Talk:Climate change/Archive 62

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

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

New bovine emissions paper

I read in the Japan Times this morning that the International Livestock Research Institute just released a study saying that livestock emissions and their feed contribute a fifth of all greenhouse gasses. The paper made several recommendations on how to reduce the livestock emissions to help fight climate change. I assume we would rather use the paper itself as a source instead of the newspaper article about it, so does anyone have a link to the paper? I'll try to find it also. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A fifth of all greenhouse gases? Try a fifth of all methane emissions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The newspaper article stated, quote, "Climate change can be curbed by changing the diet of livestock, whose feed crops, belching, passing gas and manure contribute a fifth of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions, a study said Friday." Perhaps the newspaper got it wrong, or is this what the study is really saying? Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

They almost certainly confused methane, which is a greenhouse gas, with "greenhouse gas emissions" in general. The figure would be roughly correct for methane (see e.g., here) but is mathematically and chemically impossible when referring to all greenhouse gases. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, wait a minute -- I missed the "and their feed" part, which could well be a larger contributor than the livestock themselves because then it would also include some emissions of CO2 and N2O. 20% just might be plausible as an upper limit if you take the whole production chain into account -- fertilizer to produce the feed, transportation fuel to move the animals to market, and so on as well as enteric fermentation by the animals. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This paper came out quite a while ago (January) as a "background paper to the World Bank’s acclaimed World Development Report 2010: Development in a Changing Climate",[1] but could it be what the Japan Times was talking about? NW (Talk) 03:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

ScienceDaily reports a PNAS paper by the same authors. "Livestock enterprises contribute about 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, largely through deforestation to make room for livestock grazing and feed crops, the methane ruminant animals give off, and the nitrous oxide emitted by manure." Not clear if that actually means anthropogenic greenhouse gases, a distinction made more clearly here. . . dave souza, talk 07:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the JT article, which was from Agence France-Presse' newswire, was referring to this, but I can't tell for sure. Cla68 (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It might make sense to discuss this on the talk page of an article on attribution first. --TS 00:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean like this? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If the new study merits any change in our content, the change should start there. --TS 15:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely this figure is wrong, the methane production by insects is hundreds of times that of live stock. MarkC (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Should the name of this page be changed to "Global Climate Disruption" ?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/ Wikiaxis (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No. See WP:UCN. Jess_talk|_edits 05:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall that when people used that kind of argument with the name of climategate it was summarily dismissed! You would do much better arguing that disruption would be inappropriate because the global temperature has been stable (if anything cooling this century) and that there has been no rise in hurricanes, that the Arctic ice is not retreating and so this is a nonsensical name.85.211.202.125 (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Curb the confusion

By adding a simple addition to the article's hatnote: For scientific and political disputes, see Global warming controversy and Climate change consensus. I propose this as an exception to the WP:hatnote guidelines, as discussed at talk:Hatnote and talk:Scientific opinion.. The reader is not guided to those pages, merely presented with clarification by the choice. This might have the added benefit of reducing content disputes on this talkpage. Respectfully, -PrBeacon (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Awickert (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok I've tried to revise the FOR tag with no luck, then tried the ABOUT tag (leaving 2nd field blank) but I can't get the right coding -- the tricky part seems to be two links for the 4th field. Perhaps someone else can advise? (or can we just leave off the 2nd link to Geologic temperature record?) -PrBeacon (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I changed the hatnote. -Atmoz (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Need to state the actual average used in graphs

It would assist in interpreting/understanding the graph in question to provide this detail.

We should essentially transfer the graph to absolute degrees Celsius and/or Fahrenheit rather than using a zero point which abstracts the data from reality and makes it harder to interpret rather than easier since the ordinary reader is more likely to understand what the graph means.130.56.89.139 (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that that would really make it easier, since the graphs represent data from all over the world. It would appear more "real" if it was normalised to yearly averages in one specific city, for example, but such a normalisation would invariably produce some values that were not the historical averages in that point, and then the climate "sceptics" would have yet another pretext for shouting FRAUD!

I am just a mathematician commenting here, not an expert on climate science, so I may not have the full picture. Hans Adler 19:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The actual average surface temperature is about 14 C. However, we know that number somewhat less precisely than we know the trend. It is experimentally easier to determine how temperatures change over time (by making multiple measurements at many fixed locations) than it is to interpolate an average across space given that we can never have a thermometer on every mountain and valley. Dragons flight (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as an expert statistician, I disagree that we necessarily know the average change better than the average temperature. Still, I agree with Dragons flight; we can only report the numbers the reliable sources give us, and those sources state more uncertainty as to the absolute temperature than to the differences. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As a physicist I can tell you there is no such thing as "average temperature", because temperature is not a scaleable quantity. If you were talking about the average temperature of a body based on IR profile (as you would if you were talking about "greenhouse" gases which is a radiative concept) then you would need to average the blackbody radiation which means averaging T^4 (absolute temperature to the power of four). There are also good reasons to average T squared, but there is very little science behind the idea of averaging T ... that's just micky mouse stuff with no physical meaning.85.211.171.133 (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is no such thing as "average temperature", there's no such thing as "average temperature change". I don't agree with the argument, but if valid, it would eliminate the graph from discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How not? "Average temperature change" is the mean (change in temperature) not the change in (mean temperature), is it not? Guettarda (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If "temperature" is not a "scalable quantity", neither is "change in temperature". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry about being unclear: I meant "change in measured temperature". Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody really know what "scalable quantity" means? The term was coined above but there has been no clear explanation of what it means. If I have ten mugs each containing exactly the same quantity of tea and measure the temperature of each with a thermometer, I can take the average and predict that if they're mixed well in a large jug the temperature of the resulting body of tea will be that average. If I place a slug of lead into an urn of tea kept at 50 degrees, when after a while I take it out I predict that its temperature will be 50 degrees. So temperature seems to be a pretty simple quantity to manipulate using linear scales. What is it about it that isn't scalable?--TS 14:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because you think of temperature the way humans do. Which is, apparently, wrong. :) Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I thought I was supposed to be thinking like Mickey Mouse. The statement that averaging T has "no physical meaning" still puzzles me. The thought experiment with the mugs (or rather, dewar bottles to maintain thermal insulation) really does produce the predicted physical result. Temperature does seem to scale in that meaning of the word. --TS 15:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In your "tea" example, temperature is a proxy for heat. If you had 10 mugs of different substances, all at different temperatures, then the average of the temperatures would be different than the expected temperature if everything was mixed together. For instance, mugs of lead, sand, mercury, salt water, fresh water, and honey. This is what "temperature is not a scalable quantity" means. However, when measuring the same type of stuff (like your tea, or the air above the ground), it "appears" to be scalable. Of course, this ignores the unimportant humidity and atmospheric pressure, both of which change the specific heat of the local atmosphere. Q Science (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, change in temperature was a vector quantity while temperature itself was a scalar quantity. Temperature change can be increasing or decreasing in one dimensional vector space (∆T ∈ ℝ¹). Temperature itself is just the root-square-mean of the velocities of the molecules within a volume of interest, a flat quantity or point in one dimensional vector space (T ∈ ℝ⁰ ⇒ 0 ∈ ℝ¹). Therefore, you can scale vectors through some transformation (e.g. A(∆T) = (∆AT)), but you can't meaningfully scale points since A(0)=0 (you can put them in different units or measure their distance from the origin though). I agree with Dragons flight by the way, graph's good. CaC 155.99.230.93 (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That no sense makes. Still, as almost all agree it's not related to improving this article, perhaps we should drop the issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Unclear references

The two references "NRC, 2008, p. 2", and "World Bank, 2010, p. 71", are unclear. These should include links or at least the name of the documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael ages (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

They referred to previously defined sources. I've duplicated the references now, but Wikipedia should really find a way to declare sources just once and allow them to be cited with different page numbers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You want Template:sfn. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thay keep messing around with these templates, any advantage over Template:harvnb? . . dave souza, talk 21:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Late to the party, but you could also use {{rp}}. -Atmoz (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw this the other day and tried to get Template:sfn working on the JavaScript article: It was a bit of a slog. Template:rp seems much easier to bring into use, although the results look quite different, but should be OK. Certainly they're all much better than copy-and-pasting the whole ref just to change the page number. "quote=..." doesn't work in any of them AFAIK. --Nigelj (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In harvnb you can simply add a quote after the template, as in <ref>{{harvnb|Harv|1888|p=7}} "this template is rubbish" </ref>, or indeed before the template if you prefer. Don't think that'll work with sfn, or indeed with rp. Also note that in harvnb the page number can be an external link, good for the likes of p. 249 for example. . . dave souza, talk 19:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What you stick inside the <ref>...</ref> should not have anything to do with the template. The ref just makes it a footnote. Hence you can put whatever information you want for or after the template, although the result may, of course, look funky. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah. One problem with sfn was that it doesn't go inside <ref>...</ref> tags, but is still a footnote. Looks like harvnb may be the best. For sfn and harvnb, don't forget to add ' |ref = harv' to the main {cite book} (or whatever) template too. --Nigelj (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't need ' |ref = harv' if you use {{citation| (Template:Citation). While {{cite book| etc. seemed to work for a while without ' |ref = harv' they now seem to need that. So I find it easier to use this tool to generate the template, but then change the opening parameter to {{citation| when it's to be used with harvnb inline citations. Perhaps cheating, but Wikipedia:Citation templates now says they can be freely mixed so works for me. . . . dave souza, talk 21:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
And now I see the point of sfn – saves typing the <ref>...</ref> tags, but does need ' |ref = harv' in the citation template, doesn't allow the addition of quotes or comments, and doesn't allow combined refs using <br> between each ref to avoid a row of numbers cluttering up the text. Good ol' harv is easier if you want that flexibility, but involves a bit more typing. . . dave souza, talk 21:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I wend ahead and used {{Rp}} [2], mostly because that's the one I know how to use. At the present, I have no preference for format as long as it's consistent throughout the article, so feel free to modify to another. -Atmoz (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Kyoto protocol and President Bush

I notice something interesting about this article. Specifically, (quoted from the article) "At the time, almost all world leaders expressed their disappointment over President Bush's decision."

Does anyone realize that President CLINTON signed the Kyoto treaty? And that, therefore, President BUSH had nothing at all to do, for or against the treaty? It was in the hands of the US SENATE!, not Bush. Any Senator, from the moment CLINTON signed it, could have brought it up for a vote, INCLUDING any member of the DEMOCRAT MAJORITY that was voted in in '06. What the fuck is this "BLAME BUSH" shit? Bush had NOTHING AT ALL to do with it. He COULD have retracted Clinton's signature on the treaty, in which case you could blame him, if you are so inclined. But he didn't. Why does this article blame him for something he had nothing to do with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.49.180 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The cited source does describe a policy reversal by President Bush which apparently drew criticism, but that doesn't directly relate to what happened in the Senate. The sentence could be deleted without changing the sense of the article. --TS 00:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "At the time" in the quote refers to the beginning of the paragraph (the "2005"), which was before the democratic majority. I don't like the sentence, but it isn't something I'd want to yell or pick fights over. Nevertheless, it's out of date: (1) 2005 was five years ago, and (2) Bush isn't president.

In my opinion the sentence can be cut without loosing the main idea of the sentence, which is the Kyoto protocol. If we want to fill up space, perhaps the article should mention that the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012 and discuss, whether the Annex I countries will to reach their goals, and plans for what comes after Kyoto. For the last one there's already an article that we could use. 155.99.230.142 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the politics section has probably fossilized a bit. We should definitely look at how the related subsidiary articles have developed and try to summarise them into this article. To that end, the Kyoto-related articles are the place to look to. --TS 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken out Bush for now. Disappointment about Bush is not particularly high in information content. The section can use more work, though.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Epicbeast9022, 6 October 2010

Some believe global warming is a hoax - this fact should be addressed in the issue. (I do.) Epicbeast9022 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have disabled the template because your request makes no sense. You have not given a precise description of which words in the article you want to replaced by which other words, or whatever it is. The template's text and documentation make it very clear that it doesn't work without that. And there is no chance that an admin will make any substantial change to this article merely because you ask them to do so in your very first edit. You need to get a consensus first. Hans Adler 23:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

To address the point, there are many popular hoax conspiracy theories around and we don't normally cover those in the articles about the events though we do sometimes cover the hoax theories in articles of their own. Other examples include the Apollo program, evolution, and more recently there is even a popular theory that the death of Michael Jackson was a hoax. --TS 19:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV? "bigpondnews"? Change to "Some areas such as some ... farmers welcome (short-term) global warming effects"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per Jayen466, Souza and Rubin, cherry-picking local material isn't really appropriate to the discussion of the global phenomenon. --TS 01:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV? "bigpondnews"? Change to "Some areas such as some Greenland farmers welcome (short-term) global warming effects"? Here's the contribution:

Some areas such as Greenland farmers welcome global warming.^[1]

99.54.139.229 (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Some more references:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/doug-saunders/inuit-of-greenland-have-weather-on-their-side/article1738883/

"But to the mainly Inuit people of Greenland, global warming is a gift from the heavens..."

“We are probably one of the very few countries in the world that can say not only that climate change is not to our detriment, but that it has positive results..."

http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/greenland/21570

"...now has unbridled opportunities for agriculture, commercial fishing, mining, and oil exploration. ..."

The text was changed to "some greenlanders".

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Inughuit might disagree with some other Greenlanders,[3] this is a complex question and an academic overview is required rather than anecdotes in news media. I've removed these comments, and requested a citation for the rest of the section. . . dave souza, talk 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

>The Inughuit might disagree with some other Greenlanders,

Is that relevant? The text says some greenlanders.

>this is a complex question and an academic overview is required rather than anecdotes in news media.

What is the complex question? You have citations from notable sources making the statements. A political party leader making such statement is very strong.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Giving Greenland weight comparable to the "northern hemisphere" is undue. This article is an overview, I believe the sentence belongs in Regional effects of global warming. -- CaC 155.99.230.199 (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This article has much about doom and gloom and has undue weight on that. Doesn't talk about any of the positives of warming, such as warming of cold climates and increased precipitation in dry regions. A small example adds a little credibility and helps the article not be so one sided. An example of doom and gloom that has been removed from the article is "increased disease vectors" Why not talk about "decreased disease vectors"? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) See FAQ 19, the article wasn't about doom and gloom to begin with. You'll need a reliable source for "decreased disease vectors"; because I remember that the article used to say "changes in the range of climate-dependent disease vectors",[4] which is supported by reliable sources,[5] until it was moved to Effects of global warming. Nevertheless, undue weight for the Greenland sentence is my opinion, which I hold to be well-supported given the current article. Let's see what others have to say. -- CaC 155.99.230.199 (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but see here for increases in the range of disease vectors: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&action=historysubmit&diff=220027883&oldid=219969447

The logic behind the statement was that increased warm weather would bring increased warm weather diseases, yes with reference, but doom and gloom failed to note that there would also be a decrease in cold weather diseases.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather depends where you are! The AR4 gives a better overview rather than picking out a few optimistic anecdotes from politicians – interesting that in 2007 the consensus was "Available research suggests a significant future increase in heavy rainfall events in many regions, including some in which the mean rainfall is projected to decrease. The resulting increased flood risk poses challenges to society, physical infrastructure and water quality.... Increases in the frequency and severity of floods and droughts are projected to adversely affect sustainable development." though in the outline overview they don't seem to have proposed Moscow, China or inland Pakistan as likely candidates. Early days yet. On the bright side, the North east passage is becoming more practical for commercial use. Money in it for some. . . dave souza, talk 22:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I sympathise with dave souza here; we should source this to publications that aim to give an overview, rather than sources reporting on the likely effects on a given locality. --JN 466 16:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) "Gloom and Doom"; must they always together? 99.29.185.148 (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

actually, in this case, it is going to be sunny and doom..... oh so very sunny. CybergothiChé (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with improving the article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Royal Society Changes Position on Global Warming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At best this relates to scientific opinion on climate change. It is not relevant to the content of this article. --TS 12:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I could not edit this page, so I was wondering if this references could be included:

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Finally+common+sense+global+warming/3675534/story.html

The reference notes that the Royal Society is now saying "There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given temperature increase. Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe."

Furthermore, they now say "There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different time scales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change."

Please add this new position by the Royal Society to the page. Thank you. Rendahl (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The article does not currently include a statement of the Royal Society's position, so there really isn't anything to add. As for the specifics of their position, I suggest you read the actual document (available here). For example, on the issue of sea level rise, the report says "Because of the thermal expansion of the ocean, it is very likely that for many centuries the rate of global sea-level rise will be at least as large as the rate of 20 cm per century that has been observed over the past century" (p.10) followed by the caveat you quoted - that it's impossible to predict exactly how much faster sea level will rise over the next century. News stories should always be taken with a grain of salt. This one is clearly misleading. Guettarda (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to change scope of article to include political aspects of global warming

{{cot|Suggestion made repeatedly and repetitively despite clear consensus against. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 12:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)}}

At the moment there is no article on Wikipedia covering the politics of global warming. This article is defined as being very restrictive referring only to scientific literature. The result is that there is no article that covers the political aspects of global warming: the political implications of the scientific assessment.

This is very strange, because global warming is a very heated political topic, yet this article singularly fails to reflect some key aspects such as the history of the global warming political campaign, the key landmarks such as kyoto, Copenhagen, the various measures taken in various countries, etc. etc. etc. You could easily create a similar length article on the politics of global warming covering how public perception has changed, what kind of effects it has had in various countries, the various fights between differing nations as to how action should be shared. I don't know how this article became so "nerdified" into the science, but it is a glaring omission that it doesn't seem to even mention half the political issues.

However, given this article is already far too long I have a number of suggestions:

Broaden the scope of this article to include the political aspects of global warming
Rename this article to "global warming (science)" and create another article "global warming (politics).
and/or Create a link page called "global warming" carrying links to the range of related environmental politics and climate articles.

What do people think? Isonomia (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You have seen Politics of global warming, Global warming controversy, Public opinion on climate change, and many others available from the footer template (some also from the DAB note at the article top)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephen, I know that someone coming in and making suggestions to those who may feel they own the article will be treading on their toes, but I can't see what your point is. Are you suggesting the article is renamed: "science of global warming?", or are you proposing to amalgamate these other articles so that "global warming" is one article? How are you proposing to address my concern, that someone looking at "global warming" may equally be interested in the politics to the science? Moreover, when did you last see a science journal call it "global warming"? Surely if this article is only about the science, it ought to have a less colloquial name like "Anthropogenic Global Warming". The fact remains that global warming is a subject with a far broader scope than the present article and I would like some positive suggestions as to how to change it to reflect that broader scope. Isonomia (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that if you start with the claim "At the moment there is no article on Wikipedia covering the politics of global warming", which is obviously wrong, people will not take the rest of the proposal with the seriousness it might otherwise get. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this. Global warming is primarily a scientific phenomenon, just as the evolution of life, the respiration of living creatures, and the combustion of materials in the presence of oxygen. There is enough context in this article to direct the interested reader onwards to the rest of our coverage, which is unparalleled in its depth and breadth, but here we're explaining what global warming is, and it's a scientific phenomenon so it's mostly science. --TS 19:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, A motor car is primarily an engineering object but if you look at the literature you'll find that what mostly interests people is not what is under the bonnet. Similarly global warming is without any question or doubt a political issue and just because it's "engine" is scientific, that doesn't mean that an article on global warming should just cover science anymore than an article on the motor car should just cover the engineering aspects of a car. Global warming is a colloquial name for the debate regarding the causes, extent and policy implications for an apparent period of warming and there is a scientific aspect to that debate, but are you seriously be suggesting that global warming should be ignored by everyone except a few scientists? Isonomia (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. Please recall that several other editors have told you that we have articles on the matters you refer to. This article is about the science because it's primarily a scientific phenomenon. --TS 20:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Primarily, yes. But barely half the article is about the science. Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

At the moment there is no article on Wikipedia covering the politics of global warming. This article is defined as being very restrictive referring only to scientific literature. Your premise is mistaken. As I said when this same issue was raised in the arbcomm case:

The GW article is 3833 words long (according the the DYK-check tool). But the "Views on global warming" alone is 516 words long. Almost 15% of an article that is, after all, about a scientific topic, is dedicated to politics. Another 373 words are dedicated to "Responses to global warming" - policy, in other words. About a quarter of the article, in other words, is not about science. A further 522 words are dedicated to the effects of global warming, which is, of course, a distinct topic. So not even counting the lead, the "science of global warming", even in the broadest sense, only gets a little more than half the space in the article about global warming which remains primarily a scientific topic.

There's more detail in the daughter articles, of course. But if you take a look at the article, you'll see that it already does what you say it should. Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, as you very well know, there is a large body of opinion on the sceptical side that feels with very good cause that its view on global warming has not been accurately portrayed in wikipedia. You will also no doubt be aware that the climategate emails showed a group of scientists who were manipulating things such as peer review and access to conferences to exclude those scientists with a legitimate sceptical viewpoint. The problem with the arguments so far outlined is that they create a POV article by defining the article in such a way that only one viewpoint in the discussion can be heard. As everyone knows who edits wikipedia this is totally unacceptable. The primary requirement of wikipedia is to be neutral. One way to achieve a far more neutral article is to get rid of this bogus claim to be a "scientific" article which is clearly being supported in order to stop a sceptical view on global warming being included. Now lets have some proper discussion on how to address this issue! Isonomia (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

" showed a group of scientists who were manipulating things such as peer review and access to conferences" - no, they did not. Please don't make wrong claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Do I really have to rephrase that: that a large number of newspapers and other media (which doesn't get mentioned because they aren't science journals) believed showed... etc. Come on Stephan we are supposed to be grown up and able to discuss things without being pedantic. I am trying to get you to discuss seriously how to create an inclusive non-POV article on global warming. I have made several quite moderate proposals, and there have been some sensible comments that there is some coverage of the politics. Now this creates a bit of a problem, because if the article is "scientific" why does it include the political stuff? And if it isn't solely scientific, why are people saying it is a scientific article? What I was proposing was to clarify this situation by creating a specifically scientific article, but balancing this with a specifically political/economic article. My thought is that the two would compliment each other and the result would be that the main article could be considerably shortened in length and just carry summaries of the other articles making it a far better read.Isonomia (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said below, this is utterly irrelevant to this article. Please stick to discussing ways to improve the article and don't get sidetracked on stuff that we can't use. Guettarda (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There's little value getting into that discussion here. It's too easy to get side-tracked on issues that don't really matter here. If if that were the case, it would be a wrong Wikipedia is unable to right. For our purposes, it's utterly irrelevant. Guettarda (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a really hard time trying to figure out what you're talking about. You seem to be operating under a number of misconceptions, too many for me to correct. But for starters, in order to have a "proper discussion", you need to read what I said. This article is not only about the science. And contrary to what you said, we do have articles on the politics of global warming. So, bearing that in mind, let's stop having pointless meta discussions and focus on specifics: what changes would you like to see made to the article? Guettarda (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all this is a pointless discussion. Isonomia posed a simple question, but is not satisfied with a straight-forward answer; s/he apparently wants to re-open all the old, tired debates. The following comment seems very relevant. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. The timing of your proposal is interesting given the various global warming skeptic blogs that are currently suggesting using it as a wedge stratergy.©Geni 20:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the discussion has gotten too far off-track and personal for a user who won't accept a straightforward answer to a simple question. If the objective were to teach the controversy, then we might as well be accomplishing his goals by responding. Recommend close using {{Collapse}}. --CaC 98.202.45.254 (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Noted scientist quits association over global warming "fraud"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A biographical article has now been started about this scientist and a discussion has been started at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. It would be inappropriate to add the names of individual dissenting scientists to this article. --TS 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems relevant http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/ 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A single scientist resigns from a single society over their stance on global warming, and you think it’s relevant for this article? That would be attributing far too much weight to Mr. Lewis. About the only place Mr. Lewis’s opinions would be relevant would be List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming. CurtisSwain (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Coverage of the view of a single physicist in resigning from the APS is not appropriate here; it may conceivably be relevant in several articles such as that noted above or possibly American Physical Society if he was a bigwig in that organization. --TS 08:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Lewis does make a very significant point in that the 'greenhouse gas' theory would require the existence of strong positive-feedback loops within the biosphere. Engineering experience (from numerous disciplines) suggests that such systems are rarely stable enough to exist for more than a short while. The notion that the earth's meteorology has existed for millions of years in the state of a positive-feedback loop is therefore improbable, and this makes the whole 'greenhouse gas' theory very suspect.

