Talk:Global warming/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 25



Just curious, but is "conservation" the only way to reduce energy use? If not, could we throw an e.g. in front of it? Some might argue that stabilizing or lowering the global population could have the net effect of reducing energy use. 07:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there is an even easier rapid solution. The only difference between the present idea of Global Warming and Nuclear Winter is the effect of the particulate pollution on the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface of the earth. If nobody on the planet is interested in decreasing the amount of energy they use, shut off the nuclear power and return to coal fired energy which sends up light-blocking particulate matter. The switch to cleaner nuclear power in the last few decades radically reduced the amount of light-blocking emissions from human energy consumption. This is another significant contribution to global warming. Introduce light-blocking particulates into auto emissions as well. Unfortunately, nobody is serious about global warming, at least not serious enough to look for real solutions at this point in time. When non-scientists like Al Gore get so much fanfare in this arena, there is not much real scientific hope. The solution of controlling the warming characteristics of emissions is so rapid that climate effects may actually be chaotic in nature. 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No, as there is a natural desire by everybody to see an increase in their own standard of living. Most people on earth have a standard of living well below that of western countries. Any increase in standard of living without conservation measures will see an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. --Michael Johnson 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC) has a valid point. Reduction of energy use does not logically imply conservation. Within any given period, the total energy used by all people combined is equal to the average energy used per capita, times how many people there are. So with a sufficient reduction in population, it would be possible to increase the average per capita energy use, without conservation measures, and still have a reduction in total energy use. Of course, as Michael Johnson points out, not all people on earth consume energy at the same rate. A population reduction of 1,000,000 people in the U.S., for example, would have a much greater effect on total energy consumption than a population reduction of 1,000,000 people in China.
This issue is partly a matter of semantics. The existing wording would be valid if "conservation" included all forms of reducing energy use, including the reduction of energy use brought about by a reduction in population (especially the reduction in population of a rich western country). However, "energy conservation" in common usage appears to only refer to a reduction in per capita energy use. For example, the energy conservation article says " conservation reduces the energy consumption and energy demand per capita...." And the articles I find via Google pertaining to "energy conservation" are consistent with that statement, in that they commonly list various ways of reducing per capita energy usage, by buying hybrid cars and what not, but they don't generally point out that how many children you choose to have will obviously have a big effect on how much energy will be used in the next generation.
Putting "(conservation)" after "Reduction of energy use" looks like a paraphrasing, which is a way of equating the two phrases, which is not logically correct as pointed out above. Conservation is just one form of reduction of energy use (albeit an extremely important form). There are a couple ways of fixing this logical error. One way would be to put "e.g." before "conservation", as suggested by However, it makes more sense to me to just remove "(conservation)". "Reduction of energy use" is listed as being a whole category of actions that would mitigate global warming. It doesn't make sense to include an example on one item in the list of categories, when none of the other items in the list of categories include an example. Plus, the following paragraph lists a bunch of actions that fit into the categories listed, including both energy conservation and population reduction, so just removing "(conservation)" won't result in important information being lost from the article. Therefore, I'm going to just remove "(conservation)".
When I'm editing articles, I certainly don't usually write a three-paragraph explanation as to why I'm deleting one word! But the Global Warming article feels to me like it's so well-crafted as is, that I'm hesitant to even delete one word without a thorough explanation.
-- MrRedact 10:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Size and Content of the Intro

Does anyone else feel that the intro does not meet Wikipedia standards in regards to being a concise summary that keeps the reader interested? While there is a much bigger debate going on, I feel that the intro should be labeled for editing. Alex 10:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Now would be a very poor time for trying to re-write the intro. OTOH if you want to discuss it here, feel free. If its not concise enough, what do you want to cut? William M. Connolley 11:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit: comments moved to different section by contributor Grimerking 19:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

I think I agree with this but I am not sure, however someday I hope to have an answer.

George Bush Acknowledges Global Warming as an Established Fact

The edit summary for an attempted edit this morning that aimed to portray global warming as just being a speculative theory says that "george junior himself is a sceptic." That statement may well have been true earlier in Bush's presidency, but in his most recent State of the Union address, Bush finally referred to global warming as an established fact. See [1].

However, I think what Bush thinks is irrelevant as to the contents of the Global Warming article, anyway. The Global Warming article is predominantly a science article, and as such, it should attempt to reflect the current consensus of the scientists who study climate change, not the less-informed opinions of polititions, religious leaders, lobbyists, or the public at large. The place for nonscientific perspectives of global warming is on other articles, like Politics of global warming and Global warming controversy. -- MrRedact 18:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree re whether Bushs opinions matter. I somewhat disagree as to the "established fact". Bush didn't say that - those are the reporters words. Bush is quoted as saying "the serious challenge of global climate change" but thats rather different William M. Connolley 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
All I can find is more reporters talking, but there does seem to at least be a consensus among reporters that Bush has changed his opinion. E.g., "President George W. Bush's position on global warming has evolved over his presidency, from open skepticism about the reality of the phenomenon to acknowledgment at a global summit last year that climate change is occurring and human activities speed it up."[2] and " warming [is] something Mr Bush has only recently been willing to publicly accept has a link to human activity."[3] Again, I think Bush's opinions are irrelevant as to what a science article should contain. But some people (like Benjiwolf, apparently) do care about Bush's opinions, so I'm hoping that if people learn that Bush has changed his mind, there might be slightly fewer people who want to come in here and claim that it's far from clear that the planet's even getting warmer. -- MrRedact 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I finally found a direct quote from Bush, instead of just a reporter. About 18 months ago, Bush said "I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem"[4]. About the only way that statement would be closer to the current scientific consensus would be if he had said something like " probably most of the problem" instead of the more vague " contributing to the problem." MrRedact 16:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
" probably most of the problem" In other words, it's a definite maybe or approximately and exactly as determined by a concensus of scientists, experts, top scientists, the Professor on Gilligan's Island, and now President George W Bush. 22:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit to move my comment to more relevant place Grimerking 19:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC))
Not too sure where to jump in with this. Everything has been archived. People keep rolling out the 'flat earth' argument regarding consensus - i.e. just because some people believe the Earth is flat, doesn't mean that Wikipedia should give them space to air their views on the 'Earth page'.
Personally, I think a better example of a 'consensus' in science is that of 'saturated versus polyunsaturated fat'. Anybody alive in the 1980's will remember the relentless TV and government campaigns telling us all to switch to 'healthier' polyunsaturated fats. There was a definite 'consensus' that this was the right thing to do. I was taught this at school. Anybody claiming otherwise was treated as a loon.
How things have changed! Now there is no 'consensus' and everything has been quietly dropped by all concerned. There were no announcements in the press, my teachers didn't get in touch to tell me to stop eating polyunsaturated fats, nothing, silence!
As I, and a lot of other people keep stating, a 'consensus' does not mean that we are dealing with scientific fact. Wikipedia should reflect this and give both sides of the argument. Grimerking 17:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
And the 'flat earth' argument is a good analogy because it is an argument that never really happened except in the 19th century version of the Da Vinci Code (namely Washington Irving's twisting of historical facts in The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus). And the concensus, of course, is that such dubious fiction itself causes no harm, however popular with the misguided public... 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the "flat earth" argument isn't meaningless because nobody believes in a flat earth. Some people even today believe that the earth is flat. If you want, you can have a discussion with some of them on the flat earth society's web site.[5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrRedact (talkcontribs) 03:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
As for's apparent assertion that the Earth is flat theory is purely a work of fiction which misrepresented the historical scientific belief. Please go to the above wiki and submit your edit. It seems to claim that the belief that Columbus debunked the flat Earth theory is the myth as he never cirucnavigated the Earth.

As for (on topic) Bush's comments, I don't think that anybody who has a college education and/or a high school science degree would agrue that global warming isn't happening. I think the argument revolves around the cause and long term effects of the phenomenon. The issue that I have is that the cause is overstated as being human in nature and the effects are ALL based on data extrapolation which is at best a scientific hypothesis (no facts to back it up, since no one was around to see the last time this happend) and at worst a doomsday prophecy by people who believe that humans will eventually cause the destruction of the Earth...they just aren't sure how. While these people seem to be few and far between they are for whatever reason receiving higher and higher levels of credibility.Oconp88 16:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Global Climate Inversion Hypothesis

The earth, in fact, is not getting warmer. Parts of the earth have warmed, but other parts are cooling. The climates around the Globe are essentially inverting, the Poles are warming, and the Equator is cooling. Also, season changes are beginning to occur at different times during the year than they used to. Winter is beginning later, and lasting longer. Spring and Autumn last much shorter, and Summer lasts much longer. The seasonal climate of earth has changed, the overall global climate is in the process of inverting. It would not be illogical to predict that in a few hundred years the equator will be covered with ice, and the south pole will be grasslands.

It is important not to just look at the earth as a whole, but rather the earth in regions. Although some places have warmed more dramatically than others have cooled doesn't mean that Global Warming exists.

I would love to hear some feedback on my hypothesis.

Your hypothesis would appear to be falsified by the second picture at the top of the page William M. Connolley 22:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget that you can just as easily rig another temperature line to make it look like we're cooling. The Medivel Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age happened without the help of SUVs. 80% of greenhouse gasses anyway come from vegetation, and we're contributing to it by growing all these plants. Want to put a dent in global warming (which the "greenhouse gasses" aren't causing on a massive scale anyway anyway)? Kill plants in mass numbers. Also there have been a lot of underwater volcanoes. Despite what left wing scientists say, the warming ocean due to volcanoes causes an increase in CO2. Plus don't forget solar cycles. Also note that fall of 2002 to spring of 2005 was a very cold time period. Average temperatures were similar to how they were in the early 1900s.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
You are wrong. --Stephan Schulz 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
After the first two sentences, yes, he appears to be completely uninformed. Arker 22:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Destruction of plants contributes to a lot of the global warmimg. Burning trees releases CO2. Flooding them produces methane. Cutting them down reduces oxygen. Warming the ocean creates methane. Increasng humans, livestock, and garbage/waste add CO2+CH4. There are many indirect ways how people cause global warming. Also, the image seems to show that some areas have cooled slightly. For example, The peninsula of Antarctica near South America has warmed several degrees, while the ice shelf just east of it cooled a few. Is there a reason for this, and will it continue to cool? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 21:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rates and Degrees of Change

Given that CO2 levels are currently about 100ppm above the usual 100ppm rise associated with interglacial periods, and given that temperatures usually drop in the tens of degrees F at night due to radiation losses, and given that volcanic eruptions have caused a 2 degree drop in temperature over a year (no mention of the rate of change, just the duration), why has the 100ppm CO2 change over the past century or so not caused a temperature change equivalent to the normal 8 degree C rise associated with the interglacial period?

I understand ice cap melting and ocean temperature theories, but that does not enter perceptibly into the day to day temperature variations due to radiation. Something else must be causing the temperature change. The heat just escapes faster than the atmosphere can stop it. Tobyw 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All interesting questions, but a Wikipedia talk page is not really the place for a tutorial on energy balances. You might consider looking at an introductory meteorology textbook. The one by Ahrens is reasonably good, and a used copy of the previous edition can be had for US$20 or less. Raymond Arritt 03:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that I've been studying weather a long time. The section on solar sun spot activity was given a very narrow window of solar light. In an earth directed cme (coronal mass ejection) energy is captured by the earth's magnetic field and directed toward earth. The amount of energy is in the trillion of watts. When I was young my father dabbled in ham radio. Even then there was acknowledged that there was a connection between solar activity and the weather.

Sun spot activity and weather are both measurable with historic records. There is an acknowledged relation which works over hundreds of years. For the same reason it is easy to eliminate as a reason for what is happening now. --BozMo talk 10:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The global warming page needs to acknowledge that warming helps out millions of people

particularly russia and canada make out wonderfully from global is really a major boon to them...this page should acknowledge in the intro that warming helps some and hurts others...the only way russia and canada lose out is if the oceans undergoe a massive change in flora/fauna...then everyone might lose out in a serious way...until then tho, russia and canada...encompassing a vast amount of the earths dry surface...receive great benefit from a moderate warming...this page has an american bias in that it makes warming out to be a bad thing for everyone...why...the state of maine even could use a bit of warming...i think we have come to the difficult issue of who on this planet gets to decide what the optimal temperature is??? junior??? we all set out thermostats to his specifications and comfort level???...Benjiwolf 11:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The problem is that rapid environmental change is impossible for ecosystems to cope with so it is almost always destructive. --BozMo talk 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
For me, this is the biggest issue with the current 'consensus'. Kyoto isn't going to achieve any real impact, even if the doom and gloom merchants are right. Surely it would make more sense to spend the $1,000,000,000,000 per annum on habitat protection and new technologies, rather than Kyoto? So long as animals and plants are able to migrate over time, then nature will adapt to any changes in the climate in the same way it always has. Animals that prefer the cold will migrate North, as the Earth heats up. Animals that prefer the warmth will move South, if the planet cools down.
There will always be winners and losers through climate change. The BBC documentary Planet Earth featured some birds that nest on the bare rock of mountains in Antartica. There was fierce competition for a patch of bare rock, because the rest of the mountains were covered in snow. If the Earth warms and the Antartic ice were to melt, these birds would have a larger breeding area and their numbers could increase dramatically. Other species could be pushed to the brink of extinction. Grimerking 12:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that climate change that is too rapid can have cataclysmic effects...and these stem mainly from the changes in the to "destructive"...well that depends on ur was perhaps rapid climate change (in theory caused by various factors) that allowed the mammals to surpass and overtake the reptiles...the global cooling was destructive to the reptiles...yet not for the mammals...cataclysms are both destructive and constructive by their very nature...some benfit and some lose out...iran made out good from the iraq cataclysm...their main rival reduced to ashes...anyways tho, looking at the climate prediction maps...those that should be lobbying for reduced warming would be...brazil!...china & india...australia!!...the american southwest and midwest and south east...all of africa!!! and the middle east!!...canada and russia should be lobbying against reduced warming...many of the northern states in the US should be lobbying against reducing the fact as these states are typically more pro-environment they should just steam out the south which tends to more a half century or so the south could be severely a century and the north wins yet again, even has the south lobbying for its own demise...(financial not lethal, theyd eventually move)...after their property was worthless from hurricances and excessive north really has the south on this'll be very hard to reduce the warming as of several factors...the south is in trouble...if i was a northernor id increase the prices on my property for buyers...its sort of a slow non-violent siege...(as long as the feds bail people out of the hurricanes better) some countries tho, millions will will lose out the most, they dont have the financial resources to escape the warmings impact...we will see millions of successful refugess, yet also millions of many in the american south may continue to lobby for not dealing with the warming as of this later, even tho their property values will be impacted...many in the north may continue to lobby for reducing warming as of the later even tho theyd steam out the south...Benjiwolf 12:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Morally speaking, Benjiwolf's viewpoint is quite disconcerting. If global warming continues or speeds up in this century, it will, through a variety of changing natural phenomena, lead to the deaths of millions of people around the world. Even if we accept the presumption that global warming can have positive effects for some, it's highly insensitive to include the aforementioned comments because they may lead to the perception that global warming is "good" collectively, which it isn't. If five people in your neighborhood win big in lotteries and 100 in your neighborhood die, the latter is a more important event. It's a loss that renders the gain irrelevant, not least because your neighborhood has more or less been wiped out.UberCryxic 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted, but looking in the even longer term, because of the way the continents are laid out, (top heavy in Alaska and Russia) much more land that will be freed up than will be lost (a narrow ridge through Central Africa and Central America being 'lost' vs a much wider swathe through Russia and Alaska being 'gained' + Greenland). Therefore the world will be able to support a much higher population than it currently does - a net gain in lives. So, to run with your analogy, is it acceptable to keep 5 old people in your neighbourhood alive in some sort of half life instead of giving 100 children a full one? Your view could also be seen as morally disconcerting. 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This is pure guess work and original research, therefore not useful for the article. Meanwhile last night on the news there were reports of Pacific Islanders already having to abandon islands because of rising sea levels. --Michael Johnson 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that global warming is good: Warmer summers, colder winters with snow - what more could you want? 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Helps out Russia and Canada, eh? How exactly? Sure, here in Canada we'll have an ice-free shipping route and more room for suburbs, but this is an extremely shortsighted view of things. If you're not worried about malaria, Lyme disease, or displaced animals, perhaps the loss of skiing will change your mind? --Saforrest 21:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The images in the article aren't what they are purported to be

The map of the global temperature anomalies (variation from mean) is said to be based on instrument recordings. This is highly misleading. The articles referenced explain that the maps are, in fact, based on models of expected surface temperature change, and not actual measurements of surface temperature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

as to grimerking and species migration

no..i think ur going to see a further massive loss of species...the warming is too rapid...humans already have the technology to preserve species...thats not the issue...the issue is the humans want greater and greater share of the planet and its resources...the humans will increase their pressure on all the species habitats...and this on top of the warming will really slam them and we'll see a massive extinction fact we already do...we are currently documenting the massive extinction started long ago...the scientific establishment is currently documenting a massive extinction event...if the humans drastically reduced their impact on the environment, and reduced their share of the land and sea areas, perhaps the species could better adapt to the increasing temperatures...who thinks that is going to happen tho???..the species best shot is perhaps reverting the temps to a steady state...Benjiwolf 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we are going to see many more species becoming extinct. However, the root cause of this will not be Global Warming. It will be habitat loss caused by human overpopulation. Just look at the Brazillian Rainforests. They are being destroyed in order to make way for cattle ranches and soya farms. Global Warming is not to blame. Kyoto will not solve these problems. We should be concentrating on habitat preservation, population controls, education. Spending a trillion dollars a year just to slow the rate of warming by seven years (Which is all that Kyoto will do, even if the so-called consensus is correct), is lunacy. The planet and its species face immediate problems today. Global Warming is no more than a distraction from the real problems.Grimerking 10:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

ow this is a heated one

after reading some of the latest discussions on POV in this article...i can see people are quite emotional about this page...i enjoyed the post by lordsreform with the picture of the zurich witch burnings...we indeed went crazy over here in switzerland back in those days 1400s...if u were in the out group...a protestant in a catholic town...or vice were looking at trouble...and it seems to me that if witch burnings were still legal, we would see a slew of people burned at the stake that contribute to this page on both sides of the arguments, by fellow wikipedia users and editors of these pages...anyways...yet i do think "lordsreform" was getting a bit over emotional...(we like to see that on the talk pages tho)...the other authors werent disputing a "peak oil concept"...its obvious and self-evident that oil will eventually run out...i think they were disputing its timing...yet as to governments not being able to curb CO2 emissions...i think u are very wrong...governments can do whatever they wish...they have armies...and nuclear weapons even in many cases...they can do whatever...including reduce CO2 emissions...its just that they might not want to for various reasons...Benjiwolf 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, we've been seeing massive extinction since the beginning of time. Look at the dinos, and other prehistoric animals. You seen a T-rex recently. I know I haven't. Also, this is not entirly our fault (for more on my POV, see my full comment)

--If I can't move Heaven, then I'll raise Hell 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Seleane

Global Warming Disinformation

We may want to work this into the article: White House accused of misleading public on climate-change

Seems to me that global warming is now more politics than science. If you want the truth about global warming listen to the view of the vast majority of experts on global warming, climate scientists. Otherwise, tell yourself that the actions of individual humans can't possibly have an effect on the entire world. Tell yourself that everything is okay and that other people will solve all your problems, no change is required on the part of the individual.

I believe that global warming is a message of hope. Yes, it shows us that we have the power to drastically alter the entire world, but why does this have to be a negative thing? What if we decided tomorrow to slow and eventually stop greenhouse gas emissions? What then? --Calibas 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a sentence or two about the congressional hearing today and the allegations that provided the impetus for it should definitely be mentioned in Wikipedia. I'll do it myself if you or someone else doesn't do it soon. However, this information belongs in the "Politics of global warming" article, not the "Global warming" article. Here's another article on the topic: Panel hears climate 'spin' allegations -- MrRedact 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Climate Change: To act or not?

The public opinions expressed at this BBC news forum may make for some interesting reading (Chrisnumbers2000 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

I believe that vehcles aren't a contributing factor to global warming because if deforestaion persists, less carbon dioxide is used by the plants and trees thus warming up the atmosphere. a few decades ago this problem didn't exist.So in my opinion car makers are wasting their time on 'green cars'

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate alarmism

Just thought it would be worth noting this AfD here -- result was to merge and redirect the article here. The redirect is in place. If anybody wants to see the page history for merging, feel free. Keep up the excellent work, everybody. Luna Santin 08:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There were 2 votes for redirect here; 2 for redir to GWC. I prefer GWC so I've changed it to that William M. Connolley 09:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
A little after the fact, but that sounds fine by me. ;) Definitely an area where being more familiar with the article layout helps. Luna Santin 07:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

FAQ for the Global Warming Talk page

Talk:Global warming/FAQ

needed its own section--Lincoln F. Stern 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Reconciling Peak oil with Global Warming

This is a copy of my initial comments on: peak oil Given the heated nature of debate here, please could anyone wanting to have a reasonable discussion post comments on the peak oil page link

Having read and reread the article and several others on fossil fuel and oil reserves, it seems to me that total fossil fuel use is predicted to reach a peak some time in the first half of this century. Having read many models on global warming almost all are prefaced with a phrase along the lines "if we do nothing then" CO2 output will grow exponentially (usually up till 2100)

The two theories are clearly contradictory

Now I realise that both models have uncertainty, and therefore it will depend on your assumptions which will tend to dominate, but as both seem to cover roughly the same time period and the same subject of fossil energy use, I am perplexed that two such contradictory theories can co-exist without commenting on the other.

I tried to put a short section to link peak oil into this one on global warming Suggested insertion unfortunately, this appears to be some type of heresy and I was attacked quite vitriolicly in a very POV way.

I'm posting this here because I would like to see some debate on the subject, and an attempt on both sides to reconcile their theory with the other.LordsReform 17:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. Similar comments re global dimming

Very well, let's debate the issue before changing the article. LordsReform don't change it for a third time until the discussion is concluded.--Just James 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The problems I have with the section being added are twofold:
- It is misleading in that there is no analysis on the effect of global warming from the burning of fossil fuels on the back side of the bell curve. A casual reader might read the section and say, well come 2010 there will be no more oil, so no more problem, when as we know, this is not the case.
- It is also very crystal ball - we don't know what the response to rising fuel costs will be. They could well include the increased use of tar sands and shale oil, at a greater cost to global warming. So the effect of peak oil could well be detrimental to the global warming problem.
As I say, as it stands LordsReforms proposal reads as if everything will be ok come 2010, when that may be far from the truth. I should add I do thing the section well written, and informative. --Michael Johnson 00:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
And its basic premise is flat-out wrong, i.e., "most predictions of global warming" assume unconstrained use of fossil fuels. Only the A1FI scenario assumes that, and it's specifically labeled as such (the "FI" bit means Fossil-fuel Intensive). All the other scenarios assume societal or economic restrictions on fossil-fuel use. Raymond Arritt 01:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The cited references for the limitation on global warming induced by the Oil/Gas peak (and not Fossil Fuel !) are 1/ a proceeding (preliminary results, not peer reviewed) and 2/ a journalistic paper that relies on an unreferenced source. Actually, it seems that the paper in the New Scientist, in addition to offering counter arguments to the study by Sivertsson, relies on a report written for ... a M.Sc. Project! It is also interesting to note that the link to the thesis in question, on the web page of the scientists group, is broken. This subject would fit perfectly in the Global warming controversy entry. I don't think that two non peer-reviewed preliminary scientific works, based on rather uncertain estimates (i.e. oil/gas reserves), have their place in a general encyclopedic article about the Global Warming. --Galahaad 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposed section is well-written, and well enough referenced as being an existing idea that it no longer counts as just being WP:OR. However, the science behind it (or lack thereof) is too weak, and it's too far outside of the mainstream scientific discussions of global warming, for it to appear as a section in the Global warming article. However, I think it would be OK as either: 1) a section in Global warming controversy with a summary and/or see also link in Peak oil, or 2) a section in Peak oil with a summary and/or see also link in Global warming controversy, or perhaps even 3) a separate article, with summaries and/or see also links in both the Peak oil and Global warming controversy articles. MrRedact 02:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-ordering and improving External links and perhaps adding an "Educational" links section

I am just downloading the free NASA GW Simulator from for PC/Mac etc. I am shocked that it doesnt seem to be in the links anywhere and I think they are a mess anyway. I can only suggest breaking up and reordering the link somewhat and I am going to add this one. I suggest adding an "Educational" section where this could go along with anything I guess clearly related for schools, undergrads, uni etc. - there are some lecture notes there I noticed. Any comments? Mattjs 14:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Think I will do it add my link and come back and move some of them later or let some editor sort it out (got a feeling the editors here are going to be real polite to a non-vandal non-controversial supportive poster like me! :-) Mattjs 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The ext links here tend to get into a mess, and to bloat. If you want to try sorting them out, that sounds good. William M. Connolley 14:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a style guide for it? Might be the first one I actiually read! I'll read any guide there may be and have a go at reading through them then sorting them out on a lazy Sunday. Aside from ordering and grouping like the new heading suggested above some have hyphnes, some not, some start with the link and some start with the author first rather than after... Could have a Video section for videos and Software instead of Educational though I can see a few good ones to go under Educational Mattjs 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I found the style guide. Mattjs 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits

Global warming is a more specific case of 'global climate change', not 'climate change' as global climate change refers to the change in average climate of the world as does global warming, where as climate change would normally refer to a localised climate change and its analog would thus be warming. BBC uses the term global climate change. (Bouncingmolar 07:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

I am more than a bit unhappy about a 2003 new scientist article being used as a basis for "experts disagree" (its old and a couple of people presenting a paper isn't big hitter league) and also about the readdition of the reference to peak oil. The Peak Oil article specifically discusses a theory which is limited (according to the text of that article) to easily recoverable oil by a single technology. When you start adding extraction techniques and sources like tar sands, gas etc the available supply becomes asymetric and outside the scope of the peak oil article. I DO think there is scope for writing an article on "depletion of global fossil fuel" or similar but it isn't the peak oil article. As it stands the article link isn't appropriate. I am very tempted to revert these changes but thought I would ask around for other views first? --BozMo talk 14:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Again, some people should really learn a little bit what is a (scientific) reliable source. The entry here, 'Global Warming', is first of all a scientifc subject (despite the critical political and societal implications). It needs scientifically recognized references, at least as long as the science is discussed. A conference proceeding and a journalistic article in the New Scientists, relying on a student report, are of very little scientific value for a mainstream article designed for an encyclopedia (even if they could fit in a dedicated 'controversies' list, and are probably of interest for future advanced research (though it is clear it is already considered in some ways...)). I am surprised that a scientist can't even see this evidence! Moreover, it would be good to pay more attention to the subtilities of these papers (something I am sure an expert in the renewable energy problem will be able to do ;-) ): only conventionnal reserves are considered, and the problem of coal is ignored ! This clearly limit the range of these studies ... --Galahaad 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
FWIW there is a view on 2050 total hydrocarbon published by Shell in 2001 here: [6]. Shell assumes that people make changes influenced by climate change. The conclusions are (1) affordability of energy will not curtail consumption (2) oil production starts declining around 2040 (3) there is 15000 EJ (central estimate, wide range) conventional gas and "perhaps" 13000 EJ unconventional gas. Note 1bn bbl oil = 5.8 EJ. It is worth a read: they assume CO2 production will peak but in line with IPCC forecasts as far as I can see. --BozMo talk 15:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that supporters of the peak oil view such as Matthew Simmons dispute views such as this. And argue that oil etc reserves have been overeported for political reasons, and are in fact much closer to depletion than many would believe. G-Man * 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I know, and I understand that in Wikipedia this alternative view needs to be given appropriate space. Personally I am never going to be convinced: I used to work near the top of Shell, knew the people who produced the numbers and think that the suggestion is ridiculous. If there was any bias IMHO it was a bias toward sensational (i.e. low reserves because it is more of a problem). This bias is the same as the natural bias of Simmons just to a lesser degree. "Proven reserves" of course was a completely different matter: there are plenty of well pumping plenty of oil where there is zero proven reserve. --BozMo talk 21:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
BozMo, I was very heartened by your comments. My aim is, an has always been, to get a link between the two articles so that a reader is made aware that the two issues are related, and which allows them to follow the link and view the evidence for themselves and make up their own mind. I've tried various approaches, a separate section, a simple sentence at the point where future predictions are made, but none (so far) seem to be acceptable. Scientific common sense tells me that the ultimate extend of global warming must be funamentally limited in all models by fossil fuel availability. As my personal belief is that politicians are simply incapable of bringing in the kind of policies necessary to significantly reduce CO2, I would really like to know what this means the world has in store for my children - a very simple question this article currently fails to answerLordsReform 00:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said on the Peak Oil talk page I vote we write a separate article on the depletion of the world's hydrocarbon reserves and keep the peak oil one for the life of a field type discussion. Then I think the relationship with this article is then much more appropriate. As this article keeps saying more than 50% of current greenhouse gas comes from coal which was burnt anyway and the discussion cannot be limited to oil. --BozMo talk 08:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
BozMo - I agree in principle, but I'd worry it might become speculative - and it might be taking all the uncertainties of global warming adding them to all the uncertainties of peak oil! Thinking aloud - there are 1. Known reserves, 2. predicted reserves 3. recoverable reserves 4. "enerconic" reserves (economic of energy). There is the issue as to where the oil is (65% in middle East). There is the topic of how the change from one fuel type to another will impact on CO2 output (oil->coal), there is the issue of the linkage between energy use and the global economy, there is the topic of economics of consumption - I'm sure there will be studies predicting how prices will vary due to price elasticity of demand with supply constriction. There is the issue of new technology making more oil/coal recoverable. There is the question as to whether fuels such as coal tars and methane hydrates are recoverable and what about those moons with substantial organic reserves? You might also go into the likely increase in temperature as fossil fuel use declines due to decrease in global dimming .... Ok, there's enough for an article even if half the above can't be sourced! LordsReform 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've found this article Bridging the gap between peak oil and global warming activism which is probably worth reading for all involved. G-Man * 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
G-Man, that is a superb article - well worth reading by anyone following this discussion. It only highlights the problem of creating a single article combining the two approaches. From what the article said it appears that there are two camps which could roughly termed: "half empty and half full". Depending of the "belief" of those involved the assumptions create different predictions. This isn't a very good basis for a Wikipedia page. it does however show three separate articles giving credence to an alternative view to the mainstream global warming assumption that global warming will not be limited by fossil fuel scarcity and though I say it again, the article does need to make readers aware of this other view else it fails WP:NPOV88.111.194.147 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a scientist?

