![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
But I found it pretty startling and applicable to the topic. Shows that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is markedly higher now than at any point in the past 650,000 years.
Taken from
Timeline of glaciation.
The first paragraph defines the scope of the article as climate change in "recent decades" but a huge amount of space near the top of the article is dedicated to a review of "the present to the dawn of human settlement" -- why is that? Shouldn't that ancient stuff be moved to climate change? 75.18.200.11 08:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I know I am opening myself up for major attack here, but there is a video ( Watch at Google Video) from the BBC that disputes that claim made in the sentence under "Cause" that reads: detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[8] identifies increased levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence.
No dispute on Global Warming, just disputing the extent to which humans are involved. The video is an hour long, but well worth watching for anyone who feels they should be commenting on this topic solely based on what they had seen in An Inconvenient Truth.
It would be nice if the Global Warming article cited some of the dirty misdoings of the IPCC that are cited in this video, before offering IPCC findings as scientific consensus. Shaunco 07:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
The ice caps are melting on Mars as well. This article should feature a section where critique is featured.
Later...
I don't want to be lynched. Please be kind. I am running http://www.lifetut.com. It's a news hub about global warming. I do it in my spare time (I spent most of my working time working on Free Software Magazine). Do you think any of you (editors)would consider adding a link to lifetut anywhere in Wikipedia, in some Global warming article? I created lifetut because I became interested in Global Warming, but didn't find any decent news hub... so, I created one!
If not, that's all good. If yes, fantastic. Keep up the good work! :-D (Moved at the bottom of the page - silly me) Tony Mobily
While China may have become the no. 1 emitter in 2006. The data that quoted is to premature to be used here. Reading the MNP press release [1] which is the one that the newspapers are referencing - we find that its a preliminary result based upon incomplete data and trend analysis:
The estimates of CO2 emissions do not include emissions from flaring and venting of associated gas during oil and gas production and CO2 emissions from deforestation/logging/decay of remaining biomass and are calculated using default CO2 emission factors recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CO2 emissions from underground coal fires in China and elsewhere are not included either. The magnitude of these sources is very uncertain; according to recent research CO2 emissions from coal fires are estimated at 150-450 megatonne CO2 annually in China.
Please wait for the official data to come out. Its a good headliner - but not certain enough to be used here yet. (and for that matter unverified by other agencies). --Kim D. Petersen 20:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Also note that the same source KDP references (and which is the original source of the material in the article) says "Energy statistics for fast changing economies such as China are less accurate than those of traditional industrialized countries within the OECD." Obviously if current trends continue, China will take the unenviable #1 position soon, but it is premature to state that it has yet done so. Arjuna 20:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry folks. I know this came as a shock, but China is now the number one emitter of CO2. All sources pass WP:V and it would be to wikipedias disgrace to not have the most up to date information. Prester John 05:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. There is nothing to suggest the Netherlands government is lying. THIS is the data showing China to be the number 1 emitter. It passes WP:V and should be included. Prester John 05:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I've read it. The best bit is the huge title, also included in the conclusion. It says; China now no. 1 in CO2 emissions; USA in second position. That's pretty much the clincher, that and the fact that multiple news agencies have ran with the story, all of them reputable and satisfying WP:V. Despite the reports conclusion and this phrase; The energy data annually published by BP appear to be reasonably accurate, you still claim the report is "incomplete". This is your own Original Reasearch and has no business in wikipedia. Nowhere in the report or in any verifiable news agencies does it suggest that this report is incomplete. Prester John 06:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback. I added the China info back with suitable qualifiers and disclaimers. Kevinp2 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I am coming from the List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions article. There is a line that says: "The United States is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases." I find the above line the most problematic because the latest data says that it is not true. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should contain only contain blanket assertions about the present that are both backed up by reliable sources and not contradicted by other reliable sources. At the very least both sides of a discussion need to be presented if there is a dispute amongst reliable sources. I do not understand what is wrong with citing the finding of the The Netherlands Environment Protection Agency. They are a scientific agency. Their finding is not disputed. So why not state it - especially when many have predicted an imminent overtaking of the USA by China. I am ok with it being couched in a manor that the data is preliminary - but I do not think it should be ignored.
As far as the issue of other pollutants I quote from the Guardian article: The new figures only include carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production. They do not include sources of other greenhouse gases, such as methane from agriculture and nitrous oxide from industrial processes. And they exclude other sources of carbon dioxide, such as from the aviation and shipping industries, as well as from deforestation, gas flaring and underground coal fires.
Dr Olivier said it was hard to find up to date and reliable estimates for such emissions, particularly from countries in the developing world. But he said including them would be unlikely to topple China from top spot. "Since China passed the US by 8% [in 2006] it will be pretty hard to compensate for that with other sources of emissions."
As far as the problems people have with the Dutch report - unless there are reliable sources who comment upon it, one cannot simply exclude it because problems one has with it. Doing so is original research. Given that many reliable sources state the findings of the Dutch report as fact it should be at least included in Wikipedia. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 20:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The Dutch data are preliminary, unverified, and as the Dutch agency who submitted it freely acknowledges, may be inaccurate. See comments by KDP above. This article is about verifiable statements regarding GW -- it doesn't include the latest papers on the science until such research stands up to peer-review and verification. Why should statements about emissions levels be any different than that standard? It should stay out until independently verified. Arjuna 20:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The US is now down as historically the greatest producer of CO2. There's a mention of the Dutch dossier on greenhouse gas, but that's all these findings warrant: a mention, not a re-writing of all three pages. If there are any other statements that claim the US is the current greatest emmitter, we can play them down as well. Bendž| Ť 07:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The US is down as "historically", why isn't China down as "presently"? The rationale on offer for not citing several media sources is the same given by these human rights champions in Beijing [2]. 2005 Environmental sustainability index has China ranked @ 133 out of 146 nations (US @ 45). The ESI is a composite of many factors. China is the greatest producer of co2, AGW camp claim manmade co2 is the main cause of warming....goodluck with climate-action protests in Tiananmen Square! -- Dean1970 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
From Sci-Tech Today: China Overtakes U.S. as No. 1 Emitter of Carbon Dioxide
"John Christensen, head of the U.N. Environment Program's Center on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development in Denmark, said the figures did not come as a surprise.
"The Dutch agency referred to BP statistics, which is the standard reference tool. We have no reason to doubt that the numbers are right. We have no reason to doubt the methodology," Christensen said. "It's been stated many times that China will overtake the U.S. in emissions." "
"Fatih Birol, chief economist of the Paris-based International Energy Agency also said the findings were not surprising, given China's economic growth of more than 9 percent annually over the past 25 years."