If there IS a positive-feedback mechanism at work here, it's the one by which publications stating categorically that global warming is fact rather than theory increase the rate at which such publications appear. It's just like putting a microphone in front of a loudspeaker. --Anteaus (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As a physicist, he should know that there are a whole slew of rigorous mathematical tools that address stability in feedback systems. If he had identified a problem in this area with the current models, he would have been better off publishing a paper on it, rather than resigning and leaving others to guess what he thinks could be improved. If he publishes something significant, it may have enough effect to get mentioned here. --Nigelj (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with Anteaus's argument, as the Earth's climate has not been "stable" for millions of years.

However, if his description of his actions is accurate, his resignation from the APS is notable; but not sufficiently so for this article. I'd put it in List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming (possibly in his own section, as that specific criticism doesn't seem to be there), in global warming skepticism, and in the APS article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

According to their web site, APS membership is at an all-time high with over 47,000 members. So, one guy cancels his membership. How is that notable? If a large number of members resigned en mass as a protest, or if Lewis had held an important position in the APS that would be significant, but as far as I can tell, he's just a physicist who disagrees with APS's statement on climate change. BFD.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It says above

his name has been added to the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming.

However, that is not true. In fact, the last edit to that page was 7 October 2010. Q Science (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it does not say that. AR suggests that it be put there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the wording. A discussion has been started on the talk page. --TS 19:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's my mistake, I apologize. I suggest he be put there, and, if sufficiently notable, in global warming skepticism and in the APS article. I don't know if he's sufficiently notable, but he probably passes WP:PROF sufficiently to have his own article . — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that this discussion is off topic here and it's being discussed in two much more appropriate venues, so would anybody mind if I moved this to the archive? --TS 21:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please review—submission under models section.

This submission was objected to based on "Has <the> model *really* 'the advantage of accurately demonstrating and predicting effects of the Global Warming phenomenon' ?????" Obviously it has demonstrated the effects of "Global Warming," based on high-school thermo', both global and regional, as for predicting? perhaps this IS stating too much. owever, back in 1985, no one, for example was relating the loss of polar ice to this phenomenon, I don't think I saw anything on the relation until 1995, that was predictive for the time. Since the purpose is to understand GW globally I can soften the statement. Thanks GESICC (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC

All models are wrong, some models are useful. Please read...

A model for the phenomenon that yields intuitive results, and using only basic thermodynamics is to at first place the Earth and Sun in a state of thermal equilibrium. For initial understanding, no land masses are included in the model. The Earth can emit or absorb enough heat that it is warm at the equator and cool near the poles, which have ice caps. The total amount of ice remains constant, initially. The power of this model arises when we add a warming phenomenon that then sets the model out of equilibrium; burning wood, ethanol, fossil fuels†, radioactivity, more sunlight etc.. The first effect is not a dramatic increase in the Earth’s temperature (counter-intuitively), but a gradual reduction in the amount of ice near the poles. The glacial run-off, or heat absorbed by the ice melting (specific heat of ice) tends to keep the temperature of the Earth constant. Both of these phenomena have been observed: The non-drastic temperature change, contributing to controversy, is referenced throughout this article. While satellite models and geological surveys have demonstrated reduction in polar ice.^[2] The model may be improved by the addition of land masses and geographic features. For example, the nearness of the glaciers in the Pacific Northwest caused a dramatic change in its climate during the 1990’s; unusually cold winters and snow. The continued retreat of the glaciers in recent years has caused a return to its former climate, as glacier water now warms before it reaches the Gulf of Alaska and the Pacific Coast. Another example is provided by the expansion of deserts-directly related to more water being driven from those regions by the increased heat and approach to a new equilibrium. Note that the model predicts non-dramatic temperature change due to Arctic Ice melting, when this ice is gone, new dynamics must replace it. Though simple, this model has the advantage of accurately demonstrating and predicting effects of the Global Warming phenomenon.

†= The burning of fossil fuels is the release of yesterday’s sunshine, effectively adding more sunlight or heat to the Earth.

GESICC (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC

The lack of conventions in your proposal makes it really hard to read. If it's a quote within a quote, please use an apostrophe (I read it as two quotes the first time through); spelling and complete sentences also help. You're talking about why these two edits were reverted.[6][7] I wasn't the one who reverted you (you should speak to Count Iblis and dave souza for their views), but I can already see several issues. For example, the explanation of thermodynamics reiterates paragraph one, this article is short on space under WP:SIZE, and defending why there needs to be a second explanation will have to be convincing. Nevertheless, if you were to submit this to a professional review, given your experience in a consulting firm, is this what a what a proposal should look like? If I were you, I would rewrite the proposal to explain what it adds to the article (putting the central points in a list helps by the way). -- CaC 155.99.230.104 (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit engages in original research. You cite a source for the amount of water used to grow things, but it does not follow from that that "irrigation of deserts for farming has increased and redistributed water vapor" - this is merely what you believe happens. You additionally assert as fact that "farming in modern countries has created dead zones in the oceans," but provide no source. Please provide sources for all of your edits. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision of 18:40, 4 October 2010 Addition of desert irrigation note

Mr. Souza's objection was that it lacked a reference; provided. Water vapor is a green house gas (qv). Desert farming contributes roughly 5 gallons per ounce of product (http://www.lacfb.org/commodity.pdf). QED, right?GESICC (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC

Your edit engages in original research. You cite a source for the amount of water used to grow things, but it does not follow from that that "irrigation of deserts for farming has increased and redistributed water vapor" - this is merely what you believe happens. You additionally assert as fact that "farming in modern countries has created dead zones in the oceans," but provide no source. Please provide sources for all of your edits. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite-You're mixing things up a bit. I do not see that if you move water to places it wasn't previously you are not redistributing it, I don't see how 'belief' enters the equation, it conservation of mass. “Dead zones” is referenced as another wiki-article, with sources, Oxygen dead zones are from the Carbon Dioxide cycle. GESICC (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC

Further, "qed" is not acceptable on wikipedia. Cite a source that says something - your belief it is obvious is not good enough. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

QED-is just an expression. How about replace it with "is that good enough?" If not, it puzzles me what would be, Palmdale water department would report it if it wasn't true--I am not trying to establish water vapor is a GH gas, already done. Establishing it as a local Green House gas is pointless, farming takes 6-9 months minimum, etc..GESICC (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC

Let me add on the substance that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is not governed by evaporation alone, but by the balance of evaporation and precipitation. There is good evidence that relative humidity is fairly constant, i.e. the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled nearly exclusively by the air temperature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

True, (p/P + p/P +...) = (n/N+n/N...) RT, however, if there is water where there usually isn't the n & p of water is > 0. Piping huge amounts of a green house gas to places that do not normally have it contributes to green house effects, I can't prove this-it’s both a definition and physics. Or as above, if you want me to site a reference for that particular area, well, I can understand that, almost, that's a classical argument, do different laws of physics need to be reproved under different circumstances? Sometimes other variables are involved, after all, but in this case, it is not reasonable to assume other extenuating circumstance, inconceivably large amounts of water are being put into arid environments all over the world. Let me counter-point and ask the gedunkin question; if the equivalent number of moles of CO2 were being released instaed of H2O would you still have the objection? Thanks all, if you still think something is amiss, I'll lock it down. GESICC (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC

The main difference is that atmospheric water has a lifetime of days, while the CO2 cycle operates on the order of centuries to millennia. We can measure that CO2 goes up, and we can measure that, globally, relative humidity very nearly remains constant. There may well be a minor effect, but saying that this is non-negligible is in no way obvious. We do need an explicit source for such a statement - see WP:OR. (And while "dunking" and water go well together, it's a Gedankenexperiment - no worries, I have an unfair advantage there ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, CO₂'s a LLGHG and the net change in water vapor is dependent on temperature (which is relatively constant). However, irrigation and deforestation changes the distribution of water vapor, which may lead to changes in hydrology flow patterns and cycles. I found a article in PNAS that discusses it, what do you guys think? -- CaC 155.99.230.68 (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephan-I agree water has a lifetime of days-if we turned off the spigot today, the effects might be gone tomorrow, but until the spigot is turned off, there is a constant source, so half-life simply contributes to the equilibrium of the local environ. Global Humidity may be remaining constant, but we are interested in the local effects of very warm areas, (the heat, because of the humidity scale, may be depressing humidity readings-?). This is also true of CO2; life-time in the environment is not germane so long as there are sources keeping the reaction to the left. [Subject change] Although I can no longer find references, the oceans used to be able to suck up all the CO2 man could hope to produce, not so much anymore, which is why I added a link to Dead Zones (ecology). (It’s ironic we discuss the effect of CO2 production of fossil fuels, more than we discuss the direct contribution of heat from fossil fuels (talk about your short lifetimes, but nobody is turning off the spigot!) try digging up a credible reference for that! Enough fossil fuels get burned every day to melt 400+ cubic meters of water-from waste heat alone!)GESICC (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC

While relevent to our article on Climate change, land use and deforestation, I don't see how this article has much to do with Global warming. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

CaC-Good bit of research, it is a short leap to evaporation from irrigation. Thanks.GESICC (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC

You know GESICC, if you've got no sources, you've got nothing on the table, and we're done. I'd hate to break it to you, your ideas are great, but Wikipedia is a tertiary resource and under WP:OR (which is policy), you aren't going to get anywhere. --CaC 155.99.230.93 (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

NASA image: The World Revs its Heat Engine

NASA's image at Flickr, which is provided with an explanatory caption, might well be edited into this text. "Recently, NASA researchers discovered that incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation increased in the tropics from the 1980s to the 1990s." The NASA image, dated 2001, might be correlated with contemporary Bush administration public observations about global warming.--Wetman (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wentz 2007: How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?

I've removed this reference to a single paper for now. It was added today by Africangenesis. How well accepted is Wentz? Has it been replicated? Does the paper support the statement in which it is cited? --TS 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The paper proper does mention the discrepancy, but with a few caveats. It does not mention the possible reduction in droughts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that's what I'm getting at. It sounds like a reasonable conjecture but I'd like to see if the point about the effect on drought predictions has been made by people who (unlike me) know what they're talking about.

Would I be right to assume that this paper was accepted for publication too late to make the IPCC AR4 of 2007? --TS 12:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, model results are often published before diagnostic literature based upon those results is produced to put the results in perspective. The reduction in drought fears is from the comment by the editors of Science which is also cited, but it is an obvious implication.--Africangenesis (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Since when is peer review pubs, cited by other literature and not contradicted in 3 years insufficient?

Tony, please recall our discussion at [8]. My references meet the standards. The clique that had controlled this article drove me and many other good editors away. I read at wattsupwiththat that this problem might have been rectified. I hope you aren't continuing the problem. --Africangenesis (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've asked some questions above that I think we should address. I don't think you should rely on blogs for scientific matters. --TS 12:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My 'yes" was in reference to your question about whether it was too late for the IPCC FAR. I don't know that they were even trying to make the FAR. BTW, the immediately previous sentence about the models getting the Arctic ice cap melt wrong (Scambos says the models are 30 years behind) didn't make the FAR either. However, even if it had made the FAR I doubt it would have made any difference. None of the projections were adjusted for errors reported in diagnostic literature that were in time to make the FAR. Recall that I was the one that forced the cadre to admit that only CO2 scenarios and models of different sensitivities contributed to the IPCC ranges. They had been trying to claim that model uncertainty was also included, it wasn't. --Africangenesis (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The clique that had controlled this article... - please leave that attitude out of editing this or any other article. In the context of these articles, the arbitration committee has affirmed that behaviour like that is unacceptable. You would do much better to focus more on the article and less on personalities. Guettarda (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I like Stephan Schulz's parsimonious summary of the paper, which is on the article now.[9] --TS 12:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm accepting it with the "may have" removed. There is no reason to single out satellite observations of precipitation for a "may have". There are many other places just as deserving of a may have, and model projections and claims of risks and possible effects are far less certain.--Africangenesis (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The "may have" reflects the caveats in the paper itself: "The reason for the discrepancy between the observational data and the GCMs is not clear. One possible explanation is that two decades is too short of a time period, and thus we see internal climate variability that masks the limiting effects of radiative forcing. [...] Another possible explanation is that there are errors in the satellite retrievals, but the consistency among the independent retrievals and validation of the winds with other data sets suggests otherwise. Lastly, there is the possibility that the climate models have in common a compensating error in characterizing the radiative balance for the troposphere and Earth's surface." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should go with the "may have." Africangenesis, do you accept that the paper is cautious on this topic? --TS 13:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I think they are only admitting a theoretical possibility which they think is unlikely due to other evidence. Frankly, they are seriously questioning the models credibility, the model behavior doesn't make sense to them while their satellite results do:

"The difference between a subdued increase in rainfall and a C-C increase has enormous impact, with respect to the consequences of global warming. Can the total water in the atmosphere increase by 15% with CO2 doubling but precipitation only increase by 4% (1)?Will warming really bring a decrease in global winds? The observations reported here suggest otherwise, but clearly these questions are far from being settled."

Under representing the negative feedback of the water cycle response to warming adds to the evidence that seriously calls into question the high model sensitivities.--Africangenesis (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You're surely underplaying the uncertainty of their reasoning, which they profess quite fully. For instance they say "One possible explanation is that two decades is too short of a time period, and thus we see internal climate variability that masks the limiting effects of radiative forcing." This is why I think the word "may" should go back. --TS 13:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That particular two decade caveat is not about the discrepancy in the precipitation observations and model results being incorrect. It is suggesting a way that both may be right, because the observations may be an anomaly due to just being a short observation of one instance of the climate. Whereas it is possible that the models have the physics right and just aren't simulating this particularly instance of the climate that has high precipitation and increased winds. It is anticipating a common apologia for model differences with observations, that the models can't have all the initial state given the unknowns so may be statistically correct in the long run despite not being able to reproduce a specific observed climate instantiation. The authors are granting that possibility, which is very generous of them since model skill has not been validated. --Africangenesis (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, other scientists are concerned about the implications of the Wentz results for the models. EOS stands for Earth Observations Systems, and is a weekly publication of the AGU. Articles probably have about the level of peer review as a conference paper. Lambert of the Hadley Center and Stine, Krakauer and Chiang of UC Berkely write: "Thus if GCMs do underestimate global precipitation changes, the simulation of other climate variables will be effected." Eos Vol 28 No. 21

In the same issue of Eos, Previdi and Liepert explain: "This non-radiative energy transfer takes primarily the form of latent and sensible heat fluxes with the latent heat flux being about 5 times larger than the sensible heat flux in the global mean. The latent heat flux from the surface to the troposphere is associated mainly with the evaporation of surface water. When this water condenses in the troposphere to form clouds and eventually precipitation, the troposphere heats up and then radiates this energy gain out to space. The radiative energy loss from the troposhere is equal to the energy heat gain at the surface. The global water cycle is therefore fundamentally a part of the global energy cycle and any changes in global mean precipitation and evaporation are consequently constrained by the energy budgets of the troposhere and surface."`--Africangenesis (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Granted all the above, it still does not explain your removal of the word "may" which, Stephan correctly says, reflects the caveats in the paper. None of the sources you cite, it seems to me, justify that removal. Tasty monster (=TS ) 15:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there at least be some evidence that gives one pause about the satellite observations? The author doesn't acknowledge any, just that there is an unexplained discrepency between the observations and the models. The independent evidence the author discusses is consistent with his observations and inconsistent with the models. Mistakes in most any scientific work may hypothetically be found in the future. I doubt you would want to consistently apply a threshold this low, because you will end up having to qualify nearly everything.--Africangenesis (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting that we put back the qualification "may" into a reference to a single fairly recent and as yet unreplicated paper. In this decision I take into account the authors' own caveats which you yourself have clearly read, acknowledge and have understood. I don't think that is unreasonable. If you think similar qualifications should apply elsewhere in the article, make your case. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Just so you understand what we're talking about, by the way, I suggest you comb through this article, and find all the references to singleton research papers. From my own recollection of doing a similar search a couple of months ago, I don't think you'll find many such references, let alone to papers so recently published. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be assuming that the Wentz paper occurred in isolation. It is more a culmination of discrepancies in model representations of lapse rates and wind fields. So the Hadley cell paper mentioned above it in the article and the papers the Wentz paper references are essentially other facets of the same issues. The model issuess with tropical radiative imbalance shown in separate papers by Lindzen and Spencer form part of the pattern. The model diagnostic literature is mutually reinforcing, as the EOS discussion I mentioned above indicates "the simulation of other variables will be effected". The models are sprouting with other variables that they get wrong, and the precipitation, lapse rate and readiative imbalances issues remain.--Africangenesis (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If what you say is verifiable we ought to be able to write about it all from reliable sources. And if the pattern is well established enough to write about in an encyclopedia there really ought to be a few decent review papers around to consolidate it all. So let's have it, let's stop pussyfooting with individual research papers, let's have the real deal. --TS 23:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So that is the tactic. Undisputed 3 year old results published in the journal Science that make sense of body of previous work don't count until a review article without new results discusses them. Did you apply that standard to the Lu Jian hadley cell paper from which the expansion of deserts statements is derived? Did you notice that the NAS climate summary is not peer reviewed and doesn't have references for the statement is the source of CO2 as the "cause" of most of the recent warming? Is the Stroeve paper on the Arctic melting issues with the models discussed by a review paper?--Africangenesis (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're giving me good critiques of the article as it stands at present, but I don't think you're convincing me that we should write about something because you say it is so. --TS 23:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So convincing you is the standard. WP:OWN.--Africangenesis (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not the standard. Tony is simply the one who has done the tedious work of engaging you and working out what exactly you want, as well as some of the best arguments for and against that. You need to convince enough editors here to get a consensus. Tony has just signalled to you that you are not convincing him. But maybe you can convince someone else. Editors can now look at this section, and if they think that the current outcome (no change, per WP:BURDEN) is not the right one, they can put in their weight. Otherwise most will stay silent because it's more convenient when Tony does all the work. Hans Adler 00:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hans Adler, although I believe it's more about m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies than WP:BURDEN; newer/shorter articles tend to be more inclusionistic while older/longer articles more exclusionistic. Tony is being critical of what ought to be included, and in my opinion it's justified under WP:SPINOFF (while you may disagree). Of course we may debate whether WP:SPINOFF or Tony's standards applies, or we may debate how to improve the encyclopedia. As you've pointed out the flaws in Tony's standards, you've also provided great critiques for the article. Why don't you run with that? Secondly, no one has told you that Wenz 2007 has to be in this article; remember that the section "Climate model" is a summery section of climate models, and in that context I find Wenz 2007 little more notable than the one that says increasing the resolution of older models creates non-neglegible changes in the distribution of precipitation. --CaC 155.99.230.89 (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a little more notable that the models fail to reproduce the increase in precipitation in the climate, than that increasing the resolution of the models doesn't fix their precipitation problems.--Africangenesis (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I made two edits yesterday on this article, my first edits on global warming since March, so I don't think I'm in danger of credibly being accused of exercising ownership.

I'm still in favor of restoring Stephan's "may have" qualification to the description of the singleton research paper which is the subject of this section. Africangenesis is raising interesting ideas, and I think we should write them up if they can be adequately sourced. First, though, if the relevant articles on climate modeling are out of date, we should improve them, then update this one to reflect their new content. --TS 09:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In the past, wasn't ownership of this more prominent article partially maintained by insisting that details relevant to disputes and credibility of the scientific claims on this page, be pushed off to other specialized, less prominent pages, i.e., isn't disputing edits on this page on such a basis, "battleground behavior"? --Africangenesis (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, in the time of the great ownership problem, one of the few consolations was that visitors could get a much better sense of the state of the science on the talk page than in the article proper. Because the discussions and ownership behavior on the talk page were often embarrassing to the owners, another frequent battleground behavior by the owners was more rapid archiving of the talk page. Since your sympathies were with the owners positions, if not their behavior, you may not have been sensitive to some of these tactics. You see, despite that fact that the talk pages were a battleground, that doesn't mean that they were devoid of information or that the battles themselves didn't inform visitors of how credible the page itself was. However, I doubt you were aware that increasing the speed of archiving was battleground behavior. It is less excusable now with wider availability of broadband than it was then. Hopefully, we can get more of the actual science in the article and rapid archiving will some day, not be considered battleground behavior.--Africangenesis (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What great ownership problem? The suggestion (and that's all it is) is that our coverage of the topic should follow a bottom-up pattern, with summary articles such as this being a digest of the content of the relevant detail articles. In that view, it makes sense to amend coverage in the detail articles before amending the digest. --TS 11:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

An article called "climate science" might be a digest. This article isn't. This is an article about a particular hypothesis and scientific dispute within the field. Scientific results relevant to the hypothesis, such as the credibility of an IPCC statement, might be relevant to this article and seem out of place in an article discussing the details of models.--Africangenesis (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This paper agrees that the precipitation observations are confirmed, and commences with the longer time frame apologia. [10]--Africangenesis (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

URL not pointless.

Note to NuclearWarfare re your recent minor edit: the url is not pointless, even with a doi. It is an alternate way of getting there. Sometimes we have only one or the other, but having both is not to be despised. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ocean acidification, prediction vs projection

Stephan, Are you quite sure that "any chemist can predict the continued ocean acidification." in light of the fact that CO2 has reduced soluability in the oceans as temperatures rise, and in light of the fact that there is still some uncertainty regarding sources and sinks of CO2? There is a reason these things are modeled and not just assumed. --Africangenesis (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The period in question

The intro defines "global warming" as:

the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation

But the first graph shows warming from 1850 to present. Which period of global warming are we talking about? Or are we talking about global warming in general? If it's the latter, do we also need to talk about periods of global cooling?

I'd like this article to focus on the science of what makes earth's atmosphere get warmer (and cooler). There are both natural and anthropogenic causes.

I wish the article would explain in layman's terms the various theories (or the mainstream theory, if the other theories are too marginal to mention) of what has historically caused average terrestial near-surface air temperature to go up and down. I understand that ice cores shed some light on this. But I think there is scientific controversy over this (or maybe only political? it's hard to tell).

First of all, it would be good to tell whether carbon dioxide drives temperature or the other way around - or some combination. Is the science of this matter clearly understood? Is there a scientific consensus on it? Or is there a mainstream view, with enough dissent within the climate science community worth mentioning in the article?

