Page semi-protected

Talk:Global warming/Archive 64

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 60 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 70


Feedback, models, and "emergent properties"

As I understand it, IPCC 2007 used a simple model for A1FI that did not, to use some lay speak, "include" certain feedbacks. But other models used for other scenarios did "include" feedbacks. As a non-modeller, what I get from that is that some models are programmed with the assumption feedbacks can happen, and others are not. Since I'm not a modeller, I'm having some trouble with this sentence,

"Positive and negative feedbacks are not imposed as assumptions in the models, but are instead emergent properties that result from the interactions of basic dynamical and thermodynamic processes."

Its my guess other readers who know the models don't always "include" feedbacks might experience the same problem so I'm hoping some text will emerge from this discussion to help those other readers. Thanks in advance for comments. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The A1FI scenario was run by the same models as ran the other scenarios, and included the same feedbacks. (More correctly, they included the same physical processes that allowed the feedback to be produced.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a newbie, so I'm probably just not seeing the obvious. Me being an amateur, your reply sounds inconsistent with the following quote from Betts, etal (2011) Global_warming#cite_note-Betts2007-8 which reads at pg 68:
The IPCC WGI assessed climate change under these scenarios from a large number of different climate models of varying levels of complexity, including ocean–atmosphere general circulation models (GCMs) and simple climate models (SCMs), with some models also including feedbacks between climate change and the carbon cycle. * * *
Although the six scenarios were all considered by the IPCC to be equally sound as representations of a world that does not implement policies specifically to mitigate climate change [1], not all the scenarios were examined to the same depth with climate models. Practical reasons, such as computational costs, meant that only a subset of the scenarios (A1B, A2 and B1) could be systematically examined with complex ocean–atmosphere GCMs from all the participating modelling groups.1 SCMs were then used to estimate the warming that would have been projected by the complex models under the other scenarios (B2, A1T, and A1FI). Consequently, in the AR4, the highest emissions scenario (A1FI) was examined only with SCMs and not directly with complex ocean–atmosphere GCMs [4].
Help please? It's confusing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be seeking expert help. Expert participation on Wikipedia is discouraged by the Wikipedia:Randy in Boise effect, as in this unfortunate instance. Please wait patiently until abnormally knowledgeable service is resumed, do not make ill informed edits to articles. Thank you for your custom, Share and Enjoy. . . dave souza, talk 18:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
NAEG is right about this one. I was thinking of A1B, not A1FI. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, so here's my problem with the text I quoted at the top of this subsection. "Feedback X" does not necessarily emerge from every single model. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The phrasing as it now exists is prone to misinterpretation that all feedbacks always emerge from all models, or an alternative false reading would be that if a feedback emerges it was a happy accident, not the result of sweat and brains and some assumptions about what to do in order to create a desired feedback. Moreover, here's this unsupported assertion from climate sensitivity

For a coupled atmosphere-ocean global climate model the climate sensitivity is an emergent property: it is not a model parameter, but rather a result of a combination of model physics and parameters. By contrast, simpler energy-balance models may have climate sensitivity as an explicit paramter.

Before I try to draft alternative text for the following, anyone have any more input on this?

"Positive and negative feedbacks are not imposed as assumptions in the models, but are instead emergent properties that result from the interactions of basic dynamical and thermodynamic processes."

Thanks for reading.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

IPCC Models

NewsAndEventsGuy has added to the reasons for uncertainty in the IPCC predictions "(4) an assumption in the models that temperature will rise in a linear fashion when in fact the rate of global temperature rise is accelerating[14]" . This is at odds with my understanding that the models used do not make any direct assumption about the shape of the temperature curve. I would have removed it but it appears to be supported by what seems a legitimate reference. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed it too, but he added it back. You are of course correct that the models make no assumption whatsoever about the relationship between CO2 and temperature, be it linear, logarithmic, serpentine or whatever. Trouble is, it would be hard to find a reference on such an obvious point. We could point to papers on model formulation that give the governing equations, etc. but we might not be able to find a reference that explicitly says "AOGCMs make no assumption about the shape of the temperature response." Thompson is an outstanding paleoclimatologist but he's not a modeler and the error he makes is of a fairly common sort. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Beat me, guys, I'm not a climate modeler either. It's my guess that Dr Thompson would be pleased to respond to an inquiry for clarification. Since I stuck it in there, I will be happy to drop him an email. If this falls off my radar, please post a reminder on my talk page in a month or so.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
IanOfNorwich and Short Brigade Harvester Boris are both correct about models not making assumptions about the shape of the temperature response to forcings. I swear I've seen this exact point addressed at realclimate, but I can't find a good reference right now. There's a related comment in this post:
But that's a bit too generic. On the other hand, this Science paper explains in part how the models work, but is not explicit on this point. Neither is this related blog post. Maybe it's best to cite the paper describing one of the models? Or just email Gavin Schmidt? - Parejkoj (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, P. I did email Dr T, but for all I know he's on another expedition and not reading fan mail. I'll give it a week or so and then post something on RC or email Garvin as you suggest. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you happy if we remove it for the time being, NewsAndEventsGuy? The thing is this just can't be correct "an assumption in the models that temperature will rise in a linear fashion". If it were the temperature rise output from models referenced by the IPCC would have to output linear temperature responses choosing only a gradient, which they don't. The underlying point that models underestimate positive feedback 'may' be true but we're not really in a better position to judge than the climate modelers, without some very detailed research.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, that works. I wasted it already. If I come up with anything to revisit the topic I'll post it here, and call attention on TALK for you and Boris to mull over before going live. This subsection can get wasted in a few months if there's no changes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Many of the forcings are not properly accounted for, and cloud models are very unsophisticated. None of this really captured here. Restreusion (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE, I've since read a lot about the nonlinearity of the complex models. Unless something else comes up, for now I'm grateful to you other editors that objected to this text. Sorry to have taken your time troubling over it. Since we now have a consensus, this thread can be archived anytime as far as I'm concerned. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

GAIA Theory and Climate Change

I was astonished after reading this article about Climate Change to see that no single reference is made to the GAIA theory of James Lovelock. As found some decades ago, the biosphere has a very powerful regulatory action on the climate. Hence, any serious climate mathematical model must include the important effects of the biosphere on the climate. Taking into account that these biological effects are very complex and difficult to model, the outcome of these climate models should have a high degree of uncertainty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuel.frn (talkcontribs) 00:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I give more attention to signed comments.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess its signed. See climate model and climate change; Not only the biosphere but the other four components of the climate system would be 100% perfectly represented in the perfect climate model. If you'd like to try drafting some text about uncertainty in the models, please do, and then your comment can be evaluated better. Include verifiable citations.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
This James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis? (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Another is Earth system science. (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Careful with sources please

In this edit Dave souza (talk · contribs) sources the statement "the 20th century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden rise in global temperatures", but the sources provided are about Arctic warming, not global warming. I'm not going to revert because I think the text is right, but it needs better sourcing. -Atmoz (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This replaces the unsourced statement "Orbital cycles vary slowly over tens of thousands of years and thus are too gradual to have caused the temperature changes observed in the past century", and while the research specifically deals with the Arctic, the cited sources discuss the implications for an ice age which by definition extends beyond the Arctic. To meet the concerns about the modern temp record being global, I've added an additional citation, to Mann et al. 2008. While minority views have quibbled about this paper, it's been backed up by more recent research such as Ljungqvist, F. C. (2010). "A New Reconstruction of Temperature Variability in the Extra-Tropical Northern Hemisphere During the Last Two Millennia". Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography 92 (3): 339–351. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x.  which could also be added as a source if desired. . dave souza, talk 00:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Mann08 is good (for me). I was just concerned that someone might come along later and remove the entire sentence because the source didn't specifically backup the statement. Although I suppose that there was a better chance of that when it was unsourced. Anyway, thanks. :) -Atmoz (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
No, this sentence is still garbage. Mann08 is based on proxies so cannot be used to justify the claim. Besides, Mann08 has been shown to rubbish by professional statisticians McShane and Wyner, who say the proxies have a weak relation to temperature and are hardly any better than random numbers. See doi:10.1214/10-AOAS398. Poujeaux (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
That was so stupid I think my IQ dropped 10 points just by reading it. -Atmoz (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
P, did you also read the discussion article, e.g., the response from Mann and others? DOI: 10.1214/10-AOAS398D NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lede streamlining

The lede has be trimmed considerably, and makes for a more coherent overview, with one exception; Global Warming not only encompasses the current temperature rise, but the projected continuation as well. It isn't until well down in the lede that a higher rise is implied, which I believe results in a sense of vagueness about future expectations. I suggest that we add "and its projected continuation" back to the first sentence to clearly capture the expectations of the scientific consensus. An alternative could also be "...the current and future rise..." or "...the current and continuing rise...". - Skyemoor (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the change, and sensing no opposition, I added it. Feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree. -Atmoz (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
"Considerably trimmed" is ambiguous. See new subsection on proposed lead outline NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Remove the term "consensus"

Cow flatulence/methane and global warming

Solar Expansion

Little is mentioned in this article about Solar expansion or the possibilty that the Sun is expanding & thus creating more heat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Sun is expanding at far too insignificant a rate to be causing global warming. Consider - the Sun has been expanding for several billion years, but the temperature profiles for the past millenia do not reflect this. Therefore, the expansion of the Sun is not a significant cause of global warming. Understand that we are talking about global warming on the order of decades - not eons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of introduction

I've added tags to this section of the introduction:

Using computer models of the climate system based on six greenhouse-gas emission scenarios, the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that global surface temperature is likely to rise 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by 2100,[7][8] and the upper limit of that range does not include any warming from the potential release of certain carbon cycle feedbacks.[9][neutrality] By 2010, more recent observations of emissions made the A1FI scenario the "business as usual" case[10], and confirmed that "the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories or even worse are being realised".[11][neutrality] Recent research suggests that including some carbon cycle feedbacks would result in a temperature rise of 4°C in the 2070's.[9][neutrality]

I'll explain each tag separately below: [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]

And I have removed those tags. Please discuss prior to tagging — we have been down this "POV" path plenty of times before, so "bold" is getting rather tedious; you really need to make the case first. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Enescot's neutrality challenge #1

Using computer models of the climate system based on six greenhouse-gas emission scenarios, the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that global surface temperature is likely to rise 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by 2100,[7][8] and the upper limit of that range does not include any warming from the potential release of certain carbon cycle feedbacks.[9][neutrality]

The statement in bold is based on one paper. This is unbalanced. There are lots and lots of papers on climate change projections, and in my view, citing the results of one paper in the introduction is not acceptable. The article should represent, in a balanced and objective manner, all of the scientific literature. Individual findings or papers should not receive undue weight. It may be appropriate to cite the paper in a sub-article, e.g., the global climate model article. Even then, however, it may still not be appropriate for the reason that I've already given. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]

The statement in bold is a statement of objective historic fact. How many papers does it take? Alternatively, can you provide a citation that challenges the bolded text by claiming IPCC has a model that is a perfect representation of the entire climate system? Doubtful, but anything's possible I suppose. Please share it! Meanwhile, the fact remains that none of the models used by IPCC - or anyone as far as I know - have modeled climate sensitivity incorporating feedbacks from the permafrost cycle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Besides Betts (2011), which you rejected even though it plainly states the historic fact that A1FI didn't include GCMs, please see
This Isaksen, Ivar S. A.; Michael Gauss, Gunnar Myhre, Katey M. Walter, and Anthony and Carolyn Ruppel (April 20, 2011). "Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions" (PDF). Global Biogeochemical Cycles: 166. doi:10.1029/2010GB003845. The thaw and decay of even a small portion of the permafrost carbon could have substantial effects on atmospheric CO2 and methane concentrations. However, none of the climate projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, none of the recent permafrost projections, and none of the projections of the terrestrial carbon cycle account for the PCF (permafrost carbon feedback).  Text " Vol 25

" ignored (help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help)

and this Michael R. Raupach, Nicolas Gruber, and Josep G. Canadell (2009). Synthesis Report, Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions Conference, Copenhagen March 2009. The Global Carbon Cycle, Box 2: IARU International Scientific Congress. p. 11. Pools of concern include tropical peatland carbon, which is vulnerable to land clearing and drainage, and the large stores of organic carbon in Arctic permafrost, which are vulnerable to warming. Recent work is starting to quantify the amplifying effect of these vulnerabilities on climate change. There is increasing confidence that their net result will be to amplify the atmospheric CO2 and methane increases to 2100, thence amplifying climate change. The amplification factor is ill constrained, and best current estimates range from near zero to over 50%. Under the IPCC1 A2 emissions scenario, which predicts global warming of about 4C without carbon-climate feedbacks, an additional 0.1 to 1.5C is predicted from the vulnerability of land and ocean sinks. The additional effect of accelerated methane and CO2 emissions from thawing permafrost is potentially very significant but is not yet quantified. 
and this! feedback section of Warren 2011 at
I like your addition to attribution, so I'm not picking on you personally at all. Taking issues one by one on merits, may I please put that text back now? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE, before I address this specifcally I'd like a consensus to form on Talk:Global_warming#Proposed_LEDE_paragraph_structure_.2F_outline NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
RESOLVED? E, it's been about a month since I replied to the substance of your comment and you've remained mum. I'm proceeding on the assumption you have withdrawn this element of your comment, and I'm reserving the option of reintroducing the fact that IPCC models don't include potential permafrost feedback... there's a lot more sources I can cite on point. So unless I hear something more, I'm considering this subsection resolved, and your comment withdrawn. Thanks for caring enough to raise your concern in the first place! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Enescot's neutrality challenge #2

By 2010, more recent observations of emissions made the A1FI scenario the "business as usual" case[10], and confirmed that "the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories or even worse are being realised".[11][neutrality]

This sentence is misleading and lacks objectivity. The A1FI scenario projects future social and economic developments and related emissions over the course of the entire 21st century. A few years of emissions data does not make it the "BAU" case, since future emissions are uncertain. In other words, future emissions trajectories may be above or below the A1FI trajectory. The sentence is supported by two cited sources, however, these sources are not representative of the scientific literature. For example, a USGCRP report (PDF, pp22-23) states that:

Recent carbon dioxide emissions are, in fact, above the highest emissions scenario developed by the IPCC (...). Whether this will continue is uncertain. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]

Thanks! I will certainly include that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A UNEP study (PDF, p55) states:

The majority of results in this report show that emissions in 2020 expected from the Copenhagen Accord pledges are higher than emission levels consistent with a “medium” or “likely” chance of staying below 2° C and 1.5° C. At the same time they also show that the range of 2020 emission levels from the Copenhagen Accord pledges tends to be consistent with the IAM pathways that have “likely” temperature increases of 2.5° C to 5° C up to the end of the twenty-first century. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]

Except Copenhagen accords aren't binding on everybody, so that's irrelevant NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

These two sources support my argument that future emissions are uncertain, and depend on future social and economic development.

It is misleading to suggest that the A1FI scenario is now the "business-as-usual" emissions pathway for this reason. Even though this assertion is supported by two sources, these sources are not representative of the literature. When referring to "BAU" projections, it should be mentioned how wide the range of possible emissions pathways is in the published literature [4]. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]

Objection Your Honor, on grounds of speculation! The verbs in the challenged phrase are past and present tense. The upshot of your complaint is that humans <und>might</und> reduce emissions in the future. Well, that's certainly to be hoped for, but not what's happening, as your own supporting reference states! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE - It's easy to say "these sources are not representative of the literature" but you should support such assertions. Meanwhile please bear in mind that "FI" in A1FI stands for "Fossilfuel Intensive" (Betts 2011) and here is yet another source describing A1FI as BAU (internal cites omitted, emphasis supplied) New, Mark; Diana Liverman, Heike Schroder and Kevin Anderson (2011). "Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees (Celsius) and and its implications". Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 369: 6–19. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0303. Even with strong political will, the chances of shifting the global energy system fast enough to avoid 2C are slim. Trajectories that result in eventual temperature rises of 3C or 4C are much more likely, and the implications of these larger temperature changes require serious consideration. In this issue, Betts et al. use a series of global climate model simulations, accounting for uncertainty in key atmospheric and coupled-carbon-cycle feedbacks on climate, to explore the timings of climate change under a high-end, roughly business-as-usual scenario, IPCC SRES A1FI, where emissions have reached 30 Gt of CO2 (8 GtC) per year by 2100. All but two of the models reach 4C before the end of the twenty-first century, with the most sensitive model reaching 4C by 2061, a warming rate of 0.5C per decade. All the models warm by 2C between 2045 and 2060. This supports the message that an early peak and departure from a business-as-usual emissions pathway are essential if a maximum temperature below 4C is to be avoided with any degree of certainty.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (|date= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help); NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition the sentence states:

By 2010, more recent observations of emissions made the A1FI scenario the "business as usual" case[10], and confirmed that "the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories or even worse are being realised".[11][neutrality]

"Worst-case" lacks of objectivity. The IPCC do not refer to A1FI as the "worst-case" scenario. It is a value judgement made by the authors of the cited source. The only consensus I'm aware of on predominately adverse effects at higher levels of warming is by the IPCC, (Table SPM-3) but this does not specifically refer to the A1FI scenario. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]

And heck I can even provide something on this in a day or 3. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE, before I address this specifcally I'd like a consensus to form on Talk:Global_warming#Proposed_LEDE_paragraph_structure_.2F_outline
RESOLVED?? E, I'm not wedded to the language "business as usual" or "worst case". Please see the edit I made to the lede 2nd paragraph today. In place of characterizing emissions with such labels, instead I've tried to incorporate the source data from IAE. Does this new approach satisfy this part of your neutrality challenge (over phrases "business as usual" or "worst case" being applied to A1Fi)? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Enescot's neutrality challenge #3

Recent research suggests that including some carbon cycle feedbacks would result in a temperature rise of 4°C in the 2070's.[9][neutrality]

This is biased for the same reason I gave earlier. The article should give a balanced overview of the literature, and not place undue weight on the findings of one paper. Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to review any other papers that have subjected A1FI to a complex GCM model. Has anyone else done it? If not, then one paper IS the literature and keeping it out is to suppress a seminal work that advances the best science we have... so far. Please provide a cite to someone ELSE that's examined A1FI with a complex GCM model, or let me restore the text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE, before I address this specifcally I'd like a consensus to form on Talk:Global_warming#Proposed_LEDE_paragraph_structure_.2F_outline
This discussion was merged into the discussion of Atmoz' neutrality challenge, below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Atmoz' neutrality challenge (by deletion) of Betts study

