I am certain that Gray and others have a completely different view regarding effects in each of these areas, but I do not see any attempt to be fair to the views of other scientists in this article. The article falls far short of being NPOV. RonCram 15:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Catastrophic is your word, not the articles'. Possible consequences are explored, including positive ones. Wether you interpret them as 'catastrophic' is up to you. TimL 22:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tim, with all due respect - what you wrote is hogwash. There is no way anyone can read these effects without thinking them catastrophic. There are several views about global warming that the article does not represent. The article consistently discusses only the more dire predictions. No one who is even somewhat knowledgeable about the subject can read this article and think it is a fair and balanced presentation of the evidence or the varying views interpreting the evidence. RonCram 02:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You have just made several hypothesis (hypothesi?) where is you're evidence? It would help your case to cite specific examples of issues that are being neglected. I don't interpret the consequences as necessarily catostrophic. Apparently you do. Why so? TimL 02:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tim, if you read through the sections I directed you to you will see the article is predicting a number of catastrophic events, including the extinction of species including possibly human life. Rising sea levels is a catastrophic event that displaces ecosystems and destroys billions of dollars in beach front property. The article also predicts that millions of people in India and China would eventually run out of water. The article predicts that disease will increase. Perhaps worst of all, the articles predicts that as the earth warms the ice caps will melt and further accelerate the rate of warming. I have only touched the surface. RonCram 02:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but the article isn't predicting anything. Scientists are though. You may want to talk with them. TimL 03:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ergzay, although I agree with you that the article could be written in a more neutral manner and should present some contrarian views on global warming, the three websites you quote appear to be from lobbying groups who have political agendas driving their opposition to global warming theory. Therefore, those articles don't have much credibility. If you take the sources they supposedly quote, along with some sources from independent scientists/researchers and put that all together into a reasoned and sourced argument against what this article advocates, you might have a case for including it in the entry. The arguments in the three websites you quote would be better presented in the Global warming controversy article. Cla68 17:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

the known and the unknown -- the case for sacrilege

It may be sacrilege to question the interpretation of the global warming fundamentalists, but here is the case. It falls into two categories, the known and the unknown.

The known:

• solar activity have been at unusually high levels for over 60 years and based on reconstructions that is unlikely to be sustained. Solanki (2004, 2005) Muscheler (2005)

• while most temperature change from new sustained levels of forcing takes place in the first 100 years, it takes 1000 years for the climate to achieve stability or equilibrium with the new level of forcing due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. Meehl (2005) Wigley (2005)

• we know that paleo climates reconstructed at equilibrium time scales show strong correlation with solar reconstructions, and that this is difficult to explain by differences in direct radiative forcing expected from the orbital and other signals seen in the solar variation

The unknown:

• We don't know the amount of recent warming this new level of solar forcing may account for, because the climate commitment studies haven't been done using unbiased models and starting from the time period of this high level of solar forcing. Evaluating equilibrium temperatures from these high levels of solar forcing are complicated by net volcanic aerosol cooling during the first part of the period.

• We don't know the relationship between past solar activity as reconstructed from sunspot and and isotopic evidence and the level of radiative forcing. We only have good radiative forcing measurements for the last two or three solar cycles.

• We don't know the indirect and feedback mechanisms coupling changes in solar activity to the climate, although leading theories are stratospheric coupling or cosmic ray/cloud coupling.

The known:

• We know models range over more than a factor of 2.5 in climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing and vary similarly in their predictions using various scenerios.

• We know that estimates for climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, as reconstructed from the paleoclimate data are lower than current climate model predictions, although this may be explained by non-equilibrium vs equilibrium time scales and conditions.

• We know that albedo and cloud physics are two particularly problematic areas for models, and all models are biased towards higher albedos than is actually observed, thus underrepresenting solar forcing. Since the models fit the 20th century data well, they must have compensating errors that warm the climate elsewhere.

The unknown:

• We don't know what the predictive or attributive accuracy of climate models are currently or what their accuracy was at the time of the IPCC TAR, but we do know there are known problems and biases which raise questions.

--Poodleboy 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Trolling is generally not allowed on wikipedia. Why is it allowed in articles like this? - Abscissa 02:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Abscissa, that characterization is not appropriate. The points PB raises are technical and relevant, though I disagree with some of them. Such discussions, to the extent that they help to shape the article, are appropriate to this forum. Dragons flight 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PB, the biggest limitation of what you have written is that of your 10 points you only cite support for two of them. The uncertainties in climate change are a major topic of research and as such what is known and unknown is discussed at length in papers and summary reports like the IPCC, as well as quantifying the uncertainties as best as we are able. I don't have the time to prepare a point by point response to you, but perhaps another contributor will take up that challenge. Dragons flight 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe most of the others are either in the article or have been discussed here. For instance albedo is discussed above as the very first topic on this page. See: [7]. I cite a paper in that discussion. The sensitivity variation in the models is from the IPCC and is cited in this article proper. Search this article for "sensitivity". With such a range of sensitivities, the models clearly disagree with each other can't be all right. Yet the IPCC appears to think that combining or averaging them, somehow makes them better, much like a panel of experts. Yet as the albedo cite shows, they all have a systemic positive albedo bias. I'd have to look for a cite for estimates of paleo-climate GHG sensitivities. It has been awhile since I reviewed that, but it is pretty accepted as a unresolved issue with equilibrium the leading theory to explain the disparity between model and paleoclimate sensitivities. It will be interesting to see how the IPCC does this next time around.--Poodleboy 07:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what the EPA said after the 2001 report came out: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html

"What's Known for Certain? Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities....."

Newer reports are gloomier after observations of the collapse of ice shelves in Antarctica and the like: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/newsandeventsScienceandPolicyNews.html Can someone put that cite in the article? (or does it get broken down into the various reports?) I'm not exactly sure how to cite this correctly. --Ssilvers 04:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So many words... sigh. I disagree with most of PBs stuff; as DF poitns out, most of it is unreferenced. For example We don't know the indirect and feedback mechanisms coupling changes in solar activity to the climate - this presuposes that such a mechanism does exist. The available data is fully compatible with no solar amplification at all. estimates for climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, as reconstructed from the paleoclimate data are lower than current climate model predictions - no, palaeo estimates are about 3 oC for clim sens. Your other points fall apart too William M. Connolley 07:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

