Talk:Climate change

Archive

• Alternate layout page is found at /temp.
• Talk:Global warming/OldTalk
• Talk:Global warming/OldTalk2
• Talk:Global warming/OldTalk3
• Talk:Global warming/OldTalk4
• Talk:Global warming/OldTalk5
• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2 (Dec 2004 - Jun 2005)

(new talk at the bottom)

WikiProject Climate Change

Shouldn't there be a WikiProject Climate Change to help coordinate the various articles around the topic? Also, I suggest that it would be worth trying to create a simple entry page aimed at laymen with no knowledge of the subject, sans confusing detail and too many references. Maybe Global warming and Global warming (advanced) - that kind of concept anyway. It would really be useful to have a more stable, easier overview, and keep the discussion of the developing scientific details a little bit tucked away. Take a minute to think about the average reader, people. Rd232 09:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice! But with such polarised views and with each side minutely inspecting the other's contributions, and (rightly) insisting on citations, I'd be very surprised if any summary would survive a deluge of edits. There seems to be such strong disagreement even on the underlying approach the "Global warming" article(s) should adopt. See, only as a sad example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin. Thincat 10:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Worth a try though. I do think since much of the disagreement is about detail, it should be possible to summarise the general issues in a moderately non-controversial way. Does the average reader really want to go straight into scary graphs and discussion about recent data on the effects of urban heat islands? Or be faced with paragraphs like this: A new reconstruction by Moberg, et al, published in Nature 433, 613 - 617 (10 February 2005) [1] shows both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age anomalies (although not by name) and concludes that the temperatures around 1000 and 1100 AD were comparable to those of the 20th century before 1990. "Moberg's reconstruction will help to put the record straight in one of the most contested issues in palaeoclimatology," says Hans von Storch. "But it does not weaken in any way the hypothesis that recent observed warming is a result mainly of human activity." [2]. Moberg's results are consistent with those of Von Storch, et al, who conducted a modeling analysis that showed the variability to be about twice as great as previously published [3]Science 306, 679 - 682 (2004) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1096109%7C). Rd232 17:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)) A wikiproject on this might well be a good idea, the articles are probably a maze for the newcomer. I have been advocating shortening the GW article for some time now: in my view it is prone to "stuffing" by the skeptics (see the recent S+V stuff). But, this will be hard to accomplish in the current state, and I think we're all waiting for the arbcomm to see if they provide anything useful to help resolve the dispute(s). OTOH I would argue that much of the current article is quite good, and at least up to A new reconstruction by Moberg... not too detailed.

(William M. Connolley 20:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)) OK... I'd like to try to revive this idea: either the wikiproject, or perhaps just the idea of reworking the GW page into a simplified into and a technical page. Anyone else care to sign up?

I'm not opposed to either idea, though I have my doubts. Any thoughts on how one could make a Wikiproject more workable than the current state of affairs? Dragons flight 08:04, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

You have my moral support for the project, and I'd be happy to help out with developing the text of the simpler GW page. Rd232 17:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is my proposed simplified version (or will be in a litttle while...): /Global warming (simplified). William M. Connolley 19:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Temporary injunction

Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:

Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] by William M. Connolley [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.

--mav 22:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

current/2001

Silverback changed "current" to "2001" on the grounds that the IPCC report was 2001. But... thats not what the sentence says. The IPCC report still does pretty well summarise current understanding. In particular, the phrase attributed - last 50 y - still stands, and thats still the current understanding. The TAR has dated well. William M. Connolley 20:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Reverted back to "current" as per the above; also re-arranged the academies text a bit to make it clear that they are endorsing it as current. William M. Connolley 21:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Oh, and JGs unhelpful stuff: the climate has been relatively stable *including* not apart from the MWP/LIA. Indicates is correctly stronger than suggests. And for the last one... JG has edited a direct quote to suit his prejudices: you're not allowed to do that. William M. Connolley 21:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Last 50 years

Hmm. The graphs need shading since 1951 labeled "warming mostly attributed to human activities". (SEWilco 01:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC))

perhaps "not really" anthropogenic is the correct statement

Oreskes, by her own admission, as documented by the quote admitted that some of those "papers" may have been supporters of natural rather than "anthropogenic climate change. I assume it wasn't WMC that put in the Oreskes info into this article since he is expressing concern about length. Her opinion essay attempting to draw conclusions about positions on anthrogenic global warming based on a survey of mere abstracts is attracting such attention, not because of the quality, reliability, and objectivity of such methods, but because of the popularity of her opinions.--Silverback 18:29, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, so it should be addressed, but if there's something to be pointed out scientifically on reliability or objectivity, then that should be included. And about length - if its too long it can be branched into another article, although its preferred under taxonomical structure. -- Natalinasmpf 19:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is already another article, the issue is why such a questionable opinion essay is being revisited here. It is too complex an issue to be raised in a scientific opinion summary here in this article. It is easy to criticise scientifically the survey that serves as the basis for the opinion essay. It just analyzes abstracts, not the full papers, and finds that positions contrary to anthropogenic global warming are not taken, and calls that "consensus" supporting anthropogenic global warming. Of course, abstracts are not the place where such positions are taken. If taken at all they are more likely to be taken in the discussion section of a paper, since seldom is the large issue of anthropogenic global warming what is being tested by any particular research. So examining just abstracts is poor survey design for the purpose at hand. The objectivity is compromised by a further part of the design, there any article which does not take a position against anthropogenic global warming is assumed to be in agreement with the consensus. This is no more valid than if the opposite assumption were part of the methodology. Would it be fair to assume that any abstract that did NOT take an explicit position in favor of anthropogenic global warming, was opposed to it, and that thus the "consensus" was againt it?--Silverback 21:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Its not being "revisited" here. And its not a questionnable essay. Its the *only* survey (at all? certainly published in a reputable journal) on the subject. Which is why it gets so much attention. William M. Connolley 22:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC).

It is not a published as a peer reviewed research article, but as an opinion essay, so it is more like a guest editorial. In such cases the quality of the journal doesn't matter, just what the editors want to print.--Silverback 02:51, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)) I will defend the quality of Oreskes paper (asserting that it is merely an opinion essay is wrong), but at the same time I'm not necessarily defending its place in the article here. It definitely belongs in SOoGW; given that GW is too long, it might well be removed from the main GW article. So should some other stuff William M. Connolley 20:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC).

It's great that there are subarticles for this main one, but that can't be used as a reason to avoid covering important points, as has been done in the past. This article is the main one, so it needs to be written in Wikipedia:Summary style. That means covering all of the most important facets of the topic in relation to their importance, and not excluding any because it is easier to cover them in another article. Of course, that also means prioritization and not covering too much on issues that are not the most important. Now I'm not saying a discussion of Oreskes paper needs to be here, but in support of the scientific consensus on global warming, it should at a minimum be a footnote or other method of citation in this article. The issue of what the scientific consensus is, is definitely one of the, if not the most important point in the article. A paper speaking directly to that point is important to at least be cited, if not discussed. - Taxman ^Talk 21:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of material

Silverback, can you explain you change please. Thanks. Guettarda 02:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

attempts to reduce global warming are political and do not belong in a science article. Now if there are scientific studies, evaluating the results of attempts to reduce global warming, those would be legit, so far all such attempts are apparently failures.--Silverback 02:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

That is completely false. This is just more of the attitude of removing things that need to be covered in the article. The fact that there are people trying to reduce global warming is an important facet of the issue. Pigeonholing this as only a science article is improper. This article is not at Global warming (science), it is the general article, and should dicuss the political ramifications for their part in the issue. However, I don't really see much NPOV, verifiable information removed, so as far as edits to the article go, I don't see a problem. Someone point me to diffs if you disagree. - Taxman ^Talk 13:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Its an encylopedic article, discussing both the scientific view and the political view. I think it warrants both. -- Natalinasmpf 02:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Declaring that global warming is purely a "science" issue which must be researched to death before anyone lifts a finger is a POV that business increasingly disagrees with. Where else would you have this information, Silverback? Rd232 09:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd have it in a newspaper, or magazine, not an encyclopedia. Where did you find it? Hmmmm.--Silverback 09:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

condescending language

Some of the language is pretty condescending and jarring to the reader. Its not that its not neutral, or that its incorrect, it just seems to jar the reader with its tone...I don't know how to say it, but I think some of you might possibly know what I mean. One of the reasons is possibly that it weaves left and right and doesn't seem to have a good flow and presentation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Pagein presenting a neutral argument. It has to be NPOV, but it should have a proper style in presenting a "neutral point of view", somewhat like a critique with all views in it. -- Natalinasmpf 14:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Part of that is that it has been under a near constant edit war, so presentation has taken a back seat. If you see things that need to be fixed in that area, please do so, and be prepared to back them up on the talk page. - Taxman ^Talk 14:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I tried cleaning up some clumsy phrasing in the first paragraph, while trying not to alter what I had understood the sense to be. Robert A West 17:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll support what Taxman has said. Do be careful, because some of the language has been fought over, is accurate, and making it non-jarring might make it inaccurate. I altered:

A key example involving carbon dioxide can be relate dto clouds.

The effects of clouds are by no means limited to CO2 forcing (there is no particular reason why clouds should be in the GH theory section at all, they are far more general). In fact (see GW simplified) I think the GHG/Solar split is wrong, and ought to be "attriubution of changes".

I removed:

Much higher levels of C02 have ocurred further back. During the Cambrian Period, carbon dioxide existed in the atmosphere at average concentrations of about 7000 ppm. Today, at 370 ppm our atmosphere is relatively CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.

The last sentence is just POV; the relevance of high CO2 earlier is dubious anyway.

And "heat to be trapped" is a phrase to avoid if poss; T rise is better, I think.

In fact #2, Global warming/Global warming (simplified) is supposed to be an attempt to create a more user-friendly intro to GW. It might well be better off sorting out the language there. William M. Connolley 20:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).

CO2 Concentrations in the Cambrian Being Around 7000 ppm

I was going to add the following: "is relatively low in CO2 - however, even a rise in CO2 concentration to around 700 ppm has in the past increased global average temperature by 10-degrees-C [14]."

The plot in the reference is compelling: if it is to be believed, then the earth has normally existed at a global average temperature of 22-degrees-C, versus 12-degrees-C now. Of course, West Virginia is a major coal-producing state - if the page is biased, it is biased AGAINST supporting the danger of Global Warming. Too bad they didn't know how to read a graph. Simesa 21:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The past much more elevated levels of CO2 provide perspective, for those who fear the world is about to end in a runaway greenhouse effect. Even in the worst case scenerios, we are talking about minor changes that are easily adapted to, especially given the trillions of dollars of wealth the left is willing to just throw out the window in their premature and misguided reaction.--Silverback 22:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

---

Excuse me to interupt, but to say global warming is fine because it already happen a few millions (hundred millions) year ago seem a bit shallow as an argument, because (a) we had many mass extinctions in between. (b) it's a totally different context (c) sounds like "it's ok because some may survive" (d) look what happend to dynosaurs, by the way they too became bigger and bigger (exactly what happens with our activities - global impact) (e) I don't want my familly to end up with a dynosaur futur!

---

I would say the GeoCraft site does have that bias, or more precisely, it tends to run against the notion that global warming is dangerous. However, that does not negate the figure, so lets talk about the figure. The CO2 comes from the GeoCarb III reconstruction and they neglect to plot the enormous error bars. Which make the Cambrian something like 7000 +/- 6000 ppm. Some other reconstructions support much lower numbers in the 1000-2000 range, while others blow it up even higher than 7000. Personally, I think the only thing we can say for sure about those early times is that it was higher than today, but whether it was 2x, 5x, 10x, or 30x is a subject of great uncertainty and debate (I'll provide the refs if you'd like).

The temperature plot is also presented out of context. This is attributed to Scotese and is based almost entriely on climate reconstructions, with essentially no proxy measurements of temperature at all. Basically he looked at the distribution of polar ice and tropical zones. If there was ice over both poles and glaciers in mid-latitude mountains then he assigned a canonical value 12 °C. If there was no ice at the poles or evidence of mountain glaciers then he assigned a rough value of 22 °C. Other values reflect intermediate climate states and a couple well-documented climate events, but for the most part his temperature graph is meant to be very schematic and approximate. It should not be interpreted as suggesting there is some kind of bimodal temperature regime consisting of either 12 or 22. For another point of view on temperature see Image:Phanerozoic Climate Change.png.

I do think information on the history of CO2 and temperature offers useful perspective, but one needs to understand what the data is, how it is being interpreted and present it honestly. GeoCraft chooses to present a plot without discussing it's context or the uncertainty in this understanding. Dragons flight 00:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The point about the error bars is a good one. Past CO2 levels are, I think, only well known back 800 kyr, before that they are often rather uncertain (and at least partially constrained by... climate modelling! So if you don't believe the climate models, you are obliged to throw away at least some of the past CO2 estimates). Err, DF, would you consider drawing a pic of past CO2? It would be useful. William M. Connolley 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC).

