Talk:Climate change/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

→

Who made this stuff up?

What is the science behind the claim "carbon dioxide (CO2) ... causes 9–26%" of the global warming effect? And the other numbers (such as water vapor and methane)?

Either these questions should be answered and citations added to the article, or the claims should be replaced with what is known via scientific discovery. At the very least the *claims should be removed until they can be verified* (not that the massive ranges in these percentages are very convincing -- of anything). Karbinski 17:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That claim is not in the article. CO2 cause 9-26% of the greenhouse effect, which is something very different. See that article for sources and explanations. The large range is not uncertainty, but depends on what you want to measure. Different gases absorb IR radiation of different, but overlapping frequency ranges, so that the contribution of any particular gas goes down if you add other gases to the mix. This is really not something under any debate. --Stephan Schulz 17:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Except of course debate on definitions. Talking of which given all this wrom related stuff anyone know the halflife of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere? I couldn't find it in the rubber company handbook. --BozMo talk 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Atmospheric residence time for N2O is over 100 years. Raymond Arritt 18:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --BozMo talk 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me double check that (clickety, clickety...) -- yes. [1]

Refs added. Raymond Arritt 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Who makes this up? The Democrats who want to scare us into voting for them. 12va34 22:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[2] --Stephan Schulz 07:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What is missing here is a causal relation between increased C02 conentrations and absorption. It would seem that even a 5 degree by 2100 would mean today's temp would be around 41 degrees. Karbinski 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? --Stephan Schulz 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

its not a linear relationship, its an exponential relationship like a mortgage with balloon payments, try graphing it as a fibonacci series, 1 degree C by 2000, then 2 more by 2025 then 3 more by 2050, then 5 more by 2075 and 8 more by 2100 for a total of 19 degrees C in the next 93 yearsRktect 18:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The exponential curve has been refuted here many times, Rktect. By scientists who directly study global warming. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

exponential increase

I don't want to be obvious, but none of the curves there is an exponential curve, none of it is labeled as an exponential curve, and you don't know what an exponential curve is. Sorry. --Stephan Schulz 11:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the things that may confuse people looking at graphs is the use of rectangular coordinates. If the rate of change is stretched out relative to time it may look as if the change is increasing at a non exponential rate. Its worth noting that the graphs on this articles pages would look a lot more serious if rectangular coordinates were not used, or if the rectanglles were rotated 90 degrees. Rktect 12:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For clarity, are you suggesting a log graph? --BozMo talk 12:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Rktect, you make no sense. You can redraw those graphs with a log Y scale. If there really were exponential growth, the graph would appear straight in such a coordinate system. But since its not, it will not. And I'm sorry, but you have added so much outright nonsense without ever seriously reacting to several well-founded rebuttals (note: changing the subject is not a serious reaction) that I find it unproductive to engage in further dialog with you - and, as far as I can tell, I'm not alone with this view. --Stephan Schulz 12:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You consider it nonsense that IPCC is using the term accelerated dynamically to describe ice sheet decline? How would you graph acceleration as other than an increase in speed? You consider it nonsense that the government is and has been allowing special interests to dismiss global warming as a natural cycle? You consider it nonsense that the media, think tanks and the government have yet to address mediation in a serious manner, talking about CAFE taxes while at the same time allowing SUV's to be averaged in with passenger car fleets in evaluating automobile emmissions and claiming that what needs to be done now is too expensive to consider? I have't seen any rebutals to any of the IPCC data I have been mentioning, just lots of cognative dissonance to the effect you don't believe an increase in the rate of increase defines an exponential curve and claims the IPCC graphs are not related to the IPCC articles. The science of global warming doesn't care whether we believe in it or not, its gonna do what its gonna do whether we believe its happening or not. One individual is skeptical that nuclear plants using oceans for cooling will be affected by sea level rise. In another place individuals are skeptical that sources from second round comments in 2006 that were accepted into the 2007 report can be citedRktect 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

why human effects are shifting the balance out of control

I appreciate your discussion on my talk page. The sources I'm restricting myself to at the moment are the IPCC and its contributors like Overpeak and Weiss for more specific recent info. Generally the areas of the article I consider out of date are all references sourcing more than three years back.

If you want to you can think of it in terms of the cost of a gallon of gas, house prices, the stock market or people who think global warming is a real issue. The numbers in 1994 are exponentially different than the numbers today, even the numbers from 3 years back are exponentially different. They may drop, even drop dramatically for a short while, but overall the general trend is up and the reason is there are just more people to buy gas, houses, stocks, and the predictions of science.

Comparing studies from the mid nineties with what scientists are documenting today tends to have the same exponential differences as the data. Back then the studies were linear, tracking data back in time, now they are computor models and projections forward tending to show us in the cusp of exponential curves with a substantial amount of unexpected synergy.

Updating the numbers by adding a comment with an IPCC graph or chart to back it up shouldn't be controversial. Some editors seem to think all global warming research falls under the category of WPOR|SYN because its new and combines a lot of sources and doesn't always go where we went in the past or where they might expect us to go in the future, but there is consensus among scientists that the warming is caused by human activity.

The worst forms of human activity in terms of polluting the atmosphere are above average in the northern hemisphere. That activity causes the atmosphere to have above average concentrations of greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gasses are dramatically affected by burning fossil fuels and their emmisions of carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of methane come from increases in agriculture, with associated emmissions of methane from melting tundra in Siberia and the release from seabeds.

Its the synergy of everything taken all together that is killing usRktect 11:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Updating the numbers is not controversial. Our job as editors is to keep the data up to date. But adding an entirely new section with questionable sources and assumptions is not constructive to the article. And if the scientists are referring to CO2 as a linear expansion rather than an exponential one, then it is probably a linear expansion, and not an exponential one. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt has above said the CO2 increase is exponential the temperature change isn't. I think the CO2 increase is closer to exponential than linear but not quite exponential. However it is near enough (unlike the completely crazy 'every climate phenomena is increasing exponentially') crandles 16:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As a first step scientists looked at what had already happened. For millenia things had been pretty linear but it was observed that in recent years things have started to change. That research started in the sixties. It was a cople of decades before there was any real current data to begin to make projections with.

In the eighties you had scientists guessing about what they expected might happen and modeling possible scenarios to check. In the nineties they began to get correlations between models and observed data. Now we are just entering a phase where they can agree on whats happening. Global warming is happening; has been happening since the start of the Industrial Revolution and is caused by humans. The time frame and the rate of increase are still painted in extemly broad, very conservative, scenarios, but some scientists are beginning to point that the observed data is trending outside the modeling with warming occuring faster in the Northern Hemisphere and at the poles than was expected.

If you have an interest in this topic you should know that. If you look at even the IPCC graphs you will see that, If you go outside and note the temperature is hotter than you remember in July, that its more like August, that in some states temperatures over 100 degrees are becoming normal rather than extreme then you might begin to wonder if temperature has increased 3 degrees in 40 years in Siberia and if its like all other observable climate phenomena, increasing exponentialy, when is it going to get too hot to go outside.Rktect 15:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you any idea how that sounds? "like all other observable climate phenomena, increasing exponentialy" Yeah right. nuff said. crandles 16:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Begin with the number of people on the planet. Their number is increasing exponentially. As the number of humans increase the amount of food they eat increases. The amout of energy they consume increases, the amount of polution they add to the environment increases. its not rocket science.Rktect 00:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The number of people is not currently increasing exponentially. It has been more-or-less linear since about the 1960s. See world population. Green house gases are, apparently, growing exponentially, but as Raymond has pointed out before, exponential increase of GHGs leads to linear increase in temperature. --Stephan Schulz 00:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[3]

[ http://one-simple-idea.com/WorldPopulation.jpg population is increasing exponentialy]

exponential?

The UN curve seems a little more optomistic at first glance but the coordinates are stretched out to make it appear the curve is linear up to 10 Billion by 2050 Rktect 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything that looks remotely linear about the IPCC graphs. They all show the rate of increase is increasing at an increasing rate. Most of them show that the rate of increase eventually decreases as the assumed mediation kicks in, but as politicians drag their heels we get closer and closer to a tiping point which is very similar to the effects of being sick or unemployed and getting behind in your bills until you go bankrupt.

You can live off unemployment for a while and then credit cards and payday loans but eventually they shut off your lights and phone, repose your car, take your house for nonpayment of your mortgage of taxes, and then eventually you can't afford food, shelter, or clothing, and there is no room in the homeless shelter. Global warming is like that except worse. All the cities are underwater, we are out of cheap energy, theres no food because of the droughts and if it isn't the storms and floods the brush fires and people dropping of heatstroke, then its the resource wars that leave us with a planet where Darfur and Rawanda look like a walk in the park. Plague and pestilence vie with famine and war to determine when our species becomes the next to go extinct.Rktect 18:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, saying that there is an exponential increase in temperature when all of the scientists are calling it linear and then backing up your argument by reciting the same tired doomsday scenarios based on the most extreme predictions to be found about global warming is not a proof. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To paraphrase John Maddox, Malthus was a failed prophet of doom, and so are you. Perhaps you should consider revisiting your Malthusian beliefs before trying to push them throughout Wikipedia. Try reading Julian Simon. --Childhood's End 18:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The linked graphics is a quantitative figure, with an unclear source and no evidence of being peer-reviewed, extremely smoothed and at a scale that allows no deduction about an increase in the rate of growth for the last 50 years. It also does not describe the growth as exponential - do you have a Mark-X eyeball that can distinguish exponential growth from (say) a grade 8 polynomial? Also, this seems to be taken from an environmental charity web page - not necessarily a particularly reliable source for scientific data. --Stephan Schulz 12:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe as an architect I'm biased, but most people can look at a graphic and observe whether there is a dramatic change or a steady state,... thats why graphics are useful to make a point.

If you look carefully at the IPCC graphics you will note there are 6 main scenarios. The more conservative scenariois assume mediation. All of the graphics show increase rather than decrease from the historic trend line. If the slope of the increase is a straight line thats a linear incease. If the slope of the line changes upwards that indicates an increase in the rate of increase.

If there is an increase in the rate of increase that line is an exponential curve.

Have you considered the possibility that it is still a linear curve, with an increased slope? That rather than increasing at an increasing rate, the slope was one value before the industrial revolution, and now it is another? Although one could argue that we have been polluting the atmosphere since the invention of fire, the beginning of the industrial age can be reasonably marked as a point of dramatic change; a "crook" on the line, if you will. What the slope was before the start of the industrial revolution is irrelevant, because the factor of manmade pollution did not exist. That is not evidence for an exponential rate of increase, merely that there is a new factor at play and the slope has changed accordingly. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)}

Exponential curves could and do show show exponential change in a negative direction as well.

In some cases in detail its cyclic, it goes up and down seasonally for example, and there are cycles of ice ages and warming periods. When those cycles are adjusted or smoothed to an average rate of change by year, or by epoch, then if its higher each year or each epoch by a litte more than it was before that can be thought of like a surcharge on your taxes.

Indeed, many cycles play a part on climate. I would suggest you look at page four at this link. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Increases that may seem small at first tend to grow exponentially. This well known series illustrates the point ... 0, 0, 1, 3, 5, 8, 13... lets say say that it starts in 1700 and proceeds to be measured each century showing at first little change. In 1800 things are still about the same. In 1900 there is a notable change, but we really don't know where we are going with it, maybe its a cycle and will eventually return to normal. In 2000 its observed that the change is much more dramatic than thought and we project where we are going to be in 2100 noting that the changes may pass a tipping point after which they become irreversible and continue to increase for centuries.

The fibonacci sequence analogy is a drastic oversimplification of Earth's climate (and it begins as 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5; by the way). ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[Fibonacci_number]

after two starting values, each number is the sum of the two preceding numbers.

Yes, and if you would actually look at the article that both of us just referenced, you would see that your 0, 0, 1 sequence is wrong. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Taken in isolation the 0,0,1, part of the series looks relatively linear and horizontal. The 3,5,8,13 part of the series looks like a curve headed verticle. The point is to recognize the curve as a curve before you get to 3 which is when things begin to come apart. Science does that by modeling its predictions on trend lines and taking smaller increments for its data. Instead of measuring by century you begin to measure by decade and then by year observig that the rate of increase is increasing at an increasing rate.

Science tends to be conservative, so does politics and Wikipedia consensus.

So should we follow your predictions over those of the IPCC? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The conservative position is that technically mediation is possible. The more extreme position is that sociologically, politically, economically observation shows that to date, mediation is not working out. The reason is that most people have other concerns that they view as more pressing and urgent. The war in Iraq, the economy, healthcare, social security, tax and spend policies that misapropriate money from social programs, environmental programs, alternative energy programs and give it to special interests.

Now let's not pretend that all of these other concerns are meaningless.

Who is going to come up with the IPCC estimated 1,800 trillion dollars that it will cost to keep CO2 concentrations under 500 ppm? Methane and nitrous oxide levels are also increasing. The phytoplankton in the oceans and the trees in the rain forests that scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere are dying. The oceans are dying. These are important checks and balances that help keep the planet green.

Here we go again...

Those are all IPCC graphs produced for their presentations.Rktect 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

waterworld talk

By writing that, I was simply implying that I could tell the waterworld spiel was about to resurface. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Without a working plan for mediation, then we go to the midrange scenarios which assume we run out of fossil fuels in about 18 years and have to go to coal and nuclear energy, but that going to coal will be mediated by future technology that will return its emmissions to the oceans or deep underground. More likely the case is that what we observe in China will be coming our way.

Even Hubbert is not predicting that we will "run out" of fossil fuels in 18 years; merely that that is the point where demand will outpace supply. That is a major difference which cannot be overlooked. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Try oildrum.com or run the numbers yourself. We presently are desperate enough to have started a war in Iraq to allow us to control the oil there. Thats because the giant Ghawr field in Saudi Arabia is on rinse cycle and can no longer meet production.

That's taking the discussion in a whole new direction, and even that is highly disputed.

Iran is next in line and then Venezuala, Nigeria, Canada and Mexico whom we are already worrying about selling their oil to China instead of to us. Worldwide we produce 84 MBD and use 85 MBD of which the US takes 25%.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... are you seriously implying that the United States plans to invade Canada?

Well, thats been our logic for invading Iraq,(Iran) and less obviously Afghanistan, and the rest of the 107 countries we have intentionally destabilized in order that we might better appropriaye their resources. Resource wars have been ongoing for 6000 years but never in the history of mankind has the situation been as desperate as it is today where we can just ignore the suffering of the third world so long as we are well fed and secure in our energy supplies. I think Mexico is ahead of Canada in line but things might change if China is sucessful in negotiating access to their supplies and the northwest passage warms enough.

1) We have not invaded Iran

2) We haven't even been able to stabilize the one country we have invaded

3) You do not name or provide a source for any of those "107 countries"

4) ...you are seriously implying that the United States plans to invade Canada? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs} 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1) We invaded Iran set up the Shah and used Iran for espionage purposes back in the fifties when Norman Shwarskophs father set up SAVAC modeled on the New Jersey state troopers. We also set up Saddam in Iraq. We set up the Taliban and Osama Bin Ladin as Mujahadin whom we armed and funded to keep the Russians out of Afghanistan. We supported the Shah until he was overthrown. Then we had Iran Contra using Israel to supply arms including weapons of mass destruction to both sides in the Iran Iraq war so Saudi Arabia could keep the competion in OPEC out of the way while it raised prices. Don't confuse our unclean history with speculation and conspiracy theories.

2) Thats because we specialize in destabilization not stabilization

3) CIA World Factbook. Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, China, Mexico, Venezuela, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, Angola, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Qatar, India, Malaysia, Argentina, Oman, Egypt, Colombia, Ecuador, Azerbaijan, Equatorial Guinea, Syria, Vietnam, Yemen, Sudan, Gabon, Congo, Republic of, Thailand, South Africa, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Guatemala, Chile, Serbia, Nicaragua, Burma, Albania, Kyrgyzstan, Uruguay, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Paraguay, Liberia, Ethiopia, Somalia, El Salvador to mention but a few...For what its worth we are now involved in Tajakistan

4) They have oil don't they? Rktect 22:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

China has explored getting a piece of that action so we have invaded Afghanistan to block Pipelines designed to connect the Russian fields to the Gulf near the Baluchistan Pakistan border.

Of course that makes sense. Why else would we possibly invade Afghanistan? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well we also want to be able to control Afghanistans drug trade and make sure the supply of young girls to Dubai where they can service both the Saudi financiers and out Gulf Fleet is assured, plus they are a key player in controlling Chinas access to the Gulf.

Good God, do you actually believe this crap? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unical had a $4 billion dollar suit over that with Shell decided on 9/11/01. Up till then they were importing Saudis and Taliban from Pakistan into Afghanistan to run their operations.

I have tried to maintain a reasonable debate, but I'm starting to wonder why I am even wasting my breath talking to you. Either you are not taking this discussion seriously and have decided to start pulling my leg, or you are hopelessly misinformed. There is no serious debate about 9/11 being perpetrated by oil companies, save for on the most irrational far-left blogs.

Oil companies could care less about 9/11. Nothing personal, its just business, aside from that there are a lot of people who own large pieces of oil companies whose nationalities would suprise you. Halliburton recently moved to Dubai. The people who run Dubai have been actively engaged in piracy since before the pyramids were built. Aside from the ports deal and some great undwrwater hotels they are rather heavily involved in some nasty bits of work you may not want to know aboutRktect 23:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We may have as different perspectives as it would be possible to conceive, and are undoubtedly both certain that the other is hoplessly misinformed, but it would be fascinating to see if there is some common agreement about the consequences and timing of Peak Oil and global warming.

"Informed" is not blindly believing that the Shell corporation committed the worst act of terrorism in this country's history for the sake of profits. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that the powers represented by the permanent members of the UN security council have been competing for control of the world's oil supplies since the end of the Ottoman Empire, and that the world wars, Korea, the Cold War, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Terror, etc; are designed to facilitate more than truth, justice and the American way?

Sorry, I won't take the bait on that one. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree the 11 trillion dollar debt we have amassaed as a nation in recent years isn't going in either of our pockets? Rktect 12:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's taking it in a whole new direction, but yes. Of course, I could go into the effects that tax cuts have had on tax revenue, but this discussion is convoluted enough already (in other words, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't). ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you choose not to take this debate seriously and argue hard science supported by data with official conclusions that match your arguments, then I will not perpetuate this discussion with you. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you denying we are running out of oil much faster than predicted even a few years ago?Rktect 12:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

By that, I was referring to your excessive use of conspiracy theories to support your points. And again, the whole idea of peak oil is when demand overtakes supply resulting in growing shortages, not the point where there simply is no more oil. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

History isn't a conspiracy theory just because it disagrees with the spin of people denying the seriousness of global warming implications. Peak Oil is not a conspiracy either. Peak oil is about when world demand overtook supply in the seventies. What follows is dependant on changes in demand and supply; Demand could be slowed by conservation and alternative fuels, supply could be increased by new technology and reduced competition for resources due to the adoption of alternative fuels. coulda, woulda, shoulda...

The US governments response has been to try and corner the market and its been pretty sucessful at that with the US presently taking about a quarter to the total world production. Unfortunately maintaining that rate of use makes us increasingly dependent on developing new sources to replace older sources that are used up.

Projections of reserves are forecast at up to twice what production ends up at, and beyond that it isn't entirely a case of what the reserves are but more importantly what rate they can be delivered at. Light sweet crude comes out of the ground fast and requires little refining. Heavy crude gets mined and carried away by trucks. It requires a lot of processing before it can gor to a refinery and can't be transported easily in a pipeline.

What we as the people of this planet chose to do about the problem is not so much the result of a conspiracy by big oil to dismiss the problem as something we may have to deal with in the future, or their utilizing media and political lobbying to keep their profits coming in, but rather our own tendency not to want to deal with big messy problems we see no solution to.

The rate at which we burn fossil fuels affects global warming, so the first consequence we should be concerned about as regards how we deal with supply having overtaken demand, especially in terms of oil, is the increase in the use of very dirty coal in China. China ran out of oil long ago so it serves as a good model for where we may shortly be at ourselves.

The US government works very hard to do whatever is necessary to keep the oil flowing to the US including the use of covert actions which sometimes lead to wars. Other governments see getting some of the oil to flow to them as in their interests also. The determining factor for when we decide riding our bikes to work instead of driving to work, works for us will probably be price.

Once it gets to the point where that happens, very likely within the next couple of decades, there will be a lot of people who can't afford to commute to work, or live in a city, and aren't in shape to bicycle to work or who can't afford a bicycle, who will not be happy.Rktect 14:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Negotiations over that date back to 85 and Iran Contra.

The 84 million a day supply is diminishing even as the demand increases. What that means is that price rises won't be enough to control demand and pretty soon somebody isn't going to get theirs. Given the total reserves worldwide are 1.5 trillion barrels of which 750 MBO have been used, and 250 MBO aren't going to be economical to produce until prices go over $100/barrel that leaves us 500 BBO being used up at 85 MBO/Day the number of days remaining is 5882.3 or 16.12 years at the present rate of usage. The remaining 250 BBO won't be produced at any kind of useful rate. its the same sort of heavy crude oil shale they are now mining for rather than drilling for in Canada, only this stuff is 7.5 miles under the sea. They have to pump a chemical down to release it from the rock then heat it enough to get it to flow as a liguid through some very cold water. The other point worth considering is that we don't have to actually have used the last drop to run into problems, just get to the point where we can't maintain production. There are a lot of links to consider in terms of production, not just finding it and a technology to get it out of the ground, but shipping it, refining it distributing it and improving the efficiency of the wasy we use it. Think about it not just for use as gasoline in cars, but as a lubricant for machinery, as the base for everything from plastics to perfume. Future generations will be hard pressed to find alternative technologies without the cheap energy to build their components.Rktect 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

China is already out of oil and gas and vigorously competing with us for what remains.

The assumption that nuclear plants will be safe on a geological timescale, is not convincing. What happens with those placed along the coasts so they can use seawater for cooling after the oceans rise to cover them for the remainder of this century and beyond? What happens to their wastes?

I like your use of WP:OR. The assumption that ocean levels will rise six meters (as you have stated in the past) is not widely supported: the current IPCC estimate is between 18–59cm over the course of the next century. And would there happen to be any peer-reviewed papers specifically concerning this prediction about nuclear power plants? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been studying them since the eighties. The interesting thing about them at this moment is the development of new alloys of steel that are optomized to reduce cracking in piping.

So you're saying you don't have a peer-reviewed source about nuclear power plants being submerged in the ocean by sea-level rise caused by exponential global warming? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Its one of the concerns that have been raised by the NRC. Many Nuke plants are placed along coastlines so they can use the oceans for cooling. Unless you believe sea level rise is a myth then there is no way I know of that those plants can avoid flooding.Rktect 12:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have a direct link to a reliable source, just admit it. It wouldn't be the first time. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Implications

The Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC recognize that the human settlements most vulnerable to climate change are those which are especially exposed to natural hazards, that is, to coastal or river flooding, severe drought, landslides, severe wind storms and tropical cyclones. The IPCC also recognized that the most vulnerable populations are in developing countries; and that in small island countries as well as in coastal lowlands, inundation due to sea level rise and storm surges are a particular hazard

The IPCC Working Group II (Impacts) used various scenarios based on a number of different scientific studies. The main scenario upon which Working Group II based its assessments was:

1 an effective doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere between now and 20252050;

2 a consequent increase of global mean temperature in the range of 1.5°C to 4-5°C;

3 a sea level rise of about 30-50 cm by 2050 and of about 1 metre by 2100, with a rise

in the temperature of the ocean surface layer of between 0.2°C and 2.5°C.

I conclude that the preceding analysis poses at least seven implications for the ongoing negotiations under the rubric of the Climate Change Convention.

First, it is clear that the consequences of inevitable gradual sea level rise due to climate change induced by global warming will not be insurable on the world's insurance markets. Second, even in the case of the 'abnormal' catastrophic consequences of climate change and sea level rise - floods, inundation, storms, windstorms, hurricanes, tropical cyclones, typhoons insurers already acknowledge that there will be a substantial shortfall in their coverage of losses in the future. Insurers are already forced to decline to insure certain risks in particular areas and increasingly they will be forced to refuse to insure risks in the geographical regions most prone to catastrophic loss. As a result they will have to impose deductibles, limit the total amounts of their liability on individual risks and limit their liabilities in the aggregate.

If as predicted the incidence of catastrophes resulting from the combination of sea level rise, severe storms and storm surges increases substantially, a large proportion of catastrophic losses will be uninsured and indeed uninsurable on the world's insurance markets. The insurance industry recognises that even in the case of catastrophe insurance, government intervention will be necessary.

Third, losses of such magnitude cannot be carried by the governments of those countries most vulnerable to these hazards - the small island and lowlying coastal developing countries. There is a need for an internationally funded insurance pool.

Fourth, the oil pollution and nuclear damage Conventions referred to in this paper provide examples of international insurance pools that have been set up in other contexts. One is funded by the oil industry, the other by States on a basis which takes account of gross national product and nuclear energy capacity.

Fifth, the basis for contribution to an internationally funded insurance pool in the present context, and the criteria to be satisfied in claiming from such a fund, should form part of the negotiations leading to the Climate Change Convention.

