Talk:Global warming/Archive 34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 30 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 40

Second Paragraph: Conclusion

In my opinion, the current state of the highlighted section in the second paragraph reflects poorly on Wikipedia and its standards - especially considering the significance of this particular article - it's plainly not up to professional standards.

At best, the highlighted section is uncorroborated. At worst, it's uncorroborated and misleading:

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with the conclusions of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with the conclusions [4]."

Throughout this discussion, I am the only person to suggest an alternative:

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by the National Academies of Science of 25 countries; including each of the G8+5 [1][2][3]. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC, the "overwhelming majority" of papers on climate change, published in refereed scientific journals, are in agreement with them [4]."

References: [1], [2], [3], [4]

In addition to being properly referenced, this is, indisputably, more accurate and more informative. The only substantive objection to it so far is that it's "bad writing" - which I disagreed with. To be perfectly honest, I'm really not sure why this solution has been overruled; I've yet to receive a rebuttal on any of my prompted explanations for why I believe my suggestion to be a great deal more appropriate than the current text. In the end, the majority response seems to simply be "No" or "I don't care"... which obviously isn't very productive.

Regardless, it seems we have four options:

a) Leave the passage as it is, b) Leave the passage's text as it is but add more references, c) Change the passage to my suggested replacement, d) Change the passage to something else [alternative suggestion required]

I am trying to make the article better by providing the reader with more information and references. I am truly having difficulty understanding how people can object to being more precise in a scientific article. Nevertheless, I have no intention of forcing my change (or any change) on the article. If the majority of people here believe option A is the best way forward, then I guess that's just how it is.

I leave the decision up to you, the community. Shall we just take a vote? After 7 days, the option with the most votes will be acted upon. Obviously I vote for option C. Please just be sure that what you do (or don't do) has what's best for the article in mind - having a quick glance at the referenced passages from the sources wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Thanks for listening. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

While voting is probably not the best way to come with a consensus, I do have an opinion about your suggestion.
First sentence; either version works for me. I am somewhat concerned that Icanhasnawlidge's version doesn't have a good place to link Scientific opinion on climate change and that it is less inclusive than the current language (it ignores the non-national academy societies referred to in the current version). On the other hand, it also more specific, and that might make it last longer and appear to be more convincing. Since I see advantages and disadvantages with both version, as long as Icanhasnawlidge's version does include a link to scientific opinion on climate change, I don't have an opinion either way.
Second sentence; I prefer the current version because it has a more logical parallel structure. Icanhasnawlidge's version of this sentence addresses both individual opinions about global warming and the publication record. Personally, I'd be happiest with just removing any mention of individuals who challenge the conclusions of the IPCC, but consensus on this talk page is that the existence of climate change skepticism is important enough to go in the lead of this article. Therefore, the existence of climate change skeptics needs to be put in context. Previous context has been the words " a few individual scientists" (the word "few" was subject to an extremely high amount of edit warring and constant talk page discussion) and current context is "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with the conclusions of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with the conclusions." Icanhasnawlidge's suggested sentence makes little sense. It implies that the IPCC conlcusions come first, and peer reviewed publications then agree or disagree. In fact, the IPCC does not create new data; it is instead a consensus review of the current state of knowledge (=peer-reviewed publications). The Oreskes 2004 review shows that the IPCC is building on a literature that generally agrees, instead of a literature with two diametrically opposed camps shouting at each other, of which the IPCC chose the opinion of one camp. However, if we want the conclusions of the Oreskes 2004 review, we should cite it instead of citing the Royal Society public information publication, and we should include it for its own sake, not as context for the existence of individual skeptics. If someone wants new language, I can suggest "While indvidual scientists have voiced disagreement with the conclusions of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists are convinced of the reality of anthropogenic global warming.[4]"
To summarize; the IPCC is essentially a consensus literature review; we don't need to mention that the literature agrees with it in the lead of this top-level, introductory summary article. Because we are required to mention that some people disagree with the consensus, the sentence that mentions this should be all about individual scientists' personal opinions, not published research. - Enuja (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ignore the non-national societies bit, the existing references did. Without a reference, it shouldn't be there. As for the second sentence, I think your suggested text is drastically worse. The whole point of my change was to highlight the fact that it's an overwhelming majority of papers on climate change, not scientists. However, with that in mind, I do agree that using the Oreskes 2004 review as a reference, in addition to [4], would be much better. I think that is a wonderful suggestion. [example ref] I disagree that the last sentence is inappropriate. It deals with agreement vs disagreement and I think it's integral to the section. I also disagree that we shouldn't mention literature agreeing with the IPCC - the IPCC is only a subset of the world's scientific community and therefore it's totally relevant to identify the fact that the majority of published papers agree with their summary conclusions. Of course, our opinions are of little consequence, it was deemed relevant enough that a review was done on it and the Royal Society subsequently referenced that review. Again, your issues with the change seem to boil down to "bad writing". I'd be perfectly open to alternative prose that covered the exact same points I'm making here. My issue is with the referenced details, not the flow of the writing. If voting isn't usually how these things are resolved, that's cool, as long as it actually does get resolved in the end. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
After reading it (opps, sorry, I hadn't done that yet) I absolutely support the use of Oreskes 2004 in the lead section, even as a stand-alone source, although the Royal Society one might be good keep around. - Enuja (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Personally, I think we should have both. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is it okay to skip a specific inline citation on the phrase "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with the conclusions of the IPCC" but not on the phrase "at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries."? Both are summary phrases that point to the article that elaborates the idea. I know we need to avoid original research, and specifically the synthesis of information from multiple reliable sources, but I think we are allowed to count, and that's all the "30 societies" bit is. - Enuja (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a very good point. The way I see it, if there's no reference, it shouldn't be there. Accordingly, if we can't find a good reference for the "While individual scientists [disagree]" bit then we should remove it. Earlier, I suggested this [ref] to get us started. Perhaps you know of something better? However, we still don't have any supporting reference(s) for the "30 societies" bit, so that's why I don't think it should be present. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So, to update our progress, here is the most recent suggested replacement: "These basic conclusions have been endorsed by the National Academies of Science of 25 countries; including each of the G8+5 [1][2][3]. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC [4], the "overwhelming majority" of papers on climate change, published in refereed scientific journals, are in agreement with them [5][6]."