Now please understand me. I've been warned (vaguely, but firmly) about jumping in. So I want to be very clear about the direction I think this article should take:

it should be neutral
it should clearly describe scientific viewpoints, as published by bona fide climate scientists

Fair enough? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The current wording of the article introduction, despite the title, makes the article about the AGW hypothesis, not global warming or the climate in general. That would explain why the focus is on the latter half of the 20th century, because even these models that under represent solar responses attribute most of the earlier warming to natural causes.--Africangenesis (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge number of closely related topics with substantial, sometimes huge, overlap between them. We can't cover them all. What you have in mind would be global climate change, which, however, does not exist as a separate article but only as a redirect to climate change. Anthropogenic global warming is of course the most interesting subtopic, and a lot more people are interested in that than in the general topic. So we have a big article on that. Per WP:COMMONNAME that article resides under global warming. Hans Adler 17:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Global warming and global cooling can be summed up as a change in temperature, therefore climate change. The current warming does not project (statistically significant) cooling, therefore global warming. Ed, I find your questions very vague. Are you expressing what you want, because I'm sure we all want a good article. --CaC 155.99.230.187 (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the temperature "changes" year to year and decade to decade even when there isn't a change in forcing, but just due to internal variation. We probably would not call that "climate change", because ENSO, PDO, NAO and other internal climate modes are part of the climate. The PDO and NAO were in their negative phases in the middle of the century and positive phases in the last 3 decades of the century, and these internal climate modes are candidates for attribution of some of the mid-century cooling and late century warming. The IPCC AR4 models "match" the recent warming without reproducing these multi-decadal modes. It may turn out that these internal climate modes are ultimately being pumped by changes in forcing coupled to the current configuration of the ocean basins, perhaps the solar cycle, and they would die out absent such external variation. It may be that longer term solar variation or GHG warming would manifest inself as more frequent el Ninos or more time spent in certain phases of these existing climate modes, or new modes may appear.--Africangenesis (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to answer Ed's question on what sounded in my opinion related to the etymology and language of what global warming and climate change meant (GW→Current, CC→General Definition). Technically you're right, but I'm not being technical, I'm working per WP:CONNOMNAME, which you are well aware of. I believe it's Ed's turn to respond and either give us something actionable or another soapbox (which we will respond to in good faith, although I believe he should heed his vague warning). --CaC 155.99.230.144 (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The objectivity and accuracy of this page needs advancement.

In reviewing this page, it is clear that only one POV is given. The only mention of serious concerns with the science of Global Warming is in a dismissive and marginalizing way. No mention of the comical errors and practices of the IPCC and it's methods is made. That needs to be presented early and honestly.

This is sad.

Is there anyone there to save Wikiperdia from the marginalization that will happen from this lack of balanced presentation?

If the goal is to be a reliable and authoritative resourse of information, than self interest, political bias, imbalanced and untrue information must be prevented or at least balanced with a complementary and thorough opposition POV.

Please begin to rebalance or clean this lop-sided article today.

If not, Wikipedia will not only continue to lose credibility but will become a joke to all but the most imbalanced and lop-sided researchers and a competitor will fill the gap and draw those who want truth and objectivity away.

Thanks-

SeanDeepsean666 (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:V, we need reliable sources to include that kind of content, according to its weight. Jess_talk|_edits 02:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on science published in refereed journals. The "fair and balanced" coverage you would like to see would give equal weight to published papers and to Fox News, but that is not Wikipedia policy. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I do believe legitimate scientific journals should be referenced. I do not believe the request for "objectivity and accuracy" should be compared to Fox News "fair and balanced" and sumarily dismissed. There is a tone, an approach taken throughout this article that anyone not saturated in the gospel can feel uncomfortable with. My feedback is to discuss not the numerous scientific reports, journals and interlopers, but rather- a presentation of fact where it is not warrented and a thick smuggness in certainty of POV by writers which is a turn-off and reinforces the opposing and growing POV that Global Warming is more a social agenda than fact based science.

For instance in the opening paragraph:

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century.[2][A] Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century has been caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which result from human activity such as the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation.[3] Global dimming, a result of increasing concentrations of atmospheric aerosols that block sunlight from reaching the surface, has partially countered the effects of warming induced by greenhouse gases.

The statement is not fact. It is not a law. It is a possible explanation of an observed phenomina. It should at least have a mention of this and be tied to the previous sentence. So accuracy and objectivity would have this sentence writen in such a way that it is clearly understood that it's an idea, a strong idea, a best explanaition so far identified by the IPCC. But it's not. To intelligent scientific and engineering or thoughtful minded people, it can leave a bad taste if not left open-minded, open for revision, open for growth and presented as a best idea. A scientific concensus and IPCC report does not make it fact. It makes it an accepted idea. Most turn out to be fact eventually, but many others have been long forgotten about and erased from memory and CVs.

My criticism is to improve the article. I utilize Wikipedia often. I want to read undistracted and learn, which I do most of the time. I don't want to start arguing with the material and it's writers. That's a bad sign. That's when I get into the editing discussions. It is challenging to present something you are passionate about objectively. This is a very important issue that has lost much momentum and credibility. Most of this I believe is due to the arrogance and oversight of it's proponents. The way back is not to wait until it blows over and be dismissive until then, but rather have some stones, look at it from anothers POV and readjust to acomodate.

Just some suggestions.

Deepsean666 (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically you want the article to attribute it so that it's not simply fact (and even facts can be attribute). That shouldn't be hard, but the problem I see is that it could be attributed to a lot of people (see Footnote B and Scientific opinion on climate change). Perhaps "the mainstream view" would be appropriate. This is your proposal, so I'll let it be your call—if this is what you're looking for.

As for whether it is a fact or an idea, it's both. The proportion of external forcing can be quantified (1.66±0.17 W/m² with 90% confidence), which is fact.[11] Forcing can be thought of as causality, but it's much more complex than A→B because the climate cannot be directly experimented with. The "mainstream view" among scientist, however, remains yes (see prev. links). --CaC 155.99.231.56 (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate models

See the following articles:

They both need improvement. --TS 22:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

These articles are core to the issue and may also need improvement :

--Childhood's End (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the section regarding climate models needs some review at this point. In its current state, it avoids issues that are core to the underlying problematic. I will discuss a few points, but feel free to comment or add other ideas.

"The main tools for projecting future climate changes are mathematical models (...). Although they attempt to include as many processes as possible, simplifications of the actual climate system are inevitable because of the constraints of available computer power and limitations in knowledge of the climate system."
- Simplifications of the climate system in the models are inevitable first and foremost because there exists no mathematical equations for a cloud or for other physical processes. This issue is obscured by the current text.
- The issue of available computer power is irrelevant and should be removed. There are no scientific grounds to support that future computers will allow the development of climate models that do not need simplifications. Computer limitations in climate studies can be more correctly attributed to complexity issues rather than to a lack of power.
- Actually, there used to be a mention of the inherent complexity of the underlying system as a cause for the need for simplifications, in lieu of "limitations in knowledge". I think the former was more accurate by far and should be re-introduced. Climate-related sciences cannot escape the fact that the object of their studies, i.e. the climate, is a complex system in the scientific sense, which has enormous implications with regard to modelling. Complexity science acknowledges it. See [12] for a quick summary.

"The physical realism of models is tested by examining their ability to simulate current or past climates. Current climate models produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but do not simulate all aspects of climate."
- As stated these sentences are true but also obscure core issues, most importantly the fact that the ability to reproduce the past is not related to the ability to predict the future.
--Childhood's End (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

These are interesting ideas, but what do you suggest? Are we to write our own critique of climate modeling as seen through the lens of the complexity theorist? Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Also note that these models don't attempt to predict the future, and David Orrell seems to be the author of a generalist popular book who apparently misunderstands some aspects of climate science. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And you are of course here to tell when a PhD in maths with several pusblished articles misunderstands mathematical issues. Please also remind BLP, as it applies to talk pages. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A matter of history. It doesn't need advanced maths to undestand that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wasn't founded to refine the result using advanced mathematical models. And projections ain't predictions. . . . dave souza, talk 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If these ideas are as fundamental and systemic as seem to be suggested here, how come only one PhD author has noticed them, and then published his findings as one FAQ among many on an internal page of his website? What about all the other thousands of climate scientists, the university departments, the peer-review process, the IPCC? Did none of them think to look into this, even after he blew the whole field of study apart by publishing this FAQ? It seems unlikely to me that there is such large conspiracy of silence in the mainstream literature. --Nigelj (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I gave this source as an example, please re-read my post. It is your interpretation that there might be a conspiracy. My view is that since this is an advanced mathematical issue and that climate scientists are not pure mathematicians, they are thus unqualified to fully grasp the limitations of mathematical climate models. But the fact that climate scientists do not grasp it, and thus do not discuss it, does not mean that mathematics should be ignored when it comes to mathematical models. If global warming/climate change topics must address mathematical climate models, they have to address it wholly and not cherry-pick. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't complexity, rather chaotic behavior. The climate is not chaotic, at least not on the time scales one is interested in when studying global warming. Then the problems do actually boil down to lack of computing power, or lack of mathematical techniques to settle certain problems. With enough computing power you could e.g., simulate cloud formation from first principles, because the fundamental physics underlying this is known (we know the properties of water molecules and how they interact with each other).

In theoretical physics, one can sometimes use mathematical tricks to circumvent such problems. A typical method is to extend the exact mathematical model describing the phenomena one is interested in, by multiplying terms that are responsible for intractible complex phenomena by some parameter g. You then attempt to develop perturbation theory around g = 0 to find the behavior at g = 1. Typically, what you find is that the perturbation series does not converge (which often has its very physical origin in the complex phenomena that are absent at g = 0). But usually, the perturbation theory does contain enough information to reconstruct the function using resummation techniques, allowing you to to compute the behavior at g = 1. Count Iblis (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree with your premise. This is a complexity issue, not a mere chaos issue. Indeed if the climate is not chaotic, as you point out, it remains a complex adaptive system with its inherent modelling difficulties. Chaos does not pose the same problems as complexity when it comes to modelling future events. Also, no matter the time frame, each model must have initial conditions relying on approximations, measurements and parametrization and thus involging error which evolves with time differently than it would if it was just chaos and the famous butterfly effect. See Conway's game of life or computational complexity theory for a gross picture of what I am trying to point out. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss these fine points. Whatever bearing they actually have on climate science will have been well discussed in the relevant published literature. I suggest you have a look at TS's suggestion below, and try making a contribution to one or more of the detailed articles on these matters. But I suggest you have good references ready, not only for WP:V, but also for whatever discussion you may find on that talk pages of these specialist articles. --Nigelj (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This is going to go the way of most discussions on verifiability, synthesis and the like. While I was out I browsed one or two articles on climate modeling using my tiny and not very powerful telephone. It looked to me as if those articles needed renovation. I would like to suggest that those who want to improve our coverage of climate models could do a lot worse than turn those from indifferent to middling articles into spectacularly good ones. Then we could summarise those articles in the section on modeling in this article. -TS 20:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good call. . . dave souza, talk 20:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea to me too. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Discovery of a critique suitable for WP of the accuracy of modeling of climate and of its extrapolation into the future, and of the value of more powerful computers in that effort is improbable. All one can accomplish is a general word of caution that isn't useful, especially if it is to buttress a general skepticism that amounts to suggesting that our best efforts to sort things out are so bad that we should abandon them and work from gut instincts alone. Brews ohare (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding a hatnote to this section pointing to two articles on this subject that could benefit from expert improvement. --TS 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that most of the concerns raised here are dealt with in the following parts of Global climate models, or related articles:

"No model – whether a wind tunnel model for designing aircraft, or a climate model for projecting global warming – perfectly reproduces the system being modeled. Such inherently imperfect models may nevertheless produce useful results. In this context, GCMs are capable of reproducing the general features of the observed global temperature over the past century"
"Coupled climate models do not simulate with reasonable accuracy clouds and some related hydrological processes (in particular those involving upper tropospheric humidity). Problems in the simulation of clouds and upper tropospheric humidity, remain worrisome because the associated processes account for most of the uncertainty in climate model simulations of anthropogenic change."
the article Parametrization (climate)
the article Climate change feedback and its sub-articles

If we want to insert the word "complex" into the first quote "reproduces the complex system" and link it to complexity theory, that might be an improvement. Overall, however, there's no reason to assume that the complexity-induced error (differences between model and future reality) are greater than the researchable, and modellable non-linear effects described in Climate change feedback. And ultimately this concern is about just such errors, to the extent it isn't an argument for us to throw up our hands vis a vis modeling complex systems.--Carwil (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The climate is a nonlinear dynamic system, and thus is chaotic. What we call the climate can be thought of as the attractor. The idea is to model the climate when perturbed by forcings and gather statistics to characterize how the attractor changes and find any tipping points. One of the reasons we don't have error ranges produced for the models based upon all the documented diagnostic issues, is that there is no way to analytically calculate them. It is a nonlinear system, any one of the errors might cause the climate to diverge from the actual climate of interest. Errors that may seem insignificant for the 20th century climate may grow in unpredictable ways as the climate changes. That is why the AR4 models that are known to under represent the negative feedback of the water cycle, under represent the positive surface albedo feedback, under represent the observed signature of the solar cycle, that get the tropical radiative imbalance wrong, and have cloud parameterization errors between two and three orders of magnitude larger than the 0.75W/m^2 energy imbalance of the 90s have credibility issues. That doesn't mean they are useless over all, they have produced qualitative insights, subsequently confirmed by observations. Quantitatively, they are not yet ready for a phenomenon as small as the recent warming with only 3 or so decades of quality data to constrain, and validate them.--Africangenesis (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that models are useful in a variety of ways, and they are well documented in the article. The issue remains projecting/predicting the future. Non-linearity does not automatically implies chaos. The different components of the climate system may be chaotic, but it does not automatically make the system itself chaotic. Thus a complex adaptive system may adapt itself to circumstances, which is not the result of chaos but of complexity, and its adaptations are difficult to foresee no matter how.

I did not conduct a thorough research, but one who reaches very similar conclusions to David Orrell is Valerio Lucarini Ref. Like Orrell, he has credibility in this regard and can hardly be called a 'skeptic' (see his conclusion).

Lucarini asserts that it is not sensible to expect better results with more powerful computers. I thus maintain that this sentence in the article should be reviewed.

I also note that he found that no complete studies of the effects of model uncertainties in climate change projections had been done. This might be a fact of interest.

--Childhood's End (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite so, it is not computer power that is the problem, e.g decreasing mesh size is within the capability of modern computers even though the solution will get slower. In fact the meshing problem is widely overlooked and divergence of models due to integrator instability is a problem that is ignored when it occurs (much to the shame of climate modelers -look at the code where instability problems are noted and suggested to be overcome by restarting from the blow up point). The real problem is the accuracy of the underlying model assumptions and until these are addressed the models cannot get any better.MarkC (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Computing power has more implications than just finer grid resolution. It allows more physics based algorithms to be implemented. While it is clear that finer grids will not solve the problems of current models, more physically realistic computationally intensive algorithms might. --Africangenesis (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

More computer power may allow the implementation of more realistic physics-based algorythms, but computer power alone cannot produce these algotythms. As I pointed out, there are no equations for a cloud or for ocean-air exchanges and thus we rely on approximations, which may get more realistic but will always remain approximations. And any error in these approximations causes error in the models, error which grows with the time scale of the projections because of complexity. The editor above is absolutely correct. I'll try to suggest a modif, unless someone else more brilliant than myself does before. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

false and unsupported statement in Solar section.

This statement is false:

The consensus among climate scientists is that changes in solar forcing probably had a slight cooling effect in recent decades.

The first reference reports that the solar forcing is positive. What do y'all propose, especially those of you who have reverted?--Africangenesis (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edits on this did not correctly represent the source page(s) you were quoting from.

What you wrote in your edit:

... In contrast, the direct radiative forcing due to increases in solar irradiance is estimated to be +0.12 (90% range from 0.06 to 0.3) W m–2. ... but over the entire period from 1984 to 2001, surface solar radiation has increased by about 0.16 W m–2 yr–1 on average...but over the entire period from 1984 to 2001, surface solar radiation has increased by about 0.16 W m–2 yr–1 on average

The two halves around the ellipsis didn't even come from the same sections of the IPCC report. This creates the false impression that the two sentences are related and continue a single thought. They do not.

The first came from Section 9.2.1 and was discussing solar irradiance changes since *1750* - not "1984 to 2001".

The second part came from Section 9.2.2.2 and was discussing Global Dimming, from aerosols, not solar variation.

Benjamin Franz (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the elipsis wasn't intended to give the impression they are from the same section, but rather to overcome what appears to be a single quote limitation. Is there way to include more than one quote? The main point is there is nothing in the article to support the current statement that solar's contribution was cooling. The positive forcing figure contradicts that. The aerosol/solar quote is just another valuable quote from the article that is likely to be valuable in this section. There are at least two hypotheses to explain the mid-century cooling, because it is a problem for both GHG warming and solar warming hypotheses. One is anthropogenic aerosols and the other is internal climate variation with the PDO and NAO both in negative phases during the cooling. The aerosol relevant solar forcing phrase demonstrates the aerosol "unmasking" the unusually high plateau of solar forcing (e.g., Solanki). Of course, the aerosol changes also unmaks continuing GHG warming. The importance for the scientific debate (not just political or public) is that the steepness of the recent warming trend is explainable not by the essentially flat high levels of solar activity or the gradually increasing GHGs, but rather by more dramatic and poorly quantified changes in aerosols.--Africangenesis (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"The positive forcing figure contradicts that."

No, it doesn't. It refers to the change over the last 250 years. Not in the last half century. It is currently at at the lowest point since the late 1940s (Steinhilber, F., J. Beer, and C. Fröhlich. 2009., ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/steinhilber2009tsi.txt) and the overall trend since 1950s is *down*. I actually ran the regressions.

For

1950-2007.5: -0.00034 W/Sq M/Year

1960-2007.5: -0.00016 W/Sq M/Year

1970-2007.5: -0.000048 W/Sq M/Year

1980-2007.5: -0.0034 W/Sq M/Year

1990-2007.5: -0.0068 W/Sq M/Year

2000-2007.5: -0.006 W/Sq M/Year

As you can see, regardless of what decade you pick as a starting point in the last 60 years, the trend is negative. Not by a lot mind you, but definitely not positive. And the negative trends have been getting stronger in the last two decades.

Aerosol maskings are no more a solar variance than CO2 is. They are accounted for separately. The solar variance section is just the wrong place for it. Benjamin Franz (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I was thinking that figure was since 1950. Given the margin error, your figures are essentially flat. Do you have something from the peer review literature supporting a cooling contribution? -- thanx --Africangenesis (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The IPCC claims a small positive forcing not cooling for the latter half of the century. This from IPCC AR4 Working Group I chapter 2:

"The solar RF has a small positive value. The positive solar irradiance RF is likely to be at least five times smaller than the combined RF due to all anthropogenic agents, and about an order of magnitude less than the total greenhouse gas contribution (Figures 2.20 and 2.23 and Table 2.12; see also the Foukal et al., 2006 review)."[13]

More important than whether there was a trend in this plateau of solar activity over the last half of the century, is that solar was at high level that the oceans had not yet completed their response to when the mid-century cooling hit, and was still there at higher than early century levels for the 80s and 90s.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Chapter 9 acknowledges a small possibility that the warming since 1950 is mostly due to solar:

"This was not the case when using the response to solar forcing based on the alternative reconstruction of Lean et al. (1995), in which case they fi nd a very small likelihood (less than 1%, as opposed to approximately 10%) that solar warming could be greater than greenhouse warming since 1950."[14]

--Africangenesis (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This text, also from chapter 9, explicitly discusses as a "delay", the lag in warming response due to aerosols:

"In contrast, changes in solar forcing can potentially explain only a small fraction of the observationally based estimates of the increase in ocean heat content (Crowley et al., 2003), and the cooling infl uence of natural (volcanic) and anthropogenic aerosols would have slowed ocean warming over the last half century. Delworth et al. (2005) fi nd a delay of several decades and a reduction in the magnitude of the warming of approximately two-thirds in simulations with the GFDL-CM2 model that included these forcings compared to the response to increasing greenhouse gases alone, consistent with results based on an upwelling diffusion EBM (Crowley et al., 2003)."

--Africangenesis (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The IPCC claims a small positive forcing not cooling for the latter half of the century.

If you look at Figure 2.23, it covers 1850 to 2000. Again - they are talking about over the full 150 years - not just the last half-century.

The sentences immediately following your quote on 'a small positive forcing',

Over particularly the 1950 to 2005 period, the combined natural forcing has been either negative or slightly positive (less than approximately 0.2 W m–2), reaffirming and extending the conclusions in the TAR. Therefore, it is exceptionally unlikely that natural RFs could have contributed a positive RF of comparable magnitude to the combined anthropogenic RF term over the period 1950 to 2005 (Figure 2.23)

That is best interpreted as 'flat'.

Chapter 9 acknowledges a small possibility that the warming since 1950 is mostly due to solar

Yah: 1%. Not enough to revise on.

This text, also from chapter 9, explicitly discusses as a "delay", the lag in warming response due to aerosols:

The quote itself says:

"changes in solar forcing can potentially explain only a small fraction of the observationally based estimates of the increase in ocean heat content".

Yes there is a delay, no you can't use it to move the bulk of the warming over to solar variance as a cause. You still don't have enough solar variance.

Benjamin Franz (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidently you didn't notice that the sentence immediately preceding the "small positive forcing" also referenced the second half of the 20th century and the figure which starts from 1850:

"Figure 2.23 also indicates that the combined positive RF of the greenhouse gases exceeds the contributions due to all other anthropogenic agents throughout the latter half of the 20th century."

The quote afterward you cited makes it clear that they are talking about the period after 1950. The 1% chance that the warming is MOSTLY due to solar, is probably a close to 100% agreement that the solar contribution is positive. Explaining a small fraction of an INCREASE in ocean heat content confirms the positive forcing. Keep in mind that we are discussing the erroneous statement that the solar contribution was cooling for which there are only sources which support the opposite.--Africangenesis (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User "K" was the first one to apparently mis-understand the IPCC quote and transition solar from warming to cooling in the article.[15]. I will post a notice on his page, giving him an opportunity to provide a citation.--Africangenesis (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidently you didn't notice that the sentence immediately preceding the "small positive forcing" also referenced the second half of the 20th century and the figure which starts from 1850:

I noticed it. You're mis-interpreting that there is a linkage between the two statements. The only statement *specifically* covering solar variance for the last 60 years is the one stating that has been *either* negative or slightly positive, but that regardless the change has been *very small* since 1950. When you add Steinhilber, 2009 and his additional 75% of a decade to the mix it is clear that the net variance for the last 60 years is negative, and the variance for the last two decade is even more so. Although so slightly in each case that calling it flat would not be inappropriate. Calling it positive is right out.

Benjamin Franz (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This section is about solar not solar plus volcanic aerosol, so the negative phrase doesn't apply. Also it is the contribution to the recent warming that is the subject of the section. Yes, solar activity is down now and the warming has flattened and may eventually cool. It currently is a mixed bag that could be documented. The el nino got the year off to a pretty warm start, but work since the AR4 and the solar minimum has forced upward revision of the variability of solar UV and increased the appreciation of nonlinear solar coupling through ozone creation in the stratosphere and troposhere.--Africangenesis (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No. The mean calculations for the last half century point to a very slight decrease in solar forcing, and the current minimum is regarded as exceptional (i.e., much farther down than typical solar minima over the course of a couple hundred years of observing variation). But it's widely accepted that either way, even with the complicating factor of the addition in the '70s of satellite measurements, observed solar variation is capable of accounting for only an extremely small proportion of observed warming.
..... Incidentally, this sort of debate is one of the reasons why as a matter of editorial policy in WP, we like to see secondary sources where possible, and that use of primary sources be limited to statements that can be double-checked by any generally educated layperson without specialist knowledge. In this instance the citations to critics of Nicola Scafetta's reliance on long-odds speculations were, as I recall, visible in plain English (e.g. in Duffy, Santer and Wigley's response to Scafetta's published papers). ... Kenosis (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No citations have been provided for a mean decrease in the latter half of the 20th century. The slight decrease from the mid-80s may not be enough to support any negative forcing of climate until 2004, as it may still have been high enough to positively force the climate and the state of the oceans after the mid-century cooling. We need a citation that covers the approximately the whole 1950-2000 span. We also need a citation for the "consensus" clause.

