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 June 2006 July 2006
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

the whole story

I know the point of an article on "global warming" is largely to talk about the recent climate warming and how it might have large affects on human civilization, but isnt the article becoming political and non-sientific by totally omitting just what this warming means in terms of the history of the planet over geological time? Temperature and CO variation over millions of years is an order of magnitute greater then what is measureable since the industrial revolution.

Also the biomass section is not up to date it was just in the mainsteam news recently that there were studies showing biomass increasing with increased CO2 INDEPENDENT of other factors like soil and water. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N33/B3.jsp

Advocacy links

What are general feelings on links to advocacy organizations as references? My view is that links to groups that 'spin' the science to promote a particular viewpoint -- whether the Sierra Club on the one hand or the co2science.org on the other -- belong in a separate article on policy. At the very least, links to such organizations shouldn't be under the general heading 'Scientific', which to me implies some attempt at objectivity. Raymond Arritt 01:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropogenic global warming

Seeing as how it used to redirect here--172.162.149.247 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Carbon absorption

Could somebody more familiar with global carbon absorbtion please add that oceans actually absorb over 50% of the worlds carbon, a common misconception is that plants and trees absorb most of the world's carbon. This is important as the more carbon the oceans absorb, the more acidic they become (carbonic acid). Once ocean acidity reaches a certain level it will start to kill the ocean wildlife, starting with plankton, and as plankton is at the bottom of the food chain, this will decimate the entire chain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.30.128 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

1. That would belong in a carbon dioxide level article rather than this one.
2. I'd like to see a source, as carbonic acid is actually a very mild acid.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, mild acid. Is not so much the "mild acid" part but the pH. The point is that no matter the acid, if the pH goes down too much so of the excessive H will begin reacting with vital minerals in sea water. As the presence of such minerals decline, the calcium that makes up the skeletons of some of this animals becomes a very attractive reacting partner for the excessive H ions.

See: Ocean acidification. Dragons flight 14:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I got this information from a documentary I watched a couple of months ago, however I have about 20 or so documentaries about global warming and I can't remember which one it is right now and seeing this is just one small point it will take a while to find, will post the source when I find it. Thanks for the link to ocean acidification, do you think a note should be added in the predicted effects of global warming section with a link to the ocean acidification page? Also, addressing the above point about carbonic acid being a mild acid, I remember the documentary saying this wouldn't happen any time soon and after checking the ocean acidifcation page I found this "Between 1751 and 2004 surface ocean pH is estimated to have dropped from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 (Jacobson, 2005)." Weak acid or not it will still cause a pH drop eventually and if trends continue there definetly will come a point where the level of acidity will kill plankton.

As a rule, popular science documentations can give a good overview, but are not very good sources. They often not reliabiliy and they are rather bad at adequately covering multiple viewpoints. Anyways, we do cover this topic already. I've just added a link to ocean acidification.--Stephan Schulz 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Al gore editing?

Anyone think Al Gore had edited some of this page? I am sure he has......he loves the subject.

Well, it does conform to his POV. Perhaps we need to distinguish between the undisputed facts, and matters of scientific dispute.

What is the determining factor for deciding whether a given proposition is a "fact", a "theory" or a matter of "scientific consensus"? And should Wikipedia articles consider as 'undisputed fact' ideas which are held to be 'consensus' even if they are disputed? --Uncle Ed 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So, since evolution is disputed in the US we should indeed give some room to creationist in wiki? It would lower our standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.248.208 (talk • contribs)

Its all wikiality. :P Whichever side shouts loudest wins. Kyaa the Catlord 13:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank God for Al. It's been so hot this week, and only he understands why. I love you Al! Smooches!!

Good idea Ed. Lets insist that "flat earthers" be allowed to dispute that the earth is round, and add POV warnings to all the astronomy articles on that basis... while were about it, lets re-write the NPOV policy to remove the undue weight clause... William M. Connolley 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WMC, perhaps you shouldn't be so cavalier when casting aspersions on Flat Earthers. Someday Global Warmers may be just as ridiculed even though they currently enjoy the same "scientific consensus" Flat Earthers once had. Everyone wants to be part of a disaster; maybe that's why every generation thinks the world will end during its lifetime. -- LoudMouth 19:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

When ever in history did the Flat Earth theory have a "scientific consensus"? bikeable (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, just for a good long while, until it was debunked. Now people laugh at the silly notion of such a thing. I'll grant you that it wasn't as pervasive as this theory, but yeah, there've been lots of things considered "generally accepted" that didn't turn out to be so.

I notice the lack of any sources. Are you aware of the fact that more than 2000 years ago Eratosthenes not only knew that the Earth was roughly sperical, but also computed its circumfence within a margin of error of roughly 1 percent? A flat Earth has not been accepted by scientific (or any informed) consensus ever since. --Stephan Schulz 20:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It was accepted, then it was disproven, and now scientists and laypersons laugh at it. What goes around comes around. But GW may have a bit longer life cycle; there's a lot of political hay (and money) to be made. (Not that there aren't a LOT of people also deeply invested in seeing GW disproven - don't start calling me a Big Oil empty suit.) My only reason for remaining skeptical of Global Warming is that I believe in calling Bulls*it when I see it.