I've actually had drawing such a pic on my agenda, but it's not an easy thing to do. The data for most of the published curves is not easily available and no matter what I plot it needs to be adequate to showing the huge disagreement that this field has been having with itself, and frankly, I haven't figured out how to approach the problem yet. Dragons flight 17:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

That isn't the point however, the ecosystem has evolved to a 12 degree state now....the Earth now has an oxidising atmosphere, I suppose, which is one of the arguments that plants are dying of carbon dioxide starvation now - back in the Jurassic, the oxygen levels were only at 5% (which actually isn't that bad, if you consider that we only breathe 1-2% of the atmosphere as oxygen, oxygen shortage is usually due to low pressures, not low percentages), and carbon dioxide levels were much higher. Now the ecosystem is much different, and there are a lot of CAM/C4 plants to accomodate carbon dioxide depletion, although I think even those are starving, probably, (that is my observation) due to photorespiration....I'm imagining how already amazing plants are, they are able to produce huge amounts of food from 380 ppm carbon dioxide levels, imagine if it was much higher...I suppose a reason why the dinosaurs died out could have been lack of food from the sudden decrease in growth in plants? Well anyway, I'm just presenting several of the perspectives. I do agree though, that I'd prefer money be spent to say, reduce lethal pollution emissions like sulphur dioxide/acid rain, and all the toxic substances as opposed to carbon dioxide, which it itself needs 15,000 ppm to reach toxic levels. I'm not so much concerned as actual warming though, then more extreme climate, ie. more droughts one area, more floods another (since I already live in a 35 degree Celsius climate anyway). -- Natalinasmpf 00:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up the air is already to the point of diminishing returns, where additional lives saved cost over $15,000,000 per. We can save far more lives more cost effectively, addressing TB, malaria, cancer, AIDs, prenatal care, etc. The whole global warming scare movement is so inhumane.--Silverback 02:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

How exactly does the third sentence follow from the first two? Diminishing returns on cleaning up air (or other pollution) refers to the problem of establishing acceptable concentration levels for pollutants like PCBs, given diminishing returns for health on lowering levels. Unlike greenhouse gases such pollutants are only local in effect, and whilst they build up in the environment, do not risk causing catastrophic runaway changes on a global scale. (By the by, what would it take for you to accept global warming as real and not a "scare"?) Rd232 08:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The global warming scare inhumane because it is being used as an excuse to destroy so much wealth that could be put to more humane use, and could even be used to more economically mitigate any climate issues that eventually arise. If the scientific evidence were more consistent, and the models were better that would be good evidence. It would be especially helpful if the models were able to explain the mystery of why runaway warming would happen today, when it didn't at higher GHG levels in the past. Since it will be difficult to obtain enough data on paleo-climates to validate the models, it would really help if models were less parameterized and proved themselves by replicating cloud cover and carbon cycle statistics. If, this confirms signficant climate change, then it would help if realistic analyses of the costs and benefits of different approaches were done. Even though GHG may be causing the change, reducing them may not be the most cost effective mitigation, a realistic assessment may even find that global warming even at the extreme of current model predictions, is not among the top ten issues facing humanity, in terms of both economics and human lives. In fact, it probably shouldn't be a top priority unless there is a REAL runaway scenerio. The remote possibility that it might be, probably justifies funding of further research.--Silverback 23:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on the political / public policy aspects of your comments, but I will say a couple things about the science. If by "runaway scenario" you mean a Venus type super greenhouse, then I don't believe there are any credible scientists who foresee that kind of a scenario. But there are any number of scenarios where climate might run away from us in the sense that it could shift into a new mode from which it would be incapable of returning to current climate mode within the time scale of millenia. The melting of Greenland or Antarctica are examples, since if those events were to occur then there is absolutely no way those glaciers could be rebuilt on time scales relevant to human experience. Hence, for all practical purposes, humanity would have created a permanent change in climate at these sites (not to mention global changes in sea level). Another is a potential reorganization of the thermohaline ocean circulation that influences heat transfer in the North Atlantic. Other scenarios involve massive expansions of deserts which could then perpetuate climate change even if the CO₂ et al. were removed. Many other scenarios exist, with varying degrees of plausibility, but the point I want to make is that it is these kinds of changes that scientists are usually discussing when talking about "runaway" climate change. In other words, they mean the kinds of changes where climate is so strongly perturbed by what humans are doing that on timescales relevant to humanity, it can no longer return to a state like that which has existed during the last several thousand years of humanity's development. One only needs to look at the ice ages to know that these kinds of climate transitions are possible and have occurred, though perhaps never before as the result of the actions of a single species. How humanity deals with this potential to "break" climate is of course a public policy issue, but as I already said, I'm not interested in discussing public policy right now. Dragons flight 01:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I consider pollution that can cross political borders, travel thousands of miles, infect lakes and streams, damage buildings through acid rain, and devastate the ecology more dangerous than a greenhouse gas that might actually be rather good (directly) to the ecology through proliferation of plant life, while its warming feature being inhibited by naturally controlled processes. That is just my basic stance on it, with of course, a belief it might happen, but I'm not very sure. -- Natalinasmpf 13:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good for ecology? Good grief. Changing climates at the rate that's already happening is destructive of ecosystems, which while tolerant of change within a certain range collapse outside it. A few hardy species, or those most suited to the changed climate, may do well, but most will be affected either directly, or indirectly through effects on prey species, pollinating species, etc. Cockroaches, rats and mosquitoes will do well, but I wouldn't bet the farm on much else doing well 100 years from now if the temperature goes up by 4 degrees (etc etc other effects like drought). Rd232 13:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a real shame that the Yellowstone area remained totally barren and empty of life after the last glacial covering melted. (SEWilco 18:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Also, if you think global warming is just an "environmental issue" that only rich people can afford to worry about, look at this Global warming in Africa: The hottest issue of all.Rd232 13:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How? Besides farms aren't really part of the ecology either, and I suspect conventional farming will become obsolete within the century anyway, being replaced by more efficient hydroponics and aquaponics methods. You don't get fertiliser running off into the ocean and land wastage through those facilities. Note I said rising carbon dioxide levels in terms of excluding climte change will be good for the ecology, and mitigating any climate change through pre-existing processes. There are plenty of weather processes that prevent a directly proportionate relationship between carbon dioxide levels and temperature increase, however the relationship in photosynthesis and preventing destructive photorespiration is direct. Do you know much crop yields photorespiration destroy every year? Furthermore, forest regeneration levels (to combat deforestation) in North America have risen 30% over the past fifty years, which seems to be directly proportionate to rising carbon dioxide levels. The situation in Africa can be solved by eliminating the cycle of poverty, through liberterian economic reform and prevention of hoarding. -- Natalinasmpf 14:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about farming, I talked about ecosystems. Replacing diverse ecosystems with monoculture is not (ecologically) an improvement even if there is more plant biomass. As for farming, recent large-scale tests indicate that other climate-change related factors (like weather patterns, droughts, ground-level ozone) in practice exceed the CO2 effect. In an age of ever-increasing water scarcity (and increasing energy costs), hydroponics is hardly going to be a solution globally. Your last sentence I could have much to say about, but it's on a different subject so I will resist the temptation to go into it here.Rd232 17:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't exactly see how diversity will be compromised, if climate change is mitigated. Yes, there are other factors involved in suppression for plant growth, but carbon dioxide starvation and photorespiration is one of the largest factors...and its not that water is becoming "scarce", more certainly as the more CO2 you produce, the more water you tend to produce (if you're producing it for energy, ie. from mitochrondria to cleaner energy forms anyway, ie. synthetic fossil fuels with minimal contaminants like sulphur and more of dense organic substances)....CO2 is pretty crucial for the production of cellulose, and thus, forest regeneration, because one of the key things about the prehistoric era is that plants grew perhaps, 4 to 5 times faster than they do today, at least in terms of trees - if you observe some of the fossil records, ie. instead of waiting for thousands of years for a forest to form, one could form within decades. This would be crucial for reforestation. What I imagine is to start using cleaner energy sources, and focusing on pollution removal and purification, and other conservation efforts, but not wasting it on limiting energy production or the idea of industry in itself - rather, focus on changing the way of producing energy. The production of carbon dioxide cannot be avoided in producing substantial energy, but the avoidance of pollutants can. Note Singapore: we have a major water dependency, having to buy over 50% of our water, but hydroponics is a favourable point in actually reducing dependency - hydroponics tends to be closed system. Water doesn't get lost, it gets circulated, and then if necessary, run through a filtration system and the water cleansed, somewhat like NEWater. Oh hydroponics doesn't necessarily have to include water - you could have solution sprays spraying roots in air as well, and all of this within a closed (or could be open) system.

You seem to misunderstand the water scarcity issue. Water isn't actually becoming more scarce in the sense there's less H2O in the world; it's having fresh water when and where it's needed for human activity. Increasingly extreme weather (plus glacier loss increasing variability of river flows) means, eg, that the same amount of water is dumped on hard ground and mostly runs off (causing floods) instead of being absorbed. Your reforestation comparison with prehistoric eras just seems naive; the world may end up with those levels of CO2, but many other factors will be less favourable, eg soil quality (and the water issue). Hydroponics?? I'm not saying it's irrelevant, but to Africans, that's got to sound like "Let them eat cake". Rd232 29 June 2005 10:37 (UTC)

I'm not sure how y'all got off on water, but the fresh water supply is actually increasing because rivers are being cleaned up, and global warming would increase precipitation overall, although regionally some areas will be dryer. There is some evidence that increased CO2 will reduce water loss in plants from transpiration, so perhaps crops will require less water. The real issue with water "scarcity" is not supply, but increasing demand. Water availability will not be the limiting factor in an expensive process like hydroponics, so I don't see how it is relevant. Yes, the higher projections of warming may be difficult for some eco-systems to adapt to without species loss, although humans have been causing species loss for quite some time, and with projected population increases, any incremental loss from global warming may be difficult to detect in the mileau, and nothing that nature herself wouldn't eventually throw at the ecosystems, given that there are significant temperature variability in the paleo record, even since the last ice age.--Silverback June 29, 2005 13:10 (UTC)

Cleaning rivers doesn't substantially increase supply (of course it does reduce treatment costs and has other benefits). Increased precipitation overall isn't helpful when it comes with increased variability (see my previous comment). But you're right to note increasing demand as a significant factor interacting with supply issues. Rd232 29 June 2005 15:49 (UTC)

Images

Nearly no images related to climatoly and global warming are represented at wikimedia commons. It is possible to transfer at least some of them? --Saperaud 03:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to transfer any of mine across (I hereby give permission if it is required) but I'm unlikely to do it myself. William M. Connolley 08:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Observed ecological changes

Certain changes in organism ("population") density or geographic range may be attributable to global warming. How should these be handled? They may be controversial, but they are relevant. I'm thinking of black tongue outbreaks north of the Mediterranean, oak processionary moths in northern Europe, red tide in Maine [15], sockeye salmon in Lake Washington [16] and the like. Myron 17:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wait until they have been taking place for decades. Until then, it's due to weather and not climate. (SEWilco 18:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I guess you're right about the examples I cited. However, how about the recent attribution to climate change (and associated increase in sea temperatures) of marked distribution shifts in many species of marine fish over the past 25 years as reported in Science? This article, entitled "Climate change...", etc. convincingly warns of "profound impacts on commercial fisheries" to be expected as global warming continues. So I again ask for advice on how this should be noted on the Global warming main page. Myron 30 June 2005 03:59 (UTC)

25 years. Are you aware of what happened to climate in 1975 and how fisheries are related to study of that event? (SEWilco 30 June 2005 06:50 (UTC))

I don't catch your drift. What particular event occurred in 1975 and how would that relate to climate? The peer reviewed article that I cited from the prestigious and carefully vetted journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science indicates that climate change mediated by increase in mean sea temperature has resulted in a shift in distribution of numerous fish species over the past 25 years. The study covered both exploited and non-exploited species and seems to exclude as an explanation any ecological ripple effect of selective harvesting of particular species or chemical pollution, but instead points to what is popularly called global warming (although such climate change does not involve the Earth's surface warming up everywhere). I don't understand if you are disputing the relevance of this finding to the Wikipedia "Global warming" main page or if you are pointing out an event that occurred nearly 30 years ago. Please give some details about what you mean. Myron 30 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)

SEW is a skeptic. Global warming isn't occurring in his world. All climate change occurs as the result of "events" that have nothing to do with CO2 or anything like that. But back to real life: anything is Science (well, papers) is fair enough and could be included, if relevant. Be bold: put it in, it'll get re-worked, or not, but its best to at least start by putting things in rather than talking too much, though if people object... But if this is fisheries, would it be better in the "effects" article? William M. Connolley 2005-06-30 15:52:48 (UTC).

I was referring to the Pacific decadal oscillation, which underwent a regime change when the 30 year global cooling event ended. (SEWilco 30 June 2005 15:55 (UTC))

Are you saying that the paper ignored the effect of the PDO? Does anyone have access to the paper to confirm/deny this? Rd232 30 June 2005 16:01 (UTC)

The paper does not mention the PDO. It simply plots the relationship between progressive warming and rate of longitudinal shifting of range. It makes no effort to provide an explanation for the warming. The study is confined to the North Sea. I didn't realize that non-AAAS members might not have easy access to the article, so here is its full citation: Allison L. Perry, Paula J. Low, Jim R. Ellis, John D. Reynolds: Climate Change and Distribution Shifts in Marine Fishes. Science, Vol 308, Issue 5730, 1912-1915, 24 June 2005; DOI: 10.1126/science.1111322. Perry et al. refer to a 2003 meta-analysis in Nature that estimates the mean annual rate of range boundary movement toward the poles for other taxa (birds, butterflies and alpine herbs). All of this is not a proof of "global warming" but it does support extrapolation of the consequences of climatic warming be it relatively transient, long-term, entirely "natural" or to some extent anthropogenic. This, I think, makes it sufficiently relevant to "Global warming". The question is where to put it? Currently we have a place to talk about changes in plant ecology, but somehow we should broaden that section to include all taxa. The trouble is that there may be too much to cover, especially in view of the argumentation that everything sets off. For example, while the study cited above speaks only about a shift in range, there is also the issue of extinction. For certain commercially fished species in the North Sea, the population has been decimated by human exploitation and the effect of warmer waters will probably be to impede recovery of the stocks or perhaps to push the species over the edge. The cleanup of the Thames estuary seems to have provided the common sole a nice nursery ground, moving it south and making it the exception to the general trend. All such detail could contribute to quibbling. Then there's the interactions between species and what happens if their relative abundance is profoundly altered (cf., the impact on predators if prey head north), the possible trapping and extinction of, for example, alpine flora in pockets from which there is no viable path northward. Maybe this should go on a different page entitled... what? Myron 30 June 2005 17:12 (UTC)

I did not ask if the paper mentioned the PDO, I wondered if you knew about the previous relationship between fisheries and climate research. Does the study mention behavior during 1905-1945 and 1945-1975? How does the study distinguish between movement due to warming and removal due to fishing? Other materials which may be relevant to your article: Dogger Bank, Atlantic_cod#Declining_populations, Image:Cod catch 1950 2002.png, Image:El nino fishing.jpg. Interestingly, if Atlantic herring are affected and their prey copepod are not, more carbon may be sequestered in the ocean bottom (according to copepod article). (SEWilco 30 June 2005 18:24 (UTC))

Global warming as a possible Ice Age trigger

This section needs some work. I also have a feeling its elsewhere on wiki. Just a marker for now... William M. Connolley 08:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).