Sixth, such an international insurance pool might be funded by the developed countries on a contribution basis related to gross national product and/or greenhouse gas emission levels and/or by the industries of such countries responsible for such emissions.

Finally, the Ministerial Declaration at the Second World Climate Conference recommended, inter alia, that stepped-up financial contributions be provided by developed countries to address the particular problems and needs, including funding, of low-lying coastal and small vulnerable island countries. Such countries must be the principal beneficiaries of an internationally funded insurance pool set up to cover losses resulting from sea level rise and related catastrophic events stemming from climate change.

The final range of scenarios are considered extreme until our observations show we have underestimated the disaster and its going to be worse faster. We are already looking at ocean temperatures consistant with the global die offs that occured millions of years ago. In the Cretaceous and Jurrasic when temperatures reached the present levels the phytoplankton died off, the CO2 levels the mediate continued to climb another 8 degrees C from present levels and 90 % of the species on the planet went extinct.

Check your sources. The only extinction event that came close to killing off 90% of the species on the planet was the Permian-Triassic extinction event, not the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, and there are over a dozen proposed explanations for the former with no clear consensus. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

extinction events

Over 90% of species that ever lived are extinct, but extinction occurs at an uneven rate. ... The classical "Big Five" mass extinctions identified by Jack Sepkoski and David M. Raup in their 1982 paper are widely agreed upon as some of the most significant: End Ordovician, Late Devonian, End Permian, End Triassic, and End Cretaceous.[2]

Yes. 90% of the species that used to live on earth do not live on earth anymore. It's called evolution. They did not go extinct in the mid-Cretaceous, because there was no mass extinction event in the mid-Cretaceous. The cretaceous-tertiary extinction was caused by a meteor, not global warming, and you have yet to provide a source for any of this. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The synergystic effect of everything taken together, mediation at a cost we can't afford, failure to emphasise the importance of conservation until we run out, failure to see the problem as serious, the efforts by some to ensure we disbelieve our lying eyes and downplay global warming so they can have a few more years of maximum profit, and the waste of resources we could use to turn things around combined with mother natures nasty paybacks ensure that the most extreme speculations we have now will be considered ridiculously conservative by our children who will have to live (or not live) with the consequences.Rktect 10:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

intense changes

Intense changes to our industrial and agricultural infrastructure would have a huge human cost as a result of reduced economic output. People would starve to death the world over if it were not for economic surplus in countries with the resources to provide foreign aid. And if a flimsy argument for an exponential curve is the only motivation, doing so would be a worse crime than allowing global warming to continue. Of course, we could heed the doomsday scenarios and turn our infrastructure on its head to combat this perceived problem. Likewise, I can sell you a rock that will keep tigers away. I don't see any tigers. Do you? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats actually kind of funny because yes I do see lots of tigers. We probably don't frequent the same places, if we did you would know what I mean. People are starving to eath all over the third world due to our destabilization of governments to facilitate our ripping off other peoples resources. Darfur, Somalia, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Rktect 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No source, no source, no source, and no source. That's four conspiracy theories with major implications in one sentence, and no citations to back them up. You neglected to address my main point above about the difference between a linear and exponential curve; the point that this discussion is supposed to be about. Instead you provided a litany of conspiracy theories characterizing the United States as an evil entity responsible for most of the world's problems, with absolutely no citations to back up your arguments. You clearly do not take this topic seriously, and I see no reason to continue to debate it with you. Have a nice day. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Where you claim no source, no source for global warming; IPCC, No source for Peak oil, oil drum.com. No source for destabilization; CIA world factbook, No source for USA as evil entity... Please don't take it personally but our country is seriously off course.Rktect 12:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I claim you have no source for exponential global warming, which is what this discussion is supposed to be about (and to date, with the exception of your interpretation of a handful of IPCC graphs, this holds true). And as for your "sources": Oildrum.com is a POV site. CIA world factbook was not even mentioned in your prior posts, and is completely irrelevant to the litany of (yes, unsourced) conspiracy theories you assert as solid facts. The existence of poverty is not proof that America caused it, and quite frankly, to assume otherwise is not evidence of a rational line of thought.

Respectfully, our government goes out of its way to lie to us. We have regent university types being put in charge of departments, cutting funds for research refusing to fund noted climate scientists putting signs on the grand canyon that deny its an example of how old the planet is, The asa satellites that provide our weather data are losing their funding. The oil companies running the government are not keen to hear that we need to find alternatives to burning fossil fuels.

The claims you make (any of them: math, history) would look a lot more credible if you could provide some links. Your prior insistence on the existence of an extinction-level event in the mid-cretaceous caused by global warming when no such event took place has not led me to believe your expertise in the field of history, so citations would be appreciated. As you have no doubt deduced, I am not a believer in the conspiracy theories you espouse as solid facts (oil companies run the government, 9-11 perpetrated by Shell, US supports slave trade in Dubai, etc), so I would appreciate your not using them as arguments in the future. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think one issue with your denial is that you haven't been researching this since the sixties. When I first got into this it was still called futurism. It was tied to Population increase as one of many projected changes that might have dramitic planetary effects.

Overpopulation was projected to bring polution, war, famine, and pestillence. When you use terms like

conspiracy

to deny that, what that communicates to me is here come the right wing talking points.

Then I suspect that in the circles you have been running in most of your life thus far, anything tied to the environment was dismissed as tree hugging, liberal, communist, crackpot conspiracy theory. To accept the possibility that the tree huggers were correct in their earth day warnings will require going through some cognative dissonance. That cognative dissonance is still a major problem in addressing global warming.

Government fear mongering and citations of threats have always been about other groups of humans, the Russians, the Chinese, godless communists engaged in land reforms, unions engaged in organizing workers, activist judges working for civil rights, abortionists giving women the right to choose, flag burners withdrawing their consent to an America that was so involved in pandering to special interests that it could allow itself to be involved in kidnapping, torture, murder, coups and the destabilization of governments.

Some people still free associate activists who want to make dramatic changes to deal with global warming with an anti establishment bad for business image. Must be a tree hugging conspiracy theorist, an anti war over educated liberal, a long haired hippiee communist freak, the mind set provides closure to a drug dealing sixties radical image which is dissmissable as not properly fair and balalnced.

If you can get beyond the knee jerk reactions then its worth your time to look at the role of government assistance of corporate interests in de-regulation, and following that line of thought, in eliminating forign governments who are not properly cooperative, and in following that thought in eliminating dissent in the United States by controlling media statements about global warming by establishing think tanks who come up with projections of global cooling and then insist that their oil industry scientists be given standing to speak on the issue in a properly fair and balanced manner and then using government departments like NASA and the EPA to put a halt to climate change research which might properly refute some of the bad science, and then insisting that the consensus of the IPCC report take a middle of the road conservative posture.

With that in mind you can take the perspective of the people whose resources the United States subsidized oil companies have been exploiting a little differently. They aren't terrorists, or bad people they are just a little tired of us setting up governments for them that don't function to improve the quality of their lives. That is one reason the third world is way ahead of the curve on recognizing that our idea of progress and a strong economy is counterproductive in fighting global warming. We don't need to be fighting other people we need to fighting our own desire to turn up the air conditioner.Rktect 12:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Perpetrated no. Caused perhaps... The actual story is really kind of interesting. For people who don't read newspapers or can't remember the Taliban, al Qaeda and the Mujahdeen fighting on our side as covert force extenders supported, funded and armed by the CIA during the Iran Contra years and given sanctuary after 9/11 in Pakistan, their role in negotianting oil pipelines first broke down as a result of our defaulting on promises to provide funding for starving children in return for destruction of Afghanistan opium crop which was to come in the form of payments for oil pipeline routes through Banyan.

To our disgrace, the U.S. recognized the Taliban's government until three years ago, despite the their well-known human rights abuses. Why did we wait so long?

One reason is that multinational oil companies, led by Unocal, wanted to build a 1000+ mile pipeline across Afghanistan to carry oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea region to seaports in Turkey. The Caspian Sea region is considered to have the second-richest oil deposits remaining on earth, and getting to it before the Russians was trumped an important goal for American interests.

The pipeline was a priority for the Clinton administration, and passage through Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was a round-about route to bypass troublespots like Iran and Chechnya. But in August, 1998, terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden bombed two U.S. embassies in East Africa. After we lobbed a few Tomahawk cruise missiles into Afghanistan and boasted that we had disabled his "terrorist network," Unocal abandoned the plans for a route through the country.

As cruel and irrational as the Taliban seems to the rest of the world, we seem just as bad to them. When diplomats were begging them to not destroy the Buddah statues, the Taliban were angered that the world cared more about artifacts than aiding their starving people. "Why is the world so upset about this? If they are destroying our future with sanctions, then they shouldn't worry about our past," a Taliban spokesman told the SF Chronicle. Characteristically, they showed their contempt for us by harming themselves -- they rejected a $100 million offer from UNESCO to save the statues, although the much-needed cash and tourist trade would have gone far to stave off hunger. Nor do they understand why the West is so critical of their religious state; we embrace other nations that are theology-based, particularly Israel. And they certainly hate the U.S. for turning away after the Soviet war, although it was the hundreds of thousands of their youth fighting under the Mujahideen that won the war for us.

There is more detail in other reports. Essentially the $40 per capita Afghans said

you want us to give up our major sources of income, fighting and growing opium, give us some of the money you have allocated for restoring the Buddah of Banyan to feed our starving kids.

When the US and its oil companies said forget it (its nothing to us if your kids starve) the Afghans were not happy and despite its potential tourist income blew the Buddah up.

Shortly thereafter on 9/11 we got the al Qaeda response.

As to the white slavery, do you find it more persuasive if its attributed to Iran? sex slaves The people paying for the use of these young girls and boys is the same as in Vietnams brothels. dubai runs iran slave trade war and Sex

company involvement in US government Bush Cheney involvement GAO report Rktect 19:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you heard me before, so I am going to be as crystal clear about this as I possibly can: I am finished talking to you. I had already told you several times that I do not wish to engage in a prolonged debate/fight over innumerable off-topic conspiracy theories. Per WP:Forum, most of this discussion should probably be deleted anyway. So please, don't bother posting any more of this here. I won't waste my time reading it, and I won't waste my breath fighting it. It's done. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Global warming is increasing at an increasing rate of increase. The source I would like to cite, the IPCC second round of comments is labled don't quote or cite so I can't tell you what it says, but I suppose you could go read it on your own.

That does not help me much, and if they do not want it quoted or cited that does not speak highly of its credibility. Still, if you can provide a direct quote or link, I'll read it. Don't worry: I'm sure the IPCC forgive you for doing so. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oildrum.com is a POV site in the same way the IPCC site is. They are strongly biased in favor of science over opinion and reality over belief.

Let's try to avoid the use of hackneyed sound bites. They really add nothing to the substance of this discussion. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Go read it for yourself and I think you will like it for the simple fact its reporting straight from the horses mouth, no filters.

I have, and my impression of the site has not changed. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I can understand where you might find the truth has a strong liberal bias

Or, just the sources that you have provided so far. Remember what I said about hackneyed sound bites? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The CIA destabilization programs by country are on wikipedia, but the best information is the declassified admissions that yes it was all true, The salvadorean solution, Phoenix, the drug deals, the drug experiments, the assassinations, Iran Contra...on their own site.

And would you happen to have any kind of link to this all-encompassing confession? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The much talked about release of the Family Jewels on the CIA web pages talk about a report dating back to the eighties. That sort of gives you the flavor, Kidnapping. murder, torture, assassination, destabilization, covert operations designed to protect corporate profits, coups, mob connections, drug dealing, arms dealing, human experiments on US soldiers with drugs suspected of being useful in eliminating enemy forces if sprayed on a battlefield, the tip of the iceberg stuff. Those who want to know more can find a lot more. CIA destabilization

That has to be the single weakest argument I have ever heard. Searching CIA destabilization on Google? For God's sakes, that will return every web page with either or both of those words on it on the entire internet! If you cannot find a direct link to this so-called CIA confession on their web site, just admit it and stop wasting my time. I do not intend to sift through the blog of every partisan loon who ever picked up a keyboard trying to find your source. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that there is so much information available with which to respond to you that being encyclopedic about it would take a while. Pick from the list I gave you two or three things you think are total fabrications, such the evidence for oil companies running the government and I would be happy to tell you about Cheney, Halliburton, Shell, BP, etc; back to when Exxon was still the King Ranch. Anyone exploring the National Defense Highway System, See America in your Chevrolet, Whats good for General Motors is good for the USA, destruction of the trolly cars and electric cars century in termsor conspiracy theorist, they may just be an historian.

From there check out persons, places, things. If you want to limit it to one President at a time, limit it just to Clinton if you like, or to:

Spanish-American War; US occupies Philippines and much of the Caribbean. Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand triggers World War I. Woodrow Wilson uses falsities and exaggerated claims to bring the US into World War I. Russian Revolution begins. Balfour Declaration establishes Britain's intent to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Treaty of Versailles. Sykes-Picot agreement divvies up the Middle East by British and French dictates. Palmer purge of US Communists. Western oil companies exert their control over the Middle East. American women win the right to vote. Iraq formed. The Bush and Walker families help subsidize the Nazis.....

Enough.

I took the liberty of commenting out the brick of text which you cut and paste onto this talk page. I do not intend to waste my time addressing the flaws to be found in two hundred and fifty individual conspiracy theories, being fought tooth-and-nail on every single point, and frankly it's insulting to my intelligence for you to suggest I should even try. To date, nothing that you have provided builds into a substantial argument on any of the dozens (now hundreds) of topics of discussion that have arisen in this thread. All you have done with this latest post is send me on a wild blog chase, and I have no intention to comply. The simple fact is, you have not justified any of your arguments with a credible source, save for the original topic of discussion about IPCC graphs, and even those boil down to your personal interpretation of them (which, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary from both myself and practically every other user on this talk page, you continue to insist upon). I won't spare a guess at how long you sifted through the internet to find everything on that list, but you failed to address or even acknowledge any of my other points. I didn't think I would have to say this, but by this point I think it's safe for me to say that there truly is no reasoning with you. Good day. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 01:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll allow the government sources I used may not be credible, the EPA and NASA and CIA sites have about the same credibility as the administration that puts them online. Likewise the US university sites, and the media sites. Thats why I suggest you calmly pick any three areas you think are the most outrageous, and least believable and say why. If you don't think there is any evidence of world wide US involvement in assassinations, coups, drug dealing, white slavery and death squads the CIA disagrees with you. They would argue those things are necessary to protect our national interests from communists, terrorists, foreign nationals, drug cartels, evil doers and individuals who want to cut and run from our obligation to ensure our country is number one. The fact that most of the world perceives that as giving them the finger and thus reduces their willingness to collaborate with us in destroying the planet in search of cheap energy makes acheiving consensus on policies to mediate global warming difficult.Rktect 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The EPA site requires you to be willing to cut through all the summaries and bull and actually read the reports, but if you do and cross reference the CIA fact book you can compare the numbers for reserves vs production and draw your own conclusions. The best referenced most factual information probably isn't presented

This would go much more quickly if I did not have to do your research for you, because in all likelihood we would reach different conclusions from the same data. It's simple human psychology: we pursue the truth that best fits our own beliefs. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why we should work together on this. We probably have as opposite a perspective, as different a POV as it is concievable any two prople could have, but yet we may be able to agree on where the available data is questionable. I would nominate the data from the EPA and NASA which feeds the IPCC reports. You might nominate the data from oildrum.com and any evidence that the US government is in the pocket of its special interests. All we need to do is agree on what to argue about.Rktect 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, I acknowledge that America has problems. I never said it didn't. But that does not excuse you to blame America for every single problem in the world today, from genocide in Darfur to the slave trade in Indonesia. You have managed to distort the topic at hand beyond recognition, splitting off in a hundred directions at once while all the while managing to ignore the counterpoint I raised to your assertion about exponential global warming.

Exponential global warming is a good place to begin. Show me something in support of the world not warming, or the world warming at a stable uniform linear rate, or the worlds warming at a rate which hasn't increased, and then increased again on top of the previous increase.Rktect 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Acknowleding America has problems is the first step, getting to where you can tick off the instances of kidnapping, murder, torture, holding without rendition, war crimes etc; by administration is another. Carrying it a step further to look at why BP's pipelines weren't properly checked before their walls thinned to the point where at Prudoe they all had to be replaced after they spilled, or why the drug wars are actually al about displacing indigent people in Ecuador and Columbia and Nigeria so we can run oil piplines through peoples gardens without having them be shot full of hols is another.

I assume that you meant to write "by this administration"? Word of advice; I wouldn't believe everything I hear about these stories, as they tend to be played up by bloggers, along with the mainstream media (the discredited Times Magazine Gitmo story about flushing a certain book down a toilet comes to mind). Innocent until proven guilty is a novel concept, and I do not give credence to these notions without evidence. Now, being as this discussion is already branching off into every aspect of American politics imagineable, I do not wish to discuss this to much extent. However, I should mention that Hanlon's razor must be considered where the Prudoe incident is concerned. Mistakes happen. It's sort of like the levees in New Orleans. No government is perfect, and problems can easily be overlooked. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant "by administration". Sure this administration is the worst ever, but its just continuing traditions that go back to the formation of our nation. The number of our founding fathers who were pirates, smugglers, land speculators, lawyers and clerics is impressive. You mention GITMO (abu Garube and the ghost camps trampling on the idea that America isn't the worst terrorist out there by association) and the word discredited in the same sentence.

If anything GITMO abuses are as grossly under reported as the rest of the kidnapping, torture, murder, assassination, coups, destabilization, holding without rendition and war crimes we have engaged in not just in the present administration but for at least the last half century; more if you go back before oil was the major resource being appropriated.

In terms just of human rights abuses and genocide we can go back to the days of the only good indian is a dead indian if you want to. The your'e doing a heck of a job Brownie, mistakes happen, Senator I can't recall, approach is getting old quick. I agree we should focus here on the effect on global warming, but there are reasons the US government (not just deluded fundamentalist Christian Republicans but Democrats in need of campaign financing also) has been dragging its feet on a lot of issues for the last half century. Rktect 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't bother addressing every point you may choose to raise in the above discussion, because I'm simply losing track of it all. It's time to stop dodging and answer. Without spinning off once again into the dark realm of unsourced conspiracy theories, hackneyed doomsday scenarios, and absurd predictions concerning US foreign policy, could we please return to the main topic of discussion?

Global warming is a problem that it isn't in US oil companies and automakers interests to recognize, let alone help to solve. Automobiles and gridlock from using them to commute into urban areas are a very large part of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emmissions. That can't be emphasised strongly enough. Maybe we can rationalize that we are running out of fossil fuels so the problem will take care of itself soon, but thats not an optimum solution.

Oil companies have tended to have some influence with our government and their activities have tended to be a bit ruthless in diminishing US responses to global warming for more than half a century. If you agree human activities are causing global warming, those are some of the activities that will have to cease to correct the problem. One purpose of the discussion page of this article ought to be fact checking government statements about global warming. If we can establish a consensus on that then it ought to be plainly stated in the article.Rktect 13:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

To refresh your memory:

Have you considered the possibility that it is still a linear curve, with an increased slope?

Yes. Unfortunately, if it were a linear curve, the rate of increase which the data shows is increasing at an increasing rate, would be holding steady at the same slope and it simply isn't doing that. According to the IPCC the observed data shows the rate of warming, things contributing to it, and affected by it are in their wordsaccelerating dynamically, in other words growing exponentially Rktect 13:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is your interpretation of the graph, and not the conclusion of the IPCC. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is the present position of the IPCC and probably will be a part of the next report. The first part of the effort was to build consensus that there was a problem and that it was caused by humans. Having gotten that far, they are now starting to note that the rate of increase is much faster than the expected rate, suprisingly rapid, frighteningly rapid.Rktect 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If it has an increasing slope its not linear. Think of it like the roof of a house which starts out with a slope that has a rise of 3' in a run of 12' if it goes to 12' in 12' that isn't linear. Can the curve be modeled as logarythmic, or cyclical? Thats possible. Things may change as we run out of oil, the rate of increase may slow as we approach 2100. I wouldn't bet on it because there are tiping points and the warming once set in motion tends to remain in motion unless offset by mediation. The language the IPCC uses is dynamical acceleration. Acceleration refers to the rate of increase increasing, dynamical refers to ongoing changes.

That is a glaring misinterpretation of the underlying math. The fact that the slope has changed does not mean it is still changing. Look at it with this analogy: a company that manufactures product X has an output of A, contributing to the total number of product X in the market, S. If the company builds a new branch and doubles its production capacity, then it is able to produce 2A of product X. The effect on the total supply of X in the resultant economy has changed: looking at the timeline, the rate of increase would increase in what could be interpreted as an exponential curve, but it would not be a truly exponential curve because the change only occurred once. In comparison, we can look at the temperature record since the industrial revolution. As Raymond Arritt pointed out, CO2 production has increased exponentially with the expansion of industry, but temperature increases linearly due to the resultant log of e. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the fact that the slope has changed, everything changes, thats a given. The important thing is that the slope increases at an increasing rate. it doesn't have to double to be exponential, it can increase by .0% for a couple of years or more and then by .1% and then by .3% and then by .5% and be very difficult to distinguish from a state of no change for a while as it goes to .8%, and 1.3%. One or more natural occurances going in the other direction may mask its effects. Seasonal change and the cycle of ice ages may make it necessary to view the warming as a surcharge on normal cycles, but at the point where we are now, with the ice caps melting and the sea levels rising its no longer possible to call the rate of warming normal. The next question is how to model it.

Its more than a straight line increase because the rate of change keeps changing upward. The rate of warming that took 150 years from 1855 to 2005 was exceeded by the rate of warming that took place from 1905 to 2005 and that was exceeded by the rate of warming that took place from 1955 to 2005 and that was exceeded by the rate of warming that took place from 1985 to 2005, and that was exceeded by the rate of warming from 1995 to 2005. Thats a textbook definition of an exponential curve. There are several errors introduced by that baseline approach using average temperatures. The warming in the northern hemisphere is faster than the average warming. The warming at the northern polar region is faster than the warming in the northern hemisphere as a whole. Taking those into account involves some synergystic effects where the warming triggers more warming.

There is also the point that those kinds of increases tend to aquire a certain momentum. Bodies in motion tend to remain in motion. If you disagree you need to show things that might tend to mediate the increased warming and how we would organize enough resources to build consensus that we need to squander oil company and military industrial complex profits on saving the planet. Would you be for decreasing tax breaks to people who don't earn them? Would you encourage them for individuals and companies who take individual action by conserving energy? Rktect 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That rather than increasing at an increasing rate, the slope was one value before the industrial revolution, and now it is another? Although one could argue that we have been polluting the atmosphere since the invention of fire, the beginning of the industrial age can be reasonably marked as a point of dramatic change; a "crook" on the line, if you will. What the slope was before the start of the industrial revolution is irrelevant, because the factor of manmade pollution did not exist. That is not evidence for an exponential rate of increase, merely that there is a new factor at play and the slope has changed accordingly.

~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I could consider those things, but what I would like you to do to convince me is let the data as you model it to come out as a straight line that can continue into the future at the same flat slope and still acurately predict where the next few data points will be and then say why.Rktect 21:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

All I have said is that you cannot support your theory of exponential global warming from existing data. It is your personal interpretation of the data, which constitutes original research. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'm using IPCC data to show that. The IPCC itself is gradually coming to the same conclusions.

I think it is simply unacceptable to be putting out numbers that do not include any account of the potential for ice stream acceleration, or, and as importantly, for any of the terms relating to unexplained sea level rise during the 20th century...seems to me totally irresponsible and completely incompatible with the TAR results. [Michael MacCracken(Reviewer’s comment ID #: 152-267)]

Accepted. Models and observations are compared in chapter 9 and this will be clarified. We will clarify how the 1993-2003 rate of SL rise is caused. We note that natural and internal variability may have contributed to its high rate. We will include an allowance for ice-sheet

dynamical acceleration in the projections.

2007 IPCC accepted changes I accept your correction that the IPCC is not talking about exponential changes, their phrasing is a high rate of dynamical acceleration in the projectionsRktect 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

theory

Surely global warming is a theory,in the same way that evolution and relativity are theories. Would it not be appropriate to describe it as such? Tonyjeffs 21:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. First, the term is often misunderstood. Secondly, like evolution (and unlike relativity), global warming is both an observed fact (its getting warmer) and a theory (this is caused by several things, but primarily anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions). --Stephan Schulz 21:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, relatively makes 4 predictions, of which 3 (or possibly all 4) have been experimentally confirmed: gravitational lensing, frame dragging, time dialation, and I cannot remember the 4th off the top of my head. Raul654 03:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not saying relativity as a theory is any less supported than the others. When I say relativity is "only" a theory, I'm not referring to certainty, but to the lack of a double meaning. The term "evolution" is used to describe both the observable change in allele frequencies (and ultimately changes in phenotypes), and also the explanatory theory that this happens due to (primarily) mutation and natural selection. The term "global warming" is used for both the observable increase in temperatures, and the theory that explains this (primarily) via anthropogenic GHG emissions. But "relativity" has no such double meaning. You don't observe "relativity", but only effects predicted and explained by the theory of relatvity. --Stephan Schulz 10:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, Are you suggesting that evolution should no longer be called a theory, but relativity should? I see your reasoning, but disagree as do the contributors to the 'evolution' entry on Wikipedia where the term "theory" is used frequently I expect the same is true of all popular encyclopediae. Certainly the theory that GW is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, though very coherent, is unproven and should be described as a theory. The relationships between various model components and what happens are not certain, and are therefore theoretical.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonyjeffs (talk • contribs).