On this article, the only secondary sources for the science should be review articles that have been peer reviewed, or articles and reports well enough referenced that that any statements can be confirmed from the references. Perhaps some exceptions can be allowed to balance the current acceptance of the non-peer reviewed IPCC reports.--Africangenesis (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not required to have citations for statements made on the talk page. Apparently neither are you.
..... It seems to me that by far the most important point about solar variation for this article is that the consensus among climatologists is that changes in solar forcing fail to account for the overwhelming majority of observed warming, if not all of it, while anthropogenic increases in GHGs do account for the overwhelming majority of observed warming, if not all of it-- (I feel sure you can find citations for this in the IPCC Summary report, and I would think probably also for what the consensus is w.r.t. solar variation). Moreover, it appears likely that solar variation has recently offset warming due to human-caused increases in GHGs, but the contribution of changes in solar forcing, whether to the plus or the minus, are accepted to be relatively small (I believe this too is in the IPCC report).
..... Given the [erm] "climate" at this article, though, i presently choose not to get involved in trying to [erm] "force" any changes or even much influence the consensus of WP editors about the consensus of climate scientists about the relative impact of solar forcing--perhaps some other time. The section on solar variation could if you asked me (which no one did) be much better written, although the climate here often seems to be very counterproductive to such improvements. Thanks again for the note on my talk page giving me the heads-up that my earlier edit is regarded as suspect. And please do have a nice day. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR to AR4

“

Precipitation increased proportional to atmospheric humidity, and hence 2 to 3 times faster than the IPCC FAR models predicted.

”

Problem is FAR usually refers to First Assessment Report, which was three editions ago in 1990. I think the sentence refers to Fourth Assessment Report (usually abbreviated AR4 rather than FAR), which was published in 2007. Secondly, the IPCC itself doesn't make predictions, it reviews and assess them. So "faster than IPCC FAR models predicted" should be "faster than models reviewed in AR4". --CaC 155.99.230.161 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the papers mention the IPCC, so I'v weaseled it to "current global climate models" (which is more or less from "state-of-the-art coupled atmosphere–ocean climate models" and "current set of global coupled ocean-atmosphere models" from the two sources given). I'm a bit concerned by the cherry-picked quote from (Liepert and Previdi, 2009), because it omits the facts that the cause likely is insufficient modeling of the effect of the reduction in aerosols, i.e. it probably is not a fundamental problem of modeling the reaction to GHG increases. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanx, aerosols usually end up explaining a lot of the unknowns, and in the case of the models how they can disagree so much in their climate sensitivity yet still "match" the 20th century climate. I think that Lipert and Previdi's main apologia for the models however is that they are able to produce higher levels of precipitation about 12 percent (? from memory) of the time. The nature of the underlying arguement is that it is the climate models rather than the observed climate that better represents the climate, because our climate observations are only one instance and the models have simulated centuries of climate statistics. The credibility problem then is, have we really validated the models with the 20th century climate if they haven't really been required to "match" it. Can we dismissive of the fact that they don't replicate the multi-decadal modes and didn't have them in their positive phases for the important recent warming? Can we be dismissive of the failure to replicate such an increase in precipitation, or is the precipitation in the models simply not well enough executed yet? It is a bit of a travesty that these models are being used to project drought risk in various regional studies.--Africangenesis (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Africangenesis, what does this have to do with an edit to the article? You seem to be soapboxing a lot lately, which I find rather presumptuous. I realize that you are interested in the topic, but you need to show more discipline when you comment—otherwise you are coming across as a rather self-important and opinionated person. --CaC 155.99.230.76 (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephan mentioned an apologia for the models. I mentioned the statistical apologia, that suggested solace from the models being able to get close to the increase in the level of precipitation in other decades. However, Lipert and Previdi found it physically significant that the observed increase in precipitation was also in line what is expected from the Clausius–Clapeyron rate. Lindzen pointed out that the energy flux has to be consistent up through the atmosphere and this is an error in latent heat flux confirmed by precipitation measurements (probably an unremarkable comment but that is where I most recently heard it). Because of such energy budget constraints, it is unlikely that the statistical apologia is going to hold up and the models are going to have to fix this, which means there will also be consequences for the rest of the energy budget they were getting wrong. I think the importance for the editing is at least twofold, first, forstalling any attempt to balance this serious model issue, because there is significant work confirming the latent heat fluxes, and second this is relevant to any projections of increased drought risks, such as this recently published embarassment based solely upon the IPCC AR4 model results without any discussion of the relevant model diagnostic literature. [16]--Africangenesis (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that WP:BLP applies to discussion on these talk pages as well. Do you have any references that describe Aiguo Dai's work as an 'embarrassment'? If not I suggest you tone down, and perhaps strike, expression of your personal opinions on the work of identifiable living people, just until we have some published reviews to base our discussion on. --Nigelj (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I described the article as an embarassment, and I personally corresponded with the author asking how he could have missed the Wentz paper. I wouldn't conclude the author was an embarassment, he may merely be a victim of poor practices in tracking the model diagnostic literature in his organization. The failure is probably more organizational and certainly a failure of peer review. I will further grant that his work may have been excellent, and may be a model for how to analyze and calculate drought indices from model output. The failure was that of the models and the failure the peer review process was typical of what we have seen in climate science. --Africangenesis (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

CO2 Graph

October 23, 2010 The graph of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations on the right hand side of the opening page is misleading in several ways:

The range of concentrations spans a scant 70 parts per million
The graph does not have a zero base, but rather begins at ~310 ppm, which emphasizes small changes, making them appear much larger than is in fact the case
The graph shows total atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, while in fact
Only a small percentage of carbon dioxide is anthropogenic
Worst of all by far, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and water vapor constitutes an estimated 1.5% of the atmosphere by volume, which converts to roughly 22,800 ppm, dwarfing the anthropogenic component of carbon dioxide which humans are directed to reduce at profound expense, and clearly a marginal, if any, change in total greenhouse gases extant.

JonathanQuick (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not much of an expert on this, but my two cents are the structure of the graph is pretty sound. Starting the graph at 0 does not make much sense to me since CO2 hasn't recently been at 0. The natural place to start it is where the data start, or perhaps at a recent CO2 level. As JonathanQuick points out, the context of this rise is not immediately clear. Looking into the matter some, perhaps this graph from NASA might be better suited as an illustration here. The drawback is perhaps the long format, but the recent rise is better illustrated to me (a layman). The last two points are discussed in the text of the article to some degree, although maybe those issues can be made clearer. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
As for water vapour, also see the FAQ14. As for the Y-axis, it is customary to choose it to conform to the range of the data. This allows maximal resolution, so that we can, e.g. see the seasonal variations. CO2 has not been below ~180ppm in the least several hundred thousand years. At the moment, the anthropogenic increase of CO2 is about 38% over pre-industrial levels - that's not "a small percentage" in my mind. Compare "Dodge has a market share of 38%" or "the 38% swing voters overwhelmingly decided to vote repucratic at the last minute". And while only a small part of the CO2 is anthropogenic, all of the increase is (in fact, nature is helping us out a lot, see airborne fraction). You might also enjoy Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Starting a graph at other than a natural point (in this case, zero) has the potential to be misleading, but has to be weighed against other considerations. As StS points out, it is quite usual to choose the range to match the range of the data. Clear axis labels, as in this case, help ensure that the graph is not misleading. While "others do it" is not a sufficient argument, the fact that this NOAA graph follows the same protocol strongly suggests the practice is acceptable. While the graph is CO₂, which is not the only greenhouse gas, the role of CO₂ is important, and its contribution to the total effect is clearly stated in the main text. Your comment that anthropogenic CO₂ is only a small proportion of the total is simply wrong. Your comparison of the concentration of water vapor to CO₂ is irrelevant - it is the contribution to warming which is relevant (inter alia, but one of the most relevant factors). Comparing the change in CO₂ to "total greenhouse gases extant" (presumably on a ppm basis) is virtually meaningless at best.--SPhilbrick T 13:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To more properly reflect the logrithmic physics of CO2 forcing, a log scale y-axis could be considered.--Africangenesis (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting possibility, but I see problems. Most importantly, it would be Original Research for us to do so. At a minimum, one would need to find reliable sources presenting it that way, and even then, unless a substantial proportion present it that way, it would not be appropriate for us to do so. Second, if one were graphing CO₂ and temperature on the same graph, it might make sense to use a log scale, but that isn't the case here.--SPhilbrick T 12:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Residence time of CO2?

This article repeats the idea that CO2 residence time is of the order of a hundered years or so but other papers say this not so. See this paper and the supporting cites: "Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide" R.H. Essenhigh* Energy Fuels, 2009, 23 (5), pp 2773–2784. The statement of residence time therefore needs correction -right? MarkC (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No. The Essenhigh paper is badly confused, and its rendition in the blogosphere is worse. The residence time of a given CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is on the order of 4 years (since the total carbon exchange between atmosphere and other reservoirs is ~200 GT/year, and the atmosphere contains ~750GT). But that is not the same as the equilibrium time (how long after a CO2 pulse will it take to revert to normal). We have plenty of research on CO2 lifetimes. I'm sure Boris can point out about 5 publications from the top of his head, and explain this much better. But what is telling is that this paper is not published in any atmospheric science journal, but in one dedicated to fossil fuels... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. For perturbation of an equilibrium, the rate of return is the _sum_ of the forward and back rates. Since the CO2 record shows the seasonal variation the equilibrium time (1/e) cannot be ~100 years. To dismiss a paper and others it cited just because of the title of the Journal title is not scientific nor objective is it? On the other hand, an exponential never returns, so scientists don't characterize the return except in terms of the time const. or half time etc. Thus a 5 year time constant will reach 1- (1/e)^20 of its final value in one hundred years but what's the point of that figure, it's most misleading. Surely we could do with some better description of the assumptions that go into such an estimate or else say there's controversy? Cheers 125.237.187.133 (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

One paper doesn't make a controversy. I suggest that the thing to do here is to read our articles carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere and carbon cycle and recommend any changes you think should be made to those articles. If you're successful in getting consensus for changes there then it might be time to update this article, in which our coverage should essentially reflect those articles in summary form. --TS 12:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it's not just one paper as the reference list in that paper makes clear. BUT even more importantly, the residence time has been measure by 14^C injection following nuclear tests and its not 100 years see: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/well-gr.html. Such direct measurement surely outweighs all modeling studies? MarkC (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer is still the same. Take it to the other articles and get consensus that they're in error and need to be changed, then we can see if this one needs to be updated. --TS 12:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the pages and I could not find a reference to the 100 years... Did I miss it?

Let me try again. The atmosphere exchanges about 25% of its CO2 per year with much larger reservoirs (especially the oceans). Thus, the time a given CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere is about 4 years. But the time for the excess CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere is much longer. It's like peeing into a pool. The pee will be diluted pretty soon, so the local concentration will sink very quickly. But the overall level of the pool will only be the same once the extra water has evaporated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Stephan (although you analogy is worrying ;-P), the problem is not as you suggest. The idea that atmospheric CO2 will take more than ~100 years to appreciably decline after a perturbation is clearly wrong as direct measurements show a faster equilibration (as simple math shows it must be -given the seasonal variations). Perhaps you were unaware of these data? http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/well-gr.html This shows that the time course of return to steady state is 10x faster than suggested... Therefore if CO2 production were returned toward preindustrial levels tomorrow (say) the decline in atmospheric CO2 would be as fast as this graph shows -not >100 years. It's not the total C in the system that matters but the atmospheric component -right? MarkC (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate (I hope) the basic point, an individual carbon dioxide molecule has an expected lifetime in the atmosphere of 3-4 years; after that it's dissolved in the oceans or by plant respiration or whatever. At the same time biota, various human industrial and agricultural activities and the oceans release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. However there is a net imbalance in carbon dioxide inputs and outputs in the atmosphere, and this excess in the atmosphere eventually finds its way into the oceans. The distinction you seem to be failing to draw is that between the 3-4 year residency period and that much longer time for the excess carbon dioxide to find its way (primarily) into the oceans. The IP's basic error above seems to have been in this statement: " Since the CO2 record shows the seasonal variation the equilibrium time (1/e) cannot be ~100 years." That's nonsense. It's like saying that since I can stand at the shore and see the waves periodically advancing and receding over a scale of seconds, it's impossible that the tide could take hours to go out. --TS 11:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi TC. Let's try to agree on something: It's not the total C in the system that matters but the atmospheric component -right? If you agree, then its not the time taken for all the C sinks to equilibrate that matter but only the atmospheric component and that, as I have shown and we seem to agree is more like 4-7 years. Thus if CO2 production were stopped tomorrow CO2 will fall with that half time, not 100 years. Do you not agree? 125.237.187.133 (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a TC here so I'll assume you meant TS. I still don't see how you get from residence time to equilibrium. You seem to be saying they're identical. --TS 09:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not saying they are identical. The key is the time taken for atmospheric CO2 to fall toward steady state values after a perturbation. It is only the CO2 in the atmosphere that is relevant for warming, not the amount/redistribution in other sinks. This approaches steady state in << 100 years as the 14C data shows -do you agree? 125.237.187.133 (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not. See above. The C14 gets diluted very quickly due to the large carbon flow, but the amount of carbon in the atmosphere drops a lot slower. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's not scientifically correct (even if it appeals to some non quantitative/mathematical intuition). The 14C injection reveals the time of CO2 equilibration through all sinks. Its actually the same as common radio tracer experiments that are widely used in many fields. Mass action says that 14C shows the same rate of equilibration as 12C. Think about it, the nuclear test produced some atmospheric CO2, how long did it take that extra CO2 to decline by half? What if all the industrial CO2 were similarly labelled, how long would it take to decline in the atmosphere if production stopped..? You see there is no difference -14C exactly matches the time course of change of atmospheric after an injection 12C -mathematics says it cannot be otherwise as there is no process to preferentially select 14C atoms over 12C. Cheers 125.237.187.133 (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing *mixing* with *removal*. The oceanic and the atmospheric CO2 *mix* fairly rapidly. But the rate at which CO2 is *removed* from the atmosphere is much slower. It is like having two pools of water with pumps sending lots of water in both directions. If the pumps are large enough you will *mix* the water between the two pools quite quickly. But it is the *difference* between between the rates of the two pumps that determines the overall balance between levels in the two pools. And if the difference is small, the pool water levels will change only very slowly even though they are mixing very quickly. Your note on C14 levels is like adding dye to one pool. It will rapidly *mix* with the other pool, reducing the concentration of dye in the first pool quite quickly. But that doesn't mean the pool is draining fast - it just means the pools are mixing fast. Benjamin Franz (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again you reiterate a common misconception. The rate of equilibration is always the sum of forward and back rates, therefore the rate of equilibration is shown by the radio-isotope injection. For the reversible reaction A<->B the time course of equilibration is K.e(-(kab + kba)) where kab is that rate constnt for a->b and kba is the rate for B->A (solve dA/dt = kba - kab). This is simple maths and as I said, the basis of interpreting correctly the radio tracer experiment. This shows that the the rate of change of C02 after CO2 production is altered is <<100 years. This has been discussed in the various literature and the statement in the text is incorrect -e.g. see CRAIG, H. (1957), The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxide Between Atmosphere and Sea. Tellus, 9: 1–17. Furthermore, the IPCC's carbon cycle model http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~joos/model_description/model_description gives a ~16 year half life. Shall I suggest a more correct rewording of the relevant passage....? The 100 year figure is that taken for equilibration to slow sinks which is not the atmospheric compartment, which is the primary variable of importance for AGW theories/models MarkC (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at [17]. When you add carbon to the atmosphere, a large fraction is transfered to the biosphere and ocean via short-term processes, but the total carbon in the system remains elevated for a long time until the excess carbon in the combined atmosphere-ocean-biosphere system can be eliminated via geologic processes. As a result, a portion of the increase in the atmosphere remains after centuries. Dragons flight (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is a slow component but my point is that the impression (from the wording) is that if CO2 is elevated it stays at that elevated level for a long time but that is not so. The CO2 in the atmosphere falls rapidly to a much lower level and then slowly declines further. It is this rapid drop that is most important in terms of efforts to mitigate CC. Do we agree? Cheer MarkC (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The section introduces greenhouse gases as an external forcing, what's important is not necessarily the carbon cycle, but its influence on climate. You're talking about airborne fraction and its removal from the atmosphere and global warming potential. Those are interesting subtopics, but its a subtopic. The article links to the latter article, which in my opinion is enough. --CaC 155.99.230.128 (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

POV issue with the dismissive "nevertheless" wording.

"The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[8][9][10][B] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues."

By omission this gives the impression that the scientific debate is not continuing, and that those engaging in the political and public debates are being obstinate or at least merely political and unscientific. The continuing scientific debate demonstrates where the true scientific consensus is. The debate generally concedes that the direct effects of CO2 can explain about 30% of the recent warming, and would result in a warming of about 1 to 1.1 degrees C for both a CO2 doubling. Any greater attribution of the recent warming to CO2 and projections of greater warming require significant net positive feedbacks to CO2 in the current climate regime. Whether the net feedbacks are as positive as is implemented in the models, or are small or even negative is in dispute. If the feedbacks are small or negative, then most of the recent warming is due to other causes, internal climate variation (the PDO and NAO were in positive phases during the recent warming), other natural forcings such as solar (higher than average levels of activity during the latter half of the century and poorly understood), anthropogenic aerosols (poorly understood and quantified), anthopogenic black carbon (becoming better quantified and appreciated since the IPCC FAR). The small direct effect of CO2 forcing absent significant positive net feedback, is smaller than natural variation, and despite the fact the climate is perturbed in a warmer direction, the actual global temperature in a decade 100 years form now may actually be cooler. Thus all the extreme projections, concerns and proposed actions for the future are in dispute. That is the true climate consensus. Too bad we can't get it into the article in a form that describes the consensus and then presents the evidence on each side of the scientific dispute and the implications of each.

In any case, the "nevertheless" is POV. I am open to other compromise language, that the simplistic one that I proposed.--Africangenesis (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, this is the alternative wording which was among my changes which Stephan reverted and apparently objected to. The only change was "Nevertheless", to "Scientific".

"The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[8][9][10][B] Scientific, political and public debate continues."

--Africangenesis (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephan was correct to revert that word change per the references. There is no substantive scientific debate over whether global warming is (a) occurring or (b) anthropogenic. If you think there is, let's hear where you get that from. There is debate about these high-school basics (mainly in the US), but it is "political and public debate". Hence the "nevertheless". You give us a science lesson above, but no references to the debate you propose in the current scientific academic literature. --Nigelj (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

At the center of the debate is the tropical radiative balance and troposphere temperature profile, which is the subject of articles Lindzen and separately, Spencer. Their work suggests the net feedback is actually negative. Google on this to get a picture of the debate:

"net feedback" tropical radiative balance

Since there is almost no model independent evidence for net positive feedback to CO2 forcing in the current climate, and since all the models have very high net positive feedback to CO2 forcing, resulting in their high sensitivities and high projections, the diagnostic literature on the models are at the center of the science debate. The Wentz paper discussed above showing that all the models under-represent the negative feedback of the water cycle explains part of reason model sensitivities may be too high. The work of Camp and Tung and seperately Lean report that all of the models under-represent the amplitude of the observed climate response to the solar cycle. The work of Andreas Roesch showed that all of the AR4 models had a positive surface albedo bias that is more than 3 times larger than the approx 0.75W/m^2 energy imbalance that the climate had in the 1990s (per Hansen). All of these are correlated errors, so aren't cancelable by combining models into ensembles. The model diagnostic literature is far more extensive than this. The bottom line is that there is no model independent evidence for a climate sensitivity to CO2 in the current climate, as large as those in the models, and the models have significant credibility issues at this time.--Africangenesis (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that this 26 year old technical paper is "news". Would you be quoting it if it didn't offer a criticism of climate change models as they existed circa 1984? In any case, this is not the place to debate climate change. There was more debate in 1984 than there is today, because the evidence keeps getting stronger and stronger. References should be current. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Lindzen, Wentz, Spencer, Camp, Lean and Roesch have all published within the last 3 years.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that you have three people arguing against you alone here (Stephan, Rick and me), you still have not cited a single current paper that supports your point, yet still you go ahead and add what, to the reader, is a very baffling tag to one word in the article. It is getting harder to WP:AGF assume that you are trying to help improve the article. Please either provide sources (i.e. URLs with quotes) or remove your tag. --Nigelj (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Make that four people (plus me). If Lindzen, et al., have any new evidence to offer, that totally turns around the great mass of evidence indicating AGW, then it would be of interest. But your opinion alone has no weight — show us sources in the scientific literature. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, let's just say there's more than 4. Some of these recent edits (even those which haven't been reverted) are suspect... @Africangenesis: I'd suggest bringing major improvements intended for the article to this talk page first if you expect they'll go against consensus. That might help to build faith with other editors and show you're looking to collaboratively improve the article rather than push an agenda. Jess_talk|_edits 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Subtract Rick from that list, it turns out his "26 year old" paper post must have been intended for the climate model section above. Subtract Stephan, he has not "argued" against it. Subtract Nigelj, he did not "argue" against it, but merely suggested that the tag was baffling to the reader. A reader with a preference for "Nevertheless", knows very well why they want it, and knows it is specificall because it is POV in that context.

J. Johnson, nearly all the evidence for AGW is for the direct effects of GHG forcing. By the standards of whether you think human GHG emissions have made a significant contribution to the recent warming, neither I nor Lindzen or Spencer and most others are AGW skeptics. A signficant contribution is established, however, there is no model independent evidence that "most" of the recent warming is attributable to CO2 forcing, nor that the current climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing is as high as the quoted IPCC FAR model range. Given the current state of the science, it is an open question whether CO2 forcing is responsible for any more than 30% of the recent warming and a 1.1 degree climate sensitivity. --Africangenesis (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You may count the more than 5 editors who have responded in opposition to your edits however you wish, but the fact remains that you've been asked numerous times for sources and have yet to provide anything but conjecture bordering on either WP:ABF or WP:NOTFORUM. Please provide reliable sources backing up your claim, or there's no point in continuing this discussion. Jess_talk|_edits 19:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You should try following the dicussions and you will see citations, and you should try using ^{[citation needed]} if you think a citation is needed.--Africangenesis (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

@Africangenesis We're starting to get into territory where a WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF warning are necessary. I know that editing with others can be frustrating at times, but I'd like to recommend that you take some time to cool off, and come back at this with a level head. We need reliable sources to include the content you're suggesting. This isn't an attack on you, it's adherence to WP:V. Provide those, and we can continue this discussion. Jess_talk|_edits 20:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You accuse me of putting in an unsourced original research statement, when you didn't bother to read the sources, you don't assume good faith, you leave the article in an erroneous state and now you are stalking my every post as part of your edit war. Who is being uncivil? --Africangenesis (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. Nor is it more collaborative. I don't know what else to tell you... Jess_talk|_edits 20:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am so glad to hear that, because the source was the much cited IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. I'm willing to collaborate with you now that we have a point of agreement.--Africangenesis (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please link that source, and demonstrate why it shows that there's current scientific debate about whether GW is occurring? Thanks. Jess_talk|_edits 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

GW is occuring. The source I was referring to was the one that was already in the article showing that the statement about solar cooling was wrong. I've added the quotes to that now. Since the models are the "evidence" for "most" of the recent warming being AGW, the Wentz citation above is enough to call that into question. If you are familiar with the literature, you know there is a large body of additional diagnostic results on the models. I tend to just focus on those that are correlated across all the AR4 models, since there can't be a claim that the errors are random and will likely cancel when ensembles of models are used. Not that such an assumption would be justified in a nonlinear dynamic system anyway. --Africangenesis (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The change you made which started this was to add "Scientific, political and public debate continues." So again, please link to a source, and demonstrate why it shows that there's current scientific debate about whether GW is occuring. Jess_talk|_edits 23:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to address this. It wasn't whether GW is occuring. Perhaps it will help if I parse it, here is the word in context:

The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[8][9][10][B] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. The Kyoto Protocol is aimed at stabilizing greenhouse gas concentration to prevent a "dangerous anthropogenic interference".