How does this fit with Ruddiman's thesis that according to natural rhythms we should be in an ice age, but human activity (agriculture etc) has prevented it taking effect? Rd232 14:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK Ruddiman is basically wrong to say we "should" be in an ice age - the orbital-forcing type theories say (in the absence of anthro) that the current interglacial should be long anyway. Also there is a Schmidt et al paper (err, ref?) to say that he is wrong observationally, at least for the methane component. I'm going to go and edit it now. William M. Connolley 15:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).

The issue of whether we "should" be in an ice age is basically seperable from the other part of his theory. That is to say, on the one hand, he offered the hypothesis that without agriculture the linear declines in methane and CO₂ observed shortly after the end of the ice age would have continued until the present and reached levels significantly below pre-industrial norms. This has been challenged on any number of grounds. In addition to this, he proposed that the methane and CO₂ levels he expected would have led to the start of the next ice age. If one takes as given the GHG levels he suggests, then this part of the theory is on firmer ground, i.e. plugging those levels into GCMs does suggest ice expansion and the nucleation of continental ice sheets in Canada. For the record, the orbital theories assume that GHGs respond to orbital driven climate changes (to the extent that GHGs are considered at all), rather than evolving semi-independently as Ruddiman would suggest, so they can't really be used to disprove his theory. In my opinion, it is probably fair to say that as a consequence of Ruddiman's proposal on the evolution of greenhouse gases, we would have been heading into a new ice age; however, there are still a number of valid reasons to challenge Ruddiman's basic hypothesis. Dragons flight 17:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have now done a heavy rewrite. I removed the last para entirely. The idea that the arctic ocean was ice free during ice ages seems quite wrong to me and is completely unsourced. As for the rest, I've changed "ice age" to "local cooling" because AFAIK no-one (scientific) is suggesting an ice age trigger. Etc etc. I'm pretty sure I've seen all this elsewhere (and better) on wiki but can't find it for now. William M. Connolley 16:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC). Or perhaps I mean: http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/05/thermohaline-collapses-or-not-again.html

watchlist poll (or an inquiry to why it took so long to revert that vandalism)

Something minor, but how many people have this article on this watchlist? I had a piece of vandalism that sat on the article for entire gaping 12 minutes, and I had to revert it personally. Now, vandalism on such a major article as this, should be removed within a minute or two, if not seconds, from the vandalism. Either this means, the RC patrol fell asleep, there aren't enough people having this on the watchlist (ie. from every part of the world to keep this article covered), or something more insinuating. Yeah. Perhaps I'm over-reacting, but assuming that over 8-10 million readers (and possibly doubling every month) hits Wikipedia every month, who knows how many newcomers got turned off to Wikipedia by our lagging reaction times. Just a shocked contributor commenting. -- Natalinasmpf 20:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 12 minutes ain't too bad. On average we do better, but not always. :-) How come you didn't fix it right away? (That's what I always do when I look :-) ). Kim Bruning 21:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It happens, I've seen vandalism stick around on even moderately high profile articles for 15 to 20 minutes sometimes. Why are you upset about having to revert it personally?. Someone has got to revert it personally, why not you? There's nobody whose job it is to revert vandalism, it's just contributors like you or me. The RC patrol folks are just a bit more active about it, that's all; even the admins are just contributors like you or me. If you're upset that someone didn't catch this vandalism sooner, then you're to blame as much as anyone else on Wikipedia. Afterall, why didn't you catch this and revert it seconds after it happened? I'm thankful you did revert it, that's what good Wikipedians do. I hope you don't get mad every time you do a revert. Personally, I derive satisfaction from cleaning up vandalism. =o) -Eisnel 21:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not blaming anyone. I was working on another article, I was just complaining in general for not having enough people tagging this article on their watchlists. Hence, I blame partially myself, but its more of, "is this article watched by enough people? Why did it take 12 minutes for it to be removed?" I'm not mad when I have to "revert it personally", just wondering if I didn't catch it, who else would have (ie. would it have stayed on for an hour?), because normally its reverted within one or two minutes. -- Natalinasmpf 21:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Never mind that, its still your move :-) William M. Connolley 21:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC).

• Why, we were all waiting for you to fix it, Natalinasmpf. Or maybe this is not a "major article". Or things get fixed when they get fixed. (SEWilco 03:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC))

• What matters is that it was reverted. All is well with the universe. -Eisnel 22:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"business opinion"

I've deleted the business opinion section again. These expressions of opinions by business leaders may be appropriate for a newspaper or news magazine, but not in an encyclopedia article. It is embarassing to see the businessmen groveling to be "politically correct", in order to improve their business prospects in the Kyoto ratifying countries, and to lobby for more funding of those programs which might benefit their companies. We have a separate page for Scientific opinion on climate change perhaps we need one for Unscientific opinion on climate change.--Silverback 06:59, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. The main supporters of the skeptical view on global warming have been business and industry leaders and lobbyists. Now when a few of them begin to shift their positions in the face of accumulating evidence our wiki skeptics want to remove reference to the fact because they are embarassed by it? The bottom line $$ is always paramount to businesses, but the fact that they are accepting the reality and adjusting to it is significant. As the info is relevant here, prominent skeptics accepting the reality of the scientific evidence and taking responsibility for their role in the problem, it belongs here or prominently linked from here. -Vsmith 13:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, business leaders have probably been pressing politicians to consider impact on the economy of any attempt to mitigate global warming, and point to areas of doubt in the science. But I haven't been quoting their opinions on the science here. I haven't looked at the Kyoto article in while, perhaps they have been quoted there. I trust them more to know what the economic impact of a government policy will be, than to know what the economic impact of climate change will be. Hopefully they cite the literature on the latter.--Silverback 15:19, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

In some cases they can already see what the economic impact of climate change is, and trust the scientists when they say it's probably mostly anthropogenic. Rd232 20:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Action on Climate Change

There seems to be no page on what action could be taken if global warming is a threat (or were it to be a threat). I'm thinking of windmills and cutting air travel on one level and personal actions like switching off the TV instead of leaving it on stand by on the other. If there already exists such a page (and I haven't stumbled on it) then there should be a link to it from this page under see also. Soft energy path is as near as it get at the momentDejvid 29 June 2005 16:11 (UTC) <blush>I guess Mitigation of global warming is what I had in mind. How embaressing!! =:-< Dejvid 29 June 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Carbon balance / YI / SEW

SEW is pushing the std.skeptic stuff that the natural carbon cycle is much bigger than the anthro. True, but irrelevant. THe natural cycle is in balance. This isn't speculation, as shown by the past CO2 record.

And the RAS hasn't withdrawn its statement: YI remains a septic, but he can't withdraw the statement, no matter how many interviews he gives to the press.

William M. Connolley 2005-07-02 10:30:07 (UTC).

The past CO2 record shows CO2 level variations. Show how the carbon cycle is "in balance". What in the cycle keeps a balance by stopping excessive addition and sequestration? And I clarified that YI speaks for an RAS group. (SEWilco 2 July 2005 16:31 (UTC))

THe CO2 record shows small variations, far far smaller than the recent anthro rise. Please, don't go mad: the recent rise *is* anthro, you're off in cold fusion / dynamic theory of gravity land if you believe otherwise. And YI in a newspaper article speaks for no one but himself. William M. Connolley 2005-07-03 19:27:01 (UTC).

Anthropogenic climate variability

Since the above link comes back to global warming, despite anthropogenic impacts including more than elevated CO2 emmisions and effects including more than simply global warming, I'd suggest that redirect page either point to climate change, be deleted, or have it's own article, in which the various impacts in addition to CO2/warming are listed. Eg. deforestation in Amazonia changes the albedo and the partitioning between latent and sensible heat fluxes, which leads to a change in the tendency for low clouds to form. Eg. decrease of CAPE from the tall chimneys designed to generate electricity. Eg. increased incidence of convective storms in the vicinity of paved cities. Eg. changes in particulate concentration, also affecting albedo. Daniel Collins 3 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

Changed to redirect to Attribution of recent climate change as it seemed a better fit. Vsmith 3 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

A better fit than global warming indeed, but I think still lacking. That new page (i) refers to "recent" climate change, and (ii) has been billed exclusively to deal with global CO2 and warming. Deforestation of China's Loess Plateau some millennia back is thought to have led to a drop in rainfall in the region - far-from-recent climate change. There have been theories, too, about the arrival of humans to Australia causing an increase in fire leading to subsequent regional climate changes. And the issue of "anthropogenic climate variability" shouldn't be relegated to past instances, per se, but to general instances, which include potential future changes. Should the new destination remain, then that page should see a significant change to account for non-CO2-related climate change, which I think would defeat the original purpose of that page. So I reiterate a call for a reshuffle. Daniel Collins 3 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)

Sounds as though you have sufficient info to restart the page as an independent article. Go for it, I'll be interested in its development and support the idea. Vsmith 3 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

There is no consensus among the scientific community.

I see that volcanoes aren't even mentioned on the Global Warming page. Ice core samples don't indicate that temperatures today are any higher than the warm periods of the last 500,000 years.

Please sign your comments (for tildas, thus: ~~~~). There is no obvious reason to mention volcanoes, since they make no great difference at the timescales we're talking about (as evidenced by the stability of the pre-industrial CO2 record). Ice core record show previous interglacials as perhaps, 2-3 oC warmer but I think those are at the ice core sites themselves, not globally. There is also a complete disconnect between your chosen section heading and your comments. William M. Connolley 2005-07-03 20:51:46 (UTC).

Revision reverted by Zenmaster

Cheers, Zenmaster - I'm trying to encourage some movement here. But perhaps you're right and I should discuss it first. Fine, I copied the controversy summary to the controversy article, and some effects stuff (cooling) to the relevant part of the effects article. What was reverted was my moving a couple of things under the Causes heading within this article (ozone, dimming, prehuman warming), and my deleting the entire current Effects and Mitigation sections as they both need proper summaries written from the respective daughter articles (where all that info already exists). Might look like a big change, but it isn't really IMO, tho it is a call to action. Rd232 6 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)

What is the impetus for the movement of content to other articles? If size is a concern I've found the best first step is to rephrase everything with succinct clarity in mind, then hopefully a logical way of splitting the content (if still warranted) will be easier to see. Though, on first glance at this article your proposed content for movement seems highly relevant in the article and probably should remain here which is why I reverted. Please explain the rationale for the movement if size isn't a concern? zen master T 6 July 2005 10:54 (UTC)

The rationale should be obvious if you look at the effects of global warming, mitigation of global warming and global warming controversy. Those articles need developing and improving (especially the last) and then a summary here, to avoid duplication. Also, if you look at the history, this article has been dominated by arguments over the science of "is it happening", and separating out sub issues is helpful to ensuring that those get developed and not overshadowed by that. (And there was an exchange which made it clear that some users conceived of this page as purely "scientific" and that "the other stuff" (my words) should go elsewhere.) Also, I should stress that the content has already moved elsewhere - I was just removing the duplication (with a view to a summary being developed). Rd232 6 July 2005 11:08 (UTC)

In fact, I feel that, for its size and the number of editors, this is the worst article on Wikipedia. Just a mess, as too many people arguing about the trees let the wood get into a completely horrible shape people can't find their way through. See also previous discussions about the whole topic structure (wikiproject climate change), which isn't fantastic either. Rd232 6 July 2005 11:22 (UTC)

Well, much of that info is likely relevant here so probably most of it should stay or there should be a rather detailed synopsis left here. More importantly however I would advise against suddenly "moving" or doing what looks like "removing" highly relevant content as that is taboo on Wikipedia (or maybe it's just me). Redundancy with hopefully succinct clarity in one article is prefered over deletion and lack of context for the subject because relevancy is spread through a byzantine maze of other articles. Most readers will come to Global warming for info on the controversy and how it effects their lives etc, such info is actually rather core and probably should stay here. It seems there is no clear logical distinction between the different articles, consensus should be reached on a logical distinction to properly split the subject and to have some contextual flow between the articles before movement begins, and perhaps some of these other articles should be merged back here? zen master T 6 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)

See comment above. This article and topic is in enough of a mess that it needs some drastic cutting of deadwood, which is what my edit you reverted did. As I said, summaries here would be the next step, but better to do them properly, and in the mean time avoid confusing people with duplicated content (and risk edits in different places unnecessarily). And there IS a clear logical distinction between GW (focussing on causes, because that's what the editors involved get excited about) and Effects, and Mitigation. Controversy exists for Wikipedia-historical reasons and I've argued for it to be merged (or renamed History of global warming - see Talk:global warming controversy). Bottom line, this topic had settled into a messy compromise, and I was trying to kickstart some improvements. Rd232 6 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)

Given the controversial nature of this article (and my personal preference in general) I think you should propse the logical methodology you are going to use to split the article and get regular editors of this article to sign off on the plan. Plus keep in mind the highly likelyhood of need detail synopsis here in this article that describe the other articles. Also I meant my point about rewritting with succinct clarity in mind as first reducing the amount of verbosity rather than and before just moving it around to new articles. Perhaps there is consensus that global warming exists but the mechanics, causes and effects are all still disputed? Given the apparent scientific consensus that it exists "global warming" is a neutral title in my interpretation. zen master T 6 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)

The split has existed for some time, appropriately linked from here, and no-one has objected. The edit you reverted was merely aimed at preparing the way for a proper synopsis. (I slightly disagree about "detailed" synopsis; synopsis yes, but not so much that it needs changing too often as the main article develops.) It's only a click away, and the structure is perfectly clear. On the subject of verbosity: I have done and am doing things about this; you're just moaning and getting in the way. For example, in creating Effects some of the previous verbosity has gone (by my editing); and the aim of merging the controversy summary into the controversy article was to enable the whole article to develop into something better, enabling a more useful synopsis to be developed here. Mitigation didn't even have a synopsis, just a crappy "see also" thing. Also, you might have noted recent changes I made which significantly improved structure and reduced verbosity of this article in the main section. Overall comment: you seem to be happy with the status quo, whereas, as you've gathered by now, I think in important respects, especially from the point of view of the average reader as opposed to the keen editor, it sucked big time. (Secondary comment: for someone who I haven't encountered before either by comments or by edits, you seem to have pretty strong opinions about all this.) Rd232 6 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)