We just don't automatically assume your vision in these matters is 20-20, or even 2-50. Skyemoor 12:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt it's getting incrementally warmer. I just doubt that it won't cool again,

And the damage wrought in the thousands of years in between? We choose not to ignore unpleasant consequences of inaction.Skyemoor 12:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

and I really doubt that somehow evil Americans are responsible for it (AND can reverse it if we just throw enough money at it).

If you doubt AGW, then you need to provide evidence to sway the opinions of the scientific community. Until then, your name is telling. Skyemoor 12:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

WMC, Bikeable, and Stephan... Wow - I'm getting the Global Warming All Star Team treatment. Yeah! -- LoudMouth 20:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There has never been scientific concensus that the earth was round. Thats like saying that there was scientific concensus that hell and heaven exist... There was general belief in the flatness of the earth but it has nothing to do with science. It was general. Also, be careful when you talk about the "scientific" because science back in the day was hardly distinguishable from philosophy, mathematics, and even "religion" (yep, bad spirits are the cause of disease.) It is only in more recent times when specialization has led clear boundaries across fields. Talk about politics. Any one know what happened to the first guy that proved that the square root of two could not be rational...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.248.208 (talk • contribs)

Ermmm....2000 years ago, there was not scientific community or scientific consensus. The fact that the Earth is roughly spherical has been known since before the scientific method has been developed. So there never was a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat, and hence it never was overturned. --Stephan Schulz 07:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• There are a lot of people heavily invested in making sure global warming is real. (Well, as long as it's caused by Americans.) So, believe what you will. Maybe someday we'll all figure out who was right and who was wrong. But I imagine we'll all be long dead before then. From old age, of course. -- LoudMouth 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is "heavily invested in making sure global warming is real"? And who claims it is caused (only) by Americans? Assuming the claim that doing something about CO2 emissions is bad for the economy (I have seen no hard evidence for this, but that is a different question), who has an interest in an economic depression? --Stephan Schulz 16:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The DNC, for one. -- LoudMouth 12:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I rest may case...--Stephan Schulz 12:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See, he agrees that I'm right. Glad that's cleared up. -- LoudMouth 13:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You know this is a funny topic to bring up, because there's an amatuer-looking YouTube video making fun of Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth, but the Wall Street Journal was able to track the origin of the video back to ExxonMobil. If ExxonMobil is making YouTube videos to undermine Al Gore, you think they're not editing Wikipedia too? //// Pacific PanDeist * 19:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, because that's an unsourced rumor, much like global warming, guess that's why the scare mongers bring it here--—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's how it works around here. It's not important that the facts support the argument. The severity of the accusation is all that counts. -- LoudMouth 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So you can just rationalize away the DCI/Exxon relationship and pretend it doesn't exist? At least you use a consistent approach to matters. Skyemoor 12:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so the environmentalist "INDUSTRY" or the OIL "community leaders!"  ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.248.208 (talk • contribs)

If you don't think there's serious (political) power and money to be had by exploiting the global warming gloom-and-doom campaign, you're just not paying attention. (As an aside, I also wouldn't be surprised to see Big Oil try to figure out a way to cash in on it, were it to ever be a major issue for the general public. Think Phillip Morris running anti-smoking ads). LoudMouth 18:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this discussion might just go to show us that perhaps what scientists say is influenced many times not by (just) why they think, but what is safe and/or beneficial to say? And if we want to talk about measurements, when were the pyramids built? Does anyone know that? And how did they build them to such precise dimensions, in a place that doesn't change, on exact compass lines? Some things we'll never know, yes. And indeed! That has nothing to do with Global Warming. Nor with Al Gore.

Gruß Gott!! --- πΔΩΦ 04:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephan - (1)Eratosthenes did not prove that the earth was round, he merely used mathematics to estimate its shape and circumference; in other words, he created a model. Models are not proof. The roundness of the earth wasn't proven (by hard, empirical evidence) until September 6, 1522 when the surviving members of Ferdinand Magellan's expedition finally completed a circumnavigation of the globe. Similarly, GW models must be considered theoretical until future events prove or disprove them. (2) Wide-spread belief that the world was flat persisted well beyond Eratosthenes' time. On his first voyage, Christopher Columbus's crew nearly mutinied over fears that they would sail off the edge of the earth, nearly 1500 years after Eratosthenes. And a question for anyone with an answer - How did Al Gore wind up as the point-man for the crusade against GW? The guy has claimed that he invented the internet and that the movie "Love Story" was about him & Tipper (not to mention the fact that he married Tipper in the first place). Not exactly the paragon of credibility a movement usually looks for in a poster-boy. 130.36.62.140 16:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Magellan's voyage wasn't "proof", either -- it could be explained by a toroidal Earth, among others. Eratosthenes refined a model that we still use today. I confess that as an epidemiologist I find "proof" rather a slippery concept. As for the Gore/internet story, puh-lease -- that old chestnut is simply BS; see [1]. bikeable (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, Yuri Gagarin proved that roundness of the earth when he became the first to orbit it. And drawing distinctions between "inventing the internet" and "creating the internet" is just playing games with semantics - either way he tried to claim more credit than he deserved. (For the record, I voted for Gore when he ran against Bush, so don't bother trying to chalk this up to me being some kind of right-wing fanatic.)130.36.62.140 17:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Gagarin never proved it either. That was all Russian propaganda! It's a good thing, then, that science does not deal with "proof", only with models, theories, and evidence. Note that I never claimed Erathosthenes proved the Earth was round, but that he knew. Nobody will ever prove "global warming models", either, although we might disprove some of them (and then probably refine them into better models). Nobody has "proved" gravity either, and still I brace myself for a fall when I stumble...