First, note it is not about GW but about anthropogenic GW (AGW). Secondly, it is not just about AGW, note that it moves directly the Kyoto Protocol aimed at doing something about AGW. This means it is about more than just whether humans are having a statistically significant impact on the climate. The direct effects of CO2 absent net positive feedback would not represent much of a concern or justification for Kyoto type action. 1 degree C over the next century would be less than the natural variation. It might easily be cooler 100 years from now despite the statistically significant warming perturbation of the climate. So, you see, by the context it is clear this is really about not just any AGW, but an AGW of the size alleged by the IPCC AR4 based upon models which all have high net feedbacks and project more serious warming. Now, I could go to the IPCC FAR report and point out to you exactly where they based their "likely ... most" statement and projection on the models, but I will assume you are familiar with that. The consequence is that ANY model diagnostic literature reporting errors or biases in the models is a scienfific dispute or debate with this level of AGW. Wentz discussed above is a particularly serious problems with the models. There are more direct attempts to assess what the actual net feedback is to CO2 forcing, and both Lindzen and Spencer have published work which suggests that the feedback may well be negative. The game that is being played by those trying to claim a consensus is to blur the acceptance of AGW, with acceptance of this high level of AGW for which there is no model independent evidence.

So, the debate should not be dismissed as just political and public, but it is also scientific. "Nevertheless", suggests there is something unreasonable about debating this high level of AGW, when we should be getting on with Kyoto. It is POV, and misrepresents the state of the science.--Africangenesis (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I still see no source which says there's debate in the scientific community that GW is happening. This is the last time I'm going to ask. Give me a link to a source which explicitly makes that claim. Otherwise, I'll assume there isn't one, and spend my time doing something constructive. Thanks. Jess_talk|_edits 01:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I conceded that point or rather actually made that point myself, can we get back to doing something about the POV "nevertheless", or your revert in support of the erroneous solar cooling statement.--Africangenesis (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You conceded what point? The change we're discussing is to state there's scientific debate about GW. Your reply above states "the debate....is also scientific". I don't see any concession, nor do I see any source which backs up the proposal. Jess_talk|_edits 15:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, there are dissenting scientists who presumably debate the issue - the question is how substantive the debate is. Anderegg et al's Expert credibility in climate change (2010) does a decent job of summarizing the two groups (around 2-3% of published researchers dissent); summarized in one of our articles. ShaoWu 2010 may summarize some of the arguments from the dissenting group although I haven't seen the full article. Actually digging into critical analysis of the arguments from the dissenters is not something this article does much but global warming controversy is a good start. I haven't yet read any peer-reviewed articles focused on the dissenters' arguments. II | (t - c) 10:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Jess, I conceded that that anthropogenic GHG emissions make a significant contribution to recent warming. That is not a debating or wikipedia editing concession, I am truly convinced by the radiative physics of GHGs, and the multiple lines of calculation and modeling that arrive at a direct CO2 doubling sensitivity of about 1.0 to 1.2 degrees C. Sensitivities higher than that require net positive feedback and the science surrounding that is so unsettled that actually net negative feedback and thus an even lower climate sensitivity remains a possibility.--Africangenesis (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

can i suggest something like "The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, however there is continual scientific study t better undersand the matter. political and public debate continues." i think it would be helpful if you were all a little more accomodating. and africangenesis usually if you provide good references no one argues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinchsmate (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Carson

I've removed a link to a copy of a 1951 article on the sea's influence on the climate. It appears to be an extract from Rachel Carson's book The Sea Around Us. Perhaps it would be useful linked from the article about the book, and conceivably it might be useful in a general history of climate science, but in this article I think it's little better than linkspam. Tasty monster (=TS ) 10:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I was the one posted the link. I had come across it hunting for some kind of links on photos that are lost on aircraft and weapons. I just happened to stumble on that article and thought it would be of interest as it made easier reading and understanding of Rachel Carson's book and it was one of the earliest to discuss the subject -- ie or I think it is. And for the record I am no fan of Rachael Carson and have no dog in this Global Warming dispute. And I really don't care about the removal. At the time I posted it I did not know at the time I posted it that I was posting to a page where there WP is having some serious problems and disputes. Someone informed me about it. But the linkspam charge is false and wasn't required for the removal. When someone clicks it they go to a page with no ads, etc. And I doubt very much that Googlebooks is hiring a retired auto worker in his 60s to run their ratings up. But I would like to remind the frequent editors on this page to try and check their egoes and agendas at the WP door. What if I had been a "newbie" and had come across that article and posted it as an external link. Most likely it would have been his or her last visits to WP or attempt to improve a page. And from what I have read on this Talk page some of you need to refresh on Wiki-Crusaders page. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it personally, the response above actually seems reasonable compared to others' blanket reverts, since it offers explanation and alternative placement. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I take personally the "linkspam" charge. Deleting the link did not bother me. Could care less. I am mainly into military weapons and just came across it and thought it would be of some use. I was just trying to help out. Evidently it was not of use and stepped on the toes of one side that has a dog in this fight. But that person did not have to add icing on top of icing on the cake. The main reason that charge was made because this page I late was told (after I posted the ex link) is highly emotionally charged and there are those that think it is their duty to protect it for their agenda on the subject. Again, didn't bother the ex link being deleted. It was the explanation. And I think this will be my final message on this page. It is starting to go in circles. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Global_warming#Politics needs clarification to Kyoto Protocol as it is due to expire.

Global_warming#Politics needs clarification to Kyoto Protocol which will be expired soon, see Group of Two for example. New Protocols are in the works, such as from the Geoengineering article and Convention on Biological Diversity article relating to the Nagoya Protocol. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably correct. It should be in the Main article politics of global warming first, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

See Post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions 209.255.78.138 (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought you said that the Convention on Biological Diversity was pre-Kyoto, even if it were relevant to Global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Various Conference of the Parties ... 99.155.147.236 (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not just United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change#Conferences_of_the_Parties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity^[3], and others^[4]^[5]^[6] ... 99.27.172.206 (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This article in popular culture

Just as a heads-up, the Pearls Before Swine strip for November 18, 2010, features Rat editing the Global warming article to say that "jumping off your roof while imitating one of The Three Stooges is a good way to curb carbon emissions." Based on previous encounters between PBS fans and Wikipedia, this article could use a spot of extra attention for the next few days. - Dravecky (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

why was the global warming is so much concern and why was it not mention in the 80's and the 90's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.222.128.250 (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It was, it was called the greenhouse effect then. Climate change is the third name given to these phenomena, AGW is the most recent and the coolest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.97.225 (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do the global warming / climate change folks point to sea level rise as proof when the Wikipedia "Sea Level Rise" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise shows a steady trend? This leads me to believe that the sea level rise information (graphs) in the climate change articles is presented in a way that shows bias. There are two graphs shown on Wikipedia's Sea Level Rise page... please add another higher quality graph showing the same data over the last 10 to 20 years. And add higher quality graphics and a legend showing all the individual data lines from each station. Then I can make a more informed view from data that isn't so skewed by bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.177.129 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the most common evidence for temperature rice is the temperature records. That is probably why this article or the article climate change doesn't include any graphs of the current sea level rice. You can however find the satelite data of the last 17 year sealevel here http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php ScientificStandard (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably the main reason none of the climate change articles have good graphs of temperature and sea-level rise is that the best ones are copyrighted by the IPCC, and so far we have not been able to arrange mutually satisfactory conditions of use. There are other graphs — indeed, many graphs — but, like much other material in primary sources, often discordant. This is why we generally stick with material from secondary sources. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We do get, and use, some excellent graphs from http://www.globalwarmingart.com/ --Nigelj (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, but those are largely re-creations, and so somewhat lacking in authenticity. And (the last time I looked), not as comprehensive as what the IPCC has. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the Ideal Temperature?

Sorry for the intrusion but this seem like a reasonable place to find directions to science regarding what the ideal temperature is for life on earth and how that is determined and is it sustainable in light of geologic record. It seems relevant if humans are going to embark on massive geoengineering either through carbon brokers or mitigation. And if possible, any sources of information on how humans may adapt when (not if) we encounter the next Little or Great Ice Age. This is not, I repeat, not POV. They are questions that I would honestly like to know the answer to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multiperspective (talk • contribs) 04:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you search the past discussions for similar comments? There's a search bar at the top of the talk page for archived discussions, here's a in-page link, if you need help, please ask. If "ideal" is along the lines of "good", here are some results. I don't recall anyone questioning you of POV, but I would appreciate it if you could demonstrate that you've into the subject before asking. That's all, thanks. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

While I do appreciate that WP:NOTAFORUM and these items aren't significant enough for this overview page, recent news indicates that various temperatures seem to have suited trees, but it's a while since we've been in this situation, and there could be some jumps ahead. Not all humans might like such changes. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Global_warming/FAQ. In particular, Q20 deals with the fallacy of the "optimal" temperature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Record low temperatures at global warming summit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See FAQ Q4. --TS 13:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Could we include this reference in the article:

http://theweek.com/article/index/210181/irony-alert-the-unusually-chilly-global-warming-summit

"As negotiators from nearly 200 countries met in Cancun to strategize ways to keep the planet from getting hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F."

SuzBenson (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And how would the temperature in a single city on a single day have any relevance to an article about long-term global temperature trends? --CurtisSwain (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's right. How would the temperature in a single situation on a single day have any relevance. The Global Warming propagandists should keep this in mind when they say such things as "It's a record hot day in Atlanta, must be Global Warming." Global Warming is not science it is partisan politics and should be treated as such, including here on wikipedia.98.165.15.98 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why that would clearly be an innacurate basis for global warming most of the global warming data its through study of long term temperature data and not simply it hot toady therefore global warming is real. I doubt few if any published studies have tried to confirm global warming based on one hot day.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It was making a point. Few doubt that we went through a hot spell but many in Europe now believe we are entering a cold spell with poor summers for the last four years and increasingly bad winters with record cold temperatures in some countries like Britain. (Cyberia3 (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC))

Five isn't "many" compared to the population of Europe. Also see the FAQQ4. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed Change to the First Paragraph of Global Warming Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Aimless discussion wandered off and died.

Back in January of this year, I proposed the following change to the Global Warming Article. At the time, it was swept under the carpet despite a significant level of support from other Wikipedia editors who are blocked from making edits to the Article. I would like to re-propose this edit in light of my previous suggestion that we allow Skeptical perspectives to be included in the article:

Begin Proposal

Global warming is a scientific theory that became popular in the 1980s to explain the observed increase in global temperature. The theory was proposed as a human-caused phenomenon, and is often referred to as Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW). Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. However, the most recent decade has seen temperature declines in North America, Australia, and Europe. As a result, the controversy over human-caused global warming has increased. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The University of East Anglia, the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of other education and governmental institutions have recently come under increased scrutiny as revelations of missing source data and allegations of fraud revealed in the "Climategate" scandal have called some of the fundamental assumptions made by leading AGW scientists into doubt. Sources to cite:

Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing N. American temperatures over the last decade:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing European temperatures over the last 8 years (Compare Seasonal Averages):

Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing Australian temperatures over the last decade:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=meanT&area=nt&station=015135&dtype=raw&period=winter&ave_yr=3

Sources to substantiate the fact of increasing public scrutiny:

Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1945175,00.html
The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120404511.html?hpid=topnews
The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

Sources to cite to substantiate the initiation of fraud investigations:

United Kingdom Parliament: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn14_100122.cfm
Penn State press release regarding an investigation into Michael Mann: http://www.ems.psu.edu/sites/default/files/u5/Mann_Public_Statement.pdf
Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/universities-take-action-on-climategate/
Source to cite to substantiate the fact of the Climategate scandal: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=803

Add Sections for:

Climategate
Decreasing Temperatures
Global Warming Industry
Climate Change Throughout History
Opposing theories about CO2 and it’s effect on the climate

Leaked emails have surfaced showing leading proponents of AGW theory to have manipulated data and taken actions to destroy raw data in an effort to thwart Freedom of Information Act Mcoers (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Climategate can't be used like that because the scientists have been cleared of scientific misconduct multiple times by the reports that were commissioned into the matter. Also, I was under the impression that (depending on which temperature chart you favour) that this year is going to be either the equal hottest or equal second hottest on record globally, so unless I've got that wrong, there can hardly be any justification that the temperature is declining. Hitthat (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OMG! Hitthat - Are you suggesting that ClimateGate did not happen because the groups receiving funding for their AGW warming bias refuse to indict themselves for wrongdoing that would end further funding to their institutions? At what point will the gatekeepers of this totally bias article be taken to task for their continued “head-in-the-sand” approach filtering facts and agenda ? <Mk> 71.228.77.211 (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hitthat, if you look at the NOAA website that I cited (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html), you can actually compare the various Month over Month (MoM) data trended for the last ten years (or any other period you choose). There has been an average decline of -0.66 degrees in North America between 2000 and 2010.

The averages fall out by month like this:

* January 2000 - 2010: -2.32

* February 2000 - 2010: -3.16

* March 2000 - 2010: +0.43

* April 2000 - 2010: -1.3

* May 2000 - 2010: -1.51

* June 2000 - 2010: +0.75

* July 2000 - 2010: -0.54

* August 2000 - 2010: -0.61

* September 2000 - 2010: +0.28

* October 2000 - 2010: -0.56

* November 2000 - 2010: +2.32

* December 2000 - 2010: -1.71

* Average temperature trend for the decade for North America: -0.660833333

Mcoers (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, Climategate can and should be used "like that" because the emails that were disclosed clearly show these scientists colluding to avoid compliance with FOIA requests to see their source data. In fact, no one has seen their source data. The only way they can come to the conclusions they do (like your mention of this being the "hottest" year on record - which it isn't) is by modifying the source data - I think the word they use is to "cleanse it". Well, the whole point of peer-review is that the peer must have access to the same data and be able to reproduce the result.

Since they've obliterated the ability to do that, I think it is reasonable to include the fact that the information is unverifiable.Mcoers (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see why you got nowhere with the administrator's noticeboard. The problems you identify are way beyond their powers to fix. You need to take these matters up with the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Lord Oxburgh of the Science Assessment Panel, and with Sir Muir Russell of the Independent Climate Change Email Review. Failing that, take your concerns straight to the United Nations, because they recently organised a Climate Change Conference in Cancún, Mexico, and seemed unaware of the points you are making. If you get anywhere with any of them, come back and let us know (e.g. the URL of the webpage where they retract their previous statements), and we will give the matter full and detailed coverage here. --Nigelj (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see you are much more restrained these days Nigelj. It’s not like the heady days of Connolley and Schulz, when you all simply erased or blocked people from trying to correct the AGW bias. Your comments above are comical. What you’re basically saying is that you and your comrades are so tired of defending this bull crap at a grass roots level that you want us to take it to the UN Panel and other higher scam artist organizations. How funny – time to end the game… <Mk> 71.228.77.211 (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is just sarcasm. Obviously you should try and keep your comments productive. Isn't that right? Mcoers (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's sarcasm. While temperatures have maybe decreased on some continents within the last few years, you cannot provide a source that concludes that this decrease casts scientifical doubts on the global warming research. If you yourself conclude that, that's original research. So if you're really convinced that you can disprove GW theory, you should indeed contact the panels mentioned by Nigelj. Wikiepdia is certainly the wrong venue to discuss your research results. The fact that investigations have been performed about those hacked emails is not related with the science discussed on the article page. Sorry. 85.178.140.24 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You are tilting at windmills. 97% of active publishing climatologists support the science behind AGW and many reliable sources do the same, as listed in the the article itself or in articles linked from the article. It is not fair and balanced to try to force the same weight to the arguments of opponents on this article when those opponents do not have nearly as much backing them up, and right now the evidence shows counterexamples. Wikipedia is not the place to try to forge a new path for science to take, as Wikipedia follows the scientists in the field themselves. If you have an issue with the science, then take it up with the scientists. If they consistently reject you, then perhaps you should take a hard look at your own perception of the body of evidence, rather than trying to force Wikipedia to give undue weight to your preferred sources and trying to put original research in a scientific article. --Cornince (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Science isn't supposed to be the process of collecting together a bunch of like-minded partisans who go forth to promote their collective and negotiated mindset. It's supposed to be about the constant challenge of the scientific process.

I think that what I've provided here gives a justification for why skeptics have reason to believe that the AGW issue is overblown. This isn't a movement of oil industry hacks who are paid to have their opinions. I've listed off a decade of cooling in North America, backed by information provided by the NOAA; as well as information for the Southern Hemisphere and Europe. To my knowledge, these data don't exist to the public in other areas of Asia, Africa and so forth. So, it isn't something I'm able to cite as a source. Furthermore, I've given sourced information documenting the issues about corruption within the AGW research community.

The researchers weren't found guilty of wrongdoing? What does that prove? O.J. Simpson was acquitted for murder, but that doesn't mean he didn't do something wrong!
97% of researchers believe something? I'd say 100% of Wikipedia editors believe in AGW - of course the "believers" squash out the "skeptics" here on Wikipedia in the same fashion they do in the literature, so the result is predictable. What percentage is required to disprove it? We all know the answer to that question.

At any rate, the controversy about AGW is a part of the story. It is blatantly ignored in this article. I think I'm making a very solid, sourced case, for changing the editorial process here, and not one of you is addressing that issue except with sarcastic, and I'll say flippant remarks which are not in the spirit of the type of discussion we're supposed to be having here.

I think it is entirely reasonable to respect the wishes of hundreds of contributing editors and help to make this article better by following the intent of the Wikipedia process and include a more diverse editorial review process, instead of pretending like the "other side" doesn't exist. Now, the question before you at this point is, are you on the side of freedom of thought and the thorough presentation of information, or are you just going to continue to push your political position and squash all dissenting perspectives in order to continue the appearance of consensus? Mcoers (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe most of your concerns are addressed by the FAQ page. Mishlai (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, Wikipedia is not a forum for the discussion of the topic. We believe the article has given appropriate weight to both sides, as can be shown here:

"The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. Nevertheless, political and public debate continues."

There is also a section of the article devoted to the controversy, giving appropriate weight to both sides.

As stated in WP:UNDUE, "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship," and reiterated many times throughout WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia is not a forum and if you have an objection to Wikipedia policy, then this is not to place to give it. --Cornince (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are ignoring the point of my proposal. Again: There needs to be skeptical representation among those who have the ability to make changes to this article. Failure to do that violates WP:NPOV. Furthermore, calling the fact of skepticism in a scientific theory pseudoscience is insulting to those legitimate scientists who do not agree with your assumptions (and yes, there are plenty of them). Perhaps you would like your work to be called a conspiracy theory?

Secondly, this page actually is, in fact, a forum for discussion for making changes to the article. That's what its for. If I attempt to make a change to the article without gaining consensus here first, then you would tell me to get consensus on the discussion page first. So, here I am doing it, and you say this isn't the forum for doing so. Can't have it both ways my friend.

Thirdly, the FAQ page is nothing but a bunch of excuses for tossing out legitimate criticism of the content of the page. The entire page is written from the perspective of someone who has zero intention of ever considering an opposing thought. Citing an FAQ that is created for the obvious purpose of suppressing dissent is not legitimate.

Finally, it is completely unreasonable to take the position that this one phrase at the end of the article is "giving appropriate weight to both sides". I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Again, please address the point of my criticism. And again, the point is a lack of diversity in the editorial process here. Mcoers (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I meant to say that what you were wanting put in the article, as though it were equal in weight to the scientific consensus, fit under "plausible but currently unaccepted theories." --Cornince (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Which part(s) of the proposed paragraph are "plausible, but currently unaccepted theories"? What in that paragraph is factually inaccurate? Why, please be specific, should we not modify the current first paragraph to include this content? Mcoers (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph itself does not describe global warming, gives undue weight to skeptical arguments and omits important information regarding the scientific consensus:

1) The phrase "became popular" gives the impression that global warming is merely the latest fashion, and diminishes the fact that global warming enjoys broad scientific consensus.

2) The phrasing mentions the global warming recorded, but then refers to recent cooling in selected regions. This omits the fact that 2000-2009 was the warmest period measured globally and to an uninformed reader would give the impression that global warming has stopped or reversed itself, when that is not the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus that global warming is continuing and will continue is omitted.

3) Regarding the increased scrutiny, the phrasing gives the impression that global warming is a theory in crisis and is coming under increased scientific doubt, when in fact it is not. In addition, it omits the fact that in the CRU emails, several independent investigations have found no fraudulent activity by the scientists. Also, the fact of the scientific consensus is ommitted in opposition to this point.

4) The paragraph gives no description of global warming or the major scientific findings regarding global warming, as represented in the scientific consensus and described in the article, but simply leads the article with the negative position.

This paragraph omits important information regarding the scientific consensus and gives the reader a warped view of the appropriate weight of arguments, in violation of WP:UNDUE as described above. Adding this paragraph as the first would therefore severely diminish the quality of this article. --Cornince (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Amending point 1, "became popular" is a phrase unbefitting an encyclopedia on a matter of science. --Cornince (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this statement:

"Thirdly, the FAQ page is nothing but a bunch of excuses for tossing out legitimate criticism of the content of the page. The entire page is written from the perspective of someone who has zero intention of ever considering an opposing thought. Citing an FAQ that is created for the obvious purpose of suppressing dissent is not legitimate."

We are supposed to assume good faith in other editors until it can be shown that they did not act in good faith. If you wish to express doubts, then please follow the process outlined here: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. (My apologies, this comment was written by me, but I had forgotten to log in. Edited signature so my IP address won't show.) --Cornince (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cornice, for taking the time and effort to give an patient, informed, and reasoned answer. It is ironic that those who hold absolute beliefs contrary to fact accuse others of not listening. It is the global warming deniers who reflexively reject all data they don't like, and uncritically accept anything that seems to support their view. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Well done, Cornice. --Nigelj (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone needed to do this. Thanks for taking the time to do it so well. Rollo (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't necessary. What is necessary is to figure out how to include skeptical information while retaining an accurate description of what the theory is about. Wikipedia shouldn't be a forum to "prove" global warming. It should describe what the theory is in the context in which it exists. This is the approach that is taken on other controversial subjects (as I pointed out in a previous post), and therefore it is the approach that should be taken for this one as well. Mcoers (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Cornince. If I'm putting undue weight on something, then please explain how you would modify the first couple paragraphs to include an acknowledgment of the growing number of skeptical scientists who are publishing information that is contrary to the IPCC report? How do you include the fact that the few scientists who have access to the source data are hiding it from public review?

It is very important to make sure that this gets examined correctly. There are people who are proposing trillions of dollars in taxes that would have a hugely negative impact on the world economy and open the door to increased government/corporate corruption on a scale that perhaps has never been seen. Remember, Enron was built on this type of trading scheme - it is scary to think it could be so much larger.

The consequences of the "cure" for global warming could be far worse than the effects of the pollution. I see that you have a couple people on here clapping enthusiastically for your retort to my proposal, but you aren't addressing the issue that I'm presenting to the editors here:

Again, there is a lack of diversity among the editors of this article. Why can't there be a diverse group of editors? What are you afraid of?

The IPCC report, and much of the "consensus" information that is published in the literature all comes from the same few scientists who determine who gets to publish information in the literature and who have been caught suppressing the source data so that it cannot be independently reviewed. It is entirely appropriate for thinking people to have access to the underlying source data, as well as information on the methods used to normalize and cleanse it, so that the assumptions can be understood and the conclusions tested. The unsigned editor below in quoting the Investors.com article is trying to make that point. And it is an important one. The scientific method requires the theory to be falsifiable. We need to have a pluralistic discussion on the matter.