Here is the head of the U.N. Environment Program's Center accepting these numbers. This a very strong augment for their inclusion.
From BBC News: China building more power plants
"China is now building about two power stations every week, the top climate change official at the UK Foreign Office, John Ashton, has said."
Again these numbers are accepted by an expert on the subject. Again this is a secondary source - in line with Wikipedia's policies. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 11:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
wikipedia isn't a public relations organ of the Chinese govt. They run things in Bejing (very effectively I might add). They've allowed their country to be flooded with factories so everymart can sell plastic spiderman lunchboxs for a few coins. Not wikipedia's fault. China is the new number one polluter, the biggest producer of co2, they can own it by stating it as verified fact on wikipedia. -- Dean1970 12:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sir, theres no 'feelgood' on my part about china overtaking US as co2 polluter with their slave factories. As for the economics, the facts and figures....I just don't get that angle when it comes from very public climate activists "the % this and the % that" to swerve any blame from china. -- Dean1970 12:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
i don't see china reducing their smoke stacks anytime soon. -- Dean1970 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless we are here claiming that all the major newspapers have a weak editorial review process, I think that from the moment that a report is universally accepted by reliable sources, it should be reflected through WP. That it may not be factually correct is quite irrelevant since any other report can be, IPCC reports included. Despite this, we present the IPCC reports as the current understanding of the actual state of things regarding climate forecasts. If WP is to be consistent rather than an agenda-driven magazine, it should reflect the most recent accepted state of things regarding emmissions that we have. -- Childhood's End 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
On the 'attributed and expected effects of global warming' malaria and dengue fever are cited. This isn't a fact according to this chap [4]. -- Dean1970 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
he seems to know his onions about the subject pretty well. wp is about fact. nothing goes in unless its fact. -- Dean1970 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I decided that this analysis may be wrong. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Seemingly to 'counter' the 'china may have surpassed the US in greenhouse gas emissions' claim, the factoid that the US has some nominal fraction of the population of China is now repeatedly being pushed as having some meaning: "however, since the population of the U.S. is less than one fourth that of China, U.S. emissions are much greater on a per capita basis.". This is an irrelevancy, and intended clearly to 'scold' the evil americans for creating so much pollution. It ignores that the creation of greenhouse gases in the US is not purely a function of overweight white males driving 2mpg SUV's with special smog-enhancers attached. It ignores factors such as the proportion of the population engaged in "industrialized" activities (which in a broad way benefit people across the globe) vs purely subsistence farming. China's industrialization is moving forth with almost no visible effort towards ethical stewardship of the earth. The smaller population of the US contributes more per capita to the world at large (in goods, services, technology, invention, clean water, charity, etc etc etc) than does china. shall we add that to the article to 'counter' the scolding? No. The article is about global warming, not who warms it the most. The question of 'who produces the most greenhouse gases per capita' isn't directly relevant to the article. By the way, how much methane do 1 billion people create per day in the crapper? is it more than what 300 million people create? just curious. Anastrophe 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I read the first one, one para reads - "Wang Tongsan, a senior Chinese economic forecaster and member of the committee overseeing implementation of the current five-year plan, said that the Chinese government did not have a policy of pushing exporters to focus on markets other than the United States. He attributed the rise in sales to developing countries to the strong entrepreneurial talents of many Chinese." - it's hard to compete with these entrepreneurs [5]
2 & 3 answer what I know. China is not going to curtail its pollution output (it may pay lip service here and there, but scratch the surface and that's all it is!).
China is presently the biggest producer of co2 <<< There are reliable sources making this claim. Agree more data needs to filter through, but its hardly 'jumping the gun' adding a brief detail about this event in the article. -- Dean1970 09:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Nature [6] has accepted the prima facie findings that China is the number one emitter of carbon dioxide (with the caveats about accuracy). Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 12:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Nature is a RS, it is used on articles related to GW. -- Dean1970 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the statistic of CO2 emissions per unit of economic output be a better measure than CO2 emissions per capita? The former would tend to better reflect the relative "greenness" of economic production, while the latter doesn't factor this in. It's silly to compare the per capita greenhouse gas output of China with the US when we know they are on far different economic footing. After all, I don't think anyone is suggesting we cut economic production in pursuit of reductions in greenhouse gasses. I'd really like to see some of this data and have it reflected in GW articles. 71.217.95.80 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone up for starting a new section of the article discussing the benefits of global warming? Tom e r talk 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming has transmogrified and no longer satisfies its original purpose: the page now lists people who have no disagreement at all with the second para of this article; hence the link appears inappropriate. The best solution would be to fix the sci oppos page; however rampant wikilawyering there renders that unlikely William M. Connolley 16:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I doubt anything will be resolved here then. "A few individual scientists disagree with some of these conclusions as well" <<< this very small sentence in the opening para sparked an edit-war over one word - "few" versus "several"... deary me. Theres no chance then of adding an inlink (in the forseeable future) to an article covering scientists who don't agree (to varying extents) with the consesus. Shame. It's a great thing about Wiki, reading about an interesting subject and being able to use the inlinking to learn more about it. Theres a line in some movie that comes to mind, about people who would argue over the colour of........ -- Dean1970 17:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because Al Gore says that all scientists agree on global warming doesn't mean that it becomes a fact.
There are many, many holes in the Global warming theory.
The Earth has been warming for the past 20,000 years (the peak of the last ice age)
It has not been proven that CO2 concentrations affect atmospheric temperature. In fact, there is mounting evidence that temperature affects Co2 concentrations.
No reliable climate record exists past the last 100,000 years. Keep in mind that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.
Computer climate models are so ridiculously flawed it's not funny. Ever got caught in the rain without an umbrella after the Weather Channel predicted sunny, blue skies?