The definition of scientist is way overdue for clarification. The term is used ridiculously throughout the media and textbooks in blind appeals for authority, as low as high school locker room lingo. That it is also used blindly in these articles brings the term encyclopedia nearly as low as tabloid. What are the necessary and/or sufficient conditions for somebody to be regarded as a "scientist" in these articles? That they (1) declare themselves to be scientists, (2) are declared to be scientists by Robin Williams, (3) are even remotely associated with some given field of science, (4) have a PhD in psychology, (5) have a PhD in astrogeophysics, (6) have a high school diploma, (7) teach grade school science, (8) know somebody that's learned something in grade school science, (9) have published at least five articles in Nature magazine, (10) have presented papers at the NSF at least every year of the last five, (11) be a professor who pulls in a minimum of US$1M of grants per year for any field of research, (12) have a mail-order PhD in an Applied Science but not a Pure Science, (13) have card carrying membership in both the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association, (14) hold Al Gore in high esteem...Does anyone know what they are talking about? 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You forgot 15) People who are bought by ExxonMobil and the American Enterprise Institute at the current going price of US$10,000 each (plus travel expenses, of course) [7].
Atlant 16:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Same problem is repeated when articles refer to experts or top scientists. This lowly trend of journalism would be incredibly laughable if it were not so sad and widespread. My bribed scientists are better and far more numerous than your bribed scientists...and make no mistake, this is an encyclopedia article...brought to you by US Public Education and sponsored by an incredibly stupid, gullible public... cough cough choke192.91.171.42 22:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

true global warming kept secret by world govts.The culprit is THE SUN

i am surprised that in the other caused of global warming the sun isn't mentioned.All the reports that have come out are a warming is happening because of the sun. here are some articles

Also in a conspiracy website and discovered this excellent article

Its no doubt that global warming is caused by the sun which is getting hotter.The powers that be don't want the public to know this cuz if they know then there would be mass paninc as it is beyond human control.

Don't expect an answer to this. Its an old story discussed in detail in all the proper reviews --BozMo talk 09:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Those sources do seem quite believable, and even the conspiracy site has sources and external links. However, about 75% of global warming is likely still caused, directly or indirectly, by humans. If the government wanted to keep it secret, why would there be so many websites that disscuss ths issue? If there is any panic, it would be due to misunderstanding, and the issue is mostly already out of our hands, because most people can't afford to give up their economy which contributes to this. Even if a large portion of it was because of the sun, it would likely be tempoary. Species have already gone extinct, and many things are already irreversible. We can't really add this to the article beause we still don't know what amount of it is caused by the sun, because it isn't 110% verifible, and because most people have agreed on consensus that global warming is likely mostly caused by humans, and it should be cited as such, unless if we're to do another consensus. I hope this helps. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is less a the goverments keeping it a secret and more the media ignoring it. The earth being warmed by the sun is not a story but a story on global warming is a gold mine, people believe what they read in so called reliable sources but at the end of the day all these sources want is money. Just goes to show how the media has total control over the world. Another example of this is the "Killer Bees" stories that came out in the 90s and the Avian flu and west nile virus stories that came out recently, not to say these are not things to look into, but the media blows them way out of proportion.Tdgeorge25 07:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Get Used to it

Consider the most ambitious program I have seen for reduction of greenhouse emissions, described in the article Mitigation_of_global_warming, a proposal by "Pacala and Socolow of Princeton" that requires the following measures (or their equivalents) to be globally effectuated:

  • Replace at least half of all coal fired generators with nuclear or natural gas
  • Increase the efficiency of coal powered generation by 50% (from .4 to .6)
  • Double the fuel efficiency and/or halve the aggregate usage of the worldwide fleet of diesel and gasoline powered vehicles
  • Derive half of all diesel, gasoline and home heating oils from coal synfuels, which are cleaner burning than coal
  • Essentially all other future energy development to come directly or indirectly from solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biomass, etc

Personally, I think that is a great program. No fueling :) But it has as much chance of being implemented as a snowball in Hell.

And the punch line is, that after all of that, according to the projections of the proposal's authors, emissions would be reduced by only 1 billion metric tons (a reduction of 20 percent from current levels). That is, a stabilization at 1990 levels. That would delay, but, ultimately not prevent the effects of global warming.

In light of the above, "solutions" such as the Kyoto Protocol are just beaureaucratic masturbation - they are unimplementable. Even if they were not, the numbers don't add up: the goal of Kyoto is to return global emissions to 1990 levels by reducing emissions in Annex 1 countries an average of 6 percent. Do the math: taken together with the increased emissions from non-Annex 1 countries that doesn't give 1990, that gives 2002. Talk about futility!

Get used to it. CarlSpalletta 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The authors never pretended that it would be the ultimate solution. They gave a practical 'shopping list' of 15 concrete options (in which 7 could be picked by any gvt willing to stabalize their emissions) as a first step, with the technology and means currently available! They obviously conclude that further technology development will be required in the mid/long term ... They are those who think and propose, even relatively modest steps, and those who whine and say 'I tell you it's impossible to fly...!'--Galahaad 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not whining. That implies asking for redress or complaining. I think the program is a good first step, but I don't see the slightest interest in it at a political level - is there even one country in the world, bigger than, say, Kiribati, out front pushing this? And if the world can not even take this "first step", how will it get to steps 2, 3 and 4? I allowed for the smorgasbord nature of the proposal by only describing about half of the options, together with the caveat "or their equivalents".

Global warming is here to stay, and while there is no excuse for not acting to reduce the pace of it's onset, there is equally no excuse for evading practical steps for mitigation of it's effects, which can and should be planned for, today.

Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes. CarlSpalletta 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the objective of this paper (and beyond, of all the similar studies around the globe we don't necessarly hear about) is to make the bridge between a 'beaureaucratic masturbation' and concrete and effective action. In other words to make the treaty 'implementable', by means of the current knowledge and technologies. Instead of being a source for despair, I see it as a very optimistic information: even if Kyoto will have a limited impact, it is at least something that can be technically achieved if only one have the political and economical will. Kyoto is not only about making big promises and 'politically correct' commitments that are impossible to fulfill, it CAN be implemented and it's a test of our capacity to get commited on the long run. The next steps will probably be more difficult ...--Galahaad 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Slight correction

If this article is about global warming, it must admit that to use a literal-and scientific- definition of global warming is more proper. Thus, global warming is a phenomena, regardless of whether it is happening now or not, and should be described as such. It is "an observed increase", not "the observed increase". Global warming has happened before, during the thawing after the Ice Ages for example, thus it is a phenomena that has happened before and can not be used to describe only the current warming. 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In the scientific literature, it is regularly referred to 'Global Warming' when speaking about the recent increase in temperature. I guess the term is unambiguous and I am not convinced that it has been widely used in other contexts (i.e. for T variations at other periods, probably because of the different scales involved). I think this should be discussed before being making any change (which is too late anyway, I may revert it later ...) --Galahaad 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You're absolutely right on common usage of the term -- not to mention the context of the article itself. Done. Raymond Arritt 23:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to be very literal about the term global warming should we mention that it happens every year? I like to call it spring. --Calibas 01:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Spring only warms half the globe. (Actually less than half - spring does not occur in the tropics.) --Michael Johnson 01:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, spring does occur in the Tropics. The definition of the tropics is that the sun will be 'directly overhead' at some point in the year. Therefore, the Northern limit (Tropic of Cancer) has the sun directly overhead at noon on the Northern summer solstice. The Southern limit of the tropics (Tropic of Capricorn) will have the sun directly overhead at noon on the Southern summer solstice. The tropics do have seasons, they are just less pronounced than those further North or South.
I used to live in Southern Taiwan, which is just within the Tropic of Cancer. There was a definite winter (relatively cold) and summer (unbearably hot). Between winter and summer was a period of gradual warming - i.e. 'spring'. Some trees even lost their leaves as it cooled in autumn (‘fall').Grimerking 11:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes Galahaad, science literature does regularly refer to "Global Warming" when speaking about the "recent" increase in temperature. But that doesn't change the fact that "Global Warming" also may refer to a much broader historical trend. I personally came to this page searching for more historical Global Warming information, but it simply is not here. Even in the Geological Soc of America's Position Statement on Global Climate Change states that "The current nature and magnitude of global climate change should be evaluated in the context of Earth’s full geologic record." Global warming is NOT just a recent activity. Bryanpeterson 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Monckton's analysis of 4AR

Lord Monckton has a very readable analysis. Here are some excerpts:

FIGURES in the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.
Also, the UN, in its 2007 report, has more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. It suggests that the rate of sea-level rise is up from 2mm/yr to 3mm/year – no more than one foot in a century.
UN scientists faced several problems their computer models had not predicted. Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast. Concentrations of methane in the air are actually falling.
The Summary for Policymakers was issued February 2, 2007, but the report on which the Summary is based will not be published until May. This strange separation of the publication dates has raised in some minds the possibility that the Summary (written by political representatives of governments) will be taken as a basis for altering the science chapters (written by scientists, and supposedly finalized and closed in December 2006).
The draft of the science chapters, now being circulated to governments for last-minute comments, reveals that the tendency of computers to over-predict rises in temperature and sea level has forced a major rethink.
The report’s generally more cautiously-expressed projections confirm scientists’ warnings that the UN’s heavy reliance on computer models had exaggerated the temperature effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.

You can read the full report here. [8] RonCram 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Monkton was the guy who tried to convince us that the Viking settlers in Greenland were freezing under a layer of permafrost at the same time the Chinese were sailing around an ice-free Artic Ocean. See my comments above Talk:Global_warming#Attempt_to_Gauge_Consensus. Not a reliable source. --Michael Johnson 01:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No.... That is a lie you've created to discredit the article. He claims that Viking settlements that are emerging from the permafrost were actually thriving communities during the Medieval Warm Period (1000AD to 1400AD). He claims that the ice encroached on their settlements during the mini-ice age (fifteenth century) and this is what caused the settlements to be abandoned. He also cites a Chinese expedition (1421AD) that supposedly sailed to the North Pole and found no ice. Given that winters in France are far colder than the UK (less than 50km away), do you not think it is possible that the Bering Straits may have been warmer than Greenland (thousands of kilometres away)?Grimerking 11:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ummm...the two renditions (modulo sloppy language) sound fairly similar, given that 1421 is in the 15th century (when the Viking settlements were "abandoned"). The Chinese expedition is pure fantasy, of course. And no, Marseilles does not have colder Winters than Aberdeen (but then, they aren't 50 km apart, either). Dover and Calais are about 50 km apart, but then they do have very similar climates...--Stephan Schulz 12:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, just for the record, the Norse settlements in Greenland were never under ice or permafrost. See Talk:Global_warming/FAQ#5._It_was_obviously_much_warmer_when_the_Norse_settled_Greenland for maps of the Norse settlements and satellite photos of the areas showing they are, in fact, very green and very much not under ice. If you want more then try photos of the Gardar ruins: [9] [10], and the Brattahlid ruins [11] [12]:, Hvalsey church: [13], and Sandnes Farm: [14]. I think, rather, that it is a lie to say these settlements are "emerging from the permafrost". -- Leland McInnes 14:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent analysis if you want an extreme right wing view of the report. Yes, the original predictions were off but for some reason most climate scientists are still recommending we curb greenhouse gas emissions very soon. They aren't saying it's all gloom and doom, we still have time to stop this... --Calibas 01:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Monckton as you would expect, seems to be talking nonsense. He sez The UN’s 2001 report showed that our greenhouse-gas emissions since 1750 had caused a “radiative forcing” of 2.43 watts per square metre. Our other effects on climate were shown as broadly self-cancelling. In the current draft, the UN has cut its estimate of our net effect on climate by more than a third, to 1.6 watts per square metre. This is wrong: the SPM shows CO2 at 1.66, other GHG at 1, total 2.66 which is *larger* than the 2001 value not a *cut*. M appears to have confused the 1.6 at the bottom of the total net effect with the GHG contribution. His sea level analysis is wrong too: he is confusing 2001 top-of-range with 2007 mid-range: as the SPM sez: For each scenario, the midpoint of the range in Table SPM-2 is within 10% of the TAR model average for 2090-2099.. Looks like M hasn't got any better at this stuff William M. Connolley 15:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Graph update with new IPCC report

Are images like Image:IPCC Radiative Forcings.png being updated from the IPCC 2001 report to the 2007 report? I'm not sure about which other images can be updated also. —AySz88\^-^ 04:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

An updated image using data from the 2007 report is at Image:Radiative-forcings.svg, and has been substituted in on the Global warming page. -- Leland McInnes 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Likely or Very Likely

The new IPCC report says that humans are a "very likely cause"(90%) this article should be updated accordingly

Don't fall for this so quickly. If this is the statistical 90% then we need the standard deviation to know what 90% is 90% of. Is this 90% with +-.0001 or 90% with +-10.0. Big difference - and also +- from what estimate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
It is not, and it also is not 90%, but >90% (and, implicitely, <= 99%). See the relevant IPCC document explaining how they handle and express uncertainties.--Stephan Schulz 18:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
That document is clearly the most accurate description of the terms used in the IPCC report, however it should be noted that, per the document, "The categories defined in this table should be considered as having ‘fuzzy’ boundaries" and accordingly the language used is not meant to be taken as an exact description of the author's assessment of probabilities. Mike wiki 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the relevant section, 14. Likelihood, the definition seems a little unclear becuase in once sentance, it says "The categories defined in this table should be considered as having ‘fuzzy’ boundaries." but the next sentance says "Use other probability ranges where more appropriate but do not then use the terminology in table 4." which presumably means, use your discretion to decide when these terms, which have fuzzy boundaries, should be used. In conclusion, the terminology used to describe an event as "Very Likely" is defined by table 4, which is explained to have fuzzy boundaries. Mike wiki 09:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Warming and solar variation

  • When the sun gets dimmer, the Earth gets cooler; when the sun gets brighter, the Earth gets hotter. So important is the sun in climate change that half of the 1.5° F temperature increase since 1850 is directly attributable to changes in the sun. According to NASA scientists David Lind and Judith Lean, only one-quarter of a degree can be ascribed to other causes, such as greenhouse gases, through which human activities can theoretically exert some influence. [15]

Does anyone have the journal article this John Carlisle quote is citing? --Uncle Ed 03:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find it. Given the number of errors in Carlisle's article it could be a misquote, or simply made up out of thin air. You could email Lean and ask her if it rings a bell (I won't post her email address here, but it's easy enough to find). Raymond Arritt 04:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
And how about Harvard scientist Sallie Baliunas? She said,
  • Over the past half-century, the sun has become very active, and the sun is more active than it has been for 400 years. Therefore, the sun is likely at its brightest in 400 years.
  • The ups and downs of each record match fairly well. The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change. For example, a strong warming in the late 19th century, continuing in the early 20th century, up to the 1940s, seems to follow the sun's energy output changes fairly well.
  • The mid-20th century cooling, and some of the latter 20th century warming also seem matched to changes in the sun. [16]
If we can't find the journal article, do these quotes have to go in Global warming controversy instead of global warming? --Uncle Ed 04:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Her arguments already are mentioned in List of scientists opposing global warming consensus and she has her own article. Raymond Arritt 04:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I strongly suspect the first quote is meant to reference Lean and Rind, rather than Lind. His numbers might be based on [17], where they say "Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.558C surface warming since 1900 and one-third of the warming since 1970." However, one of the points they are trying to make is that anthropogenic effects have become more important than solar ones for explaining the most recent changes, so Carlisle is clearly spinning their work in a different direction. Dragons flight 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, of course Rind, not Lind. Apologies for not catching that one. Raymond Arritt 04:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Mars bit is amusing. We have decades of scientific data, research and analysis indicating clearly that the earth is warming from greenhouse gases, but some are not convinced. We have observed, for 3 martian years (6-ish earth years), the receding of ice in a single region of mars. The Martian climate is dramatically different from our own, and in no way does a short polar trend on a planet with a fairly volatile climate indicate that the entirety of Mars is warming. Yet some assert that there must be Martian Global Warming, and that it is caused by changes in average solar activity, which we know have not occurred in at least 30 years, and probably more. Mishlai 04:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to present what people are saying in a way that is encyclopedic. It doesn't necessarily have to be true, and it doesn't necessarily have to be something you agree with. After all, Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Keep in mind this quote, "It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelise your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it." ~ UBeR 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
And how many verifiable papers you got discussing martian global warming? The Web of Science doesn't seem to have any. Dragons flight 04:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I should be more clear. The two articles cited are not peer-reviewed journals, and are not even citing an informally published paper or study. This is pure speculation published in the media. The source is not credible. The 1st article does not even mention solar activity, nor assert that global warming on mars is happening, but that "One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," Indeed, the article writer makes stronger statements with his headline than Feldman ever makes in the content of the article. The recent edit reflects this.
For the 2nd popular article cited, it claims that the CO2 is coming from heating of the oceans. It is not disputed that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels, which IMO qualifies his opinion for "tiny minority" as NPOV uses the term. It is also well understood that the oceans have absorbed CO2, and not emitted it. He refers, I assume, to the stratification of the ocean layers as sea surface temperatures rise - this will indeed reduce the oceans ability to absorb CO2, but his assertion is that this effect has actually caused "the great volume of C02 emissions." He then goes onto to attack the notion that the greenhouse effect even exists. This is also not in dispute. It is widely understood that the earth would be an ice-ball without the greenhouse effect. Under discussion is not whether this effect exists but whether we are experiencing too much of a good thing, so to speak.
I understand that wikipedia is not about truth, but about representing the major and significant minor points of view. His is not a significant minor point of view. This is new, speculative nonsense (and I am not casting these terms about lightly) which is why it is not credibly published. This Russian scientist -Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov - is the very definition of a non-credible source. His viewpoint isn't even convincing psuedo-science, and I don't believe it belongs in an encyclopedia entry. Mishlai 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion started before it was deleted, and I believe it should have been started before something that shaky was added. Please see In my view this is not a scholarly source; it fails on several points for non-scholary sources, and it is an exceptional claim requiring "exceptional sources." His hypothesis requires the trashing of two unchallenged scientific viewpoints - that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, and that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 levels. This guy is fringe. "It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge." Mishlai 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Questionable line of text in causes section

I'm new to this wiki thing, but I'm trying to help here.

In the "causes" section of the article the statement is made "Outside the scientific community, however, this conclusion [greenhouse gases are the sole cause of global warming] can be controversial."

The sentence implies that every scientist agrees with that viewpoint, when the "consensus" on global warming referenced in the FAQ section is from only the UN's group of climate change scientists.

The sentence also implies that anyone who disagrees with that statement is not a scientist. If the statement were to be accurate it should state that "according to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming."

I edited it once and the change was undone by an admin, that's the only reason I'm putting this here.

Atshields0 13:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You should be aware this is a common bone of contention. Reading the sci opp on gw; or reviewing the discussion here; should explain William M. Connolley 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Atshields0, there are multiple misunderstandings here.
  • First, it is a statement of what happens outside the scientific community. It says nothing about what happens inside.
  • Secondly, a consensus does not have to be unanimous.
  • Thirdly, the IPCC scientists are not "the UN's group of climate change scientists" in any meaningful way, but a large group (2500 or so, IIRC) of leading experts all employed by individual institutions (including e.g. NASA, various universities and research institutes, and so on), which are not dependent on the UN and receive no direct renummeration from the IPCC. Very many of them are fully tenured and hence very effectively isolated from any personal pressure. They voluntarily contribute to the the reports as part of their normal academic work.
  • Fourthly, as e.g. Oreskes work shows, this consensus extends beyond the IPCC into a large part of the scientific literature.
--Stephan Schulz 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize this wiki had so much weight behind it. It would take me a week of reading just to catch up.

On a side note: I was reading into Wikipedia's mission and history and saw that it's based in St. Pete, 15 miles from my house! I'm a computer science major soon to transfer to USF and I'd love to volunteer some time. I was going to work for the local elections office but helping the Wikipedia project would be incredible!

Does anyone know if they accept local volunteers?

Atshields0 04:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Predicting CO2 emissions

Given the recent concensus that manmade CO2 is causing CO2, this article is in urgent need of a rewrite!

As an article there is a lot about the model of global warming, there is a very clear assertion that CO2 is caused by fossil fuel use, yet there is almost nothing about the predictions of fossil fuel use except in the first paragraph where it says: "The uncertainty in this range results from both the difficulty of predicting the volume of future greenhouse gas emissions."

I may be wrong, but I thought the purpose of the first paragraph was to summarise the article, not to make an assertion which is not referred to again. As predictions of fossil fuel use are stated as being equal in weight to the variability of the model, it is quite clear that this issue should have an equal weight in the article to avoid failing WP:NPOV.

  • Words giving information on climate model: >564 words
  • Words giving information on fossil fuel predictions: ZERO!

or, are we still denying that burning fossil fuels causes global warming? LordsReform 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit in the section greenhouse gases in the atmosphere... perhaps too little, but the article is long... --BozMo talk 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If they are useful somewhere, I've made a variety of plots addressing emissions scenarios: [18]. Dragons flight 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

BozMo - Great! They are clearly useful. As for the length of the article, perhaps it is time to break it apart into different constituents:

  • Global warming (overview)
    • Global warming as an issue - history and information on political actions such as kyoto
    • Global warming - science
    • Global warming predictions
      • Climate models
      • Fossil fuel predictions
      • Other greenhouse gas predictions
    • Global warming mitigation - actions being considered to reduce global warming

LordsReform 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordsReform (talkcontribs) 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

NPOV tag

I have added the NPOV tag because of the following reasons:

  • There is strong evidence that the earth's temperature fluctuates up and down on a 1500 year cicle. This is supported by many peer reviewed studies of arctic ice cores, stalactites, etc. (see Unstopable Global Warming by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery)
  • The entire hypotethis that the warming is man-made, is based on computer predictions; however, the computer models used in the predictions, have not been proven accurate.