To explain this edit: I just browsed Betts 2011 and I think that what is cited is at odds with what is written in the actual paper. From what I read, Betts 2011 looked at the A1FI scenario and speculated on the feedback stuff. The ORNI cite is poor, and the other is a press release (therefore poor). So I agree with Enescot and have removed it. I think that something like this could be added to the article (and possibly lede), but with significant editing. -Atmoz (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Insufficient argument, so I restored it. I assume you already know that IPCC only ran the simple (not GCM) model on A1FI and it won't be necessary to prove that by citation, but if you insist you can be obliged. If you do more than browse Betts' paper, you'll see they got access to the necessary computing power to subject A1FI to some of the complex models that employ GCM. That's not mere speculation, that's simply doing what IPCC 2007 AR4 did for the A1B series, only doing it to the A1FI scenario too. You can say they were merely speculating instead of extending IPCC 2007's tools to the highest emission scenario, but hopefully you can provide some basis other than handwaving, which is what I'm hearing right now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
See WP:BRD. And don't refactor other people's comments on talk pages. -Atmoz (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, since I'm a new editor that was important info for me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Why not?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
On merits of your challenge, the only response I see from you to my comment above is on the one line description for your change in the article version history "dumbassery". Are we waiting for other editors to chime in, or do you plan to say substantive something on the merits?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: You agreed with Enscot, but he made three different complaints. Please see my updates to his complaints #1 and #2. Is there still disagreement or can I restore text? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't refactor other peoples comments. See the warning on your talk page. This is an encyclopedia. We don't give too much weight individual papers. We try to use the best review papers (in this case the IPCC). Individual studies will differ from the scientific consensus. Our job is not to force one point of view on the viewers as you edits have done. We are trying to provide a neutral overview of the topic of global warming. As Enscot says above, your version did not do that. And I agreed with him/her. As I said, this material may be appropriate in the body of the article, but I don't think it is significant enough for the lede. -Atmoz (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for calling my attention to the bad practices page, which it turns out, supports what I did. See my User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#About_my_re-sectioning_a_talk_discussion_on_article_for_global_warmingNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
So, you're saying wiki editors have a personal desire to keep the encylopedia locked in a static hovering pattern as science marches forward, right? And to do this, you're apparently relying solely on the IPCC 2007 Synthesis Report because that's where the likely range (without qualifiers) appears, and therefore we wiki editors are perpetuating the statement that there is a likely low end of 1-point-something, but we're not allowed to say up front that that means massive changes like the scientists said in the FULL report? And you're saying that 2007 synthesis report based on even older data is the balanced state of the science, most representative of the best science we have today in June 2011. OK.... please consider analogy #1 -
Doctor to Man --- Well the good news is that if you quit your 2 pack a day habit, give up the 4egg daily omlette, the super size daily burger lunches, quit drinking a fifth a day, and start walking 30 minutes each day you have a decent chance of enjoying another ten good years.
Later that day Man to Wife --- Honey! Great News! The doctor says I'm gonna have another ten good years!
You can't say the man told his wife the best medical advice any more than you can say the sythesis report (generated by political appointees) was a scientific statement. Rather, it was a political statement about a scientific one (the full reports by the three working groups). The latter defines the various likely temperature ranges, with qualification for what we'd have to do to hit the low end. The political appointees left that out, creating the false impression that doing BUSINESS AS USUAL we might only have 1-point-something of warming, and that's not what the full report says. So you're not really defending the balanced view that most represents the literature here.
In addition, if I have persuaded a consensus of editors to look instead to the full report, then we go on to analogy #2 -
Doctor to man - well, we did a full tox panel, and a thorough c-scan. We don't see any evidence of brain cancer but to be sure we'd have to do an MRI only your insurance won't pay for it and the machine is busy anyway. So instead we did the simple type of examine where we look at your sinuses, mouth, ears, and bumps on your head for obvious signs of growth its possible you're ok.
Later, man to wife -- Honey good news! The doctor says I don't have brain cancer!
However, the man's wife knows a neurologist at a rural hospital with the equipment and long quiet nights. Together they sedate the man and just do the MRI. Next day they show him the films and inform him he has TERMINAL but OPERABLE cancer if he acts NOW.
Man to wife and neurologist -- No way, the first dude gave me the best medical advice available.
If you think the man was nuts, then please tell me why you're championing a static political statement about 2007 scientific results based on even older data that wasn't subjected to the full range of testing performed by Betts 2011? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. Your analogies are pointless, stupid, and have nothing to do with anything. Oh, and don't edit my comments. -Atmoz (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize inline interspersing was still considered modifying. The folks I exchange complex documents with do it inline, I thought everyone did it that way.
On the merits, it seems I was confused, the AR4 synthesis report (what I characterized as the political above) did qualify the temp range by scenario, even in its top level summary, but the most important section of this article (the Lede) omits that crucial info... because you deleted it from one of my recent edits! All the more reason why my analogy #1 applies. I will demonstrate this with text in a day or two, and you still haven't said anything about my response about Betts 2011 except to insult me. It won't be long before I take that as a green light to put it back. Are you going to reply on the merits? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
This comment once again addresses this edit. I had another perusal of Betts 2011 and I still think you're interpreting it wrong. Betts basically took the A1FI scenario and ran it through a full GCM. They found that the best estimate of warming by 2090 would be about 5C. This is within the limits of what the IPCC said in 2007 and is in our article (1.1-6.4C). The fact that the IPCC models were not run as full GCMs for the A1FI scenario does not mean that their numbers were somehow wrong. In fact, since the degree of warming from Betts is basically at the upper range of the IPCC, I don't see why we'd need to cite Betts at all, or include the fact that some scenarios (including the highest emissions one) didn't get run through the full GCM. The "fact" that the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories or even worse are being realised is specifically refuted by Betts 2011. In fact, there's a whole paragraph devoted to it. What Betts does do is provide an estimate of when warming will be 4C greater than pre-industrial times. This was not previously included in our article, but as Betts says this latter projection [of reaching 4C warming by the late 2060s] appears to be consistent with the upper end of the IPCC’s likely range of warming for the A1FI scenario. So of the two facts that I removed cited to Betts, both are entirely consistent with the IPCC and if we decide to include them, they should be written as if they were the consensus view and not an outlier. But I don't see how including them, especially in the lede, would help the average reader gain a better understanding of the topic of global warming. The other sentence removed is just wrong, whether it's cited or not. If you want to include wrong material in an encyclopedia is your business, but I prefer my reference materials to be accurate. -Atmoz (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Now that's a reply on the merits, for which I thank you very much. I'll digest and come back later.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I've written my reply to your comments in the this section rather than the earlier section that contains my criticisms. I've done this because my reply to your comments are, at least in my view, consistent with Atmoz's.
I agree with Atmoz's point that the IPCC reports should be the central basis for this article's content. You are critical of the Summary for Policymakers document, but any political changes to this document have to be accepted by a group of experts. I actually take the complete opposite view to you in regards to the SPM. In my opinion, it is the most important document the IPCC produces. That's the main reason why I'm critical of the changes you have made.
The idea the IPCC are a "scientific" body is laughable. The number of times we have found that what they write is written by lobby groups is astonishing, and then to assert their summary for politicians is science is pushing credibility beyond the limit. But as I suspect many editors here wrote that summary, I doubt they'd ever admit it wasn't science but greenwash. (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
More recent assessments by the US Global Change Research Program (as I have already cited) and US National Research Council [5] appear to be generally consistent with the IPCC's work.
I'm not exactly sure what the procedure is for restoring your edit. I'm still opposed, but if most other editors are satisfied with your work, then I assume you can restore it. Enescot (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, E. As I said to Atmoz, the basis of my attack on the SPM was based on my own delusional interpretation of that document and I recanted that part of my pitch. I'm working on a reply that bubbles up from the specific details as I attempted to insert them, to instead address the conceptual ideas they represent. I'll certainly look at the cites in your last comment as I prepare my response. Thanks.... PS Atmoz, I'm rolling over my work in reply to you into this same process also. Thanks for patience. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE, before I address this specifcally I'd like a consensus to form on Talk:Global_warming#Proposed_LEDE_paragraph_structure_.2F_outline
BETTS-paper-in-lede RESOLVED?
First, as an aside, for A1Fi
IPCC, the one simple model produced likely range 2.4 to 6.4 by 2100, with best estimate of 4C
Betts multiple complex ones made the likely range 3 to 7 by 2090, with best estimate of 5C
Thus Betts' high end of likely breaks the IPCC barrier. But hey - if it gets that hot what's another .6C?
So setting that aside, Atzmov and Enescot, I can live without Betts in the lede provided the two of you can live with the 2nd paragraph [this version], reserving the possibility of mentioning Betts later in some subsection.
A final detail in this thread... Atzmov, you said something about "the other sentence" you removed was just plain wrong. That's pretty ambiguous. I think you were referring to a clause about permafrost, and I think you were implying that the models in AR4 did include permafrost carbon feedback. If I misunderstand, please clarify what was wrong and why you say so, and if I understood correctly please point to your sources because that's contrary to what I'm reading over and over. Either way, thanks in advance for elaborating. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Misspelling of Instrumental

Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale, with the instrumemtal temperature record overlaid in black. Should say Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale, with the instrumental temperature record overlaid in black. This is a semi-protected page and I do not know where to suggest this change. --Ryagole (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrected :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

something for the article?

One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.


In 2003 Soon said at a US senate hearing that he had "not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any organisation that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change."

should this be added in this article, and if so, how? Kevin Baastalk 13:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say probably not. It isn't terrible relevant or important to the overall science of global warming. It would be better mentioned on an article for the specific scientist. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's probably not appropriate here (too minor, etc.). However, in addition to potentially being relevant to the scientist's bio, it might also be relevant to the climate change denial article. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Its just as irrelevant as the money Dr Jim Hansen may or may not have received from non government sources. You wanna do he said she said and look like some nasty divorce that's going to resolve nothing? Its far better to stick to science and when other people want to drag this stuff up you can ask them why they want to change the subject away from the science? What part of the science are they afraid of and are trying to hide? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Likewise no. It may be relevant to the (alleged) controversy, or the skeptics, or denial, etc., but those topics are only tangential to the topic here. Though I wonder if this might be mentioned in FAQ #16 ("Do scientists support global warming just to get more money?) as a contra-example. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting twist... I like it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

21st Century pause?

This thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article.

Resources ...

This thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article.

My daughter believed her teacher on Polar Bear's diminishing…

This thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article.

Add comparison shown in Scientific American's article The Last Great Global Warming by Lee R. Kump June 29, 2011.

Add comparison shown in Scientific American's article The Last Great Global Warming: Surprising new evidence suggests the pace of the earth's most abrupt prehistoric warm-up paled in comparison to what we face today. The episode has lessons for our future by Lee R. Kump June 29, 2011. Quotation example ...

Back then, around 56 million years ago, I would have been drenched with sweat rather than fighting off a chill. Research had indicated that in the course of a few thousand years—a mere instant in geologic time—global temperatures rose five degrees Celsius, marking a planetary fever known to scientists as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. Climate zones shifted toward the poles, on land and at sea, forcing plants and animals to migrate, adapt or die. Some of the deepest realms of the ocean became acidified and oxygen-starved, killing off many of the organisms living there. It took nearly 200,000 years for the earth’s natural buffers to bring the fever down.

References include:

Ignore -- that's my recommendation. This persistent poster has no understanding of reliable sources, nor WP:due weight, and likely not of the topic. Any evaluation of whether there might any value in linking to that article as explaining global warming needs to be done by someone who actually understands the topic. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
What topic, Climate change denial? (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the poster, but I'm aware of the research and IMO it's very important work. If it's acceptable to discuss the use of models to project forward into time, this work is all about taking one of those very models and driving it back in time, while inputting data based on a very high-resolution analysis from a v-e-r-y long PETM mud core. Why is the use of a model going forward ok, but the use of a model going backward is not?
I do agree that the supplemental cites provided were frustrating. I have "America's Climate Choices" (anyone can get a free pdf) word searches for PETM and "thermal maximum" both come up empty. Please provide page reference.
As for the Ying Cui paper, a paper in press is not verifiable under wiki's rules. But in any case, the paper is NOT in press, it was published online on June 5. See news coverage and the journal citation is Ying, Cui; Lee R. Kump, Andy J. Ridgwell, Adam J. Charles, Christopher K. Junium, Aaron F. Diefendorf, Katherine H. Freeman, Nathan M. Urban, Ian C. Harding (June 5, 2011). "Slow release of fossil carbon during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum". Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/ngeo1179.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help)
My thought is this is relevant. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Certainly not relevant to this article - this is a top-level article, a summary of many different articles. This is detail, possibly relevant to Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, if not already covered there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Adaptability/Mitigation as a function (in part) of the rate of increase in CO2 and other GH gasses is a topic that screams across a large number of journal articles and scientific reports. What's the harm of including one sentence on point with a wiki link to the PETM article? Note that traffic analysis suggests omitting this insightful work from the current GW article is a reader disservice (ie token inclusion but burial nonetheless) on a very important topic (rate of increase). After all in May 2011, this page's daily views averaged around 13k whereas the PETM page averaged less than one hundred twenty.
Let's be clear, I'm not in favor of a lengthy discussion on this article.
I PROPOSE adding "Recent research suggests that the current rate of atmospheric buildup of CO2 is far greater than the rate of buildup at the time of the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.cite-cite-cite I agree the details can go on the PETM page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
KimDabelstein, the SciAm article compares past global warming with current global warming. The two examples were a slower change than the current (rapid) global warming, so valuable here ... for example may alter projections of the so-called "Long-term effects of global warming" (after 2100) to a more near-term (mid-century). (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
That is User:KimDabelsteinPetersen. (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The subtitle appears to be the descriptor of this article: "Surprising new evidence suggests the pace of the earth's most abrupt prehistoric warm-up paled in comparison to what we face today. The episode has lessons for our future". I'm having access problems, is it not currently accessible? (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I works fine for me; it was probably only down for a little while when you tried it. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Please clarify Connelly90 to who and what do you refer? (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I was reffering to the above IP saying they can't get access to the Scientific American article. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I was able to fully access the SciAm article also. (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
From "In Brief":
Global temperature rose five degrees Celsius 56 million years ago in response to a massive injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That intense gas release was only 10 percent of the rate at which heat-trapping greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere today. The speed of today’s rise is more troubling than the absolute magnitude, because adjusting to rapid climate change is very difficult.

See Wicked problem ... (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed LEDE paragraph structure / outline

There have been several subsections addressing various complaints about the lead. Before we spend a great deal of time wordsmithing subsections, let's revisit the basic structure of the lead

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lead_section) which states the lead should have no more than four paragraphs. Global warming is a broad topic, and IMO using four paragraphs is appropriate. Here's how I would like to see them arranged (not too different than today)

  • 1. General intro and scientific consensus
  • 2. Temp increase, past and projected
  • 3. Implications of temp increases
  • 4. Humanity's options (Both adapt-mitigate-geoengineering and policy initiatives)

That's not so different than what we have now, except 3 and 4 were combined. (I later struck my own text)

Before we talk about streamlining, etc, is there some reason to structure the lede differently? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

PS.... this version has my favorite first paragraph
For a second paragraph, we need a paragraph not a single inaccurate sentence. For example, the first half of this edit was not "fluff" as suggested in the version history. The deleted text in that edit comported with AR4, by omitting the qualifiers that could result in such a low (or high) number we changed the meaning. The edited text (currently in the first paragraph) does not comport with AR4 because we left that out. Instead, a person just reading this article's lede and nothing more, could walk away with the comfy feeling that we might get by with just 1-something C doing nothing. That's not what IPCC said. A person could discover that fact for themself by following one of the IPCC related links, but that's expecting a lot.... and if you do the traffic analysis, its expecting too much. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
In addition, in response to one of Enescot's neutrality challenges above, I am going to propose adding a sentence about actual fossil fuel related emissions with respect to IPCC scenarios and this graphic on point.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's what the lede should cover:
  • 1 Definition of global warming and the scope of the article
  • 2 Background and historical context of global warming and its relationship to other articles such as "climate science" and "climate change".
  • 3 The key figures and the latest status: the current (as in last decade) & overall (as in last century) value and trend.
  • 4 A summary of the article - summarising each section in a sentence (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe the outline mentioned by NewsAndEventsGuy has the fundamental structure needed by the lede. The point about AR4 qualifiers brought up by the editor above has merit as well. -- (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry I forgot to sign my other comment you mentioned until now. Today I made some edits consistent with my remarks in this subsection.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this verges on territory that equivocates AGW and global warming. Global warming as a scientific phenomena does occur. The presence of green house gases alone does increase the temperature of the planet. However, conceding that this results in a net gain in temperature has been almost abandoned, as the consensus appears to propagate the idea that the climate simply changes, and the result of these changes are unknown, but includes the possibility of a net global gain. As I understand the science, certain aspects of climate change will result in effects like melting poles, rising sea levels, etc. However the broad assertion that the climate is irrevocably changed due to human interaction should not be a topic within this article. Global warming consists of the proven phenomena that the release of greenhouse gases causes a gross gain in temperature, and that the net gain after accumulating feedbacks (both positive and negative) is uncertain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cflare (talkcontribs) 17:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
C, as it currently stands, the physical concept of climate change in general (regardless of planet, geologic period, et cetera) is the subject of the wiki article climate change. The current episode of warming is the designated subject of the wiki article global warming. As for your understanding of the science, it is what you understand it to be, but article improvement ideas you may wish to contribute to this talk page will require verifiable citations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Include Planetary boundaries metric.

The current wp Planetary boundaries has for Control variables. (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? Planetary boundaries may be notable, but the particular "boundaries" selected (by us, apparently, rather than by the references) are not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Huh? I don't recognize the IP address, but this is the same tiresome comment we have seen before, most recently at Talk:Global warming/Archive 63. Enough, already. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC) ? (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
That is what I'd guess too ... JJ (Special:Contributions/J. Johnson)? (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
See continuing updating Planetary boundaries with two Control variable(s) (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive it as disruptive. The protagonists' posts (as opposed to the responses they got) are composed of nonsensical sentence fragments that fail to make any suggestions for improving the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I concur. The request is just as nonsensical and unsupported as when it was last made (see Archive 63). Its repetition is tiresome, amounting to WP:tendentious editing, and a disruption of this talk page. Not only should this instance be closed, I suggest that any future iterations be closed without requiring further discussion. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Serious crimes

Prof. em. Dr. Horst Malburg at the Gegenwind


Recent changes

I have reverted this edit because it makes the article substantially worse.

  • Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a collective mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F) - addition of the word "collective" is not an improvement; that's the default reading of the sentence. Makes the sentence clumsy, while adds nothing in meaning.
  • Since the industrial era began, humans have been changing the natural radiative balance with substantial implications for climate - this is covered in the following paragraph. Adding it here breaks the flow of this paragraph, while making the start of the following paragraph repetitive.
  • Molecule for molecule, the global warming potential of different greenhouse gases varies widely. - this sentence says nothing. It may be worth saying how the GW potential of these gases differ, but simply saying that they vary is just fluff. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
As the editor of the reverted text, I disagree of course. I'm not wedded to my language if you can improve it, but I feel strongly that the article should do a better job of explaining the reasons behind my edits.
Take your complaints A and B. This was a single edit in my mind when I made the changes. Prior to my edit, the first paragraph simply talked about naturally occurring GHG-es. While the meaning of this might be clear to those of us who have been keeping up on the issue, it is certainly NOT clear to newbies. After all, it can - and is - argued by climate deniers that CO2 is naturally occurring and is therefore harmless, beneficial even, and so needs no regulation. My first edit (your complaint A and B) is intended to educate newbiews what "naturally occurring" means, i.e., natural-abundance-of-natural-stuff. The prior language, which merely said "naturally occurring", is ambiguous. You and I know there is an abundance aspect to the definition, but newbies don't. A newbie could easily read it to mean "stuff we didn't brew up in the laboratory or factory" without any regard to abundance. Therefore, your revert has restored the previous ambiguity. I'd be thrilled for a better editor to make better edits to improve the article by curing that ambiguity. Relying on readers to read later paragraphs and then synthesize the meaning in their heads is insufficient, when a few extra words could explain it in B&W at first reading, even if they only read the first paragraph. QUESTION: Do you agree the original paragraph, taken all alone, is ambiguous and if so does that change your mind about my approach to curing that ambiguity? If you agree to that, but dislike my word choice, please offer your own edit suggestion.
Regarding your complaint C, it is not fluff to educate newbies that GWP varies widely and that they can read about those details on the wiki article devoted to that subject. QUESTION: Are you advocating that this already long and complex article repeat those details, or that this article not inform readers about the issue at all, or that you agree its OK to steer people to the detail article devoted to the subject but you prefer something other than what I wrote? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
GWP is critical. Methane is much worse than CO2 (i.e., livestock gases). Bryan XY (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
'Worse' is ambiguous (and not NPOV) see the graph at Climate_forcing#IPCC_usage and the table in Greenhouse_gas#Global_warming_potential. In short methane is a more potent greenhouse gas per molecule and human activity has increased it's atmospheric concentration by a greater proportion than CO2 BUT methane is found at a much lower concentration in the earth's atmosphere and methane has a shorter lifetime, such that CO2 currently causes a greater change in forcing.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding methane: see the FAQ, Question #9. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Public Opinion Polls

I moved the reference to the 2010 Gallup Poll (which asked about 'global warming') from the lede to the section on public opinion. In addition, I added a later and seemingly contradictory poll from Yale & George Mason (which asked about 'climate change), as well as a U of Mich study that shows what the public says they believe depends on which term you use. This paradox renders it impossible to succinctly cover specific poll results in the lede. Therefore, I moved the Gallup text intact, and added this other stuff.

Anyone wanna shoot me? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How about running back and forth a bit to make it more challenging?  :-)
I think the lede is rather bloated, that there has been a general non-understanding of the lede being a sort of summary of the article. To the extent it may be warranted to mention that polls show divided public opinion, it is an improvement to move the explanatory details out of the lede. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
CORRECTION... the Yale & George Mason survey asked people about "global warming" but in their executive summary and other materials they reported their results using the term "climate change". I just edited my prior text to make it consistent with the phrasing that was actually used in the questions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
One may say that the public opinion changes based on how often they hear the terms and whether they notice the term changes. At which point one might wonder what and how much the public will believe. --Cflare (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

¿quien es Scibaby?

i couldn't find anything about "scibaby" in (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to pick a Spanish name from this list. Count Iblis (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Direct temperature measurement

Here [10], User:Squiddy reverted my edit.

There is no such thing as a direct measure of temperature. If you measure temperature on a mercury-in-glass thermometer you are measuring a length which is related to the thermal expansion of a liquid. There are lots of ways of measuring temperature. If I remember correctly from my thermodynamics course, gas thermometers are the gold standard but even may differ from true temperature as understood by the zeroth law of thermodynamics.

I don't normally revert reverts prior to discussion but I have in this case.IanOfNorwich (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I'm the bloke that inserted "directly" into this sentence; deletion of that word is fine with me; but as the other editor commented, my intention was to help climate change newbies understand that we're NOT talking about proxies with this data set. But like I said I can live with deleting it. Maybe there's another place (other than the lede I mean) to educate newbies on that point. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Grr. Nor is there a global measurement – may I suggest changing
"Scientists measured the global surface temperature increase during the 20th century at about 0.74°C (1.33°F)."
to "The instrumental temperature record shows the global surface temperature increase during the 20th century as about 0.74°C (1.33°F)."
Grammatically, "as having been as about 0.74°C" might be better, perhaps rather pedantic. Also, what scientists have done is to compile the record from various sources, and use statistical methods to find a global average. Rather detailed for the lead, no?
In the first paragraph, the ghastly "ongoing rise" should be "continuing rise", have onwent and implemented that. . dave souza, talk 16:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand the positive intent NewsAndEventsGuy, but my point is ANY measure of temperature is a proxy, just some proxies (like a height of mercury) are easier to use, understand and get accurate data from than others. I agree "continuing" is better, I think "ongoing" beat "and it's projected continuation". I have also onwhent and made Mr. Souza's other suggested change with a couple of minor modifications leaving it as "The instrumental temperature record shows the average global surface temperature increase during the 20th century to have been 0.74°C (1.33°F)." which, happily, gets rid of a reference to that homogeneous group of white coated people (scientists) having done or said something.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I think I originally put in "scientists" too. Instrument temp record appears in the graphic to the side, so I thought it redundant, and to my writing style making scientists the noun of sentence #1 made the paragraph more engaging to a non engineering or non scientist audience. I can live with either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What did IPCC actually say about likely temp rise?

This issue has arisen as a result of a [series of changes to the lead second paragraph].

In the more recent version the lead 2nd paragraph falsely asserts that in AR4, the IPCC projected that temps are "likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C". That statement is supposedly supported by an IPCC summary document referenced as citation #6. This document does not say we are likely to warm between 1.1 to 6.4 °C. Instead, at page 13 that document specifies likely ranges for the six specific emissions scenarios IPCC selected for use in AR4. IPCC made no statement as to which of those scenarios is more likely than any other. Therein lies the problem. The low number in this alleged range comes from the B1 scenario, and to quote from Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, some of the characteristics of the world that produces the B1 scenario are

  • Reductions in material intensity and the introduction of clean and resource efficient technologies and
  • An emphasis on global solutions to economic, social and environmental stability.

Somewhere in the wiki help pages it says you don't have to provide a citation for the sky is blue. I think we all agree that our current world is not an example of the B1 characteristics listed above and that bringing such a world about would require vast changes in society. Because IPCC did not say it is likely that will happen, IPCC did not say temp rise is likely to be as low as 1.1C. On the other hand, IPCC also did not say that emissions are likely to remain high and produce a rise at the high end of the range.

The current text fails verification, and when someone back in time simply stuck a dash inbetween the the low end of the B1 emissions scenario (1.1 C) and the high end of the A1Fi scenario (6.4 C) they committed a WP:SYN. It's the same error in logic illustrated in this intentionally absurd example

Teacher to class, "If things go like they are at lunch we'll eat apples, but if the moon explodes before then we'll eat grapes instead".
Class - "Hooray! We love apples and we have just as much chance of getting grapes!"