The authors of Evolution do not use the word theory in the way you seem to use it. They use the word to refer to a scientific theory while you seem to use the word in the more general sense of a hunch or guess. --Michael Johnson 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all Relativity is observed... we use it every day in GPS, without relativity we wouldn't have mobile phones, so please be quiet in saying we "don't observe relativity". You say we "only observe it's effects" and to that I say "So fuckin' what", when we LOOK at things are we actually SEEING the thing? No, we're perceiving the light which the object reflects. Does that make it any less real? No.

I think we are talking cross-purpose here. I know what a scientific theory is, being a scientist (and a logician) myself. I agree that GW, Evolution, and Relativity are theories in good standing, that the Theory of Relativity has made many surprising and verifiable predictions, and is one of the best-supported theories we have. But "relativity" is an abstract concept, not an observable one. If the General Theory of Relativity were called "Theory of Gravity 2.0" we would not even have this discussion. I'm only pointing out the ambiguity of the names "evolution" (for both the process and the theory) and "global warming" (for both the process and the theory) that is not shared (to the same degree) by relativity. --Stephan Schulz 09:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

2nd of all, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory, just like Evolution and Relativity and everything else. Please treat it as such. And please do not misuse the definition of theory. I am a physicist. Gelsamel 02:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Johnson; Evolution, Relativity and Global Warming are theories in the scientific sense. They are not mere hunches or guesswork. You can find more information here: scientific theory. Tonyjeffs 04:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hu? I thought that was what I was saying. --Michael Johnson 06:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So the article should be about Global Warming Theory in exactly the same scientific sense that we talk about Evolutionary Theory and Relativity Theory. Tonyjeffs 09:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And as I pointed out, the article is about both the phenomenon and the theory behind it. --Stephan Schulz 09:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You compare GW accurately with Evolution, both being equivalent examples of observation and associated scientific theory. Yet while you appear to agree with the phrase "The theory of Evolution" you balk at the terminology "The theory of Global Warming". Why the inconsistent position?Tonyjeffs 17:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't object strongly to that, in general. I object to describing it only as a theory (note: "only" refers to "describing", not to "theory" here)when the term refers to both theory and observations. On a somewhat weaker level, I don't actually think the term is very suitable, as it is not really a "theory of global warming", but rather a "theory of the climate system" that explains global warming on the side if you plug the right forcings into it. --Stephan Schulz 22:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As Stephan implies, "theory" usually refers to the principles of a broad body of knowledge rather than a specific application. We have theory of gravitation but not theory of rocks falling when you drop them. Raymond Arritt 22:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Evolution article mentions the "theory of evolution" only once, in the fifth paragraph, and reading it I think it fair to say it largely deals with the process as this article does. --Michael Johnson 22:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest anyone reading Michael Johnson's comment above opens the Evolution article and counts the number of times the word "theory" is used. You might also note the number of references to "evolutionary theory" and "Theory of evolution". Tonyjeffs 08:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my apologies I meant to say "introduction", my mistake. I have no idea how many times it appears elsewhere. --Michael Johnson 10:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just did a count, and yes the word "theory" only appears once that I can find in the body of the text. It does appear several times in the references. --Michael Johnson 10:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave you guys to it. cheersTonyjeffs 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that it's at all relevant, but the word "theory" does appear a lot more than once in that article, and many of the times it appears it is even referring to evolution (as opposed to other theories). That doesn't change the underlying issue that theory and hypothesis are two very different things. The word "theory" also appears ample times in the article on Gravitation. For those who aren't aware "theories" are generally considered more scientifically sound than "laws", as the latter are merely observations. (That said, many "theories" have corresponding "laws". There's a "law of gravitation" and a "law of natural selection", for example.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Laws aren't just observations. 86.149.207.21 21:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Surface Station Quality

I added a section which reads:

Recently, many have criticized the accuracy of temperature records, claiming that the network of climate stations that provide much of the data for climate analysis is "inadequate and deteriorating"^[1]. Certain websites have engaged in coordinated efforts to document surface station data, including microclimate effects that can significantly impact station readings^[2]. Some scientists have recently begun investigating the effects of the poor quality of these climate monitoring sites, concluding that "[t]he use of temperature data from poorly sited stations can lead to a false sense of confidence in the robustness of multidecadal surface air temperature trend assessments."^[3]. Furthermore, these scientists conclude that microclimate factors produce "complex effects on surface temperatures...and...attempting to correct the errors with existing adjustment methods artificially forces toward regional representativeness and cannot be expected to recover all of the trend information that would have been obtained locally from a well-sited station." The scientists also recommend that the use of statistical corrections that do not fully account for inherent uncertainties (such as urban heat island and microclimate effects) should be avoided.

There are oodles of information regarding the problems of surface stations online, and it's good to see some research being done that properly accounts for surface station uncertainty. I encourage others to build on this section to include the latest research and analysis on surface station data, as I think the language in Wikipedia articles does not fairly portray the uncertainties and problems with these monitoring stations. Zoomwsu 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Belongs in Instrumental temperature record - where its already mentioned appropriately. --Kim D. Petersen 23:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree and I question whether your revert was done in good faith. Please see Help:Reverting#When_to_revert. Please discuss my change before you revert.

It is critical that at least one paragraph in this summary article mention the quality of surface station data, otherwise, casual readers on the subject may improperly assume a certain level of reliability in surface station data. Unless you make a strong case against this, it is unfair to delete my contribution. Perhaps there is a way we can revise what I wrote to still address the issue of temperature station uncertainty?

Kim, I am un-doing your revert until we resolve this issue. Please do not turn this into a revert war. Zoomwsu 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim is correct. Wikipedia format for complex topics is that the main article should be written in summary style with details in daughter articles. Another concern is WP:AWW: "many have criticized...", "some scientists...", etc. Raymond Arritt 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed "A few . . ." ~ UBeR 01:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so instead of deleting everything I wrote, why don't you help by cleaning up some of the language you find disagreeable?

With regard to the summary style issue, is there a way we can integrate this content into the article in a summary fashion that respects your concern?

Also, none of you have actually addressed my concern voiced above. It is important to mention climate record uncertainty in the main article. As I said before, casual readers on the subject may improperly assume a certain level of reliability in surface station data. All sorts of numbers and data is presented regarding climate measurements without so much as a peep mentioning that much of this data is based on improper measurements and statistical adjustments.

Please do not revert my article until this issue has been resolved. Thank you. Zoomwsu 03:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your larger point is well taken. There should be a mention of the characteristics and limitations of the data within the article (e.g., we have radiosondes only since WWII; we have satellites only since 1979 and their measurements have lots of problems, etc). I'll try to write up a concise paragraph on data limitations in the next few days. Still, the level of detail you have added on the surface record properly belongs elsewhere. Raymond Arritt 03:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why my addition has been reverted. I also do not see why you get to write it instead of me. Why don't you comment or try to improve what I've already written (see below for my own proposals at improvement)? It looks like you have something about satellite measurements that might be included, please feel free to propose something below. I would ask that in the meantime, you refrain from revert-deleting my content.

I would also like you to actually justify your assertion that the level of detail I included belongs elsewhere. Please pay attention--I have already addressed that issue below, where I proposed a revision that removes some detail. Perhaps you would like to comment on that?

On a broader note, I am concerned that this article is being reverted in a knee-jerk reaction. You are clearly acting out of line with Help:Reverting#When_to_revert, which clearly states: If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it. Please be respectful to me by not deleting a contribution of mine. This is not the first time my contributions have been revert-deleted and I am frustrated that I spend hours of effort for nothing. Zoomwsu 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Addressing the issue of too much detail for a summary page, perhaps I can chop off the last couple sentences to read:

Recently, many have criticized the accuracy of temperature records, claiming that the network of climate stations that provide much of the data for climate analysis is "inadequate and deteriorating"^[4]. Certain websites have engaged in coordinated efforts to document surface station data, including microclimate effects that can significantly impact station readings^[5]. Some scientists have recently begun investigating the effects of the poor quality of these climate monitoring sites, concluding that "[t]he use of temperature data from poorly sited stations can lead to a false sense of confidence in the robustness of multidecadal surface air temperature trend assessments."^[6].

Maybe throw a sentence on the end of that directly referencing the Instrumental temperature record article, or is that too much considering it links to that article just a paragraph above? Zoomwsu 03:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Oh, almost forgot about the weasel words. Maybe I can take a stab at cleaning that up:

Prominent individuals and scientists have criticized the accuracy of temperature records, claiming that the network of climate stations that provide much of the data for climate analysis is "inadequate and deteriorating"^[7]. Interested individuals have used the internet to engage in coordinated efforts to document surface station data, including microclimate effects that can significantly impact station readings^[8]. Scientists have recently begun investigating the effects of the poor quality of these climate monitoring sites, concluding that "[t]he use of temperature data from poorly sited stations can lead to a false sense of confidence in the robustness of multidecadal surface air temperature trend assessments."^[9].

Is this better? Zoomwsu 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding detail the might fit elsewhere here will make this article way too long. Why dont we take the status quo and discuss the changes you are making before you make them. That is probably one reason WP:3RR was created.Brusegadi 04:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, please do not revert the article, particularly without contributing to the discussion. This is Wikipedia 101 and only bolsters my perception that a certain exclusionary mindset pervades the climate change articles. Zoomwsu 04:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I did contribute to the discussion. Brusegadi 05:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You want to comment on my revisions that directly address the detail issue? Zoomwsu 05:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I received notice from user:Raymond Arritt that I broke the three-revert rule. Mr. Arritt, I hope you understand that my most recent revision was only to undo the work of someone who deleted my contribution without so much as a comment in this discussion. Furthermore, I have pointed out clear instances where those individuals who are revert-deleting my contribution have violated Wikipedia policies that I have linked to. Moreover, none of them have clearly addressed my arguments in support of retaining my contribution, nor have they responded to my proposed revisions that actually address the very issues they cite in deleting the whole thing. Please retain my contribution until the issues and potential revisions raised have been discussed, per Wikipedia policy. Zoomwsu 05:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have commented. I have been respectful. I am trying to be patient. Actually, its hard for me to lose it ;) Come on man, what is so pressing about adding that stuff? I dont mean to show off, but many times I place some info on the talk, ask people how they feel, and several days later make the change if people agreed to it. I have been told I am too passive for additions. So sorry if you feel I am too picky, but my understanding is that major additions to the really good articles should be discussed first. It would be like going to the Mona Lisa with a crayola...Brusegadi 05:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for not seeing your previous statement. To address your comments:

I would turn the question back on you--What is so pressing that you must delete my contribution without first discussing? WIkipedia clearly favors bold editing and is biased towards inclusion, not exclusion of content. I think the onus is on you and your comrades to demonstrate why my addition should be removed.

I understand the passivity, I share it myself in fact. But you wouldn't know it here because I've been through the ringer on this type of thing before. I'm not going to simply sulk away and will remain here to discuss this issue until it is resolved.

Perhaps major additions or revisions to prominent articles should be discussed prior to editing, but this is really a fuzzy area. Regardless, my contribution hardly qualifies as a "major" addition to this article.

Your point about the crayon and the Mona Lisa is a bit absurd. This article is hardly a masterpiece, and is nothing like a work of art. Wikipedia is supposed to be continually updated and changed, whereas a painting is not. Zoomwsu 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

On another note, this 3RR policy was not designed so 2 people can just muscle out the 1. How about we leave my content in, and then discuss why it should be removed or revised? Why does it need to be the other way around? Zoomwsu 05:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My way makes more sense because most editors disagree with you. If I added X to the page and most disagreed with me it makes more sense to leave X out until I can convince others of the relevance of X. For all we know, X could be total nonsense. Also, the 3RR is in place to foster discussion and to limit edit wars. In a way, it will favor the majority; which makes much sense. Why should the supporter of a minor view be given more weight in a page than more prominent views? Brusegadi 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we've conducted a poll on this issue.

I think Wikipedia policy is pretty clear that one should attempt to improve/revise an edit, rather than delete (or as you say, "leave out").

Perhaps what I wrote is total nonsense, but you must assume good faith on my part. Furthermore, if you think it is total nonsense, please explain why and when consensus is established, we can take appropriate action.

I completely agree that 3RR is designed to foster discussion and limit edit wars. That is why I have been begging those who have been reverting my article to discuss the points I've made instead of revert-deleting.

To address your final question--because the "minor view" supporter has added content and the "prominent views" want to simply delete without proper discussion. Zoomwsu 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I get someone to actually address the issue first? Look, all due respect to the "majority", but sometimes the majority can be wrong, particularly when the majority acts in bad faith against clear Wikipedia policies, and has the chutzpah to try and pin me on breaking policy! Zoomwsu 05:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with this circus for the night. See you all tomorrow. While I expect my contribution to be deleted by the time I turn out the light, I hope to see some well-reasoned responses to my points tomorrow. Adieu. Zoomwsu 05:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If the sources cited are credible (and from a first look, they would appear to be), then this definitely warrants mention in the main article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick look indicated to me that "inadequate and deteriorating" referred to the ability to characterise global warming rather than to test global warming's existance as might be inferred without adding any extra to the quote or putting it in context. I could be wrong so I suggest that this needs experts who can understand the shade of meaning implied. Just because it looks it looks important does not mean that it is as important as indicated in the suggested edits. crandles 15:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

user:BozMo deleted my entry even though discussion continues. Furthermore, he did not address his deletion on this talk page. Please do not delete my content until we have resolved this issue Zoomwsu 18:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is unfair that I am being warned against breaking Wikipedia policy when revert-deleters are clearly violating Wikipedia policies by deleting my contribution. Why has nobody respected my request to keep the content on the main page? Why has nobody reasonably addressed the points and proposals that I have raised, prior to deleting my entry? I have requested multiple times that we keep this content on the main page, and that request has been seconded by user:Jc-S0CO. It is clear that there is no consensus, and Wikipedia policy clearly favors inclusion and revision rather than deletion! I'm concerned that users are deleting my entries in bad faith. Zoomwsu 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

user:Raul654, Consensus needs to be developed that my contribution should not be included, rather than the other way around, as you imply in your reversion comments. Also, I have not seen any contributions to this discussion to support your reversion. Why do others get away with reverting out my article while I'm the one that gets a warning? Zoomwsu 19:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have addressed every single issue raised in this discussion (e.g. too much detail), while the points and issues I've raised have not been responded to. I'm the one being reasonable here. Zoomwsu 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that it deserves to be in the article, but I also said on your talk page that a consensus should be reached here before posting it because, clearly, there are editors here that will not let it stay while this discussion is playing out. This is quickly degrading into another useless edit war, and I would rather that we come to a compromise on the section's length before making any further changes. However, the proposed addition was well-researched and it (or some version of it) certainly deserves a place in the present article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you S0CO. What do you think about the revision I posted above, that trims out some of the extra detail and eliminates some of the weasel words? Perhaps we can include that? Zoomwsu 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the revised version would be perfectly appropriate. For a section the length of the one you want to place it in, a single paragraph would not constitute undue weight, and it is impossible to argue that placing sensors in manners like you outlined earlier would not result in skewed data. But it would be best to wait to post it until everyone has had their concerns addressed.

The funny thing is, I've addressed every single concern raised on this page. Zoomwsu 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, here is Zoomwsu's revised paragraph:

Prominent individuals and scientists have criticized the accuracy of temperature records, claiming that the network of climate stations that provide much of the data for climate analysis is "inadequate and deteriorating"^[10]. Interested individuals have used the internet to engage in coordinated efforts to document surface station data, including microclimate effects that can significantly impact station readings^[11]. Scientists have recently begun investigating the effects of the poor quality of these climate monitoring sites, concluding that "[t]he use of temperature data from poorly sited stations can lead to a false sense of confidence in the robustness of multidecadal surface air temperature trend assessments."^[12].

~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The citations are not accessible (it may have to do with the fact that they are design to be in the main article) or, at least, I cannot see them. If this is happening to all, it would be cool if you placed the links so that all those interested in the discussion can take a look at the sources. This article is edited by many, so someone coming in n minutes from now should also be able to participate in the discussion (assuming we are not done by then.) Brusegadi 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course :)

11

12

13

~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but as far as I can see as yet there is nothing to say that this is in any way material to the whole subject of global warming. Every scientist who ever lived and wants money for kit whinges about accuracy etc but there is nothing whatsoever in evidence to say for example that measuring uncertainty gives another +/- a percent on forecasts. Until it does this is a totally inappropriate undue weight addition to the article which shouldn't be let near the article. --BozMo talk 20:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you seriously suggest that placing a heat sensor next to the exhaust duct for a commercial-grade air conditioner will not return skewed results? No +/- forecast is implied by the current revision, but in science, accuracy is everything. At the very least it can be mentioned that, in isolated cases, there is uncertainty about the methods of collecting temperature data. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the links I included? Note the statement that says: "[t]he use of temperature data from poorly sited stations can lead to a false sense of confidence in the robustness of multidecadal surface air temperature trend assessments." Any reasonable individual can see how this relates to the subject of global warming. Zoomwsu 20:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Relate? Just about. Any kind of peer reviewed implication that this gives rise to material difference in forecasts? Absolutely not. So not in this article. Next you'll be wanting to run articles saying forecasts are being hampered by climate scientists not being paid as much as stockbrokers just ahead of the next pay review for the BAS... --BozMo talk 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize tempers have gotten pretty high on this article, but let's try to keep personal attacks to a minimum, BozMo. Now, to address your point: this proposed addition is in reference to heat sensing stations used to record temperature data. Recorded temperature data is the main body of evidence for global warming. So if there are problems with the data (and irresponsible methodology in collecting it would constitute a problem), it follows that there may be problems with the conclusions drawn from it. As they say, "it ain't rocket science." ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs</font>)} 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The research of surfacestations.org hasn't been peer reviewed. It hasn't been published in any journals. You can't rely on it, certainly not for a high profile article. "So if there are problems with the data (and irresponsible methodology in collecting it would constitute a problem), it follows that there may be problems with the conclusions drawn from it." That is your hypothesis. Firstly, you claim that there are problems with the data. This hasn't been shown - maybe a small number of sensor sites actually are badly placed, maybe not. From the first page of surfacestations.org they seem to be suggesting that a cell tower is going to influence the temperate of a sensor tens of metres away, which is highly unlikely. They also suggest that air conditioning units in nearby buildings will influence temperature - in actual fact, air quickly disperses into the surrounding atmosphere, the effect of these exhaust fans on distant sensors is remote. But you actually can't tell much from just photos, so their research is worthless. What they should've done was actually measure the temperature away from these objects over a period of time, and then try to show a statistical deviation. But they don't even do that. They just take a few photos and some notes. And to try and draw conclusions about *global* warming from photos of US temperature monitoring stations is ridiculous. This isn't science, it's junk, and has no place in wikipedia.86.149.207.21 22:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They have already done precisely what you have suggested: This is the GISS data for Marysville, CA, and this is the GISS data for Orland, CA, only 50 miles away. This example is right on the front page of surfacestations.org, and it does not take a peer-reviewed paper to confirm the glaring deviations in the two datasets. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: there are no apparent step changes in the Marysville record, just a gradual warming from around 1920 to the present. One might expect that if the air conditioner, etc. significantly contaminated the temperature record that we would see jumps in the record when each perturbation began. Is the implication supposed to be that the problems with siting the Marysville obs began in 1920, and that those problems very gradually and uniformly became greater up to the present? That's an ...interesting... hypothesis. Raymond Arritt 22:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They haven't done anything close to what I suggested. I said that they currently have two hypotheses: 1) that (some? all?) US monitoring stations are flawed 2) that this refutes the evidence for global warming. The onus is on them to prove that these things are true. To do a correct study, they should choose a random sample of stations, monitor their sampled readings over a sustained period of time, monitor the actual temperature in those regions with very accurate equipment, and then do a statistical analysis to show that the results are biased. They haven't done any of this! As for your quote "it does not take a peer-reviewed paper to confirm the glaring deviations in the two datasets." you should append *in your opinion*. The peer review process is there for very good reasons, and when you reject that, you're rejecting proper scientific analysis. Besides, if this effect is so obvious, then you should be able to track down several papers published in reputable journals! It should be easy for you! If you are part of surfacestations.org, and engaging in original research, then all you have to do is a full study with temperature data sets with and without these external factors, write your paper, and get it published in a reputable journal. Then come back here and discuss adding your stuff to Wikipedia. Even after surfacestations.org have done that, they still won't have proved hypothesis 2 - so that is even more original research. Before any of this actual research happens, what surfacestations.org is doing is junk, not science. And before both hypotheses are accepted by the scientific community your arguments have no place in an article on *global warming*. 172.188.59.8 10:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Can't see a personal attack in what I wrote. Anyway you seem to agree there isn't any kind of peer reviewed implication that this gives rise to material difference in forecasts? So as relevant as pay reviews then? Or just your original "non rocket" research? --BozMo talk 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To borrow a quote from Instrumental temperature record:

"[poorly exposed sites] are not at all representative of their surrounding region. There may be many factors at such sites that could create artificial climate trends, trends that in reality are not being observed over the region as a whole. As such, it is not advisable to use these sites in the detection of climate trends and development of long-term climate datasets." [4]

If long-term climate datasets were not factors in the evidence for global warming, then global warming would be just that: hot air. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, you wrote: "Any kind of peer reviewed implication that this gives rise to material difference in forecasts? Absolutely not." I disagree. I understand the Pielke quote supplied by SOCO above as saying a material difference in the past would translate to a difference in forecasts. If the trend in the historical record is artificial, then you cannot use it "in the detection of climate trends." Of course, there are many other reasons not to believe the forecasts (as provided by J. Scott Armstrong and Orrin H. Pilkey), but those reasons do not relate to the poor quality instrumental record with its artificial warming bias. RonCram 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What you understand, and what you personally think, is irrelevant. Bozmo is right: there is no peer reviewed paper suggesting that this has any effect on global warming whatsoever. 86.149.207.21 22:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

AEB

(unindent) I believe that a paragraph should be added indicating that all of the data sets used in the temperature record have limitations of one sort or another. However, shortcomings in the US surface temperature record due to siting (resulting in possible bias in an undetermined direction), deserve no more weighting than the shortness of the radiosonde data record, or calibrations on sea surface temperatures, or proxy reconstruction methods. In addition, it is disputed whether or not any of these biases are being corrected for (Peterson on one side, Pielke on the other). Therefore, this should probably be worked out in more detail on the instrumental record page before being summarized here. Hal peridol 21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what sort of research has been done to verify this hypothesis, but wouldn't almost all microclimate effects bias in a warming direction? What I mean to say is, I can't really see too many circumstances where improper siting would drive temperature observations down. Certainly more improper siting factors push temperature records up, such as location near asphalt/concrete, vehicles, A/C units, etc. Any ideas as to what might cause measurements to be lower than actuals?

Sprinklers, agricultural irrigation, fountains, reservoirs and canals, airconditioning (being on the cool side of it), increased airflow due to channeling by buildings, albedo changes... --Stephan Schulz 22:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd encourage you to propose revisions to my paragraph above that might address these other uncertainties (radiosone data, calibration, etc.). Also, we should find a way to better describe the uncertainties due to statistical correction. I touched on it in my writeup, but it seems there are many statistical processes used to calibrate measurements whose uncertainties might need a summary here. Zoomwsu 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

All this is fairly irrelevant to global warming. Scientists agree that there are various minor problems with the temperature record, but nearly all also agree that the measured warming is real. A number of papers have assessed the urban heat island effect, and all came to the result that its overall influence is negligible. The influence of all these problems on the scientific global warming discussion is minor. The (real and alleged) problems are sometimes played up by scepticts, which might be worth mentioning in global warming controversy. They also belong into instrumental temperature record, where they are on topic. They serve no useful purpose here, though, unless you can show a reliable source not about the existence of the issue, but about serious implications for global warming. The proposed section has the additional problem that it is an excellent example for WP:WEASEL. --Stephan Schulz 22:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this proposed addition is to document the uncertainties of the measurements that are used to model and analyze climate change. Nobody has disputed here that measured warming is not occurring, so I don't see your point with regard to that issue. The quality of the data used to assess climate change is most certainly relevant to the issue of global warming, whether or not any scientists have actually quantified the effect of poor quality control on climate models. Perhaps include a statement that further research needs to be done to correlate quality control issues with end climate models, or is that original research?

Furthermore, I question your assertion that "all these problems...[are] minor." You said yourself that little or no research has been done to correlate quality control issues with climate model results, so how can you even make this statement?

The useful purpose that this paragraph will serve is to inform the casual reader as to uncertainties in the datasets used to drive climate modeling. Perhaps more information can be added to the instrumental temperature record article, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a summary of such information should not be included here.

The existence of the issue is more than enough to mention it in this article. It is not necessary, although it would most certainly help, to have a RS that correlates the data. Also, the RS'es already cited have clearly addressed why this is has "serious implications" for global warming: "[t]he use of temperature data from poorly sited stations can lead to a false sense of confidence in the robustness of multidecadal surface air temperature trend assessments."