And Columbus crew was, of course, not afraid about falling off the edge of the Earth, but of sailing onto an ocean of unknown size, following the prevailing winds, without adequate supplies. Contrary to a common misconception, Columbus also was not laughed out of every expert meeting for suggesting the Earth was round, but for suggesting that it's circumfence was only 25000 km and that Japan was about 3500 km off the European coasts. --Stephan Schulz 18:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose John Glenn, Project Apollo and the Space Shuttle program are all just propaganda too? And the Hubble Space Telescope, International Space Station and the multitude of communications satellites allegedly orbiting the earth and making things like wikipedia possible don't really exist? By that reasoning how do we know that all the "evidence" supporting GW isn't just propaganda? The point here is that dragging out the old, tired flat-earth argument for excluding opposition viewpoints is just plain weaselly. The two subjects have nothing in common, since the roundness of the earth can be immediately proven by taking pictures of it from orbit. The effects of human activity on global climate over the next 10/50/100+ years, on the other hand, can only be proven by waiting 10/50/100+ years to see if actuality follows the models.130.36.62.140 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephan didn't say the Earth wasn't round, just that you can't prove it -- as you can't prove any scientific theory. In fact, the programs you cite provide excellent evidence to support the theory that the Earth is (more or less) round. Personally, I believe it. I don't know where this little discussion we are having comes from or where it's going, but I suspect it is from that old misapprehension about the word "theory". Just because global warming is a "theory" does not mean we do not understand it relatively well. If you have specific criticisms related to the article, please make suggestions. bikeable (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

pro-skeptics bias

From reading the article, and especially from reading the discussion page, I have to come to the conclusion that this page needs an unbiased expert to review it. The page appears to have a subtle bias towards those who claim global warming is either A. not caused by humans, B. a good thing, or C. yet to be proven. Anyone with a high school level of experience in the Bio lab can show that bruning fuels increases carbon dioxide levels, so why are even the basics such as this still the subject of debate in the discussion page? It's time the free time wiki-warriors got out of this fight and let some pro's revise it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.13.119 (talk • contribs) .

Wow. I am not sure which article you were reading, but, if anything, this article is, and this is being charitable, WILDLY biased in favor of those on the left who believe that global warming is a fact. The statements, arguments, citations, sources, etc. are all VERY selective and TOTALLY biased in favor of one viewpoint -- the alleged anthropegenic nature of global warming. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth should the scientific opinion be a matter of "left" or "right"? Policy reactions to it, sure, but why the facts?--Stephan Schulz 20:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

An unbiased expert is hard to find these days, and you certainly won't find one lurking in this discussion. But you sure read this thing different than I do; I see your ABC as the complete opposite as far as the main article goes. 72.129.83.116 07:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's just that most of the unbiased experts, looking at the evidence, arrive at roughly the same conclusion. That is not bias, it is science. To the original remark: You should not judge the article by the least informed comments on the talk page. Fortunately, most of the article itself has been written by some of the most informed participants. --Stephan Schulz 07:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your definition of "Informed" seems to mean arriving at the same conclusions as those who wield the power in this article. Others, who after reading the same papers come to a different conclusion, are treated like witches in 1690's Salem; their additions reverted and their talk bullied into resignation. 66.81.20.197 10:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This kind of stuff will do you no good, its just whinging. If you can find a specific example that you want to discuss we might get somewhere. Remember to check that it hasn't been done to death already though William M. Connolley 10:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it will do no good, which is why I didn't start the topic. I just answered it truthfully (which is why it will do no good.) Specific examples??? Oh my goodness that's a deer-in-the-headlights response to a problem that's been ongoing since this article's inception. It's well written and deserves its accolades based on that fact but as far as its usefulness to educators and their students (at least in K-12) it's a little too one sided to be used in any meaningful way. 66.81.20.167 20:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I must ask what course you teach, if any. I would never teach this controversy in a science course. Otherwise, I would have to teach that HIV does not cause AIDS, that the earth is not necessarily round, and the evolution may not explain species variety (rather, some designer...) There are opposing "scientists" to the scientific concensus in each example I just mentioned, but that does not mean that you have to teach their views becuase they are all economically motivated. (its funny that the ID movement originator is also one of the first to claim that HIV does not cause AIDS. I think he wants label the disease as a punishment for "Bad behavior."