One must presuppose the indirect feedback mechanism exists, or reject the paleoclimate/solar reconstructions. That is the point. The TAR statement that the latter 20th century warming is fully compatible with no net natural contribution (they combined volcanic and solar in their statement), is based on the model results, which have since been shown to have a systemic positive albedo bias. So you will have to reevaluate your acceptance of that conclusion. The paleo estimates of sensitivity that I have seen are on the order 0f 0.75oC not 3oC.--Poodleboy 07:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are refering, I believe, to Veizer and Shaviv in referencing the 0.75 C. However those authors never claimed that their result held over very short timescales and in a subsequent publication (Eos Vol. 85, No. 48, 30 November 2004) acknowledged that without the long-term compensation of continental ice sheets then a 1.5-4 C climate sensitivity was plausible. There initial results (covering 100s of Myrs, mind you) is a sceptics' talking point, but not really a serious challenge to the predictions of climate change during the coming century. Paleoclimate data over shorter timescales (such as during the last glacial maximum) generally predict responses within the IPCC range. However, I will disagree with William in thinking that we probably do need some mild solar amplification, but it doesn't negate the point that solar activity has been flat over recent decades when temperatures have risen substantially. Dragons flight 08:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, V&S, and I mentioned the time scale issue. Correction of the models may close the gap and the time scale theory may then no longer be necessary. Yes, solar activity has been flat, and that point does not need to be negated, when it is flat at high levels that have not equilibrated yet. The thermal inertial of the oceans dampen high frequency signals. Keep in mind that solar activity had been increasing since the maunder minimum until it reached this high plateau about 65 years ago. Most of the temperature impact from this sustained flat level of solar forcing would be realized over 100 years. In this particular case, the volcanism which resulted in cooling during this period would extend the time needed to equilibrate. If Solanki is correct, this high level of solar forcing will likely end before its full temperature impact has been realized. 09:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC) --Poodleboy 10:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the commitment papers, including the ones you cite, you'd noticed that much of the warming is accomplished in the first decade or two as the land and atmosphere equilibrate. The rest proceeds at a much slower rate. For solar forcing commitment to work as a total explanation, you'd expect the rate of warming now to be ~1/5 the rate it was in the past. Instead the present warming is at or near a maximal rate for recorded history. Also, keep in mind that the climate change attribution models all include commitment effects. Even considering commitment and some solar amplification, it is hard to attribute more than ~1/3 of the warming in recent decades solar effects. Dragons flight 14:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I partially agree, actually perhaps mostly agree. Those first couple decades of the plateau in solar activity, were during a time of net cooling, so the temperature rise and net storage of heat in the oceans were delayed until that lapsed while the high level of solar forcing continued the 80s, 90s, 00s. The models, as they exist, already can get the solar contribution as high as 36%, with the albedo corrections this can go higher. I don't deny a significant anthro GHG component, so I guess technically I am not a GW skeptic. But if the revised models increase the solar attribution to say the 33 to 60% range instead of the 16 to 36% range, then their GHG sensitivity will be corrected to the extent that future predictions are much more benign. The solar attribution component of the commitment will also be increase. Not only do future predictions of GHG impact get reduced, the temporary nature of this high level of solar forcing further moderates the outlook.--68.35.43.82 14:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any good reference for this? My impression has been that much of the solar forcing uncertainty is already incorporated into the top of that 16-36% range you quote, which would imply that even if these things do need to be corrected it isn't going to move nearly as much as you think it is. In particular, my impression has been that the model independent paleoclimate correlation studies looking at the last several centuries are still with that range. (16-36% is still more than a factor of two uncertainty, after all.) Dragons flight 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. I was thinking of, for example, the correlation study of Solanki & Kirvova (2003) who attribute 30% of warming since 1970 to solar effects based solely on solar proxies and the historical temperature record, quite independent of global climate models and GHG sensitivity. Dragons flight 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that and other similar attempts. I think the flaw is that, unfortunately as problematic as models are, there is no other good way to account for energy storage in the ocean, without going to equilibrium time scales, which makes analyses such as the Solanki's above, useless for a mere 30 years, over which solar activity was relatively constant. For the albedo problems, I think the best reference is Roesch [I prefer this link to essentially the same abstract I cited above. [8]]. In the abstract, he writes "Simulated global mean annual surface albedos are slightly above the remote-sensed surface albedo estimates.". The article has been accepted and is currently in prepub, although the work has been presented at several conferences. I look forward to discussing it when the full text has been published. I've been waiting for it for several months.--Poodleboy 16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PB, thank you for the reference regarding albedo. Do you have any reports arguing that the fraction associated to solar forcing needs to be substantially increased? It is obviously an important issue, but not something that Wikipedia can really respond to until it has been published and discussed in the literature. Dragons flight 17:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What you have to realize is that slight errors in albedo, even on the order of 0.01 represent more than 10 to 13 watts/m^2, if globally averaged model albedo's are off by that or more, you can easily get to values that comparable to the contribution of the total increase in well mixed GHGs. The albedo problems in the models cannot be corrected by a mere global increase in solar forcing, since most of the problems that lift the globally averaged albedo error are due to much higher albedo errors over specific land areas. The Roesch abstract specifically mentions snow cover areas, where, of course, the local errors can amount to 100s of watts/m^2. The impact of albedo errors will be complicated, because most of the impact of will be during the day of course, and due to land distribution, more of the impact will be in the northern hemisphere than in the southern. GHGs of course, although their watts/m^2 absolute values are low, regain some lost ground because their impact is over the whole 24 hour day. Unfortunately, with such slight errors making such large differences, models will have to become more rigorous before they can have much credibility in either attribution or prediction. I don't full text access to the text of the Bender article that has been published, so I don't know to what extent it calculates globally averaged albedo errors, but once the Roesch article is finally published, there is no reason wikipedia cannot reflect it immediately. It was accepted for publication several months ago. Unfortunately there is a huge publication backlog in advance of the AR4, so these articles have been trickling out. We can get to specifics then.--Poodleboy 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the effects will be as large as you think they will be. First, you are overstating the effect of a 0.01 error in albedo. Yes, the solar constant for direct, top of atmosphere sunlight is ~1360 W/m^2, but after accounting geometric effects (e.g. latitude) and the absorption/scattering from the atmosphere, the forcing at the surface averages ~350 W/m^2. Still, 3.5 W/m^2 would be a big number, but I'd maintain that this number will have little impact on the attribution/prediction studies. The reason is that the key variable in attribution and prediction is ΔT/ΔF, i.e. the change in temperature associated with a given change in forcing. If the error, in this case in the forcing, F, is constant over the model run then it would have relatively little implication for model results that depends on how the modeled world changes over time. Since we are on the topic, one might as well mention that many of the models have errors in average global temperature of a couple degrees (or did last time I was looking into the issue). But again, if a temperature error is constant throughout the model, it has only little impact on attribution. Of course, we would prefer that all of these issues be resolved so that the models could be as realisitic as possible, but they are still a work in progress. People can and will try to draw conclusions as best we can from the models that we have. While these results will have to be corrected, I doubt the change will be the factor of 2 modification you suggest above. Dragons flight 14:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The ΔT/ΔF would only make sense at equilibrium. The whole point of climate commitment is that ΔT will change without changes in F until equilibrium to a new level of forcing is reached. For instance, in the Gregory study cited on the climate sensitivity page, there is an admission that the 20th century started with some warming already committed, because new levels of forcing had not reached equilibrium yet. If the positive albedo bias in the models is corrected they will have more heat they have to store in the oceans. Of course for the modern period where we have lots of data on the forcing, the models already match the heat flux into the ocean. To make the accounts balance with the extra heat from the sun, they will have to correct their erroneous energy budgeting elsewhere. You are right that my 10 watts/m^2 figure was based on solar flux at 1 AU in the plane orthogonal to the sun. I prefer that figure to the average figure your cited, although the average figure may be easier to compare to GHG forcing. Note that even only a 0.01 positive albedo bias, is comparable to the CO2 forcing. This implies the albedo error could have an impact as great as the total CO2 attribution. You can't dismiss this as being only a relative error, because to get the sea level rise correct the energy budget has to balance, and not be only relatively correct. BTW, do you know if the average solar constant, is for daytime only? I haven't worked through the geometry. The global albedo error is not smoothly distributed. It is concentrated at much higher values on land at times of snow melt and in the desert (presumably year round there).--Poodleboy 15:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the above thread has been continued here: [9]--Poodleboy 04:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you have invalid palaeo estimates. Try http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html. Your insistence that the models are all biased is tedious and wrong William M. Connolley 08:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are in for a surprise when you read the albedo literature.--[[ 09:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC) --Poodleboy 10:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The paleo cites at that blog, do not arrive at their sensitivities independent of the models.--Poodleboy 10:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Even the analyses of the Vostok data appear to rely partially upon the biased models.--Poodleboy 10:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking in your boosting of solar forcing. I don't think any "revision" of the models will boost your values; in fact even 36% is at the far high end; its no good quoting that value (or even 16-36%) as though absolute. GHG forcing clearly dominates over solar, certainly since pre-industrial. William M. Connolley 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Theory