Was it a split or a POV fork? The synopsis should be created before removing content in my opinion, especially what seems, at least on the surface, to be highly relevant content. I admit I have not been paying close attention to this article, edit wars make even less sense when randomly bizarre and I am rather unknowledgable on this subject, even for a layman. In my opinion and my experience context is lost just moving it to another article. How often do readers view linked articles when it is a core part of the first issue they were looking for? I suspect not often. Sub or other new articles also have a greater chance of vandalism and/or degradation in quality/increase in POV. Has the option of merging content from other articles back here been considered as part of the master movement plan (which someone probably would have suggested had a logically distinct and sound split proposal been made on the talk page first...). How do you know the current multi-article organization makes sense? The time dispersed organic multi article split/POV fork de-facto Wikipedia process leads to context-less chaos not increased succinct subject clarity in my opinion. zen master T 6 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns about proliferation of articles creating weird article meta-structures - global warming is a perfect example of the problem. But effects and mitigation are very clearly logically distinct from causes, and don't require any "context" - they can perfectly well stand alone (with appropriate intro and links); and for the reasons stated (encouraging development of those topics) I want to separate them out. And I'm quite happy to expect readers to click on the relevant links if they want more detail than the synopsis provides; this is standard approach for Wikipedia. Finally, separating these two clearly distinct sections out provides some breathing space for an (eventual) better overview (and perhaps associated rationalisation) of the material on causes which is scattered around all over the place. One day we might even achieve a causes of global warming which brings all that together, plus synopsis here, in which case we'd finally have a global warming article that does what it should, which is summarise the topic of global warming and leave all the detail (especially scientific detail) in daughter articles (just a click away, but not overwhelming readers). But that's more than I was aiming for at the moment - I just wanted to work towards a proper summary of the effects and mitigation articles! (Jeez, with the effort arguing with you I could have done that summary by now.) Rd232 6 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)

I'm with Rd232 on this, this article has been in need of revision for quite a while (see above ~June 19). It is a controversial topic and I'm quite happy to let Rd232 have a go at a revision. I see no objections by regular editors of the article. I say on with the revision - chop away :-). Vsmith 6 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

See Talk:Global warming/Global warming (simplified) Vsmith 6 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

images

The only images on here are....graphs. Now, seeing how that as soon sometime in the future (I hope), we get the problems with this article settled and nominate it for FAC, we'll probably need better images - more dramatic images, like one of those colour images where it shows the difference between Earth's warmth as a globe at one date, and on the other...ie. with purple being cool as red being hot, and maybe a screenshot of a climate model program showing how complex the factors are, and maybe an image that would serve both the greenhouse effect and the global warming article (and finally resolve the technicality that it doesn't really "trap" heat, for once and for all)...graphs are so...well not particularly helpful in illustrating the topic. -- Natalinasmpf 6 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)

Anyone have any public domain/free licensed images of the Antarctic ice sheets? I know that the ice sheets have been receding gradually over the years, and well, if there's a photo of them (anyone been there and taken photos?) and it would be just the thing to illustrate the concept for this article...and maybe rising sea levels (as well as Antarctic environmental issues while you're at it). -- Natalinasmpf 01:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Working towards FAC?

Given some new editors, and the apparent demise of the edit wars, its probbaly a good time to work towards FAC status, as noted above. Again, as noted above, this article has been fought into the ground for quite a long time. I've just made some edits which (as far as I'm concerned) are POV neutral but which hopefully contract it without losing anything vital, and may make it easier to read.

I know the science very well, but will freely admit to not being terribly good at writing comprehensible prose.

Its probably a good idea to do these things in bits, to avoid large reversions, so I'll stop for a bit to allow comment. I agree that most of the effects/mitigation can be moved out, and should be. I've moved some of it (in effect restoring some of the stuff that Rd cut and ZM restored).

Someone should check that useful text isn't being lost in the process, but I think it isn't.

At the end of my edits, the page was down to 43k. I'm aiming for 32k.

William M. Connolley 2005-07-06 16:12:10 (UTC).

Whilst we're in danger of making some progress, FAC is pretty ambitious! But hey, it's good to have goals in life. ;-) Rd232 6 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Maybe. But I think that there is an awful lot of interesting and valuable science in there, on a publicly-visible subject. All it needs is to be hacked into shape. William M. Connolley 2005-07-06 22:58:19 (UTC).

True. Onward and upward, as they say. Rd232 7 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)

Developing a schema/survey

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change. Please do follow the discussion there! Rd232 22:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Language

The language of the article needs to be edited so it is not so clunky. The presentation is also very poor. Rintrah 02:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Making the language less clunky is fine. Making it less technical probably isn't. There is a proposal to have a /Global warming (simplified) as a less technical intro. William M. Connolley 10:47:28, 2005-07-14 (UTC).

Sociological considerations about greenhouse gases

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change. Rd232 22:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Significant and compelling evidence to refute anthopomorphic global warming.

A few things;

99.7% of CO₂ emissions come from volcanoes. See [17].

That page is nonsense. The recent rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. No-one (with any scientific merit) doubts that - not even Bush. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity. [18]. Bush is wrong - its more than just "in large part" - but if even he won't support your stuff, you're lost. William M. Connolley 09:20:25, 2005-07-18 (UTC).

In fact, many of the weather stations used to collect data are at the top of active volcanoes [19].

Sigh. Give it up. There are better things to argue about. The South Pole gets the same answers as Mauna Loa, and it isn't on a volcano.

Climate change models are often presented as being based on real phenomena, however they are almost always gross simplifications of the real systems. They can almost never explain the Ige Age, or even the Little Ice Age.

Because very few of them are run through those periods.

So, temperatures have risen since the 18th century, when we were in the middle of a little ige age. So what? They can't even correctly predict global temperatures for next month or next year accurately, so how can they claim to be able to predict 50 years into the future?

Heard it all before... http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/04/we-cant-predict-weather-week-in.html

Sadly we never stop and perform the basic checks on these predictions necessary for scientific validation - seeing if their predictions are correct. The IPCC are continually revising their doomsday predictions downwards.

You're a victim of septic propaganda.

The reality is that the Earth's climate is a complex system with multiple feedback systems, and that water vapour, not CO₂, is the primary greenhouse gas.

http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html

More warming should lead to more clouds, which will reflect more light out to space.

Why?

You see that there is an equilibrium involved that is simply assumed to have certain characteristics, via a link that has never been shown. In fact, polar ice core samples show that CO₂ levels follow periods of global warming rather than preceding them. There's a lot on this subject at [20]

Friends of Science is a non-profit organization made up of active and retired geologists, engineers, earth scientists and other professionals... or, a front for the petroleum type people? With, sigh, Baliunas.

Dirty tricks were employed by Enron from 1993 to 1996 to basically fool the easily succeptible Green movement (who, despite their good intentions, are well known for taking an anti-establishment view in any debate, with or without evidence) into protesting about Global Warming, which previously had only minor groups supporting it. As they pulled other strings to make sure it got further through government (so as to gain control of the lucrative Carbon tax market), more people got on the bandwagon to support it, and eventually the Kyoto protocol made it through, despite these gaping holes in the science behind it. There is a long, well referenced account of this at [21].

The Green movement needs to refocus on the control toxic pollutants rather than life-giving ones, as a matter of urgency. There are good reasons to move away from oil dependancy - otherwise the disatrous consequences of Oil shale mining or shortsightedness of Nuclear Fission may cause global pollution on a hereto unforseen scale. Global warming is real, but you may as well campaign against the movement of the sea tides for all the good it will do anyone.

(above unsigned comments by User:Mugwumpjism on 02:48, 18 July 2005)

Vsmith 15:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." A little learning and access to the internet is a very dangerous thing. Rd232 10:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

CO2 abbreviation

Uh, can we try to stick to using the word "carbon dioxide" whenever possible? It's more formal, looks better in print, and is in fact, easier to type then putting in subscript tags all the time. The only time the abbreviation should be used is when discussing chemical formulas, or reactions, or whenever it's being discussed about its chemical properties. Otherwise, it's a basic greenhouse gas. "Carbon dioxide" just aesthetically becomes better for describing that kind of property. At least for me...the key thing is that it looks more formal and the only times we should used abbreviations I believe, is when we're using extensively long names that have acronyms and sound awkward when being used repeatedly. However, in our case, I think "carbon dioxide" is sufficiently convenient to pronounce repeatedly not to warrant a constant abbreviation. -- Natalinasmpf 15:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

OISM Petition

The Oregon Petition ran 1998-late 2001 with most signatories in the first year. If you look at the statement that participants affirmed [22], they do not ascribe any causation to global warming, only to say that greenhouse gases will not cause "catastrophic" warming in the foreseeable future, whatever "catastrophic" is taken to mean. So at the very least it can in no way be used to say that global warming has natural or solar causes, since the petition doesn't require anyone to beleive that to be true.

Further if you look at the form, you will note the little check boxes for BS/MS/PhD. They inflated their statistics by more than a factor of two by including sub-PhD level "scientists". Count the petition signers with "PhD" after their name, it's about 40% as I recall.

What's more, they have admitted that most of the "2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists" who supported them are physicists and geophysicists, rather than traditional climate scientists. [23]

This is to say nothing of the scandalous misrepresentation that occurred by formatting the accompanying unpublished paper to make it appear like a published PNAS paper [24] [25]

The whole petition presented a grossly unbalanced point of view in a misleadingly format, with the aim of creating trying to strike down Kyoto, rather than get at the truth. It is certainly not appropriate for a primary citation of what any significant number of scientists believe. See also scientific opinion on climate change.

Dragons flight 15:08, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to this petition on Wikipedia, but in view of the importance given to it by skeptics, it probably should be there somewhere, including points like Dragons flight's above. Presumably it should be in either scientific opinion on climate change or politics of global warming. Rd232 20:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The petition has an article, the Oregon Petition. The article could use improvement though and is rarely linked, perhaps because the current name is obscure. Dragons flight 21:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. One thing I couldn't find was whether people could withdraw their signatures, and if so how many had done so. After all, you'd expect at least a few signers to change their minds over time, either on the basis of changing scientific opinion or on seeing how the petition is used. Rd232 12:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Accurate representation

The article is currently maligning the alternate viewpoint in an unsupported way with a non-sequetor: “The alternative view… held by a number of journalists and politicians, but by only a small minority of established scientists.”

The most recent survey that I am aware of to establish the size of the scientific population holding the alternative view is via OISM.org. Dragons Flight’s objection to my use of this source is: “OISM is 4 years old and grossly biased even when it was current.”

My response is that OISM is circa IPCC-2001 and more recent than Kyoto (the material to which OISM was responding) and that it clearly presents a statement of believe to which 17,000 members of the American Scientific community attested. The only ‘bias’ that I can detect in this non-corrersive petition is that it offers a view point in contrast to IPCC findings.

The vast majority of OISM signatories are not "members of the American Scientific community". Many only have undergraduate degrees, and there is no evidence that they work as scientists. Moreover, it was not a survey, but represents a self-selected set of responses, with no alternative answer possible. Assuming that there are certainly several million people in the US with undergraduate degrees in the sciences, one can just as well argue that maybe one in a thousand supports the OISM petition. As for the way the signatures were collected, read the link provided by Dragons flight. --Stephan Schulz 16:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the petition itself was supported by a deliberately misleading document. There is no way it can be considered unbiased. William M. Connolley 11:55:32, 2005-07-21 (UTC).

The current statement in the article denegrates the alternate position by unsupportadly minimizing the size of the adherant scientific community. It further denegrates the position through implied association with journalists and politicians, who in truth are present on both sides of the discussion.

In the interest of a more objective article I would ask for a more accurate representation of the opposing view.

I tried to give a short and correct summary. I'm pretty certain our positions differ, though.--Stephan Schulz 16:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

salend

Yes, sorry Salend, but I agree, your additions do not meet the burden of proof to be added. You're going to have to provide details and specifics here on the talk page about why the material you've added should stay in. Please do not add any related material without discussing it here. - Taxman ^Talk 16:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Article & logic

Dear all, could you please write to the following lines sources of mentioned statements?

• The scientific consensus is that a significant proportion of this past rise ... is due to humanity's emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. (to proove this please enter percentage of scientists that belive to statement mentioned above)

97.3%. Now "proove" me wrong. Seriously, scientific consensus is not established by voting or surveying all scientists. Only qualified scientists get a say. The best way to to gauge support for a position, especially for an outsider, is usually to survey the published peer-reviewed literature. Doing that directly requires a lot of time and a reasonable familarity with the subject. That's why the IPCC has taken over that task. The IPCC position has been explicitely supported by a huge number of respected scientific organizations, including the British Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences. I'm not aware of any comparable opposition to IPCC findings (no, the "Cooler Heads Coalition" does not cancel the Académie des Sciences). There are few fields of science where the consensus is as accessible as for climate change.--Stephan Schulz 19:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't have to proove you are wrong. You have to proove you are right (with your statement), it is the basic pressumption in mathematics. So, you wrote that the best way to gauge support for a position is to survey literature. Have you done so? Could you please write your conclusion (for example how many books you have read, how old are these books, who wrote them and what are their conlusions?)
It was the governmental delegates who manufactured summaries of IPCC (Stephan, please check the voting system in IPCC), not the actual scientists participating. Normally scientists prepare their own summaries. This odd procedure throws shadows over the IPCC. "This is very much a children's exercise" states dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the climate scientists. Please read his opinions, and try to find others. There is a lot of scientists from IPCC that do not agree with IPCC conclusions.
Ok, I think we can discuss about this 20 years without any result. So, I suggest, that we add also POV of the other side to the first paragraph and we can remove words "consensus of scientists" and replace them by "a big part of scientists", also we should remove "This view is contested by few qualified scientists" and replace it by "a part of scientists"(again, try to proove, that it is smaller group - it is not possible). I think, that this will make this article more neutral. Why do you want to censure the opinion of the other side? Do you affraid of their "truth"? --Ondrejk 23:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You want scientific opinion on climate change. Arguably, this should be linked in higher up the article. William M. Connolley 20:00:33, 2005-07-19 (UTC).