References: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

I think this is pretty solid, scientifically. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why quote "overwhelming majority" when the text of both sources factually support the statement and the source with the words "overwhelming majority" is the second source? Honestly, I could live with this version, although I am seriously opposed to the quotes around two words, and I'm not convinced that the second sentence is parallel enough in its logic. - Enuja (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the scare quotes either. Otherwise, I suppose it could be worse, though it's inferior to the current wording. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I addressed that earlier, just search for "scare quotes" on the page - and please read it. Here is an external definition for scare quotes (link). Within my suggested text, it is a direct quote, so Raymond's classification of scare quotes is totally inappropriate here. And, again, if you don't like the writing, please offer an alternative - my issue is with the referenced details, not the flow of the writing. Finally, if you prefer, we can put the Royal Society source first (5 instead of 6). Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
A direct quote can still serve the purpose of a scare quote, viz. "scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase from which you, the writer, wish to distance yourself." Shall we comb through the article and put quotes around every word that appears in a cited source? Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I've already addressed why I believe those words in particular deserve direct quoting, Raymond. For the last time, please just take a moment to read my earlier comments. It will allow us to progress much quicker towards a resolution if we don't start going around in circles. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The only quote from you above that I can find supporting the use of quotes around the words overwhelming majority is "You think that putting a quotation around "overwhelming majority" looks like scare quotes. Well, to be honest, I think that's irrelevant. It's proper referencing procedure. Additionally, I notice that the choice of words to use there was a contentious issue. Putting direct quotes around it removes the need to debate it... as it shouldn't have been a debate in the first place. Again, I disagree that it's out of place in the lead section."
I honestly don't understand your argument. You simply say "it's proper referencing procedure", and I (and Raymond Arritt and others) simply disagree. In addition to my personal opinion about writing, a book I've used to teach writing (Jan Penchenik's A Short Guide to Writing about Biology) argues that quotes should be used only when they are extraordinary language, and that paraphrasing should be used the rest of the time. I honestly can't find any related policies here on wikipedia; the manual of style's section on quotations is about how to include them, not when to include them. However, I should also point out that, right after this language was inserted, quotes were inserted [1] and promptly removed [2]. I don't remember if there were other insertions and removals of the quotes, but the editing consensus for the last month has been to keep the quotes out. - Enuja (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You quote me and then ignore the second half the quote in your summation?! "Additionally, I notice that the choice of words to use there was a contentious issue. Putting direct quotes around it removes the need to debate it... as it shouldn't have been a debate in the first place." I would argue that this qualifies for your "extraordinary language" clause. This, in addition to the fact that I believe it's proper referencing procedure, is my argument. Raymond's point is moot as the first sentence of Sussex's description of "scare quotes" puts it into context: "The use of quotation marks can be extended to cases which are not exactly direct quotations". Mine is a direct quote. Regardless, yes, we obviously disagree on this issue. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The usual example of extraordinary language is Winston Churchill's "It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." I simply can't image how putting quotes around two words has any effect on how debatable or convincing or challenge-proof a phrase is. That depends on the reliability and content of the source. The quotes just look bad and they don't make it any more well-cited. - Enuja (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, remember that as convincing as you may find your arguments to be, others may still hold a different perspective and it seems to me that what you perceive to be 'running around in circles' I see as the will of one colliding with the coinciding opinions of many. Brusegadi (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think that's a gross misinterpretation - and not just because two other users in this discussion have agreed with the idea of using quotes. I was frustrated with the fact that I was having to repeat myself - and I explicitly stated so - not at people disagreeing with me. Indeed, to be even more precise, I consider these last several points representative of us running around in circles (or at least on the spot). Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See section below for votes for/against putting "overwhelming majority" in quotes within my suggested replacement text. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at using the Oreskes source on its own and just ignoring the Royal Society's - due to the inability for everyone here to agree on the issue - but by sticking to the language used in that article directly, we'd end up removing the "overwhelming majority" bit altogether. And, obviously, the proponents of not using quotes would never agree to that.

So, even though my voting idea received only opposition on this page, I think we should let the majority rule and I offer this as the updated replacement: "These basic conclusions have been endorsed by the National Academies of Science of 25 countries; including each of the G8+5 [1][2][3]. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC [4], the overwhelming majority of papers on climate change, published in refereed scientific journals, are in agreement with them [5][6]."