As far as the weasel words, please pay attention to the discussion. I have already proposed a revision that addresses that issue. PErhaps you would like to comment on that? Zoomwsu 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The last version I saw still has "Prominent individuals and scientists" and later on just "scientists". That's weasely. And where did I say "little or no research has been done to correlate quality control issues with climate model results"? --Stephan Schulz 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The best advice is Hal Peridol's suggestion to blend this in with a more comprehensive discussion of data limitations over a range of climate data sources, presumably at instrumental temperature record, and to summarize that discussion here. Although the results of the surface station article are somewhat interesting there's little of substance with respect to the evaluation of global warming. There's no indication of how large an error has been induced in the global temperature trend, or for that matter even the sign of that error. At the end of the day all we have is "the data aren't perfect" which is hardly the most surprising news. Raymond Arritt 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Instrumental temperature record seems like a good place. There is already some information and discussion (concerning the US surface temperature records) there. It is important to remember that this article should just be for summarizing the sub-articles. Stephan Schulz and Raymond Arritt's points are also well taken: without a well-sourced statement of significant impact on global warning, all that is necessary in this article is the statement that there are efforts underway to improve the reliability of the temperature data, a requirement for better understanding of long-term climate trends. Hal peridol 02:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph at Instrumental_temperature_record#Instrumentation_Accuracy based on my earlier contribution to this article, and the recommendations of fellow editors to include it in that article. I still strongly believe we need to include a paragraph on this page regarding the accuracy of the instrumental records that drive climate models. Many have suggested in this discussion that we shouldn't include such a paragraph because there isn't research that has shown how the accuracy of records affects climate models. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that errors in the records used to build the models can have an effect on the model results. It's a question of how much. Therefore we should summarize the discussion of flaws in temperature records and state that temperature records have a yet unknown effect on climate models. Something like this:

Climate models and predictions are based on many different temperature record sources. Each of these sources have a certain degree of error. Surface station records have been investigated by scientists, who concluded that "[t]he use of temperature data from poorly sited stations can lead to a false sense of confidence in the robustness of multidecadal surface air temperature trend assessments."^[13]. discussion of errors in other sources such as satellite, ice cores, etc. Scientists have not yet assessed the degree to which these errors affect climate models and predictions.

What do you think? Zoomwsu 02:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

First, you may have a misconception about how climate models work. They don't work by extrapolating from past observations, so the first sentence of your paragraph has to be omitted. Correspondingly, in the last sentence "the degree to which these errors affect climate models and predictions" is "none" so we may as well omit that one as well. By this point most of the proposed paragraph has been elided, so it's best to begin anew. Raymond Arritt 02:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that temperature records have nothing to do with climate models and predictions? My understanding is that climate models are built and tested based on known observational factors. If not, then what are they based on? Since you seem to know more about climate models than me, please explain the relationship between temperature records and climate models. Zoomwsu 03:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Climate models are evaluated against a whole range of observations. As well as temperature, there's precipitation, structure of the Hadley circulation, position of storm tracks, etc. etc. There's also beginning to be a push for what some call "process-oriented validation," which involves asking how well a the model predicts important phenomena and processes, not just basic variables such as temperature and precip. Chapter 8 of the latest IPCC report (available here) is a good overview of climate model performance. If you're disinclined to read the whole thing then the material on pp. 600-601 ("How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?") is probably closest to your interests, though I'd really suggest reading as much of that chapter as possible. Raymond Arritt 04:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

From your above cited source:

8.7.2.4 Methane Hydrate Instability/Permafrost Methane. Methane hydrates are stored on the seabed along continental margins where they are stabilised by high pressures and low temperatures, implying that ocean warming may cause hydrate instability and release of methane into the atmosphere (see Section 4.7.2.4). Methane is also stored in the soils in areas of permafrost and warming increases the likelihood of a positive feedback in the climate system via permafrost melting and the release of trapped methane into the atmosphere. The likelihood of methane release from methane hydrates found in the oceans or methane trapped in permafrost layers is assessed in Chapter 7. This subsection considers the potential usefulness of models in determining if those releases could trigger an abrupt climate change. Both forms of methane release represent a potential threshold in the climate system. As the climate warms, the likelihood of the system crossing a threshold for a sudden release increases (see Chapters 4, 7 and 10). Since these changes produce changes in the radiative forcing through changes in the greenhouse gas concentrations, the climatic impacts of such a release are the same as an increase in the rate of change in the radiative forcing. Therefore, the models’ ability to simulate any abrupt climate change should be similar to their ability to simulate future abrupt climate changes due to changes in the greenhouse gas forcing.

Rktect 13:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent change by RKtect

By weird sources I meant providing a picture as opposed to text. I think it is worthy of discussion. Brusegadi 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to RKtect's changes. These are some very powerful claims that have been proposed. Given the nature of this article, we cannot say that temperature has not risen this quickly in 'millions of years' without at least one very powerful source to back it up. And it would be very sloppy to direct a casual reader's attention to the article's talk page at all, let alone in the opening paragraph to the article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you are right about that one. --BozMo talk 20:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no kind way to say it; the proposed material is a poorly-written synthesis and misinterpretation that has no place in the article. Raymond Arritt 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The information doesn't seem accurate. Anthony R. Hansen 01:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If its poorly written then write it better.

[http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.24.jpg IPCC illustrates rate of warming is increasing at an increasing rate 1000-2100'

IPCC illustrates rate of warming is increasing at an increasing rate

The graphics are part of the IPCC report and were provided with text to introduce them.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1258655,00.html

Bottom line the temperature has remained in the same range plus or minus 5 degrees C since before the ice that documents it formed. Though it has varied some from ice age to ice age thats been the standard range. There is no evidence it has ever changed at this rate of change. Over the last 175,000 years it has gradually increased 10 degrees C. In the last forty years it has increased an additional three degrees from its previous warmest point right when it should have started cooling again. That means its increasing faster than it appears to be. Increasing at an increasing rate of increase.

90 to 120 million years ago

During the mid-Cretaceous period, some 90 to 120 million years ago, the seawater around the equator had a temperature of 30 to 37 degrees Celsius, which is five to eight degrees higher than the temperature now. This was revealed in research that used a new method to determine the temperatures of oceans in the distant past.

The finding concurs with recently developed climate models, which indicate that higher carbon dioxide concentrations in the greenhouse climate of 90 to 120 million years ago resulted in warmer tropical oceans. The biogeochemists' findings reveal how seawater temperatures changed when large quantities of greenhouse gases entered the atmosphere. Scientists had suspected that seawater temperatures were significantly higher then, but no method had been available to precisely determine these.

An increase or loss of a fraction of a degree per century over thousands if not millions of years can be considered as within a stable range. A change of 3 degrees in forty years is serious.

To describe a projected change of an additional 6 degrees without going to the weasel words is best describe as the end of life as we know it.

Due to sea level rise, extinction events, the dying of the oceans, the desertification of the plains whose glacial loess suplies the nutrients to our crops that relocating our farms to Canada would lack we are going to be looking at Dead Oceans, Dead cities, and a lot of dead humans in our lifetimes.Rktect 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cites:

Venus

temperature

Again, comparing Venus to Earth when Venus has 92 times the atmospheric pressure of earth, a 243-day day, and an atmosphere composed of 96% carbon dioxide as opposed to Earth's 0.038% is completely ludicrious. Global warming on Venus has absolutely nothing to do with global warming on Earth. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reindent. but look at what you have written: "is rising faster in this century than it did in the last century" is I am almost sure true but then you continue "or at any point in Earths history in the last several million years". You are just making that up DO events are quite likely to be faster and they are only a few thousand years ago.

Don't you realise that what you are doing just gives credence to people with views that everyone concernerned about global warming is just unduly hyping things up? Please stop the nonsense additions which are not supported and only harm the case you are trying to make. crandles 10:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully I disagree. If you think you can show why we don't need to worry about global warming, why it won't be a problem, or why what I see as synergistic effects are totaly unrelated phenomena please have at it. Lets start with the exponential nature of the process.

If there is an increase in the rate of increase the graph of that line is an exponential curve.

I will grant you exponential curves could and do show show exponential change in a negative direction as well. I will grant you the curves are subject to change. We have three possibilities. worth disscussing.

1. The curve is flat and linear and stable. It can be flat and linear even if its verticle, but its generally more stable when its horizontal.

2. The curve is not flat, its increasing or decreasing at an increasing rate, exponentially.

3. The curve is a curve of a different type, cycloidal or a wave or anything but an exponential curve.

While its possible mathematicaly to have a trend line wriggle like a snake, what I'm interested in is case 2.

when we look at the data, in some cases, in detail its cyclic, it goes up and down seasonally for example, and there are cycles of ice ages and warming periods. When those cycles are adjusted or smoothed to an average rate of change by year, or by epoch, then if its higher each year or each epoch by a litte more than it was before that can be thought of like a surcharge on your taxes.

Increases that may seem small at first tend to grow exponentially. This well known series illustrates the point ... 0, 0, 1, 3, 5, 8, 13... lets say that it starts in 1700 and proceeds to be measured each century showing at first little change. In 1800 things are still about the same. In 1900 there is a notable change, but we really don't know where we are going with it, maybe its a cycle and will eventually return to normal. In 2000 its observed that the change is much more dramatic than thought and we project where we are going to be in 2100 noting that the changes may pass a tipping point after which they become irreversible and continue to increase for centuries.

Taken in isolation the 0,0,1, part of the series looks relatively linear and horizontal. The 3,5,8,13 part of the series looks like a curve headed verticle. The point is to recognize the curve as a curve before you get to 3 which is when things begin to come apart. Science does that by modeling its predictions on trend lines and taking smaller increments for its data. Instead of measuring by century you begin to measure by decade and then by year observig that the rate of increase is increasing at an increasing rate.

standford

Science tends to be conservative, so does politics and Wikipedia consensus.Rktect 11:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You can disagree if you like but that doesn't mean that what *you* think will be found to be interesting by others. Does *your* fear for the future justify putting unjustified statements in a wikipedia article? I am concerned about the expected effects of global warming so why should I have a go at saying why we don't need to worry? Science is sensible enough to look at understanding mechanisms rather than just looking at trends. crandles 12:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC reports should be interesting to anyone. They do describe the warming as increasing. They show that temperature and sea levels rose almost a foot globaly in the last century. They then show that rate of increase is increasing. That the rate of increase as increasing at an increassing rate. They even show the rate of reporting the rate of increase is increasing at an increasing rate. The scientists at the IPCC are concerned that there is some cognative dissonance and denial about the consequences. They point out our concerns about Global warming being worse than what consensus admits are testable, and ask why not test them scientifically? When we then report the results scientifically we should be able to leave the personal pronouns by the wayside, don't you agree?Rktect 15:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons between Earth and Venus aside, what evidence do you have that any of this exponential warming is taking place? None of the images you have repeatedly provided state this, it is merely your interpretation of the data, which is WP:OR and deserves no place in this article. Where is the IPCC peer-reviewed source that explicitly states the warming is exponential and not linear? If you are going to persist in making such bold claims, there had better be something to substantiate it. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fair WG4 AR1,

AR4WG1_Pub_Faqs_[1}.pdf p104 global average temperature increases (GATI)

between 1850 and 2000 GATI at a rate of .045°C per decade, .675°C

between 1900 and 2000 GATI at a rate of .074°C per decade rate of increase .029°C, .74°C

between 1950 and 2000 GATI at a rate of .128°C per decade rate of increase .054°C, .64°C

between 1980 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .177°C per decade rate of increase .049°C, .885°C

The rate of increase increased at an increasing rate and was an exponential increaseRktect 01:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is still original research that you claim this is exponential. I'm sure someone could construct a complex polynomial that fits those same data points. My point is that it is more complex than four data points over 150 years or so. Zoomwsu 03:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC avoids the use of the phrase "increasing exponentially" by substituting the phrase "accelerating dynamically", I don't dispute that if you look at the trendline in detail its a lot more complicated with many incorporated cycles, but the overwhelming momentum of the acceleration soon begins to dwarf the countercycles. In particular the IPCC is substituting the phrase "accelerating dynamically" as regards the rate of collapse of the polar ice and sea level rise.Rktect 12:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets: Satellite and in situ measurement networks have demonstrated increasing melting and accelerated ice lfow around the periphery of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) over the past 25 years (see Section 4.6.2). The few simulations of long-term ice sheet simulations suggest that the GIS will significantly decrease in volume and area over the coming centuries if a warmer climate is maintained (Gregory et al., 2004a; Huybrechts et al., 2004; Ridley et al., 2005). A threshold of annual mean warming of 1.9°C to 4.6°C in Greenland has been estimated for elimination of the GIS (Gregory and Huybrechts, 2006; see section 10.7.3.3), a process which would take many centuries to complete. Even if temperatures were to decrease later, the reduction of the GIS to a much smaller extent might be irreversible, because the climate of an ice-free Greenland could be too warm for accumulation; however, this result is model dependent (see Section 10.7.3.3). The positive feedbacks involved here are that once the ice sheet gets thinner, temperatures in the accumulation region are higher, increasing the melting and causing more precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow; that the lower albedo of the exposed ice-free land causes a local climatic warming; and that surface melt water might accelerate ice lfow (see Section 10.6.4.2).A collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) has been discussed as a potential response to global warming for many years (Bindschadler, 1998; Oppenheimer, 1998; Vaughan, 2007). A complete collapse would cause a global sea level rise of about 5 m. The observed acceleration of ice streams in the Amundsen Sea sector of the WAIS, the rapidity of propagation of this signal upstream and the acceleration of glaciers that fed the Larsen B Ice Shelf after its collapse have renewed these concerns (see Section 10.6.4.2). It is possible that the presence of ice shelves tends to stabilise the ice sheet, at least regionally. Therefore, a weakening or collapse of ice shelves, caused by melting on the surface or by melting at the bottom by a warmer ocean, might contribute to a potential destabilisation of the WAIS, which could proceed through the positive feedback of grounding-line retreat. Present understanding is insuiffcient

for prediction of the possible speed or extent of such a collapse (see Box 4.1 and Section 10.7.3.4).

For example, stabilising atmospheric CO at 2 450 ppm, which will likely result in a global equilibrium warming of 1.4°C to 3.1°C, with a best guess of about 2.1°C, would require a reduction of current annual greenhouse gas emissions by 52 to 90% by 2100. Positive carbon cycle feedbacks (i.e., reduced ocean and terrestrial carbon uptake caused by the warming) reduce the total (cumulative) emissions over the 21st century compatible with a stabilisation of CO concentration 2 at 450 ppm by 105 to 300 GtC relative to a hypothetical case where the carbon cycle does not respond to temperature. The uncertainty regarding the strength of the climate-carbon cycle

4 feedback highlighted in the CMIP analysis is also evident in Figure 10.21. For higher stabilisation scenarios such as SP550, SP750 and SP1000, the larger warming (2.9°C, 4.3°C and 5.5°C, respectively) requires an increasingly larger reduction (130 to 425 GtC, 160 to 500 GtC and 165 to 510 GtC, respectively) in the cumulated compatible emissions.

Temperature A northern high-latitude maximum in the warming (‘polar amplification’)is consistently found in all AOGCM simulations (see Section 10.3). The simulated annual mean arctic warming exceeds the global mean warming by roughly a factor of two in the MMD models, while the winter warming in the central arctic is a factor of four larger than the global annual mean when averaged over the models. These magnitudes are comparable to those obtained in previous studies (Holland and Bitz, 2003;

Rktect 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Simulations are not Reality. does that help? Anastrophe 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Simulations are no more reality than a structural analysis of a steel beam is reality. Generally they run the numbers based on formulas which are somewhat conservative giving a range of failure that has some safety built in. In terms of climate change the models predictions have been tested against actual data going back to the 1800's and then tweaked.Rktect 00:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think editors have tried hard to explain to Rktect what is going on, but he/she keeps coming on with the same points. Also, people left comments on the user's talk page but the user immediately archived them. I do that too (I just delete them) but after the fuzz is long dead. This user did it after a few days; so I wonder whether all of this is in good faith? Are we wasting our time?Brusegadi 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors might try citing and referencing the parts of my cites they don't understand, but seeing as most of them are from the IPCC and the graphics are referenced to specific parts of the report its foolish to pretend you have actually read the IPCC reportRktect 23:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

First William Conolly asked that the discussion be here, secondly there got to be too much stuff landing on that page to find or respond to it before the next lot came inRktect 23:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that you can answer "yes" to the above anytime you read a Malthusian's views about global warming. --Childhood's End 18:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to hear your views. Tell me why there is not urgency in dealing wwith the problem, why warming isn't increasing faster than in the past, why emmissions and dead oceans have no effect.Rktect 23:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We are not saying that it is not important. You just seem to have a version of global warming that is on steroids and LSD. For example, as someone already stated, you have got the math wrong. A changing rate of change does not imply exponential growth. It could be piece-wise linear as stated before, or polynomial growth. I believe that we should deal with these things. I am on your side. Yet, I do not push my POV on others and I try to reach a consensus. I am one person and I accept that my view is not the "truth", I am 1 in a sample of billions/ Brusegadi 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what you think the difference is between piece wise linear fitcurves, polynomials and exponential polynomialsRktect 02:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, even though the rate of change may be increasing at an increasing rate, it can appear to be a very small change at first. Put a grain of rice on the first square of a chessboard and 2 grains on the second and tell me how many squares you think it takes before there isn't room on the planet to put all the rice...Rktect 01:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WG4 AR1,

AR4WG1_Pub_Faqs_[1}.pdf p104 global average temperature increases (GATI)

between 1850 and 2000 GATI at a rate of .045°C per decade, .675°C

between 1900 and 2000 GATI at a rate of .074°C per decade rate of increase .029°C, .74°C

between 1950 and 2000 GATI at a rate of .128°C per decade rate of increase .054°C, .64°C

between 1980 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .177°C per decade rate of increase .049°C, .885°C

The rate of increase increased at an increasing rate and was an exponential increase. We should note that that is in spite of the planet being due to cycle into an ice age so its actually increasing at about twice its apparent rate. On top of that the report cites increased vulcanism Pinatubo in the eighties as working against the curve Rktect 01:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone spot the glaringly obvious mathematical flaw in the above analysis? Free beer for the winner. Raymond Arritt 01:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

EP. FiaB. Please notice that my notion of beer excludes Bud Light. --Stephan Schulz 07:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there are just no drinkers here.

AR4WG1_Pub_Faqs_[1}.pdf p104 global average temperature increases (GATI)

between 1855 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .045°C per decade, .675°C

between 1905 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .074°C per decade rate of increase .029°C, .74°C

between 1955 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .128°C per decade rate of increase .054°C, .64°C

between 1985 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .177°C per decade rate of increase .049°C, .885°C

between 1995 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .885°C per decade rate of increase .885°C, 1.770°C

Expanding the original data, adding the same rate per Decade for 1995-2005 as for the period 1985-2005 (despite 11 of the last 12 years have been the hottest in history) to a table that compares the observed data to a fibonacci series and holding the same rate of increase as 1985 the observed rate models higher than the fibonacci values through 2065. Thats also despite the increased vulcanism from Pinatubo in the eighties which is thought to be working against the curve. See the Hockey stick controversy.

Period begins	1855	1905	1955	1985	1995	2005	2015	2025	2035	2045	2055	2065	2075	2085	2095
Fibonacci°C		0.045	0.074	0.119	0.193	0.312	0.505	0.817	1.322	2.139	3.461	5.6	9	14	23
Observed Data°C		0.045	0.074	0.128	0.177	0.885	1.77	2.67	3.54	4.43	5.31	6.2	7.08	7.97	8.85

Rktect 11:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Rktect posts get more and more bizarre. 1) He has mistakenly posted a .885C increase over 25 years presumably the calc should have been .177 * 2.5 decades except he multiplied by 5 for the 1950 to 2000 period. 2) Now he has componded that by taking that as the rate per decade from 1995 to 2005 when it should be just the .177. 3) He has now extrapolated that like mad. 4) He is clearly using an end point bias using the 1980 to 2000 period in all 4 periods used. (I presume this is the EP that --Stephan Schulz posted 5) He has failed to shown whether assuming a slow rate of temp increase to say 1970 followed by a faster but linear rate of growth would be a better fit of the data. 6)There is no attempt to understand the mechanism and see if that imposes any limits.

Global Warming on Steroids and LSD

We are not saying that it is not important. You just seem to have a version of global warming that is on steroids and LSD. For example, as someone already stated, you have got the math wrong. A changing rate of change does not imply exponential growth. It could be piece-wise linear as stated before, or polynomial growth. I believe that we should deal with these things. I am on your side. Yet, I do not push my POV on others and I try to reach a consensus. I am one person and I accept that my view is not the "truth", I am 1 in a sample of billions/ Brusegadi 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what you think the difference is between piece wise linear fitcurves, polynomials and exponential polynomialsRktect 02:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, even though the rate of change may be increasing at an increasing rate, it can appear to be a very small change at first. Put a grain of rice on the first square of a chessboard and 2 grains on the second and tell me how many squares you think it takes before there isn't room on the planet to put all the rice...Rktect 01:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WG4 AR1,

AR4WG1_Pub_Faqs_[1}.pdf p104 global average temperature increases (GATI)

between 1850 and 2000 GATI at a rate of .045°C per decade, .675°C

between 1900 and 2000 GATI at a rate of .074°C per decade rate of increase .029°C, .74°C

between 1950 and 2000 GATI at a rate of .128°C per decade rate of increase .054°C, .64°C

between 1980 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .177°C per decade rate of increase .049°C, .424°C

The rate of increase increased at an increasing rate and was an exponential increase. We should note that that is in spite of the planet being due to cycle into an ice age so its actually increasing at about twice its apparent rate. On top of that the report cites increased vulcanism Pinatubo in the eighties as working against the curve Rktect 01:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone spot the glaringly obvious mathematical flaw in the above analysis? Free beer for the winner. Raymond Arritt 01:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

EP. FiaB. Please notice that my notion of beer excludes Bud Light. --Stephan Schulz 07:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there are just no drinkers here.

AR4WG1_Pub_Faqs_[1}.pdf p104 global average temperature increases (GATI)

between 1855 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .045°C per decade, .675°C

between 1905 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .074°C per decade rate of increase .029°C, .74°C

between 1955 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .128°C per decade rate of increase .054°C, .64°C

between 1985 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .177°C per decade rate of increase .049°C, .424°C

between 1995 and 2005 GATI at a rate of .443°C per decade rate of increase .424°C, .424°C

Expanding the original data, adding the same rate per Decade for 1995-2005 as for the period 1985-2005 (despite 11 of the last 12 years have been the hottest in history) to a table that compares the observed data to a fibonacci series. Despite the increased vulcanism from Pinatubo in the eighties which is thought to be working against the curve it matches well. See the Hockey stick controversy.

Period begins	1855	1905	1955	1985	1995	2005	2015	2025	2035	2045	2055	2065	2075	2085	2095
Fibonacci°C		0.045	0.074	0.119	0.193	0.312	0.505	0.817	1.322	2.139	3.461	5.6	9	14	23
ObservedData°C		0.045	0.074	0.128	0.177	0.424	.848	986	1.530	2.367	3.674	5.615	8.461	12.924	19.726

Rktect 11:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Rktect posts get more and more bizarre. 1) He has mistakenly posted a .885C increase over 25 years presumably the calc should have been .177 * 2.5 decades except he multiplied by 5 for the 1950 to 2000 period. 2) Now he has componded that by taking that as the rate per decade from 1995 to 2005 when it should be just the .177. 3) He has now extrapolated that like mad. 4) He is clearly using an end point bias using the 1980 to 2000 period in all 4 periods used. (I presume this is the EP that --Stephan Schulz posted 5) He has failed to shown whether assuming a slow rate of temp increase to say 1970 followed by a faster but linear rate of growth would be a better fit of the data. 6)There is no attempt to understand the mechanism and see if that imposes any limits.

Thanks for the help. I did have an error in multiplying by 5 instead of 2.5, but I'm not sure why you think the rate for that decade should be the same as the average for the previous 2.5 decades where those decades had their warming reduced by Pinatubo. I also attempted to correct the table to take into account the end bias which varies up and down. The last number in each row is the average increase for the period. Because the end point bias varies, I corrected for that by taking an average of the endpoints for the last five periods divided by the sum of the endpoints

For the first period 1855-2005 its 150 years or 15 decades and its average increase per decade is .045°C or a total of .675 °C.

For the second period 1905-2005 its 100 years at an average increase per decade of .074°C for a total increase of .74°C yet .74°C > .675 °C. so the end point bias is negative.