How on Earth can you be against such a Democratic process? Suppressing the fact that these scientists are colluding to avoid Freedom Of Information Act requests is a big deal. If it were any other subject, my guess is that you would be outraged.

I understand that we are supposed to assume good faith in the editors. So, I'm asking the folks here to *show* good faith and allow dissenting opinions to be expressed in this article. It will make the article stronger. If you disagree with how I worded the paragraph change, then show me how you would change it. Mcoers (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"growing number of skeptical scientists" You are factually incorrect. 90% of actively researching climate scientists agree that temperatures have risen.[18] Temperatures fluctuate, for example solar cycles are eleven years,[19] ENSO three to five,[20] and IPO fifteen to thirty.[21] Therefore the standard for climate averaging is thirty years.[22] The trends for every major model for the last thirty years are positive.[23] To pick one of the hottest years due to ENSO and another in no now way shows a trend. To say temperatures are decreasing is plainly wrong. To give weight comparable to the scientific consensus is plainly undue. To conclude that temperatures are decreasing yourself is plainly original research. Undue weight (which is a part of NPOV) and no original research are Wikipedia's policies.

You've begun a thread on the conflict of interests noticeboard. If you're here to talk about people's motivation, keep it there. I have no reason to reply to what you have to say here.

Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is policy. The primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia is through consensus (see WP:CON). Your text so far have failed either undue weight or original research. You do not have consensus. Unless you present references and text that satisfy undue weight and no original research, there doesn't need to be discussion. 67.190.48.91 (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Climate scientists aren't the only people that are qualified to weigh in on this issue. A question as large as this one needs to be answered by geologists and many other earth scientists as well as the climate scientists. You can't look at 10 or 100 years of climate data and come to a conclusion about this topic; older data must come from the geologic record. Thus, I argue that your point where you state '90% of actively researching climate scientists agree that temperatures have risen' is moot. Also, that point does not address the question of whether it is AGW or not, which read as if it were fact in one of the first few paragraphs. I had a geology professor who claimed to be sure that warming was going on, but was unsure if it was AGW. He was not a nutjob; he was respected in the department.

Note, I am still undecided on global warming as a whole. I came to this article to start my research on the topic and was so appalled with the way it read that I decided to start an account and get involved in the discussion here. Have a nice new year, cheers! Kevin Holzer (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"A question as large as this one needs to be answered by..." You're right that it takes a diverse group of people to find the answers. Here's a list of professional societies that agree with the scientific consensus, and a list of individuals who disagree. By scientific consensus I mean : (1) temperatures have increased;[24] (2) natural phenomena produced most of the warming up to 1950,[25] but had a small cooling effect thereafter;[26] (3) most of the warming after 1950 can be explained by the release of greenhouse gases.[27]

Your geology professor isn't wrong to believe it's not human-induced, but something on your part is that I don't think you're seeing the whole picture. There is less agreement that "temperates have risen due to human activity" than simply "temperatures have increased". 82% instead of 90%.[28] Good luck on you research topic. If you're here to look for a balanced view, I have an paper you might find interesting. The previous links are just to show that I'm not BSing you, which turns out to be a problem here in that people place opinions before reliable sources. The paper is "Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press". 174.52.224.148 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm printing the last article out right now to read on the bus to school tomorrow; while it may not be about climate change directly, it is certainly interesting to think about how science and the media interact with one another. Also, my prof was merely undecided on AGW (from what I gathered), as I am at the moment. Do you know of any studies like the one about the scientific consensus that looked more into how each discipline looked at climate change? I would be very interested in reading about that. Also, thank you for the link to the list of people that disagree; that was quite interesting to see concise statements about how and why each person disagrees. Also, if 82% agree; I would consent that that is scientific consensus (as far as the third article is concerned). Still, the weather is a hard problem (as it is a chaotic system) and the idea that people can predict what the global temperature will be like in 10 or 100 years is a little much for me at the moment to bite right into. I'd like to see some numbers on the performance of these models people are using (the next thing I will look into). From a brief look at the Global Climate Model article here, it appears that the models do not currently display enough accuracy to really make a prediction; right now the measured climate increase appears to be less than the accuracy of the models listed in the article (although it was a cursory glance; please correct me if I am wrong). My main comment on the article would be that it sounds very authoritarian when perhaps one cannot be on a problem of this nature. Have a nice rest of the night, cheers! Kevin Holzer (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Weather is chaotic. Climate is not, as far as we know. Compare a double pendulum on a train. You cannot predict the exact angles of the pendulum, but you can use the train's time table to constrain where the weights are quite well. Similarly, we cannot predict the weather far in advance, but we can determine the energy flows and hence the average temperature of the planet within the limitations of the models. And these limitations are not primarily fundamental (like chaos), but based on our knowledge and the computing power we throw at the problem. As for different disciplines, have you seen Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-95 (the Doran&Zimmerman paper in EOS)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"how each discipline looked at climate change?" I can't think of any studies off the top of my head. The best I've got is Scientific opinion on climate change, which lists the positions of professional societies of various disciplines that have a comment on climate change.

Well, you've only really asked one question. Stephan's a good man, his explanation of how climate is a lot more concrete. I would of just told you that climate is "average weather" and you could discount annual fluctuations; and as our knowledge grows it's essentially stochastic processes. Look, it sounds like you've got a lot of reading to do. Do you want me to point to you a couple of books to get you started? 174.52.224.148 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin: take a look at [29], especially the FAQ. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is time the first paragraph had a makeover because it really doesn't reflect the current status of issue, is difficult to read and really doesn't describe the scope of the article. May I suggest:-

Global warming (also known as as Anthropomorphic Global Warming or AGW) is the theory that human activity, particularly the emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, caused an apparent increase in average global surface temperature of 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century, and that further emissions will result in more warming. The concern over global warming started in the 1980s. When measured global temperature increased dramatically during the late 20th century, public concern rose until in ???? it was described as “the most important problem facing mankind”. This issue has generated much heated public debate, notably: the level of predicted temperature rise; the relative contributions of natural and man-made factors, and suggested future consequences of further emissions such as the predicted rate of sea level rise. Isonomia (talk)

I think there is a FAQ answer above that covers almost every change you are proposing to the existing wording. Please read them through, and perhaps some of the very lengthy discussions in the archives, then try to make specific, sourced proposals as to why each part should be changed. Then, if it turns out that recent scientific publications have changed the state of human knowledge, and that a consensus can be reached here over wording to summarise this recent knowledge, then we'll change the article. (Not just the first paragraph: the lede summarises the article, which itself summarises dozens of sub-articles, so they'll all need adjusting). Simply proclaiming that all this "really doesn't reflect the current status of issue", without citing exactly what's changed, is unlikely to change the existing consensus of all the hundreds of editors that watch this page. --Nigelj (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This latest proposal is not only unsourced but factually incorrect (as the first study accepted as having measured actual warming on a global scale wasn't till around 1995, and the increase was hardly "dramatic"). Along the lines of what Nigelj is saying, some of these folks seem to not understand that the lede is a summary of the article, not a thesis statement that they can tweak and then have the rest of the article fall in line. If there is some point where the summary "really doesn't describe the scope of the article", then it should be pointed out so we can take a closer look. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Come you guys, most of the FAQ dates from before climategate and was written by William Connolley and is cohort which hardly makes in NPOV. Things have changed! Global warming is no longer "settled" it is now a debate (as clearly stated by the Royal Academy). It is no longer "beyond doubt" but a theory that has failed to predict the current pause in global temperatures and the current unprecedented cold periods. It is ten years since there was any appreciable warming ... it is no longer viable to talk about "warming" in the present tense when there is no current warming. So, it is time you guys stopped living in the past and accepted the facts that this global warming article has become a laughing stock and the real irony, is that the sceptic community are quite happy to keep it that way! As for the "factually incorrect" comment of Johnson. Concern over warming started at the end of the 1970s when it was found that the predicted cooling hadn't occurred. It is there in the very first paper to mention global warming as a term because it was postulated that the reason the predicted global cooling was not happening was because there was CO2 induced global warming. Perhaps you guys are late comers to this subject or too young to have lived through the period of growing concern over global warming and can't recall the what happened in the pro-warming lobby in the 1990s because if you did you would realise that what I have written is a good short summary of the history of the subject - but if you don't think so then please build on what I have said! Isonomia (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no citations, no new science and nothing we can work with here. Your personal assertions do not change anything, we need references to published papers and to reviews of publications. I don't see any. If you have a problem over my age, or with any other editors' writing styles, please take it up on user talk pages. --Nigelj (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you get double points when you put your tired and mistaken talking points into bold face? Rasool and Schneider already pointed out the competing forcings of CO2 and aerosols in 1971 (not "the end of the 1970s"), and describe possible warming or cooling, depending on actual emissions. Your "science flip-flops" fantasy is not grounded in reality. And which "Royal Academy" are you talking about? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This thread is not longer about Mcoers' proposal, which was the original topic. I believe this thread should be closed using {{Discussion top}} before it continues serves as a forum of needless debate. If Insonomia or another editor wants to continue discussion, he or she may begin with a new thread by providing a reliable source or a specific piece of text to add, removed, or change. 174.52.224.148 (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this thread is precisely about the original proposal. I simply took what he said, looked at the current first paragraph, read the comments and built on it in the way that you are required to do in wikipedia. If you don't like that process then I suggest you stop editing rather than frustrating those who do want to work toward a better article. As for the comments: citations there's millions of citations out there and the intro isn't supposed to be full of citations because it is an overview of the subject. So this is a rather lame objection.

As for the current into it is a complete put off and fails even to define the subject. It is supposed to answer the simple question: "what is global warming". It doesn't do that, it doesn't give alternative terms for the subject it is in short a completely useless intro. Moreover it is completely out of date. It was written at a time when we were being told the subject was "settled". There is no question that that is very far from the case now. The type and range of debate is increasing almost monthly - no least because of the recent cold weather and the failure of the temperature to rise within the last decade. Isonomia (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are trying to rewrite this article and its lead based on the fundamental misconception that the question whether anthropogenic warming is occurring is not settled, then you are going to have to do a lot of convincing. I don't think you will be successful, but your chances of success will be much higher if you present concrete reliable sources that other editors can check, instead of merely claiming without evidence (and IMO clearly erroneously) that the situation has changed. Hans Adler 11:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it was the snow you had, was it? OK, just quote the URL of the RS that says that that snow disproved the whole 'AGW theory', and we'll go from there. Better be quick, because there's a chance that someone will reliably proclaim 2010 to be the warmest year on record soon, and that may spoil its impact. --Nigelj (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

All the snow we had a week ago has gone within 2-3 days. It's an unprecedented 12°C here, in January! Bye Isnomia's logic, the planet is gonna cook next week... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"The type and range of debate is increasing almost monthly"? Perhaps on talk radio, but not in the science. More claims without evidence. Whether this thread is still on-topic or not, I say it should be put out of its misery. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mcoers- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html enter the period of interest from 1900 to 2010 and notice the trend.Ninahexan (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Okay, this discussion is not going anywhere, so I am going to be Bold and close it per a previous suggestion. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can Global Warming Be Falsified?

Please see WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since, no matter what happens with the weather, global warming is blamed, the theory cannot be falsified, hence must be classified as pseudo-science. Can anyone here name a single bonafide scientific theory that is immune to falsification? From investors.com: "Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, "falsifiable." That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it." http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557597/201012221907/The-Abiding-Faith-Of-Warm-ongers.htm But since wikipedia is a leftist website, there is no chance that this non-falsifiable theory of Global Warming will receive adequate counter-argument in its propaganda article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your interest in this topic, please note the banner at the top of the talk page.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change/Archive 62. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change/Archive 62 at the Reference desk.

Curtis, this is a talk page where we are supposed to discuss improvements to the article. This person is legitimately pointing out the political nature of the kinds of information that are included in the global warming article. It is popular among other editors to attempt to silence this kind of objection on any number of technicalities. However, the same level of scrutiny is not applied to those proposing the inclusion of information that is supportive of the AGW theory.

It is time to open this page up to a more democratic process of review. There is an increasing number of climate scientists who disagree with the "consensus" referred to in the IPCC report. The failure to acknowledge that fact is a glaring omission in this article.

Instead of looking for some technicality to disqualify someone's contribution, why don't you do something positive and help us figure out a way to reconcile the article to include information that is being presented by skeptical scientists. Mcoers (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Science is not democratic. If fifty million people believe that the earth is flat, the wikipedia article should still state that the earth is round. Read the FAQs at the beginning of the article. The number of scientists who deny global warming is decreasing, not increasing. The evidence for global warming is increasing, not decreasing. The science behind global warming has been well understood for more than seventy years. The vast majority of people who provide talking points against global warming are politically or economically motivated and couldn't solve a freshman calculus problem to save their lives. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, please try to keep a cool head. Also, Science is not Wikipedia. If 50 million people believed the earth was flat, it should be included in the article of Earth. Not because it is "right" or "wrong", but because it is believed. The amount of information about it, though, is limited by the inforcment of the Undue Weight rule. WikIpedia articles should have a NPOV, as you should know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar123abc (talk • contribs) 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's how it is practiced in all the science articles: the view that the earth is round should be stated as though it were fact (of course, it would still be referenced), and then further down the article, in the history section, there should be mention of the minority/fringe belief by the 50 million that the earth is flat, but it should be stated as their opinion. --72.155.192.9 (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please ask your question over at WP:RD/S. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no "should" about it, as popular opinion has nothing to do with science, is not required as ratification or commentary on science. Unless the article one has in mind is popular opinion about science, a common confusion. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps what we could include in the article, though, is the factors of falsifiability present for the anthropogenic global warming theory. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the (easy) question of falsifiability of global warming is any different from the question of how other scientific theories are falsifiable. All that would be necessary is to show that ten year average temperatures have not gone up but rather have gone down or stayed the same, or that CO2 levels have not risen, that the oceans are not rising and becoming more acidic, that the ice cap is not melting, that CO2 is actually transparent to infrared, or that burning fossil fuels does not produce CO2. Any one of these would "falsify" global warming. None are at all likely, but they could happen if the global warming deniers were correct. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

100% of climate predictions, where Global Warming was the theme, made prior to this date 1st of January 2011 has turned out to be 100% false.98.165.15.98 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

older references

Please see WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

During the late 1950s and on B&W TV, HRH Duke of Edinburgh was the host for a series of TV scientific programmes. He did an excellent job and I've often wondered why he dropped out of TV.

One such programme dealt, I think, with the International Geophysical Year. On the programme there were two photographs shown of a Swiss glacier. The much earlier photograph showed a more substantial glacier than then existed. The reduction is size was very clearly obvious.

An even earlier reference was mentioned in the 1950s national press and I think quoted in some school text books. There had been a 1920/30s expediton, using a submarine, to the Artic and the late 1950s charts were showing considerably less ice than had been present in the 1920 and 30s.

The indications of global warming seem to have been around for some time.AT Kunene (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source, and therefore has no relevance here. Sorry. Whowhen (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the conservative meme that global warming is a recent invention is clearly false. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we know, and it's all neatly summarized in History of climate change science, and covered in greater detail in Spencer R. Weart's book The Discovery of Global Warming. However, while the expression of interest in this topic is appreciated, please keep in mind that talk pages are not a forum for general discussions of a given subject, and should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. So, let's please limit talk page discussions to concrete suggestions for improving the article, Thanks--CurtisSwain (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Should skeptics be treated any differently than non-skeptics? We wouldn't want personal viewpoint to decide treatment of a topic. --Cflare (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by Simplex1swrhs at 05:19, 20 January 2011

I've reverted this change, which at first sight seems to be a sensible normalization of language to make it consistent, because on examination the word "average" in the sentence refers to a different kind of mathematical entity from that referred to here as the mean. The use of different words here helps to cue the reader to that fact.

The entity referred to here as "global mean surface temperature difference" is the variable being plotted by year, but the quantity referred to as "the 1961–1990 average" is a baseline scalar constant which is subtracted from the global mean temperature to obtain the anomaly which is plotted. It is a mean-of-means, if you like, or rather a mean over the range 1961-1990 versus a mean over the range of each year. --TS 01:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Still No Adequate Representation of Skeptical Perspectives In This Article

Every now and then I check back to this article to see if the "Editors" have allowed any skeptical information to creep into the article. Unfortunately, this article is still lacking any serious acknowledgment of the skeptical perspective.

The only times the skeptical perspective is even mentioned it is at the end of the article and couched in the fact that skeptical scientists are "funded" by the oil industry. Well, they aren't ALL funded by the oil industry. And sadly, there is no mention of the fact that many of the advocates' funding comes from government sources that would benefit from increasing regulation on energy production.

In the past, I have suggested that the folks who have editorial control over this page would be more intellectually honest if they would include a prominent skeptic who could negotiate a more balanced perspective. My suggestions were deleted by some ambitious editor. I suppose it was vandalism of some sort.

So, here I am again, pushing the idea of AT LEAST INCLUDING someone from the skeptical side of the aisle who could provide proper balance. I mean, are you people so threatened that you can't even listen to the other side?

Now, there is plenty of precedence on Wikipedia for including alternate perspectives in the presentation of controversial subjects (even when the alternate view has it's own article). Some examples:

If you look at the page for Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism), the article is fairly balanced between explaining the views that support and those that differ. The article explains the sources of various perspectives on the issue. There is also an article for Natural Selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Selection) - so, there is precedence for including the contrarian view even if there is an article dedicated to the contrarian view.
The page for American Exceptionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism) includes the counter-argument for American Exceptionalism in the second paragraph. So, that's very prominent.
The third paragraph of the article on Animal Testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing) includes the perspectives of both those who favor the practice as well as those who oppose it.

I propose that the Global Warming article would be stronger if skeptical perspectives were given proper treatment. Unfortunately, I expect that some "editor" will simple delete this suggestion as irrelevant. And of course, that would be dishonest. Mcoers (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

COMPLEXITY ISSUES - - Another area of concern that should be addressed is the very complex nature of the issue. The issue is not an either/or issue, yet too often climate change is presented as if it were, and that people should support one position or the other. The truth is not just a question of whether climate change is happening, but several other questions, such as: - - How severe is the climate change, if any? - What part do humans play in climate change? - How important is CO2 in affecting climate change? - Whether the other influences on climate, such as the sun's variability, outweigh the impact of human actions. - - The economic costs of climate change - Whether the effort to prevent climate change is possible, or desirable. - The economic costs of trying to mitigate or prevent climate change. - Whether CO2 is a pollutant, it being a natural substance useful to plants. - - Scientists no doubt would add many other aspects to this list. - - It seems likely that the debate on climate change is a "false dichotomy", in which many people seem to demand people choose either/or, rather than recognizing that there is a multiplicity of possibilities that are not clear cut, and which, therefore, do not allow for an easy solution, even if one is desired. - - The costs of trying to prevent climate change, for example, could be disastrous to poor countries, just as some claim that climate change itself is disastrous to such countries. - - Some have also pointed out that humans have generally been better off in warmer climates rather than colder (due to the impact on crops, etc.) - Higher temperatures might cause problems for some areas, while opening huge areas for growing crops, such as in Canada and Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.25 (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have a reliable source or a specific piece of text to add, removed, or change. Therefore what you have isn't a "proposal" in the sense leading towards an edit to the article, but a "request." I'm sure someone will disagree with your request, but in my opinion ignoring it would be preferable giving your comment's lack of good faith. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem in the case of this article is that the editorial process is controlled by people who delete all information that doesn't support their political cause. So, in this case, the proposal is to add qualified "skeptical" reviewers to the process so that people who do propose legitimately sourced information can have it reviewed in a process that is actually democratic. Rather than the current process which is terribly flawed.

In this case, I properly sourced the issue of providing alternative points of view within Wikipedia articles. So, no, it's not in bad faith. It's presented here in the context of the circumstances where information is systematically deleted if it doesn't support the cause of global warming. In this case, we can't improve the article until we improve the review process for making edits. Mcoers (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who has graduated grade school is "qualified" to know that every single Global Warming prediction made prior to this date has turned out 100% false, and there have been many Global Warming predictions made prior to this date.98.165.15.98 (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what you or I believe, I appreciate your act of good faith by proving a proposal. Before I move on to the discussion below, I just have one thing to say. Article talks are for the article, never the editors. What you are suggesting belongs at a notice board, I suggest either reliable sources noticeboard for the wider community to look at your sources, or more directly the administator's noticeboard if you believe there is editor abuse. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already posted this information months ago to the administrator's noticeboard. I might as well have explained the problem to the rock beside my garage. Nothing has changed. It never does, despite the fact that hundreds of people have been on this discussion page proposing well-sourced information that has been summarily deleted. Wikipedia loses credibility when it does not include the ENTIRE story. Mcoers (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is what I have in reply:

So you have posted to the Administrator's noticeboard? Perhaps not under a different name, because your edit contributions says otherwise.
I looked at the proposal. A link to Archive 58 would have sufficed. In reading the previous discussion, this is my view:

If this is about content: You don't have to YELL. What you are saying is clear, but others disagree with you, and you have not provided a satisfactory reply that would convince them otherwise.
If this is about actual editor abuse: I'd like to see evidence, or you may present evidence at the administrator's notice board (which would be better).

Beyond that I have nothing to say. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well, this is what I have to say to you CaC:

1. The only reason I re-posted the article proposal is because you said that you wanted to see a properly sourced article edit. So, I re-posted it. Obviously just leaving it in the archives doesn't do any good.

2. Yes, I did post a complaint about editor bias. If you can't find it, then perhaps it isn't there anymore. I have only one user credential for this site, and I don't pretend to be other people.

3. So, if people disagree with me, then that is grounds for eliminating my proposal from consideration? Well, that's great because I disagree with the way the entire GW article is written. So, by your logic the entire thing must be removed immediately. Hey, we may not agree, but the way these things are supposed to operate you need to give the opposing side a voice.

Obfuscating the lack of editorial diversity here by discounting dissenting opinion on the basis of any of dozens of technicalities does not make the case for Global Warming. Want proof of it? Well, I've just pointed out the fact that there is no mention of legitimate skepticism in the leading paragraphs of the article. If you need a link in order to make the point legit, then here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming. I have also sourced other articles that cover controversial subjects that do contain dissenting opinions. Those links are in the above thread. If you need me to repost them, I can; but then you'd get after me for re-posting information.

There is no mention of climategate at all.

The graphs that are included are created by some "dude" with an organization called, "Global Warming Art Project". What the heck is that?! So, if I have an art project called the "Skeptical Global Warming Art Project", then does that mean my stuff qualifies for publication here?

The timelines of these charts are cherry-picked to show a far more dramatic climb in temperature than what would be shown if the author used almost any other timeline. An improvement would be to show a chart of the last 10 years of global temperatures (which would show a decline). That way readers can see that, in fact, temperatures stopped going up around 1998. Mcoers (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you believe your points are self-evident, which they are not. You don't need to repost an earlier post. List your main points, because right now I'm not quite sure which points you want me or someone else to reply to. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? You mean to tell me that you actually don't understand what I'm saying? Here, let me say it again.

I want the editors who have authority to modify this page to allow skeptical information to be included in the presentation. There, do you understand that? Mcoers (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Obviously your discussion lies with the "editors" and not me. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Since global warming is a long term change in the ten year average, looking at one particular decade would show nothing about global warming one way or the other. Look at the graph. The yearly averages go up and down, the ten year averages go up and up. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

COMPLEXITY ISSUES

Another area of concern that should be addressed is the very complex nature of the issue. It is not just a question of whether climate change is happening, but several other questions, such as:

How severe is the climate change, if any? What part do humans play in climate change? How important is CO2 in affecting climate change? Whether the other influences on climate, such as the sun's variability, outweigh the impact of human actions.