These are only a sampling of problems with the global warming theory. I strongly reccomend a "controversy" section. 12va34 02:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The IPCC is unreliable. It doesn't use the opinions of enough scientists. Whose to say that the majority of scientists aren't slanted to the left or simply hopping on a bandwagon. Just because the IPCC isn't bribing them, it doesn't mean that someone else isn't. 12va34 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Although it's very unlikely that all of them are bribed, it's very possible that some of them were. The Dems controll congress, don't they? 12va34 16:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Keyword: SOME. 12va34 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
This article contains a number of summaries from Geophysical Research Letters, the U.N. Climate Change panel, the UNIPCC etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossnixon ( talk • contribs)
Its definitely faked (or, if you wish to be charitable, misattributed) [7] William M. Connolley 09:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
As we've said rather often now at present the link implies it links to scientists disagreeing with some broadbrush statements in the intro which amount to being skeptics but it links to a page listing many people disagreeing on much more techincal IPCC points. Fix and then link. -- BozMo talk 06:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the biggest point in the alarmist argument is not listed in the opening statements. The whole argument is about whether the warming is caused by humans polluting, or natural (cycles), or the result of volcanic activity, solar shifts, or other causes. Can someone please include it in the opening paragraphs please? U236 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Лёха Фурсов: Sacrublood 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
soryy i guess im retarded and didn't know what anthropogenic means. Лёха Фурсов: Sacrublood
First of all, I believe that global warming is being aided by human activity. However, I am concerned that the definition in the intro of the article is not correct, or misleading.
"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."
I call into question the "in recent decades" part of the definition. Since global warming has in the past occurred, and since the scope of this article isn't limited to recent decades, why is the definition itself limited? It is a definition to "Current Global Warming Trend" and not a good overview of Global Warming in general. DPK99 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)DPK99 7-5-07 4:39PM ET
I edited the solar variation area of the global warming page to account for more recent information, showing that solar variation is not a strong factor in the increased rates of global warming. The study shown in Nature at the end of 2006 pretty well put the issue to rest among climatologists.
I took out:
on various grounds. Firstly it seems to be very new - its rather a good idea to let this stuff become clear over time. Secondly it has no clear scientific source. Thirdly, as written it omits the lack of DNA found further north, and gives the impression that all of greenland was forest covered (where did the plural on cores come from in the above?). And fourthly, I don't see why this is better than the d-o-18 and borehole thermometry from various greenland cores. It seems like excess detail William M. Connolley 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Would it do any good if anyone did suggest it go back it in? No, don't think so. Editor's can't even inlink the biggest televised mass media event in the history of mankind to "raise awareness" about global warming on an article about...erm, about global warming.
what caused the warming? -- Dean1970 18:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It would seem so. -- Dean1970 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, know what? Antarctica was once covered in forest. The middle of Australia once had huge swathes of tropical forest and swamps, and all I can say is so what? It really has nothing to do with the current debate. -- Michael Johnson 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Earth's climate is not steady. And yes, it is not because of humans. -- Dean1970 00:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I agree with you that UBeR leaving (or devoting less time to wikipedia) won't improve matters on this subject. I may not always agree with him and for all I know (and I don't) he believes that humans are responsible or partly responsible for global warming, but regardless, he is far more rational (than you or I and many others) when it comes to "both sides of an issue" being heard. -- Dean1970 20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
So, there's been some back and forth regarding inclusion/ommision of the title, as well as some barbs back and forth regarding how it should be characterized. I've never seen the thing. i've never seen An Inconvenient Truth. There's fiction, non-fiction, and "documentaries" as far as i'm concerned, and it's not a bad place to start. Both TGGWS and AIT are both opinion pieces. "Fact" and "Truth" are better referred to as "Fast" and "Loose" when it comes to such things, since they are not held to any objective standard for presentation of reality. I'm put in mind of the intro title in the movie "Fargo": "THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred.". The movie is, of course, a complete piece of fiction from first to last frame. But most viewers took the filmmakers at their word that they were being told "the truth".....Perhaps it would be best to simply leave both entries uncharacterized, so that the reader may come to their OWN conclusions, without the content being further editorialized? Anastrophe 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
all that said, i still contend that editorializing external links is silly. no reader is harmed by the inclusion of a link to the page for TGGWS, no more so than they are harmed by a link to AIT. the reader may come to their OWN conclusion after following the respective links. Anastrophe 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
A lot of people believe that 'man made global warming' is hyped up propaganda (different strokes for different folks) -- Dean1970 03:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
TGGWS though not perfect, is far more truthful than anything that the UN or Democrat politicians spout forth. rossnixon
Ross, this is the Wikipedia of the real universe, not that of the Rightwingoverse :) Count Iblis 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Suggested addition
Tidal forces contribute to ocean currents, which moderate global temperatures by transporting heat energy toward the poles. It has been suggested that harmonic beat variations in tidal forcing may contribute to variations in climate.[ [9]]
Michael H 34 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
What about the fact that in the past 50 years or so there has been a great increase in the development of cities. More glass, metal, and stone building have been put up and now cover much more space than previously before. These materials all absorb heat and as a result must attribute to an increase in temperature in locations around the world. If you look closely at the 1995-2004 Mean Temperatures picture in the article you can see that the majority of areas with 1-2 degree increases are in regions of great economic development (during the past 50-80 years) while the oceans and antarctica in general show little to no heating, and in some places cooling. Has this been taken into account?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.245.246.6 ( talk • contribs).
it's being looked into [10] [11]-- Dean1970 19:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If all the scientist in the world thought that man's contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide had no relation to the greenhouse effect, that wouldn't make it true. This article should present the studies and the refutations. Not start out with a bunch of babble about who agrees with what conclusions and who doesn't. Karbinski 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW: Citation #1 is invalid, needs to be fixed. Not that a summary for policy makers of an unreleased report created by a political body deciding on matters of fact by commitee (regardless of member credentials) is worth much. Karbinski 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the report, its content is decided by comittee, which means that it is inherently unreliable as it is not a product of science but of politics. To cite the report's summary is only to stretch the unreliability even farther. At any rate, I see that the link has been fixed. Karbinski 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"An increase in global temperatures may in turn cause other changes, including sea level rise, and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation resulting in floods and drought." Does anyone actually look at the citations? This fabirication (unless verifiable) is supported by a news story about changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation resulting in floods and drought in a specific local at a specific point in time. Perhaps I could link to a news story about any arbitrary concrete event, claim that global warming "may" cause such events, and put the claim somewhere in the first four paragraphs of the article, undisputed. I think it would be better to remove those claims with no verifiable scientific support. Karbinski 01:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't often go past 1RR but I have just reverted the Live Earth link out for a second time (third in fact). Linking to an example under an anchor text is inappropriate and too spammy. The only reason I can think of which may be behind this is to try to get the WP page on Live Earth to win the google search for the anchor term: as such it is way out of order. This comment on an edit summary was ignored. -- BozMo talk 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I was just trying to inlink the largest televised event (to raise awareness about GW, in case you didn't know) in the history of mankind to the sentence in the section that goes along the lines of "groups and entertainers (I prefer corporate media) who are raising awareness about the risks blablahblah".
From there the reader can learn more about Global Warming and follow the examples of the 'entertainers' and maybe even take the 7-point pledge or whatever to save the world, or control the weather for the next hundred years or whatever.