What do you want? A balance between a well-supported sicentific theory acknowledged by all professional scientific organizations that ever spoke out on it, that has unanimous support in the literature and overwhelming support in the scientific community on the one hand, and a public relations stunt pushed by a few weirdos on the other? --Stephan Schulz 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Au contrare...there is FAR FAR from unanimous agreement. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to admire more, your French or your reading comprehension... --Stephan Schulz 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, his French ain't much - it's "contraire" DMorpheus 21:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please dial it back and comment on content, not contributors. Dragons flight 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And that single sentence speaks volumes on why there is a problem with this article and why many have thrown up their hands in surrender when trying to add things of value. Remember, this is not a research paper and this is not a science journal or even a scientific encyclopedia; this is a free general encyclopedia for the masses. The heavy-handedness of the few in true power smacks of bias. Even in editing out postings in this talk section I see things written that are truly inappropriate from both sides of the aisle but far and away the ones that get expurgated or reprimanded are the ones written against global warming. When I see the bias and rudness in the handling of this simple talk page how is an educator to believe that the same thing isn't being done in the main body? Believe it or not there is a Global Warming controversy out in the everyday world; away from climate scientist polytechnic. When reading something one is on the tip of understanding in the first place and "knowing" there is a controversy one wants to know why others believe in the exact opposite. True, some of the science may be fringe or bit dicey or for every good point brought up on "no" global warming there are two saying why that won't work, but without the balance this reads as a political mailing, and I get enough of those every November. 66.81.21.62 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This article focuses primarily on the scientific case surrounding global warming, however we do have global warming controversy which is intended to cover the social/political/scientific controversy surrounding the subject. How well this, or any other article, does at covering its subject matter is always going to be in the eye of the beholder. Every reader (and editor) comes to this article with their own preconceptions that necessarily influence how it is percieved and written. The best we can do is try to write fairly and use discussion to rectify disparate points of view. Often we do okay, sometimes we fail, but as this is a wiki there are always opportunities to make it better in the future. Dragons flight 05:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The members of the Left have taken every opportunity to denigrate, minimize, disparage, impugn, attack, and relegate to the "back seat," the opinions of erudite, notable, and well-qualified academics, members of the scientific community, and other members of the cognoscenti who disagree with the official Socialist line on global warming. I am just surprised that they haven't yet used the article to break into an attack on conservatives.--The Outhouse Mouse 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is true but the article is entitled "Global Warming" not "The Scientific Case Surrounding Global Warming." Most people will type in just "Global Warming" so like it or not this "IS" the frontpiece of the encyclopedia. I expect more from a desk encyclopedia and I certainly expect better here. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this article is here and that the group is diligent in erasing graffiti; I'm glad it gets people talking about the subject and in seeing scientists actually taking a working part in building such a site. The students like that. At the same time we show the great disappontments we have with the article and the fact that the power hierarchy here, just as in world politics, corrupts. 66.81.21.36 08:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"I expect more from a desk encyclopedia"...well, in the great Wikipedia vs. Britannica shootout, global warming was excluded because the EB did not have adequate coverage of the topic. We do mention the (minimal) dissent in the introduction (and I've just put in a link to the global warming controversy article that was missing). If you're students are "disappointed with the article", they are welcome to improve it. They should be aware, of course, that a large amount of work by rather knowledgable people has gone into the article and "things I heard on CBS last night" are unlikely to be accepted as well-sourced and authorative. But since we actually have no corrupt power hierarchy, everybody who contributes in a constructive manner is welcome.--Stephan Schulz 09:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(carriage return) The article accurately reflects the current state of the science. Why mislead K-12 students by giving excessive weight to hypotheses that are not widely accepted by scientists in relevant fields? There's already too much of that going on in the U.S. with respect to evolution and some other topics. Raymond Arritt 02:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Freeman Dyson is skeptical of global warming. 65.95.41.136 00:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your point? --Stephan Schulz 07:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, this article is accurate in its overall description, although unfortunately I don't have time to verify all the details. LotR 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

AS for "anyone with a high school experience" — it isn't so clear cut as you probably know, rarely is there a linear correlation with anything. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I come off at times as argumentive (I am) and annoying (I am) and so on and so forth. This article is very good, very well written, very filled with citations supporting the claims. From my viewpoint (Which is: There's a lot of evidence of something but no proof of anything) is that the article is not biased. Nope.

What it is, however, is that it's very focused on some aspects of the debate and not upon others. In that respect, it becomes biased, in a way, by the focus of others who are writing it. That's to be expected. If the subject was one of "absolute" proof or fact, that's a different thing then an article on what causes time, what's the best economic or political system, how much cheese there is in Norway....

To my way of thinking, the reason there's so much contention on this entire subject is that there is no proof as one would normally expect it; what we'd expect from burning methane into a beaker filled with dynamite, vs how burning methane reacts in the atmosphere to cloud cover when the ocean is warmer during the day and the volcanos are errupting under intense blizzards in Spain while holding a giraffe, blah blah blah) Of couse, we all know no professional scientific organization would never be biased or go along with things other than science, things like politics or funding or a degree program or peer pressure or media coverage.

But as to here, "Water turns into steam at 212 F," turns into a discussion of if it's better to cite it as C rather than F, or adding in things like oh, what atmosphere is it, is it not pure or it is pure, is this calories, are we talking about joules, what's the ambiant temperature, what humdity level is it, what's the gravity.... So, let's turn a discussion on physics into one of chemistry into one of experiments in a lab versus in the real world, mix them all together, toss in 8 other subjects, and then not talk about the same thing. Ya think?

"1 calorie is needed per degree Kelvin of temperature change for 1 gram of liquid water." "Blue is better than indigo. Because 460 is a bigger positive number than 430 is."

Sln3412 05:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 299792458, dude.