For the third period, 1955-2005 its 50 years at an average of .128°C for a total of .64°C

here I introduced an error, thanks again for the correction

For the fourth period 1985-2005 its 25 years at an average of .177 °C for a total of .424°C but thats off because of pinatubo

For the period 1995-2005 its its the sum of the averages. .045+.077+.128+.177 =.424°C per decade

Rktect 15:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just taking the second sentence "why you think the rate for that decade should be the same as the average for the previous 2.5 decades where those decades had their warming reduced by Pinatubo." So Pinatubo in 1991 affected the climate in the period 1980 to 1990 did it? You seem also to be ignoring the recovery in temperature following Pinatubo cooling. But on to the question you asked 'why?'. Because it looks fairly linear? Because the IPCC in the TAR have said they expect warming to continue at .1 to .2 C per decade with 4AR suggesting around .2C per decade. Certainly nothing near your wild attempts of .885 or .424. IPCC understands mechanisms which you clearly do not so their estimates are credible and notworthy while your wild guesses are neither credible nor noteworthy. (Nor do I think it is deserving of the space it is taking on this page because this is doing nothing to improve the article.) crandles 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think what I wrote was that "for the fourth period 1985-2005 its 25 years at an average of .177 °C for a total of .424°C but thats off because of pinatubo"Rktect 05:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW I haven't worked out what the FiaB stands for. How many errors do you need to point out to qualify for beer? crandles 12:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong (on interpreting my cryptic abbrevs). EP referred to Rktect's new "Exponential polynomials", and pointing out some of his errors is as simple as shooting Fish In A Barrel. Pointing out all of them might a serious job, though! --Stephan Schulz 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Exponential polynomials are not mine Rktect 15:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Rktect 15:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. thanks. Quite agree pointing them all out would be a serious challenge - would also appear to be a serious waste of time.crandles 13:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's EP and more, but what I was thinking of was more fundamental; i.e., using periods of different length and with the same ending point (!!!) to compare rates of change. Standard recommendation is Pilsner Urquell for those who prefer lagers and Fuller's ESB for ale, though I personally have a taste for schwarzbier. (Will have to remember FiaB -- there's also "target-rich environment" from fighter pilot jargon.) Raymond Arritt 14:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Using periods of different length and with the same ending point (!!!) to compare rates of change is the IPCC model. Different periods could have been chosen, but it would skew the results. the periods 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 have the same extreme warming slope. The IPCC methodology allows them to average both warm and cool slopes in the same period and by looking at periods of different lengths with the same endpoint to avoid the bias of selection without a standard.

WG4 AR1,

AR4WG1_Pub_Faqs_[1}.pdf p104 global average temperature increases (GATI)

Actually Rktect is likely right, and that the warming trend is a bit more serious than how the Wikipedia article portrays it. But given the scientific illiteracy of the general public and the relentless "ignorantia affectata" of right-wing and corporate-funded groups, it's a not bad compromise. I just had a bizarre "debate" (before being blocked) on the right wing blog site Wizbang, and while I was using things like the most recent info from IPCC, NASA and peer reviewed journals as sources, they would use stuff like unproven 10 yr old assertions, blog sites, or their own, um, "theories" (if you can call them that). As far as they are concerned, and this is reflected in some of the comments I see here, "AGW" is no more than an Al Gore led cult. While rather comical in some respects, it is overall pretty disturbing considering the vast amount of info people now literally have at their fingertips. I think government should do more to counter deliberate corporate-funded disinformation, scientific organizations be more proactive in responding to at least the more widespread crackpot beliefs, and that the news media a wee bit more journalistic in its portrayal of the global warming "controversy". It's actually pretty impressive that the Wikipedia article has managed to remain so grounded in legitimate science. -BC aka Callmebc 13:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. That article you cited states the problem very neatly. To prove our lying eyes aren't lying will take another thirty years at which point its going to be too late to do much about it. Things are happening now which scientists didn't expect, and they can't prove that more things won't happen in the future that won't swing what we see now back the other way. Its like being stuck on the railroad tracks with a freight train coming and being afraid to loosen the seat belt and get out of the car because we know seat belts save lives in accidents.Rktect 14:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic hurricanes doubled over last century

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-07/ncfa-foa_1072507.php

About twice as many Atlantic hurricanes form each year on average than a century ago, according to a new statistical analysis of hurricanes and tropical storms in the north Atlantic. The study concludes that warmer sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and altered wind patterns associated with global climate change are fueling much of the increase. The study, by Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology, will be published online July 30 in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2932962720070730?feedType=RSS&pageNumber=2

Skeptics say hurricane data from the early decades of the 20th century are not reliable because cyclones likely formed and died in mid-ocean, where no one knew they existed. More reliable data became available in 1944 when researchers had airplane observations, and from 1970 when satellites came into use. But Holland and Webster said the improved data from the last half of the century cannot be solely responsible for the increase.

75.35.113.248 08:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If twice as many storms form now as 100 years ago will there be twice as many 50 years from today and then 25 and so forth? Will they be twice as strong?Rktect 12:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That would assume a clear-cut exponential growth rate for temperature for which there is no evidence, along with a direct linear relationship between temperature and number of hurricanes for which there is also no evidence. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that there is no evidence for it, the problem is conservative think tanks have muddied the water suggesting there may be other causes such as sun spots or other natural cycles rquiring scientists who could be working on solutions to waste valuable time rebutting the naysayers.Rktect 22:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If it were Republican think-tanks, as you say, then the scientists would not be spending time and resources rebutting what they say, because that is not their job. Look at the scientific literature and you will find yourself to be quite wrong. ~ UBeR 14:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I used the term conservative. Republican's are no longer interested in anything most of us understand as conservative ie; preserving tried and true values, they seem to be more interested in what they used to call activism.

The think tanks are not so much political as economic forums advocating deregulation of corporations need to make profits regardless of environmental, social or political cost. Their job is to confuse and conflat controversial issues like global warming which might require more regulation and hence more costs to do business, and then say lets wait till all the facts are in.Rktect 18:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, scientists doing research has got nothing to do with refuting think-tanks. ~ UBeR 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientists can't do as much research if their funding is cut. Think tanks provide a cover for certain elements of our government to cut funding for research. The main reason is that research tends to lead to regulation to prevent or mediate the effects the research documents. Without the documentation the rape of the environment, global warming and rising sea levels are dissmissable as some cyclical natural function and so continueRktect 16:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick IPCC 2007 question

The following is in the opening of this article:

Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. This reflects the large heat capacity of the oceans.

The indicated reference is the IPCC 2007 summary for policy makers, but searching through that document, I could not find this anywhere. Is this in that document? Because if it is not, then I would recommend that a new source be found or that the segment be deleted. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom of page 17: "Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere." Raul654 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, found it. I made a change to the article so it says "centuries" instead of "over a millenium," in accordance with the IPCC conclusion. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And I have reverted you. Read what I posted above more carefully. It quite clearly, in black and white, says "for more than a millennium", not centuries. Raul654 20:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I see now. It says "centuries" at the top of the page, and "over a millenium" at the bottom. OK, gotcha. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not long ago the IPCC was saying it would take millenia for the ice sheets to melt. There was consensus that global warming would continue for millenia ensuring that they would. There was also consensus that sea levels would rise to drown cities by 2100.

Now the IPCC is talking about ice sheet collapse accelerating dynamically due to melt water accumulating under the sheets and lubricating their slide into the oceans. That means that while global warming will still continue for millenia, substantive portions of the ice caps may be gone much sooner than expected and between thermal expansion and meltwater increases cities may be drowned in decades rather than a century.

Its also being taken into consideration that running out of light sweet crude will increase dependence on dirty coal, dying oceans and forests will lose their effectiveness as carbon sinks, accelerated warming will accelerate methane releases, and the increased use of energy and automobiles in an industrialized third world lacking the environmental protections of more highly regulated nations will have synergystic effects.Rktect 12:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro Sentence Flow

I take issue with the paragraph structure of the following segment (references removed for clarity):

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that officially rejects these conclusions (although it acknowledges that its skeptical viewpoint "is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members"). A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.†

Seen without the reference boxes, it is clear that the flow of this segment leaves something to be desired. Without changing the meaning of the content, does anyone have any suggestions on how to fix this?

†As a final thought, I'm not quite sure what the citation "Petroleum Geologists` Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" has to do with the sentence preceding it. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's clear that the paragraph is fine as-is. Raul654 19:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And you might want to read the source beyond the headline. In it, the AMQUA explicitely states that there are only very few scientists opposing the GW consensus. Yes, apparently we do need to source these details...--Stephan Schulz 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, the source can stay since you say it is relevant. But the segment itself needs restructuring. There must be a way to re-order or otherwise alter these sentences so, for example, the parenthesis are not needed around the AAPG disclaimer and the final sentence doesn't appear so "tacked on". I'm not talking about content change, and I'm not trying to pull some subtle vandalism. I just think it looks sloppy and needs alteration for readability's sake. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the parenthesis statement also presents POV problems, as we have no similar statements regarding dissenting members of AGW-supporting organizations. Zoomwsu 23:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephan. It's getting there. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Many of these sentences are battlefields, fought over again and again. Sometimes the armistice left some scars that are still visible. I hope this version is better. I don't think we can reorganize the order, though, without loosing cohesion (orgs -> org exception -> individuals). I would be fine with putting all of the AAPG stuff into a footnote, but I don't think that will fly... --Stephan Schulz 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Heres your battlefield, the 2nd order comments to the IPCC reports comments Many scientists are talking about high sheet dynamical acceleration. The IPCC says it will incorporate the demands that it note its numbers have been too conservative by at least 40%. For example:

We note that natural and internal variability may have contributed to its high rate. We will include an allowance for ice-sheet dynamical acceleration in the projections.

This to deal with the observation that melt water accumulating below the ice sheets is lubricating and accelerating its transport into the oceans.Rktect 14:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but:

These review materials can be used for retrospective analysis or study of the report preparation process but drafts, review comments, and author responses are not to be represented as results of the IPCC assessment which are only defined by the final report.

It's difficult to push something like that as a valid source when the disclaimer is posted right on the front page. The use of this as a source has been shot down several times for this very reason,[5][6] and it would probably be best not to persist in citing them in the future. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Every six years, the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases a massive and influential study detailing the state of Earth's climate. Every citizen on the planet should take the 20 minutes needed to read the Summary for Policy Makers issued in February 2007. In their fourth report since 1990, the IPCC offered its strongest language yet that Earth's climate is warming and humans are largely responsible:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level."

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes, and wind patterns."

Earth has warmed, sea levels have begun to rise at an accelerated rate, and Northern Hemisphere snow cover has decreased substantially over the past 150 years (Figure 1).

The word "accelerated" does not appear once in the entire report. To say so when it is not the case is a fairly major distortion of the source. If you are going to provide a quote to support your argument, then please provide a direct quote without injecting your own commentary. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The words accelerate, accelerated, accelerating occur more than 50 times in the 2007 report. p342 which can accelerate manyfold; p367 ice discharge may be accelerated;p 368 thinning of ice shelves is expected to accelerate ; p371 It is expected that the basal thawing rate will accelerate over the Tibetan Plateau as the permafrost surface continues to warm; p376 Most mountain glaciers and ice caps have been shrinking, with the retreat probably having started about 1850. Although many Northern Hemisphere glaciers had a few years of near-balance around 1970, this was followed by increased shrinkage. –1 Melting of glaciers and ice caps contributed 0.77 ± 0.22 mm yr to sea level rise between 1991 and 2004 Taken together, the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are very likely shrinking, with Greenland contributing about 0.2 –1–1 ± 0.1 mm yr and Antarctica contributing 0.2 ± 0.35 mm yr to sea level rise over the period 1993 to 2003. There is evidence of accelerated loss through 2005.Rktect 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

These facts are not controversial. The big change from the IPCC's last report, in 2001, is the level of confidence on if humans are to blame. In that report, human-emitted (anthropogenic) greenhouse gases were estimated to be likely responsible for Earth's temperature increase (67-90% chance), while the new report says it is very likely (greater than 90% chance).

Yes, we are all aware of the consensus. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are aware of the consensus. The consensus is that the IPCC should drop the weasel words and just come out and admit they need funding for more plastic and duct tape because the shit is hitting the fan.Rktect 18:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Predicted temperature rise. The 2007 IPCC report predicts temperature rises of 1.1 - 6.4 °C (2 - 11.5 °F) by 2100. This is a wider range than the 1.4 - 5.8 °C increase given in the 2001 report. However, the 2007 report goes on to say that their best estimate for temperature rise is 1.8 - 4 °C (3.2 - 7.1 °F).

It looks like they are closing in on a more definite value every year, as the upper and lower bounds get closer consistently. But if temperature increase were increasing as you suggest, then it follows that the value of the upper bound would not be falling as drastically as it is. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What they are saying is between 2001 and 2007 they have increased their projections from 5.8 °C to 6.4 °C an increase of better than 10 % in 6 years.Rktect 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.

Note suggestions as the word of interest in this context. A suggestion is not proof, merely conjecture. Perhaps most importantly, there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Later in the report, there is a table that shows that there has likely (>66% chance) been an increase in strong hurricanes since 1970 in some regions. It isn't mentioned, but the Atlantic is the region where this increase has been most notable. Also in that table is the assertion that it is more likely than not (>50% chance) that there has been a human contribution to this trend. However, there is a footnote on the table: "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies."

Accelerated increase is incorporated in the 2007 report. The comments just tell you whose research requires that. Rktect 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is not. There is a major difference between increase, and accelerated increase. The IPCC assessment does not support your conclusion, and the comments are not valid as a source. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I provided you quotes from the last IPCC report which uses the word accelerated to describe the increase right across the board; in regards to emmissions, temperature, melting ice caps, melting permafrost, methane release, sea level rise what have you.Rktect 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that we should not say "a few scientists disagree" and that we should rather say "a few scientists are known to disagree" or "have voiced disagreement" or something like that. Right now, the text presumes of the opinion of plenty of anonymous or silent-to-this-day scientists. See Talk:Global warming/Archives/2007/6#Disagree, or "have voiced disagreement" ? for an archived discussion. --Childhood's End 12:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support this position. Your suggestion on the language is more precise. Zoomwsu 23:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"A few" still remains a weasel word. Dr. Arritt seems to know this, but refuses to acknowledge it.[7] ~ UBeR 14:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

New statistical analysis confirms human role in climate change

The idea that global warming is caused by changes in solar output rather than human activity has been dealt a further blow by a new analysis of temperature, volcanic and solar-radiation data by a physicist in Germany. The research, carried out by Pablo Verdes from the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences in Germany, does not rely on climate models, which cannot account for all global-warming mechanisms. Instead, the work reveals a strong statistical link between rising temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions (Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 048501).

Count Iblis 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Important Omission in Discussion

The article discusses rival views on the onus to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions; however, the discussion lacks a very important point.

The Wiki article states:

“China has contended that it has less obligation to reduce emissions, since its emissions per capita are about one-fifth those of the U.S.; the U.S. contends that if they must bear the costs of reducing emissions, so should China.”

But emissions relative to population size is the wrong way to measure production efficiency with respect to pollutants. Emissions per unit of output is the correct economic measure. The Cato Institute finds that the U.S. produces less than one-sixth of the CO2 as a percentage of its GNP (a measure of output) than China, making the U.S. a far more pollution-efficient producer.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg14n3-michaels.html

The article further states that emissions from centrally-planned economies (like China) are likely understated.

N.B. Some will certainly question the objectivity of the Cato Institute's overall conclusions, but the figures they present are properly-cited publicly-available information. The conclusion that the U.S. is much more efficient than China vis-a-vis emissions from production is beyond reasoned denial. The implication, from the standpoint of economic efficiency, is that the U.S. (and other countries like France) should produce more output and China should produce less in order to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions.

Rmmiller44 04:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Rmmiller44 (PhD in Economics)

(1) The Cato Institute (like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation) receives funding from ExonMobile and other energy companies with a vested interest in global warming denial. Their "findings" are not reliable.

Think tanks

Cato Institute

You clearly did not read or understand a word I said. It does not matter how biased the Cato Institute is or isn't. What matters is what the correct measure of relative output of emissions is. GDP data for each country is publicly available. Data on emissions of CO2 is publicly available. WP:CIVIL violation removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmmiller44 (talk • contribs)

Rmmiller, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) and try to refrain from uncivil comments. No amount of boldfacing will change the fact that CO2/capita and CO2/GDP/capita are measuring fundamentally different quantities; neither is the sole "right" or "wrong" measure. Decarbonization of economies is well known, and the US's carbon intensity was a lot more like China's when the US was in that stage of development. Technological changes, shifts in industries, and use of non-fossil-fuel sources will lower China's carbon intensity as the economy develops, precisely as happened in the US (and in other developed nations). The conclusion that China should produce less is, of course, laughable. Reference to carbon intensity of economies and to decarbonization may be appropriate for this article, but it's hardly the major issue. bikeable (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a completely wrong conclusion, one whose pervasiveness on this site is likely a primary source of POV issues. Cato is most certainly a reputable organization that publishes quality research. It is a fallacy to assume that since they receive funding from ExxonMobil (the correct spelling, btw), they are unreliable. If this argument were not fallacious, it would be easy to claim that research funded by the UN (the IPCC report) is not reliable because of the UN's own self-interest in gaining power. I am not making that argument, though, so I think it's fair you recant yours. If you can demonstrate that ExxonMobil's funding corrupts AEI, Cato and Heritage's research, I'd invite you to post those sources. I doubt you will find them though. Zoomwsu 23:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cato is most certainly a reputable organization that publishes quality research. - Only in the Rightwingoverse. In reality, these think tanks exist for one purpose only - to take money from corporate interests, and come up with specious talking points (like the one I just debunked) that help further those corporate interests. Cato - like Heritage, and AEI - have never produced a scintilla of honest research. The "scientist who could disprove gravity" in Thank you for Smoking is based on the talking points that originate from these think tanks Raul654 18:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to belong more to the anti-capitalism article rather than here, unless you can support your "Cato - like Heritage, and AEI - have never produced a scintilla of honest research" with something tangible. --Childhood's End 20:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul 654 is correct. Think tanks are not in business to provide honest research but rather to mislead and misinform on behalf of special interests and their lobbiests, thats just how the process works. If the justice department were still investigating unamerican activities think tanks would be the place to start. The Federalist Society takes it to the extreme of invading academia, to warp young minds that later become lawyers and politicians.

In the aftermath of the devastation caused in the U.S. by Hurricane Katrina, the Heritage Foundation sought to ensure that the reconstruction efforts would promote its preferred policy approaches. In a column for Media Transparency, Bill Berkowitz, noted that "'just as the Iraq War has been a Petri Dish for the neoconservative foreign policy agenda, rebuilding the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina could prove to be the mother of all testing grounds for a passel of active Heritage Foundation's domestic policy initiatives." "Drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, suspend environmental regulations including the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, suspend prevailing wage labor laws, promote vouchers and school choice, repeal the estate tax and copiously fund faith-based organizations. These are just some of the recommendations a trio of hearty Heritage Foundation senior management officials are making to best facilitate the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast," he wrote. [1]

The Cato Institute is famous for defending the Tobacco Industry and Global Cooling. Its funding includes not just Exxon but also the Castle Rock and Scaife Foundations. Its reputable, yes..., but not in a good way. Its supposed to be Libertarian but because its opinions are almost universaly counter to the mainstream status quo idea of what is right and proper it could probably best be described as unreliable for those who want to predict its position. Because its sees it function as encouraging people to think for themselves on issues, it sometimes takes strong positions on both sides of some contraversies.Rktect 12:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of further bloating an already-pointless discussion, I must note that the the IPCC does not fund research. Raymond Arritt 00:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC advocacy of an area of research as necessary does indeed lead to funding of research, and just as its decision that some areas of research are settled may lead to its withdrawl.Rktect 12:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I say the IPCC funded research? No, I said the UN funds the IPCC. Zoomwsu 04:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from your fallacy of equating Exxon's prime interest (selling oil) with an alleged prime interest of the UN you (falsely or not, but in any case not supported by anything) identify as "gaining power". That is a loong chain of assumptions you set in place to equate these things. UN -> installing the UNFCCC -> installing the IPCC (already two things that would not even be existing without distinct government support, three if you include the UN as such) -> gaining power through... what?? Hardern 06:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The King Ranch (Exxon) owns about 1/3 of Texas. In the counties under its control the average per capita income makes slavery look enlightened. Even as king ranch gets paid millions in farm subsidies there are thousands of children below the poverty level wondering where their next meal is. [http://farm.ewg.org/sites/farmbill2007/person1614.php?custnumber=009316455. king ranch]Rktect 05:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(2) Bearing that in mind, when you read this report, it's important to ask - so where's the slight of hand? And the answer is obvious. They are counting "Emissions per unit of output" relative to the entire economy (e.g, divide the entire gross national product by the total country emissions) instead of relative to the physical output of the economy (e.g, the manufactured goods). Now, consider: the US is very large, but mostly a service industry. The service industry generates relatively few emissions, especially relative to its size in dollars. Now, by taking it relative to the entire economy, what Cato is doing in effect is to take the efficiency of the US manufacturing base (high emissions/dollar output) and average that with the much large US service industry (very very low emissions per dollar output). China's service industry, by comparison, is tiny, especially compared to its manufacturing industry, and so there is no offset there. And there you have it - conservative slight-O-hand at work. Raul654 12:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

GDP is a perfectly acceptable proxy for industrial output because it is readily available for each country, as opposed to industrial production. Your assertion about "services" industries is false- they use enormous amounts of energy and produce enormous pollution emissions. "Services" is not just haircuts and back rubs. "Services" includes banking, insurance, software development, hotels, Hollywood studios, etc. China is a filthy producer, having created nothing less than an environmental catastrophe right before your eyes. Apparently, you are a victim of liberal "sleight of hand." Bearing in mind that it's spelled "sleight of hand", you might want to refrain from metaphors until you know how to spell them.~~Rmmiller44

From Source watch, cited above:

Think tanks have a decided political leaning. There are twice as many conservative think tanks as liberal ones, and the conservative ones generally have more money. This is no accident, as one of the important functions of think tanks is to provide a backdoor way for wealthy business interests to promote their ideas or to support economic and sociological research not taking place elsewhere that they feel may turn out in their favor. Conservative think tanks also offer donors an opportunity to support conservative policies outside academia, which during the 1960s and 1970s was accused of having a strong "collectivist" bias.

"Modern think tanks are nonprofit, tax-exempt, political idea factories where donations can be as big as the donor's checkbook and are seldom publicized," notes Tom Brazaitis, writing for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "Technology companies give to think tanks that promote open access to the internet. Wall Street firms donate to think tanks that espouse private investment of retirement funds." So much money now flows in, that the top 20 conservative think tanks now spend more money than all of the "soft money" contributions to the Republican party. The ideas of think tanks are then repeated in the media, from cable news to Hollywood movies making the so called liberal media and entertainment industries actually strong conservative influences.Rktect 12:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A far more relevant point that I believe could be made is that yes, China's per capita emissions are only about one-fifth that of the US. But when considering that China has a population nearly five times that of the US, this speaks more about China's overpopulation than as a basis for policy. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, please don't dismiss the point Raul654 is making quite so quickly. American think tanks are probably doing as much damage to the cause of scientifically studying global warming as katrina did to New Orleans, burying everyting under a cesspool of muddy water.Rktect 19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

China's emmissions are better evaluated per square mile than per capita. A very large region of the earth is being poluted with carbon emmissions. Although there are already 120 million cars on the road in China the number of people involved won't really be a factor until the urbanization of China puts a car in every garage.Rktect 19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

With all respect due, I did not dismiss Raul654's point. I simply added another important point which is not brought up in the discussion. TI'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say with your Katrina analogy, since scientific study is the development and proof of theory through collection of evidence and New Orleans is a physical location.

I'm saying that conservative think tanks such as those Raul684 mentioned, do a disservice to the debate by muddying the water in a manner reminiscent of Katrina. It sticks around a long time and you can't begin to assess the damage until you get rid of it. Claiming that we might be looking at Global cooling and thus should do nothing until we were sure cost us decades that we could have been mediating the problem.Rktect 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I get the metaphor now, even if it was a bit awkward. Anyway, I agree with you that cold-shouldered denial does not help anything, but I also believe that it is only one end of the stick. We've all seen the cheaply computer-animated footage of 150-foot waves consuming New York or London. I just hope we can at least agree that shrill alarmism which exaggerates evidence is just as detrimental as stubborn denial which ignores it. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take an extreme wave to do extreme damage. Once sea level has risen a foot most of the east coasts barrier islands will be gone, washed away by storm surge. Where I live they have topped out the last two years. Flooding can be judged by whether it permanently takes out infrastructure. Where my wife works they have lost their entire inventory several years in the past decade. The threat to infrastructure is increased moisture content in soils causing settlement, and mold getting established in porous materials like masonry. The local nuke plants might survive a foot rise, but storm surge on top of that will take out all the roads and bridges leading to them. Miami, Baltimore, Washington DC, New York, Boston and points in between are particulary vulnerable.