There is much back and forth about whether to call Global Warming a "theory" (multiple reverts today). Although technically it is a theory (in that it can be falsified) so is every other scientific conclusion. In the common parlance, however, theory denotes high uncertainty, which does not appear to be the case in global warming. Thus I (and given the reverts, several others) think referencing it as a "theory" should be eschewed, since it tends to induce doubt where there is none. Thoughts or clarifications? --TeaDrinker 01:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "induce doubt where there is little" would be more accurate? Dubc0724 01:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the doubt is about whether this phenomena portends something about the future that we need to be concerned about, and doubt about whether we can or should do anything about it, even if it is a concern. The article is about the evidence for the phenomenon, what that evidence says about the causes of the phenomenon and about our knowledge of the climate system, and whether we understand the climate system well enough to make useful and perhaps actionable predictions about how the phenomena will evolve, and about how credible are the predictions that have been made, and about what interventions in the climate are possible and might work. Global warming has achieved the status of an observed phenomenon. The attributions and predictions surrounding it are theories or perhaps mere opinions, or perhaps the reports of results from models based upon theories.--Poodleboy 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

PB agrees that global warming is "an observed phenomenon." In addition, the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere by humans, as well as deforestation by humans, are observed phenomena, as is the increase in worldwide atmospheric CO2 to levels never observed before in the geologic record. Also, the increased trapping of heat by an atmosphere with increased levels of CO2 is a well-understood mechanism. So, there is no doubt that the CO2 emissions of humans will increase the temperature of the Earth above what it would be without such emissions. So, I guess PB is objecting to the forecasts of how much the temperature will increase, and what the exact results of that increase will be. But there is rigorous scientific analysis (and observations, including the most recent alarming observations of rate of rising sea levels) on both of these issues that leaves no doubt that this is a serious challenge to the future of our quality of life on this planet. The only reason that the press and public do not understand this science is that the oil companies, automobile companies and other powerful interests spend a lot of money to obfuscate the issues, exactly the way that the tobacco companies were so successeful for so long at obfuscating the science on smoking. PB, I commend to you the following recent quote by Dr. Joseph J. Romm, previously the acting assistant Secretary of Energy in the U.S.: "Global warming is going to transform this country and our transportation and the way we live our lives. If we don't act pretty soon, in an intelligent fashion, then change will be forced upon us by the radically changed climate... global warming is the issue of the century...." <http://www.earthsky.org/humanworld/interviews.php?id=49439> --Ssilvers

The model based attributions and predictions are not yet rigorous, they are still just interesting qualitative tools, see the albedo discussions above. If oil companies are trying to obsfuscate, they haven't managed to make a dent in the fundamentalist daemonizing global warming culture. It wouldn't seem to be in their interest to do so anyway, since they are a much less GHG impact energy source than coal. If the press and public do not understand the science it is more likely to be due to past educational deficiencies than to anything else. Do you understand the science?--Poodleboy 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This just begs the question: how exactly do you make models to predict an unprecedented event? (I'm assuming that we're all in agreement that that's what "never observed before" means.) Since the scientific method is "based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence" I'd say we're still at least a few hundred years' worth of data collection away from climate modeling acheiving the level of a true science. Until then, it's really just some fancy guesswork. 130.36.62.122 19:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason that the press and public do not understand this science is that the oil companies, automobile companies and other powerful interests spend a lot of money to obfuscate the issues, exactly the way that the tobacco companies were so successeful for so long at obfuscating the science on smoking. Maybe it's just me, but all I've heard my entire life is how GW is here and it's gonna kill us all. I'm still waiting. :-) But seriously, from elementary school to college, it was presented as fact. I see plenty of propaganda from both sides, so it's pretty much a wash to me as a "layperson" Dubc0724 13:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would help the article if it discussed the theory of global cooling that heralded a coming ice age that was so popular in the early to mid-1970s. The earth did show an established cooling period from about 1945 to 1970s. I do not have the exact dates in front of me. It may help readers understand the issue from an historical perspective and may help them decide whether global warming is "theory" or established scientific fact. RonCram 15:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you search the entry, you will see a discussion of global cooling and a See also link to it. In addition, if you search for the word "cooling", you will see additional discussion where appropriate. I think that global cooling is referenced adequately in the article, and you can just click on it if you want to know more about it. Plus, the various graphs and charts show it. Any more discussion of it would, IMO just distract from the explanation of what "global warming" is, which is what this entry is about. Note that when global cooling was an issue, the various data about CO2, changes in polar ice, etc. that we now know about had not yet been collected.