There is much more evidence than this, pointing to a natural rise in temperature, due to variation in the sun's output, and not due to CO2 concentration. It is therefore highly POV to state in the intro, that the warming is due to CO2, likely to continue rising. -- Dullfig 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion on the talk page. I have taken the liberty of removing the tag from the article, since this has been discussed many times in the past. There is substantial scientific consensus on climate change, including the most recent IPCC report which stated the Earth is warming, and that warming is anthropogenic. See Scientific opinion on climate change. The Wikipedia page should reflect the scientific consensus on the matter; the opinions of the handful of (well-funded and well-publicized) opponents of the global warming consensus are covered in the other hypotheses section, but giving them more space is undue weight given the magnitude of the opposition. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 20:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
To add further to this opinion: A non-peer reviewed pop-"sci" book by arch-denier Singer is not "strong evidence" on any scale, much less in this well-referenced article. The rest of of Dullfig's claims is completely unsourced. And we don't state "that the warming is due to CO2", we state that the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "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", with further explanation at scientific opinion on climate change and attribution of recent climate change, and an attribution of this statement to the most recent IPCC report. --Stephan Schulz 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Which is precisely why Wikipedia endorses the logical fallacy of appealing to authority, and always will. ~ UBeR 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Then you do not understand what an appeal to authority is. An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. The IPCC reports are extremely well supported (by virtually all the evidence, both observational and model-based). Therefore, using it as the basis for this article is not an appeal to authority. I hope this has been enlightening. Raul654 21:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, you are very good at copying and pasting from Wikipedia. If you went on to read at all, it is a form in which propositional knowledge is gained, but still remains a logical fallacy. The notion of truth, for Wikipedia, is derived from validity of authors (sources rather), ergo argumentum ad verecundiam. Conversely, to deny the notion of one finding based on the person (e.g., Singer & Avery) is is to commit argumentum ad hominem. ~ UBeR 21:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia, is, by definition, a tertiary source, and strives for verifiability, not truth and eschews original research. That's not an "appeal to authority", it's recognizing the hybris of assuming that amateur editors can validly overturn the work of the scientific community. --Stephan Schulz 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
My impression is that the word 'consensus' creates a lot of confusion, people tending to take it as an absolute, an unanimity. Maybe using an expression like 'a large consensus' or 'a substantial scientific consensus' as TeaDrinker refered to, would make the sentence not so 'apparently' biased. As for getting into details for the other scientific hypothesis for global warming (Solar activity, ...), considering that they don't appear to have even a small fraction of the amount of evidence that the man-induced Co2 hypothesis has, I see no reason to go into details in the article at the present time. --Galahaad 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
How about - no, for the same reasons discussed ad infinitum already. Raul654 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may indeed be about reporting on the concensus, but science itself has never been about concensus. There used to be wide concensus on the existence of the Luminiferous aether. Science is not about concensus, it is about the truth. The truth is not arrived at by polling a certain number of scientist. The article does acknowledge that there may be other explanations for the warming, so why is so much weight given to the IPCC's position? And is it not at all possible that the IPCC may have political reasons for taking the position that warming is man-made? The earth has been much warmer than today in the past, for example during the Roman empire. When the Vikings found Greenland in the Middle Ages, it was warm enough to plant crops and sustain a colony. So exactly why does it have to be man made this time arround? The question is not accademic, as the IPCC seeks to fundamentally change the way we use fosil fuels. Treaties like Kyoto would probably destroy the economy of countries like the US, while exempting third world countries. That is a very big price to pay, to then find out it didn't really matter. The article gives way to much weight to the greenhouse gases explanation, as if it where a done deal. I think the article should just stick to the facts in the intro: that the earth is warming (I never said it wasn't), and that there are several explanations for this, and then go on to present all the different theories, and let the reader make up his mind. -- Dullfig 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, science is not about truth, it's about best guess, especially when talking about predictions (even if the best guess involve some kind of truth, or I would say honnesty). Most of the alternative theories rely on simple correlation between signals: that's much less evidence than what has been demonstrated with the man-made CO2 hypothesis. So until now, science's best guess is that most of the warming is coming from anthropogenic CO2 and that T will continue to rise. As for the IPCC having politicial motivations, that according to you seem to be a kind of world conspiracy against the US and its prosperity (because of jealousy, most certainly), to be scientific I wouldn't say that 'it's not at all possible', but it's very unlikely ... ( ;- ) --Galahaad 23:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
To return to the start of your note: Wikipedia is indeed about reporting the consensus from a NPOV. You might as well include no science at all anywhere in Wikipedia and leave the reader to make up their own mind between alchemy and chemistry. --BozMo talk 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If you're interested in why its man-made, then you should follow the pointers to attribution of climate change and read the research listed there. If you're interested in Roman or MWP, then you want temperature record of the past 1000 years. The IPCC gets a lot of weight because it summarises a lot of papers. Just turning up and sticking on an NPOV tag will win you no friends. The old "give all views equal weight" idea won't do, because not all views have equal credibility. The wiki page should reflect the state of the research: which is summarised by the IPCC. Note that your The truth is not arrived at by polling a certain number of scientist is a confusion: AFAIK IPCC doesn't work by voting. Though if you're interested in that then you may want sci op on cl ch William M. Connolley 23:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Also see Talk:Global warming/FAQ#It_was_obviously_much_warmer_when_the_Norse_settled_Greenland. And you do now that the IPCC reports are prepared by a voluntary group of thousands of independent scientists, not by anybody employed by the UN or IPCC, right? --Stephan Schulz 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
And they couldn't possibly have an agenda, right? remember in the seventies how the general concensus was that we where headed for global cooling? why was that concensus wrong, but this one must be right? -- Dullfig 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you cite some scientific references showing the consensus toward a global cooling please? --Galahaad 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Just go look in your own backyard. ~ UBeR 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, exactly what I remembered about the topic:
Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[8]). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports.
Global cooling has never been a scientific consensus, it just was a popular press myth ... And this argument is used again and again by the skeptics as an example of the unreliability of the current scientific consensus about the warming. I don't know if people can't hear what they are told (again and again), or if it is a sad deliberate attempt to induce and perpetuate confusion and doubt ... :-( --Galahaad 23:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If you ever have the time, read this! ~ UBeR 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"And they couldn't possibly have an agenda, right?"...lot's of things are "possible". It is, however, highly implausible that thousands of highly respected, mostly independent scientists, many tenured (i.e. unfireable), from all over the world, would conspire to somehow create a bogus report. What is the motivation? And what is the mechanism? Do they all get instructed by the guy from Albania, or is it more like chinese whispers, where one tells the next in alphabetic order? --Stephan Schulz 23:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ad-hominem attacks don't make you right. Just to give an example, millions of democrats arrive at a concensus every year, without getting instructed by no one. To assert that scientists are impartial observers, not swayed by political considerations, is ridiculous. -- Dullfig 23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Where do you see an Ad-hominem attack? By whom? Against which person? --Stephan Schulz 00:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I did sort of mention it in my earlier reply about Wikipedia's fallacies above (in this same topic). I do not know if this is the same thing Dullfig is talking about, however. ~ UBeR 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"You're wrong, science is not about truth, it's about best guess, especially when talking about predictions (even if the best guess involve some kind of truth, or I would say honnesty)."; I thought science was about observing a phenomena, making a hypothesis, then using it to make a prediction, then testing that hypothesis to see if it holds up. But nowhere does guessing play apart (well, I suppose you guess at an answer and sometimes your guess is pretty good). But science should be about truth and absolute truth at that. Just my two cents. (Oh, and I'm skeptical that making huge and expensive changes tomorrow will have a significant impact on any warming trend, so I'm reluctant to get behind the kyoto protocols.)

Talk:Global warming FAQ?

Hi everyone! To me it seems that same demands, suggestions, and arguments are presented on this page over, over and over again. How about a FAQ page for Talk:Global warming? It could gather summaries of past discussions under topics (instead of dates) and provide links to the entire discussions. While perhaps somewhat taxing to execute (though once done it would be relatively easy to maintain), this would relieve the page from having to answer the same questions and accusations for the trillionth time, leaving more room and space for discussion that has actual potential to improve the page. (And by the way, a huge personal thanks to everyone working on this article, you're doing a great, important job! Keep it up!) –Zinjixmaggir 22:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

...and of course I missed the fact that such a page already exists – though 1) it isn't linked to in the top of the page and 2) it doesn't provide links to talk page discussions. –Zinjixmaggir 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of the "same demands, suggestions, and arguments" come from people attempting to promote a point of view contradictory to the current state of scientific knowledge on this topic. Since they're already aware that the scientific evidence is not in their favor, I doubt the existence of a FAQ will stop them (or that they will even read it). Raymond Arritt 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced all these people truly understand (or accept) the accurate meaning of "scientific knowledge", "scientific evidence", "consensus", IPCC or even "science". Some might, you're right. I'm not saying what I suggested would stop everyone from re-writing what has been already said, but it could help. Would a link to the FAQ on top of the page hurt so much? :) –Zinjixmaggir 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:BOLD it there ;-). --Stephan Schulz 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, the scientific evidence is far from conclusive. All we can say with certainty is that the earth is warmer, and that there is more CO2 in the air. What other evidence are you aware of? Computer models are not evidence, they are predictions based on theories. If the theories are wrong, so will the predictions.
Umm....what about the well-knows absorbtion behaviour of greenhouse gases? Easily and repeatedly testable in the lab? And of course the result of a verified computer model is evidence. If the model repeatedly performs well in modelling know climate variations, we gain trust in it's skill to predict future variations, and in the explanation it offers. That is how scientific theories gather support: By making predictions and comparing them with the observable reality.--Stephan Schulz 23:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the model is not proven. Computers only run scenarios, based on what you think you know. In addition, you never prove theories in science, you can only disprove them. It is a well established principle of science that for a theory to be called a theory, it has to be falsifiable. You cannot prove a computer model false, you can only prove the theory behind the model false. The computer program is written by a human, and it reflects our current understanding of how the climate works. But our understanding could be wrong, and that would invalidate any predictions the computer makes. -- Dullfig 23:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
And? Evidence != proof! And of course I can prove a computer model false (i.e. falsify it). It is false if the theory it is based on is false, or it is false if it does not faithfully implement the theory. Both cases are possible, and both are, in principle, detectable. But the fact is that our current GCM models are rather good at explaining past and current climate variations, both temporarily and spatially. That's why we put some trust into them. That is the scientific method. You create a theory, and you test it. If the test succeeds, you gain confidence. Do it often enough, and you gain a lot of confidence.--Stephan Schulz 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
But you can only prove that it implements the theory faithfully. The computer model cannot prove the theory correct. That would be circular logic. So it goes back to the theory itself. And as I understand it, the model does not in fact explain past climate variations, unless you pick and choose what period in history you limit it to. -- Dullfig 00:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The model is the theory - if one shows that the model is mostly correct/mostly complete, then the theory is mostly correct/mostly complete. And about not explaining on "past climate variations" based on periods of history, theories about different time scales don't have to completely agree to be useful for predictions. Our understanding of year doesn't give us whether January 1, 1000000 A.D. will in Spring, Summer, Fall, or Winter, but it's good enough for short-term use (i.e. it'll be right for a few many thousand years). The physical explanation of gravity (relativity) even contradicts the explanations of quantum mechanics (electromagnetism and other small-scale stuff), but they're also good enough for practical use. Science isn't usually exact (though you can be something like 99.99+% sure of something with enough work at it), and I really hope nobody believes it to be exact for very long. —AySz88\^-^ 06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Second, I take issue with assertions that people trying to promote a point of view contrary to the greenhouse theory, have some kind of agenda. Why is it that those opposed have an agenda, but those in favor could never possibly have an agenda of their own? -- Dullfig 23:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Those "in favor" as you call it are simply adhering to the current state of scientific knowledge. It's not a belief system -- if sufficient contrary evidence comes in tomorrow, we change our mind. That's how science works. For my own part, in the early 1990s I thought greenhouse warming was valid from a physical point of view but that its effect would be small, even negligible. By the late 1990s the evidence became more convincing, and in the past few years the evidence has become overwhelming. Most of us so-called believers are simply tracking the state of the science (notwithstanding a few scaremongerers thrown into the mix, but those are mostly nonscientists). Any of us who could convincingly disprove the greenhouse warming wrong could immediately retire from academia or the lab and make a fortune on the lecture circuit; we could even get a Nobel for it. Raymond Arritt 00:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Issue Tag

This article on "Global Warming" is a controversial subject and the article should be tagged as such. --Britcom 05:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The subject is a matter of controversy, but the contents of the article are not, as the controversy is mentioned. Narssarssuaq 09:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

1.1-6.4 or 2.0-4.5?

Two temperature increase intervals have been mentioned in the media in relation to IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - both 1.1-6.4 and 2.0-4.5 degrees C. If only one is chosen for the article, it needs to be justified, or it may be interpreted as article POV. I understand that finding exact probabilities for these scenarios is difficult, but if both are mentioned in the report, both should be mentioned in the article. Narssarssuaq 09:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

2-4.5 is the *climate sensitivity* which is *not* the expected T change: The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is not a projection but is defined as the global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. [19] William M. Connolley 09:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The media's coverage of the report has been a disgrace. However, and I've pointed out this point before, simply choosing a large temperature interval rather than a small one (or a bigger one) could be politically (etc) motivated. Thus, we should add something about the probability of future change being within the range - (as the range will decrease with the probability). There's probably no easy way of doing this, but I think it is necessary. It doesn't have to be in the introduction. Narssarssuaq 10:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
IPCC IV GP1 SPM analyzes 6 equally valid scenarios. For the low scenario, the best estimate is a 1.8C rise with a likely range of [1.1C to 2.9C]. For the high scenario the best estimate is 4.0C, with a likely range of [2.4C to 6.4C]. Statements of 1.8 to 4C are utilizing the range of "best estimates" across all scenarios. Statements of 1.1 to 6.4C are utilizing the likely range of values across all scenarios. Either is correct, but discussing both would remove some confusion.
The 2 to 4.5C that was widely quoted in the media might warrant it's own paragraph for clarification that this is climate sensitivity and not a temperature range projection.
I think we may wish to consider adding a SRES scenarios page describing the scenarios in greater detail, because it is important for people to recognize that some of the variability in the temperature (and other) predictions has to do with human behavior uncertainty, and not uncertainty in the climate response. Another important point is that none of the SRES scenarios assume any deliberate attempts to reduce emmissions to avoid climate change, and that if GHG emissions are reduced, actual temp rise may fall somewhere between scenario projections and the 2000 committment levels. Even the "best" scenario does not assume implementation of Kyoto or other measures. Mishlai 21:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's an excellent idea to make a separate page on this. Perhaps they could also be briefly mentioned in the GW article. Narssarssuaq 08:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I've expanded the SRES page to show the scenarios. That page isn't really on the radar, so if someone wants to give it a review and make improvements, I'd appreciate that. I'll be working to improve and expand the Fourth Assessment Report page in the near future, and GW can reference that for some of the details. Mishlai 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Causes (dubious statments)

Regarding the following:

Climatologists agree that the earth has warmed recently.[dubious — see talk page] The detailed causes of this change remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the recent warming. Outside the scientific community, however, this conclusion can be controversial.[dubious — see talk page]

  1. "Climatologists agree that the earth has warmed recently."; is not a factual statement and instead contains Weasel words WP:AWW. The following link shows that Climatologists are far from agreement on this subject:[20]
  2. "Outside the scientific community, however, this conclusion can be controversial."; is also not a factual statement because it pre-supposes that there is no controversy about the cause, or even the existence of "Global warming" within the scientific community. As shown in the above linked news article, clearly there is controversy within the scientific community.

--Britcom 12:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the same old stuff all over again. Why not trouble to review the talk page? The answer is, one dodgy newspaper op-ed doesn't make a substantial disagreement. See scientific opinion on climate change, etc etc William M. Connolley 12:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
See also: List of scientists opposing global warming consensus--Britcom 12:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Britcom, If you are going to quote non-peer reviewed low quality sources please at least quote them accurately. Your referred article says ref global warming "Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred." He just disputes causes and whether it matters. Even the most way out and contraversion ex-climatologist, who struggles to get publicity agrees this. Writing things here which are so lacking any substance just to try to get a reaction is a type of trolling: please apply a mirror test consider whether this may be what you are doing. --BozMo talk 12:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The article needs to be factual and refrain from Weasel words WP:AWW. The facts must be presented in an NPOV way. We are not here to debate the subject, just get the description of the subject right. Changing the wording to reflect neutrality on the subject will do this.--Britcom 12:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Raymond arritt's edit is an improvment and I find it acceptable.--Britcom 13:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think Global warming is Real. I think of it as global warming but it is probaly just a phaze in the earth, take the ice age, it happened look at us now, scientist say it will probaly happen again. The discovery channel shows many movies about disasters on Earth this is just a Phaze that is Global warming but not as serious as you think.

Citation Required

I believe the citation required in the Global Dimming section for the statement: "Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming (the reduction in sunlight reaching the surface of the planet, possibly due to aerosols) may have masked some of the effect of global warming"

is satisfied by the IPCC 4AR GPI SPM on page 10 of 18, 1st bullet under the heading "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" which states:

"It is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogentic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place."

I believe this would also call for a rewrite of the article statement from "some scientest consider that... may have" to a consensus statement with a confidence of 66-90%.

Mishlai 03:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Go forth and be bold. Raymond Arritt 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, but I am very new to Wikipedia. I created this account yesterday, and the article is semi-protected, so I can't. Mishlai 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've unsemi-ed it for a bit as a test, and so you can edit it William M. Connolley 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added some hard numbers too. Mishlai 16:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Monckton

Someone deleted the Monckton material with the the edit summary, "Monckton is wrong." This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. You may delete something because it is not notable, or improperly sourced, but not because you disagree with it. If you are convinced that "Monckton is wrong," find a reliable source who feels the same way, and quote that source to rebut Monckton. Don't delete. --HonourableSchoolboy 15:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Monckton is totally unqualified to have his opinion on the IPCC taken seriously. --BozMo talk 15:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
See from above: ""Monckton as you would expect, seems to be talking nonsense. He sez The UN’s 2001 report showed that our greenhouse-gas emissions since 1750 had caused a “radiative forcing” of 2.43 watts per square metre. Our other effects on climate were shown as broadly self-cancelling. In the current draft, the UN has cut its estimate of our net effect on climate by more than a third, to 1.6 watts per square metre. This is wrong: the SPM shows CO2 at 1.66, other GHG at 1, total 2.66 which is *larger* than the 2001 value not a *cut*. M appears to have confused the 1.6 at the bottom of the total net effect with the GHG contribution. His sea level analysis is wrong too: he is confusing 2001 top-of-range with 2007 mid-range: as the SPM sez: For each scenario, the midpoint of the range in Table SPM-2 is within 10% of the TAR model average for 2090-2099.. Looks like M hasn't got any better at this stuff""
Being a Viscount or advisor to Thatcher is not a substitute for any scientific decent training and the daily telegraph is not a peer reviewed journal. --BozMo talk 15:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Peer review is meaningless in climatology as climatologists just in-review each others' papers. If the results are in line with the hysteria, it gets published. If not, it gets binned. Mixino1 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Peer review is meaningless in climatology as climatologists just in-review each others' papers - who would you suggest did the peer review then, if not the peers? sbandrews 16:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Theory of the Cause of Global Warming

As many people have pointed out, Global Warming is in fact real. The issue that I have with the main page on this topic is that it lists the causes of global warming as "Greenhouse Gases" and then "other". In reality there are myriad of causes for all global warmings and coolings, including this one. The article seems to present greenhouse gases as the main cause where some scientific evidence would disagree. The fact that some empirical evidence (not individual scientist's opinions, but evidence) goes against the "greenhouse gases are the main cause of this particular warming" theory means it is not in fact, a fact. The main evidcnce that I would site would be that CO2 levels have been steadily increasing since the late 1950's and yet there was a period in the 1960's and 70's (citation or graphs would be helpful) where the global temperature actually cooled. Simple analysis of this anomaly indicates that CO2 cannot be the overriding cause of global warming as it was "trumped" in that period by something else.

I appreciate any and all input but I would request that dissenters refrain from personal attacks which seem to get attached to dissenters of the consensus rather quickly. Thanks! Oconp88 16:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think in light of recent findings on Global Warming, this article might have to go through some changes to be up-to-date if it hasn't already done so. And you are correct, Green House gases are not the only known or theorized cause of Global Warming and this should be reflected more accurately within the article. Specusci 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The 1940-1960's plateau is attributed to sulphate cooling. That takes care of your main evidence, but it should be noted somewhere William M. Connolley 16:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The cooling you reference took place from the 40's to the 70's, and is caused by the cooling effects of aerosols. Aerosols have a shorter lifespan in the atmosphere than greenhouse gases such as CO2, and so when environmental regulation took place to clean up acid-rain, these aerosol pollution rates declined, and the cooling effect declined with them. The CO2 and other greenhouse gases are still with us, however. The IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers of the Group I report for the Fourth Assessment Report states that it is very likely (>90%) that most of the warming seen since the mid-20th century is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Specific numbers for the warming and cooling effects of GHG's, land use-effects, aerosols, solar irradiance, etc are all listed. Human-caused greenhouse gases are the main cause, and it is appropriate to say so. Undoubtedly the article needs to be updated with the new information, but this new information states the association between global warming and anthropogenic greenhouse gases more strongly than ever before.Mishlai 16:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I have found an entire section on a website that shows evidence that the greenhouse gas theory is false:
I have already composed a section on it with citations but it got removed. Do I have the okay to add it? My main concern with the entire thing is that it's too simple. The atmosphere is very complicated so how can this revolutionary piece of atmospheric science be so simple that my 10 year-old sisters can understand it? More importantly, it's so simple that the media can easily make a big thing about it.cmatcmextra 14.54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
see the section *End of Global Warming (UK Channel 4 Documentary)* below, and other related sections, they cover the issues you raised. sbandrews 15:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

the time for saving the polar ice & polar bears is past

the info coming is the bears are losing 20% weight, 20% population already the last 20 years, now only 2/3 cub survival...dont waste ur time people...anyways all polar bear research now needs to focus on what to do with the bears in a no ice situation...some say itll take 50 years...some say less than 30...there is some luck involved and random chance...they might have 100 years...plan for the worst case scenario...yet forget about trying to save the arctic ice...its a thing of the past...the point for saving it has now past...perhaps Gore could have...yet that doesnt mean we shouldnt be concerned with global warming...the russians get their ice free shipping lanes...the new concern is can things spiral out of control with the temps and what will happen with the seas/marine ecology...a big mirror might get temps back in order...yet what about if the marine ecology suddenly shifts??? how to get that back in order???...eventually our agricultural will be developed so our crops can stand colder temps and even siberia will be a fruitful paradise (or at least with huge nuts) and we can throw the global temps back and the bears can have their ice back...if we can keep them alive...Benjiwolf 17:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we don't REALLY have proof that Polar Bears are dying, the evidence actually shows the opposite. As you can read here: The "Evidence" cited was computer models extrapolated from an area that allows hunting of polar bears. The study failed to cite that 234 of the 259 bears that died over the past 5 years, were actually shot, via the Hunting Season. So the REAL number of bears that died from Drownings or other causes were around 25 over the past 5 years. Also, keep in mind that a hungry bear will sometimes eat it's own young, so that 2/3 cub survival rate goes out the window.

The logic in this study is flawed. It is much like saying 'we catch more fish then 100 years ago, therefore there must be more fish'. The two don't necessarily have any correlation. More accurate logic would be that sea ice breaks up earlier every year and polar bears (as good swimmers as they are) rely on ice to catch seals (which have the advantage in the water). This means that polars bears have less food, and like most other bears, move closer to human settlements for food when hunting is slim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
Please limit your comments to improving the article, not discussing the topic. There are many forums which welcome discussions of global warming but this is not a forum. -Will Beback · · 21:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes and please try to make sense in the future as well. When's your birthday? Let me know and I'll buy you "English Language for Dummies". It is a shame about the polar bears... if only Superman, excuse me I mean Al Gore, was elected President. Then things would be completely different. Hyperion395 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
There is an article about the effects of global warming: Effects_of_global_warming. You could contribute something about the endangered species there. But remember you have to use the more formal tone expected of an encyclopedia, and provide links to scientific articles in order to back each of your claims. Touisiau 21:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

to see the facts i mentioned you can just head to the polar bear page. Why should i waste my energy referencing it on a talk page???...And to Hyperion: i dont waste my time with artfully constructed sentences for the talk pages of wikipedia and the likes of you. Anyways im not a huge al Gore fan, I just know hes about the best america-land can come up with..."ur either with em or against em i guess"...perhaps you should distribute that book to the entire american population (minus the nearly 10,000 extra dead since bushie came to power & the tens of thousands maimed for life that couldnt turn the pages) so they figure out how read an election pamphlet...Benjiwolf 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

and let me add this to the book on the first page..."when approaching another person to talk the first step is to open your mouth and speak...not douse them with pepper-spray in the eyes".......oh i almost forgot...yall have that pre-emptive thing over there dont ya...Benjiwolf 14:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and where do you live, a cave? I can barely understand you, it's called grammar buddy. I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for you. Maybe you should look into creating a Wikikindergarden, I think people there could really appreciate your ideas for a giant mirror to reflect global warming and turning Siberia into a "fruitful paradise" for growing "huge nuts." Hyperion395 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It appears you two don't see eye to eye. There's no requirement that you be pals, but please be aware that Wikipedia does have requirements on civility and personal attacks. (Encouraging the former and discouraging the latter, to be specific.) Raymond Arritt 02:40, 12 February 2007

once again: its an american idea for the huge mirror/shield, not mine. Im just reporting on it hyperion. As to huge nuts on some of the trees that make up the vast siberian forests, last i checked that is indeed my idea. You dont seem to have much of a scientific education it seems, otherwise u would know that the space mirror/shield was an american idea just in the news...(while im not sending u to "wikikindergarten" perhaps u should move away from pages relating to scientific matters like global warming)...and otherwise you would understand that engineering the trees to have large nuts thru using a mass pollen spray from planes to rapidly (in some decades) achieve re-engineering the entire russian forest system is indeed possible...just like its possible to engineer a carrier virus to transform all human men to be red...or black...or whatever...using that nifty Y chromosome, with women still having their natural color...(engineering the trees in siberia to have soft fleshy fruits (a nut is technically a fruit) is a tougher one as of the extreme cold & short season (yet perhaps possible to get past this engineering challenge)...perhaps soon russia will have a massive nutritious nut industry...welcome to the world of science and its possibilities hyperion...yet keep on reading Wendi Dengs & ruperts FOX news propaganda so you dont understand it...its better the chinese & australians control american propaganda i think...lets keep it all as "magic" courtesy of his senior highness "the omnipotence"...Benjiwolf 13:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Americans are really stupid, is that the point you're moving towards? I've never heard of your giant mirrior plan but Americans have come up with tons of stupid ideas in the past, lets see: Electricity, Atomic energy, Microprocessors... yeah, bunch of idiots. Anyways I'm done talking to you, like in a arguement with a mentally handicapt 3rd grade child who thinks 2+1=8 I'm going to take the high road here. Maybe I'll go to grad school and work on my scientific education so that perhaps one day I can hope to comprehend your "huge nut" hypothesis that's going to end global warming. Goodbye. Hyperion395 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I didnt mention anything about large nuts ending GW, you make some strange connections, and of course im not saying that americans are all really stupid, some americans are the smartest people on the planet, like the ones contributing to studies that give us information such as this [[21]], so we get ideas as to the possible time frames involved in the north pole melting. However some americans are really stupid, just like some people everywhere are really stupid, and they think nuts could somehow solve global warming, or they deny warming might exist or that it would be harmful to creatures like polar bears that depend on sea ice for hunting. Yet perhaps there is a way hyperion to solve the all the worlds problems with large nuts, and not just help out the people of siberia with an extra goodie from the forests. I have not thought the matter thru. PS: we learned in third grade that handicapt is an incorrect spelling, yet i like the idea, its shorter ur way, and u may just be a genius...

In response to a more literate user, i suggest to you that your reasoning is nonsense, if polar bears are getting hungrier, and if even all the increased cub death was from bears eating cubs, then that is of course linked directly to hungry bears having poor success from hunting as of lack of sea ice, just like them coming more and more to human settlements because of lack of sea ice and getting shot is directly linked to warming harmful to them...and its as i say...people are going to have to get used to feeding the bears and not shooting them, their habitat is melting, they can no longer aquire the food they need, it is a relatively small population to maintain at only 20,000 or so, like a small town we need to feed, they dont even need TV sets, just food...yet i too am done with this line, for a different reason...the ghost of-Benjiwolf 17:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Hypothesis

I would suggest expanding each of these into its own paragraph with some statements on the relative merits, in the same style that Solar Variance Theory is presented, or perhaps for brevity of the article giving each its own page and having the merits discussed there.