Lets say the rise is only linear and not accelerating as the IPCC claims. Then we might have three decades before those cities are having their own Katrina moments while Florida, the Gulf Coast and its refineries, are history. From there it gets worse. Thats hardly a shrill or extreme position but now add to that the economic effects of losing a few dozen major cities all at about the same time, add the economic effects of losing the refining capacity, the loss of jobs, the rising gas prices, the droughts, fires, mudslides, hurricanes, tornados, plague, pestilence and no national guard available to deal with the disasters, insurance companies failing, refugees, ... if we aren't planning for that what do we do when three decades later its twice as bad and three decades after that unbearable. Rktect 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

But I can tell you that since it is national entities which are governed by Kyoto and not regions by area, to rate China's emissions by landmass would simply be tipping the scales in the opposite direction of what the Cato institute was doing. Russia, for example, is the single largest sovereign nation on the planet, but that should not excuse them to pollute more than another country with less landmass and a similar population. There are flaws in almost every method of comparison between nations as far as emissions are concerned, but replacing one obviously biased analysis with another does nothing to improve the quality of an article. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If as a first cut we separated land from water, and as a second cut urban areas from suburban and rural, and then compared densly populated but not addicted to cars as the sole means of transportation so relatively low energy use, to less densely populated but intensive automobile so relatively high energy use, I think we would find China and Russia being comparable to the United States in a few regions, worse than the US as regards coal and the bulk of their land mass substantialy less involved in the human activites which cause global warming. In terms of natural Emmisions Siberia adding 450 giga tons of carbon to the atmosphere over the next few years is going to have about the same relative effect on the planet as being involved in a car crash would on a human.Rktect 15:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to be drawn into another prolonged debate on the subject, but I would simply like to add that generalizations and rough analogies are no substitute for science. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To focus on the article, I think the per capita measure is good because besides being the measure most readers are familiar with, it is straight forward, and, to my view, it has a better philosophical stance than the other measure proposed. The other measure (per unit output) seems biased as Raul654 pointed out. I am now curious, does anyone have those numbers factoring out the services industry of the economy? Brusegadi 20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect it makes better sense to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Scientists use correct measures to evaluate hypotheses, not merely measures which are easily understood by the hoi polloi. How difficult is it to understand that "Country A emits 10 units of pollution per car and Country B emits 15 units of pollution per car, therefore Country A is more efficient"? This argument does not change in the slightest if Country B has 1000 people living near the car factory and Country A has only 100- Country B is still the less efficient producer. And it also does not matter that Country A makes 100 times the cars of Country B- Country B is still less efficient. Emissions/GDP does not lack "straighforwardness" and "your view" is just wrong. Emissions per capita is not at all instructive about who bears the greater onus of reducing output from production.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmmiller44 (talk • contribs)

I still think that the case can be made for either measure. Please remember to sign your posts by typing: ~~~~. Have a good day, Brusegadi 06:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by

those numbers factoring out the services industry of the economy

Consider the things architects look at in designing green buildings. Transportation costs, hydronics, the 40% of urban areas covered by pavement used for automobile circulation and parking, manufacture of building materials. People's relative cabon footprint is magnified by their energy consumption. While China is nowhere close to the US yet in percapita usage rates the energy they use is much dirtier. Even the people greeting wallmark shoppers at the door go home at night, turn on the lights, the heat or the air conditioning, the TV and or the tradio and computer, cook a meal on the stove, keep food cold in a refridgerator...Is it really meaningful to compare american energy usage to Chinese energy usage?Rktect 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One other area that gets neglected by focusing strictly on populations is the effect of warming on methane releases from the vast area of Siberian peat bogs. In China its not the number of people but the size and dirtyness of the coal reserves. The destruction of oceans and forests also has a human caused effect totally out of proportion to the number of people living in the area being changed.Rktect 12:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Aerosol cooling

"Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[36] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability."

This is contradicted by a recent study which suggests aerosols have a warming effect [8]. Iceage77 13:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It would help if we had a link to the study itself, instead of a Fox News opinion piece about a Nature Magazine story about the study. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 13:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Especially one written by Steven Milloy. Raymond Arritt 13:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a more neutral article. And the Nature article. Iceage77 13:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I see now. This aerosol is different from the sulfate aerosol that causes cloud brightening and cooling. Raymond Arritt 13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the Nature article: "On a global scale, clouds of aerosols from biomass burning and fossil fuel consumption cool the atmosphere by reflecting sunlight back into space. But the particles also absorb solar radiation, and it has been suspected they could warm certain levels of the atmosphere." Iceage77 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Still different. And in particular, even the aerosols analysed in the study have a localized warming effect in certain bands of the atmosphere. --Stephan Schulz 14:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Notice the authors are careful to distinguish "brown cloud" from other aerosols. Raymond Arritt 14:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Global cooling

Why was the wiki link in the see also section, Global cooling, removed? Ayudante 19:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Because there is also a link to global cooling in the Climate Change template at the bottom of the page. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, sorry. I didn't realize that. Ayudante 01:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

22 billion tons of carbon!?

Global Warming not CO2 but due to waste heat

Green House Effect

The spectrum of energy absorbed by CO2 does not correspond to the energy spectrum emitted by the sun (reference http://nov55.com/ntyg.html) . Hence, the only energy absorbed is from black body radiation from the earth. The amount of this energy that is absorbed is constant as the amount being radiated is constant and the amount of CO2 does not affect the amount of heat captured. It is like having a greenhouse and adding slightly thicker glass (0.01% i.e. 0.1mm on 10mm) to increase the temperature within the greenhouse. It won't. The reason for global warming is easy to explain it is due to waste heat. As most of that waste heat comes from fossil fuels there is bound to be a correlation to CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

Waste Heat to Atmosphere the Calculation

The amount of heat that is transferred into the atmosphere is now significant. Nearly all energy that humans produce ends up as heat in the atmosphere. If we look at the temperature increase associated with the extra heat that we are putting into the atmosphere we have the following

Q=mcΔT

Where Q is the heat energy transferred to the atmosphere. m is the mass of the atmosphere. c is the specific heat capacity. ΔT is the temperature change.

Rearranging the formulae gives :-

ΔT=Q/mc

Q from http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6848&contentId=7033471 is 10878.5 million barrels of oil equivalent for 2006. This equates to 459 exajoules of energy.

The mass of the earth's atmosphere is calculated as being 5.148 zettagrams from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere

C is 1.012 J/g/K for air.

This gives :-

ΔT= 0.459/5.148/1.012 = 0.088ºK

This value seems to correlate extremely well with the recorded yearly temperature rises and you would expect it to be lower in actual fact as a lot of heat will be absorbed by the oceans (approx 4 times as much heat required to raise sea water by 1ºK).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Hence it seems that the cause of global warming is our use of energy and has little to do with atmospheric chemistry. This does not bode well with the US move to a hydrogen based economy as this will not reduce the amount of energy being transferred to the atmosphere. We do still need to be concerned at our poor use of energy (gasoline engines operate at about 20% efficiency most of the time) and perhaps, in the short term carbon footprint measures will reduce the amount of energy we use.

There is some good news though, in that if we can maintain the amount of energy we produce the earth should reach a stabilised higher temperature due to the increase in black body radiation maintaining the energy balance. Also it is unlikely we will have a run away atmospheric cascade in global warming.

Also higher temperatures will mean more air motion and this will have a effect on climate in that storms will be more intense due to the extra energy available.

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/04/global-warming-is-not-from-waste-heat.html William M. Connolley 08:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This article incorrectly confuses radiation energy from the earth's surface and the extra energy we put directly into the atmosphere.

Using 1990 figures against 2001 ones? ~ UBeR 14:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume that the earth would be equilibrium if it wasn't for the amount of energy that we are putting into the atmosphere.

According to our article on the subject, global energy usage as of 2004 was 15 terrawatts, or up 13% from WMC's blog entry. Raul654 16:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are we talking Power (watt = Joules/Second). It is the energy we are releasing that causes the warming.

Err... you do know the relation between power and energy, right? Raymond Arritt 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Err Yes as I've stated it is the rate of using energy. Energy can not be created or destroyed and the energy we anually put directly into the atmosphere each year will cause the heating effect we see.

Energy is radiated away from the earth -- this is why the earth is inhabitable after having absorbed solar energy for billions of years: it radiates it away again -- thus what matters is the rate at which energy is added to the system, not the total amount of energy over some extended time period. -- Leland McInnes 13:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but that is in a fairly equilibrium state. The rate of energy being absorbed from the Sun equals the amount radiated what we have done is suddenly released an extra amount of energy into the atmosphere which will increase the temperature as calculated above. I know this is simplistic as you need to take into account the heat absorbtion of the oceans, ice caps and extra radiation (this is the 100th that is often quoted) but I was surprised by the result and how well it fits. I'm not saying that the human race and the planet hasn't got a problem what I am saying is the cause is more fundamental and just reducing CO2 (though this is a good start as at present CO2=energy) is not the answer we need to be more careful in the way we use energy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlorentz (talk • contribs) 09:35, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Changes to Causes, par. 1

Big kudos to all responsible for writing and defending this Global Warming article. Given that much of the 'discussion' here is bad science, junk science, and/or politics disguised as science, the end result is exemplary. Thank you.

Despite the potential uproar, I've edited the first paragraph of the "Causes" section, both for style and to fine-tune the science a bit. I hope this has been helpful -- my user page lists my qualifications.

In detail:

Clarified "internal" processes vs. "external" forcings. As I read it, "internal" should be vulcanism and non-anthropogenic CO2 sources/sinks. And I added "large-scale ocean currents" b/c they are so essential. I reduced "external" forcings to just orbital variations b/c the Milankovich frequencies at 21k, 41k, and 100k per year dominate virtually every sufficiently long climate recorder. The impact of other "external" forcings -- sunspots, cosmogenic dust, etc. -- is not widely supported. Even if these factors do contribute, the general consensus is that the contributions are very small. I provided 3 rock-solid references to support that orbital variations predominate the timing of climate change (if too many, feel free to delete the 3rd).

Clarified (I hope) what the "scientific consensus" really is. Virtually everyone agrees that orbital variations provide the trigger/timing for large (and rapid) climate change. But the change in solar radiation due to orbital variations is much too small to account for the full magnitude of the temperature change on Earth. So the scientific consensus is that small changes in solar radiation can be amplified somehow by Earth processes. B/c the climate records all indicate that, with small leads and lags, the N. and S. hemispheres change at the same time, the amplifier must be a rapid process. The atmosphere is the only Earth system that can change quickly enough to 'synchronize' (~1000 years or fewer) the hemispheres. Thus the greenhouse gases are the likely candidate.

Reduced what followed "one such hypothesis" to one such hypothesis instead of two. :-) After reading the reference, Solanki essentially proposed sunspot activity, which allowed me work sunspots back into the paragraph. To be fair, though, Solanki suggested that both sunspots and "higher levels of 'greenhouse gases'" contributed to higher temperatures. It is only further down the page that Dr. Bill Burrows suggests Solanki's results support paying less attention to anthropogenic CO2 and more to solar activity. Todd Johnston 20:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Todd, as you see I tweaked things around a bit. For example, oceans tend to be considered part of the climate system rather than an external forcing. Let me know if you have any questions about the changes that I made. Raymond Arritt 02:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Raymond. :-) I now understand the intended distinction between "internal" and "external." I would like to propose, if I may, that "forcings" are not "perturbations": herein lies much of the confusion surrounding global warming. Orbital variations do not change the climate system -- they are part of it, and by far the most predictable. Similarly, atm. CO2 flucuations are an integral component of the climate change w/o an anthropogenic contribution. It is those events that quickly (on geologic time scales) perturb Earth's climate system that are cause for concern, e.g. widespread volcanism, bollide impacts, and Dansgaard/Oescher events. So the question is whether the means by which humans have thrived is such a perturbation -- and the consensus is "yes." But unfortunately, we have no way predict the outcome of an unprecedented forcing. So, at least to me, in this sense "internal" and "external" may not be the best descriptors given the inherently 'external' origin of non-terrestrial, i.e. solar radiation. Food for thought. :-) Todd Johnston 04:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

All good points. For the purposes of the article I suggest we focus on a time scale appropriate to anthropogenic global warming, which would be decades to a century or so; e.g., over this period the effect of orbital variations should be small. The internal/external distinction is indeed somewhat arbitrary, as everything interacts nonlinearly (which is a lot of what makes this a fun discipline). Perhaps by focusing on a specific time scale we can make it a little less arbitrary. Raymond Arritt 05:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps it's best to de-emphasize the primary drivers of the climate system, e.g. insolation/orbital variations, and highlight anthropogenic CO₂ and rising temperature as potentially disrupting climate? That's really the core of the problem. Humans are forcing (have forced) the climate system into uncharted territory. All we know for sure is that rising sea levels will seriously impact places like Bangladesh; and that when global climate 'switches modes', it can do so in the span of a couple of decades. Todd Johnston 05:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC

Calling the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change an advocacy group demonstrates you have no clue what it does, as well as a profound misunderstanding of the peer review process.

The IPCC does no research; it conducts a massive review of the literature on climate change. Several hundred scientists spend a few years debating how best to accurately synthesize, represent, and report the state of global climate research. And that process has now been repeated 4 times in different configurations, in order to further hone the results and incorporate the latest insights.

By definition, the IPCC is the consensus of the scientific community -- that is what it was formed to do. Hundreds (if not thousands by now) of the most qualified people on Earth meet, discuss, argue, get drunk together, and by mandate, emerge with a consensus view. Then they meet some more, discuss, argue, and get drunk some more, over how best to communicate that consensus to other scientists, business professionals, politicians, and grade school children.

The fact that Earth is getting warmer hasn't been a debate for nearly a decade. And to see what the scientific consensus is for why Earth is getting warmer, read the IPCC. Neutrality is not balance. Just b/c some group believes Saturn is made of goat's cheese doesn't mean it should be legitimized by reporting it as an alternate theory. Todd Johnston 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Newsweek Article

I see that the following highly POV paragraph has been added to this otherwise excellent article:

Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by humans, the lay population does not share such viewpoints.[65] A variety of industries, especially the oil industry, have systematically funded think tanks and contrarian scientists to sow doubt about the scientific consensus and make the public think that the situation is not as severe as it is. Such attempts at denial have focused mainly on the United States and the fraction of the public which accepts the scientific consensus about global warming is much smaller in the United States than in other modern countries such as Japan [65] The global warming skepticism movement started by first claiming that the Earth was not warming. When that no longer worked, they claimed that the warming was not due to humans. Now, the claim is made that even if the warming is due to humans, the warming will be small and not possible to stop.[65]

It sources a single Newsweek article which is itself an unsourced, highly POV hit piece. Newsweek ignores the fact that skeptics are being massively outspent by governments, environmental groups, and indeed many corporations, and it doesn't even attempt to prove whether or not the "industry"'s alleged efforts (which, even if real, would be relatively small in comparison to the spending of the aforementioned groups) are the cause of the public's mistrust of global warming proponents. This paragraph additionally tries to establish motive (proceeding under the assumption that the things Newsweek says are true) when in fact Newsweek's "motive" is all but conjecture. It's conspiratorial. I'm not saying that it doesn't belong in the article, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be quoted as fact. It's one view of the oil industry that should be taken with a grain of salt.

For the record, I support the theory of anthropogenic climate change, and I do think that we should perhaps do something about it. (In my view, a carbon tax would probably be the best option, if we're to do anything at all.) But to paint the entire corporate world with a ludicrously broad brush, when, for instance, the oft-derided ExxonMobil has scientists who are lead authors of the IPCC report (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/NewsReleases/corp_nr_mr_climate_ipcc.asp) and has "secretly funneled" $100 million into the largest climate research program of its kind at Stanford University (http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/campaign/climate_view.asp) is simply not right.

Oh, and also for the record, I don't work for the oil industry (or for any industry, for that matter). Aristotle1990 15:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed. We now have a separate article for these ludicrous conspiracy theories: Climate change denial. Iceage77 16:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But you nominated that article for deletion! How can you say that we should shift the material to a second article, and yet propose that the second article be deleted? Raymond Arritt 16:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously going to be kept. Of course this kind of POV material should not appear anywhere in a credible encyclopedia. Iceage77 17:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, not only is this Newsweek stuff full of POV, it's full of OR altogether. The claim that the American public doubts AGW because of some conspiracy theory rather than because it is less gullible than Europeans seems to me... unscientific. --Childhood's End 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't claiming to be scientific, its a reliable source, and Newsweek is allowed to do whatever OR they want. We need some mention of the public attitude in the main article and the explanations for the public attitude in reliable sources. That's exactly what this does. JoshuaZ 19:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is not one and only single good explanation about the public attitude, so unless you want to cover them all, why would you choose Newsweek over others? --Childhood's End 19:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that give other reasons, then short mentions of them might make sense. JoshuaZ 20:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we cover each possible other cause of public doubt, notably personal choices, epistemology, global cooling, limitations of GCMs, solar cycles, natural causes of warming, psychology and the adversary effects of gross alarmism, distrust of Al Gore and/or of the Democratic Party, to name a few? And why would Newsweek be given a long paragraph while these other causes would merely deserve "short mentions" ? --Childhood's End 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We do have a limit in length here, and Newsweek doesn't get a long mention, most of the paragraph is devoted to the state of things, not to the cause. Incidentally note that I was careful in writing the paragraph not to say something of the form "the general public doesn't accept the scientific consensus because of X" but rather simply noted the correlation, which minimizes POV issues. Similarly brief mentions if you have reliable sources might be acceptable (although I doubt you can find nearly as reliable sources that claim for example that the general public has extensively studied solar cycles or such). JoshuaZ 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact Newsweek is not a reliable source. They have made up stories in the past. Iceage77 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to review what WP:RS actually says. Major newsources having had problems does not make them in general unreliable. Similarly, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are reliable sources even though both have had problems with journalists in the past. I'd be inclined to agree that Newsweek is not a perfect source (indeed, they often oversimply all sorts of newsitems and have other problems) but it clearly meets WP:RS. JoshuaZ 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just trying to show that this Newsweek stuff not only is POV-pushing, but also might open a can of worms. You do have a good point about solar cycles though (whereas one could argue that simple common sense can tell someone that the Sun may have influence over climate) but still, giving encyclopedic coverage to an op-ed piece which essentially attacks the intelligence of the American public seems to me questionable. --Childhood's End 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit more than an op-ed piece, its the cover article of one of the most popular weekly news sources in the United States. JoshuaZ 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We also have to consider all the stuff that has happened. Remember the 2 commercials by CEI? 'We breath it out, plants breath it in...' I recall that even the daily show made fun of those . Not to mention the several newspaper pieces, the youtube video seemingly made by an amateur that turned out to be made by a PR firm, numerous documentaries, etc. It is not necessarily 'the cause' but it contributes. I think all countries have been affected by this (to some extent) but the US is by far the most affected probably because it is currently very polarized and this makes the public easy to direct in one direction or the other. To summurize, I think we have to mention this, but I will currently reserve my opinion on newsweek as a source. I have seen good stuff on it before, but some editors seem to not trust it. (I can provide links to the youtube stuff, as long as it is allowed. Brusegadi 21:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Newsweek article is comprehensively debunked here. Iceage77 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That isn't a debunking, that's a partisan blog entry whose only approach to notability is from it coming from a staff member who works for Inhofe. JoshuaZ 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Iceage77 and CE, having failed to successfully contest tens of sources at Climate change denial are now taking their argument to this page. Of course the Newsweek article should be cited here, albeit at reasonable length. The fact of Climate change denial's existence is neither here nor there -- we have, say, and Iraq War article and information about the Iraq War in the George. W. Bush article -- elaboration is not overlap. The argument that, in order to note a multi-million dollar corporate misinformation campaign in this article, you have to cover all possible sources of climate change doubt is fallacious: of course we have to determine weight and notability; every Wikipedia entry operates under the pressures of selection. The Newsweek article (like countless other articles) certainly evinces the weight and notability of the corporate funded denial machine. Amazing how any periodical that reports the facts re: climate change denial is immediately dismissed as partisan by Iceage and CE!Benzocane 00:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the Newsweek piece, it's hardly an "unsourced, highly POV hit piece." There is a huge difference between funding research and funding deliberate disinformation, as companies like ExxonMobil have done. In my Usenet debates on the matter, I often include this little comparison of the two sides of the global warming "debate." Of particular note with respect to Newsweek is this website that goes into some detail on very much the same subject as the Newsweek article. My link to a certain Exxon memo is broken in that Usenet post, but this should work. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a second. Regardless of whether or not Newsweek meets standards of reliability, the point here is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. As per the Wikipedia policy:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.
Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.

Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.

Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.

Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources

The Newsweek article is definitely highly controversial, and it does assert that "real science" is being manhandled and covered up by "corporate interests." It would be comparable to saying that as the article is sponsored by Philips (and it is), which has poured tens of thousands of dollars into the Newsweek for its construction, there is actually a big conspiracy to secretly fund environmentalists and produce such articles as these in order to scare people into buying expensive incandescent lightbulbs, whose production Philips has a huge stake in (see the following site in which Philips tells consumers that "A simple act, like switching to an energy saving lamp, can have a powerful impact on our efforts to stem global warming." http://www.asimpleswitch.com/?country=us). As such, Philips loves these alarmist articles aimed at soccer moms in the Northeast who are most likely to buy its expensive lightbulbs.

See? That's an extraordinary claim, and a piece in the Wall Street Journal or on James Inhofe's blog might certainly make it. The problem is, it's an awfully gussied up, conspiratorial charge. Does Philips have an economic stake in this issue? Of course. Would it prefer if everyone subscribed to the theory of catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming? Absolutely. Is your faith in my argument shaken when I tell you that in fact every article in Newsweek is currently sponsored by Philips, and that it's much more likely that this is a mere coincidence rather than a sneaky attempt to fund alarmist articles? It should be. The same applies with Newsweek's own claim. It omits facts and is utterly intent upon portraying an issue only one way. It has the tone of an opinion piece, and should certainly not be used to justify the assertion made in the original paragraph. It is an exceptional claim, and is an opinion. I suspect that a better paragraph would perhaps proceed as follows:

Though most scientists hold that the theory of current anthropogenic global warming is largely correct (cite that consensus study and/or its rebuttal in which Benny Peiser nonetheless concludes that "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."), the lay public does not (cite Newsweek here). Some claim that the oil industry funds climate skeptics and that the skepticism of the public is its result. These sources say that this is the reason why citizens in Europe and Japan are more likely to subscribe to the theory of recent anthropogenic global warming (cite Newsweek here, maybe something else that can be dug up). Others, however, claim that the funding for climate change (AGW) skeptics is outweighed by funding for climate change (AGW) proponents from other industries and environmental groups (cite Inhofe here; whatever you think about his political views [and indeed, isn't Newsweek a liberal magazine after all? http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm], he is a standing U.S. Senator). ExxonMobil, for instance, denies allegations of its funding of AGW skeptics (there's a link here somewhere, I'll dig it up if you guys like my paragraph), and points to its monetary support for and participation in groups which promote the theory of AGW (cite the link I provided earlier).