As to Dub's observation, we can see the effects of Global warming. The seas are rising. Hurricane strength is increasing. Droughts and floods are more severe. Global warming is here, and it is accelerating. But with the government and big business working to introduce doubt into the minds of the public, and with the enormous number of coal power plants being built in China and India, and the low emission standards for cars in the US, we are facing a very serious situation. The problem is not that the effects on most people in the US are catastrophic now (although they are for people in drought areas or New Orleans), but that if we do not act now to really focus on renewable energy, conservation and the like (I mean by spending billions and billions on research and subsidizing renewables and efficiency), we and our children will wake up in a couple of decades and wonder how we let the oceans rise several meters, how we let hurricanes get out of control, how we let new epidemics spread, etc. --Ssilvers 16:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sslivers, the article has one passing mention of the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. I don't think that is adequate to give the present discussion a proper historical context. Perhaps the article could use a section on the "History of Climatology" or maybe wikipedia has a separate article this one could link to. Either of those would help readers get a better understanding. RonCram 02:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

By the by, if you read up on global cooling (it's a bit buried in that article), you'll find the claims of certainty as to the theory being scientifically valid were many orders of magnitude lower in the scientific community than is the case for global warming today. The distinction between cooling and warming is somewhat less in the popular imagination because the popular press is disinclined to properly qualify any story on any subject, especially in regard to caveats applicable to scientific research/debate. So (to give a recent example for MMR) "1 scientist gave a powerpoint presentation at a conference" is given the same weight as multiple published studies. Rd232 ^talk 08:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is all assuming that humans are causing it, and that humans can fix it. And out of curiosity - how is GW spreading epidemics? Dubc0724 16:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

See "Effects" and "Spread of Disease" in the article. --Ssilvers 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dubc -- by GW are you referring to Global Warming or GW Bush? :-) - Abscissa 16:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Either one. :-) Dubc0724 18:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not even going to bother reading these gigantic comments above. As for the word "theory" -- this is often cited by critics as "evidence" that we are uncertain about GCC. Due to the problem of induction though, we can't approach 100% certainity in science, and for example gravity is also a theory. This is not an excuse to run around and tell people gravity does not exist. However, I still do think the word "theory" belongs in the article. - Abscissa 16:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And no matter what you think of the word "theory", it's been hashed and rehashed in the sections above. No need to go through it again. Dubc0724 18:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you really look at it, everything is really just a theory, even the three "laws" on Newtonian Mechanics. We like to say a theory becomes a "law" when the majority believes in it, but we are no omnipotent and thus we will never know whether a theory, how complete and believable, is really a "law". Lord_Hawk 07:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC-8)

Fahrenheit

For those of us only familiar with the Fahrenheit scale, it'd be helpful to see those numbers given parenthetically throughout the article (or at least in the introduction and other major statements of the theory). Fireplace 08:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No way! Is there a MoS guide for this? William M. Connolley 09:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! At the same time that William posted his warm and fuzzy response above, I did it. If William insists on reverting it, fine. But, William, this is not a scientific article, it is an encyclopedia entry intended to be read by people from different countries. So what harm does it do to give the same data in a manner that all English speakers will understand? --Ssilvers 13:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate your view, this *is* a scientific article, and proliferating units is bad. If people really don't understand oC, then link the first one, and they can go and find out. So I've reverted. But I welcome other views... William M. Connolley 13:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry William, Wikipedia convention is that conversions should usually be given. Dragons flight 13:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How hideous. It certainly isn't done, though - not within the GW type pages. Where is it done? What about... water? carbon dioxide? Not really (though the CO2 info box gives K). I don't think the convention is used - maybe needs revision? William M. Connolley 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Get over it, doc. Some of our readers are non-scientists and don't even know ST means surface temperature. My mom never quite grasped metric units. We must think of our target audience: the general reader who wants to know something about science. --Uncle Ed 21:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(double edit conflict, sigh, and all just for a bit of fun) At least, we will not have to present also Rankine, Delisle (I'm sure somebody in Russia still uses this) and definitely not Réaumur values ;) Hardern 21:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In this article, Michael Duff mentions the case of a woman who was asked by a TV interviewer if she believes in Global Warming. She said: ‘’If you ask me, it’s all this changing from Fahrenheit to Centigrade that’s causing it'’. :) Count Iblis 13:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit isn't an SI unit. Considering that this is a heavily scientific article, I would think most of our readership should be familiar...? Oh well, minor point anyhow. I would support only one unit, just out of aesthetics. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe one day the people who came up with the date formatting preference thing (25 May) will make it so temperatures can display in C or F as each user prefers... Rd232 ^talk 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's dumb. They should all just plug into the Ur-Mind and download the appropriate cortical schemata directly, avoiding this whole "language" problem entirely. Graft 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

While I can see the arguments for keeping it only in Celsius, the sad truth is that many readers don't have a clue about Celsius and couldn't care less. I think the added Fahrenheit values will help the average American reader understand the concept better. Conversion is probably a necessary evil in this case. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientific results are universally published in degrees Kelvin or Celcius. Since these translate to fractional values Fahrenheit, there is the danger that the false impression will be given of more significant digits of precision than in the actual results. Care should be taken to convert the range of error to degrees F as well, and that the actual reported results be primary, with the conversions clearly subsidiary in parentheses.--Poodleboy 07:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Predicted Effects

User:Ed Poor has changed the title 'Effects' to 'Predicted effects'. I am not sure about whether this is POV pushing. I think most but not all have been seen to occur and if the language in each section is appropriate just Effects would be better than 'Predicted effects'. I think there is suitable language in most sections (eg 'Even a relatively small rise in sea level would ...' admits the possibility that a very small rise would not be severe). I should however point out that the attribution to GW is probably a lot less clear than whether we have seen some of the effects.

If the title is Predicted effects then should hurricanes be mentioned at all? If some models show it and some models do not show it, is this just evidence that the models are different and have not made a reliable prediction? I think some mention of hurricanes is appropriate but possibly shorter and possibly demoted to a other possible effects section. Possibly also add that this is unlikely to be good reason to spend money on prevention of global warming as the money would be better spent on changing society to make it less vunerable.

I would be inclined to change back to Effects as the title and change 'The extent and likelihood of these consequences is a matter of considerable controversy.' to 'The extent of these consequences and the likelihood of them being more than just mild is a matter of considerable controversy. However, I accept that could be too much opinion pushing in the other direction. crandles 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

By convention, when converting from C to F, it should be rounded to retain the same number of digits past the decimal point in F that the C measurement did, exactly to avoid false precision. This is similar to the EU airlines placing pounds in ()s on carry on weight limits (and trucating) for the benifit of travelers from the US who have no natural feel of kilos either. Jon 13:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

main page summary

Version I (Natalinasmpf) suggested

Well since this is going to be on the main page, it seems that Raul implemented a different summary than I suggested (that WMC also edited slightly):

Global warming refers to the increases in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans that have been observed in recent decades. The scientific opinion on climate change is that much of the recent change may be attributed to human activities. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, among other human activities, are the primary sources of the human-induced component of warming. Observational sensitivity studies and climate models referenced by the IPCC predict that global temperatures may increase by between 1.4 and 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including rises in sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. These changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as tropical cyclones or floods. There are a few scientists who contest the view about attribution of recent warming to human activity. Uncertainties exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and there is a hotly contested political and public debate over attempts to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to cope with the consequences. (More...)

Version to be implemented

Predicted increase in temperatures over the next century

Global warming refers to the observed increases in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The average global temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °C over the 20th century, and the scientific opinion on climate change is that it is likely that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". The increased volumes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, and other human activities, are the primary sources of the human-induced component of warming. Observational sensitivity studies and climate models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures may increase by between 1.4 and 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including rises in sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. These changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes and tornados. (More...)