For the urban heat island, the SPM states that "Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006C per decade over land and zero over the oceans)...". It is also important to note that urban heat island is not an alternative explanation of global warming (which is based on many data sets - surface temperatures, baloons, satellites, ice cores, glacial retreat, sea surface temperatures, and possibly more) but is only an explanation of the observed rise in land-based surface air-temperature measurements. It is, in fact, not an alternate hypothesis to global warming at all. Z Mishlai 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also relevant is that urban heat island does not challenge the cause of global warming, but whether it is occurring. No one is seriously questioning whether earth is warming. I think urban heat island should be removed from this section and perhaps added to a political/historical discussion or a de-bunked area, something of that nature. Mishlai 21:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be imprudent to dismiss the urban heat island theory from the article on the basis that a few do not coincide with the belief. The point of the alternative theories (as so it should be named) is not that you must agree with them, but rather that they are alternative theories that have been presented. There is room for the urban heat island discussion in article (see below discussion, etcetera). ~ UBeR 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "a few do not coincide with the belief." Please let me assure you that my recommendation to remove UHI is made in good faith, and that I in no way wish to skew or censor the information in this article. UHI was not removed because an editor simply disagrees with it. It was removed because there is no logic to it as an alternate hypothesis to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It attempts to challenge the assertion that the planet is warming at all; this warming is not in question and is accepted as fact by even the most vehement deniers of anthropogenic global warming. Further, it does this by disputing only a single set of data, upon which the conclusion that the earth is warming does not depend. Even if we didn't have the "disputed" land-based surface air-temperature measurements at all, the planet's warming trend would be very apparent from the other data sets that are not questioned by UHI. In short, UHI isn't relevant by itself. If it were compiled with a credible alternate explanation of every other temperature record, then there would be a basis to include "the planet is not actually warming" as an alternate hypothesis, to which UHI would be a part. There isn't such a coherent hypothesis that the earth is not actually warming, which is why the IPCC has stated that "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 average sea level." So, in short, I think it's completely fair to remove UHI from the Other Hypothesis section. Mishlai 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Ths article should attempt to remain neutral, and not exclude arguments about a topic which is stll very controversial. Analysis of data is surely an important issue to raise, so the problem of urban warming cannot be excluded simply because eds think it irrelevant. It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Peterrhyslewis 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be excluded either, because it is often brought up in connection with the topic. But it has been analyzed to death, and there is no significant influence of the UHI effect on the temperature record. --Stephan Schulz 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think a lot of people might come to the article and be dissapointed to not see any mention if they've heard of UHI. There's an argument to be made for including it under a different heading as a point of discussion, and I'm not opposed to that. I think it's important for one of the group of global warming related articles to address the issue so that people can get their questions about it answered. It just isn't an alternate hypothesis. Mishlai 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems fair enough. I've added it in where it probably belongs, in the description of the warming section William M. Connolley 22:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Con-Ally: If its fair enough to put in about urban heat islands, why are you still denying those experts who are saying fossil fuel scarcity will limit global warming, despite at least three good references? I would agree: "It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge." Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelise global warming, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said - even if you don't like itMike 23:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely concur. ~ UBeR 23:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
At present Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a decent article on fossil fuel running out (as opposite to peak coal etc which aren't general enough). If there was one I would support citing it, at least in the context of 2080-2200 time period. --BozMo talk 08:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It has an article on exactly tha topic. Raul654 19:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

IPCC vs WMO on hurricanes

I don't understand the basis for this statement, found in the Interenational organizations section: "The IPCC's position on hurricanes was a marked departure from a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC."

I've read through the WMO joint statement and the SPM, and both seem to broadly agree on the issue of hurricanes.


In a section describing observed changes to the climate, but not attributing them to anything: "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." p.8

Table SPM-2 (p.9) describes that for "Intense tropical cyclone activity increase" it is Likely in some regions since 1970 that the trend occurred. More likely than not that there is "a human contribution" to the observed trend. Likely to be a future trend in the 21st century.

None of this says that the Katrina style hurricanes are any more than a little bit strengthened by global warming, or that we will have a dramatic strengthening of hurricanes in the future because of global warming.

"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period." p. 16 of 18


I'm not going to quote it all, but it essentially says the same things. That sea surface temperatures have risen and will probably continue to rise, that this is expected to produce stronger but not more frequent storms. That the observed strengthening of storms is more than climate models predict for the rise in SST that we've seen. That there are natural variabilities such as ENSO, that neither global warming nor natural variability seem to account for the unusual years of 2004/2005. That there are data uncertainties that cause us to qualify the assertion that hurricanes are generally strongers since the 70s, and so on.

I don't see the "marked departure". Mishlai 01:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's because there isn't one. Raymond Arritt 01:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Due to the lack of a "marked departure," I just rewrote the paragraph to just stick with the basic who/what/when facts about the WMO statement. MrRedact 15:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Attributed and Expected effects

The corollary data to the graph below would be the polar ice thickness measured accurately by submarines since the 1960s, I think. Anyone know where we can get a graph of that data? Al Gore mentions it in "Inconvenient Truth".  uriel8  (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Global glacial mass balance in the last 50 years, reported to the WGMS and the NSIDC. The increased downward trend in the late 1980s is symptomatic of the increased rate and number of retreating glaciers.

Must rename article!

Global Warming is wrong title for the article. There is no Global Warming, there is only Global Climate Change in professional literature! Majority of the places on our planet will experience warming, but a minority will see cooling and in general all places will suffer from wildly fluctuating weather phenomenons and the breakdown of seasonal cycles. The truly big, unmanageable problem with climate change is actually not the warming, but the increasingly chaotic nature of weather everywhere. America already learns that from hurricane one week, 4ft snow next week.

As long as the article is named "Global Warming" wikipedia remains unprofessional and incompetent on the important topic of Earth climate problems. Must rename article! 09:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to refer to things according to their most common / widely known name. Dragons flight 10:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There is already a wikipedia page for climate change, which, on wikipedia at least, is taken to cover all historic climate changes, while the title global warming is taken to mean (for the most part) the present instance of climate change (i.e. the anthropogenic one). kind regards sbandrews 11:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
A search for the string "global warming" on the American Meteorological Society publication database returns 910 hits. Your contention that "There is no Global Warming, there is only Global Climate Change in professional literature!" clearly is unfounded. Raymond Arritt 22:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There should at least be a proment "see also" climate change at the top of the page if this distinction is to be clearly understood.

"The term global warming is a specific example of the broader term climate change, which can also refer to global cooling. " - is the first line of the main article, regards sbandrews 16:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the name is fine. It is much easier to search for, and it is a much more widely known term. My only desire is that "Warming" is capitalized. Capitalization has always bothered me. :P 03:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)EDeMeo

We Are Moving Closer to the sun

We are not the caus eof gobal warming, the effects are just now being shown, of the sun growing, and solor flares! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes we are the cause of global warmming, although the sun plays a part

Earth is actually slowly moving away from the sun because of tidal interaction and because the sun is losing mass equivalent to the energy it emitts divided by c^2. These effects are extremely small, though. 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The earth is actually moving away, but the sun is expanding in the same time as its supply of hydrogen is depleted. It will eventually grow so large that it will engulf earth, mars and a bit beyond. Luckily, this is not for about 5 billion years...--Chickenfeed9 20:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is getting off-topic, but last time I read on this issue, the best estimaye was that the sun in the red giant state will have a diameter slightly larger than the current earth orbit's, but that by then the earth will have moved out enough to avoid direct immersion. --Stephan Schulz 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Scorecard on Climate Models

Warwick Hughes, an AGW skeptic, has published a "Greenhouse Warming Scorecard." [22] It deals with lots of different issues and predictions by climate models regarding AGW. It also provides links to support the conclusions drawn. Interesting reading.RonCram 17:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The "links to support the conclusions drawn" are almost exclusively to conservative think-tanks and professional skeptics, not primary sources or independent analyses. Raymond Arritt 17:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
look here and search the page for 'warwick hughes' - interesting reading sbandrews 17:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Point #1 of the scorecard appears to be a direct lie, and contradicted by the most obvious of sources: Is the rest any better? William M. Connolley 17:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Censorship of facts in the lead

Who agrees that "although there were several decades during which global temperatures fell" is a correct statement while discussing temperatures over the period of 1900 to 2000? Who agrees this should be explicitly explained to the readers? I, for one, think that global cooling is something that should be explained to read to show to them temperatures have not risen constantly through the century. I know Rameses, the writer of that sentence, would agree. However, one administrator in particular, who thought otherwise, felt that it would be more prudent to abuse his power, rather than using the proper method of discussing here. ~ UBeR 01:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no special administrator power was used. Also, it's hard to take claims of censorship serious, when there is a large graph clearly showing the temperature curve just right of the proposed text. Rameses first version spoke of an "unexplained" drop in temperature - this is plain wrong. The drop in temperature is well-understood and reproduced by all major climate models. He dropped the "unexplained" in the second attempt, but I still find his version inferior to the current text. Yes, the temperature increase is not monotonic, but we don't claim that it is, and have the "picture that is worth a thousand words" just next to it. If we mention the drop, we should also mention what caused it. But that would clearly overload the introduction, which should be a short summary of the topic. --Stephan Schulz 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It involves too much detail for the lead. It should be mentioned in the "history of warming" section, where it can be treated in adequate detail. (Some constructive advice -- be aware that throwing around the term "censorship" tends to backfire.) Raymond Arritt 02:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As well as the above: the graph doesn't support several decades of temperature fall. Without the peak in the 1940's, its more of a plateau. Unlike the warming, which is definitely statistically significant (and is reported with error margins), I'm not sure that the "cooling" is. In the mentime I'm moving the text with the explanation higher up William M. Connolley 10:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This article relies heavily on the published views of the intergovernmental panel and US/UK government agencies. Articles which describe minority views include Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming. I'd hate to see anyone waste time wrangling over the intro to "global warming". --Uncle Ed 12:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The "History of warming" section clearly states that general warming has only been observed since 1979. Thus, it's implied that temperatures were generally either stable or cooling prior to that. Should that be explicitly stated in the article? I don't think it's that important. This article is about global warming and again, states clearly that the current phenomenom, if that's what it is, apparently started in 1979. Cla68 11:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, there is clearly a problem on this article with well meaning contributions being wiped, however you need to see it from the other side. There is a great deal of scientific consensus and those wiping the content are doing so for the best of motives. Although your statement may be technically correct, my fealing is that it doesn't belong in the first paragraph, but ... If you have some good sources to support the statement then as Uncle Ed suggests have a look at global warming controversy where you should be able to add your informationMike 20:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a clear example of how the censors work I have bolded the two sentences below to highlight obvious censorship This is from the Talk:Global Warming page below in section titled: == Svante Arrhenius ==

Unfortunately, Svante Arrhenius has some problems (i.e. the standard sceptics claim that water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect). Will somebody with more knowledge about sources than I write a sufficiently nuanced sentence there? --Stephan Schulz 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed that by removing it. It wasn't relevant there anyway William M. Connolley 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is going to join me in fighting this hi-jacking of Wikipedia: GW? -- Rameses 21:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

record of non kyoto ratifiers

Since this page is locked I can only suggest this not do it.

The lead finishes with "most nations have signed...."

Numerically true but _the_ most significant two have either not signed or ratified.

It is important to point this out to avoid the implication that nearly everyone is envolved in Kyoto process.

It is one of the few bits of good news in this whole concern that P.R.O.C. , despite staggering ecomonic growth in recent years and refusing to participate in Kyoto protocol, appears to have one of best records on CO2 emissions.

I would like to see an entry similar to the CO2 emissions entry based on following graph from the same source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

The United States and Australia have not ratified it. India and China are exempt, along with some other industrializing countries (i.e. those without many (or any) environmental laws). ~ UBeR 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming/Climate Change on other Planets than Earth

I am missing information or at least a reference to such phenomena on other planets/moons. Mars Global Surveyor's cameras have been showing receding polar ice caps there for years and terraforming has played with the idea of amplifying global warming effects on planets to make them more hospitable for decades. 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A report came out in 2001 how the Martian ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. Considering the fact that we're not doing anything to cause this, wouldn't this Martian "Global Warming" be attributed to the sun? And if the Global Warming there is attributed to the sun, then why is the sun so heavily discounted here on Earth?

wiki maxim for ya 'always assume wikipedia has an article on it already!' - good eh - meanwhile martian global warming will help, kind regards sbandrews 20:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It does puzzle me how can you be skeptical of warming on Earth, with all the hard data we have and not even hesitating about global warming on Mars. Anyway, read your article and Mars dust storms seems to be the reason, but of course we are far from certain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
excellent, Oren0 was kind enough to add a link to that article under 'see also', thanks, Oren0. that should resolve the issue. one more point: i believe the introduction to the global warming article, which connects the term to earth exclusively is written from a too geocentric point of view, but i guess that is just me, human perspective appears to be limited to their own planet for the most part. -> again 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadly Martian global warming is being fought over. Do turn up and strike a blow for sanity William M. Connolley 18:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD The science is settled

Or is the science not settled?  :) Count Iblis 22:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Global Warming article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." ~ UBeR 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There is an exception to every man made rule. Count Iblis 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a rule, it's simple logic. This isn't a forum, and anyone should be able to see that. Visit volconvo or something if you want to debate or start a discussion. Specusci 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What kind of nonsensical logic is this? You have an AFD deletion going on about an article entitled "The Science is settled" in which only a few people had participated (when I posted it, the article has now been deleted). The article was closely related to issues about Global Warming. Then I came here and notify people here about this AFD discussion.
After I notified people here and on other talk pages, many people came to vote to delete that nonsensical article. Had I not intervened the article would still be there because of lack of consensus to delete it. Count Iblis 15:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Added controversial issues Tag

The existance of its own Global warming controversy page should be enough to anyone to show that this IS a Controversial issue.--Zeeboid 04:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No one said it wasn't a controversial issue. However, the controversy is political, not scientific, which is described. JPotter 16:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There is indeed Scientific controversy on this topic, most to do with wether or not Humans are causing the earth do to something it has done in the past without humans... Warm and Cool.--Zeeboid 14:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Since some recent findings, it has become very probable (90% probable, according to those findings) that Humans are the main contributors to global warming. There is evidence that suggests there have been periods of global warming in the past, but that really has nothing to do with the human impact on modern global warming. Specusci 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It has everything to do with Human impact on modern global warming. If you have an experimant with 4 control groups and 1 test group, but your control groups get the same results as your test group, what does that tell you?--Zeeboid 18:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Specusci, the controversy is about the science. The IPCC has proven itself to be nothing but an advocacy group unconcerned with the science. The IPCC promoted the Mann "Hockey Stick" in 2001. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick showed that the HS was the result of sloppy methods, fudged data, and a program that would produce a hockey stick even if the data was red noise. The AR4 SPM was just released and continued to promote the unwarranted claim that it is warmer now than at any time in the last 1300 years. The two Coordinating Lead Authors on the Paleoclimate (chapter 6) are Eystein Jansen and Jonathan Overpeck (of “Get rid of the MWP” fame). Unbelievably, the IPCC does not even deal with the Hockey Stick controversy. One would have expected them to spend a great deal of time to make certain they got their facts straight after the HS fiasco. Instead the incompetence is becoming all the more obvious. In a press conference, Jansen cited "well core [borehole]" data regarding the MWP. Stephen McIntyre responded: "The borehole curve in the spaghetti graph only goes back about 400 years or so, so it’s ridiculous for Jansen to cite it as having anything to do with the MWP. But hey, he was only the IPCC Coordinating Lead Author - why would he be expected to know?" See comment #7.[23] You have to admit, that's pretty funny there. RonCram 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think people misunderstood me. Even if events in the past led to a period of global warming, that does not mean we must sit back and let it happen. If Humans caused this period of global warming, then it is by no means a natural phenomenon and entirely seperate from previous global warming periods. The effects could eventually end up being far more severe, for example, or the effects themselves on the Earth could be different. Obviously there is no scientific evidence to support this statement, but it should be blatantly obvious to any outside observer that natural global warming and human triggered global warming and two seperate entities, even if they belong to the same species. Specusci 16:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

McIntyre & McKintrick's paper was full of errors, partially vindicating Mann's "hockey stick" graph. More importantly, to attack the hockey stick is to suggest that the planet is not warming. No one seriously doubts that the planet is warming. The data come from multiple sources - from bore holes, to satellite temperature measurements, weather baloon temperature measurements, ocean water temperature measurements, regular old thermometers at land stations, ice cores, a general trend of receding ice and snow, and other indications. It is, as they say, unequivocal that the planet is warming. We don't need Mann's graph to tell us that. Further, that warming has accelerated recently. See for further information. Even the U.S. government, which has vehemently opposed taking action on global warming, has endorsed the IPCC's results. The SPM goes through a line by line approval process requiring unanimous consent by the participating governments and the scientists that each sentence is correct. You haven't a leg to stand on if you're insisting that the IPCC got it all wrong, and even if individual errors are found (and they will be) this does not invalidate the whole. If that were true we would have stopped listening to the deniers a long time ago.

Further, the argument that "it was this warm before" in the medieval warm period, even if it were true, is not relevant because our warming has not stopped, and isn't even tapering off towards stabilization. It's higher than it's been in a good long time, it's rising rapidly, and the rate of rise is getting faster. Where temperatures are now isn't the problem, it's where they're headed and how quickly.

Finally, (and we're moving now into the cause of warming, not whether it's happening) there isn't a credible alternate hypothesis. The closest thing we have is solar variation, which everyone agrees is not sufficient to explain the trends we've seen, and which suffers from the inconvenient fact that there hasn't been any variation in solar activity for at least several decades (for as long as we've been measuring it), when the warming has been greatest and picking up speed. Clearly something else is at work. If present warming were due to a solar increase that occurred before measurement began, then there would be large initial warming that would then taper off. This is not consistent with observations. When solar variation, land-use, aerosols and greenhouse gases are all combined, they explain the observations. It's the only coherant explanation we have, which is why scientific support for it is so high.

Whatever controversy remains is largely political in nature. Mishlai 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is controversial - Irrespective of whether CO2 causes global warming, there are several huge controversies. Firstly, it ought to be patently obvious that global warming is linked to availability of fossil fuel. Unfortunately this is a fact that is denied by many sitting on the Global warming bandwagon. And it is a very obvious fact that the article fails to put the point of view of the many experts who believe global warming will be self-limiting due to the availability of fossil fuels. Secondarily, global warming is portrayed as being ONLY a problem. Sitting here with the fire on to keep warm, I would be quite happy to have a lot of global warming. We are already getting more food from the garden because of the longer seasons, and to be honest I'll be quite glad the planet is a bit warmer because it'll cut down our heating bills. Thirdly global warming has occurred many times in the past and will occur many times in the future - but that's not hysterical enough to sell books or fund more R&D so it must be surpressed by the extremist Global warming evangelists. Mike 12:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It reminds me of the "experts" who created panic around the Y2K bug (planes will come crashing out of the skies! etc.) They made off with $300,000,000,000 ($300 Billion). -- Rameses 21:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Global temperature rise

So, according to the graph presented on this page on the annual climate, the begining of the industrial age, 2 world wars, and most of the cold war has no effect on climate change. But of course the 21st century does with the new enviromental regulations placed on firms and the safe products to use.

So, should we have a third world war? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Bow (talkcontribs) 20:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Is it just me or am I the only one who notices a spike during the early 1940s? That, of course, implies nothing other than there was a spike during the 1940s. P.S. we all know the cold war was one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. All that fighting and stuff. ~ UBeR 21:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
According to my grandmother, who was born in 1924, it is far milder now then when she was a little girl. According to her, there was enough snow on the ground in winter to build whole forts under the snow, and still stand up straight. In fact, she apparently got in trouble because a lady fell into a hole she dug and couldn't get out, since she was too short and too unathletic to help herself out...Anyways, the climate has changed, and apparently within the expanse of a single human lifetime. Specusci 15:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing she doesn't live in New York currently? ~ UBeR 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
She lives in Canada. btw, the weather you see in New York is what its SUPPOSED to be like. That, and quit whining, we are getting worse weather here and Ottawa and nobody is complaining (about -10 to -15 farenheit and crappy road conditions with the snow). In fact, we usually see similar weather in November but it didn't even snow here until January, due to the Jetstream hubbub. Specusci 16:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't here for the 40s but i think that the weather is definatly different than it was when i was born. the jet stream that went right over New York finaly let the cold air down this winter. > bunnyrabbit

Luckily for mankind, not everything you don't know is unknown. We have good models that explain all of the instrumental temperature record, combining solar forcings, greenhouse gas forcings, aerosol forcings, and various minor causes. No-one seriously claims that greenhouse gases are the only influence on the climate. --Stephan Schulz 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC) +

Proof Of Global Warming?

(this might be a bad post, I am fairly new to wikipedia) I have heard that some people doubt global warming... Any explainations to why? It has been proven, right?

Thanks, this is for a project. Cheng Liu 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

For a starting point, these articles discuss the debate: Global warming controversy, List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, Hockey stick controversy. --Spiffy sperry 21:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not settled. The articles (and the Talk pages) listed by Spiffy Sperry are a good starting point. I would also recommend Steve McIntyre's blog, especially articles discussing the Hockey Stick controversy and related reports (Wegman and the National Academy of Science).[24] Junk Science also has some good material. [25] IMHO the IPCC is just an advocacy group trying to achieve certain policy goals. They are ignoring the actual science. I would recommend you read the critique of the AR4 SPM by Vincent Gray, an IPCC reviewer. I found it online but cannot find the link at the moment. It is a pdf. I will try to find it again tomorrow. RonCram 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You're seriously proposing as a useful, unbiased source? The same that dismisses the role of CFCs in ozone depletion? Raymond Arritt 01:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Steven Milloy ( is an unabashedly partisan attacker of any form of business regulation. Junk Science, as the Steven Milloy wiki article points out, was originally set up by Cato (a libertarian organization which believe in freedom of action for individuals and companies to the extent of vehement opposition to government regulation of just about any kind for almost any reason), which dropped support when the matter became too embarressing. He has operated as a PR man for tobacco, asbestos, lead, etc. and his methods generally include bunk science, misquotes, misinformation and personal attacks.
As far as the IPCC, it's composed of national goverments from all over the world, their scientists, and other scientists who are invited to participate for their prominance in an area of study, etc. Far from being an advocacy group, the interests of the non-scientific particpants vary widely. Statements in the recent SPM require line by line approval by the participants, which include nations who would not like to see the world pushing for a reduction in fossil fuel use. The U.S. was a major participant in the recent assessment report process, and fully supports the IPCC's conclusions. U.S. Diplomats, the U.S. delegation to the IPCC, The President, Shell, BP, Exxon Mobile - all these people/groups have acknowledged that global warming is real, that we're doing it, and that action must be taken. If you look closely, you will find that it is the deniers who continue to state the same disproven arguments, while the global science community moves towards a better and better understanding of climate change, its causes, and what we can expect in the future. The bottom line, from a science standpoint, is that anthropogenic global warming is the only explanation for our observations that makes any sense in the context of all of the data.
Cheng Liu this isn't really a discussion forum, but I'll put something up on your talk page.Mishlai 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, you don't have one. Well, here goes. Sorry everyone, just trying to help out. I would suggest this site for a history of the issue, and for science questions. I would also suggest reading the SPM yourself rather than trusting media interpretations.
As far as why people deny, I can only speculate that it varies by individual. Reasons might include understandable ignorance of the science (given the skewed coverage of this matter), a belief that it won't be that bad, fear that environmentalists are just trying to enact an oppressive world government as laid out in the fiction novel "State of Fear", or in the worst cases a cynical desire to subvert the science for personal gain - either financial or political. I personally think most people who say that the debate is open genuinely believe that the debate is open, but for anyone who has seriously investigated the matter, I find it difficult to assume innocence. Additionally, you will be able to find studies discussing the human being's general unwillingness to release closely held ideas, and how we do not respond rationally to new information but filter or accept according to what fits our preconceived notions on the subject. Conservative and liberal sources are both fountains of misinformation, and their listeners are frequently deceived into believing that they have a correct understanding of the facts. As it relates to this issue, conservative sources tend to deny or advocate delay, while liberal sources and particularly environmental sources tend to exagerrate and overstate the case. This is why the IPCC's consensus reports are so important to our understanding of what the science actually does or does not say. Good luck on your report. Mishlai 06:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheng Liu and Mishlai, I have seriously investigated the matter and can assure you the matter is open. The state of climate science is abysmal. Stephen McIntyre comes at the question from a statistical perspective and has proven that statistics among climate scientists are poorly understood in many cases and intentionally abused in others. Richard Lindzen of MIT testified before Congress that climate science is a scientific backwater - that most of the best students went into physics, mathematics or computer science. I come at the matter from a different perspective, philosophy of science. Are you familiar with the work of Karl Popper? He was the most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century. He distinguished between science and pseudo-science. Most of climate science is pseudo-science. For example, the work being done by Phil Jones at the Climatic Research Unit. This is the group that tracks global temperatures for the UN and IPCC. Phil Jones will not make his data or data assessment methods available to other scientists to examine his work and whether he is doing it right or not. That is not science, it is pseudo-science. How do we know how Jones is handling the Urban Heat Island effect? We don't. Similarly, Michael Mann refused to provide his data and methods for a long-time and still refuses to provide his code. That is pseudo-science, not science. Jim Hansen is the same way. Science is all about replication. It asks the question: Can other scientists replicate your work and get the same results? If not, it has been falsified. Jones, Mann, Hansen and other climate scientists refuse to allow other scientists access to their work. Regarding the critique by Dr. Vincent Gray that I mentioned above, he replied to my email to say his critique has been accepted for publication by "Energy and Environment" and is available online here. [[26]] Cheng, I wish you the best as you study this issue. RonCram 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheng, one more point. Even the temperature record kept by Phil Jones shows the warmest year on record as 1998. [27] Despite rising CO2 and even though 2006 was an El Nino year (like 1998), we still have not exceeded the temps in 1998. Ask yourself, what will the IPCC say five years from now when the cooling trend is 13 years old instead of only eight years as today. RonCram 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Roncram - you find a cooling 'trend' from 8 years of data - cutting off just after the 1998 maximum - and you have the nerve to call other peoples work pseudoscience lol sbandrews 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess you didn't read the entirety of his post. ~ UBeR 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
why?sbandrews 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sbandrews, there are several data points you need to consider when assessing my statement. One of these is the Bratcher and Giese paper you can find here. [28] In the paper, B+G find that changes in the Pacific Ocean caused a climate shift back in 1976 causing temps to warm. In 2002, B+G observed the same conditions with the opposite sign, in other words - they predicted a climate shift to pre-1976 conditions (we had a cooling period from 1945-1975). They projected about a four year lag before we would begin to see temperatures cool much, therefore it appears the cooling would begin about 2006. Sure enough, 2006 was much cooler than expected. 2006 had been predicted to be warmer than 1998 because 2006 was an El Nino year (like 1998). At some point people will realize the Earth has entered a cooling phase and will ask "When did it begin?" Even though B+G may answer that it began in 2006, most people will look at the temp record and say it began in 1999 because 1998 was the high point. RonCram 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

roncram - on the contrary, I don't need to look at any papers to see that your analysis fails by cherry picking a few select years at the end of the global temperature dataset that happen to support your claim, kindest regards sbandrews 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sbandrews, I stopped myself from mentioning this earlier but now I will. When did the subject of global warming first come up? I first remember it in 1983.[29] Although at the time scientists were blaming CFCs which most people now agree cause cooling, not heating. I bring this up because at that point in time, the warming phase was only seven years old - having begun in 1976 as previously established. It seems funny to me that one predicted catastrophy (coming ice age feared in 1975) can be dropped for global warming by 1983. I ask you - what will the IPCC say in five years when the warmest year on record is still 1998? RonCram 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
CFCs cause warming. See SPM fig 2. You're wrong about global cooling. If you want to bet on temps decreasing on the future, or not increasing, there are people available to take your money (though you'll have to be identifiable) William M. Connolley 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
William, it appears I have made a mistake. CFCs were commonly used as a propellant in aerosols in the 1980s. They were banned in the US in 1994. Until recently, I have not paid much attention to this topic since the 1980s. I was under the impression that the term in common usage had changed from CFCs to aerosols, which are listed as having a cooling effect in the figure you cited. I see Halocarbons (CFCs) listed as contributing to warming. Thank you for straightening me out on this issue. Regarding your proposal for a bet, I would be happy to bet Phil Jones. Although to keep the bet honest, he would have to agree to release all of his data and methodologies. If you happen to see him, let him know I am happy to offer even money as long as he agrees to those terms. RonCram 00:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
William, BTW, have you had a chance to read this? [30] RonCram 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

RonCram, I've posted a fairly detailed response on your talk page, which everyone else can read there. I hope that's an appropriate thing to do, I'm relatively new to wikipedia. I do know that the Global Warming article's discussion page is not really the place for this. What Wikipedia is not

Cheng I hope this has been illustrative for you, and if you find the above debate itself valuable to your paper, I'm sure if you browse the discussion archives you will find many more examples. I'm not going to continue this one though. Good luck. Mishlai 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mishlai, I have responded on your page. It is unfortunate you are reading only one side of the debate. I would be happy to continue the debate once Phil Jones, Jim Hansen and the folks at the National Climatic Data Center release their data and methods for audit. They are changing the dataset again without describing their reasons or methods. [31]RonCram 11:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Solar Variation Section Problem

I am commenting on the section called Solar Variation.