Aristotle1990 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That's one reason I've never added anything similar to this before. Newsweek however is one of the most popular weeklies in the United States with a large circulation outside the United States, so their having a front page article does constitute sufficient evidence. Note in any event that the paragraph as framed above does not carry the actually "extraordinary"/disputed claims. JoshuaZ 02:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As for myself, I'm done arguing. WP is being turned into some Greenpeace brochure, little can be done, and that might just slowly cause its downfall. --Childhood's End 02:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is only citing "Newsweek" in the context of a highly charged issue like global warming, when so many other sources exist. Might as well 2nd source "People" magazine. But the fact remains: the statement "a variety of industries, especially the oil industry, have systematically funded think tanks and contrarian scientists to sow doubt" is not POV. It is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. E.g., TCSDaily.com is a junk science web site started by principals of the DCI Group, one of the most notorious lobby shops in DC. Read Nicholas Confessore's Meet the Press in the Washington Monthly. And before anyone starts whining that the WM is "liberal," I'm also an investigative journalist and have spent about two years investigating DCI. Confessore's article is excellent, so cite that as well. Or mention Willie Soon. Even WP -- bogged down as it is by self-appointed POV prigs who enforce equilibrium like some necessary condition for neutrality -- notes that he is in part funded by the API. Soon is not some "massively outspent" skeptic. He's a well-paid shill pushing junk science. Need more evidence? Dennis T. Avery badmouths good climate science for the Hudson Institute. Avery "studied agricultural economics" at two universities, although I've been unable to confirm he graduated from either. In any case, "agricultural economics" does not qualify you to debate atmospheric radiative transfer, oxygen isotope ratios as a temperature proxy, or Milankovitch cycles -- although that's never stopped him. Or S. Fred Singer, also unmasked here at WP. Then there's Dr. H. Sterling Burnett who bashes global warming for NCPA. Burnett has a Ph.D. -- in philosophy. Burnett's been pushing "Free-market solutions to environmental problems" (Rocky Mountain News, 02/08/1991) for about 2 decades, shilling for the CEI since back in 1987. So do not confuse POV with opinion. In truth, every article begins from a POV. What needs to be guarded against is including unsubstantiated opinion and intentional misinformation under the guise of neutrality. Todd Johnston 05:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out quickly that the Newsweek article is not the only source for the corporate funding of a PR campaign to misrepresent the consensus. The British Royal Society, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Science, The Union of Concerned Scientists, and many other sources for this information are detailed at Climate change denial. Although I disagree with the fact that this is an "exceptional claim"--given the documented history of Exxon and like corporations PR record--the sourcing is various, extensive and, so far, uncontested. So this isn't a question of one article...It's a question of extensive international reporting from a wide variety of reputable sources. Perhaps that needs to be indicated in this article? "Some claim that the oil industry funds..." is not an accurate description of the extensive evidence that such funding has taken place.Benzocane 02:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. I'll take a look at the other sources and see how it makes sense to incorporate them. JoshuaZ 02:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I just realized that Newsweek is the very magazine famous for publishing a page about global cooling in 1975 under its "Science" series. On second thoughts, I am with JoshuaZ, please add their new stuff herein. --Childhood's End 14:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So you want to add it because you think it somehow reinforces your POV based on a short article they had over 30 years ago which included the statement that from the NAS that "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key question"? Interesting. Please stop POV pushing. JoshuaZ 14:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm now supporting your edit and I'm... pushing my POV ?!? I'm floored. --Childhood's End 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't play games. It is quite clear from your remark above that the only reason you want Newsweek used as a source here is because of the association with the 1975 article which you think somehow discredits this piece. In any event, see my recent edits where I added additional sourcing saying the same things. JoshuaZ 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but I did not propose nor made the edit - you did. Accusing me of POV pushing in this instance was quite an awkward choice of words. As for your other sources, the more you will add about this, the more this article will look like a Greenpeace flyer. I'm not against it. --Childhood's End 15:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they realise how they are discrediting their own cause with nonsense like this and the climate change denial article. No one is going to take this article seriously once they come across the blatantly POV paragraph on Newsweek. It presents editorial opinion from an unreliable source as fact. It also appears completely out of place: it's followed by an introductory statement - "Increased awareness of the scientific findings surrounding global warming has resulted in political and economic debate" - and then the same point is mentioned again in the next paragraph - "Fossil fuel organizations and companies such as American Petroleum Institute and ExxonMobil, represented by Philip Cooney, and some think tanks such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute have campaigned to downplay the risks of climate change". A similar edit from a sceptical viewpoint would have been reverted within 5 mins by RA, WMC et al. Could they make their bias any more obvious? Iceage77 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an argument for rewriting the section so it isn't as repetitive, not to push your POV. JoshuaZ 14:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Iceage and CE seem to have a very strange position: that uncontested facts are POV. The misinformation campaign happened, is happening, and that's documented by a wide range of sources neither editor has effectively disputed. What's POV, then, is an attempt to remove (e.g. the failed deletion effort at climate change denial facts from articles because you find them inconvenient.Benzocane 15:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For all to see : "uncontested facts". But you're not performing advocacy here, we all know that. --Childhood's End 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the facts recorded in the British Royal Society letter, etc., have not been contested by a comparably credible source. Please direct me to those sources. Then this discussion can at least begin. The only thing I'm advocating is encyclopedic standards.Benzocane 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with current wording that says "lay opinion does not share the scientific view" or words to that effect. This may be the case in the U.S., but the Pew Study results show that opinion in Europe is much more aligned with the scientific viewpoint, and the wording should change to reflect that. Don't have time now to tackle this myself, but hopefully someone else might help correct this. Thanks. Arjuna 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Species extinction edit

I reverted a recent edit on species extinction because it seems highly speculative. Even if you have a source, is it the new standard view, or one paper making a claim that is yet to be examined by the major scientific community. I thought more editos should look at it before we include. See here for change. Thanks, Brusegadi 23:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Its at least WP:OR that it should be the first species. I think that place goes to the Golden Toad. But neither should (imo) be mentioned, as it gives too much weight. --Kim D. Petersen 23:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read Flannery's book and recall mention of the toad. Thats why my bells rang when I read that...Brusegadi 23:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons for the golden toad's extinction, one of which might be global warming. The extinction of the banded snail is pretty hard to explain without considering the decline of rain and extended summers in the region. Of course, it would be inappropriate to add the information without the caveats I inserted. Anthony R. Hansen 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article on R. aldabrae doesn't mention global warming as being associated with the rainfall change, so there is a serious original research issue as well unless additional sources are found. JoshuaZ 14:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes in rainfall pattern over a region is difficult to attribute to global warming (such as those occurring in California where the Bay checkerspot butterfly lives). The extended and hotter summers under which juvenile snails died is likely the result of global warming. Ecologically trapped animals, such as snails, are the whims of climate change (see Debinski). Unfortunate but unsurprising. Anthony R. Hansen 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing NPOV tag

I am removing Iceage's NPOV tag (which was added without discussion). An editor should not mark an article as in disupte because he/she finds information in that article to be invconvenient. Iceage (or Childhoodsend) need to marshall facts to dispute the Newsweek (and 20 other sources offered at climate change denial) before they can make a serious argument for the POV nature of an entry. Indeed, marking an article as in dispute because you've failed to substantially dispute information is itself POV. At the very least, I expect Iceage will not post the NPOV tage without initiating a discussion on talk. What do others think?Benzocane 16:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT. At the moment the article gives undue prominence to a fringe conspiracy theory. Iceage77 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Benzocane is correct. Iceage and CE have failed--here and at climate change denial--to prove any sort of factual basis for their POV claim. Unless they can offer serious sources contesting the evidence provided by various editors, the tag should be removed. Sea.wolf4 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The point, Iceage, is that you have failed to prove that it's on the fringe or just a theory. All of the facts presented to the community point to the contrary. This is already been vetted by the community--hence your failed attempt to delete climate change denial.Benzocane 16:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

$50 billion given by governments to prove AGW vs. $19 million given by Exxon to sceptics. Sorry but your argument simply cannot be taken seriously. Iceage77 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps of worthy note is that all the funds given by Exxon to skeptics dont even match the single US government grant given recently to perform research about cow-induced global warming [9] [10] (is it still called anthropogenic? some say it is human-induced anyway since it is agricultural)

Definition of "fact" by Benzocane : 'An editorial published by MotherJones, Greenpeace or The Guardian which has been endorsed by other editorials published in Newsweek or NYT. Emphasis must be added that there is no need for evidence, editorials are enough.' --Childhood's End 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, we aren't talking about editorials, we are talking about reporting pieces. In the case of Newsweek the cover article of the issue, not little columnists or such. At this point, your distortion seems almost willful. JoshuaZ 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Government funded research and Exxon funded research are not the same thing. (Except with the Cheney energy task force is taking its cues from Exxon). CE, I'm willing--just for the sake of argument--to discard Greenpeace, MotherJones, and Monbiot as references--but what about the other 20 sources?Benzocane 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel my argument cannot be taken seriously. But this isn't between the two of us! This is about community standards. So let's see what others think. You still misunderstand the basic point: independent of the existence of dissenting voices, there is overwhelming concensus about AGW. The corporate-backed misrepresentation of scientific concensus is not the same thing as goverments funding research.Benzocane 17:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, politicians and bureaucrats are really not known to grant money in accordance with their own interests! --Childhood's End 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Benzocane is right. Iceage is bordering on vandalism here. You have to prove your claims, not just repeat them. It's not Iceage vs. Benzocane, it's Iceage versus a broad selection of unrefuted sources. Iceage, we already went through all of this at climate change denial, and even if you disagree with the results, you shouldn't try to repeat them here. Varlet8 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is $19m supposed to have such a huge effect on public opinion? Just a thought, but perhaps people are sceptical of AGW, not because of evil Exxon (outspent 2,600 times by governments), but because we haven't had any warming since 1998? Iceage77 17:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I liked that one : "you have to prove your claims". As far as I know, Newsweek, MotherJones, George Monbiot and their green pals have yet to prove anything about this conspiracy theory, they simply piled up editorials, and gullible people take them as proof. --Childhood's End 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

CE, even if you were right—and nobody except iceage seems to think you are--that Monbiot and MotherJones (and funny how Newsweek is now on this list! I've never heard Newsweek compared to MotherJones--oh well) could just be dismissed without argument as unreliable, what about the twenty other sources?Benzocane 18:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What 20 other sources? Do you even have one that supports with hard facts rather than with editorials the idea that the communication campaign is done with the intent to disinform rather than to simply vehicle scientific minority views?

You don't "vehicle scientific minority views" by misrepresenting the mainstream view. That's what's documented by the other sources--Exxon didn't fund quality science, they funded the denial of consensus. It's as if you haven't read the articles you're busy disputing! A PR campaign, not serious research, was fueled by the industry in question. But your unwavering belief in the disinterested scientific integrity of Exxon is quite touching! It must be based on their exceptional environmental track record.Benzocane 19:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What you describe would then be "consensus denial" rather than "climate change denial". I can deny that climate change is attributable to humans while agreeing that there is some form of consensus about the idea, or vice-versa. If you agree that the act of vehiculing or communicating scientific minority views is not "climate change denial", perhaps are you ready to revisit a few things that have been said in the last few days. --Childhood's End 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a last question (I'm done arguing here as it is pointless against all this activism) - do you realize that the IPCC and the consensus to which you refer actually admit a margin of uncertainty of at least 10% to their findings, and that despite this, you are committed to call a 'fact' the idea that the attempt "to maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours" (which fall within the acknowledged margin of uncertainty) is an established conscious fraud? --Childhood's End 19:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing the NPOV tag is entirely warranted and appropriate. The issue at hand is the statement that industries/corporations have funded bogus research/contrarians to refute the findings of mainstream science, and whether their actions were intended to sway public opinion. That statement has been supported with numerous credible references. Debating its veracity w/o evidence is mere whining; flagging it as disputed w/o evidence should be sanctionable. Stay on topic: did certain industries promote junk science to sway public opinion? Arbitrarily bashing the supporting credible sources is not debate. Endlessly nitpicking WP meta is not debate. You must provide equally credible sources to show these industries did NOT promote junk science, if you wish to be taken seriously. Todd Johnston 18:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite the sources the credibility of which Iceage and CE are questioning – i.e. MotherJones, George Monbiot, and Newsweek (!) – there are approximately 15 other sources in this section, including The New York Times, MSNBC, Reuters, AP, BBC, etc. etc. If these are not reputable sources for global news, I certainly don’t know what is! The removal of the NPOV tag is definitely warranted. I suggest that Iceage and CE cease the nitpicking, arbitrary bashing, and borderline vandalism of this section. The positions represented in it are notable, encyclopedic, and have been assiduously sourced by other editors in the community. Sea.wolf4 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

what i'd like is an explanation/justification for this recent expansion of the section. for the most part that section has remained relatively static, and for good reason: this article is 'global warming', not 'global warming controversy'. it was - and should be - a relatively brief summary of the political/controversy aspect, with the main thrust being the 'see also' articles referenced at the beginning. this recent expansion smacks of shoving more political content into this article, which has always been primarily focused on the science of it (that's the precise reason the forked articles exist). Anastrophe 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't object to the section being kept brief here and elaborated in CCD and GWC. But I believe its notability warrants inclusion, albeit efficiently. This is being discussed now, of course, because of the increasing attention devoted to the issue in the mainstream media, viz. Newsweek.Benzocane 20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this section needs to be trimmed way down. The article needs to focus primarily on the science with just enough material on other aspects to provide contexts for pointers to the sub-articles. Raymond Arritt 20:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, as Benzocane has pointed out, the Newsweek article is just one of a wide range of sources that chronicles the misrepresentation of consensus. Iceage and others MUST offer contrary sources in order to justify a POV claim! Where are those sources? Are they as numerous and credible as the other citations? SlipperyN 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No warming since 1998?

Iceage77 has now added the "no warming since 1998" statistic to the article, and thrown it in a few times on this page, citing this article. Are there other sources for this? It's not consistent with my (somewhat limited) knowledge of the trends, and appears inconsistent with the raw data, e.g. here. Are there other references, please? bikeable (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it on the grounds that such statements require peer reviewed scientific articles as a ref (because it is a scientific statement and some time ago we made the agreement that only peer reviewed scientific sources can be used for that). I'm actually not so happy with this whole controversy section, because it brings in all these not so reliable scientific sources in this article. We now have to decide on a case by case basis that a certain newpaper or magazine is a reliable source and another one isn't. The Skeptics can then cry foul play. Count Iblis 21:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You said it. If it suits the AGW faithful, any old reference will do: Newsweek, The Guardian, Mother Jones etc. Opinion pieces presented as fact? No problem. But if it casts doubt on AGW theory, we need "peer reviewed scientific articles". Iceage77 22:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So, there aren't peer review articles backing up this factoid? It was a pretty simple question, and meant in good faith. The climate data in this article is based on peer-reviewed research, not on Mother Jones articles. In any case, it appears to me that Bob Carter is looking at the single 1998 data point, which is clearly higher than the rest (see here) and saying that there has been no warming since then. That strikes me as pretty silly; climate is a long-term process, and the moving average is clearly increasing. Again, I'd ask whether this is reported in the literature. bikeable (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Newsweek, The Guardian and MotherJones are being used not for scientific claims but for claims about the general public, its attitude towards global warming and the reasons behind that attitude. You should be able to see how that's different. JoshuaZ 23:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that the active "skeptics" in the global warming non-debate (it's really only a debate among the confused) are constantly trolling for something, anything to support their increasingly crackpotty (let's be honest...) beliefs, and pretty much every source they find, however obsolete, out-of-context, non-credible or just plain odd, is treated as though it's just as good as an article in Science or Nature magazine, or a report from the IPCC, NASA, or such. No. This business with there supposedly being no global warming since 1998 is just more of the same nonsense. The global temperature mean, as measured (bear in mind that this is a complex process with technological limits), goes up and down quite a bit by year if you look at any chart like this. In terms of whether there is an overall warming/cooling trend, you need to look at the long term, multi-year pattern, and when you do, global warming did not exactly stop in 1998. -BC aka Callmebc 12:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, JoshuaZ. When the phenomenon being treated by the encyclopedia is global warming or climate change, then I agree with Count Iblis that peer-reviewed articles from the fields of natural science should be the standard of reputability. Scientific statements ought to be supported by reference to peer-reviewed scientific articles.

However, when the phenomenon under consideration (as it is in this section as well as in the climate change denial entry) is an organized disinformation campaign to undermine the scientific consensus about global warming, then reputable documentation for such a phenomenon often falls outside of the purview of peer-reviewed natural scientific publications.

So I must say, Iceage, that yes, when it comes to making scientific claims about the phenomenon of AGW, then we need peer-reviewed scientific articles. When it comes to the phenomena of the politics of global warming and climate change denial, it is NOT the case that, as you say, “any old reference will do.” As I have stated above, The New York Times, MSNBC, Reuters, AP, BBC, etc.: these are (especially collectively considered) reputable sources to support claims pertaining political phenomena such as the politics of global warming and climate change denial.

And while the bulk of the present entry is about the science of global warming, I agree with Benzocane that the notability of this political issue warrants inclusion, albeit economically. Sea.wolf4 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It also has to be noted that the "evidence" that is presented doesn't even support the claim. If you actually read Carters op-ed (which btw. makes it a non-WP:RS - and unusable) - you will note that he isn't hiding his hand in this statistical fraud - he is deliberately using it to present another point entirely: that the period over which the temperature increase has been measured could have been arbitrarily chosen to show an increase. A quite different argument - and one that demands that both the instrumental temperature record our paleoclimate temperature reconstructions are wrong - or showing a misleading result. --Kim D. Petersen 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked (which, concededly, was a while ago), the use of non-scientific or peer-reviewed sources, such as blogs, to support scientific claims on this article was accepted by Dr. Schulz, Dr. Arritt, Skyemoor, Mr. Connelley, and Mr. Petersen. (With only me and Count Iblis dissenting, suggesting using solely peer-reviewed and published papers in scientific journals for such purposes.) Curious though, they never mentioned it had to first be in agreeance with their views. (Curious, too, is how hypocrisy abounds.) ~ UBeR 04:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are acceptable under certain, very limited circumstances. For example, although The Panda's Thumb is a blog, the entries are reviewed by other contributors, and so it is an acceptable source under certain very limited conditions. Do you have specific examples of blogs being used as sources in this article? JoshuaZ 14:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Should i really remind you to be civil UBeR - or have you forgotten this WP guideline during your absense? --Kim D. Petersen 06:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Truth hurts. I understand. ~ UBeR 14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim, let's be frank, according to you, an article built upon op-eds published by Mother Jones, The Guardian, Newsweek and Greenpeace is fine [11] but you will dismiss as unreliable a series of op-eds published by nothing less than the National Post on the basis that 2-3 errors during the whole series have been noted [12]. Give us a break. --Childhood's End 12:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you haven't understood the concept of reliable sources yet. An Op-Ed is only reliable about the opinion of its author - nothing else. Further it can be used with the same caveats as self published sources in that an expert speaking about the subject on which he is an expert, can be used. (see for instance this discussion). Newsweek, Guardian, New York Times, the Royal Society, UCS, (Greenpeace wasn't used as a source), and (probably) Mother Jones are all reliable sources - you can called them biased (although i still haven't understood this argument... biased in what way?), but bias doesn't change their reliability. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Childhoodsend makes it a point to spread lies all over these talk pages, and when called on it he simply ignores it. Raul654 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm a bit surprised that now you pretty much accurately described the rules about reliable sources, as I have already did in the above-mentioned discussion (see [13]. Indeed, an op-ed is reliable about the opinion of its author but not about supporting that what he says is true, so why would you accept an article such as climate change denial whose subject exists only in op-eds?? And regarding the op-eds in the National Post, they were not used to present the author's opinion, but merely for quoting purposes. --Childhood's End 13:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

CE, your example is wrong, and indicates that you still haven't got the idea. An Op-Ed is only reliable about the opinion of the author of the Op-Ed. Quotes from other people, or information about other people in Op-Ed's is not reliable. Another unfortunate thing here, is that you apparently also have a misunderstanding about what Op-Ed's are - the Newsweek article isn't an op-ed, and neither are the articles from the Guardian.... (Monbiots column could be considered such though). But we are straying off course - since this isn't, the discussion forum for Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming no Climate change denial nor is it the correct forum for discussing old WP:AfD's. This is a talk page for improving the global warming article. --Kim D. Petersen 14:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I should also note the blogs written by professionals, just as op-eds, are at the whim of the author and his opinion and are without peer-review. It should also be noted that the names I listed above have supported the use of such blogs for scientific claims in this article. Take what you want from that. ~ UBeR 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Be careful how you frame the statements of other editors. Specific instances of collaborative blogs written by scientists who are steadily publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and whose blogs are open to comment by all, is a far cry from just any 'blog written by a professional'. I trust you understand the subtle but important difference, but wanted to address this point openly. --Skyemoor 01:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. " --Skyemoor 16:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what the policy is. This is entirely separate and about the de facto relationship between sources and this article. Have you already forgotten the past discussion? ~ UBeR 18:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Had you actually tried to be civil in the above - then you might also have gotten an answer. But since you persist - i'll quote myself, from just above in response to CE (about op-ed's): "Further it can be used with the same caveats as self published sources in that an expert speaking about the subject on which he is an expert, can be used." - since Carter isn't an expert on the temperature record, or even contemporary warming, he is ruled out. (He is a paleo-climatologist at best (geologist w. Stratigraphy experience) - certainly someone to quote or listen to when talking about rocks and sediments.). --Kim D. Petersen 15:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Kim I'm sorry but the line you're trying to draw between op-eds and journalism is quite blurred. Anyway, I agree that we are straying off course, except for UBeR's point about sources. --Childhood's End 14:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Op-Eds are statements of opinion or even advocacy. Journalism's objective is to report the discovered facts. --Skyemoor 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not like op-eds unless it is to quote the author of the piece. More here under Zbigniew Jaworowski.Brusegadi 02:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Evidence?

Is there a list of evidence in favor of the scientific consensus, say, along the lines of Evidence of evolution? If there isn't, it would probably be a good idea to add that. I think much of the "controversy" revolves around not knowing what the evidence is. OssDev 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In such a complicated subject you can find evidence for either side. I'm thinking the alarmist don't want to go this route, because it will "confuse" people. Also I find it interesting that when you talk global warming they try to change the subject on you to climate change. And as most of know, the climate is always changing, so that isn't an issue. The evidence is that there is no global warming for the past couple of years. Daniel.Cardenas 03:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Making a statement like "there is no global warming for the past couple of years," which is frankly and utterly nonsensical, is actually the sort of stuff that really confuses people. -BC aka Callmebc 12:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that because arctic ponds are drying up, that it proves there is global warming? Wouldn't it be smarter to a reference with average global temperatures? Daniel.Cardenas 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I had already referenced that in the main "No warming since 1998?" section. The issue is that such after-work bar level opinions by would-be amateur climatologists are not remotely helpful in any way. It would be one thing if such comments never left the bar, along with the empty glasses and bottles, but they instead get posted and reposted ad infinitum all over the Internet. You add in how the same crackpot assertions -- and that's exactly what they are -- get played up in the right-wing media, along with the deliberate disinformation put out by fossil fuel companies like Exxon, and having the research-challenged mainstream media giving nearly equal weight to all "sides," what you end up with is a very confused overall public. -BC aka Callmebc 15:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling we're going to start hearing "global warming stopped in 1934." ~ UBeR 22:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the cooling trend started in the 1940s? Does anyone have a ref? ^ross ^nixon 02:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You could try actually reading the present article. Raymond Arritt 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Need for simpler Wikipedia Articles on Global "Warming"

I run a local village web site and would like to summarise the global warming issue. Unfortunately, this article is so long and so convoluted that it really isn't much help as a starting point. Would it not be an idea to create 1 or 2 simpler wikipedia articles aimed at explaining to the average Scottish reader (without a degree in climate science) of a small village like ours, the essential arguments pro and anti global warming?

So, I'm asking for help to create two simple articles:pro Global warmingand Anti global warming

Clearly I can't promise an/some article(s) in Wikipedia as that will be highly fraught with problems, so to convince people to help, I should say that as our village site is always looking for interesting articles, so no contribution need go to waste. If anyone would like to help work on these prototype wikipedia articles please put comments on my discussion page or just add the essentials to the above pages. Bugsy 12:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming ~ UBeR 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of the "simple" wikipedia before. Unfortunately, reading the article, it didn't have the "excitment" - it is "too consentual" and lacks the sparks & passion that I know exist in the subject - I need to find some way to tap into those sparks and make people want to read about global warming - and just repeating the boring facts isn't going to do that - what I really need is a bit of controversy. Maybe this isn't the right place to find a "lively" discussion and to see the interest in the subject by seeing the varioius opposing views? 88.111.186.226 15:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for "excitement," and deliberately so. The writing in this article is a bit drier than it needs to be, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform rather than excite. Raymond Arritt 15:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If that's what you're after, just read the talk page archives. ~ UBeR 15:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Touché. Raymond Arritt 02:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the page .... I've just remembered why I so disliked editing this article. I might try saying something on the latest NASA figures - that is interesting, but otherwise, as a Scot, we're rather looking forward to the day London drowns. For your information, I've put my effort into a less contentious subject, Democracy and Iraq. Bugsy 10:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Issues

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail478.html#GlobalY2K

Excerpts:

"While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

"These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data."

* *

"NASA has now silently released corrected figures <http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt> , and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary." —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:81.149.36.207 (talk • contribs)

Been there, done that Raul654 18:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to expand on Raul654's point, for those not wanting to click the link, the "astounding" changes are trivial (0.03 hundredths of a degree) and only affect US temperatures, not global temperatures. 2005 is still the hottest global year on record, with 1998 a very close second. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no counter point view on this article?

This is the first Article on Wikipedia I've seen that does not seem to be written in neutral terms or offer a counter view.

Are all wikipedia articles going to be like this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.147.83.98 (talk • contribs).