References: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Icanhasnawlidge implemented some of these suggestions, but no-where here do I see a suggestion to have a fact tag in the 2nd lead paragraph of a featured article, so I reverted the addition of the fact tag. Personally, I think that it isn't original research to count from existing sources. Normally, it makes sense to have a source for every statement, but, since this a summary of other articles, I don't think we need one. I think the sourced article is appropriate. If there MUST be an inline citation for a summary sentence that points to an article that is summarized by the sentence (a strange conception, if you ask me), we should draft, here, a note that includes lists the scientific societies and gives references for their statements. We can't source this summary with a single outside reference, but we can source it with a reference to additional sources. - Enuja (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly keeping score here, but I think the {{fact}} tag should stay until someone actually gives a concrete, verifiable reference on the matter. At most 15 different qualifying entities are listed in the Scientific opinion on climate change article. I think it deserves a reference. Surely the number is true, but is it verifiable? As an outside observer, I find it quite hard to discern how the author arrived at this number. Silly rabbit (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The 2001 Joint Science Academies statement alone has 16 different signatories, so you may want to count again. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I am perfectly happy to count, but the article should give a clue as to what sources I am supposed to count. A long footnote would suffice. Again, I'm not disputing the veracity of the number, merely inquiring as to how this number was obtained. At one point, the number "63" was somehow relevant. Why was this reduced to 30? Can the original author be located for comment? Silly rabbit (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea where 63 came from, and don't remember it being in the article. Since you are unwilling to read the linked article Scientific opinion on climate change, let me spell it out for you: The 2001 joint statement was signed by the scientific academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germay, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. That's 16. The 2005 statement adds Japan, Russia, and the U.S. for a running total of 19. The 2007 statement adds Mexico, and South Africa, for a running total of 21. Professional societies listed in the article are the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, and Engineers Australia. (We left out a few because skeptical editors insisted that medical societies and the like weren't relevant.) That's 9 professional societies, added to the 21 science academies, for a total of "30 scientific societies and academies of science." Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have added the method of reckoning to the article. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh come on. There's no need to interrupt the narrative of the article with a big list like this[3] when the material is given in references and the linked article. That's pressing the boundaries of WP:POINT. Assuming you're not deliberately trying to muddle the article, then put it in a footnote. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Assuming I remembered to close my <ref>-tags, it is in a footnote. *Checks temperature*... be cool. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Raymond: I find your repeated belligerence to be totally unprofessional and, most importantly, unproductive. I think that you need to learn how to debate issues without being disrespectful of people. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Correct. I was going to remove it fully, as discussed, in the hope that someone, eventually, would find a reference for it and add it back again. I decided it would be best to leave it there and ask for a reference now. Unfortunately, that didn't pay off too well. In my opinion, simply linking to another Wikipedia article isn't optimal but, if no one has anything better, I guess it'll have to stay. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Overwhelming Majority

I reverted User:Jeff dowter's removal of the word "overwhelming" in the second paragraph of the lead. Here is the talk discussion that lead to the insertion of that language and that source. Jeff dowter in the edit summary said that the language in the article was a misrepresentation of the source. However, the source is not a review of papers or a survey of climate scientists, but instead the considered opinion of the Royal Society. - Enuja (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true there is no indication in the source what percentage of all climate scientists actually agree with all IPCC findings. "Overwhelming" is an adjective arbitrarily chosen by the Royal Society. This really cannot be in there. Bacteriophage (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
What percentage of physicists accept Newton's laws as a reasonable approximation for macroscopic phenomena? What percentage of biologists accept that DNA encodes genetic information? What percentage of physicians believe in the germ theory of disease? Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
These are all deterministic phenomena, not stochastically derived climate predictions. Apples to oranges. Bacteriophage (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The relevant issue isn't how the principle works, but instead your implicit statement that unless we have survey results we can't make any statement as to agreement. (Also note that climate models aren't stochastic, but that's beside the point.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
And a better comparison is "apples to barrel of monkeys". -- SEWilco (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Produce a reference with the results of a sampling of a statistically significant number of climate scientists (not just those on the IPCC and not just a survey of published papers) that indicates a number much greater than 50% agrees with all the IPCC current findings AND future predictions...and then we can include the term "overwhelming", if that is the term the authors of the published survey choose. Bacteriophage (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You arguments boil down to "I dont like it." The source says it! (one as reliable as they get.) Brusegadi (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there is simply no evidence to support the use of the term. Contributions are thrown out all the time when the reference is some nonsense blog with no supporting data. Even the Royal Society has to produce evidence. You are pushing an "appeal to authority" argument...a very common fallacy. We cannot have that here. Bacteriophage (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, if we were arguing pure truths then you may be right, but this is not about truth, this is about a reliable source saying something and us reproducing it here. See the difference? Brusegadi (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed in the section above as well ("Second Paragraph") - where, in addition to other changes, I recommend we put "overwhelming majority" in quotes and change the word scientists to "papers on climate change, published in refereed scientific journals" (as is specifically mentioned in the source [paragraph below 'overwhelming majority']; that's the study they use to back up their use of the word 'scientists'). Please read the section above for the full text of the suggested change (it's underlined). In my opinion, your subjective arguments are out-of-place in this instance; if we agree that the source is reliable, then directly quoting the source removes the need to debate what language to use. This is proper referencing procedure. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree. ~ UBeR (talk)
I am not the one insisting a subjective qualifier modify "majority." Bacteriophage (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

10:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This suggestion is a pure WP:OR attempt to critic a notable and credible source. --BozMo talk 16:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Bacteriophage argues above that using the Royal Society source is an appeal to authority. Bacteriophage also argues that a poll is needed to verify the proportion of climate scientists who support the conclusions of the IPCC, and that the word "overwhelming" could only appear in this article if it appeared in the aforementioned hypothetical published poll. I think this is a misunderstanding of the idea of citing sources that other users share. It is okay, and in fact preferable, to use original language when writing anything. This article should hang together coherently, and speak in the tone created by collaborative editing. It should not be a quilt pieced together with words from journal articles and societies' proclamations. That's just bad writing. The facts should be supported by sources, but the wording itself should come from us, not from the sources. - Enuja (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Scientific articles often use direct quotes from sources, surrounded by quotation marks, before the cited reference. This is perfectly normal. And for such a contentious topic - dealing with one of the most contentious groups of statements within the article - it seems logical to be as specific as possible. The idea that this would turn the entire article into a quilt of quoted statements is obviously ridiculous. Once again, my suggestion is concise, comprehensive, correct and properly referenced. I have yet to see a valid argument presented against its use. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Enuja. Brusegadi (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree to quoting it as well. Presenting it without quotes implies that the "overwhelming majority" is a generally accepted fact. In reality, it is the opinion of one source and should be noted as such, either with quotes, or saying that "The Royal Society claims that an overwhelming majority of ...". If I found a source that claimed that global warming dissent is growing among scientists, I don't think anyone would allow the article to say that without qualification, and this source should be no different. Oren0 (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree strongly with Oren0. With quotes, I think "overwhelming majority" is fine. However, "overwhelming" has a connotation that should not be presented as fact. When presented as fact, "overwhelming" tends to convey the idea that no opposing viewpoint could be seriously maintained. For example, the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the theory of relativity despite the existence of [objections]. However "overwhelming" you may personally believe the number of scientists is that accept GW (as defined by common usage), there are countless articles from countless sources including many, many reputable sources that dispute GW (again, as defined by common usage). If any of the editors listed below as opposing the quotes are convinced by this argument, please change your vote and reintroduce the quotes accordingly. Bjp716 (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read 'Second Paragraph: Conclusion' above. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On the voting idea, here's a list of who supports and opposes putting quotes around "overwhelming majority." I've put together comments on this page and the reverts mentioned above. Please feel free to edit the list to add your own position or change your position if I got it wrong or to add someone else's stated opinion if I missed it. - Enuja (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Bacteriophage is already represented in the 'supported' list by another name? Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Banned users and their sockpuppets have no voice in Wikipedia. Strictly speaking, his comments here should all be deleted (see WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits) but I don't think that's necessary. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Causality link between CO2 and temperature status unclear

In the FAQ for the discussion of this article, the entry concerning causality of CO2 in temperature change is inaccurate; empirical measurements have not causally linked CO2 increases with temperature increases. The FAQ entry firmly establishes that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere presently is very likely from man-made sources; i.e., that it is not the case that the presently high CO2 concentration is the result of increased temperature. This incorrect connection, however, does not make the converse false as well (that, in the past, changes in temperature have caused changes in CO2). To my knowledge, the following theory has not been empirically falsified (correct me, with references, if I am wrong):

  • CO2 may cause a small temperature increase, but its effect on temperature is now and has always been dominated by other effects
  • In pre-industrial history, global temperature change has resulted in an increase of CO2
  • Industrial society has caused a large increase in CO2 which is unprecedented in human history

This theory allows the contents (but not the title) of the FAQ entry to be accurate while rejecting the implication the title of the entry gives the information. If the author of this entry believes that it is well-established that CO2 has driven temperature in the past, please include citations. A sufficient citation should include an explanation of why CO2 lags temperature. In the absence of these citations, I suggest a small change in the actual article to reflect the lack of consensus on past CO2-temperature causality: in the "Pre-human climate variations" section, I suggest changing "A rapid buildup of greenhouse gases caused warming in the early Jurassic period..." to "A rapid buildup of greenhouse gases coincided with warming in the early Jurassic period..." (emphasis to be removed in actual article). I also suggest that the title of the entry in the FAQ be changed from "How do we know that the rise in global temperatures isn't causing the increase in CO2 and not vice versa? That means the CO2 increase comes from something besides fossil fuels." to "Can't the presently high levels of CO2 just be the result of temperature changes rather than fossil fuels, as they may have been in the past?" The two existing bullets do answer this question, whereas they do not answer the current question.