Hi Ondejk! I want this article to primarily reflect the mainstream scientific position. Catering to all possible POVs makes the article useless and unreadable. There are enough places to discuss the dissenting views elsewhere (e.g. in the article mentioned by William). I also think that there indeed is overwhelming support for the IPCC position, and the very few vocal sceptics have nearly no influence among qualified scientists (and, in fact, scientists in general). NPOV does not mean "all POVs are equal". --Stephan Schulz 10:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

How do you know what is mainstream scientific position? Can you cite your sources for statement very few vocal sceptics? We don't have to cater it to all possible POVs. We can mention IPCC-POV and skeptic-POV in first paragraph and then we can put there a note, for example: "This article is written from IPCC-POV. If you are interested in alternate views, please read ..." --Ondrejk 23:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works (see WP:NPOV). And the neutral point of view is the mainstream scientific one, which is summarised (not created by) the IPCC. Rd232 08:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not quite correct either. The NPOV policy states theories should be presented in relation to their promininence. "Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one." The IPCC summary is clearly supported by the majority of scientists, but it is possible they are wrong, even if unlikely. So NPOV means we present the most promininent and accepted theory as such, and also present dissenting opinions in relation to their importance. Since the IPCC summary is overwhelmingly accepted, we give that the most space, then note some disagree and present why. Since there are so many that do disagree (not many scientists) this article probably needs to cover a little more of that in order to be NPOV. But Dragonflight's recent changes to the intro are very good in my opinion. It is the rest of the article that needs to give a little more space to the dissenting views. - Taxman ^Talk 12:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I know the mainstream scientific position by looking at the primary and secondary sources. Duh! They are kinda hard to read for me (I'm a theoretical computer scientist and only have a minor in physics), but it's easy to see where to overwhelming support is and where the real howlers are. "Very few vocal sceptics" - well, your call here. Show me more than 10 vocal opponents. Show me more than 10 peer-reviewed published papers denying that a) there is current global warming and b) that much of it is anthropogenic. The recent support by all G8 academies of science is e.g. a very strong argument for the existance of scientific consensus. I have no problem with discussing different POV's, but I don't want the article watered down to uselessness by prominentely including positions with little and no scientific merrit. --Stephan Schulz 08:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Climate models predict that temperatures will increase (with a range of 1.4°C to 5.8°C for change between 1990 and 2100). (This is not true, because there exist also different relevant models, that predict different temperatures.)

If you want to play games, well, logically, the statement is true if there exist any models making that prediction. Moreover, the context makes the meaning quite clear. And finally, can you point to a serious, published, peer-reviewed model that disagrees? --Stephan Schulz 19:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the statement is true only in case, if every climate models predict that temperatures will increase. --Ondrejk 23:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope. "Climate models predict that temperatures will increase (with a range of 1.4°C to 5.8°C for change between 1990 and 2100). " as a logical sentence is true if there are at least two climate models (to justify the plural) which do predict a raise like that. But again, let's not play games. Do you know of any reasonable models that do not agree (where "reasonable" translates as "described and accepted in the peer-reviewed literature")? --Stephan Schulz 10:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Its the IPCC range. The range is correct; the link is perhaps not (the science article antedates the range by some time)

Ok, so we should write "According to IPCC climete models predict..." --Ondrejk 23:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No, because it isn't the IPCC who says so, it's the models published in the literature. It isn't like the IPCC conducts research of its own. Guettarda 12:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

"These climate simulations are being run at the request of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which will publish selected results of related diagnostic sub-projects in its Fourth Assessment Report in 2006."[26] (SEWilco 15:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC))

Errm, exactly, you're confirming G's point. William M. Connolley 18:19:15, 2005-07-21 (UTC).

Requesting work, and selecting what results to publish, is not conducting research? (SEWilco 16:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC))

Isn't this like saying that NSF "conducts research" when it funds someone (since they pay publication charges). Guettarda 17:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• In section "Causes of global warming" there is subsection called "Solar variation theory", and also these statements:
  • The warming is within the range of natural variation and needs no particular explanation
  • The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period — the Little Ice Age — and needs no other explanation

I think, that these three theories disprove the existence of consensus. We should either remove words about consensus, or we should censore remove the other opinions. We can't have both - consensus and alternative theories.

Of course we can. We have a strong consensus that the earth is roughly spherical. We can still mention that some people believe in a flat earth. But I agree, these lines are candidates for deletion, and are primarily there to placate "sceptics".--Stephan Schulz 19:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, that we have a valid proof, that Earth is spherical. You have to prove, that there is a strong consensus about existence of global warming caused by human race. I don't think there is (strong consensus. I don't want to speak about existence of global warming, but about existence of consensus). --Ondrejk 23:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no "proof" in science. Earth is flat and aliens with mind-control rays make circumnavigators walk in circles. The IPCC reports and their reception by the scientific community (including e.g. the recent support by 11 major national academies of science) are as much "proof" as we are likely to get. As always, there is a healthy discussion about details and mechanisms, but very few (and nearly no competent) scientists disagree with the consensus view.--Stephan Schulz 10:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Those two statements are hangovers. They need qualification, probably, because they aren't correct and the article should say why. William M. Connolley 20:00:33, 2005-07-19 (UTC).

--Ondrejk 18:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear all, do you agree with my suggestions? Can I change the first paragraph as I described? --Ondrejk 10:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm concerned. I think the current version is a fair and reasonably accurate description of the state of knowledge. It also links to Scientific opinion on climate change, where further discussion can take place. --Stephan Schulz 10:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

No. Vsmith 12:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think, that this article is based mainly on Vsmith's, Stephan's and William's POV. Why do you want to censore different opinion? I don't want to delete your POV, I just want to add also different POVs and to remove statements, that are not based on facts ("This view is contested by few qualified scientists"). --Ondrejk 23:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have written very little of the article, so claiming it is based on my "POV" is somewhat weird. The article is, mostly, based on the current scientific consensus, which I (and most qualified scientists, a view I definitly defend as a fact) support. There is no intend to censor at all. But the minority opinions should go where they belong - in a separate paragraph (or article) clearly marked as a minority view. See e.g. global warming controversy.--Stephan Schulz 08:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it is based on the mainstream scientific opinion, with adequate representation of scientific issues as seen by the mainstream, and at least fair (possibly more than fair) representation of the views of the small skeptical minority. (Views which are currently summarised in global warming controversy, as well as being part of other articles where the points belong.) Seriously, Ondrejk, instead of making quite serous accusations (for Wikipedians) of bias, I suggest you spend some time looking at the scientific literature. You don't seem to have a scientific background, so I suggest UK popular science magazine New Scientist's fairly non-technical website on climate change as a good start[27]. Do come back when you've looked at the other side of the debate, and not just listened to the skeptics (who, among qualified climate scientists, really are a tiny minority - see scientific opinion on climate change.) Rd232 08:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm no scientist.

Maybe then you should reserve judgement. This stuff is hard even for scientists (as is most current science - there is a reason why it takes 5-10 years of advanced schooling to become a qualified scientist). I'm not claiming it is imposible to get a reasonable understanding of the issues for laypeople. But it is not possible to do so by reading opinion pieces and articles in the "Economist". --Stephan Schulz 08:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I am open to any theory as to why the climate might be growing warmer if it is. If the cause is human we should do something about it. I'd like to learn more. In most other situations Wiki would be a reliable source of unbiased information on the arguments on either side and the merits of those arguments. On this page, however, it seems that the foxes are running the henhouse and that those who do have a strong opinion on one side have set the content and tone of the article. To dismiss the other side of the argument as 'flat-earthers' seems typical of the discourse here, and is not worthy of an encyclopedia.

From a scientific point of view, this is very nearly a flat earth vs. spherical earth issue. Yes, we are still arguing how high Mount Everest is, or wether Newton got the reason why the antipodes are not falling off the earth exactly right, but there is no reasonable doubt about the basic shape.--Stephan Schulz 08:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's none of us pretend that the (existant, legitimate) consensus on Global Warming is as solid, or the evidence anywhere near as consclusive, as for the shape of the earth or any of a huge range of scientific debates. The stridency and methods of the pro-warming side on this page alone should give us pause for concern as to how this consensus has been established. Let's have some acknowledgement on the main page, prominently, of the real debate that is going on about climate change (and not just in the US, thanks), and an informative review of the various arguments, noting the predominant consensus for man made warming. Can I propose that the first step should be to rename this article Climate Change, redirected from Global Warming. Anything else is distinctly not a neutral point of view. (JD - apologies, don't know how to add my tag here)

Having done a little more digging on climate change in an attempt to find a neutral account, I came up with this rather balanced introduction to an article in The Economist:

"The economics of climate change

GLOBAL warming looms, in many people's minds, as one of the biggest threats facing the planet. Over the past 20 years researchers have gathered evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is causing temperatures to rise. However, the exact pace of global warming, as well as the size of mankind's contribution to the warming trend, remain uncertain."

Which seems an entirely more balanced approach than that accepted by Wikipedia. Can I suggest that our opening paragraph (to our article on Climate Change) be edited to this kind of tone and content? (JD)

The article already says very close to that with "...is that a significant proportion of this past rise, particularly in the last 25-50 years, is due to humanity's emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2)." It does not claim to know the exact pace or size of contribution, though it does give an accepted scientific range for the effect. Your efforts to improve the article are welcomed and encouraged, but what you have to understand is that only verifiable information should be included in Wikipedia. That is especially so if one wishes to change information that has been heavily scrutinized and researched, such as this article has. Besides, what makes you think the economist would be so unbiased, particularly an individual writer or editor? Finally, I will go add the welcome template to the user page for the IP address you edit from. Please follow some of those links and consider signing up for a user account, but at a minimumm type four tildes ~~~~ after your posts so they can be identified as to the time. Thank you. - Taxman ^Talk 20:00, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled. You find something from the Economist, on a subject that you don't know much about, and because its written in nice soothing language you assume it must be balanced. Thats not a valid method of judging things. The Economist is *wrong*: However, the exact pace of global warming, as well as the size of mankind's contribution to the warming trend, remain uncertain. is just not true. The temperature record is available, and is accurately cited in the wiki article, unlike in the economist version. Calling the size of the anthro component "uncertain" is to downplay the consensus on this, which is that most of the recent change is anthro. The Economist is playing up the usual GW skeptic card - emphasising the uncertainties. The Economist is generally anti-GW biased, and AFAIK this is because it fears that the solutions - Kyoto and son-of - won't be to its liking (sadly it doesn't seem to be able to divorse the science of what is happening from the politics of what to do. But its hardly alone in that). Finally, the E is (obviously) not a scientific source, unlike most of the sources in the wiki article. William M. Connolley 20:52:48, 2005-07-21 (UTC).

"Other theory" - WV

An anon added:

One possible cause that hasn't been taken serious enough yet, is the water vapour emitted from irrigation systems. Agricultural systems use irrigation quite intensively nowadays and 2/3 on all water used by humans is used in irrigation. Water vapour is the most significant GHG, but formerly it was thought that human influence on it was negligible. Demand for more irrigation because of growing food demand of growing human population and drought that is caused by the climate change make it necessary to put more emphasis on irrigation factor in future. Water vapour from irrigation has two sided effects as its global effect is climate warming and local effect is climate cooling. Processes of water vapour are very complex, but taking them in account might take away few anomalies in current climate forecasting models.

This is more of a question for a FAQ than a theory that belongs on the page, and it pretty well admits that its fringe by its first sentence. AFAIK no-one seriously attributes GW to inc WV *from anthro emissions of WV* or from irrigation, though. William M. Connolley 12:51:31, 2005-07-26 (UTC).

Ext links

This article has a vast number of ext links at the end, accreted over years, many of dubious relevance or belonging mostly on sub pages (not just skeptical: do we really need so many UNFCCC type links?). I would like to prune them severely... William M. Connolley 20:08:14, 2005-07-29 (UTC).

Prune away - people can always make a case to replace them if they disagree. Guettarda 20:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, where possible (or at least where useful) do move them to daughter articles (eg some might go to the work-in-progress politics of global warming). Rd232 21:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

GW Support POV vs. NPOV

I first approached editing this from the opinion that the article presents a strong GW positive opinion and actively attempts to marginalize the skeptical POV. I still hold that opinion, but approaching it as an editor, rather than a bored IT guy with too much free time in the office, gave me a particular appreciation for the difficulty in preserving the scientific consensus while presenting a more neutral article.

To be clear, I don’t think the task itself is all that hard. I think reaching a consensus, post edit, might be nigh impossible.

Generally I focused on words that showed egregious bias (“small minority” – even if the description is accurate, what other kind of minority is there in common parlance?), or were simply unnecessary (most instances of “however”). The result was reduction of about 25 words. While I see the logic of “Small minority”, “minority” seems to suffice. I submit that “small number” or “small segment” would be more accurate, but “minority” reads better to my tastes. Words ending in “ly” were frowned upon. Adverbs are not your friends. The questionable use of “however” to start sentences notwithstanding, its use weakened the copy and served no purpose. Prefacing value ranges with nebulizers like “approximately” or “at somewhere between” seemed redundant. I was uncertain about deleting the adverb “monotonically, but the copy seemed to work without it.

I’m not playing grammar Nazi. My own writing isn’t always Strunk and White. I’m just explaining, and attempting to suggest means by which the article can be moved toward a more NPOV tone.

This brings me to the edits I didn’t make. It’s my opinion that the article summary is overblown, and contributes to the feel that the article is promoting the scientific consensus (and by extension arguing against the skeptic POV). I understand that the article needn’t support the skeptic argument, but detailing the consensus view doesn’t mean supporting it. By providing the extensive detail seen in the summary (referencing the UNIPCC and the G8 endorsement) the summary presents a feel of a propaganda document, rather than an encyclopedia article. This impression is reinforced by the repetition of that information in the article overview. I’d suggest the following edit:

“The scientific opinion on climate change is that the average global temperature has risen since the late 19th century. The consensus asserts that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", most prominently the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO₂). A minority of qualified scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played any role in increasing recent temperatures.”

This might be agreeable... my recollection is that there was a bitterly fought edit war over this para, with the septics insisting on "consensus" being supported by immediate evidence. Now they are gone (for now, ha ha) what you suggests seems reasonable. William M. Connolley 22:05:06, 2005-08-02 (UTC).