Not completely neutral

This page doesn't have a truly neutral point of view. It should use several different pieces of data from independent sources, not just from the same, bogus "hockey stick". --ChevyFanatic 16:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean it might be nice to have a picture showing different reconstructions, not just the hockey stick... oh... wait... William M. Connolley 16:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Like THIS ONE? Please... --The Outhouse Mouse 19:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, like the one in the article actually based on observations. As for the one you reference... you've been lied to, see MWP and LIA in IPCC reports for the details William M. Connolley 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The "hockey stick" is based on observations. I do not know of any datasets that suggest global (surface) cooling, or time series without positive interannual trends over the past 30 years. I would be interested to see such a dataset if it exists. LotR 18:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The only question we need to discuss is:

1. Do we want this page to reflect a multiplicity of views? Or,
2. Do we want this page to lean toward the view that Mann's hockey stick is right and that the recent global warming is mostly human-caused?

Contributors in good faith can disagree on how to implement NPOV, but I'd like to see some agreement from long-timers on the fact that the article should be neutral on all controversial matters. --Uncle Ed 20:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What specifically do you propose? --TeaDrinker 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed appears to be proposing that we confuse attribution of climate change with the HS [2]. Since this is wrong, his entire premise collapses William M. Connolley 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The hockey stick says nothing about cause and is as consistent with natural causes as with anthropogenic causes. The anthropogenic attribution is largely model based, and they are given credibility far beyond the current state of their science.--63.226.208.50 11:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the (mean surface temperature) "hockey stick" alone does not provide indication of cause. However, do keep in mind that there are "other hockey sticks." The observed concurrent positive trends in CO2 (1.5 ppm / year) (and CH4) are, in all likelihood, attributable to anthropogenic causes. In any event, this section asks for independent, "non-hockey-stick" datasets for NPOV, but the point is that practically all datasets (that I'm aware of, anyway) show the "hockey sticks." LotR 14:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

True. But the point oyu are missing is that the palaeo record - last 1000 y - has little to do with attribution of recent change, as the link I provided attempts to tell you. The idea that the HS, or others like it, underpins GW is a myth spread by the septics William M. Connolley 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The hockey stick did contribute to global warming alarm, since the rate of warming appeared to increase, but the rate may be an artifact of the better representation of high frequencies in recent data. 20th century solar activity is unusually high, and the interrupting episode of aerosol cooling contributes to the high frequency appearance of what may well be a longer term response to that solar activity. Models are not yet accurate enough to tease out attribution of the recent warming.--63.226.208.50 09:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Time-scales are problematic. Comparing the last 2 or 20 or 200 years with the last 200 thousand or 200 million is a very long and wide mine field. Sln3412 04:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, higher frequencies are damped due to the lower resolution of older paleo data, a period of warming as short as the recent one, may well be missed in the paleo data.--63.226.208.50 09:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire HS debate is just like so many others; it becomes a point of discussion in and of itself. That takes attention away from the subject and into the abyss of discussion. Sln3412 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion is where we have the space and liberty to clarify what we mean. That seems more like a pinnicle than an abyss. Do you have any remaining questions?--63.226.208.50 09:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Predictions

cut subsection

Global Warming Effects on the Future

The potential effects of CO2 on climate become more significant as we look into the future. Estimated present day reserves of fossil fuels (mainly coal) should last for another few hundred years and will add far more CO2 to the atmosphere than has accumulated so far. Unless human technology or extreme conservation efforts reduces this, atmospher CO2 levels will increase within two centuries to levels at least two and possibly four or five times higher than those that existed before humans. Levels this high are comparable to those last seen tens of millions of years ago in warmer greenhouse worlds. This warming will cause environmental changes. As regional patterns of temperature and precipitation change, impacts on human populations will vary by season. Atmospher CO2 levels will remain high for 1000 of years or more, until the ocean absorbs the excess CO2.

---

I cut the preceding subsection, as it lacks sources and reads more like an argument for reducing CO2 emissions. Does it even belong here, or should it go to Kyoto Protocol or Emissions trading?

Anyway, we need more info about the relationship of air temperature and CO2 levels in the historical temperature record. Last month, I saw a graph illustrating the point the CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases. At least temp went up first, then CO2 went up; same for down. --Uncle Ed 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Try What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? crandles 17:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for once I agree with Ed. Sorry about that :-). The article *should* have something in it about future CO2 levels, but I think it does already, higher up William M. Connolley 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

crandles - At the end of the article you cited, it reads "CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms." However, it has been stated more than once on this page that the oceans are currently absorbing large amounts of CO2. Wouldn't this be indicative of an approaching ice age, rather than GW?130.36.62.140 16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The oceans currently absorb CO2 because of a simple chemical imbalance. We add a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, and part of this is absorbed into the ocean. Note that atmosperic CO2 levels still increase. This has nothing to do with an ice age. --Stephan Schulz 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The same contributor restored the above section and followed it with this:

The future within the next 500 years is that when crude oil runs out. After that there will be alternative fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, and many more types that come from the earths crust and return to the earth crust for a completely renewable cycle. When this comes then global warming will still be here but will start to decline slowly.