Because of the nature of the subject, I wanted to run this change by everyone before changing the article. In the absence of objection, I'll make the change in a couple of days. Bjp716 (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is another example of rapid CO2 build up leading to higher temperatures Count Iblis (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
From the abstract of the actual paper[[4]]: "We show that the onsets of environmental change ... preceded the light carbon injection by several thousand years." "The lag of approx3,000 years between the onset of warming in New Jersey shelf waters and the carbon isotope excursion is consistent with the hypothesis that bottom water warming caused the injection of 13C-depleted carbon by triggering the dissociation of submarine methane hydrates, but the cause of the early warming remains uncertain." I do not see how this article contradicts any of the above 3 bullets; if anything, it lends credibility to #2. Bjp716 (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I support the change from "caused" to "coincided with". In the past, carbon dioxide served as a positive feedback, in the present, it is serving as a driver. johnpseudo 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You're spot-on with the last sentence, but I'm not sure "coincided with" reflects that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If no one disputes that CO2 was not the cause of this warming and was instead just a positive feedback mechanism, how about "A rapid buildup of greenhouse gases amplified warming in the early Jurassic period..."? Also, the sentence in the next paragraph about methane release being "a cause for other warming events in the distant past" tends to imply that this was not the mechanism for the early Jurassic warming. Is this accurate? If not, should we remove the word "other"? Bjp716 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We're getting away from the subject. The current increase in CO2 is certainly due to human causes, and the article should say this. There is no possibility of it being natural William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Johnpseudo already changed "amplified" (thanks, John) Let me know if you object to this change on the FAQ page: [FAQ entry 11 title] "Can't the presently high levels of CO2 just be the result of temperature changes rather than fossil fuels, as they may have been in the past?" If no response, I'll change it in the next couple of days. Bjp716 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The temperature graph at the top of the page is from a very biased website does anyone have proof of its accuracy?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Why does the anonymous IP believe the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office to be 'very biased'? This research center is a well respected throughout the climatology community. Please present solid evidence to the contrary. --Skyemoor (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Effects of Water Vapour

The effects of water vapour on global warming go largely un-mentioned in the global community. Scientists note that water vapour accounts for approximately 36%(1) of greenhouse gases. As this figure is un-noted by Environmental Activists, a new argument (2) springs up; since CO2 emissions make-up a miniscule percentage of global greenhouse gases, the effects of pollution are negligible. I am writing to refute this argument, because water vapour is a key component of future warming.

The warming trend of the last fifty years is unlikely to spontaneously reverse itself, as greenhouse gas emissions on the rise. With global temperatures increasing, our atmosphere experiences a resultant increase in the moisture-capacity of air.

A higher moisture-capacity results in a higher volume of water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere. As water vapour accounts for 36% of greenhouse gases, even a small percentage-increase will increase temperatures. The problem lies here: As increasing temperatures result in an increase in water vapour, and an increased amount of water vapour results in increasing temperatures, this cycle will soon becomes unstoppable.

The Earth is currently in equilibrium, yet humans such as ourselves are rapidly pushing Earth past the brink, to a future where recuperation is not possible.

--Diego Bank (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You want to read greenhouse effect(or GHG) for some better numbers, and for some perspective William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The original source for the percentages on water vapour was not reliable, and I've changed the GHG statistic to 36%. I'm glad to see an article on the runaway greenhouse effect. Water vapour and temperature is currently a "positive feedback effect", yet this is likely to become unstable as global temperatures increase. Diego Bank (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


How much more effective of a green house gas is water vapor than CO2? You know you see these ratios for nitrous oxides (a couple hundred or so) and methane (40 or 50 i think). If this ratio is large for water vapor, I think that would support the notion that CO2 isn't that important. But if its very small, then perhaps the opposite. SoilMan2007 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As reported by BBC News: "Water Vapour is the biggest contributor to the 'natural greenhouse effect' and varies the most in the atmosphere. Cold air can hold little water and so the atmosphere over the polar regions contains very little water vapour. In contrast, air over the tropics is very humid and the atmosphere can contain up to 4% water vapour. It is this 'positive feedback' that makes water vapour important in climate change as a small increase in global temperature would lead to a rise in global water vapour levels thus further enhancing the greenhouse effect. Human activities have little impact on the level of water vapour in the atmosphere." It's a common misconception in the blogosphere that increased waper vapor is causing global warming. Actually, climate scientists believe that other greenhouse gases- CO2, methane, et cetera- cause changes in the nature of H20 in the atmosphere that then lead to more warming. H2O is an accelerant- a "positive feeback mechanism" for warming. If your interested in the exact numbers, see RealClimate for some related computer experiments. (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is this feedback loop that I am worried about. Thank you for the great link --Diego Bank (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Increase of intensity of extreme weather events

This article mentions that global warming is expected to lead to an increase of the intensity of extreme weather events. Presumably this would lead to larger temperature fluctuations. Do temperature records show such a trend? Count Iblis (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

hottest year on record error

Hello. Unless I'm mistaken, there's a blatant error in this article. "Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization and the Climatic Research Unit concluded that 2005 was the second warmest year, behind 1998." This is untrue. The warmest year on record is 1934, as shown by data released by NASA, linked below. I've never edited an article before, so assuming I'm correct, would someone please edit the article to post the correct figures? Dibadiba (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is correct. You are not Raul654 (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this NASA data about USA only? I know some Americans struggle to remember that there is anywhere else but... --BozMo talk 06:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Not even the whole United States, just the 48 contiguous states. Dibadiba, you might be interested in perusing the 5-year mean listed in that NASA data and charting a graph of that. --bainer (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think the assumption that you are correct is not correct and someone please correct me if I am not correct. The NASA data refers to US temperatures. World temperature rankings were not significantly affected by this change to the US temperature record. Brusegadi (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome, Dibadiba. (I'm afraid the other users would rather pounce on you than welcome you to the project.) As the others have already stated, I'm afraid the data you're referring to does not reflect global temperature, which is what we discuss in the article. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"University of Chicago professor and discoverer of the solar wind Eugene Parker has addressed the connection between science and politics"