It seems that this entire article is biased toward the report from the United Nations.

The problem is that the article consistently referrs to the United Nations findings as gospel. Even in sections such as Solar Variation, where other just as plausible reasons for Global Warming are discussed, there are references, mostly negative or biased against Solar Variation.

The issue is not that Solar Variation is absolute truth, but the biased positon of those who take the United Nations view as gospel dominates and bastardizes the alternative position.

Solar Variation should be discussed free of influence of the UN document. Solar Variation is a plausible scientific position that is corroborated by other scientists and independent observations world-wide (NASA, Los Alamos, Russia, as referenced in the edit).

So, I have replaced the deletion within the Solar Variation article for the expressed reason that it helps to balance the Solar Variation section of global warming that is currently biased toward the UN position. This paragraph also contains references which are valid.

<<Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist William Feldman speculates that observations from NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter may indicate a warming trend on Mars, with deposits of CO2 near the planets poles shrinking from the previous year's size.[1] NASA's research is corroborated by Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory where they have observed similar findings.[2] Abdussamatov asserts, "... increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations." This view supports the position of greenhouse gas being the final cause of global warming in a series of related events ultimately stemming from unobserved phenomenon within the Sun.>> ronjamin 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you give are peer-reviewed papers. The pop-sci pieces are somewhat reasonable and essentially say we do not know much. They try to give it a certain spin, but look e.g. at "But he said many scientists assume that Mars undergoes climate change. Photos of the surface suggest water may once have flowed on Mars, implying that it would have been warmer. And Earth's ice ages offer the lesson that change is inherent in a climate." This is talking about very long periods, not about a current short-term trend. And this is not even pop-sci (or good journalism), but just embarrasing. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.". This is so wrong, it is hard even to write about it. And for the quality of the "National Post" series, check this and this. The "report from the United Nations" is the considered position of some 900 of the best climatologists on earth, reviewed by thousands more. If you find a serious scientific paper about global warming on Mars that actually makes a connection to Earth, by all means bring it. But low-grade opinion pieces and uninformed popular-press articles are not reliable sources for a complex scientific topic with a vast literature. Treating them as if they were gives undue weight.--Stephan Schulz 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, if Phil Jones does not allow for auditing of his data, this should not be much different from not having data reviewed by peers, in my opinion. Regardless, it is dangerous to take the fallacious path of appealing to authority. ~ UBeR 22:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Appeals to authority are to be avoided; on the other hand, there is the need to ensure that sources are reliable. The boundary between these two is not always distinct. Raymond Arritt 22:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the United Nations report is NOT findings by scientists, but from a political delegates appointed by the UN membership. Furthermore, there is no Wiki rule that requires "peer-reviewed" papers, especially in light of a topic such as Global Warming, where proof doesn't exist, only observable phenomenon and an unlimited list of theories based on those observations. Nothing in the global warming article is undisputed scientific fact. So, again, I will reinstate the edit. Good-day. ronjamin 21:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The IPCC lead authors, authors, and contributing authors are indeed scientists. Raymond Arritt 21:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This is shaky ground. The named lead and coordinating authors and contributing authors are scientists, but are they really the authors if their work has to be approved by governments? You know full well the SPM was approved by governments because I gave you the link to the minutes of their meeting. You also know the full AR4 will not be released until it is in full accord with the SPM, sometime in May. You also know the IPCC has not investigated the broken Hockey Stick but has gone on to other studies that depend on the same discredited proxies as Mann. This is not something a scientific body would do.RonCram 22:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've heard occasional complaints, mostly regarding the Saudi government representatives trying to tone things down in the SPM. As for the report chapters themselves, I've not noticed any political slant at all in the published reports compared to what goes out for (scientific) expert review. Raymond Arritt 23:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, I have heard a number of people complain about government excess in the process. Dr. Gray mentions it briefly in his critique. [32] Dr. Landsea cited conclusions contrary to the evidence as the reason he resigned. Garth Paltridge wrote about government excess regarding the TAR.[33] He wrote: "The main reason for the existence of the first two working groups was - and still is - to lend gravitas and respectability to the essentially political deliberations of the third." I feel certain I could come up with a dozen more examples if I had the time. RonCram 01:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt that you could. By the way, we're still waiting for your promised confirmation of Abdusamatov's pearls of wisdom. Raymond Arritt 01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Confirmation that he said it? Read his About the long-term coordinated variations of the activity, radius, total irradiance of the Sun and the Earth's climate. The fact alone that a NASA scientist, among other scientists, suggest solar variability is notable enough for inclusion of this article. ~ UBeR 02:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, there was a quote from Abdusamatov along the lines of heated greenhouse gases rising, which demonstrated a startling ignorance of the basic principles of atmospheric physics. RonCram attempted to defend Abdusamatov and said he thought there were some other sources that would back it up. Anyway, back to the main point. Solar variability is widely acknowledged as a partial contributor to recent warming so it ought to be mentioned -- as long as the discussion reflects what the sources actually say rather than what some people would like for them to say, and the point isn't given undue weight. Raymond Arritt 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily call one paragraph undue weight. It's partially subjective. I've made further comments below Mishlai's long post. ~ UBeR 02:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, I believe the Chilingar paper published in a peer-reviewed journal says much the same thing as Abdusamatov.[34] I have not been been able to relocate the comment by Lindzen in support of Chilingar. I do not believe Lindzen's comment was in a peer-reviewed journal but it could have been in a pdf, because I have not been able to find it on Google. However, I did find a link to someone else who also saw the same thing I did (which I provided you earlier).RonCram 17:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have read the Khilyuk and Chilingar paper. It is shot full of errors, as pointed out in the rebuttal published a few months later in the same journal. But notably even Khilyuk and Chilingar don't repeat Abdusamatov's nonsense about greenhouse gases rising and giving off heat. Raymond Arritt 17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

First, the IPCC does not do research. Other scientific organizations do that. What the IPCC is generating is an assessment report. The scientists generate the report. Governments are brought into to address their concerns with overstatements, understatements, wording, etc. The SPM is edited until all parties are in agreement that the statements are correct, and then the main report is adjusted to reflect these changes. If, hypothetically, the headline statement was originally that "70-90% of the warming in since the mid-20th century...", and this were challenged and it was agreed that perhaps that could not be said, and the wording was then changed to "most" - well, it would be ridiculous to leave "70-90%" in if everyone agreed that this was not the proper way to state what is known. The "most" statement would still be factually correct, even if some or all scientists believed that "70-90%" would have been more accurate. Again, that's completely hypothetical, I'm just illustrating a point. The scientists have final check on the SPM. A controversial statement might have to be stricken, but the paper can't come out with statements that there is not a consensus about. The SPM doesn't paint the entire picture, it merely paints the bits that everyone can agree on. Does this reduce its value? That could be argued. But it certainly improves the credibility of the statements that do survive the process. What we do on wikipedia has some striking similarities actually, except in the IPCC's case the report is hammered out on the talk page in its entirety to the point of unanimous line by line consensus before its ever posted, and they have direct access to the scientists, which we lack.

Second, I don't agree with your assessment on the hockey stick. There are certainly weaknesses in proxy data which reduce certainty, and this is worse as you go further back. There is a reason why we consider the last 50 years to be "very likely" higher than the last 500 years, but only "likely" higher than the last 1300. "Likely" still leaves a fairly reasonable chance of the statement not being correct. These uncertainties are recognized by the consensus view. Anyone who disagrees with the IPCC's parsing of scientific research is of course welcome to review the source material themselves and form a different conclusion on any specific point - all of these statements are based on an analysis of available peer-reviewed papers.

Third, the hockey stick isn't relevant to whether or not we're causing global warming at all, it merely provides a context for us to say where temperatures are in relation to when they were this high in the past. Similarly it isn't relevant that temperatures were higher than now 125,000 years ago, or higher still 4 million years ago because our temperatures are on a sharp rise and will intersect with and perhaps surpass those levels if we continue on this course. Global warming isn't about "the hockey stick", and it never was.

Fourth - and this is the important point - none of this has anything to do with the adds in question. As I detailed above, the 2nd cite is not credible. Not even a little bit. The 1st cite only speculates that one possible explanation is that Mars could be undergoing a global climate change, without any mention of cause, or any mention of connection to what we see here on Earth. All of that comes either from the wiki-editors assumptions about the significance of Feldman's statements or from the 2nd cite, which is as fringe as they come. As far as peer-reviewed papers, please see the reliable sources guidelines and my arguments in the original discussion above. This guy is not credible. You shouldn't even want to reference him for solar variation, because his contribution serves only to discredit it. He's so wrong it's embarressing. Indeed, if I wanted to be POV instead of trying to make the article better, I'd quote everything he said under solar variation theory.

Finally, I agree that the solar variation section should be sympathetic to the solar variation theory. The article should be adjusted so that reasons why the mainstream reject solar variation as a possibility are treated in the main section, and the solar variation section contains sympathetic information. That would be appropriate per NPOV. That does not, however, justify quoting every loon who makes a statement in favor of it. Mars doesn't belong in the solar variation section at all. Mishlai 23:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Evidence of global weather changes on have been documented by NASA and ground observations on Earth. " This is not true, and Feldman did not say that. What we have is a short trend of regional changes on one pole in a climate that is known to be far more volatile than our own. We haven't any idea whether the changes on Mars are global or not. Nor has any cause been attributed, nor has it been shown or even studied that there is or isn't any relationship between the changes on Mars and the changes on Earth. Please cite a reliable source or stop adding Mars to the article. Mishlai 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Solanki and Foukal "find a good correlation between solar irradiance and global temperature until at least 1980" (also see Usoskin, Schüssler, Solanki and Mursula, Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth's temperature: a millennium-scale comparison). Scafetta and West calculate, based on an empirical model with four timescale-dependant climate sensitivities to solar variation, that ~75% of the 1900–1980 global warming has a solar origin, whereas the figure drops to ~30% for the period 1980–2000. If only to make matters a bit more complex, peaking of global sulfur emissions in the 1980s and rapid decline since could account for part of the warming in the past two or three decades. (See Veizer et al.)
Figure from R.S. Lindzen. "The δ18O record of a stalagmite from the Spannagel cave in the central Alps (dashed line) covering the last 2000 yr, compared to 14C production rate (Δ14C) (full line with reversed scale), a proxy for solar irradiance (see also proxies for sunspot numbers and reconstructions in Solanki et al.). CO2 concentration— from ice cores and instrumental measurements)."
Usoskin et al. find, “periods of higher solar activity and lower cosmic ray flux tend to be associated with warmer climate, and vice-versa.”
In all, we have bona fide scientists arguing that there is at least some solar variation (among cloud cover and even geomagnectics (see Le Mouël or Gallet et al., e.g.), etc.) that cannot be discounted. ~ UBeR 03:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
RonCram - butting in here for a bit - to point out that Scafetta&West do not attribute ~75% to solar over that period - they say "We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming." [35] - just to keep things straight :-) --Kim D. Petersen 09:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Kim, you are responding to an unsigned edit that you assume is mine. That is understandable. I sometimes forget to sign but I try to go back sign whenever I notice it. At any rate, this entry is not mine so I cannot respond.RonCram 17:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
RonCram, Sorry about the misunderstanding - the paragraph is actually signed by UBeR, and i must have been half-asleep when i wrote this.... I think i connected it to you because you've shown interest in the solar issue. Again sorry. (btw. any criticism on the Sami Solanki page i've made? I'll try to make one for Ilya Usoskin as well - any more? --Kim D. Petersen 19:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Kim, no problem. I visited the Sami Solanki article and think you have a great start there. I made a couple of comments on the Talk page for you to consider. I may want to revisit the issue later, but you have done a great job on a worthy subject.RonCram 03:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not attacking the solar variation theory. There is a significant minority of credible sources that believe this, and it deserves a description. In fact, I agree that the solar variation section needs to be more sympathetic to that alternate view. The content that detracts from solar variation should stay in the article, but I believe it needs to be moved into the main section somehow. NPOV seems to prefer clean and continous representations of a viewpoint as oppossed to a point/counterpoint style.
It isn't even just some scientists. As far as I know all of them acknowledge increased solar activity and a warming effect on the planet. The only disagreement is the magnitude of this as compared to greenhouse gases. Point is, solar variation gets some real estate in the article for proportional representation.
My problem is with the Mars bit, which is not credibly sourced and does not represent a significant minority. I'd like to get some agreement, consensus even, on the nature of changes to be made to this section before another round of edit warring begins.
Essentially I advocate:
  • No mention of Mars until there is something relevant from a credible source.
  • Moving the detracting points out of the solar variation section and into some other location in the main article. "Why the consensus view does not believe solar is the dominant effect" or whatever.
  • As a side note, AR4 reversed TAR's position that there was a decrease in the diurnal temperature range (night time temps had risen more than day time temps), which was problematic for solar forcing. With AR4's reversal, this clears one of the objections to solar variation theory. Obviously the consensus still disagrees with the solar variation camp as indicated by the radiative forcing values in the SPM, but it's a point in favor and worth mentioning in solar var's section.
Mishlai 05:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay. ~ UBeR 20:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


Los Alamos and NASA are credible sources, but that source states only that there are changes in a region of Mars, and Feldman speculates that there could, maybe, be a warming trend on all of Mars, but we don't know. No connection is made to solar activity, or to global warming on Earth. Feldman doesn't say either of those things or even imply them. That cite is not relevant to solar variation theory unless those connections are made by a credible source, and they have not been.

The 2nd source is not credible. Please be aware of WP:3RR, and please join the discussion in a meaningful way. The disputed content needs to stay out of the article until we reach a consensus on an appropriate NPOV entry for the Solar Variation Theory section. Mishlai 06:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment both in terms of your position on the topic and your insult to me on what you consider "meaningful".

If I take your logic and apply it to the UN document references within Solar Variation, those references should be excised as well because they belong in the other section, not in the alternate theory section. What am I saying, the whole issue is theory. There is no truth, just theories. The issue here is not whether either position is correct, but that the entire article is biased toward the UN document, including in the so-called alternate theories. This is not an edit war, as you imply. I am not pushing one position, otherwise I would have erased the UN references throughout the entire article. I am providing balance to a biased article. If you don't like it, we can seek outside arbitration.

The problem is that the edit that I made to Solar Variation directly supports and enforces said position, through cause and effect, by the credible sources I referenced as does the references in the UN position section. Whether this information comes from a trade magazine, a government report, panel, a scientific journal, or a comic is irrelevant. The ultimate source of the material has been confirmed and can be cited in dozens of other articles, supported by dozens of scientists, and supported by primary research (which is not generally accepted here anyway, but you get the point).

Furthermore, I take offense at the insertion of UN material in the Solar Variation section, which is consistently ignored by you and others who have removed the edits that support Solar Variation. The purpose of the section is to highlight other plausible positions, theories, or facts that may not agree with the majority "consensus". Consensus, although good in many instances, is often dangerous, misleading, destructive, and misleading to the truth. To date, there is no proof, just assumptions on observations. Hence, the change must stay.

As for the Three Revision Rule, the edits I made will stand up to any non-biased scrutiny, which has been lacking here (see the comments at the end of many of the revisions to my edits to illustrate my point). Ronjamin 18:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Whether this information comes from a trade magazine, a government report, panel, a scientific journal, or a comic is irrelevant." You would be well advised to read Wikipedia's standards on reliable sources. Note also that good faith or the ability of edits to stand up to scrutiny is not one of the criteria that exempts reverts from 3RR, so please keep that in mind to avoid running afoul of 3RR. Raymond Arritt 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mars and Abdusamatov


  • By "meaningful" I meant that posting a quick comment on the talk page was not the same as participating in a discussion, which you're doing now. Thank you for joining, and no offense intended.
  • I agree with you on the UN documents in the solar variation section. That's what I was saying. It isn't fair to solar variation to point/counterpoint like that.
  • On the matter of Mars, I think I've said what I can say there, but I will try to do so more clearly:

Abdussamatov is not a reliable source, and Feldman has said nothing even remotely relevant to solar variation theory. If you're taking the position that Abdussamatov is reliable, then I guess all I can do is ask you to read the criteria again. His claims are "exceptional" without a doubt and I believe the guideline "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" applies here. His ideas on CO2 sourcing are widely accepted as wrong by both sides of the global warming argument; his idea that the greenhouse effect does not exist is wrong in the same jarring way that perpetual motion machines are. Exceptional claims. An interview in a popular magazine with a guy who is making multiple claims that fly in the face of accepted science is not "an exceptional source". At least not in the good sense. That kind of thing definitely requires peer-review sourcing, in the same way that any other radically new claim would.

Even without the "exceptional" argument, it doesn't fall under "scholary sources" and it has some problems in the guidelines for non-scholary sources. That's pretty much my argument for not including mars in the section on SVT (or anywhere else in the article for that matter). And believe me, a credible hypothesis does not want Abdussamatov among it's advocates. I'd like to address the science of a mars/earth connection for a moment, but please don't be too distracted by this if you disagree. The above is my argument.

Solar variation theory (SVT) and the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) crowd both agree that solar activity is relatively high, and that this has caused some warming. They disagree only in magnitude, and whether or not solar is more or less important than greenhouse gases (GHG). For Mars to be relevant to SVT, it would have to shed light on the relative significance of solar and/or GHG on earth. Let's examine what is necessary to make this connection:

  • Step 1: Establish that there is in fact global warming on Mars. We can't do this right now because we only have information about a single region. If you examine the temperature record for last century of Asia, you can't even see the 40s-70s cooling period that is plain as day globally. 2006 was a record breaker for the U.S. but not for the global average, and so on. A regional trend is not a global trend.

Also, we haven't even established a regional trend. What we have is a change that has taken place over about 3 martian years. Again looking at our own temperature record, you could pick a 3 year period somewhere on that graph to tell any story you want - temperature rising, falling, or staying the same. It takes longer for a true trend to emerge from the noise, and the Martian climate is far more noisy than ours. Their year to year variability is much higher, so it would take even longer to discern a trend, and longer yet to determine it's magnitude with any accuracy.

  • Step 2: Establish that solar changes are dominating Martian warming, rather than some other factor(s). This would likely be as involved (or more) as it has been to determine this on Earth. Who knows, we might get lucky and find that the martian atmosphere hasn't changed in a long time, allowing us to eliminate that factor, and so on.
  • Step 3: Connect what we've learned about Mars to global warming here on Earth in a quantitative way. This is significantly harder than it sounds. If we've determined that the sun is causing global warming on Mars, that alone doesn't tell us much except that the sun's intensity has increased and it is having a warming effect on the solar system. We already know this. Mars only becomes meaningful if it allows to refine or reconsider the magnitude of solar changes or other factors. It could be done I imagine, but it might require something along the lines of performing detailed climate modeling on Mars and using that data to further constrain the parameters that we use for our own earth based models. I don't really know.

The point is that there are 3 significant bridges to cross here. Feldman doesn't even attempt to cross any of them, and Abdussamatov just teleports to the other side without doing any of the scientific leg work. This is consistent with his teleporting in the areas of CO2 sourcing and the greenhouse effect.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or difficult, and I'm not trying to destroy the solar variation theory. I do believe strongly, and with good reason, that a 3 solar orbits long trend on a single region of a different planet is just not relevant to what's going on here on Earth, particularly when we already agree that there is an increase in solar activity as compared to "a good long time ago", maybe as long as 8,000 years. It doesn't tell us anything, which is why there isn't a credible source on the matter. I believe his viewpoint is that of a tiny-minority, similar to the flat-earth crowd, and does not merit addition to the article. Mishlai 05:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mishlai, please do not equate solar variation proponents with flat-earthers - it is insulting to them and embarrassing for you. Flat-earthers do not have any professors at major universities. Solar variation is definitely a climate forcing, no one disputes that. The only question is how much of a role it plays. RonCram 19:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't make that comparison; I believe you've misunderstood me. I'm not even particularly critical of solar variation theory - the differences between it and the mainstream view are questions of magnitude. It's this Mars nonsense that I'm discussing. My flat-earth reference is a description of a tiny-minority, and it comes directly from the description of WP:NPOV. It certainly applies to the un-science that Abdussamatov is spouting. It is Dr. Abdussamatov, with his scientific teleporting and denials of basic science that I compare to the flat-earth crowd, and it is an apt comparison. Mishlai 19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You are still off-base. Flat-earthers do not hold important and responsible positions like Adbusamotov and others who have mentioned the fact several other planets and moons are also experiencing a warming trend. Everyone agrees that the warming on Mars is completely natural and not the fault of mankind. So whether the changes on Mars are due to solar forcing or some other factor, it shows that significant climate variability can be completely natural. By the way, I do not see Abdusamatov denying any basic science. I believe he has stated his position unclearly which has led you to misunderstand it. At any rate, the comparison is not apt. RonCram 23:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Lysenko's world view was fairly flat, and he was head of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the SU. In general, being a specialist in one field does not mean you aren't an idiot in other fields. There is no agreement at all that "several other planets and moons are also experiencing a warming trend". There is no agreement even that Mars as a whole is warming, just that it's southern polar cap has been melting over the last three orbital periods. --Stephan Schulz 00:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll lay out my understanding of Abdusamatov's position, so that you can correct any midunderstanding I may have.
  • Abdusamatov contends that:
  • There is global warming on Mars. (this has not been demonstrated)
  • Simultaneous warming on Mars and Earth has only one possible explanation - that the sun is responsible for both. (this is a ridiculous logical fallacy)
  • The great increase in earth's atmospheric CO2 is not because of humans, but because the sun's heat has caused the oceans to warm, and they have released CO2 as a result. (untrue, the oceans have absorbed CO2, and a lot of it.)
  • The greenhouse effect does not exist. Infrared radiation does heat the lower atmosphere, but heated air rises, where it's heat is released into space, having no warming effect on the planet. (This is your basic science line, right here.)
  • Other scientists have it all backwards. The warming isn't here because of man's CO2, the CO2 is here because of the sun's warming.
  • The ocean's surface layers are cooling, and this means that global warming has stopped. (wow, and we thought we'd measured ocean warming? this would be big news, maybe he has a data set to share?)
  • Abdusamatov then goes on to predict that further drops in solar irradiance will put us into a mini-ice age by mid-century.
  • We won't need Kyoto for another 100 years. (Though really, given the rest of his views, I don't see why we'd need Kyoto ever.)
The best of these are speculation, and the worst of them sheer quackery. I guess since the oceans have begun cooling, we should expect CO2 levels to start falling now. That's going to make headlines.
His assertions are ridiculous, literally laughable. Please don't confuse this with "solar variation theory is ridiculous". It isn't. Solar variation theory is probably the only rationally held alternative hypothesis we have, and I want it to get its due fair treatment in the article. Mishlai 03:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Greenhouse gases

How can it be possible that in the section about greenhouse gases, the biggest one by far (in concentration and effect) is not even mentioned? It's something any high school chemistry student knows. Until it is included, I regard this article as horribly incomplete or terribly biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

See Talk:Global_warming/FAQ#2._Water_vapour_is_the_most_important_greenhouse_gas.21. --Stephan Schulz 10:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, that was a very valid question. I had a look at your link and I don't understand how it answers the question. Just for my interest could you explain why it isn't in? Mike 20:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because this is an article on global warming, not on the greenhouse effect in general. Water vapour is the gas that contributes most to the greenhouse effect. But it is not a climate driver, it acts only as an amplifier. The reason is that water vapour has a very short atmospheric lifetime and is in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere. The relative humidity is approximately constant. Any surplus is removed by precipation, any lack is made up by evaporation. If the temperature rises, the absolute amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases, as the same relative humidity translates into a higher absolute humidity and increased greenhouse effect, leading, in turn to more warming. That is a positive feedback effect, and leads to the role of water vapour as a climate amplifier. But water vapour is not a primary cause in global warming, and its indirect role is discussed in seperate articles, where it is appropriate.--Stephan Schulz 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
An excellent explanation. Mishlai 02:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So basically, we define the terms so that we only count anthropogenic emissions as "relevant, and the we surprisingly arrive at the conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic! Similiar thing is done with solar radiation. --Flix2000 09:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't quite get your logic here (too big a jump for me), can you spell it out? Also where did the 85% you changed the article too come from?--BozMo talk 09:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me try to explain this in clearer terms. Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas. Water vapor does not drive warming though. The reason for this is that you can't really change the level of water vapor in the air without changing the air's temperature. Our atmosphere has an ideal amount of water vapor in it, and it tends to stay at about that level. If it's any drier, evaporation will put water vapor into the air to make it wetter. If it's any wetter, it will rain to make it drier. So without an average change in temperature, you cannot have an average change in water vapor.
  • When we add a long-lived greenhouse gas, like CO2 to the atmosphere, it stays in there for centuries. It creates some direct warming itself - we'll call it the primary warming. (this is a smaller effect)
  • This effect is then amplified by the atmosphere's natural change in water vapor - as the temperature goes up (from CO2), the air absorbs more water.
  • This is a "permanent" increase in the average water vapor content of the atmosphere - that is, we've established a new average.
  • This increases the greenhouse effect from water vapor. We'll call this the secondary warming. (this is a larger effect)
  • It is true that most of the warming comes from this increase in water vapor - the secondary warming, but both the primary and secondary warming are ultimately caused by the increase in CO2 (or some other long-lived greenhouse gas).
This also works in reverse. Removing an amount of CO2 would result in a slight primary cooling, which would make some water vapor rain out. This would reduce the greenhouse effect of water vapor and cause a secondary cooling, until we're stable again - back where we started if nothing else has changed.
For simplicity, we discuss the total effects of adding an amount of CO2 to the atmosphere without stopping to explain the concepts of primary and secondary warming each time. If I understand the matter correctly, we would also do this when accounting for other warming (or cooling) effects, such as solar increases, which would be amplified by the same primary warming/secondary warming arrangement. In essence, the water vapor effect just increases the sensitivity of the atmosphere to other warming or cooling effects, whether greenhouse gases or otherwise.
Does that make sense?
I don't understand what you're saying with solar, if you provide some details of what you're concerned about, I'll do my best to make sense of it.Mishlai 12:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai, Your patient explanation makes perfect sense, thanks. This was also a nuance which I had not understood. What I still do not understand though was the claim "we define the terms so that we only count anthropogenic emissions as "relevant, and the we surprisingly arrive at the conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic" which sounded as though we were guilty of a sleight of hand when it looked to me like we were being balanced and fair. --BozMo talk 13:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It is balanced and fair, but Flix2000 got the impression that it was sleight of hand and was making that accusation, so you were right on both accounts. I don't know what supposed solar sleight of hand is being referred to, so I can't help there. I was actually writing the explanation for him/her to clear up that it isn't a sleight of hand, but you're welcome ; ) Mishlai 14:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the data?