I agree that with the above statements that to the extent this information is correct and useful, it needs to be better referenced and presented. Dragons flight 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone made a change that just made a particular sentence redundant. The changer changed "predict" to estimate, which I thought was fine, but then said that the models estimates assume that we are not going to curb emissions. The next sentence says that estimates are difficult because we do not know future emissions and climate variability. Thus, I too away the part that says "assumes that we will not curb emissions" since this is stated better in the next sentence... Sorry if I am redundant, I am new at this... Brusegadi 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I made that change because the IPCC scenarios are explciity based on 'what if' storylines that assume that nothing will be done about emissions because of climate change. Obviously, even with that caveat the emissions are difficult to predict so I did not see it as contradictory with the following sentence. I still think it is useful to state this assumption up front though. 209.79.152.198 12:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I feel it is somehow redundant. Perhaps with better phrasing the assumption of the panel can be explecitly stated. I'll see if I come up with something. Brusegadi 21:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Common misconceptions

Half the Norwegian Wikipedia article on global warming is a list of misconceptions about global warming, with discussion/refutations. The choice of misconceptions seems biased, but mentioning in the article that there are numerous common misconceptions, and listing and discussing them, seems like a good idea. As it is now, several issues that preoccupy many people are represented only on this discussion page instead of in an article. I suggest someone makes a separate article called "Common misconceptions about global warming" that lists and discusses claims that are unscientific, very improbable or poorly founded in science. It is rather obvious that misconceptions are abundant amongst laymen - and I guess laymen are the main target group for the Global warming article. Notice that pro-science advocates seem to forget that a huge number of people seem to hold an unrealistic and often scientifically unfounded sense of impending apocalypse, mainly due to sensationalist tabloid newspapers. This should be addressed, as should a lot of the refuted claims on this discussion page. On the other hand, a list of misconceptions - this is a too strong concept, perhaps? - may end up too black-and-white, showing a disregard for the subtleties that the article in its present form has. I'd welcome viewpoints on this. Narssarssuaq 12:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This could be useful but probably best as a separate article. The main entry is already bordering on too long. As a start maybe you could translate the Norwegian version. Raymond Arritt 02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, 'misconceptions' refer to what some British have been calling "climate porn." This 'misconceptions' were not brought about by scientists but by media and politicians. Thus, it might make sense to deal with them in the page where we deal with the media and politics of global warming and not in the page where we deal with the science of global warming. Making a separate page may be good, but I feel that it would also be ok to treat them in a more politically leaning article. I feel that as long as we dont put it here, in the science part, it should be fine. Brusegadi 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds interesting, all of it. I don't know myself if any of this is anywhere near apolitical on its basic level. It's very difficult to take any large organization or group or subject and see exactly what is social, what is political, what is economic, what is professional, and what is something else (or a mix). So perhaps trying to make this subject anything else than what it is, is impossible. It looks fairly difficult already just in the current format. Sln3412 03:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

EXTERNAL LINKS

"The Wegman Report on Statistical Errors of Global Warming Studies" http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

Should this be under "other" and not under scientific? Its energy commerce and it seems to be purely statistical... Just wondering. Brusegadi 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"purely statistical" - sounds scientific to me. --Spiffy sperry 20:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok Brusegadi 20:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not 'purely statistical' - "In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility." This is clearly a political document that belongs in 'other'.Skyemoor 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree it's not "purely statistical" (I wasn't condoning the use of that phrase by repeating it), it is primarily a statistical (i.e., scientific) report with some discussion on the political nature of the subject. It most certainly does not belong in 'other'. Even Mann doesn't dispute the report's findings on his statistical methods, but complains that it's not peer-reviewed, as if that somehow discredits it. (FWIW, a month ago I was fine with this reference instead being listed elsewhere. But if it's here it should be correctly categorized.) --Spiffy sperry 21:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly and unequivocally a political document. At times, they expound on some abstract nuances of the sciences, but then jump lightyears to conclusions that are not at all supported in the report, such as;

"MBH98/99 has been politicized by the IPCC and other public forums and has generated an unfortunate level of consensus in the public and political sectors and has been accepted to a large extent as truth. Within the scholarly community and in certain conservative sectors of the popular press, there is at least some level of skepticism."

"Coupled models that have been claimed to show an atmospheric response to oceanic flux shifts are so simplified and lack adequate resolution that they cannot be skillfully integrated over the time periods required to describe true climatic time scales. Again, these models are only indicators of processes that can be operating but with no evidence that they dominate."

"Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers."

"While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change… What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change."

"Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the MM05 papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the MBH98/99 position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99."

"This study finds no evidence for any earlier periods in the past two millennia with warmer conditions than the post-1990 period. However, natural multi-centennial climate variability, especially as a response to solar irradiance, may be larger than previously thought."

"The (McIntyre and McKitrick) calculations indicate that these values for the 15th century section of the temperature reconstruction are not significant, thereby refuting the conclusions made by MBH98." (even though the M&M approach has been debunked thoroughly!)