Every Wikipedia article is supposed to be written from a Neutral Point of View. See WP:NPOV. This article is. It gives a description of the scientific consensus, the remaining open points, and significant differing opinions. There just are not many serious disputing voices that have reasonable scientific standing. See also scientific opinion on climate change and, for the popular debate, global warming controversy. --Stephan Schulz 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no "counter point view" included because the UN's environmental police are opposed to heretics. Some of them want the act of doubting climate change to be a heinous crime. Reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition. ^ross ^nixon 11:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody expects the IPCC! Raymond Arritt 02:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Global warming controversy is about the science. The Wikipedia editors who are skeptical of global warming have not really tried to discuss the science on this article yet. RonCram 14:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

THE REASON THERE IS NO COUNTER ARTICLE IS THAT THERE IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ONLY UNWILLING TO SEE CONTRARY VIEWS IN THE ARTICLE, BUT AREN'T EVEN WILLING TO SEE CONTRARY VIEWS IN THE DISCUSSION PAGES. HAVING SUGGESTED THAT TWO QUITE RANDOM VARIABLES THAT HAPPENED TO HAVE GONE UP TOGETHER IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD ARE LINKED, IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THE NEGATIVE - IE THAT THEY ARE NOT LINKED, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN CHOSEN BECAUSE BY THOSE WITH AN AXE TO GRIND OR A JOB TO SECURE TO PUSH THEIR CASE. NEEDLESS TO SAY IN A FEW YEARS THE TWO WILL BEGIN TO DIVERT SHOWING JUST HOW MUCH THE PUBLIC ARE BEING CONNED, AT WHICH POINT ALL THE PRIESTS OF THE GLOBAL WARMING RELIGION WILL TAKE THEIR PUBLIC MONEY AND RUN FOR THE HILLS. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO POINT TRYING TO EDIT AN ARTICLE THAT IS SO HEAVILY CENSORED. 88.111.176.38 21:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to hold strong opinions on the matter. Raymond Arritt 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyes...All Caps...Brusegadi 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond (and another who removed my original comments), thanks for the obligatory thrashing any adverse comments always receive. I was looking for an article on global warming - and you've inspired me. In February I came to this article a firm believer in global warming, now through your inability to even contemplate allowing the alternative view to be heard - I've seen how your religion really works and so that is what I'm going to write about - the hypocracy and lies being spread as "gospel truth". The original comment was right - this is one of the few articles on wikipedia which does not brook any mention of the alternative view - and I think that is something that people would be interested to read about - thanks! 88.111.176.38 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to use strange criteria for deciding upon the veracity of scientific theories. I prefer to actually examine the scientific evidence (preferably from scientific journals) than to make judgments based on the statements made by Wikipedia editors on talk pages. I know I should assume good faith, but personally I'm having difficulty believing in the veracity of your statement since the two comments here are the only contributions you appear to have made to Wikipedia, ever. That, coupled with your use of certain "talking points" makes it quite unlikely that you ever "believed" in global warming. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't count the number of letters in the Scotsman where I wrote "global warming is the greatest problem facing mankind" and lambasting those who failed to act. As you should well know the scientific method is to create hypothesis that ban be tested. Global warming is not (as yet) a testable hyposis and therefore it is a lie to call it science. Science is not the opinion of scientists, it is the result of the scientific method. Where I went wrong was to assume that there was any scientific tests proving that CO2 caused global warming - I was wrong there are not any tests it is just a correlation of variables which is an interesting observation not a test.88.109.100.41 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree completely. If you actually wrote those letters to the Scotsman, then presumably you didn't know what you were writing about if you think that it is "just a correlation", or that it cannot be tested. It has been tested, it is based on rigid scientific principles - the correlation was detected well after the theory was created - and it has passed the tests, not just in simple correlation, but in predictive ability. Twenty years ago, critics were saying, "Well, in 20 years, the warming will stop, and they'll see the errors in their theories." Now, many critics are still saying, "Well, in 20 years, the warming will stop, and they'll see the errors in their theories." Twenty years from now, I make the bold prediction that critics will be saying, "Well, in 20 years, the warming will stop, and they'll see the errors in their theories." (Yes, there are fewer critics now than there were 20 years ago, and there will be fewer critics still 20 years from now. Some people, including a few scientists, cannot ever admit they were wrong, and so will continue the argument even in the face of overwhelming evidence.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

See if this article helps -- it gives a nice history of how CO2 was determined to be a factor in global warming. -BC aka Callmebc 15:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Notice that since this is the article about the increase in the earth temperatures. All causes studied in the scientific community are treated; some other explanations are given their due weight. (eg. section on solar variation). If a view is inexistent (or too small) within the scientific community it may not warrant inclusion at all. Brusegadi 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyoto Projects Harm Ozone Layer

The article should discuss the recent finding that Kyoto projects are harming the ozone layer. [14] I'm not certain if it should go the the section on "Adaptation and mitigation" that expressly discusses the Kyoto Protocol or if it should go under "Related climatic issues." RonCram 14:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the normal "optimizing" of subventions. It has nothing to do with global warming, but possibly should be discussed in Kyoto Protocol. --Stephan Schulz 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Might as well be yet another topic for Law of unintended consequences... --Childhood's End 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

NASA's revised data

The article says

"Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree.[35]"

Someone may want to correct that, as NASA has updated their numbers. I don't know all the details, but Steve McIntyre found a bug in NASA's methodology. NASA's scientist acknowledged his find, and updated their numbers. Now, 1934 is the hottest year on record (and, in fact, four of the ten hottest years on record occured in the 1930s).

Please see this thread about the same thing. ~ UBeR 15:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NASA updated the US temperature numbers, not the global temperature numbers (which is what the passage you quoted is referring to). --SirEditALot 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is seems to me that the real issue is that the last ten years are warmer than the 1930s only by some trivial amount. In other words, what global warming? Kauffner 06:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you use one country's data to disprove global warming? Do you see where the fallacy occurs? ~ UBeR 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

More on China and India

I think it would be good if you added more data on these two major polluters. I also translated this article into Romanian to use on my website about Environmental Protection and Global Warming.Hope that`s not a problem.(The Romanian Wikipedia article on Global Warming is merely 4 rows long. Sad.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.122.131.15 (talk • contribs).

You are welcome to use the article, as long as you abide by the terms of the GFDL. In practice that is easy to achieve by a) publishing that part of your website under the GFDL yourself and b) acknowledging Wikipedia as the source. Good luck! BTW, why not submit your translation to the Romanian Wikipedia? A discussion of emissions by country is out of the scope of this article, but see Greenhouse gas. --Stephan Schulz 13:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies Section?

Now, I'm not really big on the Global Warming theory or whatever, and I'm certainly not against it either, however, I believe that a "Controversies" section should be added because there are loads of people who don't believe in it and have their own evidence to support their own claims. I think dumping controversies there would be a good idea, because I know there are controversies involved with it. IronCrow 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We discuss the science here. For the public controversy, there is a sub-article at global warming controversy. --Stephan Schulz 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a skeptic, but I actually believe no article should include a criticism or controversy section. I feel if there is criticism or controversy, it should have its own article, but that article should be mentioned in its parent. --HillChris1234 11:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another recent issue is

"A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts" http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf

"The above observational and modeling results suggest the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an increase in the coupling strength, the network’s synchronous state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend."

Anyone have a suggestion as to where it should go and a good summary?LetterRip 05:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't, being one very new paper William M. Connolley 08:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"the increase" vs. "a rise"

OK, since there's been a little argument about whether the first line should read

Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.

or

Global warming refers to a rise in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans and any potential projected continuation.

I figured it'd be good to get it out in the open. First of all, although I agree that the first version is correct, I'd argue that the second version is equally correct. I understand the subtle difference here is that the first one implies it is "fact", whereas the last one makes no assertion either way. As a bit of an NPOV warrior, I prefer the latter. However, I want to hear an argument as to why it even matters that much. I know why some people (who I disagree with in general) think that the second version makes that important distinction. What I want to know is why others think that the second version is unacceptable. There's nothing incorrect about it, is there? Yes, I'm trying to be a peacemaker. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the second one. Why is the term "Global Warming" only limited to any present warming? Why wouldn't it refer to any type of warming on a planetary scale regardless of when or which planet? --HillChris1234 11:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the idea that it's only the present warming and our planet (of course the second one doesn't challenge the part of it being our planet). This has been established by usage. We describe, not proscribe, what something is. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A projection is a projection and has some uncertainty. It certainly isn't necessary to have *potential* projected. Forecast is more certain than projection in my opinion and UK accounting terminology. I think forecast may be justified but as there seems reasonable consensus on projected lets leave it as that. Does 'the increase' and projected continuation mean the higher temperature is maintained or that the increase maintains its rate? Same question for rise. Does it need to be 'an increase' and 'its projected continued rise'? crandles 15:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a compromise:

Global warming refers to a rise in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.

Is that one acceptable to most people? (I'm not asking if it's perferable, I'm asking if it's acceptable.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And here's another option:

Global warming refers to a rise in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent history and its projected continuation.

After all, many scientists do go back more than a few decades in discussing global warming. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The article here is about the current warming (ie. the last few decades) - if you want the larger picture - its climate change. The distinction has to be made to seperate the two articles. The reason that this article is named global warming (and not global warming in the last decades etc.) is because of WP:COMMONNAME. If we go back more than a few decades - then the anthropogenic part falls - and the anthropogenic part is very much a part of this article. --Kim D. Petersen 17:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming isn't just about average temperatures. Thats like doing a structural analysis on the average stress on a building. What we really need to be concerned about is the extremes of temperature, the places where we are going to get structural collapse. The places where warmer oceans are beginning to cause category 5 hurricanesRktect 11:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Something is wrong, isn't it?

The opening section of the article says "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the twentieth century" but, if I have read it correctly, the Global Temperatures graph shows year 2000 temperature being 'only' 0.48C higher than year 1900 temperature: +0.26 for 2000, -0.22 for 1900, a difference of 0.48, not 0.74. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.42.31 (talk) 18:53, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Um. I think this may well be a mess, probably as a result of updating from TAR to AR4. The 0.74 is from the spm and is the 1906-2005 linear trend, so the text should really say "last 100 years". The opening and the T ch section really ought to be synchronised William M. Connolley 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal re use of the talk page

There is a proposal to tighten up the rules on use of this talk page (and you may have noticed tis happening here recently). Please see User_talk:UBeR#What would you think of this.3F. Don't reply here William M. Connolley 21:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The real global warming POV problem

[I removed this section. It was turning into the same old tired stuff, none of which has anything to do with improving the article. Please try to show some discipline William M. Connolley 10:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]

I'm surprised by your selection of which thread to delete. There is an ongoing misunderstanding of the concept of weight on this page (and other climate related pages). I tried to express the difference between equal textual attention and appropriately weighing the distribution of space in an entry. This seems to me to be an important conversation, not a lack of discipline.Benzocane 14:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason this "same old tired stuff" keeps coming up is that a significant portion of the editors on this page are unsatisfied with the so-called "consensus" of how to present GW. Doesn't the fact that editor after editor gets their hard work deleted over and over indicate that there is a problem with this article? Zoomwsu 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

More likely there is a problem with these "editors" -- their "hard work" is usually discredited, misunderstood, irrelevant and/or nonsensical stuff that has not only been beaten to death over and over, but given a funeral and buried, over and over.... It might help if perhaps a teeny bit of research was done before trying to post, like, oh say...reading up on the subject first. This New Scientist article addresses most of the misconceptions shown by posters here, and this piece from the American Institute of Physics has a great history of the research, especially this summary, that has gone into developing the current climate models. Of course, if you really prefer to get your science knowledge from non-scientific sources, you can always find plenty of sites like this. -BC aka Callmebc 13:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Al Gore the reason everybody became "aware" of the modern Global Warming situation?

If so, that should probably be mentioned.--24.162.154.176 18:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. He has been a popularizer in the US, but has had next to no influence in Europe, and probably little in the rest of the world. Also, this article primarily discusses the science. I wonder if there is a better article for the public perception - indeed, Public perception of climate change might be a useful and less contentious title than global warming controversy. --Stephan Schulz 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No. It's just some more right-wing "wackiness" in this country to try to tie Al Gore to global warming in yet another attempt to politicize it. His documentary An Inconvenient Truth probably stirred up the discussion more than actually making people more "aware" of global warming than what they already were -- it was already a hot topic, so to speak, at the time. -BC aka Callmebc 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting back Resources for "Skeptics"?

I wasn't thrilled this was deleted so casually and without a discussion -- it was kind of time consuming to put together. But I'm just visiting here, more or less, and will behave. An issue I see is that the way this talk page is organized makes it very easy to miss the referred to "FAQ", especially since it's not actually called that -- it's written out as "frequently asked questions" -- and it's poorly located in an easy to miss section below all the banners. Since it's in normal text with no highlighting or anything else to make it conspicuous, as well as not being in the index, it looks very much like it's not going to be seen by most posters. Also the FAQ itself is not as complete as some of the other similar FAQ's out there, so I do believe something more complete is necessary to deal with the "skeptics" both real and not so genuine, along with their inevitable questions and/or weasel comments. While the main page has tons of links, it has...tons of links, and can be overwhelming for someone genuinely trying figure out what's what. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 04:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember discussing this before (as I had also missed the FAQ page and mistakenly suggested that one be created). I went ahead and put the FAQ link info inside a box similar to that found on the evolution article's talk page (link to Talk:Evolution). Hope that's OK with everyone. R. Baley 04:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be easy to miss it. So, making it more obvious might help. Have a big box (bigger than the one already there) at the top that says FAQ and only FAQ, with alarming headlines that will make most yellow journalism green with envy. I do not think anyone would mind if you gave that a try. The thing is that with the non-genuine skeptics the problem will always exist because they can always simply adapt their questions. Thats why the best way to go about this is to tighten the enforcement of WP:SOAP. Of course that, for the few genuine ones, the big box might help. Adding something on the index might be problematic if we have automatic archiving. Brusegadi 05:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is much more prominent and better positioned. The lack of a prominent index is still a little bothersome, though, and not just in terms of the FAQ, but also in regards to other pertinent Wikipedia articles involving Global Warming in some key aspect. Note above William M. Connolley's responses to As the Glorious Weep: he refers to the Mauna Loa Observatory; the Keeling curve; Urban heat island; the Temperature record of the past 1000 years; and Attribution of recent climate change -- all separate Wiki articles. And this doesn't even include Climate change, the Global warming controversy, the Kyoto Protocol, Scientific opinion on climate change, the Hockey stick controversy, Paleoclimatology, Climate change denial, the IPCC, Summary for policymakers, the UNFCCC, and so on and so forth.

I'm thinking that there needs to be something akin to a combination of FAQ/primer/road map of manageable size, maybe along the lines of a Top 10 list, as a basic guide for the curious and misinformed, and be included in at least the Talk pages of all the main global warming related articles for consistency. Any thoughts on this? -BC aka Callmebc 12:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Global warming}} ~ UBeR 14:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's at the bottom of the main Wiki page. I think it would need to be simplified and include primers to be truly useful as an introductory guide. It's really just a partial topic list as is. -BC aka Callmebc 14:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Clean up talk page

I think we need to start moving previous discussions to their appropriate archive. I was going to label each section to be moved, but unless there are objections, I am going to just copy and paste each thread ending before Aug 7 to the archive of the month in which the discussion was started. I plan to begin in about 24 hours, any help is appreciated. Comments/thoughts? R. Baley 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Also, can we get a bot to start doing this at a regular interval? R. Baley 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Clean the place up. Good idea William M. Connolley 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mizrabot should already do this - how about just setting the interval (currently 30 days) shorter? --Kim D. Petersen 21:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - seems that the unsigned (or something like that) are making Mizrabot confused... --Kim D. Petersen 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a ~~sign~~User:SineBot ~~or something like that as well?~~ R. Baley 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Maybe this bot eliminates that problem? I dont know how long it's been in use. Also, a link to the Misza archiving bot, in case anyone wants a look. I thinking once a thread is stale for 15 days. . .well that's plenty.

hmmm, thought that sinebot thing was supposed to have worked by now, trying again. R.baley

Looks like we ~~can~~ will be linked to Sinebot's high priority pages list, as per this discussion (link). Hopefully that will eliminate problems with the Miszabot and we can ~~set that up soon~~ reduce to 15 days? R. Baley 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for taking care of all this. Raymond Arritt 07:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reducing archival interval to 15 days

I've been assured by the Miszabot's operator that reducing the archival interval to 15 days shouldn't introduce any technical problems (in the short-term was my concern). I'm going to go ahead and change it from 30 to 15, unless there is a compelling argument not to (looking at the above thread I think people will like this idea). Looking at the talk page as a whole, a good deal of it looks to be archived soon and once that happens, I will go through and manually archive any stale threads that are hanging around due to lack of signature/time stamps. I am open to reducing the archive interval further if this page stays above levels (in size) considered useful by everyone for improving the article. R. Baley 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

New NASA data?

GISS released new data because of a flaw found in their software. Should it be mentioned that this new data now shows 1934 as the warmest year ever and that 4 of the top 10 years are in the 30's? Their revised list is on http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007

Year-Old-New;
1934 1.23 1.25,
1998 1.24 1.23,
1921 1.12 1.15,
2006 1.23 1.13,
1931 1.08 1.08,
1999 0.94 0.93,
1953 0.91 0.90,
1990 0.88 0.87,
1938 0.85 0.86,
1939 0.84 0.85,

Here’s the old order of top 10 yearly temperatures.

Year-Old-New;
1998 1.24 1.23,
1934 1.23 1.25,
2006 1.23 1.13,
1921 1.12 1.15,
1931 1.08 1.08,
1999 0.94 0.93,
1953 0.91 0.90,
2001 0.90 0.76,
1990 0.88 0.87,
1938 0.85 0.86,

Im not very good at formatting, but those are the lists old and new. If this new data is graphed, it shows a much different picture of the current climate change than the old data showed. Just curious in your opinion, thanks.

Jmsseal 02:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The data is from the "Annual and five-year running mean surface air temperature in the contiguous 48 United States relative to the 1951-1980 mean", it isnt global but United States only. --Carl Szczerski 04:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that you're not reading things correctly. Those are yearly deviations, and not warming trends, which are long-term, multi-year patterns. The overall trend, as shown on that same NASA site, has been upwards and onwards. -BC aka Callmebc 04:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Jmsseal's reading is correct. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt gives the deviations from the mean temperature of the years 1880 to 2006. If 1934 deviates from the mean by 1.25, and 1998 deviates by 1.23, then 1934 was hotter. Perhaps NASA hasn't updated their other graphics yet. Here is someone to back up what I'm saying. Your thoughts? --SirEditALot 00:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It depends on what mean they use. "Our analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperatures. The temperature anomaly tells us how much warmer or colder than normal it is at a particular place and point in time, the 'normal temperature' being the mean over many (30) years (same place, same time of year)."from here. If that is so, the hottest year could be any other year. Determining the hottest year will depend on the anomaly for that year and on the background (30 year period) they are using to determine the anomaly. Brusegadi 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Instrumental_temperature_record#Unexplained_adjustments_to_U.S._temperature_record. As of this writing, near the end it states, "According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever in the United States." Should that be removed? Or is that statement correct and your understanding of the NASA data wrong? I'm not an expert so I don't know. --SirEditALot 02:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you misinterpret me a little bit. I am saying that I think the anomalies are calculated with different means so that by looking at the anomalies alone, you cant deduce which year is hottest because we do not know the means. Thus, by looking just at that, the hottest year could be any year. It could be 34 or 85 or 98. So that sentence can be correct; I just dont think we can deduce it from the above list of numbers. Brusegadi 19:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Any one set of anomalies *should* be calculated from a consistent mean, so the anomalies *can* be compared. However... the difference of 1998 and 1934 is not stat sig, so they should not really be ranked. To quote RC quoting Hansen 2001 The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C. William M. Connolley 19:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Will...it's been a couple of years since I've even bothered to waste my time reading through this page and debate with you and others. How's Antartica treating you...? Still there? Wow...all we need is just a tenth of a degree variance? Considering the opening paragraphs for this page states: "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the twentieth century." and "Climate models referenced by the IPCC project that global surface temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100." and the cute little graph under the "Temperature Changes" section indicating up to a .4° variation in 2004...that apparently these predictions, charts, graphs etc. can't overcome your .1° uncertainty variable. A bit contradictory wouldn't you say? And I don't have a wiki account/user and thus am not now (nor have I ever) "signed" anything so please don't tell me how my opinion is worthless or less meaningfull because I haven't signed up for a wiki user account or whatever. Thanks in advance. --Jbond

Doesn't seem at all contradictory. Of course it is easier to see the signal through the noise with global data rather than a region like the US. crandles 14:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole I can't see the foreset for the trees argument? Still doesn't address my point though. I guess despite the U.S. being, what, the #2 pollutant in the World that our own temperature anomalies are independent of the rest of the non-developed world? We are talking about "global" warming right? Not "Global minus the US warming". I guess since the U.S. represents only 2% of global land mass one could argue that point. Guess I shouldn't point out we only have surface temp reading for approximately 1/2 of the globe, and prio to WWII we only had surface temp data for less then 1/4 of the globe, many of which are suspect and have been show to be wrong. Or are you referencing the data collected, analyzed, predicted from computer models using variables they don't even understand? Are they more accurate now then 5, 10, 20 years ago? Yes. But when the most important factors are the least understood...how does one come up with a hard variable to use in an equation for modelling? Or even a range? --Jbond

My reason for asking, and i did take the time to read things correctly and i do understand charts and graphs exceptionally well, is that due to the changes in GISS's numbers, the following statement in your article is no longer true, "Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree.[35] Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization and the Climatic Research Unit concluded that 2005 was the second warmest year, behind 1998.[36][37]

I am not arguing global warming, Is it man made, fact or fiction. I find that to be pointless because most people have made their minds up one way or another and you would have better luck changing their religion. I was only trying to remain factually correct in the article. Thanks Jmsseal 00:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the article refers to global mean temperature. The NASA data you gave are for the U.S. The U.S. is not the globe. Raymond Arritt 00:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The earlier data that showed 1998 as the warmest year in the U.S. temperature record was a the result of a Y2K bug.[15]. In the corrected data, five of the ten warmest years are pre-WWII. Kauffner 05:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't William M. Connolley 13:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I know you folks were a bit late, but WWII started in 1939 William M. Connolley 13:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, not if you ask the Chinese. Surely they would state the war started several years before 1939.--MONGO 18:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Four of the top ten warmest years in the U.S. were pre-WWII. One was 1951. Three years were in the 1990s and two years in the 2000s. I think the biggest lesson here, for the U.S., is that the 2000s are cooler than the 1990s and the 1990s are cooler than the 1930s. RonCram 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on looking at [16] I'd say the 2000's are warmer than the '90s and the 30's. A quick calc from the data confirms this. Looks like you need to learn some new lessons. And, of course, to distinguish global and US William M. Connolley 22:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

William, I clearly wrote of the U.S. temps. I think it is important to know that one of the largest and most reliable weather station networks in the world is not showing any warming trend over the 20th century.RonCram 13:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, rather, "one of the largest and most reliable weather station networks in the world" was possibly affected by the national (and not global) Dust Bowl disaster (off the top of my head, could be completely false). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley is correct. The mean anomaly for the '30s was 0.5. For the '90s it was 0.424, and the the 2000s it was .653. --SirEditALot 03:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking at 5 year mean vs. annual mean? This is only U.S. data though. East Coast of the U.S. has been slightly cooling so the warming in the U.S. is almost all in the western U.S. Interesting that from the graph, the annual deviation from the 5 year mean seems high in the 1920-1940 time period. Maybe more importably, how did such a simple error in source data evade discovery with all the focus being put on analyzing it? --Tbeatty 06:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, WWII started in September 18, 1931 with the Mukden Incident leading to the Imperial Japanese invasion of Manchuria that sparked off the Second Sino-Japanese War. With that out of the way, RealClimate states that, after the data correction, "the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC)." [17] Just by eyeballing 'http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif', it appears that the 30s was hotter than the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 90s. For certian, the new rankings for the 10 hottest years are 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939 (1st to 10th). Revolutionaryluddite 21:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There's been a long discussion at the talk page for Instrumental temperature record. RealClimate and James Hansen have made statements saying that the data errors were not Y2K bug related. [18] [19] Stephen McIntyre says that the errors were based on a systematic bias in the correction for Urban Heat Island effects on the GISS weather stations. [20] Revolutionaryluddite 21:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about the U.S. temperature record? Until it has actual implications on the global temperature record, this is hardly worth noting. ~ UBeR 01:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it doesn't belong on this page. 72.47.71.160 02:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Revolutionaryluddite

It depends where global data come from. If they are compiled from data provided by each country, this calculation will change the global average. The global tables are likely compiled from tables like this one. If so, there would be an effect. 69.12.143.197 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It does, and it will, but, surprising as it may be, the US is so small that the minor correction of US data has no significant effect on the global results. In particular, 2005 or 1998 (depending on methodology, and not really separable in a statistically significant way) remain the warmest years on record. --Stephan Schulz 07:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why the sarcasm there was warranted. Yes, the US is about 2% of the surface of the earth, but there will be an effect on the statistics. 171.71.37.29 21:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. is about 2% of the surface but about 6% of the land surface. Perhaps more importantly, it is among the most densely populated surface station network in the world. Now that people can see that no warming trend exists in the U.S. since World War II, McIntyre is looking for a warming trend in the rest of the world (ROW). He has a series of posts based on "Where's Waldo?" detailing his search for a warming trend. Perhaps information from some of these posts belong in the article? [21]RonCram 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.nap.edu/catalog/6424.html

[2] ttp://www.surfacestations.org

[3] ttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/6/pdf/i1520-0477-88-6-913.pdf

[4] ttp://www.nap.edu/catalog/6424.html

[5] ttp://www.surfacestations.org

[6] ttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/6/pdf/i1520-0477-88-6-913.pdf

[7] ttp://www.nap.edu/catalog/6424.html

[8] ttp://www.surfacestations.org

[9] ttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/6/pdf/i1520-0477-88-6-913.pdf

[10] ttp://www.nap.edu/catalog/6424.html

[11] ttp://www.surfacestations.org

[12] ttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/6/pdf/i1520-0477-88-6-913.pdf

[13] ttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/6/pdf/i1520-0477-88-6-913.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

Who made this stuff up?

why human effects are shifting the balance out of control

waterworld talk

intense changes

theory

Surface Station Quality

AEB

Recent change by RKtect

Global Warming on Steroids and LSD

Atlantic hurricanes doubled over last century

Quick IPCC 2007 question

Intro Sentence Flow

New statistical analysis confirms human role in climate change

Important Omission in Discussion

Aerosol cooling

Global cooling

Global Warming not CO2 but due to waste heat

Changes to Causes, par. 1

The IPCC

Newsweek Article

Species extinction edit

Removing NPOV tag

See also: Climate change denial

No warming since 1998?

List of Evidence?

Need for simpler Wikipedia Articles on Global "Warming"

Recent Issues

Why is there no counter point view on this article?

Kyoto Projects Harm Ozone Layer

NASA's revised data

More on China and India

Controversies Section?

Another recent issue is

"the increase" vs. "a rise"

Something is wrong, isn't it?

Proposal re use of the talk page

The real global warming POV problem

Wasn't Al Gore the reason everybody became "aware" of the modern Global Warming situation?

Putting back Resources for "Skeptics"?

Clean up talk page

Reducing archival interval to 15 days

New NASA data?