If Wikipedia demands such a high standard for 1st hand sources, then I want a link to the raw data the IPCC used to create their pretty little graphs. I call your bluff, 30 trillion is on the table.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

See WP:RS#Types_of_source_material. Wikipedia uses primarily secondary sources. For the sources of the IPCC graphs, follow the references given in the reports (which are linked from here). --Stephan Schulz 11:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want the raw data from the models, it's available here. Raymond Arritt 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fossil fuel limit

There is a citation needed tag on fossil fuel availability. I propose adding this paragraph but I don't think it really belongs in this article. However I do think it belongs in Wikipedia: where?

"The total carbon in the atmosphere is around 700 gigatons[3]. More recent (and more conservative) estimates of global methane clathrate reserves are around 500-2500 gigatonnes carbon (Gt C), which should be added to 5000 Gt C estimated for all other fossil fuel reserves excluding Antartic and Artic permafrost reserves.[4][5]. The combustion of all fossil fuel reserves (including completely uneconomic ones, but excluding Anartic and Artic ones) would therefore given a CO2 concentration of around 3750 parts per million, which is an absolute cap. "

Perhaps just the references in this should be added to justify the claim that 2100 is no problem for fossil fuel availability and we can leave the reader to do their own maths? --BozMo talk 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
How about in fossil fuel? It could go in Peak oil unless you're deliberately avoiding it William M. Connolley 11:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fossil fuel sounds right. I will put the references in here as long as the comments before them survive(?). I don't mind Peak Oil but global fossil fuel reserves really needs its own article (its complex) and Peak Oil doesn't currently talk about coal etc. On top of which the whole theory of peak oil (single bell curve) depends on one fixed technology: the total picture (more fuels secondary recovery etc.) is an asymetric sum of bell curves and doesn't really fit the name and theory.
The first (2004 Geotimes) reference estimates "methane clathrate reserves to containt between 1,000 and 22,000 gigatons of carbon as methane, with most studies suggesting about 10,000 gigatons". The other two seem to deal with fossil fue reserves. Where doe the "more conservative" estimates come from? And can we find a reliable online source for them?--Stephan Schulz 14:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi BozMo - there's clearly a need to cover predictions for fossil fuels in articles on warming caused by fossil fuel consumption. But the two aspects are very different. Global warming is mainly a climate model and the experts are climatologists. Fossil fuel predictions are a geological/mining model and climatologists are not experts. I've leant these two different disciplines can conflict. My fealing is that the article is too long already and tries to cover too many fields without going into some of the aspects of global warming in sufficient detail. I think to add a section on fossil fuel use will detract from the main thrust of the article - so I am proposing another solution (see: below) Mike 12:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Time to accept change

Since I first edited here, I have seen a lot of very frustrated contributors and a lot of ill fealing. There are those who thoroughly believe in global warming who clearly are frustrated in not being able to say as much as they would like, and there are those who are many and various people who are skeptical who are being attacked simply for making well meaning contributions.

It seems to me that there is now a huge scientific consensus around the model of global warming and that measured temperature rise is a real phenomena. But this article is still stuck debating the "truth"/"falsity" of global warming and has not moved on to other issues such as the impact.

There are clearly a lot of climatologists who know all the ins and outs of the mainstream theory, but why isn't there more on the various aspects - e.g. i can find nothing on the various carbon emission scenarios in the IPCC report. It beggers belief that an article on global warming fails to mention the various projections for carbon emission - afterall a 10% variation in estimate of fossil fuel consumption has the same effect as a 10% variation in the climate model - As I see it the problem is that people are still arguing about the "if it will happen" and so can't move on to tell the reader about "what will happen".

So, in an attempt to make everyone happier I would like to propose the following:

  1. The main article should become a short disambiguation page.
  2. There should be an article written by the climatologists about the model written on the premise of the mainstream scientific consensus that global warming is a real phenomena.
  3. There should be another article written to detail the debate over whether climate change is real (even if it is now mainly historical).
  4. There should be another article dealing with some of the non-climatologist aspects of global warming such as the economic modelling of fossil fuel consumption, the move to renewables, the social impact on health etc., (beneficial/not)
  5. There should be another one looking at the politics.

In a quick search I've found the following articles all covering this area:

(please add any others!)

What I would propose is:

Hopefully this would make a lot of people much happier. Any comments? Mike 12:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

On this scale of change can we start writing the pages in wikipedia space and move to mainspace when we have had a chance to look at it? Personally I would be inclined to have a go at the fossil fuel/ peak oil etc articles too. But I haven't been much involved in all the work to date so perhaps I am not a good personal to understand the feasibility--BozMo talk 12:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
BozMo, my fealing is that in the present antagonistic climate of these pages it would not be possible to write such an article. It isn't even possible to put in a section because the main thrust of the article is still "is there a link of CO2 to warming" and one can hardly then put in a section saying "because global warming is caused by CO2, here's some information on fossil fuels predicitons. The science, and the politics has moved on, and it is time this article recognised that fact and stopped dwelling on the past: the failure to accept consensus is making what was once a good article look pretty lousy. Mike 13:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a paragraph saying this? See Global_warming#Greenhouse_gases_in_the_atmosphere--BozMo talk 13:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok there's a bit hidden in the middle of a section - but its not assertive enough to e.g. start talking about where this carbon dioxide comes from (coal, gas, oil, other). Moreover, I would expect to find a lot more information on the impacts - what is the likelihood of 65m sea level rises, will we all die from runnaway greenhouse effects, is it possible to build enough windmills to power us all? Is it all bad, how much will it cost, how will I run my car? There are many huge questions that aren't being addressed because the article is far too timid. But others have a valid point of view and there is still clearly an alternative view - but if the Pro- lobby were able to make their case more assertively, perhaps it mean they would stop being so vindictive in trying to silence people who don't share their beliefs. Mike 13:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There is the problem that this article some places is written to fit a rather scientifically trained audience, while its audience could be anyone. Also, it never brings up questions of the kind you make. I'm not necessarily saying that it should, but if anyone could think of implementations of this kind that would fit the encyclopedic format, they should bring their ideas up. Narssarssuaq 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that splitting this page up bases on a misunderstanding is a good idea. H said e.g. i can find nothing on the various carbon emission scenarios in the IPCC report. It beggers belief that an article on global warming fails to mention the various projections for carbon emission but the very first para says The uncertainty in this range results from two factors: differing future greenhouse gas emission scenarios, and uncertainties regarding climate sensitivity.; and scenarios is a link to SRES, which would be an appropriate place to dicuss the scenarios William M. Connolley 14:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the focus has been myopic - addressing primarily the question of global warming or not - and that these other points warrant discussion. You can read the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) here For a bit of word humor, note that SRES scenarios are "special report on emissions scenarios scenarios". Narssarssuaq's point on the article's technicality is probably true. In some places this may be necessary, and in other places its probably a result of "retreat to the hard facts" because of edit warring over friendlier paraphrasing. A more cooperative effort would certainly help this. We are, undoubtedly, still going to be the recipients of drive-by POV warring on this topic for some time to come, but the article can withstand that if there is a core of consistently reasonable editors.
I'm not sure about a split with disambiguation. There is already a series, so if you scroll down to the bottom of the article you'll see a substantial number of links. IPCC and the related reports also has a good bit. I would like to see the topics thoroughly covered, but the global warming page itself seems like a better jump point than making a disambiguation page. Thanks for your thoughtful efforts Mike. Mishlai 14:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai - thanks for that sceinario! The reason I was proposing a disambiguation was to try and avoid some of the ill fealing and allow the subject to grow much more than is possible within the one current article. I think the anti lobby can justly feal that arguments against global warming are being silenced (there isn't even a link from here to global warming controversy but there is from that article here). It really should be up to the reader to decide what they want to read and from that judge for themselves the weight of the various sides. What I'm proposing is a trade-off: in return for an article which details far more of the scientific consensus and takes the discussion on to look at impact, the views contrary to this consensus will be allowed more priminence through the disambiguation page. - I hope it is a win win scenario! Mike 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Umm...what's wrong with "A hotly contested [[global warming controversy|political and public debate]] has yet to be resolved," from the lead section? --Stephan Schulz 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh yere - you are right there is a link - just proves how easy it is to miss! But Stephan, are you really happy with the article at the moment? Do you not see you have to decide whether you want to carry on with the present situation where nobody seems to be able to put their case in the way they want or move on so that not only you but the other side can put their case as they want. It's really up to you! Mike 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm reasonably happy with the current article, yes. I'm not an alarmist, I don't have a dike or an insurance to sell. I just want the current state of the science represented fairly, so that an uninvolved but intelligent reader can find a good, understandable overview of the topic. You might notice that this is a featured article. I don't want enourmously many details added (that's what the original literature is for), and I don't want the misrepresented cherry-picking of the likes of Tim Ball and the Heartland Institute to get equal weight with the considered opinion of thousands of scientists and essentially all major scientific organizations in the world. The most serious problem with this article is the periodic onslaught of half-informed POV pushers. And yes, I fully expect Tony to quote this (possibly out of context) as proof that I want to "censor" critical debate. --Stephan Schulz 18:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added "However, there remain scientists who hold differing opinions, this has led to the actively debated Global warming controversy." to provide proper NPOV. Brittainia 15:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I took this out as a redundant repetition. There are too many dropins everywhere --BozMo talk 17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it not more accurate to say "others" rather than scientists, since the anti view is stronger in the non-scientific community and vica versa Mike 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the link back concern. Also, there are more articles on global warming right now than are listed in the "series on global warming" box. How is this edited? I might suggest that the controversy article is a bit of a mess, and that it needs to be cleaned up substantially. I would rather fix it before providing the links, but I'm not going to dig my heels in on that point, it's just my preference.

As far as providing more prominence to contrary views: I think that the alternative hypothesis section is pretty skimpy. Natural variation needs at least a description of what that is, and "we're coming out of an ice age" should describe that with some details about what we know of the matter. Standards for sourcing still apply, and we can describe ideas/theories/positions sympathetically without infusing them with a level of credibility that is not warranted. I wouldn't agree to a quid-quo-pro where alternative theories are given undue weight or allowed to cite unreliable sources in return for more thorough treatment of subject matter that I think we can agree ought to be treated anyway. Mishlai 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No my suggestion is not for a quid-quo-pro. The "pro" lobby will have virtually a full article (probably more) to themselves because its remit will be to outline the scientific consensus. The "anti" will have half an article which would be half the controversy page - I'm not suggesting it isn't sourced, only that views that can be shown to be well sourced aren't silenced as is happening at the moment. In addition there ought to be other articles on the impact (which is a "assumming global warming will happen ... what are the impacts) which will have various views not really "pro" or "anti". In effect one article would be science and one would be opinion - and it is perfectly possible to write good articles where the only source is non-scientific opinion as any religious text will clearly demonstrate! Mike 16:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I respect your effort here, and I think that you absolutely mean well, but I believe that what you're describing would be a POV fork - and the article on that pretty much describes what we have here - a temptation to make separate articles because of difficulty in forming consensus on one. I don't think that is the answer. Mishlai 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely sense that advocates of alternative theories are feeling frustrated. It may be comforting to recognize that the out-of-mainstream alarmist positions do not get any signficant recognition either. Tim Flannery is a prominent australian scientist who says, in essence, that the IPCC has far understated matters and that things are far worse. James Lovelock is a scientist - an environmentalist's favorite in fact - who holds a similar position. Joseph Romm's book take a similar stance. Stephen Hawking expressed concern that earth "might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid." And so on, but the article doesn't give significant treatment to these items either, nor would editors allow these things to receive undue weight or to mislead the reader. I guess I'm just asking the advocates of minority positions to recognize that they are indeed minority positions, and that it is appropriate for the article to reflect that. I'm certainly willing to give these viewpoints a fair treatment, but not to the point of evangelization. This is not an enactment of silencing or censorship, but a proper treatment of the subject. Mishlai 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mishlai - that's a good point about those on the "pro" side who have opinions that the scientific consensus is understating the position - it's not just evidence for the "anti" point of view that is being squashed by such a small article. There is clearly a problem including opinions on either the pro or anti side (even when properly sourced) into an article that is primarily science based. Mike 16:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
When properly sourced, these things should be included and given due weight. I'm not arguing that the extreme pro-side is being maligned, I think it's appropriate that Hawkings' statement isn't being used to mislead the reader. I wouldn't even want something like that in the article. It's an exceptional and misleading statement, and even Dr. Hawking doesn't get to throw something like that about without writing up a paper and submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal. It isn't hard to imagine, however, someone who was fervently on the alarmist side of this argument incredulously questioning my assertion that the widely revered Stephen Hawking cannot be considered a credible source. This hypothetical moonbat would be wrong, however, because in this case Hawking is not a credible source, for reasons that I think I probably don't have to go in to. It would be inappropriate to imply that humanity now faces such grave consequences as "300C and raining sulfuric acid", even though someone as prominent as Hawking said it, and even though it might be difficult to entirely rule out that a very distant Earth future might include such conditions.
Such a point, if it was already a matter of controversy, would possibly merit a mention in the controversy article, but not in such a fashion as to convey undue weight. If mentioned at all, and it shouldn't be, it would be important to make clear to the reader how unsupported this claim is. I think I've beat this to death now. I know that you already know this because you've expressed it, but I feel the need to say that NPOV does not mean equal voice to all viewpoints, or that a viewpoint should be lent more credibility than it deserves.
As far as censorship by article length, significant points such as Solar variation theory or the Hockey stick controversy can and do get their own article to go into the details when a main article lacks real-estate, but even here the standards of sourcing and due weight apply. This is already being done, and we can do it more if needed. There are already a dozen or so GW-relevant articles. Mishlai 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

On a personal note, it's frustrating for me to have to argue at length that someone like Abdustamov (sp?) is not a credible source. In fairness, that may not be obvious to someone else, but this is the kind of clearly inadmissible stuff that tempts one to violate WP:AGF and WP:Civility. Editors who add notable material to the article with an attempt at NPOV using reliable sources are going to experience some success.

I guess the short version of what I'm saying is that I do not wish to see a POV fork generated, and that an encyclopedia entry should describe the minor viewpoints without lending them undue weight, as WP:NPOV describes.

Thanks so much for opening this discussion, it is much needed. Mishlai 15:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

the alternative hypothesis section is pretty skimpy. Natural variation needs at least a description of what that is, and "we're coming out of an ice age" should describe that with some details about what we know of the matter. - this bits are skimpy because they have no scientific credentials. There are (as far as I know) no serious papers at all that argue either of these points - they are skeptic talking points only William M. Connolley 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
With the greatest respect William you misunderstand the purpose of an encylopedia. It is not a science manual it is a digest of information. A notable opinion is worthy of inclusion even if it is totally wrong. There is no need for anyone to prove the opinionn is right, only that it is held by notable people or sufficient people or is worthy of inclusion simply because readers want to know - this may be an unfamiliar concept if you are from a science background but anyone from a social sciences background would understand the concept. Mike 17:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It might be appropriate to hold the social-science part of global warming to the standards of social sciences (all positions are discussed), and the physical-science part of global warming to the standards of physical sciences (if it's factually wrong, discard it and move on). Raymond Arritt 17:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
With the greatest respect is so smarmy... and you've failed ot read what I wrote. I didn't argue for removing those points. I was explaining why they have no credible sources. If they are notable someone should be able to find at least some skeptic arguing them, though William M. Connolley 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
William, I apologise if I did not understand your point - without meaning to be at all smarmy and in the hope that you will not take it the wrong way please could you help me understand the following:

Mike 18:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Errrmm... it seems fairly obvious. Neither natural variation, nor the near-meaningless "recovery from an ice age" are credible hypotheses. AR4 (and I think TAR) essentially rule them out as possibilities, at least in part because no one has argued for them. They are skeptic-only things designed to confuse the public but not found in the scientific literature. Why is that complicated? William M. Connolley 19:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How does that translate into improving the article. I've read a whole article on reincarnation. It's all a load of tosh - but it really appreciated having the article there. Now even though I take the view that reincarnation is not a "credible hypotheses", it still was a very good informative article. What I'm struggling to see is how your comments relate to the title of this section which is a proposal to introduce a disambiguation page. Are you arguing against an article on AR4 - if so I don't think anyone is disagreeing. What are we supposed to do as a result of your comments, how is it adding to the debate? Mike 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe that Mike is acting in good faith here, and that his questions deserve a sincere and patient explanation. I read his "With the greatest respect" not to be smarmy, but as a compliment leading into his disagreement. An attempt to avoid hostility or offense, since he was more or less about to tell you that you don't understand what an encyclopedia is for - a statement that anyone might take poorly. A spoonful of sugar, if you will. Also, I imagine anyway, an acknowledgement that you're the only climatologist (right? I didn't miss anyone did I?) taking part in this discussion, and are therefore accorded some degree of... whatever you want to call it.
AR4 states that is is "extremely unlikely" (<5%) that the changes we've observed could be explained without external forcing. That still leaves some non-zero uncertainty that there could be natural, non-solar forces at work. Mishlai 19:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Raymond Arrit is a climatologist with a truly impressive publication record. --Stephan Schulz 19:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Raymond! Mishlai 19:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, that bit needs a slight qualification anyway... the AR4 says EU without ext forcing; and VU for natural alone; that latter including solar and volcanoes (no-ext-forcing excludes those). The problem (from the attribution point of view) is that this is from the not-ruling-it-out side. Which is weak. Whereas the GHG attribution is positive. And of course, you would also have to explain away the lack of GHG warming, which would be tricky. The measure the IPCC are using concentrates on only one type of evidence, and a Bayesian type approach (which people do informally in their heads) would strengthen the conclusion. But all this is somewhat beside the point: which I suppose has become: should those two "alternatives" remain in the absence of any credible refs for them? William M. Connolley 20:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, looking at some of the very long term ice age cycle graphs, it certainly seems to show we're coming out of one, at least the way I'm looking at them. I should again mention I disagree with the idea that there's never ever anywhere before been a rise from ~280 to ~380 ppmv during the same 400,000 years -- it's possible it has happened before -- but I admit I can't back it up and the graphs etc certainly seem to show that it hasn't happened before, at least with the information we have and where we have it from. But what if we don't have all the infomation? So is it so wrong to mention things like that as a possibility to cover the subject fully and look at the alternatives? Certainly things like that don't deserve anything but a mention of course, but again, this is about information and knowlege, correct? I mean, we have articles on Gnosticism and Battletech and such. I don't see why we can't we at least discuss posibilities. That's just what I think, I know I can't prove anything, I mean, as much as anything that happens over centuries can be proven. Sln3412 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


NB Can I remind people this is a discussion on introducing a disambiguation page and the pros and cons of this proposal. Unless you are proposing/opposing an article on "AR4,etc." then this is not the place to discuss it. If it needs discussion I suggest starting a new sectionMike 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be helpful to turn the present article into a disambiguation page. It would point to lots of disparate articles with no synthesis. The standard Wikipedia recommendation for complex topics like this is summary format, and that would be my preference. My recollection is that this article used to adhere more closely to summary format but it drifted away, the result of persistent demands that every statement had to have detailed justification here and not just in the subsidiary articles. So my recommendation is that we trim the redundant material and/or shift it into the more specialized articles. Raymond Arritt 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Raymond. Hope you'll pardon me Mike, this post is more than just propose/oppose. You proposed a disambiguation page to solve a problem, and even though I think that solution isn't the right one, we're still discussing the problem.
William, you raise an interesting point, and it's nuanced. There are a number of people listed in List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus who support the natural variation idea. I don't know if any of them have published a paper on their hypothesis or not. Let's assume for the moment that you're correct, and that there are no peer-reviewed papers on the matter. Could we not fairly say "While there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting the natural variation hypothesis, a number of scientists believe that natural variation can explain the warming observed during the recent century." The article would then go on to concisely describe the variety of arguments, with referenced attribution.
I'd put that as "a few scientists claim". A number of is very unspecific, it should be clear that this is a small number. And we don't know what they believe, just what they claim. --Stephan Schulz 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Mishlai 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear this discussion iis getting complex (still its *much* nicer than edit warring over the article; and why is this section headed AEB?). Criteria for inclusion in Losogwc are weak. Many would be thrown out on "positive" grounds; most are there just because its clear that those people have wanted to say that in public. Saying it in peer-reviewed literature is a very different matter. Apart from the solar people (who are already covered) are there *any* credible people making credible arguments (not nec in p-r lit: just a logical chain of argument rather than a bald assertion) that you would pick out from that page? I am, genuinely, curious about this William M. Connolley 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary Edit Break. --Stephan Schulz 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article The point is not that I think they're right. I think most of it is nonsense, but that I still think that in the interest of NPOV a brief description of each view is appropriate, helpful even. The consensus view, with the weight of virtually all of the world's scientists, need not be threatened by an article describing a handful of scientists with alternate view X that they have no published work on, and another handful with various versions of alternate view Y, and so on. I agree with your characterization of talking points, but if someone hears one of these and comes to the article, they should be able to find a description of what is meant by that, and who is saying it.

(reindent) My POV, which is of limited use when editing And this is for William, so no one get offended please. It's pretty slim picking. These are just quotes of course - statements of position really - and not explanations of why they assert such and such. If Gray has any p-r papers on his ocean current idea, that might be a notable exception in the natural causes arena. The few explanations that are offered fail to explain all of the available evidence, which is the real problem with all of these alternative hypotheses. There is a reason that the vast majority of scientists support AGW theory - it's the explanation that makes the most sense, and by far. Most of the non-solar arguments are essentially a refusal to investigate the cause. "I dunno, couldn't be us." The view that humans can't cause an effect because that effect is known to have occurred without human intervention is convincing but illogical. A sophism. Most of these fall under that very dim heading in my book. Even within each broad category of alternate views, you can hardly find 3 people saying approximately the same thing. It's completely fractured. No complete theories, and no agreement among the dissenters as to what a better explanation is. These aren't even competing camps, but a consensus versus a rabble of naysayers. Some of them hedge there bets with 3 arguments at once, that there is no warming, but if there was it would be natural, and good too. I heard that global warming was because of a decline in pirates, but that didn't make the cut I guess.