And these people are statisticians!? Again, this is clearly a political document with a thin veil of 'science' in the form of statistical mumbling. It is not science, it is a sellout. Skyemoor 00:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dr. Edward J. Wegman is a statistician. 65.95.41.70 03:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it would have been nice for him to have used statistics to prove his point, rather than making political and conspiracy accusations. The few references to statistics in the above quotes are unsupported and leaps of faith. Skyemoor 14:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics is a mathematics tool used by scientists, politicians and others. In this case it seems quite political - the use of statistics does not qualify it as science. Vsmith 01:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics is a mathematical science. Claiming otherwise is silly. Kyaa the Catlord 01:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, sorry for saying "purely statistical." Since stats have so many faces... I feel that the bottom line is that, becuase the source is highly political in nature, it should be placed under other. My experience with stats tell me that if you are not very familiar with the data you are working with, you may just mess something up. Perhaps one of the assumptions that is "obviously" met by the data turns out not to be met. My view may be discredited, since Mann has admitted some of the errors that were criticized. Yet, when reading it, I feel that I am getting only one side of the story. Skyemoor points to many examples of text that would never be in a real science source. So, I, again, suggest to try to keep it out. Brusegadi 02:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

blind from the source of the data is a good thing, it prevents you from making unnecessary assumptions. 65.95.41.70 00:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree here, there are assumptions that are VITAL to selecting one statistical procedure against another. And knowledge of the data is essential to knowing if such assumptions are met. What should be avoided is a political interest in a certain result. What can be damaging to a statistician is having a preconceived agenda. Knowledge of the data is rarely detrimental. And that is why the report is not scientific, it belongs under 'other' only because we do not have a 'political' section for external links. Bottomline is that the report was writeen by a statistician and not by a climate scientist. Brusegadi 02:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with others here on the science vs. politics issue, I see no point in continuing that battle. However, I am interested in seeing a source for "Mann has admitted some of the errors that were criticized", since I've only seen this comment. --Spiffy sperry 03:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

globalwarminginthenews.com

How is an external link decided? If there is a site that is updated many times a day with global warming news is that a good external link to have? It provides something extra on top of what Wikipedia offers. Some of today's news, after it has been verified and quantified, will make it here as substantiated information. So a good external link site would offer news that has not yet been covered here? Yes or no? Webchat 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The link in question has Google ads. It's been my WP:SPAM experience that the more someone objects to a link's removal, the more likely it is that the intention of adding the link is to generate traffic and revenue to that site. Wikipedia's external link policy discourages non-notable, ad-heavy sites. Also see Wikipedia's policy on external links and Webchat's contribution history. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright. As I have done here - I will place any sites (mine or others I think should be linked to) up for discussion. My only remaining question is what is wrong with Google ads? Does every site have to be without advertising before it has merit? Webchat 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ceteris paribus, I tend to prefer sites with no ads, although will link to be-aded sites when there is nothing better. A subject like global warming will likely have hundreds of potentially relevant links, so there is a good reason to be picky about the sites linked to. The look of the site, with the look of the appearently parent site robinnixon.com, leads me to think this is a single person's website project, and is a relatively new one at that. I think I would hold off on linking to it until it is better established as a source. By no means is it a bad site, just a bit too limited and new for linking. --TeaDrinker 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the {{spam1}} states, Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You've already admitted that this is your site (and I'm guessing the other sites you linked to are owned or managed by you). If your site becomes notable enough, other (non-affiliated) people will add your site. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you've made your point here. But there *is* a dilemma when you yourself are certain you have a good resource that other people will find useful but you aren't supposed to create a link. Whatever. It will stand the test of time. It would be nice to have it linked to in Wikipedia - maybe one day someone will :) I've decided to take ohnoitsjamie up and revise a few articles that need a little work instead - so I won't be bothering you here for a while :) Webchat 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I'm going to do instead. I found an article that didn't exist mashup (video) something else I know something about. I'm going to try and make a good article here, but it'll be the first I ever started from scratch. So if any of you would care to offer any advice it will be more than welcome. I'm sure it'll start off messy but will get into shape quite soon. Thanks! Webchat 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Publicity section

This material would have a good home in the Global warming controversy article but not here. The main article already is long and is in danger of becoming unwieldy. The main article needs to stick to the science. Raymond Arritt 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting a suitable place. Wavelength 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

Just to be sure, if I want to edit the Spanish version of this article, is it ok for the references to be in English or do they have to be in Spanish? In general, can an article written in X language have references in Y language? I am trying to avoid getting in trouble :) I have seen that being done but I am not sure if it is right. Thanks a lot guys and sorry for the diversion. Brusegadi 23:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Most original research is published in English nowadays, so I think you will have a hard time to come up with Spanish references for the current state of the art. In this situation, it's certainly ok to use English references. --Stephan Schulz 23:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics and arguments

I think the Wegman Report should have an article of its own. --Uncle Ed 17:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientific

ridiculous, a published scientific paper is un-scientific, yet a group blog is scientific? 65.95.41.70 00:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to interfere here, but a blog doesnt belong on Wikipedia: WP:EL. Yes? HawkerTyphoon 00:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There are exceptions to every rule and RealClimate is notable. Dragons flight 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I removed it. Throw it back in, but the external links section needs a clean up! HawkerTyphoon 01:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

But the blog is ran by scientists. I mean, at least one of them has been called to testify in congress. On the other hand, if adding a blog to the science part is going to make the article lose credibility then lets just leave it as it is.

The RealClimate blog is the conduit for the paleoclimate community, and is a colloborative 'engine' for continuing climate research direction and information. To leave it out would be missing a big piece of the puzzle. Skyemoor 11:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

But should it be included in the 'other' or 'scientific'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brusegadi (talk • contribs) .