I would suggest that the rebuttals appended to the descriptions of “Other Theories” be deleted. The weight of the consensus view combined with the limited space afforded those theories already tends to marginalize these three blurbs. Further rejection smacks of proselytizing, and contributes to the article’s feel of a promotional message rather than an encyclopedic entry. Maverisms 21:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• "Small minority" - a minority is anything under 50%. When you are talking about a couple % - "small minority". Not saying so suggests a substantive minority.
• Deleting "monotonically" suggests adherence to the denialist/anti-science POV. The monotonic increase is the whole point".
• It would violate NPOV if we gave the skeptic (=crackpot, half the time) POV "equal time". I see no reason why the opinion of the oil industry and the GOP should have equal footing with that of verifiable, published, peer-reviewed science.

Guettarda 21:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

But I'm with G over "small" minority; and the "rebuttals" to the three arguments (discalimer: I added those rebuttals). I don't think it makes sense to have an argument put foward without the obvious (to me at least) counterargument. Arguably, points 1 and 3 have already been discussed earlier in the article: in which case they aren't "other arguments" and should simply be removed. They may be historical hangovers. William M. Connolley 22:05:06, 2005-08-02 (UTC).

"Small minority" is still redundant (all minorities are small, even the large ones. A minority can only be large in comparison with another minority), which is why I suggested alternatives, and indicated that the deletion of small was personal preference. Any copy has better punch when you say it as simply as possible. I didn't need a particular education on the definition of the word, as I thought I'd made clear, but thank you anyway. The point is the statement can be made in a less condecending and factual way without the use of "small minority" which sounds biased. I reiterate, for clairity; my edits/suggestions are concerned with the article's tone, rather than its factual content. Given the general agreement that the article should reflect the consensus of science, I see no reason to alter the meaning of any statement. "Small minority" while accurate, also conveys the conotation of insignifigance, naivete, and being among the losers. In concert with the redundant statements in the summary, it sets a particular tone. While said minority may seem to be foolish to those with the majority view, there's no need to rub their faces in it. Indicating that the group of dissent is small is better accomplished by "small segement". I acknowledge the point that technically one can call 49% a minority, but given the weight the article gives to indicating the widespread support for anthropogenic climate change, it seems a quibble to futher modify the minority as small. It gives the article a tone of, "here's one more in your eye, losers!"

"Monotoically" is an adverb and not your friend. That said, if the word is (as you say) mission critical to the point, it can be used in adjective form. Adjectives are also not your friends, but they aren't your enemy either; "results show a monotonic increase from 315ppm". Leaving the obvious note that anything displaying season ocillations isn't, strictly speaking, monotonic, I think the example above explains the spirit of the edit. Personally, I think "a steady increase from 315pp to 376ppm" is punchier, more strict, and solves the adverb problem while eliminating an unneeded sentence. That's win win. Otherwise, I'd have to ask why it is so critical that the increase be monotonic (as a reader, not an editor), and would expect an explaination of why that point is important. It's a complication at odds with shortening the article.

At no time, that I'm aware of, did I suggest that equal time be given to the opposing view point. I simply suggest that the consensus view stands better when it isn't phrased as if it's looking for converts. As I said before, this doesn't read like a neutral view point. I'm not suggesting that it be perfectly neutral, as I think should be obvious from my lack of objection to the "scientific consensus" approach. I'm quibbling about words, and tone, not who is right and who is wrong or who gets more air time.

I think the rubuttals are superflous, as I said before, and they give credence to the obvious opposition counter point: Why aren't weaknesses in the consensus view being detailed? My basic point is, if the items are worthy of dicussion then they don't require a counter argument at all. This is an encyclopedia article, not an op ed. If the items are misleading, then they don't need any air time at all. They are distractions. If they are so popular as misconception, that they need to be disproved, they really ought to have more space dedicated to that disproof. In short, either the section should go, the rebuttals should go, or the section should be a summary jumping to a new article. Again, it feels like a thumb in the eye sort of jab at the skeptics.

That said, I should hope no one takes this as some kind of attack, either on the consensus or the writing style of the authors. I get a bit intense when I see bullet points suggesting I advocated something I didn't, and I can be voiciferous in my opinions. I think the revert was bit much as a response, since I had a number of other edits that no one seemed to object to. Unless someone has an objection to the deleted adverbs (excluding the monotonically, of course), adverbial phrases and howevers, I'll revise those back out on the morrow. Maverisms 04:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have tried making an edit to remove the rebuttals, because I agree with you that they are awkward. You seem to believe "small minority" = "minority", as with the others, I disagree. In common usage, I have always understood "small minority" to mean one which is much less than 49%. That you think differently is interesting and suggests that this may not be clear to everyone. We should probably look for a better way to quantify the size of the group following the minority POV, though I am not sure how to approach this concretely. For what it is worth, I think you expressed your points well and I would welcome your further contributions to Wikipedia. Dragons flight 06:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

My comment was on monotonic as opposed to cyclic, not adverb versus adjective. As for "thumb in the eye", I'd say the article gives too much credence to the crackpots as is. They talk through both sides of their mouth - Kyoto will "cost jobs" (the only analysis I have seen of costs does not support that idea), while the "greening earth" stuff is garbage - there just isn't enough data to say anything conclusive, and what data exists leans the other way...but why claiming that the climate models lack adequate scientific support, they produce a counterargument which has no scientific support and is purely speculative. While there is valid scientific debate. For the most part, they are making shit up, and much of the rest comes from censored data, information out of context, and talking out of both sides of their mouths (like calling models "not well enough supported by science" and following up with totally untested ideas about a "greening earth"). The article is actually overly charitable to the skeptics. Guettarda 06:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I completely understand your meaning about minority. It's just a word, and taken at face value it means exactly what you think it means. Frankly, from a technical POV I have no issue with it. But from a stand point of a writer, I think "Small segement" serves the article better, while "minority" has a better flow. Your objection is valid, but it goes both ways. Those who want to dismiss the arguements of large non-majority segments also use the term minority. 49% of voters sounds far more signifigant than a minority of voters, if you take my meaning. I admit, again, that deleting small isn't the best solution, but if you want to keep small, you should realy lose minority. Based on other arguements on the talk page "tiny minority" would also be technically accurate, but I think it obvious that would be a flagrant bit of nose thumbing.

I'm not in love with my edits, but it's clear the language of the article is a bone of contention, so I tend toward a conservative method. I agree that the original edit of "minority" could be construded by "anti-skeptics" to be an inflation of the number of objectors, just as small minority can be seen by skeptics as marginalization. Again, I suggest small number or small segement, as more nuetrally termed phrases.

I've no intrest in debating the reletive merits of either argument. The Earth is warming. From a credibility stand point, the article should be as factual and clear as possible. I think the repeated stress on the scientific consensus provides enough grounding to understand the article's perspective and there are several passages that show other perspectives exist. From there, the article is fine. It doesn't seem to need any additional information. From the NPOV view, the article suffers from what I call the McDonald's Effect. Put simply, McDonald's doesn't talk about it's competitors. They tell you "our food is good" and "I'm lovin' it". Subway, on the other hand, spends a great deal of ad money saying, "we're better than McDonald's" or "we're better than other fast food restaurarnts". One is a strong position and the other is a weak one. The article is takening the weak "Subway" position, by engaging in off the cuff rebutting, unneeded self-defense, and speculation about oppositional motives (note, even solid speculation is speculation.) An article taking the view point of a factual description of the consensus of science has no need to speculate about the motives of those not in the consensus (or not in science). As an encyclopedic article it need only make note that they exist before moving onward. The article needs to say "this is the current understanding of science in general", not "this is the concensus and this why everyone else is wrong".

As for monotonic, I understood what you meant in your original objection. I think we're on the same page. As a writer, I strongly suggest you find a non-adverbial means to describe the linear progression in question. As an editor, I suggest you add something to explain the signifigance of the regular increase. This is an encyclopedia article, not a technical paper. It's safest to assume that the lay person isn't going to immediately grasp the connection between regular increases and human activity. I'm not adding such myself because I'm a writer, not a scientist. I'm qualified to discuss tone, not the minutae. Maverisms 16:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

uncertainties remain, and who is to say those emphasizing them are vested interests?

I just modified the vested interests paragraph, as terribly POV and undocumented. Uncertainties do remain, despite the consensus and even emphasized by vested interests within the consensus. After all, if uncertainties don't remain, why bother funding any more climate model research or development? Any name calling about "vested interests" should be documented and attributed within the text. It is not obvious for instance that oil companies have a "vested interest" in opposing global warming, after all, they also produce natural gas and compete against coal. They will probably benefit from global warming mitigation and from the reduced consumer resistance to price increases which stimulate conservation.--Silverback 23:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you changed it from "The uncertainties have in the past been exploited by politicians, corporations, and others with vested interests in opposing the activities needed to mitigate global warming; however, business opinion is increasingly changing to accept global warming as real and that action is needed. The scientific consensus is otherwise opposed by only a small minority of scientists." to

"Uncertainties remain and are emphasized by politicians, corporations, and others questioning the costs needed to mitigate global warming; however, businesses likely to benefit from Kyoto provisions are accepting global warming as real and that action is needed. The scientific consensus is questioned by a small minority of scientists and peer reviewed articles."

This has changed a paragraph that stood for some time into virtually meaning the opposite - you've effectively given the impression "ooh, everyone's worried about the costs and no-one wants to do anything except the people who will make moolah out of this global warming scam". Are you disputing that eg ExxonMobil has had a key role in business efforts to deny global warming and oppose action against? Do we really have to fill this paragraph with a hundred sources (eg [28]) you know perfectly well are out there in order to state what is well known? And your final sentence in your comment is totally speculative. Fuel emissions standards, carbon taxes, concerted renewable energy development and deployment? Rather less obviously in the oil companies' interests. Also, you wrote "businesses likely to benefit from Kyoto provisions are accepting global warming as real" - this is irredeemably POV, implying only, say, companies making wind turbines are accepting global warming. Also, the addition of "and peer reviewed articles" is POV editorialising. Finally, it isn't the "vested interests" paragraph, it's the "mitigation" paragraph. Stick to the point - it's not a place for skeptical editorialising. Rd232 07:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

are you suggesting that the supporters of the Kyoto scam are not vested interests? scientists who hope to shake down gullible governments for large grants. There is in fact no evidence to suggest that what is going on is not part of a natural cycle.--82.156.49.1 22:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me weight the evidence...anonymous Wikipedia user and Fred Singer on the one side, all G8 akademies of science and the IPCC on the other side...hm, seems to be about equal. Not!. --Stephan Schulz 23:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

what do you mean "all G8 akademies of science", and even if that is true, it doesn't make them right. And the IPCC is hardly an impartial party, they are a bunch of left wingers dreaming of a world (socialist) government. There is absolutely no evidence that what is going on is not simply part of a natural cycle that has always happened. --82.156.49.1 22:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

What I mean that all the national academies of science of the G8 states (+those those of Brazil, India and China) have jointly issued a statement accepting the IPCC position and urging action. See e.g. [29]. These are some of the most respected scientific organizations on earth, including the US National Academy of Sciences, and the British Royal Society. No, that does not prove that they are right (there is no strict proof in science). But what makes you qualified to question the consensus? Have you even read and understood one peer-reviewed scientific paper (i.e. not pop-science or self-published propaganda from some institute) on the topic? --Stephan Schulz

Whatever your opinions Stephen, please don't bite the newbies and take care not to engage in personal attacks. Dragons flight 23:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to attack anybody. I really want to know on what basis 82.156.49.1 forms his (or her) opinion that merrily discards the scientific consensus. --Stephan Schulz 00:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The skeptics see a lot of discrepancies among models and between the models and the data that indicate that the error bars should be larger than the consensus is admitting, at least in their conclusions. The people running/forming the IPCC consensus compounded the problem by exagerating the current warming with their hasty whole hearted adoption of the hockey stick. Current warming is comparable to the warming that occurred a thousand years ago, and has been signficantly exceeded in geological time frames. The "consensus" then compounded their credibitility problems by presuming to make policy recommendations like reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Such recommendations really are outside their field of expertise, human impacts are better assessed by economists and rather than being focused on the "cause", mitigation might be a far less expensive "solution" in terms of human impact. Furthermore, the consensus appears to be pressing for hurried decisions with expensive near term impact, when economics suggest that by focusing on growth, we will have exponentially more wealth and technology to deal with the problem in the future, when we actually will have a better grasp on its magnitude, and perhaps cheaper solutions technologically.--Silverback 19:12, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh... and so we go round the same pointless circles... the current warming is greater than that seen in the past, all versions of the record show that... as for "hasty whole hearted adoption", lets hear you condemn the skeptics for their "hasty whole hearted adoption" of the S+C record, now admitted even by S+C to have been *wrong*, shall we? William M. Connolley 19:53:34, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

You make climate modeling sound like a religion, we should have had faith in the models despite their discrepency with the evidence. Science is not supposed to be about faith. Perhaps your "hunch" was that the models were correct and something must be terribly wrong with the satellite data. But without evidence, you didn't "know" that and so should not have been a "true" believer. You should maintain a conservative skepticism about the size of the error bars in the model predictions as well.--Silverback 03:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

So, indeed, you do condemn people for adopting the hockey stick, which hasn't been shown to be wrong, but you don't condemn people for adopting the S+C MSU analysis, which even they admit was wrong. Can you say "double standards"? At the moment, models and obs are consistent - read the RealClimate post if you can't get the original papers. The old S+C analysis was *wrong*. Those whose "hunch" was that there was something wrong with it have been shown to be *correct*. Those who said... when models and data conflict, you must choose the data, we trust the msu, the gcms are wrong, are seen to have been *wrong*. Something was "terribly wrong with the satellite data". It will be painful for you to admit it, though. William M. Connolley 09:15:50, 2005-08-26 (UTC).

