Talk:Gavin Schmidt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Quote on non-carbon dioxide global warming[edit]

An editor or editors, possibly scibaby-related, have repeatedly inserted the following text:

Schmidt has said "We understand that other greenhouse gases apart from carbon dioxide are important for climate change today".

The reference given for this is http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011210/

The reason for the insertion seems, from the last edit summary ("restore key quote vs. CO2-centric IPCC"), to be based on a belief about the content of IPCC AR4 held by that editor or editors. This source which quotes the IPCC AR4's Summary for Policymakers in detail shows that this is a misconception. In particular, the growth in atmospheric methane due to agriculture and other human activities is mentioned as a significant probable factor in global warming, and the quote by Schmidt in the cited source concerns the possible relation between methane release and a period of global warming known as the Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum. Climatologists are particularly concerned about the possibility of global warming triggering the release of ocean-floor methane deposits. Since methane is a far more efficient greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, there is considerable concern about the possibility of catastrophic global warming in such a scenario. --TS 02:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So is this an argument to include or exclude Schmidt's statement? It appears that he actually did make the statement, right? --GoRight (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
He certainly did make the statement, but the decision to quote it seems to have been based on the misconception that his expressed opinion is unusual, surprising and at odds with the consensus on global warming. It's none of those things, nor is there any evidence that he originated the view. You could probably find similar statements directly attributable to many climatologists, just as you could find many physicists opining that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and many geologists saying that the earth is over four billion years old. --TS 03:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Since Lance A. Boyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has restored the quotation, I have tagged this article as in breach of our Neutral point of view policy. To reiterate my opinion, it gives undue weight to a quite unexceptional quotation on the role of methane and other greenhouse gases in current global warming, apparently because the editor who added it thinks the statement is extraordinary in some way. --TS 03:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Reverted the quote. It's neither relevant nor surprising. He also says "good morning", probably several times per week. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand why this has been the subject of so much edit warring. It seems a perfectly obvious thing for a climate scientists to say, and yet it has been cherry-picked from his words--as I outline above--simply because the person doing so doesn't understand what the IPCC's reports actually say. --TS 08:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

cites needed[edit]

Is there a source for this statement:

In November 2004 he was named as one of Scientific American's "Top 50 Research Leaders" for the year.

Plenty of other sources need cites too. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's okay, I found it. Alex Harvey (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)