I'm sure some will assert that the problem goes away because of the following sentence. That sentence is also a problem. The part about uncertainty and models' varying degrees of climate sensitivity is fine. The part about uncertainty over which emissions scenario will occur is some editors attempt to cure the prior WP:SYN. IPCC made no assertion that any scenario is more likely than any other. Forgiving the WP:SYN in the prior sentence with this text is to put an implied statement into IPCC's mouth that all the scenarios are equally likely.

I propose to take the approach in the prior version of the comparison I linked to above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I was returning, in part, to an earlier version because it was well worded accurate (mostly) and succinct. I say mostly as it has the problem to which I think you are referring - that it kind of conflates physical uncertainties (climate sensitivity) with uncertainties of choice (ie emmisions). I'd like this fixed. But the lede has to remain short and well written.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not wedded to the actual text of the earlier version, but the concepts are vital. One of those vital concepts, IMO, is the specific range for A2. It's my guess that the three top questions for new readers is "How much hotter", "how much sea level rise", and "Are policy changes really necessary". Since current policies have so far resulted in emissions at or above A2 (except during recessions) as shown in the 3rd figure, my belief is that the lead should answer "how hot" in the A2 context.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
My version had the "best estimate" for the A2 scenario and the mention of the current emissions following or exceeding A2 except during recessions. Atmoz removed this. Given the size of the lede it was probably unsustainable as was. It would make sense to loose the wider range and focus on A2, as this is more notable. But I'm determined it should be succinct and well written.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
How's [that]? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Erh? 1.1°C is the lowest likely temperature (B1), and 6.4°C is the highest likely temperature (A1F1), in the AR4 emission scenarios. How is this unclear from the SPM citation? The range is a simple routine calculation. The "I think we all agree that our current world is not an example of the B1 characteristics..." is original research. I object to your change[11], since you go from a succinct expression of the range variation in the AR4, an assessment report, to a specific statement about what the world after 2000 looks like (from a single paper). This is the lede - if you want to expand and describe the ranges and the various emission scenarios, as well as where we are heading today.... then it belongs in the body (or more likely the subarticles), where this is explained. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kim please copy and paste a verbatim quote from IPCC where they said temps are likely to rise between 1.1 to 6.4C by 2100. I believe the best you'll be able to do is a series of individual ranges for individual scenarios and you'll have to do your own WP:OR or WP:syn to produce such a quote..... if I'm wrong, please provide the verbatim text here and a pinpoint citation where you found it. Otherwise, I believe you're mistaken. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
PS, the guidelines for routine calculations that you pointed out require other editors to go along. I don't. Your synthesized range from the table leaves out critical information in the table and this creates a divergence from what IPCC actually said, for the reasons I've already explained. Since I reject your attempt at a routine calculation, I reverted your edit. Show me some verbatim text from IPCC and we can talk more.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Not everyone has to agree for there to be consensus. -Atmoz (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, but is there consensus that taking the low end of one scenario and the high end of another scenario is a routine calculation? I hope not, because it not only isn't routine, it isn't valid. I accept the complications of summarizing Table SPM.3. into a manageable sound bite, but the current wording is simply wrong.--SPhilbrickT 15:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Just in case someone wishes to argue for the current wording, which fails on two counts, I offer the following. Given n (n>1) scenarios, and a likely range for each scenario, it is mathematically impossible to construct the overall likely range in the absence of the specification of probabilities for each scenario. However, even if such probabilities exist, the overall likely range is not the range defined by the minimum and maximum values of all the ranges. As a simple example illustrating this point, imagine a situation with two dice, each corresponding to a scenario. Assume the two scenarios are equally likely. One die is an ordinary die, with 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 pips on a side, the second has two additional pips per side, so the possible values are 3,4,5,6,7,and 8. Simply by inspection, one can see that the likely range for the first scenario is [2,5] while the likely range for the second scenario is [4,7]. The overall likely range is not [2,7], but [3,6].--SPhilbrickT 16:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Its quite complex - since the scenarios are potentially equally likely. They are a function of future socio-political changes. Which is why we give the range - and shouldn't focus on a specific emission scenario (even if it currently tracks). We can all have our POV on what scenario is likely - but it really is opinion - and not science. If the wording should be changed - then it should be to something like '... a range of emission scenario's with the lowest likely change of 1.1°C and highest likely change of 6.4°C.' - or something to that effect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I quite like version posted by NewsAndEventsGuy. The 1.1-6.4 range is the min-of-one-scenario to the max-of-another, which doesn't really make sense here. We are nowhere near any of the B scenarios, especially not B1, and are not likely to reach that low level of emissions anytime in the next few decades. The citations given show that we are tracking above A2, so it's not original research. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The point behind WP:SYN is to prevent unverifiable facts getting in or ones that would require to much study to verify. If we agree that it is verifiable it should be no obstacle to inclusion, so the 1.1 to 6.4 range is in my view verifiable and eligeble for inclusion if noteworthy enough for the lede. Likewise if it is verifiable fact that the A2 scenario is closest to current trends that clearly makes A2 more notable than other scenarios again without encroaching on synthesis. I have not seen a version that, in my view, sufficiently elegantly incorporates the A2 projections rather than the broad range so the 1.1 to 6.4 version is for now preferable. Which does leave the problem which I hope all recognize that the lede currently treats as one thing uncertainty in climate sensitivity and uncertainty as to what humanity will do.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The 1.1-6.4 range of equally likely temperatures is unverifiable because it is ((((us)))) who are injecting the "equally likely" notion. IPCC - 2007 WG1 anyway - explicitly denies saying anything about likelihood whatsoever. So why are we putting those words in their mouth by synthesizing a temperature range and then saying all temps in the range are equally likely? Here is the IPCC text onpoint
"For projected climate change in the 21st century, a subset of three IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES; Nakićenović and Swart, 2000) scenario simulations have been selected from the six commonly used marker scenarios. With respect to emissions, this subset (B1, A1B and A2) consists of a ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ scenario among the marker scenarios, and this choice is solely made by the constraints of available computer resources that did not allow for the calculation of all six scenarios. This choice, therefore, does not imply a qualification of, or preference over, the six marker scenarios. In addition, it is not within the scope of the Working Group I contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) to assess the plausibility or likelihood of emission scenarios." See (bold added)
Is plausibility within the scope of the other groups? I don't know, maybe someone else will answer that.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Plausibility is determined by future policy, so not really something that can be explored in hard science. There is a possibility that it is in WGII or WGIII, and it is possibly that it is explored in the Synthesis report. But i doubt if it is determinable at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

How about this replacing x,y,p and q with the correct figures: "Climate model projections summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further x to y °C (xx to yy °F) during the 21st century for the lowest emissions scenario and p to q°C (pp to qq °F) for the highest.[6] The uncertainty in these estimates arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[7]" --IanOfNorwich (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not bad. I'm sympathetic to the desire to have crisp wording in a lede, and this is pushing the envelope on that desire, but it is better than the flawed current wording.--SPhilbrickT 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Except that I think it's important that the lede explicitly state the path we are currently on (as given by the citations already in place, and/or others), even if it's just one additional sentence in your paragraph, Ian. That would be A2, or maybe A1FI. A discussion of the warming expected in other scenarios should come later on. Along those lines, the SRES page definitely needs some more tidying up. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I like Ian's first sentence.
I agree with Parejko about including current emissions, and suggest a second sentence that says "Since 2000 emissions have generally been tracking at or above the 2nd highest emissions scenario.[A]" The citations from my earlier version (or others) and the temp range for A2 could all go in the footnote. Note that figure 3, which illustrates this point, is still in the lead.
I think Ian's last sentence should be deleted because its misleading to a lay audience and correction of that problem is too much for the lede. "Uncertainty" in the context of IPCC modelling is a technical term of art. Within the scope of that definition, Ian's sentence is fine. However, if one reads with a layman's understanding of "uncertainty", one is likely to walk away thinking IPCC knows everything there is to know about the climate system and there will be no surprises. But that's not what IPCC says. They acknowledge there are many aspects of the climate system that have not yet been quantified, with the implication that they are not in the models. Permafrost outgassing is one example. (See also at page 233). If we're going to use IPCC's technical term of art "uncertainty" we should alert readers it means something more restrictive than the common meaning, but since that's too much for the lead, this sentence should be deleted.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, which 2 scenarios is a good question. I guess A2 and B1. As A2 is most notable as discussed and B1 offers the best contrast, most clearly demonstrating the range of possibilities. The IPCC is not infallible by any means and suffers (and benefits) from consensus (as does wikipedia) however at least for the lede it is the best we have got - if we jump strait into "outgassing" in the lede whether it's methane clathrates or scibaby's sheep the lede will become a mess. That detail is for later. I would also like to see a mention of A2 being the best fit but only if the lede remains concise and readable.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Ian, my suggested tweak to your proposal results in:
"Climate model projections summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further x to y °C (xx to yy °F) during the 21st century for the lowest emissions scenario and p to q°C (pp to qq °F) for the highest.[6] Since 2000, actual emissions have generally been at or above the 2nd highest emissions scenario.[new footnote A, yet to be written] The uncertainty in these estimates arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[7]"
Does that achieve your desired degree of brevity and clarity? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
We shouldn't select which scenario is closest to now - that is unverifiable with regards to the major scientific research that is being done. You can probably find references that will pick one or another of the various scenarios and claim that to be the current track - but it varies too much, and there (afaik) isn't a consensus on it, not to mention that it is (more than) likely to change within a decade. This is certainly not something for the lede in the main GW article - that should be something summarized in the section on emis.scen. and explored in the sub-articles. Please remember that climate and emission scenarios are multi-decadal issues! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kim makes a good point. I didn't feel comfortable with the inclusion of that point, but couldn't quite put my finger on why. Kim nails it.--SPhilbrickT 19:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a major problem within this topic (and others) , that we as editors have things that we regard as plausible (and in-), and thus are prone to a selection bias with regards to individual papers that we would chose to cite. As much as possible we need to stick to the assessment reports (IPCC,ACIA,US GCRP, etc) when we're working on this article. In the sub-articles it is possible to explore and expand on current scientific research, and where it might lead. Weight is extremely important in top-level articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Just checked WP:LEDE, that says that lede content should be proportionate to coverage in the article (rather than notability directly as I was assuming). While I am in practice sympathetic to the idea that the lede should focus on statements supported by IPCC work it's important to remember that any reliable source is valid.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
True, but while every reliable source is valid, reliable sources doesn't have the same weight. Reliability is merely the threshold for being considered for inclusion. When we consider the weight, it is the significance and proportion of views that is the determining factor. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I take the point that none of the scenarios will exactly match what has happened or will happen (though one will be a best match so far). Accordingly I'm content to chose the 2 scenarios simply on the basis of showing the range of possibilities (ie lowest & highest), which still gives us A1 or A2 and B1. The important thing here is that the lede should not conflate uncertainty in climate sensitivity with uncertainty in what the course of emissions will be.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Climate sensitivity is an aspect of each model within the ensemble of models that are run at a given scenario, not in what scenario is plausible. You are conflating things (imho). As for chosing scenarios we (as editors) have no place in doing so. If the weight of the scientific literature doesn't give prominence to a particular scenario (or subset of scenarios), then we do not do so either. Otherwise we are doing rather obvious WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
One definition of editor is "A person who is in charge of and determines the final content of a text" we are deciding what text goes in are we not, hopefully with due regard to weight? I think you misunderstand me if you think I am conflating Climate sensitivity with plausibility. We do, however, in this thread seem to be disusing 2 things - 1 Should we say in the lede something about which SRES Scenario is most closely being followed - as I've said elsewhere it's not even in the article so definitively can't go in the lede. 2 - the misleading way the lede conflates the uncertainty about climate sensitivity and the uncertainty about what path emissions will follow.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
"...that is unverifiable with regards to the major scientific research that is being done..." Except that's not correct. It's very easy to check, and except for the dip in 2008-2009, we're tracking very close to A2/A1FI, and most studies of emissions reduction have stated that a high fraction of the coming decade's emissions are already in place, due to the time lag for power plant construction. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing making it imposible to quantify how closely emissions to date have tracked one or other of the emmisions scenarios - least squares for instance or the difference between the integrals of the scenarios and the real life graphs - OBVIOUSLY this would be WP:OR and I'm not suggesting that we do it only that a reliable source may have, and if so it's useable (ie scientific paper not blog). Until then the graph is in the lede and speaks for itself, I don't think it would be at all unreasonable to base statements on the graph providing they are blindingly obvious such as the "...most closely except for two global recessions" statement which was in but is (I believe) to wordy for the lede.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The trouble you are running into here, is that a single scientific paper isn't good enough. You will need to consider the total literature - and this is what the assessment reports are doing. Which is why they carry signicantly more weight than any individual paper. And another thing to consider is that it is rather irrelevant what scenario we are "currently" following - since all scenarios are dependent upon future policy. It is simply not objectively determinable by considering the now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(This is in response to Kim. I was interlining at this level when other comments appeared.)

I can point to several papers that claim its the higher A1Fi. Show me a credible source that claims we've been on a trajectory that is lower than A2 since 2000 and I'll grant your point.
Also, I expect a lot of new readers arrive here asking "Where are we now?" as a top-level question. There's a good chance new readers won't find the answer if its only buried in sub-articles, and the possibility that it could change in the future is irrelevant to their desire to know our current status, especially since current emissions status is very much an issue in policy debates.
Finally, did you notice the International Energy Agency's emissions data is based on hard data inputs regarding international fossil fuel consumption? As far as I know, they're the main provider of this sort of data to all the big bodies and panels, so I'm a bit fuzzy how much more weight it could have. Do they need to stick a meter in every point source, and then have someone else replicate that work? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Can we have the papers and a quote or two so we can see what's useable?--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you probably can point to such. But can you point me at a scientific assessment that says this? We need something a lot more prominent than individual papers (ie. carries more weight) to make sweeping statements in the lede of the main article of the topic. And once more: You are ignoring that scenarios are about the future - not about the present. Future policy changes and economic factors are the determinant factors - not what the present course is. You are confusing political aspects with scientific aspects. The AR4 was published in 2007 - 4 years is certainly not even close to determining "what course we are on". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As I noted above (though probably lost in the mass) WP:LEDE suggests inclusion in the lede depends on weight given in the article not the prominence of the source. The source must be reliable and the content should reflect the article. SRES was published in 2000. And no we can't say what course emissions will take in the future but we can say what course we are on. I'd like to see the citations NAEG mentioned. In the mean time I'm going to take the drastic step of trying to read through the article....--IanOfNorwich (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEDE is a style guide - not a policy. The basic thing to remember is that the lede should be a succinct summary of, and introduction to, the topic and article with much more care given to weight. SRES was published in 2000, yes. But it is still the basis for the AR4 which was published in 2007 - and if the AR4 didn't give extra weight to a specific scenario then it is certainly not up to us to do so. AR5 will (iirc) go a different path with regards to the approach (Boris will know the detail). Imho the "Observed CO2 vs. scenario" graph is misleading - since it focuses on to short a timeperiod to make any sense. It crosses into advocacy (but that is my opinion). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, except the graph I can't actually find the content about which emission scenario is most representative in the article (pls help the blind if I have missed it)! On that basis it can't go in the lede but should go in the article assuming NAEG comes-up with the promised citation. In truth, on the same basis I'd have a job arguing for the 2 temp ranges (or even the one range we have). I am determined, though, that the lede, ultimately shouldn't conflate uncertainty with what humans do and uncertainty with how the global climate works.-IanOfNorwich (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The graph is policy/advocacy relevant - but (imho as mentioned above) is misleading in this article. As for individual papers that focus on specific scenarios - there are a few. (mainly because model runs are expensive in time - so you try to focus on what the scientist personally thinks is most likely) It doesn't afaik represent actual content in the article. The lede has been changing quite a lot - with little to no changes in the body... and that is a problem (again imho). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Either the graph is accurate or not (seems to me it is) in which case it can't reasonably be characterised as misleading.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Misleading in 3 senses: 1. Doesn't show complete data (we have emission data that goes back further). 2. Shows to short a timeperiod to have any relevance. 3. Indicates that this is an important finding. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
(Moved from following subsection) Ian, arrive at "at or above A2" first by plotting emissions per the IPCC scenarios (the lines in the figure) and there are lots of links to IPCC's stuff throughout these pages. Secondly, you go the mother-of-global-fossil-fuel-consumption (International Energy Agency) and you look at the spreadsheet underlying the report I cited in the text. The spreadsheet link is in the figure's caption. The spreadsheet is online supporting material that is not in the report itself, so be sure to look at the spreadsheet link. The spreadsheet includes a global total for fossil-fuel related CO2 emissions. I forget what cell that info is in. It is that annual global total that makes the wavy line in the graph. Finally, for the last year of data, you have to go to a news report regarding IAE's most recent year's data. That's the newspaper cite in the figure's caption. If you put it all together, you get the chart in figure 3. OOPS! No original research. Well.... geez what a tough crowd. The sky is blue people. But hey, you can go to the skeptical science column (I think Paj had a link above), or you can go to wiki commons if that's good enough (of course I put it there), or you can find out who else has used the chart so far. I'll see if I can locate instances where someone incorporated it in the literature. Let me know if I can help further
PS For convenience the spreadsheet link is and the data for the wavy line is in the top row, tab 2. Also, isn't there a policy about user-designed graphic using data with verifiable cites? Its not my image, but seems like that policy should apply if anyone has a WP:OR tizzy.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kim, I respect your point that 10 years is a short time. Given the variability in climate, a lot of us detest instances where folks make a big deal about short term climate trends over such periods. FF emissions are a different critter. FF consumption has just kept going up for many long decades except for minor economic blips. That IAE spreadsheet has data going back to the 70s. IMO to compare the validity of short term trends for climate vs FF emissions is to compare apples and oranges. We know one goes up and down, and we've only seen the other go up. Now I'll grant that technology, policy, or disaster could bring about an overall longterm decrease in emissions. Since the odds of that appear to be quite low at the moment, I do not agree it is in any way misleading to present IAE's FF emissions numbers compared to IPCC's projections. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Well that source supports the graph. However, I think we need a text source comparing SRES scenarios to that data before we can add useful text to the article on that subject (and as noted before that info is not yet even in the body of the article so that's were it belongs - at least to begin with). Btw, the important difference between global average temperature and fossil fuel consumption is the level of noise or inter-annual variability, that's clear from looking at the emissions graph vs the global temp graph. The other question that I keep waving my arms about is that the lede is misledeing as it bundles together uncertainty arising from models with differing climate sensitivity with uncertainty about what course humanity will take. This does a diservice to the reader and can be fixed with something like this:

"Climate model projections summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.5 to 1.9 °C (2.7 to 3.4 °F) during the 21st century for the lowest emissions scenario and 3.4 to 6.1 °C (6.1 to 11.0 °F) for the highest.[6] The uncertainty in these estimates arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[7]"
AR4[12] says "This clear difference in projected mean warming highlights the importance of assessing different emission scenarios separately." The above figures are based on B1 and A1F1 which as well as being two of the three scenarios highlighted by the IPCC on the page linked above are also, as described, the highest and lowest emmisions scenarios for which the models were run.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I like that. Especially as it is now clear that there was a significant gap in the range of possibilities that we currently state - 1.1 to 6.4 °C is here replaced by 1.5 to 1.9 °C or 3.4 to 6.1 °C. It clarifies the scale of the uncertainty due to the models, compared to the uncertainty due to future human behaviour. I would suggest substituting 'their' rather than 'the' twice to read 'xxx for their lowest emissions scenario and yyy for their highest'. These are not the lowest and highest, just the lowest and highest that they considered, which counts for enough as we have no better authority, and their judgement has to count for quite a lot. --Nigelj (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I like the first sentence too, as modified by Nigelj. As discussed below, I prefer the uncertainty sentence be deleted, but don't let that continuing conversation get in the way of making this change.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I think my above link is the wrong page try [13] - that has the quote I pulled and I think a close reading clarifies the discrepancy highlighted by Nigelj, I'm open-minded on which level of uncertainty we use.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Since IPCC has other scenarios, and there are other scenarios beyond IPCC's, I think N had a good point. How about this....
"In its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used computer models to project the likely additional rise in global surface temperature by 2100 for some hypothetical future emissions scenarios. For the lowest emissions they modeled, the likely additional rise was 1.5 to 1.9 °C (2.7 to 3.4 °F), and for the highest it was 3.4 to 6.1 °C (6.1 to 11.0 °F).[6] The uncertainty in these estimates arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[7]"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I should have added earlier that I think Niglej's changes are an improvement. As for NAEG's proposal I'm not sure what the purpose of talking about "hypothetical futures" is, it may be the language used in some reports but it does not read well in my opinion.I've also heard SBHB object to saying that the IPCC use models on the basis that they are not IPCC models - a bit pedantic perhaps but would be wrong to give that false impression.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
How about this then
"In its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used computer models to project the likely additional rise in global surface temperature by 2100 for some possible emissions scenarios. For the lowest emissions they modeled, the likely additional rise was 1.5 to 1.9 °C (2.7 to 3.4 °F), and for the highest it was 3.4 to 6.1 °C (6.1 to 11.0 °F).[6] The uncertainty in these estimates arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[7]"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I still prefer:
"Climate model projections are summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.5 to 1.9 °C (2.7 to 3.4 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 3.4 to 6.1 °C (6.1 to 11.0 °F) for their highest.[6] The uncertainty in these estimates arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[7]"
It's shorter, more accurately describes the IPCC as "summarising" rather than "using" models, refers more specifically to "climate models" rather than "computer models". I like the addition of the extra full stop and have adopted it above breaking one large sentence into two at the cost of the addition of two words.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If you change "uncertainty" to "range" per the following subsection I like it and appreciate your sticking with the labor working this out. I'll continue this comment in reply to your citation to AR4 10.5 in the following subsection.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh... still need to change "differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations" to "differing climate sensitivity" per Kim's excellent observation and your citation to AR4 WG1 10.5 in the following subsection.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
climate sensitivity is by definition (at least the one the IPCC uses) climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. More precisely the temperature change once the climate system has reached equilibrium after a doubling of CO2 via 1% per year change. I think the last bit is there to help "lay readers" understand what climate sensitivity is.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I've made the change. Based, as noted above, primarily on AR4 10.5.3 [[14]] in particular "This clear difference in projected mean warming highlights the importance of assessing different emission scenarios separately."--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Awesome thanks! Incidentally, I looked at the glossary for IPCC AR4-WG1l, and find its too technical for me to have an opinion regarding the final phrase in the last sentence. Kim? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So it is OK to have an enormous discussion about exactly what the IPCC predicted, but it's not permissible to point out that they did not predict the decade of cooling following 2001. There can be no clearly evidence that this article has nothing to do with science. You waffle on ad nausea regarding how many angels are on the head of a pin, and ignore the simple fact that it isn't warming ... (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of the term uncertainty in the lede