University of Chicago professor and discoverer of the solar wind Eugene Parker has addressed the connection between science and politics, saying "Global warming has become a political issue both in government and in the scientific community. The scientific lines have been drawn by 'eminent' scientists, and an important new idea is an unwelcome intruder. It upsets the established orthodoxy."[1]

Why can't this be added to the article, it's both relevant and sourced.--—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Because this article focuses on the science. Political commentary should be in Global warming controversy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, the article expresses opinion, and therefore is not a peer-reviewed, reliable source. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Could the terms such as radiative Forcing be linked to their respective pages just to make it easier to read through the article and understand terms —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I wikified it. --Splette :) How's my driving? 02:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Extreme weather events"

Recent New York Times article seems to imply that there is a significant scientific debate about the impact of global warming to the frequency of extreme weather events: "Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, recently noted the very different reception received last year by two conflicting papers on the link between hurricanes and global warming. He counted 79 news articles about a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and only 3 news articles about one in a far more prestigious journal, Nature. Guess which paper jibed with the theory — and image of Katrina — presented by Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”? It was, of course, the paper in the more obscure journal, which suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes. The paper in Nature concluded that global warming has a minimal effect on hurricanes. It was published in December — by coincidence, the same week that Mr. Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize." Does this need to be reflected in the Global warming article? --Doopdoop (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There really hasn't been a comprehensive study of "extreme weather" by timeline and type, as far as I know, and I had looked high and low for something like that recently. And by extreme, I was looking for data on high variations, especially timewise, in temperature, precipitation, and so on above and beyond the number of hurricanes per season and such. At best, I only found stuff like this. With that said, there is this Wikipedia article that seems to cover most of the info that's currently available and you may want to give that a looksee first. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
What were the articles? Who wrote them? And how on earth is Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society -- the official organ of the UK's national academy of science, and the world's longest-standing scientific journal in the English language -- an "obscure journal"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Doopdoop has an excellent point here. This really needs to be addressed in the article. Frenstad (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but only after Doopdoop (or another editor) answers Raymond Arritt's very reasonable questions.--HughGRex (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the New York Times article is biased. But if we take away the POVs, we can see that there are two papers in two top class scientific journals, reaching opposite conclusions about the impact on extreme weather events. So I think the degree of scientific debate about this should somehow be indicated in the global warming article. --Doopdoop (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how this affects the article. The article is quite clear that an increase in extreme weather events is one effect of global warming that is possible, but does not claim that this is inevitable. Nor does the article make any claim at all about Katrina. So the article reflects the scientific "doubts", as Doopdoop suggests it should. The article is already quite cautionary in its tone. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It might also be a more efficient use of time to first know a little bit more about the person who wrote the column and his politics. And the column itself was only an opinion piece and not a news item. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Column and politics of the author is irrelevant. Papers in Nature and UK journal are important and they indicate existence of a scientific debate about extreme weather events. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hurricanes aren't the only kind of severe weather -- there are tornadoes, heat waves, flash floods, lightning, hail, derechos, etc. etc. It's quite possible that severe weather in general will increase, while hurricanes will show no trend. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the politics of the author is quite relevant since you're taking him at his word that there is some sort of conflict or debate when nobody, as far as I can see, in the scientific community is really claiming that. Would you have a more authoritative cite? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

May vs Will

Regarding a recent change 'Increasing global temperature may cause sea level to rise; - changed to 'Increasing global temperature will cause sea level to rise'

That really depends on if your talking about average global temperature vs (all/every) global temperature. The former is 'may' the latter is 'will'. It is possible for the earth to get warmer overall and for the poles to stay frozen or even get colder. See Antarctica cooling controversy. The only verifible statment here is 'may'.--mitrebox (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about polar temperatures, which aren't the same thing as sea level rise. Though it seems like they'd go hand in hand, observed evidence is that they don't. Almost half of observed sea level rise is due to thermosteric expansion (i.e., sea water becomes less dense as it warms). Melting of Greenland and Antarctica produce less than 20% of observed sea level rise. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Good call, I was talking about ice melting. Since you can't film expansion it never makes CNN, but since you actually know stuff I'll make this argument. Water is most dense 3.984 °C. One of those unique properties of water. Therefore thermosteric expansion only occurs once water is heated above 3.984 °C, before that the water is actually condensing. Therefore to figure out if the oceans are expanding due to thermal expansion you need to ensure that more area is being expanded due to heating above 3.984 °C than area contracted by heating of water to less than 3.984 °C.--mitrebox (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Two important points. First, it's an interesting curiosity of geometry that half the surface area of the earth lies within 30 degrees N or S of the equator, i.e., in or near the tropics. So, the great majority of the ocean is well above freezing. But more importantly, sea water has a different behavior in terms of the relation of density to temperature. Fresh water is densest around 4C as you note, but sea water keeps getting denser all the way down to its freezing point. In other words, sea water is densest right at freezing, so that any temperature rise causes sea water to expand. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Exact, and another curiosity is that sea (=salty) water temperature can be less than 0 deg C. That is why water salinity is such an important parameter of water circulation, particularly in the polar regions. --Galahaad (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Carbon emissions

Thought I would bring this up here as this page is probably one of the more watched: to where, if anywhere, should carbon emissions redirect? We have one going to greenhouse gas, and the other two (CO2 emissions and carbon dioxide emissions) to list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions. I would have thought carbon dioxide a better target than greenhouse gas. It could also be deleted entirely or given its own article, but if it is to be a redirect it needs to be consistent. Richard001 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide mostly discusses the physical and chemical properties of the substance, and only touches on its role as a greenhouse gas. Anyone interested in carbon emissions is likely more interested in the greenhouse properties. Of the options you give, list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions is the most appropriate. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Op-Ed, Barbara Lee, D-Oakland

Barbara Lee wrote:

"The National Academy of Sciences recently revisited the issue of global warming at Bush's request. The report concluded that "greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities . . . Temperatures are, in fact, rising."