Since it is employed by the scientists in the field collaboratively, and criticisms are an openly welcomed part of the process, this site belongs in the Scientific section. Skyemoor 15:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree Brusegadi 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

IMBALANCE

The following was posted in the article:

• The warming is the result of an imbalance between ambient levels of sulfurous or nitrogenous aerosols and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

If you look at the reference provided it says that smog clearing has 'accelerated' global warming but it says nothing about it being a cause of global warming. Thus, with the source provided, I dont think it makes sense to place this under alternate theories. Brusegadi 04:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

References Broken

I've been starting to cite using < ref > because it says that is in the todo section but the problem is something glitched, when I preview the cites start at 1 but when I actually save it they cites start at double however there are. So if you check the references section it doubles up does anyone have any idea how I can fix this. Reverting doens't seem to help. SirGrant 00:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'm not sure if it is a local problem (like with my account) but I see this but the thing is if I log out everything shows up fine. I tried logging in on my roommates PC and I still have the problems so I know it isn't computer specific. I don't know why it would work when I'm not logged in but not when I am. If anyone could let me know how it shows up for them that would be a big help thanks SirGrant 01:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Side note: Before hitting SAVE PAGE, use SHOW PREVIEW, it will save you much aggravation and many versions.

Please review the discussion on references styles for this article, now preserved in Archive 9 [3]. This has been a problem issue in the past. Vsmith 02:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok so was there a general consensus cause after reading that it seems pretty split if there was and I'm citing it wrong I'll go back and set everything back to the way it was. SirGrant 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about a consensus (guess I need to reread it), but if no consensus is reached, I think policy is that the current style remains. There was an Arbcom case over this last Nov/Dec - got kinda messy. I know that ref systems have evolved and improved since then. But, discuss before unilaterally changing please. My preference is for a Harvard style alphabetized reference section - which I think is now an option for the note style you are using. Maybe with improvements a concensus can be reached now ??? Vsmith 03:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok makes sense, and if again anyone wants me to undo the edits I was doing I will. Hopefully we can possibly get a third voice in here on what to do. SirGrant 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh also I wasn't trying to be unilateral in my editing style it just at the top it says Pending Tasks: * Set up HARVARD inline citation system. * Note first scientists to study Global Warming. so that is what I thought I was doing. SirGrant 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Ignore the above the problem got fixed I think it was just some sort of browser error. Regardless I was wondering what we should do about the citations, I would be happy to go about changing all the links to this format:

Houghton, John T. (2001). "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis". United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved 2006-09-28. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

However I do abide my wikipedias rules and if the current ruling was to leave it as was I'll go back and undo my edits. Sorry about not going through the archives there is just so much stuff it's like a book to read of just talk pages. So if anyone has any oppinions on what I should do I would appriciate it. I would also like to note that I do think the < ref > system is better than having the links in brackets like [ www.whatever.com ] because I think by doing that firstly it is not asthetically pleasing and doesn't contain information about the source you are citing. However I will say it again I will follow the rules and if people decided that it should stay the way it was I'll revert it. Thanks SirGrant 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was only acting to caution you, before you did a lot of work - as some would disagree. User:William M. Connolley, one of the major contributors to the page is currently on vacation. I am aware of his feelings regarding references and inline links as they are quite similar to mine. I like inline links that take you directly to the referenced page (I typically open the link in a background tab for reference as I continue reading). The note system that you started to implement is quite cumbersome as it requires a complicated three clicks to do what I want. It also produces an essentilly useless numbered list at the bottom of the article. I prefer a reference section arranged alphbetically with Harvard style ref links in the text. Standard for science works. I would like a system using a Harvard style link which links to the ref section for text works and gives a dual choice for online links: a direct link to the website with a secondary link to the reference in an alphbetized reference section. I haven't kept up with the newer Harvard styl ref linking system - need to investigate it more, but am quite opposed to the simple note system you started working on. Cheers, Vsmith 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I read about William M. Connolley and about the arbitration that is why I haven't been citing any more sources till I can maybe get some instruction on what to do because honestly the only person who has even responded to me is you Vsmith and you kinda seem unsure and I don't want to continue until I get some sort of official word Thanks. SirGrant 23:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is my opinion: I don't mind too much either way. A good reference system is certainly worth having, and your work seems to be on the way towards it. On the other hand, the status quo works ok, too. Given that William seems to have the strongest opinion, we should probably wait till he's back. --Stephan Schulz 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan that sounds reasonable. I'm gonna leave a message on William's talk page hopefully he will respond fairly soon. If not I'll go back and revert my edits but hopefully he can give us some sort of judgement in a reasonable amount of time SirGrant 23:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm back :-) I'm still of the opinion that two-clicks-to-link is really really annoying... I'm with Vsmith on this William M. Connolley 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

ok, I'll change it back tonight SirGrant 20:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On Wegman and Ritson

I was doing my weekly reading of realclimate, and I saw the Ritson links. Mainly:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/RitsonLetterWaxman.pdf

I feel that if we include the Wegman we should at least be entitled to: 1) Place the links above in the 'Other' external links part of the article, since they bring into question the credibility of the W report in a scientific manner. 2) We could simply remove the W report altogether for the reasons in 1. 3) we could make an article about the wegeman report as someone suggested above. The article would mention the controversy surrounding the report.

If my view is accepted, then I vote for either of the first two options. Also, if most prefer option three, we would have to mention the report in the main article (in order to provide a link) and remove it form the 'other' external links. Thanks and have a lovely day, Brusegadi 03:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote we give it it's own article, so that it can be exposed for what it is. Skyemoor 11:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)