Nothing to do with google. -- Dean1970 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The References section is all jacked up. Just bringing it to general attention, I'm not sure how to fix it. BURNyA 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The weather is supposed to become more extreme due to climate change. Suppose we fix some time scale and define averages as . Then define the squared temperature fluctuation (at some fixed location) as and average this over the weather stations and satellite data etc. Does this quantity show an increasing trend? Count Iblis 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I keep changing the first sentence to read, "Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans." which is the correct way it should be. Not "the increase... in recent decades and its projected continuation". This is a very serious difference, as one is a scientific definition, and the other, regardless of whether it is true or not, IS NOT a definition. "In recent decades" has no relevance to what global warming means, as GW is a phenomenon that has happened before in history (e.g. when Earth emerged from the Ice Ages and Little Ice Age), regardless of whether there's a scientific concensus that people are causing it this time. Will people stop reverting it without reason or debate on the subject? Thank you. Nufacion 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
See this thread. Arjuna 01:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Also its wrong to limit a discussion of global warming to the current warming or past warming or climate change as its the projections or models of future warming that have the most importent consequences for mankind. Rktect 23:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Is is possible to finally get rid of the solar contribution section in this article in light of the study refererenced in http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm ? U236
Forsters says :"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," and Lockwood concludes that: "This should settle the debate,". Sounds pretty definitive and they did the leg work to back it up. Your "far from negligeble" claim is now offside. So respectfully much more is required than a "no"
I'd like to have this ripple through the zillions of global warming pages that refer quizzicaly to the solar variability boogeymand and the cosmic ray canard.
Can we have consensus that there is no more ambiguity on these two specific issues anymore?
U236 14:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, this will do for now. I'm sure William is already busy propagating these findings where appropriate. U236 16:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I would think that something with a bit more rigor than a blurb on BBC news would be necessary. The article is actually pretty thin on specifics, for example there's not a single mention of what they derived their measurements from. The only accurate - that is, not affected by global weather itself - means of measuring solar output would necessarily be from instrumentation in solar orbit. Yet i'm pretty sure such instrumentation has only been available for a few decades. Another issue, unaddressed, is the observed global warming on Mars....But let me put it this way: Recently there was some discussion about a study that had shown that China had surpassed the US in GHG emissions. Inclusion of this was fought vigorously, because the results were 'too new' and since wikipedia "isn't a news service" there was no urgency in adding it. Seems we have a double-standard here - this article is all of two days old. Anastrophe 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is one paper, and should not be included until there is more consensus. I have seen many times references removed from this article for papers (even peer reviewed ones) that cast some doubt on an aspect of global warming because it is the only paper etc. Same standard needs to apply here. Lucid-dream 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Global Warming has been going on for longer than the 20 to 40 years mentioned. I suspect it's a range because it can't be eliminated. Secondly, solar effects are widely believed responsible for the medieval warming period. Also, the article confirmed cosmic ray effects on cloud formation and since cloud formation is probably the biggest unknown in global warming models, it seems a little premature to remove it. I would like to understand why the "Clean maritime air" theory of cosmic ray cloud formation proposed by the author is no longer valid considering that the earth is 70% covered by oceans. -- Tbeatty 02:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I added MiszaBot to this talk page. This bot will automatically archive any topic over 30 days old from now on. ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph in this section requires either heavy revision or outright deletion. It basically rehashes the points made in the rest of the section. The content is as follows:
This was originally placed as a separate section called "Other Effects" immediately following the introduction to the article, but does not introduce any new material or cite any sources. I merged it into the section it is in now because it had no reason to be where it was, but due to the above rationale, if it cannot be incorporated into the rest of the section then I move to delete the paragraph entirely. ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
"although temperate regions are projected to experience some minor benefits, such as fewer deaths due to cold exposure.[48]" This line made me chuckle. This section suggests that the long term effects of the current trend in global warming will be overwhelmingly negative. This section does not feel neutral.-- 12.206.104.132 06:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
T is increasing at a faster than average rate in the northern hemisphere not just because of CO2 emmissions but for all the reasons given in the article including methane releases in Siberia. Rktect 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- The grand-daddy of subsurface sealed ice layers is a very large structure in Siberia called the ice complex [Hubberten and Romanovskii, 2001]. The most important means of eroding the ice complex is laterally, by a melt-erosion process called thermokarst erosion [Gavrilov et al., 2003]. The ice layer is exposed to the warming waters of the ocean. As the ice melts, the land collapses, exposing more ice. The northern coast of Siberia has been eroding for thousands of years, but rates are accelerating. Entire islands have disappeared in historical time [Romankevich, 1984]. Concentrations of dissolved methane on the Siberian shelf reached 25 times higher than atmospheric saturation, indicating escape of methane from coastal erosion into the atmosphere [Shakhova et al., 2005]. Total amounts of methane hydrate in permafrost soils are very poorly known, with estimates ranging from 7.5 to 400 Gton C (estimates compiled by [Gornitz and Fung, 1994]).
Rktect 10:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop adding vast quantities of text here and address RA's point: do you think that warming is greatest in the NH because GHG concs are largest there? This is what your text added to the GW page appears to imply, and its wrong. There are (many) other problems with your text but it seems best to sort this out first William M. Connolley 11:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
IPCC projections for GGH show CO2 concentrations could reach 1000 ppmv by 2100 they reach the point where holding it to linear increase is no longer possible by 2030. Methane concentrations 25 times worse than CO2 concentrations are now at 2000 ppb and will reach 3750 by 2100 based on the 1994 data and thats increased dramatically by the 2005 data. No2 concentrations will be at 450 by 2100
Here is where the methane is discussed in summary... IPCC projections for GGH show CO2 concentrations could reach 1000 ppmv by 2100 they reach the point where holding it to linear increase is no longer possible by 2030. Methane concentrations 25 times worse than CO2 concentrations are now at 2000 ppb and will reach 3750 by 2100 based on the 1994 data and thats increased dramatically by the 2005 data. No2 concentrations will be at 450 by 2100
1. Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase Increases in greenhouse gas concentrations since preindustrial times (i.e., since about 1750) have led to a positive radiative forcing2 of climate, tending to warm the surface and to produce other changes of climate. There is evidence that tropospheric ozone concentrations in the Northern Hemisphere have increased since preindustrial times because of human activity and that this has resulted in a positive radiative forcing. This forcing is not yet well characterized, but it is estimated to be about 0.4 Wm2 (15% of that from the longlived greenhouse gases).