The economic costs of climate change Whether the effort to prevent climate change is possible, or desirable. The economic costs of trying to mitigate or prevent climate change. Whether CO2 is a pollutant, it being a natural substance useful to plants.

Scientists no doubt would add many other aspects to this list.

It seems likely that the debate on climate change is a "false dichotomy", in which many people seem to demand people choose either/or, rather than recognizing that there is a multiplicity of possibilities that are not clear cut, and which, therefore, do not allow for an easy solution, even if one is desired.

The costs of trying to prevent climate change, for example, could be disastrous to poor countries, just as some claim that climate change itself is disastrous to such countries.

Some have also pointed out that humans have generally been better off in warmer climates rather than colder (due to the impact on crops, etc.) Higher temperatures might cause problems for some areas, while opening huge areas for growing crops, such as in Canada and Russia.

W —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.25 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

These issues are already covered in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for clearer definitions of terminology and wikipedia page structure on 'climate change'/'global warming'

I would suggest the wikipedia articles for 'climate change', 'global warming', etc. are in need of re-organising and re-writing in order to give the most accurate, impartial definitions of the terms according to common international usage. It is apparent to me that the definitions of climate change and global warming currently used in wikipedia have been overly influenced by contrarians in the debate. This is further evidenced by the comments in this discussion page on a 'fairer representation of the skeptical side'.

This article in the guardian gives a far clearer explanation of the term 'climate change' and 'global warming':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/21/what-is-climate-change

"Any process that causes adjustments to a climate system – from a volcanic eruption to a cyclical change in solar activity – could be described as creating "climate change".

Today, however, the phrase is most often used as shorthand for anthropogenic climate change – in other words, climate change caused by humans. The principal way in which humans are understood to be affecting the climate is through the release of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the air.

Climate change is used interchangeably with another phrase – "global warming" – reflecting the strong warming trend that scientists have observed over the past century or so. Strictly speaking, however, climate change is a more accurate phrase than global warming, not least because rising temperatures can cause a host of other climatic impacts, such as changes in rainfall patterns."

Please could people respond if the agree or disagree? (86.152.178.230 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

I think the best bit of that FAQ answer is where they say that the two are used "interchangeably". That's what we do here - allow normal usage rather than try to impose some structure from on high - in this regard. Any attempt at such imposition upon article naming would, I fear, just stimulate dramas where they are not needed. Ones that may take effort away from the real issues of keeping the actual material in the articles sane and realistic. --Nigelj (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

@Nigelj - In my opinion the best thing about the FAQ i posted is that it gives a short, accurate and useful description of both climate change and global warming. Having read some of the discussions above I can entirely understand your fear of stimulating dramas. I am certainly not suggesting that a definition is imposed from on high as it were. However, I think the goal of the article(s) should be to give as accurate descriptions as possible of common usage, rather than ones that merely have sane and realistic content. Can you see what I mean? 217.43.25.223 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I think our article naming and textual usage shows, the two are used "interchangeably". Which is what the FAQ says. There is no real wedge you can drive in between them. Use whichever you prefer. --Nigelj (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

. I agree that climate change and global warming are generally used to describe the same phenomena (ie recent anthropogenic climate change). However the term climate change is more commonly used, because it is more descriptively useful. It makes sense to me to have the main article on anthropogenic climate change in climate change with well written introduction explaining the various terms. Perhaps Global Warming could be a subsection of the main article, explaining the historic use of the term and including information on recent warming trend in averaged global temperatures. I hope you take this as a contructive suggestion rather than criticism, I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the article especially given the difficulties involved in this subject. 217.43.25.223 (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The top of climate change says "For current global climate change, see Global warming." Seems pretty clear to me: this is about general climate change on Earth, for current changes see this. GManNickG (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

@GManNick , I think its reasonably clear, but I was trying to say that it could and should be better. Particularly it seems strange that the current article on climate change does not reflect the terms common usage. Most of the content of the current article would perhaps be more appropriately included in climatology. I'm sure there is a way of re-structuring the climate change related articles in wikipedia that would give more accurate useful descritions. The reason I raise these points is that I think it is important to have well written articles on these particular terms.217.43.25.223 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's some reading relevant to this debate:

- nasa article on why they use climate change on their website rather than global warming http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

- this article and study suggests that using 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' could negatively affect public perceptions of the issue. It notes that conservative strategist Frank Luntz also thought that switching terms from "global warming" to "climate change" would be an effective way for climate skeptics to downplay the urgency of the issue. Personally I don't agree with their interpretation. Cases where local temperatures don't increase tend to get interpreted, by certain politicians and sections of the media at least, as evidence against global warming, particularly the recent cold winters in Europe and US. I have noticed so called 'skeptics' trying to capitalise on this on many occasions.

- this study suggests the two terms are rated more or less equally in terms of their importance: http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/gw-language-choices.pdf (notes that this is contrary to Luntz interpretation)

- this study suggest that the two terms usage depends on politcal positioning, but suggests that recently 'climate change' is used more by democrats and 'global warming' by republicans http://sitemaker.umich.edu/jschuldt/files/schuldt__konrath____schwarz__in_press__poq_.pdf

I suppose there are various issues around the psychological responses the terms tend to elicit in the lay audience, and around the history of the politicisation of the two terms (particularly in the US) and how this interacts with public interpretation. However, I still maintain though that 'climate change' is both more accurate and useful. I would be interested to hear others' opinions. I hope people don't think I am wasting time and energy. I think this debate is worth having, and is certainly relevant to these articles. 217.43.25.223 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you need to be clear about what you are proposing. Are you saying that "Global warming" should be a redirect to "Climate change"? If you are unsure or looking for input, then my response is no. If you search the archive, issues similar to this have been raised before.[30][31] The consensus has been: (1) GW is about the current change in climate, (2) CC is about changes in climate in general, and (3) GW should link to CC in the hatnote. The reason being is the current rise in temperature is not projected to decrease significantly (significant being a 30 year average downward trend per the WMO), since GW does not suggest cooling/decrease, GW therefore gets the current rise in temperature. CC is more general, therefore CC describes a general changes in climate.

You don't have to agree with the line of reasoning. If you want to change this, you need be a whole lot more convincing than either GW and CC has been used interchangeably or CC is a more accurate term than GW. The level that would convince me is if (1) the majority of dictionary and etymology resources agree that CC and GW are synonymous or CC is a more accurate term than GW, and (2) the change in public usage of CC and GW is ubiquitous with CC or GW as the most common name. So far, dictionaries reflect the current usage on Wikipedia,[32][33] and it is not apparently clear that the common name of GW is CC or vise-versa. 155.99.230.82 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't saying that "Global warming" should redirect to "climate change". I am saying that the contents of climate change should describe GW/CC with an appropriate introduction explaining both terms' techincal meaning and common usage. I understand the difficulties here, in that the terms' technical meanings are different from those commonly used, they are sometimes used synonymously, and their relative usage has varied over time. I think I could show some evidence that (1) CC is generally considered more accurate and that (2) the most common name for GW/CC is CC. I don't want to waste peoples' time though, and I suppose I can understand if people feel that the current articles are as good as can be hoped for.217.43.25.223 (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate. Sorry for misjudging your earlier posts. Of your two points, the Terminology section in CC already gives (1) the technical definition, and (2) its common usage that is synonymous with GW. In my opinion, this fulfills your second point. As for the first, in my opinion a technical definition of what it is, is better than a tangent about GW.

All this aside, do you have a proposal providing a specific piece of text to add, removed, or change? It's nice to argue abstracts, but if you're really inclined to not "want to waste peoples' time". Then an actual proposal leading to an edit to the article would be better than a request about something you believe. 155.99.230.140 (talk)

I would think "climate change" has to be considered a better/more accurate term, given that even proponents of the "global warming" theory state that global warming can actually cause cooling in certain circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.25 (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Global warming refers to the increasing ten-year average temperature of the earth. One effect of this warming is more extreme swings in temperature and also shifts in temperature in some parts of the world. For example, if the melting Greenland glaciers shift the Gulf Stream, England will become much colder and other regions may become much warmer. Climate change considers these local effects. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Other Views section

After a discussion on Stephan Schulz' talk page, I have made some revisions to a previous edit of mine and moved it here for further debate. The current text of this section is as follows. The proposed addition to this section is underlined.

Most scientists accept that humans are contributing to observed climate change.^[7]^[8] National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions.^[9] However, some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science.^[10]^[11]

Organizations such as the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, conservative commentators, and some companies such as ExxonMobil have challenged IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls.^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15] The ARC has argued that placing stringent restrictions on industry in the name of reducing emissions would make the effects of climate change more difficult to cope with.^[16]

In the finance industry, Deutsche Bank has set up an institutional climate change investment division (DBCCA),^[17] which has commissioned and published research^[18] on the issues and debate surrounding global warming.^[19]

Environmental organizations and public figures have emphasized changes in the current climate and the risks they entail, while promoting adaptation to changes in infrastructural needs and emissions reductions.^[20] Some fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years,^[21] or called for policies to reduce global warming.^[22]

Reference: Lockitch, Keith (April 2009). Climate Vulnerability and the Indispensable Value of Industrial Capitalism. Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Retrieved 11-01-08. "The dramatic degree to which industrial development under capitalism has reduced the risk of harm from severe climate events in the industrialized world is significantly under-appreciated in the climate debate. Consequently, so too is the degree to which green climate and energy policies would undermine the protection that industrial capitalism affords—by interfering with individual freedoms, distorting market forces, and impeding continued industrial development and economic growth. The effect of such policies would, ironically, be a worsening of overall vulnerability to climate."

The ARC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank (as is the Competitive Enterprise Institute discussed in the preceding sentence), and an arm of the larger Ayn Rand Institute. Dr. Keith Lockitch, the author of the article in question, is a fellow at the ARC who has written numerous press releases and articles on the organization's behalf^[34]. Being as this paragraph in the article is about the stances of libertarian think tanks and free-enterprise institutes, I think this addition is both context-appropriate and notable. There are, however, as discussed on Stephan's page, some questions about which organization this article should be attributed to. The article was written by (as seen on Page 2), and is currently hosted on, the ARC's Web site, but was printed in Energy and Environment. Thoughts? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the primary issue here is one of weight. Personally, I've never heard of the Ayn Rand Center or its parent org. Even if Lockitch is speaking for ARC, the question is are they notable enough to warrant inclusion?--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

They've been around since 1985, and they're basically the authority on Objectivist philosophy. Dr. Leonard Peikoff, the founder, was Rand's legal heir. I'd suggest looking into their Wikipedia article, to be sure, but I'd think they're weighty enough for mention. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Curtis, why should the ARC receive weight comparable to "Competitive Enterprise Institute, conservative commentators, and some companies such as ExxonMobil" combined? --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, our handling of those organizations is highly questionable in itself. We have four citations for that sentence: Newsweek's "The Truth About Denial", Guardian's "Royal Society Tells Exxon Stop Funding Denial", ABC "Big Money Confusing Public", and MSNBC "Exxon Cuts Ties with Skeptics." The sentence is ostensibly talking about the positions (and they're not all the same) of these organizations, but we're showing it through the lens of Newsweek opinion columns shrieking about denialism? Simply put, if these organizations are notable enough to warrant mention, then can they not speak for themselves? I think it would be better if we used maybe a sentence each for their individual positions (the ARC being one), cited directly to them, then included notable responses/rebuttals offered to these positions as appropriate. It would certainly make for a more balanced perspective, and would make it harder for people to complain that skeptics aren't getting a fair shake. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 08:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, we do prefer secondary sources. And, to be honest, from a world-wide perspective, being the authority on Objectivist philosophy is about as notable in the context of global warming as being a rice packer in Shanghai. I also doubt that claim - from what I can tell, they are not an authority on Objectivism, but a free-market think-tank claiming to apply Objectivist principles. They have also commented on a large range of other topics - Creationism and ID, the war in the Middle East, Globalization, Health Care... - do we cite their opinion in these articles? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears in this article, then, that we prefer secondary sources - except where we don't. The very next sentence in this section cites Deutsche Bank as a primary source three times. And in terms of weight, why does this one financial organization get as much mention as Competitive Enterprise Institute et al lumped together? Why are we presenting the perspectives of these aforementioned organizations only through vocally critical sources? Please read a bit more about ARI, Stephan. And also, as I noted on your talk page, the issue in this context which the proposed addition is addressing directly is the economic effects of environmental controls, which is what these organizations (CEI et al) are critical of. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 10:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The essential difference between science and other ways of acquiring knowledge is that scientists spend at least as much time trying to disprove their own ideas as they do trying to prove them. They know that their ideas will not stand up to replication if they are flawed. Taking Global Warming as an example, in the decades since the idea was generally accepted, if there had been a decline in ten year average temperatures, it would have been back to the old drawing board. But average temperatures continue to rise.

The ARI, in contrast, has already made up its mind. It is not interested in putting Objectivism to the test. Instead, it puts facts to the test, and if the facts contradict Objectivism, then it argues against the facts instead of modifying its beliefs to fit new data. It is not a good source for scientific opinion. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect, MSNBC, Newsweek et al are not scientific organizations. I know this won't go anywhere, but the fact remains that some of them have previously demonstrated a willingness to blatantly manipulate their own footage in order to push an editorial perspective (MSNBC was harangued for its coverage of the Taxpayer March On Washington, where it carefully cropped and looped footage of a black man in the crowd with an AR-15 to disguise his race, then spoke of the danger of "white supremacists." But I digress.). And in my opinion, that makes them less than reliable sources for accurately conveying the positions of organizations they openly disagree with. Additionally, ARI is not arguing that global warming isn't real - what the article I provided is discussing is whether restricting production and the use of energy which allows us to, say, keep cool in summer and warm in winter, is really the best way to protect ourselves from climate fluctuations. It's not arguing science, it's arguing government policy. On further thought, this is probably a perspective more appropriate for Adaptation to global warming, but the issue of our blatant double-standard regarding which organizations are permitted to express their own positions must be addressed in this article. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a matter of weight, but also mainstream vs fringe. There is no way ARC stacks up alongside ExxonMobil et al, but also, those mentioned are mentioned because notable secondary sources (Newsweek, The Guardian, ABC and MSNBC) have mentioned their stances (in relation to the mainstream, which is not "shrieking about denialism"). Deutsche Bank is also a huge organisation, and by setting a CC division, commissioning and publishing research, they are following another important mainstream trend (multinationals taking GW seriously in their business). Another right-wing US think tank muddying the waters is really neither news nor notable, especially since no secondary source (that we know of here) has even bothered to report on their (predictable) position. Not just weight, mainstream and noteworthy vs fringe and predictable. --Nigelj (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, what is our policy for determining which organizations can speak for themselves as primary sources (Deutsche Bank), which organizations cannot (CEI), and on what grounds is this standard justified? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Detusche Bank is not a primary source. Only science published in refereed journals is a primary source. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Rick - You're off base here. We're talking about inclusion in the Other views (as in non-scientific) subsection.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, why is Deutsche Bank permitted to explain its own position, while the positions of organizations like CEI can only be relayed through secondary sources? Why can't all of these organizations speak for themselves? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think organizations can speak for themselves, and in that respect an editorial (say) in the Guardian would be authoritative for the Guardian itself. But the Guardian giving its opinion of what the science is should distinguished from any scientific opinion of what the science is. I think the real question here is why the opinion of the ARC is any more notable than the opinion of the CEI. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and as I stated above, I think it would be appropriate for these separate organizations to each be given a sentence or so to explain their positions - weight-appropriate, of course, and with any appropriately notable rebuttals to those specific statements. I've been thinking that perhaps the ARC's expressed position is more relevant to the Adaptation to global warming article, since the organization has criticized policies responding to global warming, but hasn't disputed the science of global warming itself. The article basically argues that adaptation is a more feasible and less painful solution than mitigation, and is more likely to succeed. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, let's focus on how. The section "Other views" is summary section of Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming; you've also said that it would be appropriate on Adaptation to global warming. Summary section is a Wikipedia guideline, and this is a fact. For this reason, I believe we should focus our efforts on improving coverage on those subsidiary articles. I'm sure S0CO that your proposal would receive much less resistance at "Global warming controversy" or "Politics of global warming." And after you are finish, I'd be glad to see a proposal on how to improve the entire "Other views" section. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm dropping my proposal to add the ARC source to the Global warming article for the time being - as I said, I'm thinking now that it's more relevant to a subarticle anyway. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

CurtisSwain: I was responding to SOCO just above my previous post, who seemed to think Detusche Bank was being quoted as a primary source. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to dispel the notion that every little group that dabbles in an inherently fringe position warrants "equal time", which might inflate a minority position in violation of proper WP:WEIGHT of the issue as a whole. If the ARC was saying something that the CEI didn't then it might warrant inclusion, but that would depend on the balance of how much coverage of detail was given to the majority view. If the scope of an article does not warrant coverage of such details, one voice might well represent multiple voices. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification on terminology, I was under the impression that "primary source" meant something which was being referenced directly (such as a press release by an organization), while "secondary source" meant another organization had picked up on it and reported it (such as a newspaper article which makes reference to the press release). My stance was that every organization whose viewpoint was judged to be notable enough for inclusion ought to be permitted to speak for itself, instead of picking and choosing which to portray through intermediaries. Does "primary source" refer exclusively to scientific literature, as the term is used on this talk page? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The article primary source gives a good definition. In the case of global warming, a primary source is a published, refereed paper by a climate scientist. An article in a journal reporting what the scientists published is a secondary source. So is a book or textbook by an expert which summarizes the published literature. An encyclopedia article which summarizes what the secondary sources report is a tertiary source. Wikipedia usually uses reliable secondary sources, and is itself a tertiary source. Commentary is not a "source" at all -- except that commentary by Joe Smith is a primary source on what Joe Smith has written. It belongs in the "Joe Smith" article. When a subject such as global warming becomes so controversial that Wikipedia has a second article on the controversy, what Joe Smith says becomes a primary source for that article, and commentary by knowledgeable people on Joe Smith's views becomes a secondary source for that article. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

More particularly, Primary source says: "Primary source is ... source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied." (Emphasis added.) Also relevant here is WP:Identifying reliable sources ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources....") and WP:PRIMARY. The latter says:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. [Emphasis added]

In respect of scientific research the primary sources — those closest to the research — are those published by the researchers themselves. Whether a scientist's interpretation/opinion of the research (and this is not limited to the original researchers themselves) is reliable depends on other factors, such as publication in respected scientific journals (which implies exposure to editorial requirements and peer-review). The enduring issue in all of the climate change articles concerns the reliability of sources regarding, on one hand, the views of, say, the WSJ editorial board, the CEI, "John Smith", Heartland, and various random scientists — and here I say that the WSJ, etc., can speak for themselves — as distinct from science (or scientific research) itself. I would say that editorials in the WSJ are primary and presumably reliable and even authoritative for the WSJ's view of the science, but not of the science itself. Similarly, when the editors at Science invite a prominent and respected expert to comment on recent research, that is a secondary source, but much more reliable than, say, comments coming from Senator Inhofe's office or ExxonMobil's hired guns.

So my answer to to SOCO is no, "primary source" does not necessarily refer exclusively to scientific literature, though that is the implication in regards of any scientific matter. Perhaps more importantly, the views of the ARC, though possibly of interest in an article on that organization, are not reliable concerning any scientific issue. And even in the political debate re AGW their views would probably notable only to the extent that they are a notable player in that debate. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Physics of heat transfer

It seems clear that this magazine article really has no bearing on (or relation to) our knowledge of heat transfer and global warming, so I'm capping this. Awickert (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here is a thought-provoking article from Quadrant (2009) on the thermodynamics of the alleged greenhouse-gas effect. It raises some very serious questions as to whether the theorized energy-transfers from atmosphere to ocean by way of atmospheric CO₂ are even feasible, given the relative masses and specific-heats of the two fluids. -Does anyone have any thoughts on this? --Anteaus (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Distraction via large numbers and ignoring the ones that acutally matter. Comparing those same large numbers for heat capacity of the oceans to the similar large numbers one gets for incoming solar flux to the Earth, one can trivially discover that one can raise the ocean temperature by 1 degree C if the earth traps just 0.5% of the energy incoming from the sun over thirty years. Account for the fact that only the upper level of the ocean needs to rise in temperature and the amount gets even smaller. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a pure straw man. Note that Quadrant (magazine) is a literary and cultural magazine (i.e. not remotely a RS for scientific issues). It also has a proven track record of blindly publishing politically correct (for the right politics) nonsense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that my opinion should matter, but they pulled the 4000 degrees C out of their hind ends. Well, he probably just used heat capacities and balances while forgetting about fluxes and the fact that the atmosphere is in a quickly-attained radiative equilibrium such that it cannot lose heat to the oceans without very quickly regaining it (so it is more or less a boundary condition in this case). If this were a recent article, I would be thinking about writing a letter to the editor, because the chemist who wrote it obviously needs a thermodynamics/heat transfer refresher.

On that note, and slightly off-topic, it is the surface oceans that really respond to warming due to mixing by wind. Wikipedia has articles on thermal conduction and convective heat transfer if you're interested; heat transfer is basically a combination of a temperature gradient and a mixing efficiency (i.e., if you put your hot cereal in the freezer and stir it, it will cool the fastest).

Awickert (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What is it about global warming that every enthusiastic amateur thinks they can disprove the whole thing on the back of an envelope? If they all put so much creative energy into string theory or open source software, we might get somewhere. But no, it's always global warming they start with. --Nigelj (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's like dinosaurs in the third-grade: the basic concept is (or seems) simple to grasp, and there is knowledge (or quasi-knowledge) of sort right at hand by which one can impress one's immediate peers. It seems simple, so therefore it must be. And (at least in the U.S.) I think there is an element of anti-intellectualism, of wanting to show the eggheads that they aren't as smart as they think they are. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. Wikipedia editors are so much smarter than the people who write published encyclopedias. Kauffner (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Grandiose David vs Goliath complexes aside, it is also just easier to deny a mountain of complex evidence than to make an effort to understand what the scientists are saying and the evidence that they base their conclusions upon. It is not a difficult thing to soothe lazy minds by telling them that they don't need to worry about the big complex problem. This is why the weak arguments against global warming get traction even though they are mostly transparently wrong- some people aren't even trying to understand how they supposedly contradict the bulk of scientists, the notion that they do gives many people licence to just stop thinking about it.Ninahexan (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Children just won't know what snow is.

Surely it is time the following quote was included:

'According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. [35]

This is an important quote right from those in the CRU at the heart of climategate and sums up the way the "scientists" have been involved in spreading alarmist views that failed to materialise. I propose a new section providing a critical analysis of these claims to include the above quote. Isonomia (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you propose original research, or do you have a reliable source discussing that quote in the context of global warming? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The article above discusses the quote in the context of global warming. There does not appear to be any original research here. Telashian (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's the "critical analysis of these claims" Isonomia is proposing that would be OR. Either way, this thing isn't terribly relevent to this article, but it may be of value in an article about Viner or CRU. --CurtisSwain (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's just take the quote at face value...it speaks for itself with no analysis. Telashian (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A full decade of global cooling - any mention here?