I've broken this off from the above topic for the sake of clarity. I'll try to copy the relavant content here in a mo(and add my comments)...--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Ian's last sentence ("The uncertainty in these estimates arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.")should be deleted because its misleading to a lay audience and correction of that problem is too much for the lede. "Uncertainty" in the context of IPCC modelling is a technical term of art. Within the scope of that definition, Ian's sentence is fine. However, if one reads with a layman's understanding of "uncertainty", one is likely to walk away thinking IPCC knows everything there is to know about the climate system and there will be no surprises. But that's not what IPCC says. They acknowledge there are many aspects of the climate system that have not yet been quantified, with the implication that they are not in the models. Permafrost outgassing is one example. (See also at page 233). If we're going to use IPCC's technical term of art "uncertainty" we should alert readers it means something more restrictive than the common meaning, but since that's too much for the lead, this sentence should be deleted.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Ian, my suggested tweak to your proposal results in:
"Climate model projections summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further x to y °C (xx to yy °F) during the 21st century for the lowest emissions scenario and p to q°C (pp to qq °F) for the highest.[6] Since 2000, actual emissions have generally been at or above the 2nd highest emissions scenario.[new footnote A, yet to be written] The uncertainty in these estimates arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[7]"
Does that achieve your desired degree of brevity and clarity? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is a problem with the term uncertainty. I think the layman uses it in much the same way as the IPCC. ie the antonym of certain. The reason for the range/ranges of temperatures needs to be given, I think. I'm againt the word "generally" in your version as it is vauge. Also a citation is needed for that sentence.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for breaking this out. (A) Ok, waste "generally". (B) Citations are the citations under Figure 3.
Now about uncertainty - Let's see if I can illustrate the problem:
Mother: "We are having chicken, spuds, and I'm uncertain whether it will be corn or brocolli". From this her son unwittingly infers that the only types of vegetables that exist are corn and brocolli. Oops.
Did you read pg 233 of the Warren paper I cited?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
(A) Good. (B) I'll take a look (C) OK, but it does say "uncertainty in this estimate" like "We are having chicken or spuds in this meal".--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually on (B) can you be more specific or point me at a link to Warren if that's the badger. Google gives me JFK assasination reports!--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
sorry, we've gotten the cites for two discussions crossed. The Warren citation provides one paper's discussion (oopse, sorry Kim) of major possible climate system surprises that simply are not yet in the models. The existence of these known-but-as-yet-unquantified components to the climate system is another source of "uncertainty" as a layman would understand it. IPCC had a more nuanced restriced meaning of uncertainty.... something like, within-the-parameters-defined-by-our-assumptions-there-is-still-uncertainty. Such nuances will be lost on newbies without careful text.
The other discussion is the emissions trajectory of the last 10 years. See my reply above.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Which warren paper? There are 2 cited by the article alone by R Warren.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is a serious problem over using the word uncertainty. Even if it means uncertainty-within-the-parameters-defined-by-our-assumptions, that is what it always means. Even in the mother and son example, she only offers the boy a selection from what she has available and those are the 'parameters defined by her assumptions'. Maybe she even has asparagus in the fridge, but considers that it is not an option with this meal. The IPCC are the UN body charged with being the worldwide authority on this matter, and so they are the best authority we have as to what are the parameters of uncertainty that are best considered when discussing scenarios in brief. And we don't get any briefer than this - the lede of the top-level article. If we try to split hairs in the summary at this level, the lede will either be incomprehensible or huge, and there'll be nothing left for the body of the top-level article or for all the sub-articles. --Nigelj (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This is great! Nigelj, had I anticipated Ian's confusion about which Warren paper, I could have explained which Warren paper (the one I cited in my first reply in this thread, Ian... 2nd paragraph from the heading). And that perfectly illustrates my point about uncertainty. It's ambiguous, and our desire to not clutter up the lede is in conflict with the (strong) possibility lay people, like the son, will unwittingly infer that climate sensitivity between different models is the only reason for uncertainty. But at pg 233 of that Warren paper the author discusses the other biggie.... aspects of the climate system that are poorly quantified and not in the models. The solution is to delete the sentence about uncertainty from the lede.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry I obviously wasn't reading your comments carefully enough. I've now had a look at page 233 of Warren and yes it does talk qualitatively about 2 feedback mechanisms not included in the current models, there will be plenty of others both positive and negative in any case(I trust less significant overall than those included in the models). But I don't think this is a great problem firstly as we are talking about uncertainty in these models and secondly because you have to draw the line somewhere in what is included in any model and that includes the part of the model relating to uncertainty. That has been done by the IPCC. It does not mean that we can't point out what's not in the models in the appropriate place - ie the climate models section or sub article.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

To borrow some of your words, the precise problem is that we, being wiki editors who are at least somewhat familiar with the subject, "are talking about uncertainty in these models" but new readers (who have no idea) can not be expected to just magically know that limitation. Most lay folk just think scientists either know all (or nothing). Since we're not writing for people who already know this stuff, I'm opposed to ambiguities that require special knowledge to ensure proper understanding.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If we go with the draft text developing in the prior subsection, then how about changing "uncertainty" to "range" so the last sentence reads "The range in these estimates arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations." That's both accurate and unambiguous. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it really both accutate an unambiguous? Where exactly do you get the text that the uncertainty primarily comes from "sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations"? As opposed to carbon cycle stability, aerosol emissions, transient climate responses, albedo change speed, etc etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the answer (in my case at least is the old lede.) But it's a good point. I'll see if it's cited.....--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
[15] this old revision has the text I based it on. It does I think appear in later revisions, but here at least there is no citation. Therefore for now I would strike out that sentence. I suspect AR4 will offer a quote given a bit of reading which may support what was there or tell us what should be. I'll look when I get time. If anyone else fancies a look I suspect [16] may be a good starting point.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Good catch Kim. Somewhere along the way the end of the sentence read, or at least stuck in my mind, as "different climate sensitivity (period)."NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
OK got it. AR4 10.5 makes useful reading and my understanding after reading it supports the contention that the majority of uncertainty arises from uncertainties in the climate sensitivity but does not have a simple quotable statement to that effect. However AR4 [17] cites "Schneider von Deimling et al., 2006" which explicitly states "climate sensitivity is a main source of uncertainty in projections of future climate change." in the first para of the abstract.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm convinced AR4 10.5 supports the sentence, but of course new readers won't know that, and most won't follow the citation to read 10.5 to read for themselves. For the few who do, there's still too great a possibility lay readers will, like the son in the above example, make an unwitting inference that this is the only source of uncertainty. So although you found citations that use the term "uncertainty", let's us preserve the meaning while helping new readers by using the term "range" in the text you've evolved in the prior subsection.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
OK I've used "range", though I still have my doubts.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for compromising. What it comes down to for me is the purpose of this sentence. If the goal is to explain why there is a range of numbers for the lowest scenario instead of just a single temp, then "range" is best. If the goal is to talk about how confident we are that the result will fall within the range, that's something else and is much more complex. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Natural disasters

Can this image be included:

Natural disasters caused/aggrevated by global warming

. An estimate of the death toll per year would also be useful (death toll in 2003= 150000 people (ref= ) (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Global Warming is a big topic. While it may be notable I'm not sure it has sufficient weight for inclusion here. It would probably make a useful addition to Effects of global warming or Regional effects of global warming--IanOfNorwich (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The image itself may be a copyright violation. The user that uploaded it has been careless in the past, and the documentation on this image is suspisciously weak. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This is junk. It is not science and is not supported by facts. Abel Love (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Insufficient supporting citations for data presented on mapNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we have consensus that this image is not useable here. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Biased towards science-based presentation?

It seems this article has been mostly written and curated by men and women of science. However, in an interest to better represent multiple viewpoints, I would like to see an approach to Global Warming observed by men of faith presented as an alternative POV. I don't think a point-by-point refutation of the science is appropriate, but I would like to see the broader issues of global warming discussed in communities of faith discussed, as its validity or lack thereof is critical to several individuals dealing with faith in contemporary America and Canada. I'm not certain if the "Global warming controversy" page is appropriate, as that appears to be geared towards political discussion and debate on the manner. CurtisJasper (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are aiming at. Do you think about people predicting the apocalypse before global warming becomes a major problem? Or people who believe that some Deus ex machina will somehow safe us? I'm a bit sceptical if there are reliable sources establishing this topic - could you list some? I don't see these aspects mentioned with any prominence in the debate here in Europe. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The article is not based on POV, it is based on verifiability which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". To include the POV of these men of faith and to warrant inclusion they would need to meet the same guidelines that the people of science have achieved. The information would need to be reliably sourced and a pretty good starting point, though not an obligation, would be that the material was published or commented upon in a mainstream journal, publication or paper. It should also be noted that though the article is in English, it is does not take an American bias but a position from a global viewpoint. Cheers Khukri 08:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't cover all viewpoints but instead aims to cover topics from neutral point of view. The views of religious leaders can be covered from a neutral point of view, as just that; their views. It would be hard to establish sufficient weight for inclusion in this article given the amount of information required to cover this broad topic. It would be easier to comment if you were more specific about what you thought to include. We do, by the way, try to assume good faith.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, deleted my prior comment due to bad links. Must be pre coffee.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The idea this article is written by scientists is laughable. It is a political blog under the guise of "science" written by people who haven't the first clue that science is based on experimentation and not opinion polls. (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a scientific phenomenon. Specifically, it's about the fact that temperature readings when aggregated and averaged over the globe over all periods of the year have been rising for some decades at an accelerated rate. We have other articles covering various views on global warming. I wouldn't even be surprised if we had an article on religious views about global warming, and that would probably be a good topic for an article. Religious views, though, don't change scientific results. --TS 01:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Religion and environmentalism would be a starting point Special:Contributions/CurtisJasper ? (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I have an interest in religion and how it interacts with environmentalism/ecology and what I've seen from the "men of faith" on the subject of climate change up to this point has, for the most part, not really been grounded in any kind of provable facts and the majority of their argument has been more along the lines of simply "because the bible says so". I was even debating this subject with one of these "men of faith" a few years ago and he had claimed that he had a vision in which God appeared to him and told him that human induced global warming was a myth to test people's faith; although, I do realise these kinds of people are the exception rather than the rule. If the opinion of men of faith isn't backed up by provable facts then I fail to see how they can be included in the article unless their opinion has had a significant impact on, for example, how a government deals with climate change and implements policy. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm in touch with a few vicars and parish priests, and it seems to me that many of them are truly concerned about global warming and many other environmental issues. The same could be said of chefs, teachers, software developers, politicians, supermarket managers, social workers, surfers, musicians and other groups, in my experience. --Nigelj (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Some aggressive archiving [1]

This is a very important and well maintained article on an important subject, so my decision to curate the talk page is quite ambitious. I want to leave the editing process as free as possible, but sometimes the discussion page can become quite noisy. That's mostly because, understandably, people come to this page to put their personal opinions up for discussion. I'm also painfully aware that the talk page may become very large. Today I have archived threads with the following titles:

  • 21st Century pause?
  • Resources ...
  • My daughter believed her teacher on Polar Bear's diminishing…
  • Add comparison shown in Scientific American's article The Last Great Global Warming by Lee R. Kump June 29, 2011.
  • Proposed LEDE paragraph structure / outline
  • Include Planetary boundaries metric.
  • Serious crimes
  • Prof. em. Dr. Horst Malburg at the Gegenwind
  • WP:EGG

For the most part they were obviously unproductive threads or had been hanging around going nowhere for over two weeks. Some of the discussions had been closed (mostly by me) as too hostile for a page under general sanctions. The reason for doing this was to stop the page growing stupidly large with unproductive discussion, in the hope of stimulating more discussion by reducing the page load time.

The page is still rather large: about 90kb in size. I think it's about right, though. About 40kb has been moved to the archive page. Please do restore any productive discussions that I have incorrectly archived. --TS 04:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

TS & Souza & KIM - At least be intellectually honest and say sections you don’t agree with were achieved such that we can maintain NPOV (i.e., “bias”) of this article. Mk (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I assure you that my criteria for archiving, which are subject to review by the community, are intended solely to improve the quality of discussion on improving the article. Like all Wikipedia talk pages, this page is sometimes mistaken for a venue in which to further discussion the subject matter. Such discussions are discouraged and may be summarily closed because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum or a blog. I have also closed one or two discussions because they were acrimonious and seemed to be attempts to attack other editors.
I repeat the offer I made above: please do restore any productive discussions I may have mistakenly closed. Any editor may do so acting in good faith. Such edits do not require my approval. I'm just an editor like anybody else. --Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I can assure you that after five years of trying to remove the bias in this article that your comments are bias towards Wiki’s unwavering support of AGW. It does not take a peer review, global panel (IPCC), climate degree, grant or trip to see the “vanishing” polar bears to understand what anyone with a little common sense can deduce:
a) The planet has natural climate cycles and many have been warmer than the one we are currently experiencing. Just review long term temperature records.
b) Higher levels of CO2 are a trailing byproduct of increased temperature because a warmer planet is more conducive to life which emits C02.
c) The only man-made impact is to the many young minds that have been corrupted by the global warming movement. Mk (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
@, you really don't seem to follow WP:NPOV or have and understanding of mainstream views about this topic. Please provide sources for proposed improvements. . dave souza, talk 14:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I get it Dave ! ..and you will too as your movement continues to unravel. Mr. "J" – I surely hope you do care what your kids are being taught - especially if it’s false and baseless propaganda which impacts the way they look at the world around us. “Mainstream views”, oh Dave, how could play that “consensus” card again, just when all the self-perpetuating peer reviewed material is being questioned by rational folks with common sense. Anyway Dave, they are still handing out a few of the last grants for a studying the impact of NPOV having a long-term effect on one’s ability think rationally. Mk (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The poster complains that it is biased and non-neutral POV to remove a comment that started with "As everyone knows, there has been no significant warming this century"? That what someone's daughter was told in school is relevant to improving this article? And what can we say about such intellectually refreshing statements like "the fascists here demand sources"? (And I thought we were extreme-liberal eco-fanatics!) Such discussions are not useful, offered no particular improvements to the article, and were properly archived. (Thanks, Tony.) Anyone that thinks otherwise is free to make an argument, but it will have to be a lot more intellectually honest than what was archived to be persuasive. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Since i'm mentioned - i agree with TS' archiving (here are the reasons (for me)):
  1. See FAQ Q3
  2. See FAQ Q21
  4. Belongs in another article. (Also FAQ Q21)
  5. Discussion was over
  6. Some proposal to include a rather "limited" viewpoint. (pro- btw)./POV pushing
  9. Discussion was over.
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You missed a reason, it plays havoc trying to follow this page whilst on holidays from my phone. In all seriousness, as TS said, if there is a valid reason any editor can return a thread, but please make sure the rationale is not based on POV. Cheers Khukri 20:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is the empirical scientific evidence supporting massive positive feedbacks?

This thread is archivable per wiki rules on grounds of disruption. Talk pages are for improving the article, but in the IP commenter's own words the IP is "not suggesting any of the above goes into the article, I'm merely criticising the article..."NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional info on regional emissions

In bold text below is my suggested addition to the section on greenhouse gases:

Over the last three decades of the 20th century, GDP per capita and population growth were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions.[51] CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[52][53]:71 Emissions can be attributed to different regions. The two figures opposite show annual greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2005, including land-use change. Attribution of emissions due to land-use change is a controversial issue.[54]:93[55]:289 For example, concentrating on more recent changes in land-use (as the figures opposite do) is likely to favour those regions that have deforested earlier, e.g., Europe.

Emissions can also be measured over longer time periods. Measuring cumulative CO2 emissions gives some indication of who is responsible for the build-up in the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere (IEA, 2007, p.199) and consequently, who is historically most responsible for the impacts of global warming (Banuri et al, 1996, p105; UNEP, 2010, p12; IPCC, 2001, p67). Between the start of the industrial revolution and 2004, developing and least-developed economies, who represent 80% of the world's population, accounted for 23% of cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning (Raupach et al, 2007, discussion section).


  • Banuri, T., K. Göran-Mäler, M. Grubb, H.K. Jacobson and F. Yamin (1996) (PDF). Equity and Social Considerations. In: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (J.P. Bruce, H. Lee and E.F. Haites, (eds.)). This version: Printed by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. PDF version: IPCC website. doi:10.2277/0521568544. ISBN 978-0-521-56854-8.
  • IEA (2007). World Energy Outlook 2007 Edition- China and India Insights. International Energy Agency (IEA), Head of Communication and Information Office, 9 rue de la Fédération, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France. p. 600. ISBN 9789264027305. Retrieved 2010-05-04.
  • IPCC (2001). 3.16. In Watson, R.T. and the Core Writing Team, (eds). Question 3. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: GRID-Arendal website. Retrieved 2011-04-16.
  • Raupach, M.R. et al. (12 June 2007). Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. PNAS 104 (24): 10288–10293. doi:10.1073/pnas.0700609104. PMID 17519334. Retrieved 2011-03-30.
  • UNEP (November 2010). Technical summary (PDF). The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord pledges sufficient to limit global warming to 2 °C or 1.5 °C? A preliminary assessment (advance copy). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) website. Retrieved 2011-05-11. This publication is also available in e-book format

I see this addition as only being fair. My interpretation of "fair" is based on my reading of the UNFCCC treaty, which most countries have ratified (first bit of the treaty). Enescot (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, and note that these are not the only ways to think about GHG buildup. I wouldn't mind having this article just alert readers that international negotiations are largely driven by each party's preferred method and moving the details about different approaches to another article, such as the greenhouse gas or attribution articles, but here works for me too NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not OK with adding this. This is too specific for this article. It can perhaps go in the GHG page. But not here. Abel Love (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Not appropriate for this article. Fine for greenhouse gas. -Atmoz (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Enescot reply to comments

Why should regional annual emissions be preferred to regional cumulative emissions? In my opinion, concentrating on annual emissions, as this section of the article does, is implicitly biased in favour of rich countries. I should note that regional emissions are already mentioned in the later politics section of the article, i.e.,:

'[...] the developed world's emissions had contributed most to the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere; per-capita emissions (i.e., emissions per head of population) were still relatively low in developing countries; and the emissions of developing countries would grow to meet their development needs.[...]

In my opinion, the above info on regional emissions is perfectly acceptable since it is an objective description of a key part of UNFCCC negotiations.

One way of avoiding this problem would be to delete information on regional emissions in the greenhouse gas section of the article. Information could be added on sectoral emissions as a replacement. I think that the two diagrams on annual emissions should be deleted:

Total greenhouse gas emissions in 2005, including land-use change.

To replace these diagrams, a new figure could be added on sectoral emissions:

Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research version 3.2, fast track 2000 project

I think that info on regional emissions in the greenhouse gas section (in bold) should also be deleted: -

{i} Over the last three decades of the 20th century, gross domestic product per capita and population growth were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions.[45] CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[46][47]:71 Emissions can be attributed to different regions. The two figures opposite show annual greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2005, including land-use change. Attribution of emissions due to land-use change is a controversial issue.[48]:93[49]:289

The first part of the above paragraph {i} is already partly duplicated in the preceeding paragraph of the article, i.e.,:

Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.[44]

The issue of relating emissions to economic growth and population could then be integrated into the following paragraph of the article, i.e., :

Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research version 3.2, fast track 2000 project

[...] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.

Over the last three decades of the 20th century, increases in world population and gross domestic product per head of world population were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions scenarios, estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases, have been projected that depend upon uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments [...]

I've altered the first sentence since people may not know what "per capita" means. Enescot (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Report the debate

These approaches are all equally valid and important to international discussions on the issue. By picking one and being silent about the others is to inject a POV even if that's unintentional. The US wants to look at annual emissions; China wants to look at cumulative; others want to look at sectors on a global level. What's a poor wiki schmuck to do? ANSWER: Don't pick one over the other, but report on the contentious international debate.

Where to do that is another question. Not in Global warming, I agree. But the Greenhouse Gasarticle suffers from an identity crisis. Parts of it appear to be intended to cover greenhouse gas in general (any planet, any geologic period). Other parts drift to coverage of Earth-right-now. I'd like to see the general aspects of Greenhouse gas merged with the general article Greenhouse effect, the remaining earth-right-now information being renamed Greenhouse gas buildup, and then this information could go there. Maybe someone can offer a better idea, but the main point is: we should report fact that there are massive policy and economic implications that favor one party or another for each of these number crunching methods and that's often the core of international treaty talks. So all these charts are useful, provided the presentation is well done.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Current per capita emissions are at least comparatively straight forward apart from the land use change issue. Historic emissions intended as a fair representation of responsibility is complicated - should it be per current population, is it as bad to have emitted greenhouse gasses without knowing the problems they will cause? Just for a start. I take Enescots point that having already industrialised developed countries have already benefited from it - assuming you think all of it's consequences a benefit. Given the complexity I agree with NAEG that we can't try to fairly address it here. I think Greenhouse Gas should remain more or less as it describing what it says oin the tin - any planet. I'm in favour of taking the emissions from Greenhouse Gas and coving it, linked from here, in more detail.I would prefer to call it Greenhouse Gas Emissions rather than Greenhouse gas buildup. I'm against removing the emissions graphs from this article.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The total emmisions by region map should be changed to emission per mile i.e. emission density by region to be visually meaningful. Otherwise the color would just be an indicator of how big the country is on the map, which you can already see by looking at, well, how big the country is on the map. Kevin Baastalk 14:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Resource via Science News

Collapsed (again) per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not; This is a long list of news cites and quotes with no original thinking on the part of the IP poster. If the IP has some article specific improvement suggestion in mind, it would be useful if they spit it out instead of making everyone guess.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dr Roy Spencer paper published in Remote Sensing

I think this information should be incorporated into the article. I am including a link to the original scientific paper, as well as a secondary source.