It depends on what you mean by "adopting", pointing to a discrepency doesn't mean you are a "believer" in one side or the other. The hockey stick had problems from the beginning because it didn't match the extensive published work showing the little ice age, and the warm period a thousand years ago. I believe S+C have acknowledged that the old results were wrong, and the hockey stick researchers are still trying to defend their original work, with only minor corrections and a lack of continued cooperation with those who would like to check their results and methods. In the satellite case, there is a tendency to trust data more than models, and there is a lessen that has been learned about trusting data from as complex a process as was involved in processing that satellite data. I am not a true believer, I am an interested and skeptical observer. I really pleased that the science is getting better, but I don't think the incorporation of physics into the models has improved enough for us to put much more faith in this coming IPCC than in the last one. I am hopeful for the following one. I must admit that climate commitment makes a whole lot of sense to me. I thought it had to be an effect, before I heard of any peer reviewed work in the area, and I am really interested in indirect solar activity effects mediated through cosmic rays and aerosols. It will be fascinating if that pans out, and I mentally increase the error bars in the predictions because this hits the models in an acknoweledged weak area, cloud and aerosol physics. If the models have under attributed solar influence, then they have overattributed GHG effects, and the predictions are based on models that are calibrated wrong, and are overly sensitive to GHGs. There is a lot to be learned about clouds, GHG feedback mechanisms, etc. These are exciting times, but there is no way, I am ready to take an economic hit like Kyoto based on our data and predictions to date. Even if the worst end of the predictions is correct, there has to be a cheaper solution than Kyoto, and if not yet, then there is no harm waiting a decade or two researching and developing one.--Silverback 11:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

If by "seen in the past" you mean in a historical time frame, I agree, but I stated it was comparable, we've been warming for more than a century and it is only on the last decade that we have exceeded the temperature a millenia ago, and given the error bars in the temperature proxies even that is uncertain, but the trend is certainly there. It may seem unfair, but the burden of proof is not on the skeptics, they have the easy job, the consensus was correctly criticized for being unable to explain the satellite data and the residual balloon discrepency. Now they are in better agreement, but the discrepencies are still great enough to call into question the range of IPCC predictions. Perhaps the injustice in the burden of proof is compensated by the greater funding and employment on the "believer" side. The skeptics can get by with far fewer people and less funding for research. Model the clouds better, model the data better, and couple the ocean better, and better incorporate direct and indirect solar influence and the error bars should go down. Do all that and even if the predictions come in at the high end of the range, the Kyoto treaty may still be completely ill advised and a tremendous waste of human wealth and potential. It just ain't fair! I hope you agree that it is fair to demand better science when hundreds of billions of dollars are being committed on the predictions. This is more than an admittedly interesting academic exercise. --Silverback 20:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the US alone spends $400bn per year on defense - and whilst a fair chunk of the federal budget it's not all that much of GDP. The Pentagon had a report about the potential security implications of climate change; maybe that's how to get the issue taken seriously enough to spend more money on it than on, say, subsidising the production of a drug that kills millions every year (tobacco). Rd232 21:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Risk = probability * impact. And the sooner we start switching, the easier and cheaper, and the less likely to pass tipping points where negative feedbacks turn positive. There are also equity considerations - if anthropogenic GW is true then today's generation is screwing future ones (and within future generations, especially the poorest countries and people) by refusing eminently affordable action. Arguments about uncertainty could easily be interpreted as a suggestion to focus on solutions that have other benefits beside combatting global warming - eg energy conservation (saves money), fuel efficiency (saves money and dependence on foreign oil), supporting urban public transport (saves air pollution), spending as much on renewables R&D as on coal/oil/gas research (level playing field) etc. But most of the time sceptics take it as an argument to do nothing... almost as if they were starting with their conclusion... Rd232 20:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

the consensus was correctly criticized for being unable to explain the satellite data - no, the consensus was incorrectly critizied, as we now found out. The criticism was (arguably) justified, but certainly not correct. But there are many more serious problems in your argument. It seems as if 100 researchers do research into climate change, and 95 reach the conclusion that there is significant, dangerous, human-caused global warming, you just say "No wonder the GW believers dominate the field - look how many more there are...". The reason why the "believers", as you call them, are greater in number (and possibly in funding) is that most honest and competent scientists, after looking at the evidence, end up in the "believer" camp. Its an effect of the situation, not the cause. Finally, I agree that the discussion about the mechanisms and magnitude of global warming is a different one from the one about what to do about it (the first is independent of the second, but of course not vice versa). But then you should be honest about it: Do you doubt global warming, or do you oppose Kyoto (and similar approaches)? Rejecting global waming because you do not like Kyoto is not a valid position - it is analog to "Evolution has to be wrong, because it caused Hitler!". And the second discussion probably does not really belong to this page, anyways.--Stephan Schulz 20:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't doubt global warming, and I do oppose Kyoto and similar approaches. I don't think we have a good handle on how much of the warming is anthopogenic and how much is natural variation including unrealized climate commitment, and I also don't think we have a good enough handle on how the climate responds to anthropogenic CO2 forcing. I still think temperature climbs at or below the low end of the IPCC predictions are just as likely as the center or the other extreme of the predictions, i.e., the error bars on the predictions are still larger than the public is lead to believe. I also believe the net effect of warming may be beneficial for humanity, and any negative effects are likely to be cheaper to mitigate than prevent. Human productive and technological progression is probably more non-linear than the climate itself, given the dramatic technological changes in the last two centuries and in my own life time. The rise of middle classes, strong educational systems and double digit economic growth in the two most populous countries in the world bodes well for wealth and technology creation. Not only will future technology make novel solutions to global warming possible and more affordable by means other than reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they will also advance and make more affordable the reduction in those emissions.--Silverback 05:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to quantify the error bars on those predictions? (Or address my point above about investing in solutions with other benefits?) Rd232 10:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to quantify what you don't know. If we understood the discrepencies, they wouldn't still exist. There is still a 50% differential just in the temperature increases shown be the satellite data, 0.17C vs 0.12C increases per decade. The understanding of cloud physics in the models is still poor, there are a lot of differences between the models in their predictions of precipitation changes resulting from different co2 forcing scenerios, etc. The current IPCC range of predictions is just the range of results from the models running different forcing scenerios.

I think investing in solutions with other benefits makes considerable sense, some are obviously just going to happen as the market responds to increased oil prices. The latest US energy bill funds research and incentives deployment of alternative energy sources, nuclear electricity generation, and ports for the import of Liquified Petreleum Gas. The latter may be coming too late, unfortunately, as natural gas prices are driving many generating plants to switch to coal, and nuclear takes too long to come online and the US currently doesn't even have any under construction. The only thing the market and oil prices seem to be doing that is counter productive, is that it is incentivising the switch to coal. Any subsidies, cannot get too far ahead of market feasibililty of the technology, they should only be used to get over that initial hump of production scale, otherwise they are probably wasting funds that would be better spent on further research. Subsidies that don't make economic sense, would probably be better invested in economic growth or research, so that the resources exist to exploit better opportunities in the future. Compact flourescents already make economic sense. LEDs may make sense in the near future. Opportunities to divert solar radiation or the solar magnetic field with materials deployed at the stable point between the Sun and the earth should be investigated. They may be feasible and allow finer tuned control of the climate for a few 10s or 100s of billions of dollars at some point in the future. Far less than what a Koyoto type solution on a scale that really did something would cost.--Silverback 11:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Global warming opponents

In the interest of understanding the other side's view and quantifying their participation in the global warming debate, I have created: List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. It is intended to eventually provide a comprohensive list of scientists actively opposing the central tenets of the IPCC consensus. Help in filling out the list would be appreciated. Dragons flight 21:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not everyone claiming to be a "scientist" is engaging in science. I have copied this here from Slashdot: CAN YOU SPOT THE REAL SCIENTIST? (Score:4, Insightful) by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Friday August 12, @01:24AM (#13301230) GOOFUS has a PhD. GALLANT has a PhD in a field unrelated to his research.

GOOFUS gets little respect as a scientist outside the scientific community. GALLANT gets little respect as a scientist inside the scientific community.

GOOFUS drives a beat-up old car. GALLANT drives a BMW unless his chauffeur is driving.

GOOFUS wears street clothes to work, maybe a lab suit on occasion. GALLANT wears three piece suits at all times.

GOOFUS is employed by a "university", a "hospital", or a "laboratory". GALLANT is employed by a "Coalition", an "Institute", an "Association", a "Foundation", a "Council", or a "White House".

GOOFUS earns $30000 per year unless they cut his funding. GALLANT earns $200000 per year but makes his real money from speaking fees.

GOOFUS lives anywhere in the country. GALLANT lives in a wealthy area near Washington DC, but may have additional homes elsewhere.

GOOFUS may sometimes be filmed standing in front of big melting icebergs. GALLANT may be filmed sitting in front of a bookcase or standing behind a podium at a $2000 per plate fundraiser, although there may be ice melting in his drink.

GOOFUS is a dues-paying member of several scientific grassroots organizations. GALLANT is on the payroll of several scientific astroturf organizations.

GOOFUS gets summoned for jury duty but is never picked as a juror. GALLANT claims "the jury is still out" on evolution or global warming, since he considers himself to be on the jury.

GOOFUS maintains the world is five billion years old. GALLANT isn't really saying, but creationists distribute his pamphlets all the time.

GOOFUS claims the world is warming as a direct result of human activity. GALLANT either claims that climate change doesn't exist, or if it does, that humans have nothing to do with it.

GOOFUS and his graduate students do the dirty work of collecting raw data and looking for conclusions to be drawn from it. GALLANT does the dirty work of discrediting GOOFUS by manipulating his data in Excel with statistically invalid techniques.

GOOFUS writes scientific papers and grant proposals. GALLANT writes the nation's environmental legislation and a column for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

GOOFUS draws scientific conclusions from the data he collects that usually come out in agreement with the scientific consensus. GALLANT paints the scientific consensus as being entirely political in nature and enjoys comparing himself to Galileo.

GOOFUS is heavily trained to be a skeptic and to treat information from all sources with a skeptical mind. GALLANT is heavily marketed as a skeptic but reserves his skepticism for GOOFUS.

GOOFUS isn't paid much attention by the press since his opinions are commonplace among scientists. GALLANT holds maverick opinions for a scientist which keeps him busy running from one balanced talk show to the next.

GOOFUS has no PR skills. GALLANT leverages his PR experience all the time, although he has access to paid PR staff.

GOOFUS claims the sky is falling and we have to take painful steps to reduce CO2 emissions now. GALLANT claims the free market will take care of it and recommends solving the problem by conning Zimbabwe out of their pollution credits.

GOOFUS advises his kids not to go into science. GALLANT advises the president. WAS 4.250 14:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Quote: GOOFUS draws scientific conclusions from the data he collects that usually come out in agreement with the scientific consensus. GALLANT paints the scientific consensus as being entirely political in nature and enjoys comparing himself to Galileo.

Haha, does this remind you of the people behind aetherometry, anyone? -- Natalinasmpf 16:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no - they don't have big money and power behind them. Crackpots don't actually hurt the world, and who knows, they might stumble onto something. People who have power and money behind them, on the other hand, are hurting the world. Guettarda 16:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Error Found in Satellite Data

Scientists Find Errors, Satellite Data Now Matches Balloon Data [30]. In a nutshell, the satellites were drifting in orbit and increasingly reporting night-time temperatures as daytime data. Once the drifts were detected and measured, and the data adjusted, the satellite data now measures a temperature rise consistent with balloon data. Simesa 15:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

These papers are an important result, that partially resolve a discrepency that a lot of skeptics were pointing to. While satellite data now show more warming and better agreement with other measurements, it is still not as much as the climate modelers predict should be there.--Silverback 07:48, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure we all look forward to the skeptics who loudly proclaimed the disparity now going back and saying "ah yes, we were wrong to rely on this dataset, GW is really happening". William M. Connolley 13:56:31, 2005-08-20 (UTC).

The greatest hoax ever perpetuated

Global warming is nothing more than part of a natural cyclical pattern that has always happened. There is no consensus at all amongst scientists. But those who have elevated global warming to the status of a religion which is not to be questioned ruthlessly attack all those 'heretics' who dare to question it. It is like a new religion for suburban yuppies.

Tom DeWeese - the greatest hoax ever

Science has spoken, global warming is a myth

This one is actually rather funny, saying The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons. - err well no: the satellite data turned out to be quite unreliable, as the recent papers show: the corrected data show warming even in 1996, and the warming-to-date is now consistent with the models. William M. Connolley 12:54:31, 2005-08-22 (UTC).

"consistent" is relative. The satellite data is consistent with the balloon data, but if you think the magnitude is close enough for the models, then we need a broader error bar on the model predictions.--Silverback 18:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The RSS trend is 0.193 oC/d. Why do you think that is inconsistent with the models? William M. Connolley 19:02:48, 2005-08-22 (UTC).

I haven't read the new papers yet, but this is Singer's assessment:

"MW found an error in the data analysis published by Christy and Spencer (CS), which used to show a slight warming tend of 0.09 C per decade. After correction (see Items #1 and 2 for the gory details), the trend increases to 0.12 C -- not a big deal. But MW.s own analysis gives 0.19 C -- and no one has yet explained this difference. Note however, that the CS result agrees with the corrected balloon trends."

"Now the fun begins. Greenhouse theory says (and the models calculate) that the atmospheric trend should be 30% greeter than the surface trend -- and it isn't. Furthermore, the models predict that polar trends should greatly exceed the tropical values --and they clearly don't do that . In fact, the Antarctic has been cooling."

You should be able to tell us if he is right on the antarctic, I've heard that precip is up there, but don't know about temp.--Silverback 06:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Singer, of course, is a thoroughly unreliable source, as the stuff about ozone shows. He really doesn't know what he is talking about (I mean this literally: I've heard him talk: he crumbles under questionning). The idea that the Antarctic should be showing polar amplification is part of this (see http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/07/harry-potter-and-polar-amplification.html partly); he is wrong to say that the Antarctic has been cooling. Note also that now the MSU shows warming this has become a "slight" trend; when it showed cooling on a very short record it was an unqualified cooling. William M. Connolley 08:18:06, 2005-08-23 (UTC).

I've followed his reasoning on the ozone stuff, and it appeared to be a correct assessment of the problems with the science at the time. He hasn't updated it recently. I've seen his opinions on Climate committment, and he is dismissive of it, and I disagree with him on that. However, I don't see a reason to doubt his reports of discrepencies, he was right that the satellite data was discrepent, and his analyses of other issues have made sense. I don't take his word as gospel. As someone who gets stagefright myself, I prefer to judge people on how well they think on their seat rather than on their feet. I prefer to judge by a considered analysis, and a fair reporting of other results.