Recently featured: Absinthe – Western Front (World War I) – Che Guevara

Comments about the main page summaries

Methinks that the one suggested is better, because there is more concise information over a larger breadth of a topic (rather than going into a long list of possible natural disasters I gave the more immediately destructive ones). I of course don't want to rewrite the template at whim so can I ask whether I should go ahead and replace the current summary with the one suggested?

[And oh, congratulations: this talk page has had 5000+ edits since its move in February 2004. Lively discussion, as always. ;-)] Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth (not much obviously) I think the first introduction is better because it's more neutral. Is neutrality an endangered species when discussing global warming? Prior evidence suggests that it is. Cla68 04:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No objections, so I've updated accordingly, with a small change. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"observational" climate sensitivity studies are not

I removed the observational climate sensitivity studies phrase because it was misleading and plus this paragraph is about predictions and the predictions were based on model studies. Although the phrase is one that is used to describe some studies, the phrase gives the misleading impression that the climate sensitivity studies are independent of the models. They aren't. See the discussion and my corrected text at climate sensitivity.--Poodleboy 08:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But your text states that the sens studies are purely model based, which is wrong. In particular the Grregory et al is obs based for its lower bound; asserting (as you've done now) that this is entirely modelling is worse than misleading William M. Connolley 08:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How is this stating that they are "purely model based", e.g., "but also dependent on estimates of pre-existing average heat flux into the oceans based on models". My intent is to indicate that they are not totally independent of the models. Now in the global warming page, those predictions are purely model based, or, are you saying they fudged the model results somehow, and that they used purely observational climate sensitivity studies to fudge them? If you provide the cite, I will try to come to agreement on how those predictions are based.--Poodleboy 08:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You changed it to Climate models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures may increase by, removing the observational component. You've changed a mix of obs/models into pure models. The predictions of T rise are informed by the obs sensitivity estimates, of course William M. Connolley 19:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and they are also informed by model sensitivity estimate, work in cloud physics, study of paleo climate, temperature histories, etc. The question is, why are you singling out "oberservational climate sensitivity studies" here in relation to these predictions? Climate sensitivity is mentioned in the last sentence of the paragraph in an appropriate way, what is your point in this earlier mention? We might be able to make you intention more clear, if you state what the concept is that you are trying to communicate.--Poodleboy 03:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The point the obvious one: that they are not purely model based (work in cloud physics, study of paleo climate, temperature histories is all observational). There is an agenda here: they are model based -> all models are wrong -> the estimates are wrong William M. Connolley 07:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you make predictions from observations? Perhaps linear extrapolation from past temperatures? If your phrase is from a source, perhaps that source provides a context which makes sense of it. Let's add something about "observational" if you can show how it relates. Linear extrapolation gives lower figures that the reported model predictions. My agenda is that the predictions you cite are model based. If they are based on something else, provide the citation. The models themselves are used in sensitivity studies, and I am sure those are comparable to more observational climate sensitivity studies, but how are predictions made from observational climate sensitivity studies. Now, given a climate sensitivity itself, and a scenerio for a forcing, one can apply the sensitivity to the figures and come up with a prediction. But that is an application the sensitivity figure, and not a sensitivity study. Perhaps you have citations where the authors did this in the discussion part of their article? The IPCC itself may have done that if that is the source of these figures. Let's look at the cite.--Poodleboy 08:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats what I mean. Simply using the clim sens figure from obs studies. But I don't have a cite to hand William M. Connolley 09:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your text implies, that this independent method came up with exactly the same range, that would be a surprising result, overlapping ranges I could understand.--Poodleboy 09:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to imply exactly the same range William M. Connolley 14:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That is why it shouldn't be there, or it should have a supporting citation and whatever range of predictions result from this approach.--Poodleboy 07:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm amenable to re-writing it. But not to leaving the page with the impression that the only contraints are models William M. Connolley 08:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The models themselves are constrained by observations, so I don't see what your phrase adds. A citation would help guide any rewrite, perhaps a fuller explanation could be given when the predictions are repeated below. The citation there explicitly refers to the models averaged over scenerios as the source for the predictions. Probably all kinds of sanity checks went into the validation of the models and the predictions. Recent research in published in Nature adds further constraint to the upper extreme end of the range, but I don't see why you are wedded to this particular phrase.--Poodleboy 09:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, as I've said above, I'm not wedded to the phrase at all... I do dislike your attempts to make the constraints seem all model-based, though William M. Connolley 10:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider your new language clearer and more supportable. Agreed. While I doubt there are many purely observational climate sensitivity studies, there are some with stronger independent, more observational approaches. It is surprising how essential models are even in those studies. Further development of these tools is essential to further insight into the climate.--Poodleboy 10:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

small number of scientists who contest the view...

This was discussed thousands of times previously, but apparently that was not enough. So, I propose that changes must be discussed here and only if there is broad support for changes will the sentence be changed. Any changes without discussion will be reverted without further explanation.

One point for discussion could be that there are actually quite some scientists who don't agree that humans are responsible for GW, but that only a few of them are climate scientists. Count Iblis 23:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That would seem to be pretty important since a lot of science overlaps with climate science. Climate science itself is a pretty broad catagory, where some who would fit in that grouping are less fit to give an opinion than a college geography teacher. There are more than a "small" number of scientists with an opposing view but the bandwagon in favor of Global Warming is hot right now. These opinions go in cycles as we've all seen over the last 40 years or so. New evidence comes in and scientists change their minds en masse. I know this is a political hot potato right now and that "most" scientists believe humans are greatly responsible for the effects. Poodleboy's changing of a "small number" to "some" seems to me to be a fair compromise. It seems balanced, truthful and you still have the "most scientists" statement as its counterpoint.

It's apparent that most of those writing this article agree with most of the scientists, and that's fine. I'm not saying I don't either, but in an encyclopedia "some scientists" is a much better fit to the situation than a "small number." It feels much more un-biased. I liked Poodleboy's addition... it read well, it looked better to my two neighbors (a physics professor and a chemistry teacher) so I changed it back to "some." Fyunck(click) 06:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the same old discussion all over again... see the section "Many" Scientists Dissent From View That Humanity's Activities Are An Important Source Of Recent Rises In Temperature above; and probably more before that too William M. Connolley 06:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd already read it. Just because there was a discussion before doesn't mean that the correct wording was put it place; And it wasn't much of a discussion... 7 paragraphs (4 q&a's) with you and Stephan Schulz dominating the field. Poodleboy came up with a better choice and I believe it should stay. It works well in the context of this encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) 07:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was only trying to make the the language more NPOV scientific and encyclopedic. It doesn't matter how many scientists, but when new evidence comes in that clarifies the global warming attribution, calling those who were judiciously skeptical the "few", will make them seem like martyrs or heroic geniuses. Perhaps a better compromise would be to actually count them, so the number could be specified. That shouldn't be too difficult if the number really is only a "few".--Poodleboy 08:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

One way is to take the IPCC lead authors and count dissent. That gets you 2/120. If you can think of another way, do try it, but just counting dissenters (who are few enough, as the sci-opposing page shows) doesnt tell you the proportion William M. Connolley 09:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Another count has been made by Naomi Oreskes, who has been quoted quite often now. Final count: Not a single one out of nearly 1,000 abstracts concerning "global climate change" opposes the scientific consensus view. Now I consider this "none" closer to a "small number of scientists" than to "some scientists"... Hardern 10:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not a peer reviewed result and evaluating "abstracts" is a questionable methodology. I am sure however, she is quite right about the amount of dissent voiced in those selected abstracts.