Perhaps the article could say, "A 2011 peer reviewed scientific paper showed that real world measurements of heat trappage by carbon dioxide was less than what had been predicted by computer models." (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

-- (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Roy Spencer blows gaping hole in foot again, claims promoted by a senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute. Both have quite the track record on climate change. . . dave souza, talk 18:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
This particular scientific paper was peer reviewed. It meets the criteria for inclusion in the article. There is no need to wage personal attacks on the author of the study - we should stick to the study itself. (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
At the moment I write this the link to the supposed peer reviewed paper is dead, so at the moment there's nothing there to incorporate. The Forbes piece, on the other hand, was an editorial written by someone at the Heartland Institute, the same folks that Big Tobacco used to attack the scientific finding that smoking causes cancer. Your were a bit vague how you think that information should be incorporated in the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the link isn't dead, and has just been overwhelmed by internet traffic. I do agree with you that if we can't access it, we shouldn't use it. Perhaps someone else with more knowledge of these things can find a more reliable link. (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's great - thanks for posting it! (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Premature, no impact and comes from known fringe sources. . . dave souza, talk 18:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
"no impact"? Have you read the article? -- (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

NASA "fringe" source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

NASA is not the source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The data is from NASA. That would make NASA the source.-- (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this anonymous poster didn't think Question 21 of the FAQ ("this really interesting recent peer reviewed paper") didn't apply because it addresses real scientific papers, and the source here, the Heartland Institute, isn't really scientific. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
See Merchants of Doubt (and Requiem for a Species) regarding trackrecord (Climate change denial, Media coverage of climate change, Global warming controversy). (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
J, unless you can demonstrate that author Dr Spencer was somehow directed, coerced, paid, or whatever by Heartland Inst, then at best (worst?) we can say that Heartland was the source for the James Taylor editorial in Forbes that was later echoed across the blogosphere. As for the data, that appears to be NASA data, and as for the source of the article in question, that appears to be Dr Roy Spencer and William "Danny" Blaswell both of U of Alabama-Huntsville. I don't know what Dr Blaswell's specialty is. All that to one side, I agree that any consideration of including this is premature. For one thing, interested editors should have a chance to read it on the open-access journal's website so we know we're reading a version that has not been altered in any way. At present the journal appears to be offline.
If the journal were online right now, I would still say that this thread is a prohibited forum debate because it lacks specific suggestions for improving the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Does William "Danny" Blaswell work with Roy Spencer (scientist) and John Christy of University of Alabama in Huntsville? Christy is on Talk:Richard A. Muller. (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
This is peer reviewed research sponsored by the Department of Energy. At least a sentence should be devoted to this key finding. Jhon Sanders (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Another paper by creationist Roy Spencer. What's next, a journal article about Jesus riding dinosaurs? Hey, guess who had a webpage on the Heartland Institute website? Yep, Roy Spencer. Spencer opposes environmentalism and anthropogenic global warming because it smells like "paganism". He also wants to undo the ban on DDT, and he argues that adopting "the policy preferences of environmentalists...can even be contrary to the church's stated mission. The church has not been told the truth about the negative, unintended consequences that will result from the global warming policies they now endorse."[18] His basic premise? Do nothing and let God sort it out. Spencer has quite an audience in the U.S. where only 32 per cent of adults believe in Darwinian evolution. It is 2011, and yet the majority of Americans have the intellectual mindset of someone from the 17th century. This isn't science fiction folks. Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── May I remind editors to step away from casting judgement on the author and comment on the 'paper' itself, and discuss if it warrants inclusion from Wikipedia's guidelines and not whether you agree or not with their beliefs. Whether he is a creationist, a flat earther, a Mooney or likes painting his arse blue at the weekends is irrelevant. The same should be said for the Heartland institute, it is not our job (though it is common knowledge), to exclude information because they received money from oil companies or have had links with denialism in the past. This is not a court of law where we remove information saying X isn't a reliable witness, we look at the information itself and don't disparage the author, if it is a salient feature then we let other sources do that. Firstly we verify does the source meet the guidelines on reliably sourced, i.e. in this case was it peer reviewed and published in a location that is acceptable to Wikipedia. As JJ stated above look at the FAQ not every paper should be included as per WP:WEIGHT. The last criteria is notability, has the paper received attention in the mainstream press which might warrant it's inclusion, but my personal belief would be it needs to be pretty much in most of the broadsheets for this to apply. Cheers Khukri 07:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is that Spencer believes a priori that environmentalism/climate change/global warming etc. is bogus. He will not accept contradictory evidence challenging his beliefs. That's neither skeptical nor scientific. Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
And unfortunately that is not this topic of discussion, I believed we were talking about the paper presented by the IP at the top of this section. Cheers Khukri 07:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:RS. It most certainly is a topic. Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Would you care to expand on that and show me where in the policy it says we cannot include a paper because we don't like what the author stands for? Stick to the paper and it's quality. Personally if I were you I would start looking more toward academic consensus and the source itself instead of the author. Cheers Khukri 07:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
RS is a guideline about how to identify reliable sources. We never "stick" only to a publication; we always evaluate a source based on multiple criteria, including the author, publisher, type of paper, etc. Surely you've read RS and are familiar with it by now? Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Now you are getting insulting, I've tried to point you in the right direction and you still haven't shown where it states that we exclude information because your views differ to the authors, stick to the paper and leave out the attacks. Khukri 08:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing insulting about observing that you are not familiar with our RS guideline. Could I ask you to please read it in its entirety before composing another reply? Thanks. Viriditas (talk)
<edit conflict>Taking an adversarial approach may work with some editors but not me, all I have done is just asked you to calm down the rhetoric and stick to the subject at hand, the paper that was presented. You many not believe you are insulting, but casting aspersion on my knowledge is an insult, casting aspersions on the beliefs of 2/3rds of Americans is an insult. These are personal attacks based on your values, your POV and your personal distaste for the author, americans, creationism which has little to do with whether the paper qualifies or not for inclusion. I couldn't make it any clearer grounds for inclusion or non inclusion, just simply put, let me ask not to see posts of the This isn't science fiction folks type again please. Cheers Khukri 08:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The RS guideline, which you don't appear to have read or acknowledged that you have read, is at odds with your opinion. Observing that a 2009 Pew poll indicates that a majority of Americans do not believe in evolution is a fact, not an insult, although many might be horrified at this ghastly state of affairs. Lastly, I am an American, and I have the luxury (because I was born here) of being free to criticize, more important for me to do so as an American because the majority of climate denial originates in the United States. It's also important to note the inability of Americans to understand basic scientific concepts and their increasing difficulty in participating in society as informed, knowledgeable citizens who are able to make good decisions and elect capable representatives who also understand the science. None of these things are considered personal attacks. You say that these facts are based on values and POV, but they exist independently of both. It may be possible that one can be a creationist and a good scientist, however the author in question has published his beliefs on the matter, indicating a priori that he will not accept the scientific evidence—see Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor (2010)—and is more concerned with manufacturing doubt on behalf of special interest groups like the Heartland Institute to support his religious beliefs. And if you have any doubts, his book is published by Encounter Books, a conservative publisher that appears to be strangely obsessed with religion and denying climate change.[19] It is a real cornucopia of wild, wacky stuff, with the positing of the discredited abiogenic petroleum origin theory on p. 156, his belief that overfishing leads to the replenishment of ocean fish on p. 157, and the claim on p. 85 that AGW is based on faith not science and that there is no scientific consensus on AGW according to...wait for it...the Heartland Institute! That's only three pages, mind you. There's a glaring problem with facts on every page of the book. As if that wasn't enough, Spencer has claimed his entire approach to looking at nature is informed by a "biblical basis".[20] This is a red flag per the RS guideline. When evaluating a source for reliability we ask three primary questions about the reliability of the article, the author, and the publisher: 1) is the article reliable? Is it a secondary source or a primary? Is it peer-reviewed? Is it an isolated study? Is it cited in the literature? 2) Is the author reliable? Does he hold an authoritative, significant viewpoint? 3) Is the publisher reliable? Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── See FAQ at the top of this page, Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...? . . dave souza, talk 08:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And as an apropos example why we are careful not include individual brand-new papers, take a look at the history of the UAH satellite temperature dataset, by John Christy and Spencer, and how it has been corrected multiple times, from "there is no warming" to "good agreement with ground-based temperature records" (which show significant warming). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

An imperfect data set? Where have we heard that story before? "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" "It's botch after botch after botch." "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." "I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." Yes, the Harry read me file, the tale of one anonymous programmer's heroic struggle with what sounds like the most frustrating dataset on the planet. Kauffner (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth I'm very much inclined to treat Roy Spencers work with caution as there seem to have been errors in it before (his article declined by Nature, the many errors in early versions of the UAH data set and you should see his excel speadsheet climate model that used to be on his website). However, I'd rather discuss the data / interpretations than the man. Same as we should stick to content rather than comments about editors. My time is limited but I've had a brief look at the paper. The conclusion seems to be refuting the methods used e.g. in "A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade, A. E. Dessler". They suggest that the ENSO is largely radiatively forced (rather than primarily the result of heat transfer between air and ocean) and that as such a comparison of atmsf. temp anomalies and radiative anomolies at the top of the atmosphere can't be reliably used to establish cloud feedback because the radiative anomoly is partly due to the forcing. I haven't got to an understanding of why they believe this to be the case, yet. I would have thought that this would lead to an overestimate of (negative) feedback (lambda) rather than the underestimate they suggest. I haven't got very far yet with the section on time lagged comparisons but the Y-axis of figure 2b seems to be mislabeled and should be watts per square meter not watts per square meter per kelvin. If anyone else wants to pick this up and try to tease out detail I'd be interested but we certainly can't add to the article without an understanding of the sources we use.....--IanOfNorwich (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
A couple of possible unreliable pointers which may help with following the paper. The journal seems to be only two years old, and only tangentially related to climate modelling. . dave souza, talk 12:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Discussions of Dr Spencers past reliability are relevant in the context of establishing the weight to give this new paper. This is not an appropriate place to talk about the content in that paper. There are probably threads at RealClimate, SkepticalScience etc for objectively talking about the facts, methods, and interpretation in the paper. IMO, Dr Spencer's past track record merits caution, and this particular paper needs time to mature before it acquires sufficient wiki-weight to overcome his past unreliability. Also on weight, (A) Author must pay to be published in Remote Sensing. Does that make it self published? I don't know. What are the peer review policies for that journal? (B) Spencer's paper attacked computer models while remaining silent about tons of observational data. An outlier that attacks the existence of the inside of the circle while admitting through silence that there is an outside to the circle has a rather large conceptual flaw. For all these reasons, this paper presently carries very little weight with me, though I am reluctantly willing to admit that I may change my mind in the future. Will the new paper be cited as supporting material in a future peer-reviewed literature review article by reliable sources, or will those who understand it better find large holes in the methodology? We should wait and see. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should your observational opinions carry more weight than Dr. Spencer? This is a long standing occurance on these pages. Research which questions or finds fault with the predescribed "truth" about global warming are attacked and marginalized from all points. Arzel (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Lonnie Thompson was awarded the US' highest honor in science. Will his observations suffice? ::“Climate Change: The Evidence and Our Options". I'm not bashing Dr Spencer's paper out of hand, I'm just saying it hasn't acquired the weight necessary for inclusion here..... yet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
A long standing occurrence on these pages is that a press release announces an amazing new paper that overturns the current paradigm (in any direction, could be better or worse than AR4 indicates), well meaning editors such as me suggest it's worth considering, and we're told to wait and see. A first reading by the reasonably well informed Gavin Schmidt suggests that this paper isn't as dramatic as The Heartland Institute blogger says, indeed:
"there are multiple issues here. First off the Forbes article does not represent the paper well at all - S&B only conclude that short term variations are not useful for constraining sensitivity, not that the models have the wrong sensitivity (though this is was Spencer wants to think). But the analysis in S&B is very poor - there are no error bars shown, they appear to be calculating regressions on smoothed data (without taking into account the decrease in degrees of freedom), they use 100 years of data for the models, while using only 10 years of data for observations (with big differences in the noise level), and the 'simple model' used is the same as the one excoriated by Barry Bickmore in a serious of posts. I predict that any re-do of this calculation will not support S&B's conclusions. - gavin][21]
Of course this may all be a conspiracy by Big Science to hide The Truth that Spencer and The Heartland Institute have Revealed, but best to wait for more informed analysis. . dave souza, talk 17:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
For a moment I thought you were talking about the Mann hockey stick paper, how silly of me. Arzel (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
This Wikipedia:The Truth? (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
(reply to earlier non-indented comment above)
My understanding is that it is common practice for legitimate academic journals to charge submission fees. Often, these fees are paid for by the author's university rather than the author. A submission fee doesn't imply that the paper is self-published. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Almost of my publications are in journals that require subscriptions or fees to purchase the article, but they are mostly in INFORMS journals. The only ones that havn't are WSC proceedings papers. A submission fee, in my experience, implies a higher likelyhood of a high quaility journal. Arzel (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The classical model for science publishing is "reader pays", i.e. it relies on the subscription price for the journal (or, more recently, fees for access to individual articles). New open access journals instead charge a fee to the author. Open access journals are a mixed bag - the best ones are quite good (e.g. the Public Library of Science journals), but in the land grab part for the new market a lot of very questionable journals were created as well. Decent open access journals have a proper peer review process, and papers in them are certainly not self-published. I don't know what quails have to do with submission fees, but I've never been charged fees for the submission of a manuscript. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm the guy who asked the question, and my wife (a publishing scientist) says Amatulic is correct and fact there was a fee to publish Dr Spencer's does not all by itself lessen the paper's merit. Or if you accept Arzel's claim - which I don't - fact there was a fee doesn't increase it either. So this is a moot issue and I'm sorry I brought it up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
A side comment re "self-published": I believe the criterion is not whether the author has contributed to the cost of publication, but whether the publication is subject to an editorial process. The nature and quality of the latter bear on the question of reliability, as discussed above. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking all parties to take a step back and remember that this topic, and this article in particular, are subject to some pretty stiff general sanctions. Please read, or read again, the description of the sanctions. Henceforth ensure that all of your comments and edits here and elsewhere conform to the spirit and the letter of the sanctions. --TS 23:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

National Post, Investor's Business Daily and Grist have all mentioned Spencer's paper. I'm not sure if any of these sources is considered reliable for wikipedia articles, but I thought I'd post the links just in case. (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And here is one blogger's collection of some preliminary responses from various climate scientists.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom did not accept my FoF in the CC case, which can now be literally quoted from the sources given by NewsAndEventsGuy and the IP:

This case is an excellent example of how the right-wing climate disinformation media machine works. Roy Spencer, one of the handful of publishing climate scientist ideologues, gets his work into an obscure journal. Then James Taylor, an operative for a fossil fuel front group, claims it is "very important" on, a media website owned by a Republican billionaire. The Forbes blog post was redistributed by Yahoo! News, giving the headline "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" a further veneer of respectability, even though the full post is laughably hyperbolic, using "alarmist" or "alarmism" 15 times in nine paragraphs.

Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The University of Alabama has issued this press release concerning the study. I don't know if this would count as a primary source or a secondary source, but it could be cited in article. (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you followed the discussion above? In particular NewsAndEventsGuy's link - preliminary responses from various climate scientists. The paper is the primary source, it is published in a 2 year old journal not directly related to climate science. Roy Spencer's new paper disagrees with results published in the most august journals of science. That alone would be enough for many on wikipedia to dismiss it out of hand however for me that is not quite sufficient. On such a contentious issue it seems worth bothering to find out why Spencer and Braswell reach a different conclusion to others. NEAG's and dave sousa's links above help and at least the comparison with climate models seems invalid (why results for only 8 models when other agree better with the results and why not compare 10 year periods with 10 year periods?). The press releases articles stemming from it are quite ridiculous. Personally I'm just getting to an understanding of what the paper claims, it's probably giving far to much focus to it but I'd rather be certain I'm not blinkered....btw, is it WP:OR to carefully read and try to in the light of other information understand a source?--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not OR at all; it is an essential part of evaluating a source for reliability. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a key NASA finding. It really calls in to question the "settled" science. Hide the decline? Shadow Shine (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not a NASA finding, it's a muddled paper by someone with a long track record of errors. . dave souza, talk 14:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Shadow Shine's only contributions to Wikipedia are the above comment and to create a default user page. His name is even very similar to User:Windowshiner who likewise has only made two almost identical edits. I assume both to be scibaby.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Also User:Shadowback, User:Shadowimages, and User:Walk in the Shadows, so Scibaby may have exhausted all the possible usernames you can form with "shadow". Count Iblis (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting to compare the response to the Spencer paper which is 11 years of total globe coverage with this [22] paper which was similarly based on radiation measurements from the earth by satellite but this time three months of data from one part of the Pacific. The second was proclaimed as "unequivocal proof", the first is being dismissed. But this is only the first of a stack of papers coming out: CERN, Harde, Salby, and a couple others I forget the names. (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Spencer's paper is being dismissed not because it lacks data, but because Spencer has a certain lack of credibility in processing his data. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Spencer creates the UAH satellite temperature record, which everyone uses. And no one has ever had to correct an IPCC report, have they? Kauffner (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting, since this NASA study differs from the previous NASA study by Hansen. James Hansen has advanced an alternative view of global warming wherein he argues the 0.74±0.18°C rise in average global temperatures over the last 100 years has been driven mainly by greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide (such as methane).Shadow Shine (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
First, the Spencer paper is not a NASA study. Spencer abuses some raw NASA data, but that no more makes it a NASA study than me using some of the same words as the Bible making this statement a commandement from God. And secondly, no, Hansen has not advanced that view, although his paper has been widely mischaracterised. What Hansen has pointed out is that a significant amount of warming is caused by anthropogenic effects other than CO2 (mainly other Greenhouse gases and black soot), and that in the short term, the net contribution of burning fossil fuels has been somewhat masked by the sulphate emissions also connected with it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting to compare the Spencer paper with the one mentions. The Spencer paper is looking at the time lag between temperature anomolies and radiative flux anomolies. That is the degree to which increases in energy loss at the top of the atmosphere lags increases in temperature. He considered 11 years of satellite data against 100 years of model output. In both cases he looked at the lead/lag for 18 months before and after. The problem with that, as demonstrated here, is that how well the model data matches the measurements depends on the period chosen - it varies significantly depending which 11 year period of model output you choose. The different shapes are due to how heat is being lost from/gained by the atmosphere and upper oceans - by conduction to/from deep oceans or radiation to/from space. Because different effects will drive the temperature changes in different 11 year periods (solar variation and ENSO both vary on this kind of time scale) you would expect to see different patterns of radiatative flux vs temperature lag/lead over different 11 year periods. Which is what is seen in the models. That the average pattern over 100 years of models doesn't match one 11 year period of data is not remarkable. The study indicated by was, according to the BBC article, looking at how much light in particular wavelength band/s was getting through the atmosphere. CO2 will absorb specific 'colours' of infrared light. They were studying the change in the amount of that absorption from one time to another. In this case the super-annual variation is exactly what they wanted to know.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Other climate researchers have not been able to reproduce the results. Until that changes, further discussion is an inappropriate debate about the issue rather than a friendly dialogue about improving the article. I vote for deletion or archiving of this thread.