If carbon dioxide emissions were maintained at near current (1994) levels, they would lead to a nearly constant rate of increase in atmospheric concentrations for at least two centuries, reaching about 500 ppmv (approaching twice the preindustrial lets compromise these are ecerts from the excert Rktect 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[cut spam - WMC] Rktect 15:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are all long-lived greenhouse gases.
"Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values." The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm). The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppb) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb). The primary source of the increase in carbon dioxide is fossil fuel use, but land-use changes also make a contribution. The primary source of the increase in methane is very likely to be a combination of human agricultural activities and fossil fuel use. How much each contributes is not well determined. Nitrous oxide concentrations have risen from a pre-industrial value of 270 ppb to a 2005 value of 319 ppb. More than a third of this rise is due to human activity, primarily agriculture.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rktect ( talk • contribs).
Lets look at your contribution:
You simply cannot stuff inaccurate unsourced stuff like this into a mature article and hope to have it remain William M. Connolley 18:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
An estimated 500 gigatons of carbon have been flash frozen in yedoma regions, and 900 tons in permafrost worldwide. This large store would more than double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere today if it is released.
tipping point ..... It is feared that Siberia's thawing lake region, which comprises 90 percent of the Russian permafrost zone, will release methane into the atmosphere at a rate that will overwhelm human actions to curtail carbon dioxide emissions.
As the permafrost thaws as a result of global warming caused by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, large quantities of methane are released. When methane gets out it causes more warming in a vicious cycle, and the release of even more methane, and so it goes on. Scientists refer to this as a positive feedback loop.
Chris Field, director of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, says "that's the thing that is scary about this whole thing. There are lots of mechanisms that tend to be self-perpetuating and relatively few that tend to shut it off."
Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk State University describes permafrost melting as an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible". He says the entire western Siberian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt in the last three or four years.
Larry Smith of the University of California Los Angeles, has estimated that the western Siberian bog alone contains 70 billion tonnes of methane, which is 25 percent of all methane stored on the land surface worldwide.
Siberia has warmed faster than anywhere else on Earth - average temperatures have increased 3°C in the last 40 years.
Rktect 11:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
an environmental organisation whose business is to whip up concern
The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750.
Can we have the specific level of atmospheric concentration? Also, the sentence is lacking a citation.
RedRabbit1983
14:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I should have read a little further. RedRabbit1983 14:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Everyone "knew" in the 1970s that the planet was fast on its way to an ice age. Now everyone "knows" that the planet is fast on its way to being like Venus. Just something to think about. And, yes, I stole that quote, I forgot the name of the user.
Hi. How can I make a change to this article. Thanks. Anthony R. Hansen User:Anthony R. Hansen
Yeah, global warming is a death sentance that will end all life on earth. Just like anthrax was. Just like the bird flu was. Just like Y2K was. Just like mad cow was. Just like robots taking over the world was. Don't you people realize that politicians and the media make up "end of the world" scenarios whenever it suits them. Remember all the duct tape and plastic sheeting you bought a few years ago so you would be safe from a chemical/nuclear attack? 75.2.219.195 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
a change of one degree farenheit over the course of a hundred years
- Now lets not pretend small changes in temperature cannot create big differences here on Earth. Take for example the Little Ice Age, a period marked by temperatures just 1.8 to 4 degrees F cooler than today. The results were devastating. The Vikings in Greenland were killed off because of the frigid temperatures (though they didn't necessarily have to). Frost Fairs took place on the Thames. The Black Death claimed millions of lives. Disease run rampant during this time. Famine killed countless amounts of people. On the other hand, during the Medieval Warm Period that occurred just before the Little Ice Age, also marked by just a small amount of degrees increase, there was amazing prosperity (which why it is also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum). The Vikings found lush green lands in Greenland. England was growing vineyards that rivaled those of France. The diseases that plagued them previously virtually vanished. Crops and populations flourished. So just small amounts of change in temperature can have real effects that can impact the human life in substantial ways. Just small changes in temperatures have the potential to change the course of history (e.g. the French Revolution or the 30 Years' War). We are creatures of our climate. How it changes directly changes what we do and how we do it. Anthony R. Hansen 00:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That is one IPCC scenario. It assumes we are willing to spend 1800 trillion on mediation to hold emmissions to 500 ppm. If we choose not to spend the money, then at the other extreme of IPCC scenarios we have 1500 ppm and six degrees Celsius. With that increase the poles melt, the sea levels rise, the cities flood, the crops fail, the oceans, die; etc; Global warming is caused by humans. Taking the perspective that we can continue to do nothing and the problem will take care of itself may be accurate, but that sort of Gaian solution probably isn't in our best interests. Rktect 15:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Global warming is just a bunch of hype, like 75.2.219.195 pointed out. The democrats make the stuff up to scare us into voting for them, while the economy goes down the tubes. I lived through the 70's and remember distinctly all the global cooling hype. It's time to face facts: This is a science in it's infancy, and the economy is of too much importance to risk. 12va34 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Science doesn't take political sides. Ignore the media and the politicos, and just look at the science. You'll come up with a different conclusion. Anthony R. Hansen 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a talk page dedicated to improving the article. Please provide peer-reviewed references to bolster your claims, though make sure that you avoid using tiny minority opinions. Please see Scientific opinion on climate change. -- Skyemoor 19:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Where did "Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F)" come from? Whose data is this and how was it extrapolated? If not cited, this should be removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.169.189.226 ( talk • contribs).
[17] Is ther is a way to use some of the data from this web link for this article? It shows really well that arctic ice is decreasing rapidly.
I am all for finding a second source but I do not have any other site. They mention where they get their data: "Snow and ice data provided by the National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA". I looked at their web site and I couldn't find anything about the ice right away (but it's a big web site) [18] Maybe you can find something there. Hifisoftware 00:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Here found something: [19] But it's nowhere as easy to read as charts on the original link. Hifisoftware 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
But I found it pretty startling and applicable to the topic. Shows that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is markedly higher now than at any point in the past 650,000 years.
Taken from
Timeline of glaciation.
The first paragraph defines the scope of the article as climate change in "recent decades" but a huge amount of space near the top of the article is dedicated to a review of "the present to the dawn of human settlement" -- why is that? Shouldn't that ancient stuff be moved to climate change? 75.18.200.11 08:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I know I am opening myself up for major attack here, but there is a video ( Watch at Google Video) from the BBC that disputes that claim made in the sentence under "Cause" that reads: detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus[8] identifies increased levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence.
No dispute on Global Warming, just disputing the extent to which humans are involved. The video is an hour long, but well worth watching for anyone who feels they should be commenting on this topic solely based on what they had seen in An Inconvenient Truth.