What you have to realize is that "consensus" is defined rather broadly. Ranges of more than a factor of two in model climate sensitivity, are considered in "consensus", because they predict warming and attribute most of it to CO2. These results can also be viewed as disagreement and lack of rigor. That is why we should stick to the science rather than the spin. Why have references to consensus and numbers of scientists in the article? --Poodleboy 10:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh says that he interviewed scientists that are independent, free from corporate or government contract and they say that Global Warming is not even close to as big of a problem as what Democrats claim it is. Although this clearly shows just one side of the debate and was probably mentioned due to bias, we all know (even liberals) that Rush Limbaugh supports almost all of his arguments with some type of document, fact, interview, or event. He may use them in a biased way (presenting only certain parts of the incident) but they are good and credible sources. As he says himself, Rush Limbaugh is right 98% of the time! Whatever. Does anyone feel motivated enough to look this up and find the source?--Exander 05:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't about what political parties say, it's about the science. Sure, there are skeptics, but they are a trivial proportion, and far too many of them are in the pocket of the oil industry. I'd say that the Democrats in the US are far too timid on the subject, and since they also owe their souls to big business, they are likely to be very conservative on the issue. Guettarda 06:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Roesch

I disagree with PB's recent addition of More recently, errors in surface albedo, snow cover area, and too heavy snowfall (excessive snow water equivilent) have been detailed. (Roesch 2006 [10].

For the reason I gave in my edit comment: this isn't a place to bloat out with various minor model errors, or successes. The one listed already - clouds - is widely acknowledged as the major problem; by contrast, the R et al stuff appears quite minor and doesn't deserve a place.

Secondly, this thing isn't even published yet and should be removed on that ground alone. William M. Connolley 11:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, clouds are still a major problem, whether they are widely acknowledged or not. The Roesch results in the abstract are significant, and build on a body of evidence of model problems in the area of snow cover especially. We might as well use the most recent and on-point abstract. We have full text of some of Roesch's earlier but still quite recent work, and those articles have references that would be a good place for you to start if your intent is to form a evidence based opinion, rather than a dismissive "appears quite minor".--Poodleboy 11:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No this won't do. We don't use unpublished/in press papers, or even very recent papers (see discussions in the past) except for exceptional results, and this isn't. Asserting that the R results are "significant" is meaningless/wrong: they aren't particularly exciting; I can see why you want ot puff them up, though William M. Connolley 11:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Asserting" the results are significant, is not "meaningless/wrong", it is just the nature of the peer review process, results that were not statistically significant or detectable within the margins of error would not be allowed in the abstract, unless the paper was reporting a null result. You know I have been patiently waiting for this paper to finally appear in print, it has been accepted and is in prepub. Fortunately the abstract has been published, and is informative and useful. Just because the paper has not been published yet, does not mean it is new or untested results. The results were reported and discussed at conferences last year. It would have been published months ago, if it weren't for the FAR article boom and subsequent backlog. You've tolerated other "minor" results in the existing climate model section, you must be particularly unsettled by these results.--Poodleboy 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Asserting" the results are significant, is not "meaningless/wrong", it is just the nature of the peer review process, results that were not statistically significant or detectable within the margins of error would not be allowed in the abstract - precisely. You are using "sig" in the sense the journals do: sig enough to publish. Obviously, sig enough to publish is not the same criterion as sig enough for the wiki GW page; this is why I said "sig" is meaningless. Thats the first issue. The second - thats its not even published - is also a bar to including it. You haven't read the paper, neither has anyone else, it shouldn't be in wiki William M. Connolley 13:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think Poodleboy is mixing up two different meanings of significance, namely statistical significance ("there is a high probability of a real correlation") and importance. Journals typically require the first and often a bit of the second (but that depends on the journal and level of specialization). In Wikipedia, we require "notability" rather than "importance", although they sometimes go hand in hand.--Stephan Schulz 19:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Continued from Attribution of climate warming.

The new 3.4 watts that is introduced into the models upon correction of a 0.01 albedo error, is greater than the forcing by the well mixed GHGs. These models that had been previously tuned to match observations, were in a sense constrained by the developers to match the temperature record and the data on heat storage into the ocean. Without retuning, these models will no longer match theses observations, and will respond to this added forcing with temperatures higher than the temperature record. The likely impact of the retuning to match the observations will be reduction in the model climate sensitivity to CO2, and more of the latter 20th century warming attributed to commitment from the increase in solar activity in the 1st half of the 20th century, i.e. temperature rise delayed by the thermal inertial of the oceans, which act to dampen high frequency climate responses. The change/non-constant forcing is the increase in solar activity from the 1st half of the 20th and before, which model studies show take over 100 years to equilibrate to. In fact the heat storage in the oceans may take 1000 years to equilibrate. Hope you can understand these basics. WMC, I move the discussion here in preparation for introducing new results into this article.--Poodleboy 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of misconceptions in that. Models are built/tuned to match present day observed climate - not, in general, the past temperature history. So match the temperature record and the data on heat storage into the ocean is just wrong. Without retuning, these models will no longer match theses observations is hard to understand - since nothing has changed, there is no need to retune. The models continue to match those obs as well as they ever did, since model heat storage, and obs heat storage, remain what they were. Various aspects of the models albedo get tuned, but not on the basis of this (unpublished) paper. The likely impact of the retuning to match the observations will be reduction in the model climate sensitivity to CO2 - again, I see no evidence that anyone *is* retuning based on this unpublished paper; and speculating as to the result is for your own private entertainment, not for wiki.

Summary: don't add unpublished stuff; don't add your own misconceptions William M. Connolley 15:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually asked any modelers if they are retuning in response to this paper? Surely some were involved in IPCC wg1. If you haven't checked around, it is no wonder that you "see no evidence". Perhaps they will also explain to you how their model can accomodate several more watts/m^2 without excessive heat temperature rises or heat storage in the ocean, without rebalancing and adjusting parameters.--Poodleboy 14:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you know nothing about climate models. All this is your own personal speculation; it belongs in sci.env, not wiki William M. Connolley 20:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You write as if you haven't read the Hansen paper.--Poodleboy 23:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Article mentioned by Chicago Sun-Times columnist

For what it's worth, Sun-Times columnist Paige Wiser used this article as a source in her June 18 column: [11]. Zagalejo 06:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (PS - don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger!)