Around 4 years ago I mentioned the lack of cooling and I was told it had to be 10 years of cooling to get into the article. Well now we have a full decade of cooling and/or no warming and with January 2011 just about falling off the scale, it doesn't look likely we'll get any warming soon. We are now well below the IPCC prediction of 1.4-5.8C warming per decade, there's not a global warmist model that predicted this period of cooling. When will this article be brought up to date? Isonomia (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, what bit about the lack of cooling do you want to bring into the article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not mention with what source? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Shoosh, I told you not to mention it....... dave souza, talk 19:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

...and that "1.4-5.8C warming per decade" is way off as well. AR4 projected a rise of 1.8 °C to 6.4 °C over the entire 21st Century, NOT per decade.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, please see FAQ#3.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that most of the Earth is ocean, I wouldn't use instrumental data as a measure of global temperature. And you always have to wonder what Hansen is up to. But 2010 was the second warmest year on record, according to both the radiosonde and satellite data. It's behind only 1998, the year of the El Niño spike. Kauffner (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Rain

I've moved this section "Rain" here from the "Attributed and expected effects" section because I think the sourcing is a bit hit-and-miss by our normal standards on this article:

A very strong effect is that with evaporation increasing by 6.5% for each degree Celsius, global precipitation is expected to increase. [36][37][38]

Softpedia? Don't think so. The other two links are to abstracts, one from a 2008 AGU paper and the other from a 2008 letter to Nature. Our other attribution sections are referenced to the heavily reviewed IPCC AR4, so this looks a bit too much like cherry picking for my taste. --TS 15:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I was tempted to delete that bit, partly because it was such a puny little bit that certainly did not warrant a whole subsection, and partly because the citations were wholly inadequate. Not that I have any objection to papers from the AGU or Nature, but if someone can't bothered to provide a few basic bibliographic details (like who wrote the paper, etc.) there is a strong presumption on ineptitude. If someone wants to include the effect of global warming on rainfall they really should start from the IPCC AR4. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Days of discussion without a single suggestion of convergence. One versus several. Suggested source is an encyclopedia, not a scientifically reviewed source. --TS 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the best source would be a reference work that specializes in science like Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. Their article on "global warming" certainly takes a more balanced view than this one does, which takes the "hockey stick" interpretation at face value and contains no hint that there has ever been any controversy about it. Currently, the references are overwhelmingly to primary sources. This is quite problematic since thousands of scientific papers have been published on this subject and they often express divergent views. Kauffner (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the IPCC reports, the NAS/NRC reports, the Academies statements, the Met Office, the WMO, Weart's book, are all excellent secondary sources, and, between them, make up a huge proportion of all references. They are certainly better than an 8 year old tertiary source intended for general audiences, including secondary schools. It's typically sceptics who push individual papers into the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If high school students are using Van Nostrand's I'm impressed, since it's certainly higher-level science than, say, Britannica. The latest edition of was published in 2008,[39] so it is actually more recent the 2007 IPCC report that is currently referenced. I'm sure you know perfectly well that many, many books and other secondary sources have been published on this topic expressing, if anything, a wider variety of opinion than in the primary sources. So choosing a group of secondary sources that agree with a single POV is easy enough to do, as you have just shown. So there is a need to look at other encyclopedias to establish is what kind and amount of coverage is "due" to the various relevant points of view. Kauffner (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds a bit odd to hear somebody promoting a mere encyclopedia in preference to our multiple authoritative sources. I remember Lar and I looked at the Britannica once to determine whether there was any imbalance in our coverage. His view was that there was, but I couldn't see it. Our coverage over the whole encyclopedia was huge compared to Britannica which barely mentioned alternative views at all. Searching Britannica for the names of prominent skeptical scientists, for instance, drew a blank. I'd be frankly surprised to see any significant difference in Van Nostrand's coverage, but perhaps somebody might want to raise concrete examples from that book and we'll see where we can go with this. --TS 14:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The "global warming" article in Van Nostrand is more than five pages long. Plus there is a lengthy "climate" article, about half of which is about the greenhouse effect, so that's 2-3 more pages. I'm guesstimating around 1,200 words per page. So they have several times the coverage of Britannica, which has 1,650 words in their "global warming" article. It's Van Nostrand's "climate" article that presents skeptical views, especially in a half page section entitled "The Theory in Perspective." My favorite line is, "One should recall that it was only a few decades ago that some scientists and numerous lay people feared the return of the Ice Age!" (Yeah, but one does not recall ever seeing any other exclamation points in an encyclopedia!) McGraw-Hill's Encyclopedia of Science & Technology is an even more authoritative source and would have more extensive coverage of this issue, although I have not looked at it myself yet. Kauffner (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It was only a few decades ago that people had to wait for their radios to warm up before they could listen to music, but we don't mention that in the MP3 article. This book sounds like a pretty awful source, but I've never heard of it. --Nigelj (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether you think it's "pretty awful" or not, the book is accepted in the scientific community as an authoritative source, as this review shows. The 1970s cooling scare was promoted by many of the same people who later became leading AGW affirmers, including Stephen Schneider and John Holdren, now Obama's chief scientific advisor. Kauffner (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that vacuum tubes take a while to warm up was experienced by people who now listen to MP3s. Vacuum tube radios were promoted by shops that now sell iPhones. What is the point you're trying to make, because I don't see the relevance? --Nigelj (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Insensitive clods, the wireless part of my radiogram still takes time to warm up, the penalty of sound quality :-/

Kauffner, you're rather out of date. The late Stephen Schneider miscalculated the balance of warming and cooling effects in 1971, recalculated and published his correction in 1974. By the sound of it your encyclopedia is similarly behind the times. By the way, I don't listen to MP3s. . . dave souza, talk 10:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Schneider's 1971 study was designed to show that the SST would generate particulates that would destroy the climate. After the 1973 oil embargo, the focus of environmental movement shifted to hydrocarbons. So his "science" was always about politics, or did no one know about the greenhouse effect in 1971? The movement has always been predicting apocalypse and can switch glibly between overpopulation, resource depletion, ozone hole, warming, and cooling. The scientific encyclopedias have far better quality control than those for the general publication. They are the logical place to look for the scientific consensus. "Out of date"...if you don't like something, it's either too old or too new, I've figured that one out. Kauffner (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

One favorable book review hardly makes any source "accepted in the scientific community as an authoritative source". Especially not encyclopedias, which are inherently written for a broader, generally "popular", non-specialist audience. ~~And in this particular case the reviewer explicitly notes "Where the encyclopedia is polemical ... it takes the industry's line."~~ Which is just what we might expect from a source that runs out the old, discredited claim (read the FAQ, please) about the "1970s cooling scare". Excuse me, but your POV is showing. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The "takes the industry line" quote is from a review of the Food and Food Production Encyclopedia. Let's say you wanted to know the scientific consensus concerning a "Hydrogen-fueled semi-closed steam turbine power plant", a "High sensitivity corbino disk magnetoresistor array", or possibly "Isotope separation by photodissociation of Van der Waal's molecules". Would you turn to a UN report? A survey that asked random scientists leading questions on the subject? Find someone who read the abstracts of 928 randomly chosen journal papers? Of course not! But you might look it up in Van Nostrand 's, as these and hundreds of other patent applicants did. It gets more cites than Encyclopedia Britannica does, although not quite as many as McGraw-Hill's Encyclopedia of Science & Technology. Kauffner (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite correct about the quote: I missed a silly little "box" and slid into a different review. Sorry. But I will stand by the rest of my comment, that a favorable book review does not constitute scientific acceptance. At best such such encyclopedias (just like Wikipedia!) are good places to approach scientific topics. These are starting places for finding and evaluating the science, not the science itself. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

On the off chance that anyone still thinks Van Nostrand's is some sort of second-rate source, I'd like to note that it has been cited by the federal courts on at least 46 occasions and was even described as an "authoritative reference work" by the U.S. Court of International Trade in the case of Digital Equipment Corporation vs. U.S. (1988). It was cited by the Supreme Court of the United States in Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. NRDC (1983). Kauffner (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction: that isn't 'cited', it's 'mentioned'. Wikipedia has been mentioned by your federal courts at least 488 times by the same measure. Once again, I fail to see the relevance of this point. --Nigelj (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Science is not made by lawyers. (How many scientific discoveries have been published as the opinions of a court?) That some court found Van Nostrand's useful in determining what the received scientific opinion is in some particular question in some particular legal case, which usage the Supreme Court found that appropriate for that case, has nothing to do with the making of scientific opinion. It is wholly incorrect to stretch that very limited legal endorsement as authority for Van Nostrand's interpretation of the science of a completely different topic.

There is another problem here: you don't seem to understand the the nature of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Van Nostrands's is tertiary source (an encyclopedia). Which in no way makes it "second-rate" (as only you have suggested); it may indeed be superior (as you have suggested) to, say, Britannica, and even (as I just suggested) a very good starting place for finding and evaluating the science. But it is still only a tertiary source (three steps from the actual research), and has to be evaluated with that in mind. And as Stephan said at the beginning of this thread, the IPCC reports, etc., are excellent secondary sources (closer to the science), and also much more authoritative. But this encyclopedia is not, as you imputed at the beginning of this thread, the best source for determining proper "balance" here, and certainly does not validate your particular POV. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I must say that the “science is not made by lawyers” line was certainly good for a laugh. After all, why would anyone need lawyers when climate science can done perfectly well by railroad economists like Rajendra K. Pachauri, mechanical engineers like Stephen Schneider, or historians like Naomi Oreskes? You do realize that patent attorneys and judges generally have a bachelor's degree in a scientific field? The way the article is currently written assumes that the UN bureaucrats at the IPCC are the ultimate scientific authority.

As far as tertiary sources go, there are many, many secondary sources on AGW and they express a much wider diversity of opinion then we see in this article. So how can using a group of secondary that all have the same POV be justified? It could possibly be justified if all other tertiary sources did the same, but they don't.

No, I meant “cited”, not “mentioned.” As you can see from the examples I gave above, the courts consult Van Nostrand’s on scientific issues and technical definitions. The difference between heavy and light water reactors is not exactly high-level science. But the Supreme Court could have used any number of sources to support this point, and presumably some clerk put a certain amount of thought into the issue of which reference should be the court's preferred scientific authority. I do not see the courts using Wikipedia, or even Britannica, as an authority on these kinds of issues. Typing in the search term "Wikipedia" will turn up a case on Google scholar whenever there is a Wikipedia article on it, so most of those 488 hits are false positives. (Unless, of course, the Supreme Court really did mention Wikipedia in Roe v. Wade.) I am, nonetheless, distressed to learn that the courts have been using Wikipedia as a source on such subjects as Mauritanian politics, sarcasm and school shootings(!). Kauffner (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So do you maintain that science is made by lawyers? Then tell us: how often have the courts (any legal court, even a papal court) made a scientific discovery? How often do lawyers (practicing as lawyers) publish new discoveries in scientific journals? How often is science published in a legal reporter?

You cite (e.g.) Naomi Oreskes, a historian, as doing climate science, but her work is not about climate science – her work has been about the debate about climate science. Do you understand that distinction?

You say that "many, many secondary sources on AGW and they express a much wider diversity of opinion then we see in this article", but again, you don't seem to understand the the nature of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Your vaunted "diversity of opinion" is tertiary at best, and mostly politically driven by the energy industry and conservative think tanks. These are not reliable sources (your book reviewer was more credible) that tend to trot out discredited arguments; they do not reflect the actual science. But all this is old news, well hashed, which you are pushing in a circular argument: Van Nostrand's validates a "more balanced view" of divergent views, which is in turn validated by (surpise) "many, many secondary sources". - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is supposed to represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", according to WP:DUE. So calling a viewpoint "tertiary" isn't a basis to exclude it. As for primary sources, here is a list of 850 peer-reviewed skeptic articles. For secondary sources, there's Freeman Dyson, Roy W. Spencer, and A.W. Montford. So every level of source is represented. But if I follow this argument correctly, the issue is not really levels of sourcing, but rather the conviction that any inconvenient source, including the scientific encyclopedias, is "politically driven" and that arguments in favor of balance and NPOV are "old news" and "well hashed". Meanwhile, China moves forward with a thorium molten-salt reactor that will one day power the factories required to produce solar shingles for export to the U.S. Kauffner (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please inform yourself enough so that you do not appear to be lying. The "850 paper" hoax has been around long enough for several of the alleged sceptics to protest against the misuse of their research. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I must admit that "Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China" and "How Serious is the Global Warming Threat?" are even more enjoyable now that I know they don't exist. Kauffner (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your sentence is unclear. Most of the interpretations I find make no sense. Please clarify what "they" refers to. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"They" being two articles on the list that I was able able to find immediately in the literature despite the fact you claim the list is a hoax. Kauffner (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

K: is there possibly any personal circumstance for which we should grant allowance, or are you deliberately obtuse? I ask because it is a little difficult to assume good faith (what the laywers would call a rebuttable presumption) when, after stating '[t]he article is supposed to represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", according to WP:DUE', you leave off the continuation of that quote: in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. That text goes on to say:

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. (WP:DUE)

Your argument all along seems to be that the "skeptical" views (re climate) should be given equal weight (prominence) with the mainstream, but as can be readily seen, that is not the actual policy here; such "balance" would be misleading. Your omission amounts to misrepresentation. -- J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

nonexistance

where is the criticism about the nonexistance of global warming from many scientists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.69.205 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-existent, of course. I'm not aware of any recent claim in the scientific literature that there is no warming trend. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

See FAQ#2, or Global warming controversy, which this article links to in several places.--CurtisSwain (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely the question is whether or not global warming is man-made or just part of a solar cycle. I think the main article should be more balanced with respect to this question.Sushisurprise (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to balance. Since solar output has been more or less constant for the past 100 years (with the most recent data in fact suggesting a slight decrease over the last decade), recent warming cannot be attributed to the sun. See Solar constant#Variation or Global warming controversy#Solar variation for a more detailed explanation. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for settling that for me. I needed an expert's opinion.Sushisurprise (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Because Temperature change only counts when it goes upwards. Any downward trend like the last 10 years can't be mentioned because the article is only allowed to quote the climategate team and for obvious reasons, they are never going to tell the world it has been cooling! Isonomia (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ section above.Rick Norwood (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This kind of ideological ranting ("only counts...", "can't be mentioned", "only allowed to quote the climategate team", "they are never going to tell...") is not conducive to any kind of reasonable discussion, let alone to improving this article. It is based on unstated presumptions of belief and assertions of personal opinion, lacking any scientific basis. Not worth further comment. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on, everyone knows that if you try and enter anything sceptical to the nonsense on global warming, it gets immediately cut. The simple fact is this article is a tissue of lies because it is not currently warming and there is absolutely no point trying to edit this article because certain high level people in Wikipedia have decided that Wikipedia will never carry information sceptical to global warming.Isonomia (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the last ten years on the GISS Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change plot[40], all values except one are higher than the value for 2001, how is that a cooling? Mikenorton (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"Tissue of lies"? Your central premise, that "it is not currently warming", is not supported by any source, is itself a mere "tissue" contrary to a substantial body ("rock") of scientific observation (e.g., thinning of the Arctic ice cap). Your position is dubious (largely abandoned even by industry), your mode of argument ("everybody knows") invalid, your comments more rhetorical than deliberative or inquisitive. In fact, you are a highly partisan (see latest diatribe) pusher of a distinctly non-neutral POV.

And having demonstrated that I can pee as high on the wall as you, how about we just leave off? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Satellite temperature measurements article seems to go well beyond its title

The sea surface temperature article has been revamped due to improvements made in the numerical weather prediction article. When doing a web search, I ran across the wikipedia article regarding satellite temperature measurements, so I started incorporating some of the SST article information into it. After I noticed the article structure, I was initially confused. A cursory review of the article shows that its content goes well beyond its name. It looks strongly linked to this article, and even mentions information you would not expect to be involved in an article with its name. My question is: Should that article be renamed, something like Satellite temperature measurements (climate change), or should the information within the article be aligned with its current title? If so, the order of the article would need to be flipped, surface information/SST first (since that's where we all live and that information was first available via satellites, so it makes sense chronologically as well) with a decent amount of material eliminated since it goes beyond the scope of its title. Thoughts? Thegreatdr (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you should keep that discussion on the talk page of Satellite temperature measurements, and not place it here as well.--CurtisSwain (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have. I posted it here as well because it appears to wharehouse global warming information on it (almost a content fork), so it appears relevant to this article. Right now, there is undue weight given to the global warming information within that article (which takes up nearly all its content). No further response will mean that the satellite temperature measurements article content will be refashioned to fit its current title around a week after the original talk page comment was made (the 16th), and the percentage of global warming information within it will be reduced in kind. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

^ http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Environment/2010/08/07/Greenlands_farmers_hail_global_warming_495807.html
^ Copious references, eg. "Patterns of glacier response to disintegration of the Larsen B ice shelf, Antarctic Peninsula," Christina L. Hulbea, Ted A. Scambosb, Tim Youngbergc and Amie K. Lambd, Global and Planetary Change, Volume 63, Issue 1, August 2008, Pages 1-8
^ http://www.cbd.int/convention/cops.shtml
^ http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/fourth_session_cop/en/index.html
^ http://www.unodc.org/pdf/ctoccop_2006/LOP3.pdf
^ http://www.unccd.int/cop/cop8/menu.php
^ NRC (2008). "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change" (PDF). Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, US National Academy of Sciences. p. 2. Retrieved 2010-11-09. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
^ Wallace, D. and J. Houghton (March 2005). "A guide to facts and fictions about climate change". UK Royal Society website. pp. 3–4. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
^ Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias (Brazil), Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Académie des Sciences (France), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Science Council of Japan, Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Russian Academy of Sciences, Academy of Science of South Africa, Royal Society (United Kingdom), National Academy of Sciences (United States of America) (May 2009). "G8+5 Academies' joint statement: Climate change and the transformation of energy technologies for a low carbon future" (PDF). US National Academies website. Retrieved 2010-05-05.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Weart, S. (July 2009). "The Public and Climate Change (cont. – since 1980). Section: After 1988". American Institute of Physics website. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
^ SEPP (n.d.). "Frequently Asked Questions About Climate Change". Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) website. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
^ Begley, Sharon (2007-08-13). "The Truth About Denial". Newsweek. Retrieved 2007-08-13.
^ Adams, David (2006-09-20). "Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-08-09.
^ "Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics". MSNBC. 2007-01-12. Retrieved 2007-05-02.
^ Sandell, Clayton (2007-01-03). "Report: Big Money Confusing Public on Global Warming". ABC. Retrieved 2007-04-27.
^ Lockitch, Keith (April 2009). "Climate Vulnerability and the Indispensable Value of Industrial Capitalism" (PDF). Energy & Environment, Volume 20 No. 5 2009. Energy & Environment. Retrieved 2011-01-08. The dramatic degree to which industrial development under capitalism has reduced the risk of harm from severe climate events in the industrialized world is significantly under-appreciated in the climate debate. Consequently, so too is the degree to which green climate and energy policies would undermine the protection that industrial capitalism affords—by interfering with individual freedoms, distorting market forces, and impeding continued industrial development and economic growth. The effect of such policies would, ironically, be a worsening of overall vulnerability to climate.
^ "About DBCCA". Deutsche Bank: DB Climate Change Advisors. Frankfurt am Main: Deutsche Bank AG. 2010-05-12. Retrieved 2010-11-05. DB Climate Change Advisors is the brand name for the institutional climate change investment division of Deutsche Asset Management, the asset management arm of Deutsche Bank AG.
^ "Investment Research". Deutsche Bank: DB Climate Change Advisors. Frankfurt am Main: Deutsche Bank AG. 2010-11-02. Retrieved 2010-11-05.
^ Carr, Mary-Elena (2010). "Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments" (PDF). DB Climate Change Advisors: Deutsche Bank Group. p. 55. Retrieved 2010-11-05. The planet is warming and it is likely to continue to warm as a consequence of increased greenhouse gas emissions. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^ "New Report Provides Authoritative Assessment of National, Regional Impacts of Global Climate Change" (PDF) (Press release). U.S. Global Change Research Program. June 6, 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-27.
^ Reuters (May 18, 2007). "Greenpeace: Exxon still funding climate skeptics". USA Today. Retrieved Jan 21, 2010. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
^ "Global Warming Resolutions at U.S. Oil Companies Bring Policy Commitments from Leaders, and Record High Votes at Laggards" (Press release). Ceres. May 13, 2004. Retrieved 2010-03-04.

[1] ttp://bigpondnews.com/articles/Environment/2010/08/07/Greenlands_farmers_hail_global_warming_495807.html

[2] Copious references, eg. "Patterns of glacier response to disintegration of the Larsen B ice shelf, Antarctic Peninsula," Christina L. Hulbea, Ted A. Scambosb, Tim Youngbergc and Amie K. Lambd, Global and Planetary Change, Volume 63, Issue 1, August 2008, Pages 1-8

[3] ttp://www.cbd.int/convention/cops.shtml

[4] ttp://www.who.int/fctc/cop/fourth_session_cop/en/index.html

[5] ttp://www.unodc.org/pdf/ctoccop_2006/LOP3.pdf

[6] ttp://www.unccd.int/cop/cop8/menu.php

[nrc2008-7] NRC (2008). "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change" (PDF). Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, US National Academy of Sciences. p. 2. Retrieved 2010-11-09. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

[8] Wallace, D. and J. Houghton (March 2005). "A guide to facts and fictions about climate change". UK Royal Society website. pp. 3–4. Retrieved 2010-05-05.

[9] Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias (Brazil), Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Académie des Sciences (France), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Science Council of Japan, Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Russian Academy of Sciences, Academy of Science of South Africa, Royal Society (United Kingdom), National Academy of Sciences (United States of America) (May 2009). "G8+5 Academies' joint statement: Climate change and the transformation of energy technologies for a low carbon future" (PDF). US National Academies website. Retrieved 2010-05-05.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[10] Weart, S. (July 2009). "The Public and Climate Change (cont. – since 1980). Section: After 1988". American Institute of Physics website. Retrieved 2010-05-05.

[11] SEPP (n.d.). "Frequently Asked Questions About Climate Change". Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) website. Retrieved 2010-05-05.

[12] Begley, Sharon (2007-08-13). "The Truth About Denial". Newsweek. Retrieved 2007-08-13.

[13] Adams, David (2006-09-20). "Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-08-09.

[MSNBC_01-12-14] "Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics". MSNBC. 2007-01-12. Retrieved 2007-05-02.

[15] Sandell, Clayton (2007-01-03). "Report: Big Money Confusing Public on Global Warming". ABC. Retrieved 2007-04-27.

[16] Lockitch, Keith (April 2009). "Climate Vulnerability and the Indispensable Value of Industrial Capitalism" (PDF). Energy & Environment, Volume 20 No. 5 2009. Energy & Environment. Retrieved 2011-01-08. The dramatic degree to which industrial development under capitalism has reduced the risk of harm from severe climate events in the industrialized world is significantly under-appreciated in the climate debate. Consequently, so too is the degree to which green climate and energy policies would undermine the protection that industrial capitalism affords—by interfering with individual freedoms, distorting market forces, and impeding continued industrial development and economic growth. The effect of such policies would, ironically, be a worsening of overall vulnerability to climate.

[17] "About DBCCA". Deutsche Bank: DB Climate Change Advisors. Frankfurt am Main: Deutsche Bank AG. 2010-05-12. Retrieved 2010-11-05. DB Climate Change Advisors is the brand name for the institutional climate change investment division of Deutsche Asset Management, the asset management arm of Deutsche Bank AG.

[18] "Investment Research". Deutsche Bank: DB Climate Change Advisors. Frankfurt am Main: Deutsche Bank AG. 2010-11-02. Retrieved 2010-11-05.

[19] Carr, Mary-Elena (2010). "Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments" (PDF). DB Climate Change Advisors: Deutsche Bank Group. p. 55. Retrieved 2010-11-05. The planet is warming and it is likely to continue to warm as a consequence of increased greenhouse gas emissions. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

[20] "New Report Provides Authoritative Assessment of National, Regional Impacts of Global Climate Change" (PDF) (Press release). U.S. Global Change Research Program. June 6, 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-27.

[21] Reuters (May 18, 2007). "Greenpeace: Exxon still funding climate skeptics". USA Today. Retrieved Jan 21, 2010. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)

[22] "Global Warming Resolutions at U.S. Oil Companies Bring Policy Commitments from Leaders, and Record High Votes at Laggards" (Press release). Ceres. May 13, 2004. Retrieved 2010-03-04.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]