Whatever hope we might hold of AGW being wrong, as far as I can see, is left in the less-than-very-unlikely possibility that we have missed some feedbacks that make solar more relevant than we thought, that can explain a strengthening of this signal after solar output has essentially leveled, which I guess would involve a very high sensitivity to solar in the current environment but not previously due to some mitigating factor, or a feedback that could actually increase the forcing substantially even decades after solar stabilized. Neither of these would be very happy findings either, actually. But again, that's just my POV, which I am willing to hold at arm's length during editing, so long as we don't get too far off into la-la-land. It doesn't have to be right to be included in the article, I think the wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear about that. We just can't hold these alternate views up as equal, or give them undue weight. Mishlai 01:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that the arguments are weak, but that's not really the point. I believe that most readers can reach that conclusion on their own if we just give them the facts, and somehow highlight the difference between conclusions drawn from peer-reviewed research that have achieved widespread support by the relevant experts, and quotes pulled from media interviews of people with a science degree who have not published on the subject. The trick here is to be sympathetic without allowing the description to imply a level of support or evidence that simply isn't there.
Statements like "Though it does not prove that more recent changes are natural in origin, the Earth is believed to have undergone many changes in climate over it's 4.5 billion year life span. To date, there are no studies linking global warming to natural causes, but a number of scientists have stated in interviews that they believe that natural causes may be at work." - or something like that - convey in a fairly neutral way, and without undue weight, the points that the natural-forcing camp would like to make.
We might also consider that there could be 2 classes of alternate explanation - those with support from some peer-reviewed research, and those without. The Global warming controversy article could treat ideas for which there is no credible research, leaving anthro & solar var (and any others) as the more credible explanations in the main article. We could make brief mention of these other ideas here, and refer the reader to the controversy article for details. If this is done without undue weight I think it would be an improvement to the article. Thoughts? Mishlai 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with presenting the skeptic position is that there isn't "the" skeptic position, but lots of different ones. Bill Gray says it's ocean variability; Lindzen says cloud feedbacks; this one says cosmic rays, that one says sunspots, and so on. So, presenting the many skeptic positions, plural, would run into quite a bit of text. I can see where it could merit an article of its own, with a brief summary and pointer in the present one. Raymond Arritt 02:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fight this insidious Censorship

Mike, I appreciate the work you have done against enormous odds. The way William M. Connolley and his crew of censors work is infuriating. You are absolutely correct that they completely disregard NPOV as we can clearly read above. I have also had a great deal of work and effort destroyed arbitrarily by this group trying to chase ANY dissenting contributors out of the GW debate. As an example they will not even allow the simple fact: "However, there remain respected scientists who hold differing opinions." Here is the history of what they did when I tried to keep that tiny mention of other views in the GW article:

  1. 17:10, 21 February 2007 Vsmith (Talk | contribs) (if "repected scientists disagree" - provide valid source)
  2. (cur) (last) 17:05, 21 February 2007 Rameses (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 109846090 by BozMo (talk) You cannot censor the simple fact that some scientists hold other views)
  3. (cur) (last) 17:00, 21 February 2007 BozMo (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Brittainia (talk) to last version by Hu12)
  4. (cur) (last) 16:48, 21 February 2007 Brittainia (Talk | contribs) (NPOV - still worth mentioning there are scientists with other views)

Their actions are equivalent to the burning of books in Germany and other totalitarian states. However we cannot give up, we must continue to fight for a NPOV in Wikipedia. The only alternative would be to give up using Wikipedia altogether. Good luck and thanks for your hard work - it truly is appreciated by us older Wikipedians. Rameses 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy Rameses, we're trying to build bridges here. Mishlai 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
See Godwin's Law. Raymond Arritt 18:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree there's any kind of censorship anywhere near burning books going on, and also that is very close to Goodwin's; but equating censorship with <totalitarian state example and others> burning books is somewhat a fair analogy. Bringing up Farenheit 451 might have been a better idea, or leaving off any analogy -- "The censorship here is the same as burning books." But like I said, I don't agree with that at all.
That said, anyway, after reading all this, what's wrong with "A few"? Or listing how many are here? Since we know there's not a lot, but we don't know how many, a few is pretty accurate, and I think it's fairly expressive and it's not negative. How many is a few? 5? 10? 100? Anyone can look at the list and see how many are listed. If we had a number, we could say .01% or 1% or whatever, but we don't. Say "a few" and list who they are. What's the big deal?
What goes along with that is to err on the side of fairness (or what have you) the preferred thing for me would be - List the ones that dissent, list what they dissent to, list or link to their credentials, and let the reader decide if they are qualified, make sense, are published, work for Chevron/Texaco, get grants from a think tank or college, are crazy, are notable or not, are respected or not (and by or not by whom), are just an author, are lunatics, etc etc etc. Put up the facts, let the reader figure out what they mean.
You know, we do sometimes find it hard to understand what we think is clear, accurate and neutral is sometimes not. That's why there's bunches of editors -- consensus views craft articles, they get honed, they (hopefully) get better. Sometimes, the articles might be somewhat tilted, or askew, or the group comes to different conclusions than we ourselves do. I like 90% of what's here on AGW (which is what it's about, AGW, not GW, not climate change -- that's part of the problem -- AGW is a different issue than climate change, but they go together, and I think we're mixing them up sometimes....). I just think the prevailing opinion is a bit too sure of the extent of the cause/effect relationship and a bit too sure of the impact -- but that doesn't make it wrong. Or right. Just the bulk of those maintaining these sections beleive it's accurate. It could just as easily be extreme and "the end of the world is here" and it's not. I think this is as close as it can get to neutral, for this subject. AGW's not like the work I do on things that can be proven like the '60s Casino Royale movie page, or the technical computer wiki stuff I write at work.
There are a lot of intelligent, experienced and qualified editors here that have an idea of what's appropriate or not appropriate to be said, stated, verified, etc. I think they go a bit too far in one direction, but not out of line. Without some sort of control of what gets written and how, this would fall apart. I myself have had a lot of my misconceptions cleared up, some things I thought were valid shot down, other things left alone, and some that I think are still up in the air (categorizing water vapor as a greenhouse gas some places but not others). Like I said, 90% is fine. The other 10% drives me absolutely crazy.
All I can say is I myself think this entire climate thing is a temporary blip that we can't see because we don't stay around long enough. Ice cores from the south pole are not direct carbon dioxide readings from (pick another place on earth not in the south pole). I don't think 1.5 degreees F is a big deal. I don't think you can compare what's happened from 1860 to 2007 to anything else, but we don't have a time machine to make sure. What does going from 200 to 400 ppmv mean? Nobody knows. Period. So I could be wrong. We have people that have an idea, and they stick with it. Pretty even-handed, as far as I'm concerned. You just gotta remember, there are differences in culture, language, career, experience, knowledge.... That are gonna make things rather um... Heated at times. Sln3412 23:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Rameses, let's just say it would be nice to cool the climate by a few degrees! Mike 18:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am all for building bridges but what can we do if the following is not allowed?: "However, there remain respected scientists who hold differing opinions." I mean really....... Rameses 18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
One obvious problem is, what do we mean by a "respected" scientist. I could see a very brief statement along the lines of the lead to List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, i.e. "A small minority of scientists have expressed doubt that modern global warming is mostly the result of human activity", which would then invite the reader to see that article. Raymond Arritt 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriously trying to say that there are NO respected scientists with differing opinions??? Or do you mean that You should decide who is a respected scientist? Or do these scientists have to be respected by the scientists who disagree with their views? This is precisely the kind of thinking which causes some people to feel there is a stifling of debate going on. -- Rameses 20:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please respond to the point that I actually raised: what do we mean by a "respected" scientist? In other words, who gets to decide? What are the criteria? I never said "there are NO respected scientists with differing opinions" (indeed there are); I'd appreciate your not distorting my or other people's comments, as doing so does not further the discussion. Raymond Arritt 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Good, I am glad we both agree that there are indeed respected scientists with differing opinions. Given that fact, it is clear that you and I both understand what we mean by a "respected" scientist. Then all that remains is to return the sentence back to the introduction of GW and provide a decent NPOV. -- Rameses 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No. I respect (most of) them; you respect them; but the term "respected" is so subjective and loaded that we cannot use it in the article. There also are one or two that I do *not* respect: shall we put that in the article as well? Raymond Arritt 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well why not? - since the censors clearly only seem to accept your views or those from like minded contributors. I do not feel that "A small number of scientists disagree with regard to the nature of the observed warming." is a fair, unbiased, or NPOV statement. It clearly has a POV and seeks to belittle the opinions of some very respected scientists based only on their numbers. This is clearly against what is set out in Wikipedia regarding not favouring consensus over credentials. I would point out that it only takes one good scientist to overturn the entire consensus - no matter how many they are. Science is not about democracy - it is about finding the truth in a rigorous unbiased way. Once again I suggest the NPOV: "However, there remain respected scientists who hold differing opinions." -- Rameses 19:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
While I didn't see the edit and revert in question, would you agree that Lindzen is a respected scientist? What if we replace respected with "notable"? Is that better? Mishlai 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Rameses, it is very important to try and cool down the atmosphere here. If everyone would behave with decorum, and avoid inflamatory remarks (however much they are provoked) then someone clearly intent on making trouble will stick out like a sore thumb. Mike 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually I didn't reply earlier as I was pretty sympathetic with your comment, I didn't feel you were stoking things up: I am sure that it must be infuriating and I can see why it sometimes looks like NPOV (although I don't reckon it is). On top of which apart from the "crew" bit you managed to avoid personal attacks. To be fair when I took the remark you see as so innocent out I added a comment on the talk page explaining why I was removing it on grounds of placement and nature (badly formulated ref what respected and what differing mean, in the wrong place), not so much because I objected to what it said. I am sorry if this upset you: sometimes things feel outrageous for all the wrong reasons. On the matter of content though, proper representation of opinion is critical, as in Project Steve. There appear to me to be far more scientists for example who oppose evolution than who disbelieve the role of mankind in observed global warming. However there are more respected scientists who disbelieve the role of mankind than there are who doubt Newton's Laws apply to gyroscopes (although I can again come up with a few on that list). --BozMo talk 18:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am simply fighting to save Wikipedia, which I strongly believe is an important resource for the future of Mankind. I have been a contributor since 2004. It is the freedom of information, including critically NPOV (or at least both sides of a contentious debate - presented fairly), which makes Wikipedia so important. The fact that Google agreed to censor itself in China alarms me. Similarly, the fact that special interest groups can effectively stifle debate and NPOV on Wikipedia is something which I find truly alarming. Rameses 19:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't recognise any special interest group except that of a small group of people and tinier group of scientists who are as yet unconvinced about the role of mankind in observed global warming. This special interest group I see as trying to portray a very broad consensus of scientific opinion as only of equal voice to their own opinions. As far as I know none of the people whom you perceive as a "crew" have any links to each other at all off Wikipedia, politically or otherwise or are in anyway from similar demographics, except that most are scientists. I would imagine that most of the others would be frankly appauled by my religious views [36] for example. I don't think their views are any different to the broad consensus of the rest of Wikipedia editors or the scientific community. What we have is isolated pockets of people who think very differently to the consensus who feel "censured". That's a shame but not a threat to Wikipedia.. --BozMo talk 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess the debate is all over then? So no need to provide both sides of the debate any more? Does that also mean NPOV is no longer relevant...... -- Rameses 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No, well not in my opinion anyway. And I would add my voice to those asking you not to give up. As you (who have been contributing to WP nearly as long as I) will know, NPOV is a complicated concept and in many debates there are several arguably neutral viewpoints (e.g. on Circumcision). Personally, I know I have been wrong before and I believe society has been wrongly panicked before (for example by Y2K which IMHO was a damp squib exaggerated by what turned out to be a special interest group of specialists). Personally, as a scientific generalist I think the scientific question is very convincing but still open (there are such huge uncertainties, there may just be something hiding there), but we have to reflect the vast majority of scientific opinion as such. I did not delete your remark to suppress dissent: just the expression of disenting opinion that way and there did not improve the article. If the science was over we could just sack all these climatologists and run their models from now on after all. --BozMo talk 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Science does not proceed by consensus or Einstein's Theory of Relativity would never have overturned the accepted consensus behind Newtonian Physics and a steady state universe. Nor did the scientific consensus behind eating margarine (trans-fats) rather than butter, make it true. I agree with RonCram (above in "Proof of Global Warming"), the "Theory of Global Warming" does not yet meet Karl Popper's test of being scientific. In order to do so it would have to be able to make accurate predictions which could be tested. If these predictions were proven correct then the theory would become more and more scientifically proven. This is known as the test of falsifiability, and it was this that finally convinced scientists to accept Einstein's far-fetched theories and proved the nutritionists wrong on trans-fats. Unfortunately, the "Theory of Global Warming" has not so far been tested and in fact, relies on unproven assumptions such as "increasing levels of CO2 cause the Earth to warm up". The converse appears to be true from the historical record: that increasing temperatures cause an increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Einstein showed that even one dissenting scientist can overturn all of those in consensus. Now, would you kindly let me know where I should place the fact that there are still dissenting scientists? -- Rameses 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As before the problem is "dissenting=?" the section where something should go is "other hypotheses". --BozMo talk 09:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the fact that: "there remain respected scientists who hold differing opinions." should not be buried out of sight. This FACT deserves a place in the introduction to provide some much needed balance against what otherwise appears to be a Wikipedia introduction declaring that Global Warming is as certain as the Earth being round. -- Rameses 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I never suggested that such a statement should be buried. You don't seem to differentiate between statements with quite clearly different meanings? --BozMo talk 18:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the "Theory of Global Warming" has not so far been tested - CO2-induced global warming was predicted in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius. 111 years later, we have incontrovertible direct measurements that the earth has heated up at a rate without precedent in human history. I think that's a fairly good test, myself. Raul654 00:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well the Bible predicted around three thousand years ago, that the descendents of Israel would one day regain control over the holy land (Israel). Since this has now happened, your "good test" would seem to declare this prediction a scientific one which has been irrefutably proven. It is for this reason that the Scientific Method has been formulated to be so rigorous. It would be worthwhile to read more about what constitutes scientific proof. -- Rameses 16:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Svante Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier's argument that the earth's atmosphere acted like the glass of a hot-house. Fourier's idea is now accepted, although water vapour (rather than CO2) is acknowledged to provide about 95% of the natural (non-anthropogenic) greenhouse effect. He later wrote Worlds in the Making (1906) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. From that, the hot-house theory gained more attention. Nevertheless, until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the hot-house / greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth, which has proven to be a powerful predictor of most of the millions of past climate changes. It is important to note that water vapour NOT CO2 provides 95% of the natural (non-anthropogenic) greenhouse effect. And that Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. -- Rameses 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I won't touch trans-fats (butter and olive oil are my fats, and that has noting to do with health and everthing with taste), but Einstein's "far-fetched theories" where accepted by scientists essentially immediately. It took society a bit to catch up. And AGW has made a lot of prediction that have held up (warming trends, stratospheric cooling, warming stronger in high latitudes,...). --Stephan Schulz 00:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to respectfully disagree with you, Stephan. Einstien's theory explained the ultraviolet catastrophe, but contradicted Newton's laws in the process. Many scientists were very reluctant to accept this. It wasn't until 1919 (15 years later) that Arthur Eddington's expedition to the island of Principe confirmed Einstein and resolved the issue. Raul654 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. We may be mixing up to many of Einstein's theories. The ultraviolet catastrophy was dealt with by quantization of light. Eddington confirmed general relativity. I was thinking about special relativity, which, in my opinion, was the most radical theory at the time, in that it gave up absolute time and synchronicity. SR was accepted by scientists in no time (in fact, Lorentz and Poincare anticipated parts of it). --Stephan Schulz 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course, Popper was largely superceded IMHO [37] by Thomas Kuhn but that's not the point. Also not the point (but interesting) is that Don Cupitt has convincingly argued that it is possible to produce a complete working scientific description of the universe based on Alchemy and that underlying truth in the descriptions are all arbitrary: which brings me to what IS the point: and that is that we are not here to generate our own WP:OR assessment of Global Warming we are here to express consensus opinion of the general scientific community plus give reasonable statement of notable dissent. The current (possibly totally flawed) article represents a 95% view of scientists and that is what it should be. --BozMo talk 09:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You wrote "we are here to express consensus opinion of the general scientific community plus give reasonable statement of notable dissent." I disagree with this and would refer you to the article Wikipedia where you will find: Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy have been questioned.[5] The site has also been criticised for its susceptibility to vandalism,[6] uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies,[7] and for favouring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[8] Wikipedia's content policies[9] and sub-projects set up by contributors seek to address these concerns.[10] And also the following: "One of the most important states that articles must be written from a "neutral point of view",[22] presenting all noteworthy perspectives on an issue along with the evidence supporting them — thus, rather than aspiring to determine the objective truth of their subjects, articles attempt to describe them impartially from all significant viewpoints." We are here simply to present all noteworthy perspectives on an issue from a neutral point of view - all of the censors should bear that in mind. -- Rameses 18:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
When you quote ...and for favouring consensus over credentials in its editorial process I think you'll find it is referring to consensus among the editors of a particular article, not the general consensus of those in the field. Besides if you care to favour credentials over consensus with regard to those involved in editing this article I don't think you'll fare much better - there are some editors here with very good credentials in the specific field that this article addresses. But really, let's not start a pissing contest on credentials. Wikipedia needs to reflect the verifiable state of knowledge as accurately as is feasible, and that means reflecting the consensus opinion and not giving undue weight to minority opinions. Should the scientific consensus change then the article can change to reflect that. -- Leland McInnes 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Again the last sentence does not follow from the earlier ones; especially in respect of the word "simply". Aside from not being censors of course--BozMo talk 18:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you show me where in the article Wikipedia, it says: "we are here to express consensus opinion of the general scientific community plus give reasonable statement of notable dissent." You are an Administrator and therefore should hold yourself and other Administrators to the highest standards of Wikipedia NPOV and should try to follow the guidelines: "rather than aspiring to determine the objective truth of their subjects, articles attempt to describe them impartially from all significant viewpoints." So far you are all failing to do so - but I am confident that you are at heart good people trying to do the right thing. Hopefully, now that it has been brought to your attention that you are in danger of forcing your own POV, instead of upholding the impartiality of Wikipedia, you will do what is right. -- Rameses 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Personally, I don't think I have a POV on global warming. Where a consensus exists, I recognise a consensus for what it is (quite possibly wrong) and try to give reasonable weight based on notability to other opinions. I don't know enough of the climate science well enough to judge it particularly myself (unlike on say hydrocarbons). Where there are opinions and no consensus is different from where there is a consensus. Please read the text as I left it: it is very close to what you originally proposed a couple of days ago but only more accurate. --BozMo talk 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that simply replacing the phrase "a small number" with "some" is the best way to resolve the POV issue. The problem is that by so doing, a valuable educational opportunity is being lost. Like it or not, the verifiable fact is that it really is just a small number of scientists who disagree with the mainstream position. This will be surprising information, and hence be educational, to a lot of WP readers. The word "some" is a very vague word that gives essentially no information to the reader about the magnitude of the group it is referring to. Using the word "some" to hide a verifiable fact from readers, just because the fact makes some WP editors uncomfortable, is depriving the WP readers of valuable information for no justifiable reason. Hiding the fact that it is only a small number of scientists who disagree is every bit as bad as burying or hiding the fact that there are indeed scientists who disagree. Both of those facts need to be presented in order to present the issue accurately.

In an edit summary, Eisenmond suggests "Let the reader determine 'small'". However, in practice, this will in many cases be unrealistic. For a reader to discover for herself that the number of dissenters is small, the reader would need to read articles such as Scientific opinion on climate change and [[List of scientists opposing global warming consensus]]. But Global warming is a featured WP article, it has a Google PageRank of 7, and it has a title that a large number of people are going to search for. In contrast, List of scientists opposing global warming consensus will never be a featured article, it only has a Google PageRank of 5, and it has a title that essentially noone will ever think to search for. It's safe to assume that the Global warming article gets far more traffic than the List of scientists opposing global warming consensus article ever will. For a large number of visitors to the Global warming article, if the visitor doesn't learn in the Global warming article that the number of dissenters is small, they will never learn that information at all.

Rameses' justification for avoiding the phrase "a small number" is that that phrase is disparaging, and therefore non-neutral. Personally, I don't see how that phrase in and of itself is disparaging. "Puny," "paltry," and "piddling" all have negative connotations, but "small" has relatively neutral connotations. For example, it does not at all sound incongruous to say "only a small number of people have an IQ over 140" or "only a small number of young athletes can make it into pro sports" or even "only a small number of climate scientists have the insight and courage to stand up to the politicized juggernaut that is the IPCC, and speak out against the liberal myth of global warming."

However, Rameses, to address your contention that "a small number" is disrespectful to the dissenters, what I propose as a compromise is to phrase the sentence in such a way that the dissenters are granted respect, but in a way that doesn't hide the fact that there are only a small number of them. Using the phrase "respected scientists" directly is inappropriate, since how much respect the scientists are granted by the public can't easily be verified. However, the word "notable" also conveys a degree of respect, and notability is much more easily verifiable. Therefore, I'm changing the sentence to begin "A small number of notable scientists disagrees...", which imputes some degree of respect to the scientists, without hiding the fact that there are only a small number of them. MrRedact 09:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all since Science is not a democracy (1 scientist can easily overturn all the others - and often that is how science has historically progressed), the number is irrelevant. Secondly, I don't believe you can even define in numerical terms what you mean by the word "small" here. If you cannot put a number to it, then it is both a meaningless and irrelevant term. I would therefore prefer a modified version of your other suggestion above: "There remain several notable scientists who have the insight and courage to stand up to the politicized juggernaut that is the IPCC, and speak out against the liberal myth of global warming." -- Rameses 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In an odd way, I respect what you just wrote. It's good to lay your cards on the table. Raymond Arritt 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I can agree with "There remain several notable scientists who...". Sounds like fair wording to me. The reader can decide how many and how notable after clicking the link and reading the list. Mishlai 17:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Notable needs to go. Most definitions of the word have connotations of "prominent, important, or distinguished." Few of the scientists on either the skeptical or mainstream side (in fact, few scientists, period) are "notable" in this sense. In the Wikipedia sense of notability, for some of the skeptics it's a circular argument: they're notable mainly because of their skepticism. Raymond Arritt 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking of notability in the WP sense when I made the edit. Can you think of another word that grants some degree of respectibility to the scientists, without exaggerating their prominence? MrRedact 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, geez. The other word would also have to be verifiable. Notable in the WP sense is the only word I can think of that conveys respectability in a way that would be verifiable. MrRedact 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to question whether it is necessary to characterize these scientists or a subset of them at all. What if we just called them scientists, doesn't that convey well enough that their opinions are worth consideration? The list article itself can desribe their opinions, their qualifications, what they think, what they've published on the topic, and so on. This is back to the wording that Raymond suggested initially... "A small number of scientists...". I have to say that I'm now convinced that this is the proper wording. Other ideas still welcome of course. Mishlai 20:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
OMG! I wasn't suggesting actually using that sentence! I hope you're joking. Using that sentence without attribution would be blatant unverifiable editorializing. I was merely using that sentence as an example to illustrate the point that the phrase "a small number" doesn't by itself convey disparagement.
As for numbers, there are for example all of 22 individuals that WP editors have managed to find for the List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. In comparison, just Working Group I of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report alone has about 600 authors. 22 certainly ought to count as being "a small number", at least, in the context of numbers like 600. If anything, "a small number" is being generous, as "a very small number" probably for most readers would convey a more accurate estimate of the fraction.
Science is to a certain extent a democracy, in that the peer review process helps prevent the publication of ideas that contradict existing scientific evidence. But I understand that you are talking about the inherent truth of a scientific idea, not the real-world process by which scientific ideas get published. Most scientific progress nowadays is actually made in small incremental refinements to what is already widely accepted, not in radical new ideas that overthrow existing thought, but you have a point in that that sometimes does happen occasionally.
However, the whole issue of whether science is a democracy or not is irrelevant. Your point is that sometimes the actual truth is only believed at some given time by a small minority of scientists. However, for the purposes of what our task is here, what is actually true is irrelevant! It is not our job as WP editors to play scientist, and attempt to determine or describe that which is true. Our job is to be purely concerned with verifiability, not truth. And how many scientists believe a given idea has a huge amount to do with whether the idea is verifiable. There being only a small number of skeptical scientists doesn't necessarily mean that what they believe isn't true, but it does mean that what they believe isn't nearly as verifiable as the mainstream view. It's very relevant for a WP article to reflect and describe the relative verifiability of various ideas. MrRedact 19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't agreeing with the entire editorialized sentence, just the bit I quoted as being acceptable to me. 'Several' instead of 'small', and 'notable' instead of respected. You make very good points about the use of small though. Mishlai 19:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I support this in some respects, although I would urge caution when it comes to compare the IPCC's 600 to the List of scientists opposing global warming consensus's 22. First, it is far from certain that all the 600 are as notable as are the 22. This means that if we could add to the List all less notable scientists who do not agree with the IPCC, perhaps their number could be more signifcant. Also, the scientists who have been "allowed" to appear on the List by the editors in control of its content since some time are far from representing all the most notable scientists opposing AGW theories. Hendrik Tennekes has been erased from the list on the ground that "he does not specifically oppose one of the three statements mentionned in the introduction". Yet he is a strong and notable skeptic. Chris Landsea opposes the whole IPCC process and yet does not appear on the list for similar reasons. Scientists in skeptic organizations are barred from the list because this list has been restricted to statements made by individuals. And so on. --Childhood's End 20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You raise some interesting points Childhoodsend, but here are some others:
* The IPCC website claims "800+ contributing authors" and "450+ lead authors" It isn't clear to me whether these numbers overlap.
They don't. Each chapter typically has a couple of coordinating lead authors, a dozen or so lead authors, and a larger number of contributing authors. They are different individuals. There's a slight amount of overlap in that a few people are involved in more than one chapter. Raymond Arritt 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
* These are just IPCC authors, not every scientist who agrees. The ones who disagree, as we've seen, get a great deal of attention, but agreeing makes you a dime a dozen.
* We haven't even addressed the 2500+ scientific reviewers. I don't know how many of these are scientists, but I'd bet it's more than zero.
Here's a pretty good explanation of what is meant by an "expert reviewer." Raymond Arritt 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
* I agree with you that Tennekes is a dissenter, but not on Landsea. As far as I can tell Landsea supports AGW. It isn't intended to be a list of anyone with something bad to say about the IPCC.
Yes, Landsea is on record as agreeing that human activity is a contributor to the observed warming. He's just upset about the hurricane stuff (and I have some sympathy for his position). In any event the likelihood of several hundred scientists unanimously agreeing on every aspect of a long document is virtually nil. Raymond Arritt 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
* Some of the 22 are actually pretty questionable - it's hard to hear someone say that the planet isn't warming and keep a straight face - a warming of the planet is acknowledged even by most of the critics of AGW. This is something that Lindzen (who in my uninformed opinion is the most credible of deniers) has reversed on - he used to believe we weren't warming, now he agrees that the warming is there, but not that humans are causing it.
* Aside from not having a coherent alternate explanation that they all believe in, the 22 don't even all disagree with the same things. Their is striking disagreement amongst this group about what is or isn't true. It's not like one of them has an alternate explanation that 22 scientists have rallied around.
Whatever the final numbers, one of these groups is certainly small when compared to the other. Mishlai 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
For rough comparison purposes, it's irrelevant that some of the people who have been proposed for the page have been disallowed. I just did a scan through the talk page of that article, and even if you count every single person who has ever even been proposed for that page, the total would only come to about 41 people. By any standard, even 41 is "a small number" when compared to numbers that are in the hundreds or thousands. MrRedact 21:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops! When I made the change to include the word "notable", I didn't even yet know that there was an official guideline on what "notable" means here. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia. "Notable" is indeed an exaggeration for many of the people on the "List of scientists..." page. I'll remove the word. 22:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In my previous comment, I meant I hadn't yet seen the page for academic notability before. I had actually seen the page for general notability before. MrRedact 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's Not OUr Fault This Time

There is nothing that we can do to stop global warming, neither is it the fault of human beings, like so many other things are. There is a known gaping hole in the ozone layer around Antarctica, and that serves as a big hole for the "greenhouse gasses" and all of the heat to get out of. It is like breaking a big hole in the proverbial greenhouse. Global warming is the result of the natural movement of the earth. Periods of unusual warmth in the earth's history have usually been followed by an acute drop of 4-5 degrees Farenheit in temperature for a period of about 200 years, and I believe that this instance is no different.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cheesey goodness (talkcontribs).

You are at odds with nearly all of the planet's competent scientists. You also fail to make sense. Sorry. --Stephan Schulz 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You also don't make any sense Cheesey goodness. I'm afraid you show no comprehension of the way that science works. You stated your belief but it is irrelevant to this talk page which is about improving this article. Candy 00:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Your explanation is good but misses the bit about Aliens visiting the earth 10,000 years ago. That's probably in the second chapter of the book you are going to cite to back this up? --BozMo talk 09:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Siberia bogs

I've been told that these aren't part of IPCC's models, as this would be too complex to model. Could someone please confirm this by citing relevant literature? Narssarssuaq 14:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You might try a Google Scholar search on "IPCC biogeochemical cycles" and/or related terms. If you really want the gory details on the models, the best place to start for model documentation is | here. Raymond Arritt 15:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On page 70 of Romm's Hell and High Water:

"A major 2005 study led by NCAR climate researcher David Lawrence found that..." (according to Lawrence's model runs significant permafrost will be lost at the planet warms). Romm goes on to say that Lawrence's NCAR models do not include the actual temperature feedback effects of the released CO2 (or methane, depending on bog moisture during melt), and that they wont for years. That's Lawrence's model.

Romm goes on to say that "...most major climate models do not include these crucial feedbacks (one exception is below). Thus, the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, coming out this year (2007), almost certainly underestimates greenhouse gas forcing and climate change this century. In short, we have a much tougher task than the U.N.s consensus-based process has been telling us."