I don't see that as necessary. Some contributors (or would be contributors) seem to think that this page is 'run by' editors who want to suppress the 'truth'. I don't think that is the case but (unless we want to encourage such editors to act anti-socialy) we have to ensure we do not act as if we are trying to suppress any line of discussion. I know that we are not here for a general discussion of the topic, however, we do need to reach a consensus on the reliability of sources. Which involves considering what the sources are saying. While differences of opinion remain we should continue to discuss open-mindedly. I'm willing to WP:AGF on the part of the IP contributor and while I don't think the comparison he made is valid for the reasons I outline above, the comparison he made was rational and deserved a response.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
But that's just it... "reach(ing) a consensus on the reliability of sources [ ] involves considering what the sources are saying." Other climatologists only know part of what Spencer is saying, and they can't duplicate those results because what Spencer said about methodology was too muddled. If other climatologists don't know what Dr Spencer claims to be saying, no amount of discussion on this Talk page will figure it out. In such a context, there is only one possible conversation here: lobbing personal opinion back and forth. Such a conversation is not about improving the article.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
You need to view it from a neutral point. To the IP contributor, I assume, his prior understanding is that the "other climatologists" are as you view Spencer to be. Yes, there are more "other climatologists" but if we start that game we're back to listing people rather than looking at the facts. It is, I believe, harder to understand what Spencer is saying because there are problems with what he says but to conclude that without looking at what he says is dangerous. With the help of the links you and dave souza listed, I think I do have a reasonable understanding of what Spencer is trying to say. Where there are flaws in my understanding, which would lead to a different version of the article, hopefully other contributors will set me right. We should be trying to gain a shared understanding of the sources rather than "lobbing personal opinion back and forth". There are times when an editor may demonstrate they have no interest in reaching such a shared understanding (eg scibaby) but otherwise I will assume good faith.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Ian, if you have to work to fill in gaps in what you think is being said, isn't that original research?
I did read the paper. Usually, even if I lack scientific expertise to follow something I can understand what's said well enough to look stuff up and follow along in detail. I couldn't do that with this paper, so I tend to believe the folks at RealClimate who say they require clarification of his methodology before they can attempt to duplicate results.
If anyone here has sufficient technical expertise to be certain they've spotted the ambiguities and know the right interpretation, even though the RealClimate editor claims he can not, then I suggest that person write a freelance article for profit at Discover or Scientific American, but beware of the lemon juice factor.
In my opinion, this paper requires further discussion in the peer reviewed literature before it merits further discussion. WP:Fringe_theories#Peer_reviewed_sources NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
No, trying to understand a source however opaque should not be considered original research. Yes, the paper is hard to follow but so are some with valid results. My understanding of the realclimate article (which I've now read thrice) is that they can reproduce S & B's results but using the same method on other climate models shows a much better match between measured and model data and a 'better' method (ie looking at the spread of 10 year periods individually) some 10 year model periods of some models look very much like the 10/11 years of real world data. Figure (a) in the realclimate piece is essentially a replication of S & B's central 'result' their figure 3(a). I don't claim certainty on anything and in this case I don't happen to be disagreeing with anything in the realclimate piece (though I do have a few questions about it). I do assert my right to discus the meaning and reliability of sources with other editors.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a valid NASA study, with key conclusions reported in a peer reviewed journal. This should be afforded some mention in this article. (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
And your source for this statement is where? I think this has been addressed multiple times above and that this report just uses NASA data and isn't a NASA study. Khukri 07:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, is most likely User:Scibaby again - reverse DNS lookup on the IP shows it's a charter communications customer as are many of the IP ranges he uses, see Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Scibaby. This is the kind of nonsense with clearly no interest in reaching any kind of understanding that I would delete rather than engage with.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we have already covered that it is not "a NASA paper", that any single paper is quite unlikely to upset the receveived opinion, that Spencer is not entirely credible because of his past errors, that Forbes is not a scientific journal, etc., etc. Is there any point here that really needs discussion? I think we have consensus that the Spencer paper does not warrant special mention, so is it time to be done with this? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Californian views on GW

New content has been added about a public opinion survey in California. I don't have any problem with the veracity of it but I'm not sure that given the length of the article content on just California makes sense. We have, in the past, excluded discussions of some regional effects of GW due to the length of article that would be created if all area's were discussed with equal weight so the same (at least) should apply to public opion surveys.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I nearly reverted it as a pointless, undiscussed edit by an anonymous user. Another "look at at what I found" edit by someone who hasn't comprehended the overall structure and balance of the article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh, it wasn't an IP poster, J, but a brand spanking new editor who is just getting up to speed. Personally I was happy they cared enough to try and hope they keep re-reading the welcome pages and how-to wiki pages as they go through their learning curve.
IMO the poster missed the main point of the survey, but I agree with the poster that something about it merits reporting. Specifically, it appears that the higher interest in CA (compared to the US at large) may be partly due to forceful leadership by respected members of both major parties. That merits reporting IMO, and if others agree the text will need appropriate editing to focus on that aspect. [23] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it would be nice to make something useful of it but still too much detail for this article, I fear. Can it go in Climate_change_policy_of_the_United_States#California?
As others think about that suggestion, note that traffic on the other article is about twenty hits per day and traffic here is around 10,000. From a sociological or political science perspective, what happens in the US when there is leadership from respected members of both parties is not a small sociological factoid, and from a climate science perspective should carry global interest. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at my edits. If you think it is better suited on the Climate_change_policy_of_the_United_States#California page, I'm happy to place it in there and remove it from this page. I'm still getting the hang of Wikipedia, so if you have suggestions on other points that should be inlcluded, I'm open to suggestions. LMK what you all think about where this should be placed. --MrsEcoGreen (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • As often happens, I'm not sure which article is best suited to using this article by Raymond S. Bradley as a source, but as NewsAndEventsGuy notes, these things have a global impact. . dave souza, talk 21:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess that the whole politics and public opinion sections would benefit from some work, and some information explaining the reason for the difference in views between the US public vs US scientists and most of the rest of the world, and a sentence could highlight the differences in California and the reasons for them. There are plenty of sources, in general, Merchants of Doubt for a start, (though personally I don't want to go through it again it somehow managed to bore and anger me at the same time) and those 2 studies into scientific opinion on climate change...--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This article will not change the minds of climate skeptics. It should focus on presenting the facts. There is a separate article on the controversy. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not meant to change the minds of anyone other than by educating readers about significant views, giving each due weight. As a parent article this includes mention of the political controversy in the Views on global warming section, that section needs improvement but of course this is a bit of a minefield. In my view there's too much on opinion polls and not enough on political efforts to cope with the science or to reject it on a commercial or ideological basis. Will have a go sometime if I can overcome my slothfulness in this warm weather ;-/ . . dave souza, talk 14:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no warm weather. Warm weather is a liberal lie. It's actually very cool today. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
We do have to be careful to avoid campaigning or POV pushing. The aim of the article shouldn't be to persuade or in that sense 'change the minds' of anybody. It should enhance the understanding that readers have of global warming (and part of that is having the information needed to decide what is happening). If the article literally doesn't change anyones mind in that they have exactly the same views, beliefs and opinions after reading it then both their reading and our editing were a waste of time. One aspect of global warming is what appears to be an attempt to manipulate public opinion in a way that I would have found hard to credit before I began looking into the topic, and as an important aspect it should be documented as best we can.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Temperature Changes - Possible changes

We've got a [citation needed] tag that's been there for ages. It is on "The most common measure of global warming is the trend in globally averaged temperature near the Earth's surface." It's one of those statements that while probably more or less true is practically impossible to find a citation for probably because it's a bit woolly. That sentence could be lost and worked into "Expressed as a linear trend, this temperature rose by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005." as "The Earth's average surface temperature, expressed as a linear trend, rose by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005." Which is a bit of a sledgehammer of a sentence if you are not into this stuff already. Any ideas?

Another thing I'd like see in the temperature changes section would be at least a mention of stratospheric temperatures (which are falling as expected (Karl et al. 2006)). Though this might be difficult without bamboozling new readers. I do think it is important because the it's a fairly intuitive effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which is recorded and not easily explained by, for example, solar variation driving tropospheric warming.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with "The most common measure of global warming is the trend in globally averaged temperature near the Earth's surface" is that it seems to suggest there are others. If I understand the following sources correctly, that is incorrect.
Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature, as one of the consequences of radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic emissions. From Glossary of IPCC AR4 WGiii
Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.
  • * *
But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming." From NASA essay "What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change"

Based on those citations, I think the sentence with the [citation needed] tag should go away.

The stratosphere point is a good point for refuting the claim that surface temp increases are just from the sun, but I don't think that is the goal of the temp change section, and if refutation of one discredited theory creeps in, why not refutations of many? See [24]NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


Thread lacks any specific suggestions for improving the article, and since article improvement is the sole purpose of this talk page, the thread is archivable as disruptive per wiki rules.


Most of the discussion on this page in the last few days has been the result of Scibaby's antics. The following were all Scibaby accounts:

  • HavBlu
  • Shadow Shine
  • Windowshiner

We need to look at the user's contribs before responding and get him checkusered if it looks a likely sock. Will at least make it harder for him.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Sockpuppetry_in_the_Climate_Change_topic_area before doing this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Duly considered. That doesn't preclude us from looking at an editors contributions and making a judgment as to whether, in the balance of probability, that user is Scibaby. If we suspect they are we should get them checkusered and note our suspicions on the talk page (perhaps we need a standard form of words - "We suspect you are Scibaby, sorry if you aren'tt we'll get back to you hope you understand" kind of thing). Once the checkuser is in we should either delete the comments or WP:AGF as appropriate. We certainly shouldn't just revert edits on the assumption that they are Scibaby and leave it at that but neither should we waste time assuming good faith with Scibaby (unless he'd like to reform, of course).--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The editor appears to have been blocked as a confirmed sock. I've removed the section he started and have not archived it. --TS 00:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
A small question: even if a section is totally pointless itself, is it not useful to be able to show that the record of past discussions is complete? Or is it adequate to rely on the page history? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope. See Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad as well as WP:DENY, but even if that did not exist, we don't need pages and pages of records of Scibaby causing problems. The only thing that would be "proved" by such a record is that Scibaby is a problem, and that is already known. Finally, there is always a record in the history. Our archives are merely for convenience. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

CERN first results on Cosmic Rays enhancing aerosol formation.

Request for revision of incorrect and misleading opening paragraph (or at least, for clarification why it should not be revised)

The opening paragraph states: "Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[4][5][A]"

It seems to me that this second sentence -- specifically, its second clause -- is at best misleading, if not simply false. What should be beyond doubt, however, is that this proposition is not supported by the sources cited in the footnote. Thus, even if this claim were true, other sources must be cited to verify it. (Please see the talk page of global warming controversy for an explanation why this statement is misleading or false.) Nowhere in the Statement of the Joint Science Academies is it indicated that no organization of standing disagrees with the IPCC assessment. I assume that this article was only cited as a source for the first clause of the sentence (that all the major academies of industrialized nations etc.), and not for the second (that no organization of standing disagrees). Oreskes' article, on the other hand, states only that "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies" (bold mine). It does NOT claim that no organization of standing disagrees with those statements. Obviously, it is one thing to claim that "no peer-reviewed articles among 1000 analysed disagreed with the IPCC statement", quite a different thing to say that no scientific organization of standing disagrees with the IPCC statement. To make the second claim, other sources are necessary. If I am wrong, please clarify why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenDen1 (talkcontribs) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

: Please add any comments to the redundant debate, already underway here Talk:Global_warming_controversy#No_Scientific_Organization_Disagrees NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Too tedious to read. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Spencer paper and FAQ-21...

Re this old discussion: It seems to be generally accepted now that Spencer's and Braswell's paper was severely flawed, and should not have been published. The editor in chief of Remote Sensing has just resigned, with an editorial that calls the paper "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted" and explicitly protests "against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements". Apparently, next week Geophysical Research Letters will also publish a formal rebuttal of the paper. This sequence of events is a good illustration of how FAQ-21 helps us to improve the article (or to keep it from deteriorating). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It is reassuring that the editorial choices we made are born-out. It's also good that debate on the validity of the source wasn't suppressed as it allowed more editors to understand the reasons for it's exclusion (which were more complicated than simply FAQ21) despite media headlines about it "blowing a hole in global warming alarmism" etc.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the headlines were in the right-wing media; specifically, Forbes and Fox News. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
And not just headlines, they play a much more sinister role in all of this. Count Iblis (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The Daily Climate . . . dave souza, talk 17:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
That ABC op-ed is a thoughtful analysis of what's going on. I wonder if there's room for coverage of it (e.g. his 'three pillars of denialist "science"' and/or the cognitive science bit about people updating their memories and resisting misinformation) over at climate change denial? Stephan Lewandowsky is a red link, but he seems quite a prominent academic in a narrow but relevant field. --Nigelj (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It's good, the topic very much needs to be covered in politics of global warming. . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Dessler's rebuttal is now available to download. It's hosted here on an unreliable site but still makes good reading [26].--IanOfNorwich (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Ewww, wash your mouth out with soap! Or at least remove that nasty link now that a reputable copy has been made available by Dessler, courtesy of RC where gavin comments. . . dave souza, talk 17:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
A useful and informative skeptical view of the paper, and even better: the bunny now features Dessler, the movie. 3mins 46 seconds of well worthwhile viewing. . dave souza, talk 17:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
So how will this be used in the article then, is this discussion relevant to the article? Khukri 18:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
It relates to what didn't go in the article and how and why we didn't put it in the article and the way that we decided not to do so.:-)--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The ABC analysis discussed above also highlights an issue inadequately covered in global warming#Views on global warming. There's a determined political and commercial misinformation campaign which has a strong influence on public opinion and on the politics of global warming, with denial of the scientific consensus being promoted to block any action to reduce the increase in greenhouse gases. The success of that campaign is evident in the US and Australia, despite recent or current record breaking weather events in both countries. Just look at Texas. . dave souza, talk 01:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Should Global Warming be the exception to the rule?

Proposed IPCC citation

Citing the IPCC publications is challenging, and has been not entirely satisfactory. I have worked out a citation format (below) that I think is much improved. If there are no objections I will convert the existing IPCC citations to this format. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007). "Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections". In Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978 0 521 88009 1.  p. 34


I assume in your example where you cite chapter, you're thinking of drilling that down to specific subsection of the chapter. If so then that looks good to me and thanks for investing that energy. One suggestion for improvement.... I like to refer to the chapter PDF instead of the online html text. If possible, I'd like to see inclusion of PDF links with PDF page numbers too. Looks good so far, thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a question of citation practice there. Yes, one can cite more specifically (deeper) than a whole chapter. But generally the reference is the whole work (e.g., Working Group I's contribution to AR4, which is available as a book), and the more specific citation (down to chapter, section, page, etc.) should be outside of that. E.g., if we were using Harv the specific citation would be something like: IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007) [referencing the work], Section 10.3.1: Time-Evolving Global Change [web link to a specific section], p. 137 [page number in the book/pdf]. . Note that the example here does not preclude a hybrid form, where each chapter gets a reference (as per the example above), and the subsection cited as here. But having individual references for parts of a work (e.g., individual chapters) is cumbersome, and somewhat dubious. (I did it above only to show multiple levels of linking.)
Links to the pdf's work only at the chapter level, and have to be downloaded to be accessed. Given that we have more finely accessible html links, and that the IPCC provides ready access to the pdf links, I think the html links are preferred in this case. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
How about this.... I'm not asking anyone to look up pdf url and page number during this reformatting process. On the other hand, several citations already contain that data. Since the cite options allow for both approaches, please preserve any existing pdf data in the last two optional fields of the cite. That way all the cites will follow the predetermined template all the way thru, and some will have two additional options for pdf tacked on the end. Since I use that pdf info when I refer back, I'd hate to see that info be deleted from any existing cites in this article. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that the templates "allow for both" urls. Yes, there is provision for multiple urls, but these are at different levels: the "convenience" url ("url" parameter) is for the work (book) as a whole; the "chapter-url" is more specific. How would you "tack on" an additional (alternate) url for the pdf? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Dopey me. I guess that option doesn't exist. Nevermind but thanks for asking. I applaud your contribution and service to standardize these cites and your format rocks.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, thanks. And sorry about catching you before you'd had coffee. :-) This format isn't perfect, but I think it gets closer. BTW, I do agree that when page numbers have been supplied they should be retained. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Have tried adding a pages bit: change it to page if only one. Without checking out the foregoing, it's easy enough to standardise on the url for the web version in the template, while allowing editors to add a link to the pdf version after the template but inside the ref tags, giving the page number such as p. 34: have added that on above. Note: the html version is at question 9 under the index but don't know how to link to it directly! Don't know if that answers the question, but it's a possible workround. . dave souza, talk 22:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Which reminds me, it's probably possible to link the page number...

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007). "Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections". In Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978 0 521 88009 1. 

Whaddya think? . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's clever, Dave. I like. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Properly speaking, the 'page/pages' parameter in the template is for where the work cited is paginated as part of a larger work, such as a paper in a collection. For indicating the specific location of a citation the page number(s) should be outside of the template. E.g.:
IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007). "Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections". In Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978 0 521 88009 1.  Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (|mode= suggested) (help) Section 10.3.1: Time-Evolving Global Change, p. 34. <==
However, there is one small problem: {{cite book}} insists on inserting a terminal period (here, just after the isbn), instead of the proper comma. Another reason I use {{citation}}. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Once this is settled, someone please add a FAQ with the result.... I'm sure I won't remember by the time AR5 arrives.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll have most of the IPCC citations reformatted by the time AR5 arrives! And then there will be a clear pattern to emulate. I have worked up samples and comments on my talk page, which eventually I will copy here. After that gets archived I will drop a "question" into the FAQ for finding it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, some additional issues for possible comment. The IPCC (as well as this article) is inconsistent in regard of order of author/editor names (inverted, or not), and initialization versus full names. I have adopt inverted names (as that is most consistent with the templates). I raise the question of whether to use full names, or initials. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
And I am leaning towards full names, as it will be easier, and less prone to error, for others to initialize a full name than to extend initials. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I trust judgment of the one willing to do this work... thanks again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have started converting; editors may be interested in examining notes 7 and 9 in the lede. For comparison see note 6 (linked to a named ref elsewhere). I find that I also have to convert 'cite web' to 'cite book' in order to have the 'author-link' parameter work. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
And just as I had most of the IPCC citations converted I realized I had not properly formatted the ISBNs. (No one told me! It's you all's fault!) At any rate, see the links above for latest, greatest, most perfecyt version. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


Done!! And you all are welcome to view and comment. Some points to note:

  • While I have corrected and augmented in a few cases, I did not attempt to fix everything. In quite a few cases a page number or section (including link) is needed.
  • In several cases I replaced a named ref and {{rp}} with separate refs so that the page number could be incorprated in the citation, and linked with the pdf.
  • I am finding I prefer having the specific citation preceeding the reference (e.g.: Section 10.1 in IPCC ....) rather than trailing. I have left instances of the latter for comparison.
  • Other (non-IPCC) citations need attention. Some are real slip-shod.

Various lessons learned:

  • Copying in the canonical reference:
    • is a lot easier than typing it manually,
    • eliminates having to find and verify all the details oneself,
    • makes for greater consistency and accuracy.
  • After removing inconsistencies and citation specifics (such as section or page numbers), I find that the number of distinct, unique references (what the citations point to) is reduced. However, file size and editing effort remain high because the reference (the report) is fully contained within each citation. Use of {{Harv}} templates would reduce both size and effort; I consider this a strong argument for using Harv.
  • 'Named refs' are UGLY. And hard to find. {{Rp}} is even uglier. Another strong argument for using Harv.
- J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


I voted (once!) in a global-warming-related discussion/survey a little over a year ago (as I recall) and a lunatic began making wild accusations about my identity, my "other accounts", and my agenda. Very nice. Not only don't I want to change anything in this article, I'm reluctant to comment. But I feel compelled. Am I the only one who thinks that this article conflates "the climate is changing" with "why the climate is changing"? TreacherousWays (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right in that if covers both aspects, but I'm not clear why that's a problem. Taking the first other article that I though about, Plate tectonics, it describes what it is and how it works, - I wouldn't expect it to do anything else. Why do you think that the two aspects of the subject should be separate? Mikenorton (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I see it less like Plate tectonics and more like Abraham Lincoln. He was a President, he served during the American Civil War, he abolished slavery, and he was assassinated. There's a lot of ground to cover, there, and wikilinking multiple articles serves better than trying to document the topics individually. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, with so many editors we run the risk of producing articles with slightly (or radically) different "takes" on a subject. I submit that by narrowing the focus of articles we produce a more uniform encyclopedia. TreacherousWays (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The narrow focus you're suggesting is covered by Temperature record, this article is an overview covering all the aspects in WP:SUMMARY style, with links to main articles on the more specific topics. The aim isn't simple uniformity, it's to provide ways into information for those interested. By the way, the article doesn't say why global warming is occurring, it says what the scientific understanding is of how it's occurring, and the impacts that the warming has. Science examines how phenomena work, not their purpose: see teleology. . . dave souza, talk 22:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I think a stronger focused discussion will result if you choose to take whatever you are implying and instead present a clear proposal using [one of these templates] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Please use the talk page templates rather than getting involved in templating the article with this rather unclear proposal, also note that this is a Wikipedia:General overview article. . . dave souza, talk 04:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I implied nothing. I proposed nothing. I asked whether I was the only one that thought this article conflates "the climate is changing" with "why the climate is changing", and then clarified my question and my rationale. When reading this article, I felt that it was a little long and a little unfocused. I have no position on the individual statements or arguments - I just didn't find it particularly easy to read or follow. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
As a side note, my philosophy has always been that a bright 11-year-old should be able to read and follow what I have written. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the "bright 11-year-old" standard for Wikipedia. The answer to your question seems to be "nobody else has chimed in so far". I agree the article has gotten "lumpy" in places, due to too many hasty edits. I hope you'll help improve it, and I'm sorry about your earlier experience. Controversial topics sometimes bring out the worst in us. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

First sentence of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines states that this talk pages is for purpose of discussing "changes to its associated article or project page". Since the original poster, in their own words states "I proposed nothing", this thread does not comport with the talk page guidelines. Anybody care to re-collapse or do I just have a kooky view of reality? (PS... those are not mutually exclusive....)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
After reading the article, I posed a specific question regarding its general form. If a consensus opinion emerged, then I might feel that it was appropriate to suggest specific changes. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thinking about it, my question is broad because any proposed changes would be broad, extend across articles, and involve an almost unprecedented level of consensus. Any proposal I might make would sound premature, arrogant, and unilateral unless there is some consensus among editors that the general flow of the article is somewhat turbulent. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain your problem better? At first I thought you were saying that causes of global warming was treated together with extent and/or measuring global warming in a confusing way. But that doesn't seem to be the case. They are treated in separate sections. Hans Adler 17:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Borrowing your words, sounds like you might propose something if "there is some consensus among editors that the general flow of the article is somewhat turbulent". So to answer that question, the basic structure of the article and its place in the grand scheme of climate articles seems as good as can be expected to me, and like Hans I don't see the problem you want to fix. I'll be glad to think about a clear proposal if you make one, without accusing you of prematurity or arrogance. Be bold, go for it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I can try. For me the article is a little hard to follow. I am of the opinion that this is because the article explores the effects of global warming and the causes of global warming in one article. I suspect that the difficulty of maintaining consensus has lead to an uneven style and the inclusion of verifiable but somewhat peripheral information. This statement: " ... For example, the uncertainty in IPCC's 2007 projections is caused by (1) the use of multiple models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations, (2) the use of differing estimates of humanities' future greenhouse gas emissions, (3) any additional emissions from climate feedbacks that were not included in the models IPCC used to prepare its report, i.e., greenhouse gas releases from permafrost ... " precedes this statement, " ... The physical realism of models is tested by examining their ability to simulate current or past climates ... " The second statement is neat, uncontroversial, and easy to read. The first statement belongs in a more rigorous article, no? I am not proposing chages to either statement. I am merely asking whether any other editors agree that the article is a little awkward, and suggesting one possible cause. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

On any other article, I might use the preferred Bold, Revert, Discuss model. Past experience and observation have taught be that Good Faith is in short supply in these spaces, and there's always one hombre trying to figure out just who's fastest. I prefer to belly up to the bar and act peaceable. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There may well be a case for structural changes to the article, though for me the cause and effect can't be easily (and shouldn't be) separated. To take Abraham Lincon as an example the article will have a section about his early life, parents, formative influences as well as what he did - ie cause and effect. The same should remain true of the Global Warming article even more so because it differs in that (unlike Lincon) it's an ongoing event and how those causes and effects play out in the long run is yet to be seen. I don't think this article is amenable to grand improvements (though I remain open to specific ideas) but there are plenty of lumps to smooth over. The sentence you highlight, in my opinion, is one such 'lump'. I'd suggest concentrating on small specifics such as that. More of a Zen Garden than a grand design. Oh, but a bit more emphasis on the effects would be good from my point of view because I'm as vague as the article on exactly what the effects will be. There's always plenty of good faith for the peaceable.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Treach, you pointed to text you don't like. OK, that's a start. (A) I don't know what big picture "observation" you're trying to illustrate with that text; (B) to move it you should propose a split for us to discuss; and (C) if that text is hard for you to understand in this article it will be hard to understand in some other article. So I don't know where you'd move it or how moving it would improve the encyclopedia -- especially since uncertainty in the climate models is one of the BIGGEST topics of debate in this subject area. In sum, and being as polite as I can be, so far I've heard you say you don't like stuff. That's fair enough, but anyone can complain. I still haven't heard any ideas for improving the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I sympathize with the concern raised by Treacherous Ways. This is a controversial subject. So is evolution, but that article simply describes the topic, and summarizes the various mechanisms, most of which have their own detailed articles. You'll find nothing in there about controversy or religious based misunderstandings either. Such things don't belong in this article either. I wouldn't object if this article were reorganized into a summary of topics each having their own detailed articles, including effects, causes, political ramifcations, and so forth. It would be a monumental reorganization task, best carried out on a series of draft sub-pages, probably. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (A) I don't see where this article is troubled with religious based misunderstandings, (B) I don't know how your idea differs from present reality since there already are detail articles on most components of this subjectm, and (C) most important of all, please see how J Johnson addressed a problem he saw.