It would be nice if the Global Warming article cited some of the dirty misdoings of the IPCC that are cited in this video, before offering IPCC findings as scientific consensus. Shaunco 07:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello.
The ice caps are melting on Mars as well. This article should feature a section where critique is featured.
Later...
I don't want to be lynched. Please be kind. I am running http://www.lifetut.com. It's a news hub about global warming. I do it in my spare time (I spent most of my working time working on Free Software Magazine). Do you think any of you (editors)would consider adding a link to lifetut anywhere in Wikipedia, in some Global warming article? I created lifetut because I became interested in Global Warming, but didn't find any decent news hub... so, I created one!
If not, that's all good. If yes, fantastic. Keep up the good work! :-D (Moved at the bottom of the page - silly me) Tony Mobily
While China may have become the no. 1 emitter in 2006. The data that quoted is to premature to be used here. Reading the MNP press release [1] which is the one that the newspapers are referencing - we find that its a preliminary result based upon incomplete data and trend analysis:
The estimates of CO2 emissions do not include emissions from flaring and venting of associated gas during oil and gas production and CO2 emissions from deforestation/logging/decay of remaining biomass and are calculated using default CO2 emission factors recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CO2 emissions from underground coal fires in China and elsewhere are not included either. The magnitude of these sources is very uncertain; according to recent research CO2 emissions from coal fires are estimated at 150-450 megatonne CO2 annually in China.
Please wait for the official data to come out. Its a good headliner - but not certain enough to be used here yet. (and for that matter unverified by other agencies). --Kim D. Petersen 20:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Also note that the same source KDP references (and which is the original source of the material in the article) says "Energy statistics for fast changing economies such as China are less accurate than those of traditional industrialized countries within the OECD." Obviously if current trends continue, China will take the unenviable #1 position soon, but it is premature to state that it has yet done so. Arjuna 20:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry folks. I know this came as a shock, but China is now the number one emitter of CO2. All sources pass WP:V and it would be to wikipedias disgrace to not have the most up to date information. Prester John 05:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. There is nothing to suggest the Netherlands government is lying. THIS is the data showing China to be the number 1 emitter. It passes WP:V and should be included. Prester John 05:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I've read it. The best bit is the huge title, also included in the conclusion. It says; China now no. 1 in CO2 emissions; USA in second position. That's pretty much the clincher, that and the fact that multiple news agencies have ran with the story, all of them reputable and satisfying WP:V. Despite the reports conclusion and this phrase; The energy data annually published by BP appear to be reasonably accurate, you still claim the report is "incomplete". This is your own Original Reasearch and has no business in wikipedia. Nowhere in the report or in any verifiable news agencies does it suggest that this report is incomplete. Prester John 06:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the feedback. I added the China info back with suitable qualifiers and disclaimers. Kevinp2 17:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I am coming from the List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions article. There is a line that says: "The United States is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases." I find the above line the most problematic because the latest data says that it is not true. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should contain only contain blanket assertions about the present that are both backed up by reliable sources and not contradicted by other reliable sources. At the very least both sides of a discussion need to be presented if there is a dispute amongst reliable sources. I do not understand what is wrong with citing the finding of the The Netherlands Environment Protection Agency. They are a scientific agency. Their finding is not disputed. So why not state it - especially when many have predicted an imminent overtaking of the USA by China. I am ok with it being couched in a manor that the data is preliminary - but I do not think it should be ignored.
As far as the issue of other pollutants I quote from the Guardian article: The new figures only include carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production. They do not include sources of other greenhouse gases, such as methane from agriculture and nitrous oxide from industrial processes. And they exclude other sources of carbon dioxide, such as from the aviation and shipping industries, as well as from deforestation, gas flaring and underground coal fires.
Dr Olivier said it was hard to find up to date and reliable estimates for such emissions, particularly from countries in the developing world. But he said including them would be unlikely to topple China from top spot. "Since China passed the US by 8% [in 2006] it will be pretty hard to compensate for that with other sources of emissions."
As far as the problems people have with the Dutch report - unless there are reliable sources who comment upon it, one cannot simply exclude it because problems one has with it. Doing so is original research. Given that many reliable sources state the findings of the Dutch report as fact it should be at least included in Wikipedia. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 20:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The Dutch data are preliminary, unverified, and as the Dutch agency who submitted it freely acknowledges, may be inaccurate. See comments by KDP above. This article is about verifiable statements regarding GW -- it doesn't include the latest papers on the science until such research stands up to peer-review and verification. Why should statements about emissions levels be any different than that standard? It should stay out until independently verified. Arjuna 20:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The US is now down as historically the greatest producer of CO2. There's a mention of the Dutch dossier on greenhouse gas, but that's all these findings warrant: a mention, not a re-writing of all three pages. If there are any other statements that claim the US is the current greatest emmitter, we can play them down as well. Bendž| Ť 07:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The US is down as "historically", why isn't China down as "presently"? The rationale on offer for not citing several media sources is the same given by these human rights champions in Beijing [2]. 2005 Environmental sustainability index has China ranked @ 133 out of 146 nations (US @ 45). The ESI is a composite of many factors. China is the greatest producer of co2, AGW camp claim manmade co2 is the main cause of warming....goodluck with climate-action protests in Tiananmen Square! -- Dean1970 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
From Sci-Tech Today: China Overtakes U.S. as No. 1 Emitter of Carbon Dioxide
"John Christensen, head of the U.N. Environment Program's Center on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development in Denmark, said the figures did not come as a surprise.
"The Dutch agency referred to BP statistics, which is the standard reference tool. We have no reason to doubt that the numbers are right. We have no reason to doubt the methodology," Christensen said. "It's been stated many times that China will overtake the U.S. in emissions." "
"Fatih Birol, chief economist of the Paris-based International Energy Agency also said the findings were not surprising, given China's economic growth of more than 9 percent annually over the past 25 years."
Here is the head of the U.N. Environment Program's Center accepting these numbers. This a very strong augment for their inclusion.
From BBC News: China building more power plants
"China is now building about two power stations every week, the top climate change official at the UK Foreign Office, John Ashton, has said."