His reference to "slight trends" means that a continuation of the trend would bring the year 2100 hundred temperatures in at the low end of IPCC predictions. Ten decades would be only 1.2 degress C, and obviously he doesn't think the models are good enough to make us doubt this linear extrapolation.

What are you saying about the polar amplication expectation? That is is based on fudged models produced by skeptics? Or is that the general agreement of all the major models, they are all fudged, and you don't accept them? I recall that some artic temperature increases were widely trumpeted by the climate community a few months ago, and that seemed to confirm that polar amplification was generally expected and thought missing until then by the community. Singer dismissed that warming report as being too far south, so that although the temperature increase was real, it was due to a non-linear effect of a boundary between two climate areas moving to the north, just past the particular station that recorded the increase. His analysis was that the N. pole overall was still discrepant. Would Singer be right to say at least that Antarctica is not warming? I doubt it is exactly zero, although perhaps it is within the margin of error. Your polar amplification note, seems to indicate that Antartica will not significantly warm even in the future.

The discrepancy that has most impressed me has been that he reports between the surface trend and the atmospheric trend, because that would seem to indicate that something basic in the physics of the models is wrong or missing, and there may be suprises in store. I am surprised that Singer would only be reporting the modeling of skeptics. Does the modeling community not make their temperature profiles public so they can be compared with the data? IF the community's results are available to the public and Singer is using models that don't agree with them in this discrepancy and not disclosing it, then that would be a concern. Are you familiar with that particular discrepency? --Silverback 09:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

There is no point reading anything Singer writes, it all needs to be veriied independently to be trusted, and usually turns out to be wrong. He was wrong about ozone, he was wrong about sat trends, etc etc etc. Polar amplification: septics like Singer trumpet Antarctica not warming as clear disproof of GW because of polar amplification. This is dishonest, because the GCMs don't predict much warming around Ant: look in the TAR for yourself. If you want to know about the sat t trends, read the wiki page, not Singers junk. William M. Connolley 09:09:36, 2005-08-26 (UTC).

Opponents of the hoax ruthlessly smeared

Media blacks out stories that do not support global warming hoax

Global warming is a belief, not science

Environmental issues replace Marxism as the new ideology for western intellectuals

an excerpt from the article linked above: Warnings of global warming by the UN and select scientists are reminiscent of UN warnings around 1970 that a new ice age was approaching -- which it may well be, in a thousand years or so.

So 35 years ago the scaremongerers were informing us the earth was rapidly COOLING!

I pledge not to alter the main article without consultation. Marcel de Vries --82.156.49.1 23:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

These do not appear to be primary source literature. Guettarda 23:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yawn. Counterarguments. Rd232 12:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I like how most of the people that try to use sweeping assertions with scanty empirical evidence to prove or disprove a theory tend to be right-wing anticommunists. Perhaps it violates their false sense of capitalist/industrialist comforts. (ie. proponents of aetherometry, the people who say global warming is a "great hoax ever perpetuated"). -- Natalinasmpf 01:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps the same skepticism and distrust of authoritarian government "solutions" to problems is also applied to analysis of scientific and environmental issues. Or perhaps the link is freedom -> free thinking -> skepticism. Or perhaps Yankee ingenuity and a practical bent, see better solutions to problems, and aren't as afraid and overwelmed when problems and crises are overhyped.--Silverback 08:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Error in opendemocracy analysis

WMC, I looked at the response you co-authored at open democracy, was at this apparently errorneous passage that dismissed solar variability as a factor in recent warming:

Regardless of the specifics, though, it should be pointed out that all solar activity indices (such as sunspots, helio-magnetic records, cosmic rays) generally peaked in the late 1950s and have declined or held steady since then. Thus solar activity is unlikely to be contributing to current (post-1970) increases in surface temperatures or the planetary energy imbalance.

This statement seems completely ignorant of the climate commitment results. Just because solar activity has not been increasing since the late 1950s, does not mean that the increases prior to that time have been fully equilibrated. In fact the climate commitment results that we have previously discussed would imply that the continuation of solar activity at late 1950s levels would acount for some of the warming for at least another century, and some of the sea level rise for several centuries after that. Perhaps it can be argued that the anthropogenic forcing accounts for a higher percentage of the warming since then than the unrealized climate commitment from the earlier increase in solar activity, but this solar component must be given its due. So this statement from the article is false. Solar activity is likely, in fact, is actually contributing to the current surface temperature increases, and will for another 60 or so years assuming the activity does not significantly change.--Silverback 10:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but it seems obvious to me that commitment is much larger for greenhouse gas induced warming than for solar variation. Greenhouse gases linger for a long time, changing the radiation balance of earth, so the forcing continues. Changes in solar output take about 8 minutes to reach earth, so we only have the normal lag in heating up the planet (both possibly amplified by second order effects). --Stephan Schulz 10:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No we are talking about solar activity staying about the same from the late 1950s. The climate commitment is the delay in equilibration introduced by the heat capacity of the oceans. Yes, there is some increase in surface temperatures quickly in response to an increase in solar activity. But as that new level of solar activity is maintained, it also is warming the ocean over time, more than would have happened at a lower level of activity. In fact the published climate commitment studies show that most of the surface temperature increase from an increase in forcing to a new level will be realized in the first 100 years, however, sea level will continue to rise for several centuries more as more of the total stratified water column is heated and undergoes thermal expansion.--Silverback 11:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that what I wrote? In the case of greenhouse gases you gave continued forcing. In the case of solar variation, you "only" have the delay in heating up the planet (including the oceans). AFAIK, "commitment" includes both effects (in the IPCC TAR, the one century time scale is given for the greenhous gas case only). Moreover, isn't solar activity even going down (slightly)?

No in both cases, I only have the delay in heating up the planet from a constant forcing. In the solar case the solar activity would just have to stay at the same level (a rather dynamic 11/22 year cycle of course). In the greenhouse gas case, the level of GHGs would also just have to remain at the same level so that the forcing remains the same. Obviously this would be a rather dynamic situation, because it involves a balancing of sources and sinks, and is not necessarily the same has human emissions remaining constant, in fact if current emissions remain constant, GHG levels and forcing will continue to increase.--Silverback 23:14, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I should also point out that the same climate commitment effect applies to greenhouse gas forcing. If we could manage to maintain greenhouse gasses at current levels, it would still be another century before we realize nearly all the temperature increases from these new levels, and once again the sea levels will continue to rise for centuries after that.--Silverback 11:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell from the IPCC TAR, this commitment applies only to the greenhouse gas effect. The lag from solar variation should be lower.--Stephan Schulz 11:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

How does the ocean tell the difference, given equivilent increases in radiative forcing?

Ok, of course you are right for the case that solar activity remains at the same high level. But does it? --Stephan Schulz 11:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Gmbl...looks like Wikipedia has swallowed my last edit. Here it is again. After re-reading the TAR, I have to take back my agreement. The timescale and size of commitment do take into acount the delayed maximum of CO₂, i.e. they assume that the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases will increase for some time even if we decide to stop emissions, and that hence there will be a long time radiative imbalance (i.e. the forcing continues). So at least for the TAR, the commitment from solar output is comparatively short-lived and smaller. --Stephan Schulz 18:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that, that at constant emission levels CO2 levels will continue to rise before equilibrating, but for commitment studies that would represent an increase in forcing. The point of climate commitment is that even once forcing has stopped rising and remains constant, there is a long tail of equilibration. That tail is the same whether it is solar or GHG forcing. There are of course non-linear differences, solar output and CO2 impact vegetation growth differently, etc,--Silverback 23:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, these results are more recent than the IPCC. There had been very little climate commitment work before the TAR.

Meehl G. A., et al. Sciencexpress, 10.1126/science.1106663 (2005).

Wigley T. M. L., et al. Sciencexpress, 110.1126/science.1103934 (2005).

--Silverback 11:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

SB, I think you are making a mistake. With CO2, the system has not equilibriated to the forcing and that forcing still remains. With solar, the (poorly known) pre-1950s forcing probably wasn't fully equilibriated, but the forcing is no longer there. "Commitment" refers to equilibriation to remaining forcing. In fact, relative to the 50's, solar forcing is probably now -ve. For any forcing, there will be some residual tail mixed in with everything else, in a way thats hard to untangle. Given the uncertainties in the solar forcing, its probably impossible to "see" the small residual solar effect. I've certainly never seen anyone try to find it. William M. Connolley 11:54:33, 2005-08-24 (UTC).

The solar forcing remains at near 1950s levels, and even if it dipped to 1930s or 20s levels, that is still thought to be high relative to the preceding couple of centuries, so would still have a tail, especially since the intervening cool couple of decades would have delayed equilibration. It might be impossible to find, if our proxies for solar activity are not accurate enough, and given the large error bars in our models. And given the loss of equilibration time from the cooling, it probably accounts for a significant percentage of the temperature increase since, and will have a diminishing tail for another half century or more. It is misleading for modelers to attribute all the recent and predicted warming to anthropogenic increases in GHG when they know that they don't know how much of the unrealized climate commitement is due to last couple centuries increase in solar activity. BTW, the cooling period seems to be only slightly offset from the time of open air nuclear testing. Perhaps increased background radiation accounted for the cooling due to increased cloud cover and albedo. Any theories like that in the literature?--Silverback 12:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

If (as seems likely) solar is below the level of the 50's then its negative relative to then. So any "plus" tail from the 50's would have been wiped out by now. You seem to have an unrealistic idea of how long the tail is likely to be. I think you said, above, that you are mainly neutral on the science but doubtful of the economics. That would be a perfectly sensible position. But if so, why do you keep pushing the skeptic side of the science? Nukes... doesn't seem popular. Volcanoes are bigger. There is a perfectly good explanation for the cooling: sulphates. Why are you desperate to scratch around for something different? William M. Connolley 20:40:11, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

If say 1940s levels are higher than previous levels and take 100 years for surface temperatures to equilibrate,

Doesn't sound right William M. Connolley 09:03:46, 2005-08-26 (UTC).

a temporary activity excursion in the 1950s and then back to 1940s levels does not eliminate the need to equilibrate the system to 1940s levels, although the temporary higher heating might shorten the tail, just as the subsequent cooling extends it. If volcanoes explain the cooling fine. I thought they didn't have an explanation for the earlier part of the cooling.--Silverback 23:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Volcanoes? I meant sulphate aerosol from fossil fuel combustion William M. Connolley 09:03:46, 2005-08-26 (UTC).

No Subsection: Symptoms of global warming?

Why is there no subsection "Symptoms of global warming"? Nor any mention of observed changes, whether disparaged as "anecdotal" or not? Comparison photos of Alaskan glaciers, the recent navigation of the Northwest Passage, the observed shifts in distribution of numerous species: things like that. The average reader expects some mention of such instances, constantly discussed in this context in all media, and some links to further information. Have all such attempts been censored? (This page is not on my Watchlist.) --Wetman 22:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Error bars increasing?

This nature summary of the implications of the recent "Science" articles on the satellite and balloon data argues that the error bars have increased and that this is progress.[31]. Here are some quotes:

"The lowest layer of Earth's atmosphere is indeed warming, but uncertainties in the data are as large as the trends the scientists are looking for, says Peter Thorne, a researcher with the UK Met Office. "The fact that the uncertainty has increased is actually a step forward," he says."

""What we all show is that the troposphere is warming. The question is by how much," says climatologist John Christy of the Alabama team. "When we are talking about precisions of just a few hundredths of a degree per decade, we're not quite there with our observing systems.""

"The second Science paper points out problems in the temperature record taken by weather balloons, in part because different manufacturers' instruments heat up by different amounts during the day. The third paper reviews predictions from 19 different climate models and concludes that the differences between the models' predictions and observations are most likely to be the result of errors in the observations and in how they had been analysed."

--Silverback 13:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Notice that these are the error bars of the satelite and ballon data, not errors in the models and projections. The primary reason seems to be that systematic error sources are now recognized, not that the normal statistical spread increases. --Stephan Schulz 15:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

With models, it is garbage in, garbage out. The larger error bars are after the corrections. Of course, the actual errors were probably greater before the corrections, but the awareness of how inadequate the data was, was lower.--Silverback 08:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Why are you talking about models? These are *obs*. Obs processed through their own little model, of course, though the septics were never terribly keen to emphasise that particular aspect when they were boosting the previous S+C data as so so terribly accurate. The models, it is now clear, were better than the original S+C versions. Whether they are better than the current one remains to be seen. William M. Connolley 17:02:28, 2005-08-29 (UTC).

I am talking about models because the third paper was about models,

Well, 1 out of three ain't bad I suppose. William M. Connolley 20:00:56, 2005-08-30 (UTC).

and Schulz pointed out that the error bars were in the data not the models. Since the initial conditions and parameterization of models are to data sets, any errors in model construction and physics are additive (or multiplicative or worse) to errors in that data.--Silverback 09:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

That isn't true. William M. Connolley 20:00:56, 2005-08-30 (UTC).

Here is the abstract from the third paper: "Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere ",

The month-to-month variability of tropical temperatures is larger in the troposphere than at the Earth's surface. This amplification behavior is similar in a range of observations and climate model simulations, and is consistent with basic theory. On multi-decadal timescales, tropospheric amplification of surface warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but occurs in only one observational dataset. Other observations show weak or even negative amplification. These results suggest that either different physical mechanisms control amplification processes on monthly and decadal timescales, and models fail to capture such behavior, or (more plausibly) that residual errors in several observational datasets used here affect their representation of long-term trends.

Unfortunately, it is publshed in Science Express, so I don't have access to the full text. They admit the models are discrepant with all but one observational data set, but suggest that residual errors in the datasets may be the problem. Since these three papers, all arise from the work of the US Climate Change Science Program, presumably, they are talking about residual errors AFTER the corrections published in these papers.--Silverback 09:58, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Again, probably not so. The three papers would have been written independently, and the model one probably doesn't have access to the corrections that the first two represent. The suggestion that residual errors may be present now looks quite prescient, no? William M. Connolley 20:00:56, 2005-08-30 (UTC).