Umm...I think I can guess the colour of that hair she talks about.--Stephan Schulz 06:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL...[12] Zagalejo 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That's scary. This article looks more like a blog than an encyclopedia most days. Dubc0724 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of climate models

the main article is too long so I got rid of verbose giberish. --CorvetteZ51 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You replaced four words with four slightly shorter words! :-) but I've already changed it back. Saying that the models are "unable to explain" is a more sweeping, and less true, statement than that they cannot "unambiguously attribute". bikeable (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Models can't 'predict' the past, starting 1910, to 1945 with known historic levels of CO2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CorvetteZ51 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 June 2006.

I agree with Bikeable. The models do not clearly distinguish between the potential sources of the warming. "Unable to explain" is not accurate. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree... firstly, the models can reproduce the past; I've added a link for this, the obvious one [13]. Re explanation... there is technical stuff for that in the D+A chapter if you want William M. Connolley 15:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's odd, Richard Lindzen (one of the lead authors on the report you cite there) had this to say in his testimony to the U.S. Senate: "large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous. Neither do they do well at accounting for shorter period and less dramatic phenomena like El Niños, quasi-biennial oscillations, or intraseasonal oscillations – all of which are well documented in the data." [14] Furthermore, he decries the entire report as rife with errors, misrepresentations, post-hoc edits (without the approval of the scientists actually doing the research) and blatant misrepresentation of the data.130.36.62.125 17:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Lindzen's senate testimony is 5 years out of date. Lindzen is 20 years out of date. And even Lindzen accepts the IPCC report as a good summary of the state of climate research. He critizises mainly the "Summary for Policymakers", not the full report. --Stephan Schulz 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(1)Lindzen's testimony is from the same year as the TAR (2001), which what WMC's link connects to. (2)Without providing independent, citable evidence clearly and specifically detailing where and how his testimony is incorrect, calling him "20 years out of date" is just an example of the type of ad hominem attacks he refers to in his testimony. Criticizing others for pushing POV when you're doing it yourself is rather hypocritical, don't you think? (3)The "Summary for Policymakers" isn't even mentioned until about 1/3 of the way through page 6 of his 8-page testimony. By my math, that makes it less than 25% of his testimony, clearly not his main criticism.130.36.62.125 19:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

L uses lots of words. But when you get down to his specific criticisms - which I notice you haven't - there is little substance the entire report as rife with errors, misrepresentations - such as? William M. Connolley 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Four hours to frontpage

For those of you who haven't been keeping track, this article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's front page starting at 00:00, 21 June UTC. Currently it is 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC). Since global warming is a controversial issue with many people, I fully expect to see a great deal of vandalism during the 24 hours for which global warming is the frontpage feature, so I just want to remind people to stay alert. Also, please remember it is Wikipedia's policy for frontpage articles to remain unprotected if at all possible so that they can show off the opportunity for anyone to edit and hopeful benefit from the added exposure. Dragons flight 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha, thats why the extensive copyediting... :-) Good job. Sadly I'll be in bed for the start... William M. Connolley 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think it's better to block this page for this period. Count Iblis 21:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 00:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't wait for the day when that page will become obsolete :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-21 01:45

Unfortunately the article has already been vandalised; however I do not feel comfortable modifying the article myself as I'm new to this. I just thought I should notify everyone.

Ecosystem effects

It seems to me that, generally, species would migrate north (in the northern hemisphere) in response to global warming. Global warming, by itself, may not result in mass extinctions. Two reasons that they may occur in the current scenario are 1)that the warming is occuring faster than it has in the past, potentially giving species as ecosystems less time to move. Forests can gradually shift spatially in response to climate change, but not if the change happens too fast. The second possibility is that a species will attempt to shift, but will run into some sort of a barrier -- a strip mall, a highway, a suburb. At the risk of being banal, I'll note that this may be quite a serious problem as natural areas' political boundaries are fixed but ecosystem boundaries are fluid. I don't have references for these points, but I'm sure that they are out there. Matthias5 03:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions from someone who doesn't know the answers

I have two questions that seem obvious to me, but are not discussed in the article, so I'm hoping that someone can shed light on them:

1. The Earth has the largest carbon dioxide - sodium bicarbonate - carbonic acid buffer system in the solar system - its 1.4 × 10^21 kilograms of oceans (number from Wikipedia "Ocean" page). I do not understand how the atmospheric CO2 level should be rising, as the ocean should suck up all of this excess, raising the pH of the oceans very slightly. Why is this not happening?

The oceans are absorbing a lot of CO2, and are becoming more acidic as a result. But the speed of absorption is limited. Atmospheric CO2 is only absorbed at the surface, and mixing of the ocean water takes a lot of time, compared to mixing in the atmosphere. So the surface water becomre rather acidic fast, inhibiting further uptake of CO2. This increase in surface acidity is one of the problems of CO2 emission, as it affects ecosystems (e.g. corals). In a few million years, equilibrum well have been resored. BTW, I assume you know that the observed fact of CO2 increase (and the causation by anthropogenic emissions) is not even under discussion? --Stephan Schulz 06:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

2. In a warmer Earth, the biomass should increase, so shouldn't a significant portion of the atmospheric carbon be sequestered in the increased plant/animal mass, returning to the ground (land or oceanic) when the organisms die?

See the article. It's uncertain if and by how much biomass production will increase. Even in the best case, the amount of carbon potentially taken up is much less than the fossil fuels we are using. Also, higher temperatures also increase decomposition of biomass, so that e.g. soils can store less carbon.--Stephan Schulz 06:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to provide information back on these two questions.

- David Barkhimer

I hope it helps. --Stephan Schulz 06:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Politics and PR

One thing I am missing is a summary in this article of the politics of global warming (though that particular article doesn't do an adequate job of explaining the issues; maybe there are others). In particular, there is a lot of information out there about the systematic efforts of fossil industry companies to discredit the science of global warming by setting up fake grassroots organizations, putting scientists (typically not climate scientists) on their payroll, publishing in journals, sending ready-made video materials to TV stations, providing "experts", etc. This article, if somewhat dated, gives a decent summary of the facts. It was written by renowned public relations experts Bob Burton and Sheldon Rampton, who also created SourceWatch, a wiki which has background information on many of these front groups and individuals.

I think it is impossible to understand the politics of global warming without understanding that millions of dollars have been spent to discredit the idea that it exists, or that it is anthropogenic (in the words of one industry group, the goal was to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)"). That the industry has engaged in these activities, and continues to do so, is not controversial. It is good that this article recognizes that the so-called scientific opposition is a small minority, but it needs to also recognize that public opinion about global warming has been the target of highly systematic campaigns. That should of course include a reference to the activities of Al Gore and other environmentalists.--Eloquence* 06:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Check this out [15]. BBC Panorama program broadcast June 4th. 217.154.66.11 12:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The important thing is not whether they are spending money to discredit a point of view. The important thing to consider is whether they are right. Let's be honest, industry money is coming in in order to resolve the public policy issues and they back into dealing with the science. They may very well be right that it is wrong to take early action and that there is alarmist hyping going on. The public policy case for global warming (or human climate forcing to be more technical about what's being talked about) is the weakest area the alarmists have. The opportunity costs for fixing global warming according to alarmist scenarios is going to kill a lot of people and is going to stunt the economic possibilities of an awful lot of poor people in very unpleasant ways. This is almost always glossed over or outright denied in alarmist literature and it's just as wrong as industry glosses the other direction.