  • He said what it was,
  • He came up with an idea, and
  • He volunteered to do the work of implementing it if others liked it.

Wiki (and the world) needs more people like J Johnson. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, NewsAndEventsGuy, you're saying that the article is fine as it stands, and that no major changes need to be considered; minor tweaking here and there (such as cite formats) will suffice. Is that your position? TreacherousWays (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I had missed your earlier comment; I'll reply. I haven't said "I don't like stuff" - I've said several times that the structure of the article seems to conflate "global warming" with "causes of global warming" which are (in my mind) two diferent topics. I went on in later comments to say that it appeared to me that the article includes some statements that are verifiable but possibly overly technical. I attributed that to the difficulty of maintaining consensus in an article that generates strong opinions. Paying attention to what Dave Souza noted - that this was a general article - I suggested that perhaps it could be simplified somewhat (jargon, abbreviations) and the topics of "global warming" and "causes of global warming" be separated. I asked a general question and then explained that I was avoiding BRD because this is a charged topic. Sometimes the best way to achieve consensus is to look for broad agreement and then make specific proposals. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
About my "position", Treach? I said no such thing and ask that you just take my words at face value. About your general question for which you seek a general consensus? IMO it is a consensus field of ambiguous landmines because extremists on all sides could say "sure" and have totally different ideas of what they are agreeing to. You don't have to worry about WP:BRD if you provide examples or an outline or something tangible in this talk space. One of my wiki heros that uses that technique is Enescot. Check his contribs to see examples of that approach. I often agree with him, and often disagree, but the key difference is.... I have a pretty good idea what he's talking about when he makes a suggestion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the article's organisation again, and found the following structure:

  • What is happening? -- 1 Temperature changes, 5 Attributed and expected effects
  • Why is it happening and how do we know? -- 2 External forcings, 3 Feedback, 4 Climate models
  • How do people react? -- 6 Responses to global warming, 7 Views on global warming
  • Miscellaneous -- 8 Etymology

It looks to me as if we only need to move section 5 right behind section 1 and the article's overall structure will be fine. Hans Adler 14:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hans Alder's suggestion would make sense. However the "Temperature changes" section is currently purely historic, whereas "Attributed and expected effects" is historic and future. I'd suggest that if we were to make such a change that the "Temperature changes" section should cover predicted changes and that the "Attributed and expected effects" might want some work done to it if it is to be pulled from the depths of the article.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Unclear to me why current order of ideas is flawed. Hans? Ian? Instead of re-ordering things it might aide a newbie fresh to the issue if the sections had more educational titles. For example, with different section headings, the current order would be more explanatory and read like this...
  • Observed temp changes
  • Initial cause of temp changes (forcing)
  • What amplifies temp changes (feedbacks)
  • How will temps change in the future (models)
  • What will result from those future changes (effects)
  • Theoretical options for responding
  • Views of the issue
  • Terminology (etymology) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, look at this sentence in the summary: " ... Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels ... " The article itself goes on to identify other factors, though, as well as predictions about what's going to happen in a few hundred years, how some people feel about that, and what some people think we should do about it. I think that it would be clearer to make the summary a simple definition of Global Warming, and then use the first few paragraphs in the article body to list and briefly describe the identified causes of global warming, wikilinking to more detailed articles which would, in their turn, wikilink to much more detailed technical articles explaining (for example) the various scenarios of the 2007 IPCC report. So (for instance) a sentence in this article might read, "Some global warming (between x% and y%) is attributed to human activity, including burning fossil fuels, raising cattle, and cutting down forests. Scientific bodies such as the International Panel on Climate Change, not the IPCC #1, and not the IPCC #2 have documented the rise in temperature using method 1, method 2 and method 3. Most scientists agree with the findings, though a small minority, including scientist 1 and scientist 2 have some doubts. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
But, again, my napkin-back suggestion is moot unless there is some consensus that the article as it stands should be narrowed and condensed. The details can be worked out later if the general observation has some support. I think that working in this direction could possibly help reduce redundancy and create more traffic across articles that relate to this topic. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I take it by the "summary" you mean the lede? Per WP:LEDE it should as best possible sum-up the article rather than being a pure definition of the term. Which, in any case, is generally considered to mean more than literal warming of the globe. The term carries, at least, connotations of a human cause - the more general Climate Change covers warming and cooling of any cause at any time. Causes of global warming are covered in the "External forcings" section. Filling in well cited values for x% and y% over a defined period eg 20th century would make a useful addition to the article.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
We're making progress. You've identified two goals: "help reduce redundancy" and "create more traffic across articles that relate to this topic". Admirable goals! Are there any others? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the lede - a term I dislike using. By way of reply, " ... is generally considered to mean more than literal warming of the globe. The term carries, at least, connotations of a human cause ..." Well, it does and it doesn't. It depends on what we're talking about. For instance, my understanding of the term "global warming" (and I swear I read this in WP somewhere) is that it refers to this particular warming event. This particular warming event has several causes, one of which is human activity. Thus there's global warming, which is the current rise in global temperature and there's anthropogenic global warming, which is that portion of global warming attributable to human activity. My opinion is that the article should be revised to be a friendlier general introduction to global warming (the current event) with links to the more rigorous technical examinations and explanations. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, your saying that the current episode of global warming (1850-present day) is the result of anthropogenic climate forcing (e.g., fossil fuels and GHG emissions et cetera) and also non-anthropogenic climate forcing (e.g., ______________?_______________). Please elaborate on what non-anthropogenic climate forcing mechanisms you are referring to, and please support your reply with verifiable citaitons to peer review scientific literature. We can't tease these out in the article as you suggest without saying what they are and supplying good authorities.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
" ... Please elaborate on what non-anthropogenic climate forcing mechanisms you are referring to, and please support your reply with verifiable citaitons to peer review scientific literature ..." This is exactly what I'm taling about - the very phrase "non-anthropogenic forcing mechanisms" should be replaced with "natural events that warm the planet". A general reference in this article to global climate models should lead to an article on global climate models. There ought to be a clearer hierarchy to these articles - maybe there is and I'm just not aware of it. IS there? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
As for adding references, cites, technical data, quotes - that isn't going to happen. I'm not an expert on this topic. I am, however, an expert on what I understood when I read this article, and my opinion was (and is) that as an introduction to global warming, it's a little daunting. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Can't specify the alleged non-human forcing mechanism or provide a cite? Well, that's a show-stopper. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, I have been as explicit as I can in explaining what I see as a flaw in this article. It has nothing to do with verifiability or conclusions. The article is either a general introduction to the topic or it's not. If it's a general introduction, then it should be written as such and focused that way. If it's not a general introductory article, then it's not. I'm not particularly concerned with the conclusions of the article, I'm talking about its readability - and as a college-educated person, I found it to be unfocused and jargon-y. I have suggested perhaps dividing it up a little to make it easier to digest. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
What you (TW) said earliar about getting consensus to change first, then sort out the details, does suggest that you have only a feeling that something is amiss, but lacks any particular evidence. There is also a failure to understand that all the "references, cites, technical data, quotes", etc., as well as careful use of precise terms, is how we connect with those who are experts in the field. That you have a personal opinion -- well, fine, so do we all, but as has been said before, Wikipedia is not a blog. Your point is not well taken. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, J. Johnson (JJ); this is not a blog. Neither is it a social networking site for those who are "experts in the field". As I understand it, wikipedia is intended to be edited by experts - but read by laymen. As for my "feelings" and seeking consensus, I stand by both. I doubt that any one sentence in this article could be picked apart; I am sure that each word has been argued over ad nauseam. It is the general flow of the article and the focus that I questioned, and as for seeking consensus before making a sweeping change to an establshed and hotly-contested article? I can't imagine anything more sensible or more collegial. I stand by what I said: I am educated and well-read, and I had some problems following this article. Make fun of me, if you want to. Whatever. But at this general introductory level it needs to be a lot LESS "calculus textbook" and much MORE "National Geographic". TreacherousWays (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, a general observation: explaining complicated things using simple terms isn't easy. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah-HA!!! I feel much, much, much better after finding this. I was really kind of embarrassed and feeling like a dope. To be honest. It's the "wikipedia is not a scientific journal" thingy. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a balance to be struck between accessibility and use of the proper terms and accuracy. I'd second what JJ said about the article introducing the reader to technical terms. (BTW if you think this is bad try some of the maths articles!). I'm against dumbing-down too much but if you have any suggestions for particular sentances you think to technical we might progress better dealing in specifics. Also, TreacherousWays, as for the proportion of warming with anthropogenic cause (which you seem interested in) you might begin to get an answer on the climate forcing article.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, IanOfNorwich, that's kind of the rub. The issue I have isn't with individual sentences, it's with the article as a whole and with how it relates to other articles within wikipedia. My original observation - that this article conflates global warming with the causes of same is (I think) valid, though after the discussion above I further conclude that the article is a little overly technical/detailed as a general introductory article. One thread below argues - at great length - about whether the term "non-scientists" ought to be used. I can't imagine the kerfuffle were I to adjust the target audience or eliminate verifiable but confusing text. Oh - I read the radiative forcing article as you suggested. It's a little textbook-y, but seems appropriate for people who have read this (or another general) article and want to apply a more rigorous approach. Which is where I'm coming from. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood the nature of the proposed change below in the "Other views section". If we are to discuss changes we need to consider specifics. Changes to this article are rightly subjected to close scrutiny but improvements are welcomed. I'd suggest that you start a new thread for each proposal you have as this thread has become too long and unfocused to properly follow.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Peak Oil and Global Warming

Isnt there an inherent contradiction between Peak Oil and simple extrapolation CO2 use models? Doesnt global warming in the long run correct itself, since we can only burn so much oil-- less than 100 years worth? Mrdthree (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately (?) not, or at least not for human values of "long run". There are plenty more fossil fuels than convenient oil - in particular coal and unconventional sources like oil shale and tar sands. Of course, in the really long run, the sun will go red giant, and we will have other things to worry about. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget fracking for shale gas, ocean mining of methane hydrates, and conversion of carbon sinks (permafrost, methane hydrates again, forests) from sinks to sources, such that even if we turn off our own emissions, feedbacks from the climate system could still emit vast amounts of GHGs until a new climate equilibrium is reached. But there I go with a general discussion..... since the thread offers no article improvement ideas, it should be collapsed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The issue of peak oil and fossil fuel availability is discussed in the main SRES article. As that article states, emissions projections based on the SRES scenarios are comparable in range to those of the scenario literature. Peak oil has also been discussed in the IPCC reports (e.g., see 3.8.3 Historic Trends and Driving Forces and Petroleum fuels), which are extensively referred to in this article. Enescot (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change

I have been making general observations regarding the article and expressing my opinion that it should be made more general, less technical, and focus exclusively on what global warming is, using wikilinks to other more detailed articles to address the role of the IPCC, various climatic models, and proposed corrective actions. This proposed lede was taken largely from the current article lede, just generalized and heavily trimmed. Is there any support among the editors for revising the article in the same manner?

Although the terms "global warming" and "global cooling" can be used to describe cyclic variations in global temperature, the term "global warming" has been generally used since the mid-1970's to describe the current global warming event, which dates from the mid-1700's. Since the late 1800's, measured average global temperature has risen approximately 0.74°C(ref)NOAA Global Warming FAQ(/ref), and further warming is predicted by reputable scientific organizations including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.

Predicted impacts of global warming include: rising sea levels; changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation; an expansion of subtropical deserts; the retreat of glaciers; permafrost and sea ice; more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts and heavy rainfall events; species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes; and changes in agricultural yields.

The current rise in global temperatures has been fairly rapid, and is attributed in large part to the presence of human-produced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although greenhouse gases can be produced by natural events (volcanos, for example), the vast majority of scientists believe that the additional human sources such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agricultural activity have created an imbalance in the global temperature-regulation system, and that corrective actions to reduce those human sources should be taken. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it, and it contains several claims that are either wrong, irrelevant, or misleading. First, the initial hedge ("can be used") adds no useful information. Secondly, global warming is overwhelmingly used not to refer to warming since the mid 1700s, but for the mostly anthropogenic warming in the 20th and 21st century. The 0.74 is since the late 19th century - it's easy to misread "late 1800's" as 1800. I'm not really happy by the "warming is predicted by organizations" - many individual scientists do so as well. "permafrost and sea ice" are not a predicted impact (changes to them are). "Fairly rapid" is a very weak statement - as far as we know, it's extremely rapid. Also, if it's current, it should be "is", not "has been". I like the "attributed in large part", but we should mention the rapid increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, not just their presence (they have been present, to some degree or other, for 200000 years). The natural sources of GHGs are a red herring here - the increase is clearly anthropogenic, and only a very small fringe thinks otherwise. I'm not to happy about the "imbalance in the global temperature-regulation system" - what would that system be? Finally, I would clearly separate the corrective actions from the recognition of anthropogenic warming - you will probably find all combinations ("human-caused, no action" (I think Lombog now falls into that group), "human caused, action" (many there), "not human-caused, no action" (strict deniers), and even "not human caused, action anyways" (e.g. from people who are concerned about energy resources). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Me either, for all of Stephan's reasons, plus (A) I dislike bulk changes and prefer you take smaller bites so we can zero in, (B) by starting this new thread you are sort of whitewashing the fact that you tried to win a consensus to do a major overhaul along these lines in your prior thread titled "observations", and you failed to win that consensus, (C) I'm unwilling to embrace bulk edits by someone who admits they don't understand basic terms and can't supply citations for the changes they wish to make, as you admitted in that prior thread. Please beware of the Randy factorNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your forthrightness Stephan Schulz, but feel compelled (again, that word) to point out that even your reply is loaded with jargon (GHGs, deniers) and insider references (Lombog?). If I can't make a dent here, that's fine. I never honestly thought I could. I'd just honestly be thrilled to bits if some of the editors here seriously contemplated my suggestion that the article needs to be made more approachable and reader-friendly. My text above is not so much a specific example of what should be here so much as a general proposed style. Peace out. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm all in favor of making the article more approachable and reader friendly. But, as per Einstein's razor, everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. In other words, in our quest for an approachable article, correctness not an acceptable casualty. As for jargon, let me point out that this is the talk page. I do expect a contributor who suggests a major change to the lede of a carefully balanced featured article to spend the time and effort to acquire a reasonable understanding of the domain of discourse. Sorry about the typo - I was referring to Bjørn Lomborg, who should be reasonable well-known. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, you have consistently - not to say obstructively - misunderstood what I've been getting at since I fist posted in this talk space. You obviously missed the suggestion by IanOfNorwich that I make specific suggestions in a separate section - and I am justifiably unhappy with your use bad faith use of the term "whitewash". Finally, I can't imagine - literally, it's dumbfounding to me - that you have failed, yet again, to understand that your "basic terms" aren't particularly basic to me, a college-educated civil engineer. If this is a general introductory article, then it should use general introductory terms. I will happily concede that you know more about global warming than I do. What you've failed to do in my case is pass on your knowledge in a coherent manner. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I retract and apologize for my "whitewash" remark since you started the new thread in good faith following another editor's suggestion. I stand by the rest of my comment. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz, I thank you for taking the time to seriously reply. You mention that this was a featured article. Yes it was. That was in 2006, when the article was about 58k bytes long. It's now over 147k bytes and growing inexorably toward 150k. You stated with what I took to be some indignation that you " ... expect a contributor who suggests a major change to the lede of a carefully balanced featured article to spend the time and effort to acquire a reasonable understanding of the domain of discourse ... " The domain of discourse isn't Global warming, it's the focus, technical level, and readability of the general (and introductory?) article on Global warming. I believe that you and other editors are assuming a base level of knowledge that simply isn't there. By way of example, you identify Bjørn Lomborg as someone who should be reasonably well-known. Perhaps he is, within certain technical communitites, but he isn't generally well-known any more than the IPCC is generally well-known. Recognizing that I have been unable to generate any consensus for changing the article, I gracefully withdraw with thanks for the consideration offered. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The article had roughly 44KBytes of readable prose when it became featured. It has about 49KBytes now. Nearly all of the growth is in more extensive referencing, not in the text itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
TW, before closing the door for good, please note that you DID persuade ME that the article is a difficult read to a newcomer, and more so if this is the first they've really dove into a issue with a lot of science. If you hadn't started your thread, I would not have suggested some alternative section headings. My idea may or may not be truly useful but I did hear you, at least in the biggest broadest picture. Think of it this way.... if some civil engineering client of yours comes to you with a concept-design issue plus a bunch of changes to the current set of design specs, even though they haven't taken time to bone up on technical details regarding those specs, its my guess you'll ask them to set aside their ideas about specification details, but you'll pay careful heed to their big picture concerns about design concept. I did hear your big picture comments. Addressing that is a slow process made up of a lot of nibbles. You might be particularly interested in Randy Olson's work. Anyway, I thank you for the big picture comments on accessibility. All editors should take heed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

TreacherousWays: We all share the aspiration that the article should be as accessible as possible. The purpose of any Wikipedia article is to convey knowledge. It is hard to convey knowledge of a subject that you are not expert on without considerable research. On the other hand it can be hard to write accessibly on a topic that you are familiar with. Another problem is that for various reasons (which this article would cover better if only we knew how) the public perception (esp. in the US) of this issue appears to be significantly skewed away from the scientific understanding. In this context it is perhaps not surprising that both those who have researched the topic a bit and those who have not perceive bias in the other group. If you genuinely do wish to improve the article (as I assume you do) you have the ability to look at the article from a less technical perspective you can find parts of the article that you think are hard to understand and suggest that something is done about it and then we can all collaborate to improve it whilst retaining accuracy.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Rate this page" poll seems broken/bugged

Ever since seeing the "Rate this page" poll put on a page I was reading once, I at once checked to see if it was on the Global Warming page just for fun. It was not there at the time, as it seems it must have been still being implemented. But yesterday when I came here I saw it there, and I looked at the poll results. When I look at it, it shows this for ratings:

Trustworthy: 238609295 out of 5

Objective: 1.8 out of 5 (that was funny to see...)

Complete: 238609296 out of 5

Well-written: 252645137 out of 5

Obviously, something is terrible wrong with it. So I was wondering if anyone else sees it in this way when checking the results, and if it is indeed a wide-spread problem where it be appropriate to report this problem?

For one working properly, see the poll at for an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Tangent issue: Problem in "Temperature changes" subsection

The WP article seems unnecessarily biased and "politically correct" - and doesn't fairly reflect logical questions about the extent of human influence on the earth's climate. For instance, WP states in another article that global temperature has risen dramatically about 11-9,000 years ago without any human CO2. Here's a link to the graph of world temperature over the last 12,000 years:

If AGW theory is correct then what caused this huge temperature rise? The WP article completely ignores the problem of degrees - perhaps manmade CO2 can raise the temperature, but so can the earth, sky, oceans, and sun (obviously). So I support a complete revamping of the tone of the article to get away from the politically popular AGW theory and back to what is known as scientific fact. Thank you. Rortlieb (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortlieb (talkcontribs)

Rortlieb raises a useful point, #Temperature changes discusses only the modern temp record but is illustrated by a graph of 2k years: there should be a brief discussion in the text of the 2k odd year paleoclimate and the PETM as discussed here to make it clear that it's happened more slowly before, with results that wouldn't have suited our current "civilisation". Interesting times . . dave souza, talk 20:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC) p.s. j n-g . . . dave souza, talk 21:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
1) AGW is not a theory -- it is a scientifically observed physical phenomenom, as solid a scientific "fact" as any other. 2) Calling this article biased without showing any factual evidence in support only shows your own bias. (We see this kind of comment often enough -- shouldn't we cover it in the FAQ?) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but ignoring that distraction, it would in my opinion be worth briefly noting that paleoclimate indicates earlier warming episodes such as the PETM which like the past century shows an abrupt temperature spike. Associated with mass extinctions, admittedly. . . dave souza, talk 05:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I supposed someone has to speak for the, "I refuse to make any concessions to reality" POV. You must know so much more about "scientific fact" than Ivar Giaever. Kauffner (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for speaking for the "I refuse to make any concessions to reality" POV, Kauffner. As for Giaever, he seems to have been commenting a bit out of his field, what a shame that he doesn't appear to have published any scientific papers backing the views he's expressed in the popular press. . . dave souza, talk 05:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no issue here. The holocene temperature shifts are explained by known cyclical processes and this is explained adequately in our article. --TS 02:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Add "believed to be caused by" in introduction

While I do not doubt that global warming is caused by human activities, it is unscientific to conclude that this is the case by correlation alone - no matter how many scientific authorities agree that this is the most likely cause, the impact that humans hold over climate change is a theory.

This does not mean that it's "just a theory" there are lots of theories that have substantial evidence in support. It seems though with the political and social importance climate change holds, we don't mind saying, with absolute certainty, that humans cause global climate change - which the evidence does overwhelmingly support.

Furthermore, wikipedia cannot speak for all scientific bodies.