Again these numbers are accepted by an expert on the subject. Again this is a secondary source - in line with Wikipedia's policies. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 11:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
wikipedia isn't a public relations organ of the Chinese govt. They run things in Bejing (very effectively I might add). They've allowed their country to be flooded with factories so everymart can sell plastic spiderman lunchboxs for a few coins. Not wikipedia's fault. China is the new number one polluter, the biggest producer of co2, they can own it by stating it as verified fact on wikipedia. -- Dean1970 12:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sir, theres no 'feelgood' on my part about china overtaking US as co2 polluter with their slave factories. As for the economics, the facts and figures....I just don't get that angle when it comes from very public climate activists "the % this and the % that" to swerve any blame from china. -- Dean1970 12:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
i don't see china reducing their smoke stacks anytime soon. -- Dean1970 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless we are here claiming that all the major newspapers have a weak editorial review process, I think that from the moment that a report is universally accepted by reliable sources, it should be reflected through WP. That it may not be factually correct is quite irrelevant since any other report can be, IPCC reports included. Despite this, we present the IPCC reports as the current understanding of the actual state of things regarding climate forecasts. If WP is to be consistent rather than an agenda-driven magazine, it should reflect the most recent accepted state of things regarding emmissions that we have. -- Childhood's End 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
On the 'attributed and expected effects of global warming' malaria and dengue fever are cited. This isn't a fact according to this chap [4]. -- Dean1970 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
he seems to know his onions about the subject pretty well. wp is about fact. nothing goes in unless its fact. -- Dean1970 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I decided that this analysis may be wrong. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Seemingly to 'counter' the 'china may have surpassed the US in greenhouse gas emissions' claim, the factoid that the US has some nominal fraction of the population of China is now repeatedly being pushed as having some meaning: "however, since the population of the U.S. is less than one fourth that of China, U.S. emissions are much greater on a per capita basis.". This is an irrelevancy, and intended clearly to 'scold' the evil americans for creating so much pollution. It ignores that the creation of greenhouse gases in the US is not purely a function of overweight white males driving 2mpg SUV's with special smog-enhancers attached. It ignores factors such as the proportion of the population engaged in "industrialized" activities (which in a broad way benefit people across the globe) vs purely subsistence farming. China's industrialization is moving forth with almost no visible effort towards ethical stewardship of the earth. The smaller population of the US contributes more per capita to the world at large (in goods, services, technology, invention, clean water, charity, etc etc etc) than does china. shall we add that to the article to 'counter' the scolding? No. The article is about global warming, not who warms it the most. The question of 'who produces the most greenhouse gases per capita' isn't directly relevant to the article. By the way, how much methane do 1 billion people create per day in the crapper? is it more than what 300 million people create? just curious. Anastrophe 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I read the first one, one para reads - "Wang Tongsan, a senior Chinese economic forecaster and member of the committee overseeing implementation of the current five-year plan, said that the Chinese government did not have a policy of pushing exporters to focus on markets other than the United States. He attributed the rise in sales to developing countries to the strong entrepreneurial talents of many Chinese." - it's hard to compete with these entrepreneurs [5]
2 & 3 answer what I know. China is not going to curtail its pollution output (it may pay lip service here and there, but scratch the surface and that's all it is!).
China is presently the biggest producer of co2 <<< There are reliable sources making this claim. Agree more data needs to filter through, but its hardly 'jumping the gun' adding a brief detail about this event in the article. -- Dean1970 09:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Nature [6] has accepted the prima facie findings that China is the number one emitter of carbon dioxide (with the caveats about accuracy). Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 12:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Nature is a RS, it is used on articles related to GW. -- Dean1970 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the statistic of CO2 emissions per unit of economic output be a better measure than CO2 emissions per capita? The former would tend to better reflect the relative "greenness" of economic production, while the latter doesn't factor this in. It's silly to compare the per capita greenhouse gas output of China with the US when we know they are on far different economic footing. After all, I don't think anyone is suggesting we cut economic production in pursuit of reductions in greenhouse gasses. I'd really like to see some of this data and have it reflected in GW articles. 71.217.95.80 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone up for starting a new section of the article discussing the benefits of global warming? Tom e r talk 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming has transmogrified and no longer satisfies its original purpose: the page now lists people who have no disagreement at all with the second para of this article; hence the link appears inappropriate. The best solution would be to fix the sci oppos page; however rampant wikilawyering there renders that unlikely William M. Connolley 16:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I doubt anything will be resolved here then. "A few individual scientists disagree with some of these conclusions as well" <<< this very small sentence in the opening para sparked an edit-war over one word - "few" versus "several"... deary me. Theres no chance then of adding an inlink (in the forseeable future) to an article covering scientists who don't agree (to varying extents) with the consesus. Shame. It's a great thing about Wiki, reading about an interesting subject and being able to use the inlinking to learn more about it. Theres a line in some movie that comes to mind, about people who would argue over the colour of........ -- Dean1970 17:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Just because Al Gore says that all scientists agree on global warming doesn't mean that it becomes a fact.
There are many, many holes in the Global warming theory.
The Earth has been warming for the past 20,000 years (the peak of the last ice age)
It has not been proven that CO2 concentrations affect atmospheric temperature. In fact, there is mounting evidence that temperature affects Co2 concentrations.
No reliable climate record exists past the last 100,000 years. Keep in mind that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.
Computer climate models are so ridiculously flawed it's not funny. Ever got caught in the rain without an umbrella after the Weather Channel predicted sunny, blue skies?
These are only a sampling of problems with the global warming theory. I strongly reccomend a "controversy" section. 12va34 02:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The IPCC is unreliable. It doesn't use the opinions of enough scientists. Whose to say that the majority of scientists aren't slanted to the left or simply hopping on a bandwagon. Just because the IPCC isn't bribing them, it doesn't mean that someone else isn't. 12va34 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Although it's very unlikely that all of them are bribed, it's very possible that some of them were. The Dems controll congress, don't they? 12va34 16:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Keyword: SOME. 12va34 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
This article contains a number of summaries from Geophysical Research Letters, the U.N. Climate Change panel, the UNIPCC etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossnixon ( talk • contribs)
Its definitely faked (or, if you wish to be charitable, misattributed) [7] William M. Connolley 09:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
As we've said rather often now at present the link implies it links to scientists disagreeing with some broadbrush statements in the intro which amount to being skeptics but it links to a page listing many people disagreeing on much more techincal IPCC points. Fix and then link. -- BozMo talk 06:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the biggest point in the alarmist argument is not listed in the opening statements. The whole argument is about whether the warming is caused by humans polluting, or natural (cycles), or the result of volcanic activity, solar shifts, or other causes. Can someone please include it in the opening paragraphs please? U236 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Лёха Фурсов: Sacrublood 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
soryy i guess im retarded and didn't know what anthropogenic means. Лёха Фурсов: Sacrublood
First of all, I believe that global warming is being aided by human activity. However, I am concerned that the definition in the intro of the article is not correct, or misleading.