The report further stated that "national policy decisions made now and in the longer-term future will influence the extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and ecosystems later in this century."

Hmm. Anyone want to either add the refrence, ( there is NOTHING in the article regarding NAS ) or a link to the op-ed?

-ostrich society —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The NAS is mentioned in the intro, though not directly. There's no reason to focus on just one particular academy of science. Besides, op-eds are not the best of sources. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

New(?) Solar Variation/Magnetic Field Controversy


The current issue of Science has an article about a dispute over how much a role solar variation (and magnetic fields) plays in the current global warming trend. It apparently started with this article that claims that some data correlation suggests that solar irradiance could have been a major forcing function of climate until the mid-1980s, when "anomalous"” warming becomes apparent. This was followed by a rebuttal report claiming that there was actually no such correlation.

This also brings up an issue, I think, with the "Solar Variation" subsection in the main article. The cloud seeding/galactic cosmic rays theory (or hypothesis) of Henrik Svensmark is predominant there, even though it's been shown to be unlikely to be a factor by both this paper by T. Sloan and A.W. Wolfendale from Durham University presented at the 30th International Cosmic Ray Conference, held last year. Very specific criticisms of the work of Svensmark and his collegue, especially in regards to how they created their plots, are also contained in this American Geophysical Union article. It looks to me that there is not enough offsetting of the cloud seeding/galactic cosmic rays hypothesis with things like the AGU report in the wiki article, especially since the it's not a mainstream theory and that solar irradiance in general is considered to be a minor factor at best, at least by the IPCC and other mainstream scientific bodies. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Coutillot stuff has no merit, and there is no need to disuss it; certainly not here. I've re-read the SV scetion of this page; to my mind, it correctly gives the impression that there are various ideas floating around. But I'm sure the section could be tweaked William M. Connolley (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I was also considering the "consequences" of what happens when a paper like the Coutillot one appears, however its merits or lack thereof (There is also a nice critique of it by your old collegues here.) Do you think all this Galactic Cosmic Rays/Cloud Seeding related stuff should be put into a new FAQ item like they did at New Scientist here?
While not directly connected to all this, I noticed that this graph, taken from an IPCC report, seems to make for a very nice summary of the different factors in global warming. I think it would also make for a good addition to the main article page. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Such a graph already exists. I agree, we should add it to Global warming or to Attribution of recent climate change--Splette :) How's my driving? 01:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks a little different from the one I found, but it seems to have the exact same info. It it gets included, where would be the best location for it? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually since it is essentially a summary or global warming (and cooling) causes along with their relative weight, it would appear that it's best suited for the "Causes" section, but there are already two carbon dioxide graphs there. Top, bottom, in-between, replace one of the CO2 graphs, or...? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The solar variation section is here to stay, whether you like it or not. If and since it's discussed in the scientific literature, it too should be discussed on Wikipedia likewise. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that I had suggested its deletion here -- I do believe I was suggesting that the cloud seeding/galactic cosmic rays hypothesis, which is predominant in the Solar Variation section and essentially fringe-ish, should be offset more with things like that AGU paper and the Bard/Delaygue report -- does that make sense?
Also what you think of adding a summary chart of the global warming/cooling factors like this or this? Makes even more sense, no? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added the chart and I hope people approve. It does seem to make for a concise summary of the relative weight of the various global climate warming/cooling factors, and I reworded the description as such, although it makes it little different to how the chart is described in the other climate-related wikis like this. While reseaching this I came across this NOAA ESRL page apparently regarding the certainty/uncertainty of how to regard some of the forcing factors, but it seems to be using 2001 IPCC info. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the caption to show it's relative to 1750 as estimated by the IPCC. Also, there are too many pictures in that space, in my opinion. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The middle picture of the three (on CO2 variations) should be deleted, given that we also have the graph of the Mauna Loa CO2 record. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of the link to deforestation of the Amazon rain forest?

For 5 decades this has continued unabated and is being accelerated. Wikipedia states that between 1991 and 2000 an area twice the size of Portugal was lost. This is a major contributor to the rise of co2 surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I have heard that deforestation accounts for about 25% of emissions worldwide. Also, this is already mentioned in the article. Look for the word deforestation. Brusegadi (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I heard bananas are delicious, look for the word bananas--mitrebox (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to be like that, its on "Economic Development" Ninth Edition by Todaro and Smith on page 791. In that book they use the explicitly say 25%. The source used in this article has a value of about 25% which is fair enough. Brusegadi (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
From the summary for policymakers of the IPCC's fourth assessment report: The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions increased from an average of 6.4 GtC per year in the 1990s to 7.2 GtC per year in 2000–2005 (2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates). Carbon dioxide emissions associated with land-use change are estimated to be 1.6 GtC per year over the 1990s, although these estimates have a large uncertainty. Splette :) How's my driving? 04:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Not disagreeing with you and thank you for providing the source. Just making fun of your sentence 'I heard'. Sounds like gossiping women in a beauty parlor (look for the word gossiping). --mitrebox (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

2007 Global figures

I read that 2007 was the coldest year since 2001, but strangely it doesn't seem to mention anywhere on the article. Could it be that the article I was reading was wrong?