On page 72, he discusses his one exception:

"The United Kingdom's Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research has one of the few climate models that incorporates a significant number of carbon-cycle feedbacks, particularly in soils and tropical forests. In a 2003 study, they found that a typical fossil fuel emissions scenario for this century, which would have led to carbon dioxide concentratoins in 2100 of about 700 ppm without feedbacks, led instead to concentrations of 980 ppm with feedbacks, a huge increase."

Romm is speculating on what the IPCC will say, and it isn't all models that are missing this feedback. He doesn't really even clarify whether Hadley is the single exception or one of several. Page 17 of the SPM discusses the effects of carbon cycle coupling on the amount of CO2 emissions that will result in stabilization at X ppm.

For stabilization at 450ppm, the permissible emissions are cited as being 490 instead of 670 GtC, and at 1000ppm an allowable emissions of 1100 instead of 1450 GtC. These are 27% and and 24% reductions, respectively. I don't know if this accounts fully for what Romm is saying, because I don't know how to compare the Hadley numbers to these. It may be that the SPM takes all this into account.

The statement in the article can't stand as is, and I would suggest removing it entirely until we know more.

Here's Lawrence on the melting permafrost, but with no mention of model limitations. Mishlai 15:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. Here's the text: These biogeochemical factors are not included in IPCC's models.

Mishlai 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well... it was pretty true. Most people, by "IPCC models", would mean the various AOGCM runs that used the A1B, etc, SRES scenarios. These models *don't* have the biogeochem in them (apart from any other reasons, they want to be running the same scenarios, not scenarios plus feedbacks). The biogeochem runs are more likely special one-offs William M. Connolley 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It would seem to me that a model could include a feedback without violating scenario - scenarios just describes the human inputs, yes? Another reason they might not be included is because we have, I think, just a single study providing model estimates of what the loss of permafrost will be. Also, as Romm lays it out, the availability of moisture during decay will determine whether the release is mostly CO2 from oxidized methane or whether a substantial amount of methane is released. That's an enormous uncertainty in the strength of the feedback, and I think it would have to be based on other model inputs as the available moisture could vary from region to region.
The SPM seems to imply that these carbon-cycle feedback mechanisms are separate from the main scenario projections - i.e. "Here's what would happen if X, but be aware that some model studies of feedbacks have shown that we actually have to make further reductions to stablize at these levels." The full report will be clearer I hope. Romm would want to make his case as strong as possible, so if he says "most major models" don't have something included, that qualification is there for a reason. If he could say that these factors absolutely were not considered by any of the IPCC's model studies, he wouldn't hesitate to do so. It is possible that he hedged because the report wasn't out yet, but it's also possible that he assumed a flaw that isn't actually present in the final version.
Anyway, the statement lacks a reliable source at this point. Mishlai 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe most runs are down with specified future atmospheric concentrations, rather than specified emission patterns. This emphasizes the differences in model temperature response, but obscures information on the interaction between feedbacks and emissions necessary to achieve those concentrations. Dragons flight 17:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Do the reports typically list those details? I never read TAR. There's also the time-to-release for these feedbacks to take into account, so it's not like we can just plug in the new equivelant ppm numbers and generate a new 21st century estimate, though it might provide upper and lower bounds for discussion purposes. By plug in I actually mean "look for a scenario that fits this new ppm value and use those results." None of that would be article admissible of course, original research & all. I'm just curious. Mishlai 17:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've re-added it, phrased differently. I haven't found a citation yet, feel free to help me out. Narssarssuaq 11:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've looked and can't find one, which is why I removed it. Connolley seems convinced that it is a true statement, and he would know, but it's too strong and important a statement to include without WP:V. If you can't find something pretty quickly, please take it down until you do. There's nothing worse for the credibility of global warming than overstating the case. I'd actually feel a lot better if it came down until then. Mishlai 15:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've upgraded the GCM section to include a mention of this stuff and how GCMs are run. The fact that most GCMs don't include feedback is - forgive me - so blindingly obvious that its probably hard to find a good ref saying it. You can find the converse - that GCMs *are* run with fixed scenarios. For example Nineteen of them have been used to perform idealised 1%/yr CO2-increase climate change experiments suitable for direct intercomparison and these are analysed here. Roughly half that number have also been used in more detailed scenario experiments with time evolutions of forcings including at least CO2 and sulphate aerosols for 20th and 21st century climate. [38] once you know what you're reading William M. Connolley 19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this reference : Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover. [6] --Childhood's End 20:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What's false with "Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used." ?
If you prefer, as per David Orrell : “Models will cheerfully boil away all the water in the oceans or cover the world in ice, even with pre-industrial levels of Co2,” he writes in Apollo’s Arrow . And so scientists use theoretical concepts like “flux adjustments” to make the models agree with reality. When models about the future climate are in agreement, “it says more about the self-regulating group psychology of the modelling community than it does about global warming and the economy.” [7] --Childhood's End 22:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
As for Friends of Science, its advisory board is composed of 4 PhDs in related disciplines, and one of them has been a contributing reviewer for the IPCC. What's so unreliable about it? --Childhood's End 20:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Objectivity is one thing, but then no scientist involved in global warming issues would be allowed to talk. And I would not dismiss a scientist's opinions only on the basis of an arguably erroneous web page (which by the way requires funding to keep up to date!)... --Childhood's End 22:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The question just here isn't whether GCMs include feedback, but whether or not IPCC's total analysis includes the predicted methane emissions from Siberia's bogs. I found it hard to deduce anything in this regard from what you write about the GCMs. Climate isn't my subject, so I hope the question I raised can be resolved by the experts here - whether or not the sentence remains in the article in the meantime or not. Anyhow, methane has an atmospheric lifetime of less than ten years, and this problem is arguably quite minor in the big picture? Narssarssuaq 19:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, fair point. You're right about the lifetime: I don't know if thats dependent on quantity: a big release might overwhelm sinks. I don't know about peat bogs in particular: all I know is that the various carbon cycle feedbakcs are probably positive but of hard-to-know size. Thats in there already William M. Connolley 19:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
William M. Connolley is no more climatology expert than any Greenpeace activist, or any other contributor to these pages. This cannot be stressed enough. The truth is that we do not have any "expert" regarding the topic that you raised, but that some activists like WMC oftenly have presumption enough to fancy themselves as "experts" in climate related topics, and even go as far as to call "trolls" people who can come to disagree with them. The issue that I raised indirectly touches yours and has not been adequately answered yet by the climate community, and it was generating a discussion. But it seems that some climate prophets want to hide it from public eyes. --Childhood's End 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, William M. Connolley is a climate modeller professionally, and Raymond Arritt is a geoscientist. So at least a couple of the contributors really are climate experts. MrRedact 23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hu? Why the ad-hominem attack? William Connolley certainly is well qualified to comment on climate change. You are certainly welcome to disagee with him if you wish, but I' be careful about comparing qualifications. --Michael Johnson 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
These people hold no more ground than does Al Gore. It's funny, though, you mention the ad hominem fallacy whilst committing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. ~ UBeR 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but climatology goes beyond than geoscience and modeling. As far as these fields are concerned, I welcome Raymond's and William's opinions, but WMC has a long history of fancying himself as an expert in all climate-related pages, and the last discussion that he tried to erase was about an issue regarding modeling that he didnt anwer. By the way, David Orell is a PhD in mathematics and specializes in modeling, considers himself "green", but nonetheless holds legitimate issues with "climate modeling". As far as I know, WMC is no math PhD. --Childhood's End 00:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, WMC got his PhD for his work on numerical analysis, which is a branch of applied mathematics. I can't think of another branch of mathematics that would better qualify someone for a career as a climate modeller. WMC is an academically notable climate researcher who has been mentioned as such in Science and The New Yorker, and has authored or co-authored many peer-reviewed papers in the field of climatology. You can attack his actions if you want, but attacking his credentials is a losing battle. MrRedact 05:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It's funny you mention that. He fails in all six criteria. Peer-reviewed papers != notability. But by all means, let the fallacies continue. ~ UBeR 08:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
To count as academically notable, he only has to meet one of the six criteria. Criteria number 1 is "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources." If being talked about as being a climate expert in both Science and The New Yorker doesn't count as meeting criteria number 1, what does? MrRedact 09:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I hope you do realize, though, whilst in The New Yorker, he was being talked about as a Wikipedian, not an expert in climatology. ~ UBeR 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
As a Wikipedian, WMC has done a excellent job (IMHO) with global warming and climate articles (areas of his expertise), helping getting this one to featured status, etc. That's what the New Yorker found notable. I find it very troublesome that people here are attacking him and his credentials. In the real world, I have studied climate change and glaciers in graduate school and had read many of WMC's scholarly papers -- that was all before I joined Wikipedia. And I was absolutely delighted to see him on here working on this and other articles. --Aude (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that climatology involves astrophysics, chemistry, ecology, geology, geophysics, glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, and volcanology, not to mention quantum mathematics, environmental technologies and computer-related sciences. William may be really knowledgeable in one or two of these fields, but the truth is that nobody on Earth can claim to have specialist knowledge in all climatology relevant fields. William, as a WP administrator, should know that, and for that reason, should 1- not call "trolls" people trying to discuss various climatology issues, 2- not erase discussions unless agreement is reached in that regard, and 3- especially abstain from controlling the content of all climate-related pages in the matters that do not fall under his fields of expertise. And even in these, instead of throwing accusations of trolling, his responsibility should be to answer to issues instead of erasing them. --Childhood's End 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You do have a point. Still, this is how science works. Scientific papers, and science itself, leans upon previous knowledge that one can't possibly know every detail about, you'll just have to rely on the work of your references. This could have been a serious threat to science if irrelevant and poorly researched information, in science typically that outside (often peer-reviewed) scientific journals and the likes, had been taken seriously. There are processes constantly in work that contribute to improving every bit in the scientific puzzle, including that it's fun to point out errors in other people's work. Trying to discredit scientific work in a field that you know little about is rarely a good idea, although it would be strange (and actually somewhat discomforting) if non-scientists didn't try to turn every stone in order to see whether we really should be using zillions of euros mitigating global warming or adapting to it. Narssarssuaq 14:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) So to address your models question, Childhoodsend, I think it is best to refer you to this article, which I believe answers your questions. It's true that a model can be made to boil the oceans away, but when a model does that it isn't considered reliable. Adjustments are made, and models are tested for stability (nothing changes if nothing changes) and for an ability to predict past changes for which we have good data. If a model can do these things, then it has demonstrated that it is at least not completely out to lunch. There are still uncertainties because past results might be accurately predicted by a model with one cooling effect set too strong and a heating effect set too strong to compensate. Being able to predict the past does not mean that the model is correct, but it does allow us to eliminate models that are *not* correct.

When a lot of models that are stable and can 'predict' the past make predictions that fall within a certain range, than we can expect with some confidence that this is a decent estimate of the future. Clearly there are improvements to be made, but its far better than trying to work the numbers out on pencil and paper. Further, observed changes since the early model predictions have been consistent with those predictions, giving us even greater confidence. A lot of improvements have been made to the models since these initial and successful predictions were made, so hopefully modern models are even better. Mishlai 16:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I accept that modern models have improved since the early days, but the question is : are they good enough? At least for meteorology, it seems that the models have improved only on the scale that Hendrik Tennekes predicted in the 80's. And as for what you just said, please read the following from Dr. Valerio Lucarini[8], page 4 :
"The presence of structural uncertainties (due to the choices made when a model is built on which processes and feedbacks are described and how they are described) and of parametric uncertainties (due to the lack of knowledge on quantities which characterize the climatic system) implies that every model used to generate projections about future climate change is a priori false, or better, weak in its descriptive power. Climate science does not have a laboratory where theories could be tested against experiments; every model can be tested only against data from the past, which are not necessarily precise. The natural variability of both the model and of the real system contributes to blur the line between a failed and a passed test. Anyway, a positive result would not at all guarantee that the model is able to provide good future projections while at most we can conclude from a negative result that the model does not work properly. The distance from Galilean science is so wide that it is impossible to apply the usual scientific validation criteria to the results of climate science." --Childhood's End 16:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
None of that disagrees with what I said - I think I covered most of those points in fact, and none of it means that the models (not a single model) are without value. Note that I didn't say anything like "previous models were bad, but modern models are better." I said previous models predicted the future reasonably well - "good enough" you might say, and modern models are an improvement from that. Dare I call them "better than good enough"? I'm going to let the discussion drop, because we are't really talking about the article. Mishlai 17:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that what this says is that models are useful tools for many purposes, but perhaps not reliable enough to be used as grounds for governmental policies which affect the lives of every citizen in the civilized world. I live in Canada, and what I can tell you is that when our former Prime Minister Jean Chretien signed Kyoto, his then Environment Minister admitted that it was done on a "gut feeling" rather than on any real understanding of what's happening with the climate.
Anyway - I raised the modeling issue again because it was unseparable from the question raised by the original contributor. Siberia bogs is only one example of something that can be too complex to be modelled by models. Turbulence (one of the unsolved problems in physics) and lower atmosphere clouds is another. Future technologies. Plate tectonics, to some extent. Name it. --Childhood's End 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Svante Arrhenius

Svante Arrhenius's 1896 scientific predictions is mentioned above (on this talk page) and are detailed on his own article, but have no made it into the global warming article proper. This seems like a massive oversight to me. Would anyone be interested in starting a section (which may eventually bud off into its own article) on the history of global warming science? —Pengo 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

...(As the one who mentioned it on this page) I thought this was common knowledge, but yea, I suppose it should be mentioned. Raul654 02:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The article already is way too big. But you're absolutely right, Arrhenius (and Fourier) should be mentioned. It's important to point out that the science behind GW isn't some newfangled scheme that was cooked up 20 or 30 years ago. Since the present article already is too long, it would be best to follow Wikipedia's summary format with just a couple of sentences here and a pointer to the subsidiary article. You seem to be interested in the topic, so go for it! Raymond Arritt 02:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Svante Arrhenius has some problems (i.e. the standard sceptics claim that water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect). Will somebody with more knowledge about sources than I write a sufficiently nuanced sentence there? --Stephan Schulz 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed that by removing it. It wasn't relevant there anyway William M. Connolley 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you are wondering what they don't want you to know: Svante Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier's argument that the earth's atmosphere acted like the glass of a hot-house. Fourier's idea is now accepted, although water vapour (rather than CO2) is acknowledged to provide about 95% of the natural (non-anthropogenic) greenhouse effect. He later wrote Worlds in the Making (1906) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population. Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. From that, the hot-house theory gained more attention. Nevertheless, until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the hot-house / greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth, which has proven to be a powerful predictor of most of the millions of past climate changes. It is important to note that water vapour NOT CO2 provides 95% of the natural (non-anthropogenic) greenhouse effect. And that Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. -- Rameses 21:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Project 32k

This article has bloated, as statements fill with qualifiers and extra text gets added and things that really shouldn't be here get balance added instead of being removed. I propose a bold project to hack the page down to 32k, leaving it fair and balanced but shorter. Inevitably this will mean overriding the cries of Censorship from the usual parties.

I've made a start (now down from 63 to 50k... William M. Connolley 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)).

On a further note, I've noticed that discussion here bloats too, to an unmanageable state. If enough people accept this idea, it may be useful to form a P32k discussion page in someones user space so we can keep things focussed William M. Connolley 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

50-64K is suitable for a discussion page. In regards to the main article, all pages do not necessarily have to be at 32K or below, but whatever suits you. ~ UBeR 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
To be safe, you might want to re-run the article through Peer Review and/or Featured Article Review, especially if the article's changed a lot (I haven't looked at a diff or anything yet). —AySz88\^-^ 00:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's the diff between the 17th May 06 when it was featured, and the present - [39]. I'd wait until the revision process stabilises before a PR or FAR however... Mostlyharmless 02:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


User:Pengo moved the discussion of Ruddiman's preindustrial AGW hypothesis to the "Scientists opposing..." article. Ruddiman argues for a pre-industrial human influence but not against a present-day influence (in fact, it's hard to form a coherent argument that would accept the first without the second). He's also not on record as a skeptic so far as I know. Moving it to another article in order to shorten the present one could be OK, but the "Scientists opposing..." article isn't the right place. Raymond Arritt 04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is called "Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming". The consensus view is that global warming is caused by industrial (or post-industrial) humans, and thus he is opposed to the mainstream assessment. As he doesn't fit into the usual see-no-evil/speak-no-evil camps which are listed on the page, he requires his own section for himself, but still he is opposing the consensus view. Likewise, the snowball earth theory opposes the consensus view that atmospheric CO2 is at an all time high (I see no other reason for it being mentioned on the global warming page), and so I was in the process of moving that too. —Pengo 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be blunt, but this just doesn't fly. Ruddiman's hypothesis is neither here nor there with regard to the cause of recent warming. If anything, it's logically inconsistent to argue that a small change in GHG in pre-industrial time did affect climate and yet a large change in GHG in the present day isn't affecting climate. And snowball earth was > 500 MYa, which is way outside any relevant time frame for current global warming (the continents were in completely different places, for a start). Finally, Ruddiman himself would likely take exception to being thrown in with the "scientists objecting..." camp -- the fact that his latest book is "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate" gives a hint as to his stance on recent warming. Raymond Arritt 04:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok you've convinced me. Sorry, I think I misread Ruddiman's hypothesis to be attributing climate change to pre-industrial type practices rather than modern ones; and the snowball thing seemed to be arguing that the earth has gone through this sort of thing before (as if it were making the point that it's therefore not a problem). But sure, I can see that they can fit. I disagree with your last point, by the way, because many of the scientists on the "opposing" article mostly agree with the scientific consensus to varying degrees, and many would not be classed as deniers, so being lumped with them isn't such a horrible thing. Anyway, those sections as they stand are only background to the article's topic ("Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."), and are not even widely accepted (i think), so they ought to be better summarized, but i guess that's for another day. Good night. —Pengo 05:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

William, stop deleting relevant discussion from the Talk page

Your actions are contrary to Wikipedia policy. Is this how you win arguments? If you don't have the data or logic on your side, you simply delete the discussion while no one is looking? It seems you have fallen into the same mindset as Mann, Jones and Hansen- that it is necessary to truncate the data (or people's access to the data) in order to win the discussion. Ridiculous!RonCram 18:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As one of the participants in the deleted discussion, I agree with William's deletion. Wikipedia policy is for Talk pages to be used to discuss the article and not the topic. I regret having ignored my own advice and will try not to get sucked into the chat-room stuff in future. Best to just leave inflammatory and/or off-topic statements unanswered. Raymond Arritt 18:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with RonCram here. Mr. Connolley is too liberal in deletions, and often violates long-standing policies on deletion. Childhoodsend's discussion is relevant to this discussion page. ~ UBeR 18:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
As usual, WMC and Raymond are right, and Uber is wrong. Raul654 19:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you already forget who started this section? Please do not single me out in your attacks; Wikipedia is not the place for your childish behavior. Please refrain any further digression on this talk page. ~ UBeR 19:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, computer models are related to the global warming article. This is not chat room stuff and the discussion should not be deleted.RonCram 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Uber, it doesn't matter who started this section. You are still wrong. Specusci 14:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a pointless digression that had nothing to do with peat bogs. People are using this page to chat and troll: the only solution is to remove such; otherwise its impossible to find relevant talk. I'm past my 3R today so mus stop. Others can help.

I agree with RonCram - the blatant censorship of Global Warming which has been going on for far too long, has now succeeded in killing off the Martian global page and is even spreading to this talk page. I have reverted William M. Connolley's deletions. Perhaps he is worried that his crew and evidence of their collusion can too easily be seen on this talk page. -- Rameses 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a clear example of how the censors work I have bolded the last two sentences below to highlight obvious censorship This is from the Talk:Global Warming page above in section titled: == Svante Arrhenius ==

Unfortunately, Svante Arrhenius has some problems (i.e. the standard sceptics claim that water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect). Will somebody with more knowledge about sources than I write a sufficiently nuanced sentence there? --Stephan Schulz 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed that by removing it. It wasn't relevant there anyway William M. Connolley 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is going to join me in fighting this hi-jacking of Wikipedia: GW? -- Rameses 20:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Come now, it was edited and removed because it was (a) factually wrong, and (b) not particularly relevant to that part of the article anyway. Obviously a means something needs to be done, and b simply means that the easiest thing to do is just remove it. Quite simply the claim that "water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect" is completely unsupported - I challenge you to provide even one peer reviewed source that says as much. The standard reference on the matter seems to be "Ramanathan, V. and J. Coakley, 1978: Climate modeling through radiative-convective models. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., 16, 465-490." which gives water vapour as around 36% of GE (higher if you include cloud effects, and it gets tricky due to interactions, things don't add linearly). -- Leland McInnes 22:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
William M. Connolley is obviously biaised regarding global warming, has an administrator status with Wikipedia, and is intensely involved in controlling content on climate related pages. This latest censorship attempt is beyond any neutral and adult behaviour. Let the discussion go, see where it leads and how it settles, then ask if it should be erased or not. This deed poll by WMC can only show how this administrator is ready to fancy himself as an authority in climate-related topics, and this should raise a big, big warning signal. --Childhood's End 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm at a loss here. The 95% claim is, indubiably, factually wrong. Moreover, if you look at the (German) excerpt from Arrhenius publication on the talk page, you will notice that he acknowledged and included the effect of water vapour (if not with perfect values). About the only argument for keeping the sentence that I can imagine is "this wrong information supports my POV, so it has to stay in", which I find too stupid to believe. Please have a better explanation! Also, please read up on censorship and stop throwing around baseless accusations. --Stephan Schulz 17:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Why haven't the global warming sceptics realised that the best way to get people to be sceptical about global warming is to allow people like Mr Connolley to do whatever they want. Most people have a very simple test for whether they believe an article - that it is self critical. E.g. almost everone knows that global warming will make it WARMER - therefore most people know that in colder areas it will be more pleasant in winter. People aren't stupid! When they read an article like this they'll be looking out for a reference to this kind of obvious benefit - the lack of any reporting will cause them to become sceptical about the whole article and question whether any of it can be trusted. Personally I've gone from a "believer" that warming will happen (until fossil fuel runs out), to a disbeliever of anything Mr Connolley and by extension any pro-global warming advocate says if there's plenty of fuel as they say, and the worst we can expect is a climate like spain - then what on earth is everyone worrying about! Thanks William, I used to worry about global warming - now I'm rather looking forward to it! Mike 17:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Try telling that to people in Bangladesh who'll be flooded out of their homes. Or people in Mediteranean countries, which are likely to become deserts. G-Man * 19:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The aim of Wikipedia (and science) is not to create "believers" that are swayed by trivialities, but to provide people with a basic understanding of the issues. Go read our articles, go read the IPCC reports, and then explain how William's behaviour can influence, say, the absorbtion spectrum of carbon dioxide. --Stephan Schulz 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan up until I met William I didn't really question that global warming was bad. I now realise there are some very nasty people in the pro- lobby who will stop at nothing to spin the facts. But why would anyone so distort the facts when the facts seemed to speak for themselves? OK I've met many naive environmentalists, but I always assumed they were in the minority and I never thought I'd ever find one with a science degree. Now I can see why people have been sceptical about global warming - they've been lied to - there is no evidence that global warming will do more harm than good - now I see why some people are desperate to control the article - stray at all from the simple fact of whether there has been a temperature rise and they haven't got a fact to stand on! Give it 30 years and it'll be forgotten like the impending ice age! Mike 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be getting out of hand. I would like to remind all parties to ignore the trolls. —AySz88\^-^ 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of all this, I'm somewhat confused by removing something about Greenhouse Gasses, when if it's correct or incorrect depending on how you perceive it. May I remind everyone what it says here about it? You're arguing about two different things; natural versus anthropogenic. Can we get our terms correct before we start a discussion? It is factually incorrect but only if you don't include clouds, it looks like.
"The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds)"
"Greenhouse gases are components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases."
Which actually contradicts in a way another article, it seems, but certainly supports the idea that water vapor is the major one:
"Gaseous water represents a small but environmentally significant constituent of the atmosphere. Most of it is contained in the troposphere. Besides accounting for most of Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which warms the planet, gaseous water also condenses to form clouds, which may act to warm or cool, depending on the circumstances. In general terms, atmospheric water strongly influences, and is strongly influenced by weather, and weather is modified by climate."
We should start discussing the same thing. Sln3412 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Removing all water vapour will reduce the greenhouse effect by 36% (give or take some uncertainties). Removing all other greenhous gases will leave us with 70%. Since varous gases absorb in different, but overlapping parts of the spectrum, one cannot simply give a number like 95% (but 95% is not even in the range of defensible values). Both CO2 and WV occur naturally in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect doesn't care if the source is anthropogenic or natural. But CO2 has a long lifetime and is a climate driver, while WV has a short lifetime and is only a feedback. Clouds are importat, but are not water vapour (they consist of liquid or even frozen water). There is no way the removed statement can be legitimately considered true. --Stephan Schulz 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore

While Al Gore is no scientist, he has certainly become well known for his popularization of global warming. I've even heard people refer to "Al Gore's global warming" like he owns the patent. He's also mentioned six times on this current talk page in various sections (and plenty more times in archived talk). But... he doesn't get a single mention on the global warming article. Is there no room for a section on the "popularization of global warming" or "key personalities"? Does this article have to be "just the facts, ma'am"? —Pengo 11:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How many of those six times are negative? If you actually did count, at least one (mine) was to make a point that these non-scientists and non-experts here are no more qualified than Al Gore, which is the truth. Al Gore isn't a scientist; he has artistic license, but that's about it. He hasn't contributed anything to the science of global warming, at all. ~ UBeR 19:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not to the science, but you cannot ignore the public attention he has brought to the issue of Global Warming. Not only producing a widely popular documentry, he has definitely been a voice in the public's eye. To say that he is insignificant simply because he is no scientist, nor has he contributed original research to the effects of global warming, is a simple statement indeed. Specusci 14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps in Politics of global warming, or controversy, but this article is best as just the facts ma'am. Mishlai 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Take 2

Reading, I came across another version of the global warming article at

However, I think the current wikipedia version is more suitable. Chrisnumbers2000 07:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know...I kind of like the part about the "liberal athiests scientists" who are "untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him". Also, it's not cluttered up with all these sources, unlike our version. --Stephan Schulz 07:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I laughed out loud when I read your response, Stephan. How true. Specusci 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, maybe you are right. I suppose that bit was quite good. Chrisnumbers2000 09:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole site is a good laugh. Except that some people believe it. --Michael Johnson 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
On another serious matter, why does a wiki search for "global wamring" return an article on Jacques Chirac as having some relevance? I am not exactly sure what is a "wamring", but it doesn't sound pleasent. Chrisnumbers2000 04:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea wikis just weird haha i really felt that the article on global warming needed to keep the reader engaged. I was quite bored when i read it. Maybe Jacques Chirac have something to do with global warming? you may never no

  1. ^ Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggest,, 08 Dec 2003.
  2. ^ Look to Mars for the truth on global warming,, 02 Feb 2007.
  3. ^
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Milkov_2004 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ USGS World Energy Assessment Team, 2000. US Geological Survey world petroleum assessment 2000––description and results. USGS Digital Data Series DDS-60.
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^