I recommend changing the first paragraph to:

Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is believed to be caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by the vast majority of scientific bodies of national or international standing.[4][5][A] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Show me a verifiable citation to a scientific body of national or international standing that disputes this finding, and then let's talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Here: 31,487 scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs Logical fact (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The key word here is verifiable, Oregon Petition shows it is clearly far from that. Khukri 16:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
About the Oregon Petition, see FAQ # 2 above NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Has the entire world gone into fallacy mode? It does not matter, Wikipedia cannot speak for all scientists and organization. Period. Besides, "international standing" is vague. (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Your assumption is wrong. The conclusion is not based on "correlation alone", but on rather well understood physical principles. In fact, it has been predicted long before it could be measured, and with roughly the same order of magnitude we now observe - see Svante Arrhenius. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not "speak for" anyone but itself. It does report, as a matter of verifiable fact, what other organizations have said for themselves. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) I think Stephan addressed your first point. About the second,, I disagree with 'Besides, "international standing" is vague.' It's defined in footnote A, which lists the bodies. I see what you mean by the fallacy of using "all", but this isn't the case. (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, only an omniscient being(s) (e.g., God) can positively say what anything "is". All the rest of us merely believe things to be the way they "is". I am believed (even by myself) to be opposed to changing every form of the word "is" to some form of "is believed to be" on the encyclopedia. Since this article reports the mainstream scientific view, as opposed to a philosophic view, let's keep that text the way it is. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User:NewsAndEventsGuy, you are replying to Special:Contributions/ correct? The lack of indent (:) confused me. (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/NewsAndEventsGuy, your wording would seem more appropriate on Christianity and environmentalism or Religion and environmentalism. (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The proposed change to the text is clearly believed to be incompatible with WP:WEIGHT policy, and without consent to change it, ah do believe it's stayin' the way it is. Probably time to put a hat on this, as the cat said. . . dave souza, talk 21:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
If I can contribute to this debate, it seems to me that the answer to the question posed ("Show me a verifiable citation to a scientific body of national or international standing that disputes this finding") is simple, and it is: the IPCC itself. IPCC's last assessment report (Fourth Assessment Report - 2007), states: "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations." ( page 39). In the IPCC terminology (see for example "very likely" means >90% probability. In other words, the IPCC declares that there is up to 10% probability that global warming IS NOT caused by greenhouse gases. Therefore the statement "Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" is plainly wrong. (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I see no reply to the point I made.. It seems to me pretty clear that, given IPCC's own report, the statement that the global warming is caused by greenhouse gases does not represent the current views of the scientific community. I propose to rephrase the introduction to "is believed to be very likely due to increased greenhouse gases concentration". I'll wait another day for objections, if there are none I'll proceed with the change. (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Does [this] say "there's a 10% chance we're wrong"? (ANSWER: no) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, the IPCC isn't wrong, it's Wikipedia that's wrong. the IPCC is right in saying that there is a probability >90% that climate change is caused by GHGs. Wikipedia is wrong in saying that GHGs are causing it as a matter of fact, which means with 100% probability. Please, at least read the material you're citing. The first line says: "It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes.". "Very unlikely" in the IPCC terminology means "with probability <10%". So the phrase means: "there is a probability up to 10% that the climate change is not caused by greenhouse gases". I know it's not the form of the statement you're used to, but stop for a second and think of it, you have to agree that it's correct. Udippuy (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
And for your part, please read the material WITHOUT reading between the lines. The text I cited does not, on its face, go out of its way to say in black and white (Waving flags, bells dinging..... by the way there's a TEN PERCENT chance we could be wrrorrrroOOOOOOoOnnngnngggggg....." and the fact it does not say this on its face in ten words or less is my point. Quite the contrary.... what they actually do say is "tons more evidence".... "even stronger certainty than before"..... over and over and over and over. So on one side of the balance we have your reading of IPCC's report, where you trumpet your interpretation of their teeny tiny "very likely" science-speak from a few places while ignoring reams of "here's how it works" text throughout, and on the other side of the balance we have lots of recent peer reviewed literature that says this really is how it works. Don't forget to factor in the political pressures on the multinational IPCC and the difficulty in writing something accurate to appease everyone at the lowest common denominator, without making anyone get up and leave the table. IMO, applying too much literal meaning to this small sample of text is as erroneous as cherrypicking your favorite 2 year temperature change and saying it shows the overall trend in the climate system. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, observing that 100-90 = 10 cannot be considered "reading between the lines". And please, I remind you again, citing a totally irrelevant news source as NY Times against the IPCC report is absurd (more so when the cited source of that news is the report itself!). As for the peer reviewed literature, no single study is or can be conclusive per se, and this is exactly why assessment reports such as the IPCC's exist. The report is the most authoritative compendium of the knowledge we have about the climate changes today; the statement I cited is in the "Synthesis report" and it's been carefully chosen to summarize our knowledge of the matter. The whole sentence is in bold typeface and "very likely" is in italic to underline its status of probability estimate, according to the legend given at page 27 of the report itself. As for the political pressures, can you produce reliable, peer reviewed research about their impact, in percentage points, over the IPCC's report? (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Science is not a belief system. There are scientific principles (e.g. greenhouse effect, conservation of mass, conservation of energy), scientific laws proven to apply in huge varieties of cases (e.g. laws of thermodynamics), simulation, modelling, mathematical analyses... and a huge peer reviewed literature going back more than a century. When this lot comes to a >90% certainty about something, it is different to when a market researcher says hisn survey implies is a 90% correlation between, e.g. income and chocolate preference. As far as a one sentence introduction to the lede to the top-level article is concerned, for the general readership, the present statement is perfect. If you want to see more detail, you have to read a bit further. This is an encyclopedia and the <10% that you are interested in is far more than adequately covered in this article and in dozens of others. Pretending that it dominates the big picture would fail WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. --Nigelj (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Nigelj, I don't get your point. Are you saying that IPCC's statement that global warming is "very likely" due to greenhouse gases is wrong? Or that "very likely" is a too technicaly expression for an introduction? (same author as the previous comments, from different pc) Udippuy (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, see this NY Times essay for example. And remember, this was over four and a half years ago. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is due in 2 - 3 years time, and the evidence has become much stronger in the meantime (there are many refs for that too). It's important to read fairly widely around an important topic before trying to change carefully chosen consensus wording. --Nigelj (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that citing a NY Times article against the IPCC's own report doesn't make any sense, the article itself refers exactly to that report, therefore doesn't say - and couldn't say- anything more than it's in the report itself ("... And now it [the IPCC] has supplied an even higher, more compelling seal of numerical certainty , which is also one measure of global warming’s risk to humanity.". That even higher seal of numerical certainty is exactly the "very likely" wording we're talking about. The next report is due in 2 - 3 years time, therefore you don't know what it will be saying - unless you want to produce any original research about that. Take in consideration the fact that, being the IPCC report the most authoritative assessment of all the existing peer reviewed literature about the climate change topic, any study or reference you want to produce _against it_ must be at least as authoritative as the report itself. So far your objections seemed to me really weak and I haven't seen contributions from other people, so I'm proceeding with the change, taking care of referencing this thread. Udippuy (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Udippuy, the objections raised by Nigelj to your proposal are sound, and if you proceed with what seems to be your proposed change it will properly be reverted as promoting the "it's only a theory" fallacy and giving undue weight to the fringe view that science is a belief system. Any change has to be clear that there is a strong scientific consensus on the issue. Even the tiny minority of scientists opposing the consensus accept that greenhouse gases cause global warming, and the lack of credible evidence to dismiss that finding is well illustrated by the Spencer paper discussed below. . dave souza, talk 01:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Dave, the objections raised are very weak, you can try to defend them yourself if you want. The first is basically saying that hard sciences are using a probability measure different from other people's (maybe there's a factor to apply? :) ); the second one is using a NY article reporting findings from the IPCC 2007 report as an evidence _against_ the report itself. I see that you're principally concerned with the consequences of the proposed change; however, I think that the mission of Wikipedia is to represent the facts and not to be concerned with their consequences. Or maybe you want to revert the IPCC's 2007 Assessment report too? Please, consider your statement "Even the tiny minority of scientists opposing the consensus accept that greenhouse gases cause global warming". If that is true, why doesn't IPCC say that the the fact that GHGs are causing global warming is "Extremely likely" (prob >95%) or "Virtually certain" (prob >99%)? Is the IPCC misrepresenting the consensus? Udippuy (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The IPCC's use of the term very likely is used to denote that the probability is greater than 90%. That does not put an upper bound on the probability as assesed by the IPCC. The sentence in question is not cited directly to the IPCC. The summary of the second citation to the US National Academy of Science's "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" is unequivocal in stating that recent climatic changes "are in large part caused by human activities".--IanOfNorwich (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ian, probability >90% means exactly that. Could be 100% but could also be 90.000001%. The choice of the lower bound has been made with the intention to account for the _uncertainty_ of our knowledge. And 10% is, as far as science goes, a BIG uncertainty. Deciding not to represent such an uncertainty in lack of better knowledge would be a misrepresentation or, in the worst case, an open mystification. The IPCC knows it. Do you? (By the way, there is actually an implicit upper bound to the probability range given by the IPCC, and it is the "Extremely likely" standard term (= >95% probability). Had the IPCC enough information to set the probability to a value greater than 95%, it would have written "extremely likely" in the report. This gives us a range going from 90% to 95%). As for your second point, thanks for the indication, I checked that report too. It is less rigorous than IPCC's and in "Appendix D: Uncertainty Terminology" it clearly states: "However, because of the more concise nature and intent of this report [with respect to IPCC's], we do not attempt to quantify confidence and certainty about every statement of the science.". And indeed at page 27 ( it says: "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems." However, immediately after adds: "This conclusion is based on a substantial array of scientific evidence, including recent work, and is consistent with the conclusions of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007a-d), recent assessments by the USGCRP (e.g., USGRP, 2009a), and other recent assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on climate change. Both our assessment and these previous assessments place high or very high confidence in the following findings: [...] 2) Most of the warming over the last several decades can be attributed to human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere [...]". A note (always at page 27) explains that: "high confidence indicates an estimated 8 out of 10 or better chance of a statement being correct, while very high confidence (or a statement than an ourcome is “very likely”) indicates a 9 out of 10 or better chance". So, to summarize, what their report is actually saying is that "Most of the warming over the last several decades can be attributed to human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere" with a confidence that is in either high (>80%) or very high (>90%) range. Exactly what the IPCC report says. Udippuy (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe NewsAndEventsGuy was making a reference to Mark Lynas's book The God Species: How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans? (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Indicating that the concept that human activity contributes to climate change is a theory is certainly appropriate to avoid inserting the bias of the editors into this article and to maintain objective neutrality on such a controversial topic. As requested above, find the Senate report from 2007 containing the names of 400 scientists, some former IPCC reviewers among them, who dispute the theory:

ABLegler (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a senate report. Its a blog statement by the minority of one particular committee, back than led by well-known fossil fuel shill Jim Inhofe, otherwise known as "The Senator from Exxon". It is well-known to be full of people who are not scientists at all, people who are not climate scientists, and people who have vigorously protested against being included because their work is fully within the consensus. In other words, that report is a partisan political propaganda lie. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure there is something in this list that could be considered RS to support the change. (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
....and this is essentially a rehash of the same, and wrong for the same reasons as Inhofe's blog above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
For my personal info there's not one paper in there that's valid then? Cheers Khukri 11:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far - after all, IIRC, Inhofe's list contains Lindzen, a legitimate and qualified sceptic. However, neither list in itself is a reliable source - neither are all entries reliable, nor are all reliable entries placed on their respective lists reliably. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Upfront, there is zero doubt in my own mind that increases in GHGs caused by humans is driving global warming. But allow me to put on my NPOV wiki editor hat to look at our citations for the word "is" in the lead. 'lo and behold, the first one (Understanding and Responding to Climate Change" waffles by saying most scientists agree with the conclusion. That document doesn't just say THATS HOW IT IS without pulling punches. Similarly, our other citation from National Research Council mirrors the IPCC's language (my hat off to the IP who corrected me on this). Both state that we're warming (IPCC uses term "unequivocal") but that it's merely "very likely" due to human GHGs..... and "very likely" stops short of "is". Say again, IPCC and our second cite in the article distinguish between the uncertainty that we're warming ("unequivocal") and whether its due to human GHGs ("very likely"). In legal circles careful use of different terms of art suggests a different intended meaning. So I have been persuaded we either need different citations to support "is", or else the text needs to mirror the IPCC and National Research Council's use of these different thresholds of certainty. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

PS I am not yet embracing any of the proposed edits in this thread and think we should talk more about the issue first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy. So the statement "Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3]" should be modified accordingly. I propose something like "Global Warming is considered by to be very likely caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere". Also the second statement "This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[4][5][A]" is redundant: all the facts on Wikipedia are expected to be widely recognized. A note can provide adequate reference to the sources of the statement. And, to be fully honest, I don't like at all the structure of the introduction: it should contain information about global warming (what it is, how it is defined, to what period of time it is referred, when it has been discovered, by who, what are its causes etc.) and show less haste to make the point that it is caused by GHGs. It doesn't look much encyclopedic the way it is now, but more like a FAQ in an anti-skeptic forum. For example, consider the following introduction from Encarta: "Global Warming, increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses of Earth. The planet has warmed (and cooled) many times during the 4.65 billion years of its history. At present Earth appears to be facing a rapid warming, which most scientists believe results, at least in part, from human activities." And Britannica: "Global warming, the phenomenon of increasing average air temperatures near the surface of Earth over the past one to two centuries. Since the mid-20th century, climate scientists have gathered detailed observations of various weather phenomena (such as temperature, precipitation, and storms) and of related influences on climate (such as ocean currents and the atmosphere’s chemical composition). These data indicate that Earth’s climate has changed over almost every conceivable timescale since the beginning of geologic time and that, since at least the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the influence of human activities has been deeply woven into the very fabric of climate change". I invite everybody to give their opinions and propose changes to the introduction. Udippuy (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've restored NewsAndEventsGuy's comments to there original location where he wants them. I've restored Udippuy comment's and moved them to after NewsAndEventsGuy's which is where I think they now make most sense (please move them back if preferred). I think we can quite easily WP:AFG as far as Udippuy's relocation of NewsAndEventsGuy's comments go but please bear in mind that editors can (not unreasonably) be touchy about any alteration of there comments. The problem here (with moving etc of edits) is mainly one of convention. Personally I think it much clearer if all new comments go at the bottom of the titled section, indentation can usually be used to indicate what the comment is in response to. Where a thread needs to fork a new headed section should be created. Otherwise it becomes almost impossible to properly follow the discussion (which can be hard enough anyway). On the actual topic of this discussion, I regret I don't have time right now to fully digest Udippuy's many detailed arguments but will do so as soon as time allows....--IanOfNorwich (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a line to apologise with NewsAndEventsGuy for moving his comment, I thought it was misplaced and did it in good faith. Udippuy (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Starting with the original text and its citations, and bringing in IPCC AR4, [this is how I would tweak the text]..... HOWEVER, I would be glad to consider preserving the existing text with citations that state human GHGs are responsible, unequivocally, or with words to that effect. I do agree that the scientists in science speak have said enough to support "is", but on the other hand I only get there using these citations if, in my own mind, I bridge the philosophical language of science and ordinary speech. That's a worthy endeavor, but its a challenging task beyond wiki's scope. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Udippuy has asserted that The IPCC's use of the term 'very likely' (by which they mean >90% probability) implies <95%. I do not accept this assertion for two reasons. First, the Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties Table 4 show that the next gradation at Virtually certain is >99% probability. Secondly, the IPCC could have chosen to specify a range for their probability definitions but did not in this case. It is important to understand the way that IPCC reports are prepared. They are consensus documents prepared by hundreds of scientists. Many may not have been at all happy to state that the probability was less than <95% or <99%, but were happy to agree to the >90%. What we can say is that any statement asserting >90% and <=100% is "consistent with the conclusions of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report" to quote from the second citation. As you acknowledge the second citation does unequivocally support the existing text. The second of the two encyclopedia entries you quote also supports the fact that humans are causing climate change and that the climate is warming, however there would be little point in Wikipedia if it simply followed existing Encyclopedias. I think most editors would hope that in many ways Wikipedia is superior to Britannica and Encarta, they certainly hold less weight on this matter than the cited reports.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
IanOfNorwich, as for the whether the term "very likely" should imply also probability <95%: I've checked your link and the "extremely likely" term is missing from the table. However, it is here: (page 27), that is, in the official Synthesis Report of 2007, which is also the source of the other quoted statements. I'd say that the IPCC itself is not clear on this point. Your second objection is also sound. It's true that it is not correct to say that the probability must be <=95%. It is also correct saying, though, that the fact that the probability was not set to >95% indicates that at least some of the scientists that contributed to the report believed the probability to be <=95%, as you also have remarked. Finally, it is true that "any statement asserting >90% and <=100% is "consistent with the conclusions of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report"; however, that fact that it is consistent doesn't imply that it is correct or true! (if you say you have more than 8 fingers, the figure of 30 is consistent with that. But I guess it's wrong :) ). Saying that "it is caused by" is equivalent to saying that the probability is exactly equal to 100%. Where are you getting that figure from? That's my whole point. 2) The citation from US' National Academy of Science is ambiguous, as I've tried to explain. In the first part it says, as a matter of fact, that humans are largely contributing to global warming. Immediately after it lists the sources of this knowledge: "Both our assessment and these previous assessments place high or very high confidence in the following findings: [...] 2) Most of the warming over the last several decades can be attributed to human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere [...]". Then qualifies "very high confidence" as a probability >90%. Basically it's saying: "This is true. I know it's true because I rely on some studies which say that it has >90% probability of being true". I've tried to explain this apparent contradiction with the fact that the report is also warning that "because of the more concise nature and intent of this report [with respect to IPCC's], we do not attempt to quantify confidence and certainty about every statement of the science." Could this be the reason why they're implying a total confidence only to explicitly deny it a few lines after? 3) Finally, as for the examples from other encyclopedia: I reported them not as sources but as examples of introductions after proposing some wider change to the current one. My point here is a totally different one, and it is a stylistic one: the current introduction reads like "Climate Change is occurring, and nobody denies it!" while I'd expect less haste to make a point and more high level detail on what climate change is, how it is defined, who is studying it, and obviously, which are (though to be! :) ) its causes. Udippuy (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Did either of you guys look at my work? Neither of you commented on it. See my prior comment above.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Udippuy, I entirely agree with your last, up to the sentence "Saying that "it is caused by" is equivalent to saying that the probability is exactly equal to 100%.". It is not possible to be exactly 100% certain about anything, yet we often make unequivocal statements. The question is what level of certainty justifies a plain statement of fact. This depends on many factor's such as context. I do not think that readers would expect a higher threshold of certainty for a statement to be made in an encyclopedia (such as this) than in the National Academy of Sciences report. The authors of the US' National Academy of Science report obviously felt that in that context a plain statement was justified. While they discuss the probabilities of other statements near by the following is left as a plain statement:

They do go on to discuss the confidence in the "following" findings. If the report were based purely on the work of the IPCC we might reasonably question reliability of US' National Academy of Science report as a source for drawing conclusions unsupported by their sources, but it is not. In short the statement is supported by the source. I do note, however, that we should be saying "mainly", "largely", "in large part" or some similar formulation. As to your broader points can I suggest that they be addressed in another headed thread to keep everything as easy to follow as possible. Though I will say here that while I think there is room for improvement in the style of the opening paragraph that we shouldn't confuse this article with climate change which covers the broader topic while this article covers the recent warming (inexerably linked with it cause) and the first para attempts to define the topic per WP:LEDE
NewsAndEventsGuy:My objection to your proposed change is the same as above - ie the current wording is supported by a reliable source.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I stand by [my proposed edit] even though that was a great quote find, Ian. IMO what you quoted fails WP:WEIGHT and this is why: When the US National Academy embarked on their Climate Choices project, four sub panels each prepared a report and then the full body published the final concluding report. You are quite correct that in [one sub-panel's 2010 report] the sub group pulled no punches, saying as their opening salvo:
"Conclusion 1: Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems." (pdf page 26, printed page number 3)
But that was the report of a sub group. The concluding report by the full committee is [America's Climate Choices (2011 ed)"] and they did pull their punches by quoting from IPCC right down to the >90 part. In the summary they reiterated IPCC's phrase "very likely", and in the detail pages they elaborated saying:
"The preponderance of the scientific evidence points to human activities—especially the release of CO2 and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere —as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last 50 years or so.[8] This finding is supported by numerous lines of evidence, including ...
The embedded citation in that quote states as follows including parentheses (but bold is mine):
8. According to IPCC (Climate Change 2007 WG1, Summary for Policymakers): “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [greater than 90 percent likelihood] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Note that the the full panel of the US National Academy on this project rejected the word "is" with respect to human cause, and substituted in IPCC's "very likely" with >90% liklihood. Regrettably, I still think [this edit] best comports to the sources that have so far been offered. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've had a look at The Royal Society's statements as well, and I'm willing to concede that the weight of reports still express a level of scientific doubt (somewhere between 0% and 10%) that the majority of the recent warming is a result of anthropogenic GHG's. There is, however, no doubt (in as far as certainty is possible) that the release of GHGs causes warming. So, I'm convinced of the need for some change to the first paragraph of the lede. The question remains as to how best to express the above.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Ian, I'd like to be able to report in the lede that what it is considered "very likely" is just the fact that "the majority of the recent warming is a result of anthropogenic GHGs" (where majority obviously means >50%). However, I feel it would be very difficult to reach an agreement on this. Udippuy (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for a few days of absence. It seems to me that we've reached an agreement on modifying the second sentence of the lede to something like: "Global warming is considered to be very likely caused by the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3]". Notice that I'm not using the verb "believed" but "considered", which is maybe more appropriate in a scientific context. If everybody agrees I'll proceed with the change. Udippuy (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I went live with my version which more accurately comports to the sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you NewsAndEventsGuy, I think this new version is much more accurate than the original one. Well done. Udippuy (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI - Strong push to change opening sentence of lede

FYI only - at the tail end of a l-o-n-g thread above I have started to forcefully push for a change in the opening sentence of the lede. This is just to call attention for a strong consensus. Please add remarks to that thread.

I agree with your initiative. Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortlieb (talk

Rortlieb: please use four tildes ( ~~~~ ) to sign your posts. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Some aggressive archiving

  • See earlier discussions archived 1,2 and 3. --TS 02:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In essence, almost every edit by me on this page is an act of page maintenance. Anybody wondering if I made a mistake should simply undo my edits without asking. --TS 02:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As the following sections and subsections are related, hopefully they can be archived as a block. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 19:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)