TMLutas 12:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the money that's been spent to convince people that global warming is (a) real, and (b) humans' (Americans'!) fault. There's money on both sides of the issue. Dubc0724 13:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dubc0724, a lot of that money comes from the US government (via NSF, NOAA, etc.) Your argument may work for a Michael Crichton novel, but in the real world that's in no way an analog of e.g. Exxon promoting its financial interests. Crust 14:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay? Money is money. There's a lot of people on both sides of this issue heavily invested in their version of "the truth." Dubc0724 14:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Crust, are you trying to claim that the government doesn't have an agenda? Anyone who's had any exposure to the government's funding or approvals processes (mine is NIH & FDA) knows that both are highly politicized and that the White House exerts heavy pressure on these bodies to squelch/ignore any scientific research/evidence that runs contrary to its policies. I'm not accusing them of being behind the climate change scare, but Global Warming alarmists are playing right into their hands by contributing to the climate of fear that the administration is actively promoting through "terrorism alerts", the "illegal immigration" hysteria, "bird flu", etc. Scared people are easier to control.130.36.62.126 15:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Money is money. Is that supposed to be an argument? The point is to the extent US goverment funded scientists are being influenced by the ultimate source of their money that is to be biased against belief in anthropogenic global warming (since this is what the Bush administration wants to hear). In reality, mainstream scientists are fairly resistent to this pressure in their scientific publications because there is little direct pressure (public and policy statements are a very different matter; cf. James Hansen), but to the extent this pressure exists it is in the opposite direction of what you () seem to think. (This reply was written for Dubc0724, but I think it also addresses 130.36.62.126.)Crust 15:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Save the Planet

This is phrase which is frequently mentioned in the same breath as Global Warming. It might merit a little discussion in this article, perhaps in the Effects section but as a negative, and a corrsepondingly stronger effect in the political and refugee sections. One thing GW is not going to do is destroy the world. The world has been hot before, will be hot again, and this lump of rock and water will be just fine, as will Life in general. The same is not true for any given specific species, especially ones living in fragile niches. In previous GW events, change happened relatively slowly, populations and species moved out of the way of the rising waters and towards different food sources, some species perished, and no record survives of any complaints (animals communicate and leave written histories not at all well). This event is different. It is happening much faster, and there are shed-loads of humans around to witness and whinge about it. Enormous numbers of humans are depedant on coastal areas for living space and agriculture. What is it going to be like when coastal communities are finally prompted, by the disappearance of the land under their feet, to first ask for, then demand, then fight for, higher ground in the possession of their politically opposed neighbours? Most wars have started with basically territorial disputes. NeilUK 07:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"global warming" tattered by recent science

A recent study of Greenland published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that Greenland is no warmer today than it was in the 1920s, and that "although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995-2005) a similar increase occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920-1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause." (Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L11707, 13 June 2006, doi:10.1029/2006GL026510 http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html )

It's clear that this wiki "article" is nothing more than a love-fest of people who passionately believe in "global warming."

A word to the wise, it simply LOOKS STUPID if you try to color it SO conclusively in favor of "global warming," particularly as the "science" and computer modelling of global warming falls apart more and more quickly as this decade progresses.

Try to at least adopt a faux-balanced approach so that the article has some credibility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.111.247 (talk • contribs) .

Please add new subjects at the end. Also, please sign contibutions on talk pages (use 4 tildes like this: ~~~~). The paper you are talking about is only one single study. It only covers a small part of the earth. It has not been carefully evaluated, just passed normal peer review (which is good, but not conclusive). It does not "tatter" our understanding of global warming even if it turns out to be correct. And it simply does not belong in the introduction. --Stephan Schulz 08:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right that it shouldn't be in the introduction but there is evidence that doesn't quite add up with our current understanding of global warming. For instance the Greenland temperature records and this article from BBC News about the artic sea level [16] I do think the article should atleast address some of these bugs in the current theory --Jayson Virissimo 09:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

While there is a lot of active research, this field has a stable and mature core.

That comment is utter nonsense. It is risible.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.111.247 (talk • contribs) .

Glad to hear it amuses you. --Stephan Schulz 13:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedic entry tries to summarize a whole field in a few pages. Individual papers, unless they are earth-shattering, are simply to detailed for this. Once they have been understood, verified, and the basic implications have been worked out, their content can be incorporated accordingly. What you call "bugs in the theory" may be bugs in the papers (as in the case of the MSU temperature series) or areas where the theory makes no detailed prediction (arctic sea level). These may be valuable, but the tentativeness of the science (and all science) seems to be adequately covered in the article.--Stephan Schulz 09:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Short notice: Gavin Schmidt gave some comments on the arctic sea level paper at RealClimate.org here. Hardern 11:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Topright image chart

The reconstruction chart that shows tempeartures from 1 AD to 2004 AD would be much more useful at the top than the image that starts at 1860 AD; a very bad year for historical comparsions considering it's around the end of the little ice age. Jon 13:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But it's the most accurate chart, since it comprises of recorded data, not proxy data. The other chart is provided just a bit downstairs. Hardern 13:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, by 1860 the LIA was over. The 1000 and 2000 year charts make the 20th century essentially unreadable.--Stephan Schulz 13:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

models don't explain current climate

models have no idea why the climate at any one place is what it is, they all depend on current and historical climate info. of course, some people think that if climate models can't explain the present, they can still predict the future.--CorvetteZ51 15:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"only" is POV

I removed "only" from the introduction ("Only a small minority of scientists...") It is relatively OK to say "A small minority of scientists [disagree]" (although even "small" has connotations of "they're wrong", but I'll let this pass). However, if you say "Only a small minority...", this is semi-loaded language; it implies that the article (and by extension the reader) takes it for granted that global warming is an established fact (I can't comment on the veracity of that, I'm a linguist!) and there are connotations that the "small minority" is a beleaguered bunch of partisans who are obviously wrong and will soon be reduced to zero. It's a small change to make, but a lot of this kind of phrasing adds up to a very strong overall impression of POV. (So Guettarda, can you un-rv your rv please or will I do it?)

I do believe "only" is used strictly as a proportional qualifier. You're reading too much into it. "Only a few" simply means fewer than "A few". --Cyde↔Weys 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cyde-Weys, I guess it doesn't matter anyway. After all, only a few Wikipedians still care about maintaining the neutrality of the language used in articles. :-)

Excellent

Excellent work, guys. Congratulations on much deserved FA status and selection for the Main Page. Ideogram 15:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)