Bugsy (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not -- I haven't checked. The temperature flops up and down from year to year; a strong La Nina developed in mid-late 2007 that might have pulled the year's temperature below the general upward trend. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if so, 2007 being the coldest year in the last 6 doesn't really seem all that noteworthy. Climate data is noisy; you see small peaks and troughs often. Raul654 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
True, a single year doesn't say much. But where did you read that 2007 was the coldest year? BBC and National Geographic suggest otherwise. --Splette :) How's my driving? 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it was on the UK met office site! Just for information I've discovered that the Met office forecast for 2007 from last January predicted that 2007 would be the warmest year on record. It was not. | Here is the link to their forecast for 2007. Bugsy (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that the article you read about 2007 being the coldest year was not about the global temperature average but maybe for a certain country or region?! --Splette :) How's my driving? 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The UK Met office now predicts 2008 to be relatively cool, and acknowledge that 2007 was not warmer than 1998. Both are due to the strong La-Nina, and do not conflict with the long term trend.[5] --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
2007 certainly is cooler than 2002-2005, the question is whether it is also cooler than 2006 making it the coolest year since 2001 (as I said). Unfortunately, the difference seems to to around the 0.01C mark which makes it difficult to compare any two sites as one may round up and another down. (anyone know where to look for accurate data?) On the plus? side, the solar cycle does seem to have eventually restarted - but one sunspot does not make a summer! And anyone wanting to read an interesting article (albeit full of opinion and no fact) might be interested to read this [6] Bugsy (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope there is nothing certain about the cooler nature of 2007. In fact in many stations it is the hottest of the period 1881 - 2007! Such as Bournemouth, Bergen, Hannover, and Szczecin across a swath of northern Europe In St Petersburg it is 3rd hottest. In UK as a whole 2007 is second only to 2006 in the series from 1914 and for Central England Temperature(CET) 2007 is ahead of 2005 and 2001 and ties with 2004 out of the 7 years of this decade - overall it is 12th out of the last 349 so pretty good really.--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the figures are already out. So why hasn't the graph of global temperature been amended to show 2007? If it were higher I've no doubt it would have been amended as soon as the figures were out! (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The CRU has published its 2007 figures - last year was only 8th warmest in the series from 1850 and slightly behind the other years of the decade globally - almost entirely due to the cooling effects of an La Nina event in the July to December part of the year. (It is nevertheless warmer (even much warmer) than every year from 1850 to 1997, though.) This should go somewhere in the article but in belongs in an explanation of variations within the upward trend in temperatures that should still be obvious from the graph (can't find how to update the graph though - can anyone else?. The very good CRU one is under copyright.) Current expectations are that the upward trend in global temperatures is stalled while excess heat in the atmosphere is conducted to the oceans and absorbed there. Once this is more in balance, perhaps by late next year, global temperatures will be able to rise, possibly even faster than they did in 1992-2002.--AssegaiAli (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bizzare claims

Please don't respond to off-the-wall chatroom stuff. Just delete it per WP:TPG and the notice at the top of this page. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

BOINC and Gulf Stream Slow-down

It should be noted that BOINC is conducting increased research to come up with a more accurate model than the 1,5-6 degrees temperature variation now recorded by most models. It should be noted that private people can cooperate in this by Grid computing trough BOINC.

In addition, please include information about the gulf-stream collapse theory (caused by global warming). A documentary ("Gulf Stream and the Next Ice Age") and more info is available at following link: Gulf Stream and the Next Ice Age Documentary


KVDP (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't mean gulf stream; see Shutdown of thermohaline circulation. BOINC... I'm sure their PR is saying such things, but which science do you mean? Is this stuff? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The findings were made by Peter Schwartz en Doug Randall, respected professors in their field (climate). The report they made appearantly also made a deep impact in the White House, because of its implecations for the USA. KVDP (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Is BOINC studying only surface-temperature, or a fully-3D model of the Gulf Stream? Which information did you want included? --Diego Bank (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
As William implies, this is really the work. BOINC itself doesn't "conduct research" as such; it merely helps with the distributed computing aspects. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
RA is dead-on. BOINC is a distributed computing framework. Its results are only as useful as the actual program (and input data) it is being used to run. Raul654 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
BOINC only generates a complete (and much more preciese) 3D-model of the expected climate change. However, it is the least the readers this article can do after they are informed of the climate change-problems. It has also been proposed by the BBC (Meldown-documentary) as something people might to to act on climate change. The BBC also made a especially created software see this site KVDP (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone mentions the Gulf stream can I remind you that the Gulf stream is the current exiting the Gulf of Mexico (hence its name) and is the result of equatorial winds which if my geography serves me right are caused by the rotation of the earth. (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

6,4 degrees?

The introduction to this article states: Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.[1] The referenced website says 5,8°C instead of 6,4°C. Woodwalker (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Its in table SPM.3[7] - lowest likely temp 1.1°C (B1 scenario) and highest likely 6.4°C (A1FI scenario). The 5.8°C is from the TAR.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The TAR cited 1.4–5.8°C, while the source we cite references 1.1–6.4°C as the likely range. Hope that helps. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)