"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."
I call into question the "in recent decades" part of the definition. Since global warming has in the past occurred, and since the scope of this article isn't limited to recent decades, why is the definition itself limited? It is a definition to "Current Global Warming Trend" and not a good overview of Global Warming in general. DPK99 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)DPK99 7-5-07 4:39PM ET
I edited the solar variation area of the global warming page to account for more recent information, showing that solar variation is not a strong factor in the increased rates of global warming. The study shown in Nature at the end of 2006 pretty well put the issue to rest among climatologists.
I took out:
on various grounds. Firstly it seems to be very new - its rather a good idea to let this stuff become clear over time. Secondly it has no clear scientific source. Thirdly, as written it omits the lack of DNA found further north, and gives the impression that all of greenland was forest covered (where did the plural on cores come from in the above?). And fourthly, I don't see why this is better than the d-o-18 and borehole thermometry from various greenland cores. It seems like excess detail William M. Connolley 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Would it do any good if anyone did suggest it go back it in? No, don't think so. Editor's can't even inlink the biggest televised mass media event in the history of mankind to "raise awareness" about global warming on an article about...erm, about global warming.
what caused the warming? -- Dean1970 18:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It would seem so. -- Dean1970 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, know what? Antarctica was once covered in forest. The middle of Australia once had huge swathes of tropical forest and swamps, and all I can say is so what? It really has nothing to do with the current debate. -- Michael Johnson 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Earth's climate is not steady. And yes, it is not because of humans. -- Dean1970 00:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I agree with you that UBeR leaving (or devoting less time to wikipedia) won't improve matters on this subject. I may not always agree with him and for all I know (and I don't) he believes that humans are responsible or partly responsible for global warming, but regardless, he is far more rational (than you or I and many others) when it comes to "both sides of an issue" being heard. -- Dean1970 20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
So, there's been some back and forth regarding inclusion/ommision of the title, as well as some barbs back and forth regarding how it should be characterized. I've never seen the thing. i've never seen An Inconvenient Truth. There's fiction, non-fiction, and "documentaries" as far as i'm concerned, and it's not a bad place to start. Both TGGWS and AIT are both opinion pieces. "Fact" and "Truth" are better referred to as "Fast" and "Loose" when it comes to such things, since they are not held to any objective standard for presentation of reality. I'm put in mind of the intro title in the movie "Fargo": "THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred.". The movie is, of course, a complete piece of fiction from first to last frame. But most viewers took the filmmakers at their word that they were being told "the truth".....Perhaps it would be best to simply leave both entries uncharacterized, so that the reader may come to their OWN conclusions, without the content being further editorialized? Anastrophe 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
all that said, i still contend that editorializing external links is silly. no reader is harmed by the inclusion of a link to the page for TGGWS, no more so than they are harmed by a link to AIT. the reader may come to their OWN conclusion after following the respective links. Anastrophe 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
A lot of people believe that 'man made global warming' is hyped up propaganda (different strokes for different folks) -- Dean1970 03:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
TGGWS though not perfect, is far more truthful than anything that the UN or Democrat politicians spout forth. rossnixon
Ross, this is the Wikipedia of the real universe, not that of the Rightwingoverse :) Count Iblis 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Suggested addition
Tidal forces contribute to ocean currents, which moderate global temperatures by transporting heat energy toward the poles. It has been suggested that harmonic beat variations in tidal forcing may contribute to variations in climate.[ [9]]
Michael H 34 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
What about the fact that in the past 50 years or so there has been a great increase in the development of cities. More glass, metal, and stone building have been put up and now cover much more space than previously before. These materials all absorb heat and as a result must attribute to an increase in temperature in locations around the world. If you look closely at the 1995-2004 Mean Temperatures picture in the article you can see that the majority of areas with 1-2 degree increases are in regions of great economic development (during the past 50-80 years) while the oceans and antarctica in general show little to no heating, and in some places cooling. Has this been taken into account?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.245.246.6 ( talk • contribs).
it's being looked into [10] [11]-- Dean1970 19:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If all the scientist in the world thought that man's contribution to the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide had no relation to the greenhouse effect, that wouldn't make it true. This article should present the studies and the refutations. Not start out with a bunch of babble about who agrees with what conclusions and who doesn't. Karbinski 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW: Citation #1 is invalid, needs to be fixed. Not that a summary for policy makers of an unreleased report created by a political body deciding on matters of fact by commitee (regardless of member credentials) is worth much. Karbinski 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the report, its content is decided by comittee, which means that it is inherently unreliable as it is not a product of science but of politics. To cite the report's summary is only to stretch the unreliability even farther. At any rate, I see that the link has been fixed. Karbinski 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"An increase in global temperatures may in turn cause other changes, including sea level rise, and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation resulting in floods and drought." Does anyone actually look at the citations? This fabirication (unless verifiable) is supported by a news story about changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation resulting in floods and drought in a specific local at a specific point in time. Perhaps I could link to a news story about any arbitrary concrete event, claim that global warming "may" cause such events, and put the claim somewhere in the first four paragraphs of the article, undisputed. I think it would be better to remove those claims with no verifiable scientific support. Karbinski 01:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't often go past 1RR but I have just reverted the Live Earth link out for a second time (third in fact). Linking to an example under an anchor text is inappropriate and too spammy. The only reason I can think of which may be behind this is to try to get the WP page on Live Earth to win the google search for the anchor term: as such it is way out of order. This comment on an edit summary was ignored. -- BozMo talk 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I was just trying to inlink the largest televised event (to raise awareness about GW, in case you didn't know) in the history of mankind to the sentence in the section that goes along the lines of "groups and entertainers (I prefer corporate media) who are raising awareness about the risks blablahblah".
From there the reader can learn more about Global Warming and follow the examples of the 'entertainers' and maybe even take the 7-point pledge or whatever to save the world, or control the weather for the next hundred years or whatever.
Nothing to do with google. -- Dean1970 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The References section is all jacked up. Just bringing it to general attention, I'm not sure how to fix it. BURNyA 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The weather is supposed to become more extreme due to climate change. Suppose we fix some time scale and define averages as . Then define the squared temperature fluctuation (at some fixed location) as and average this over the weather stations and satellite data etc. Does this quantity show an increasing trend? Count Iblis 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I keep changing the first sentence to read, "Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans." which is the correct way it should be. Not "the increase... in recent decades and its projected continuation". This is a very serious difference, as one is a scientific definition, and the other, regardless of whether it is true or not, IS NOT a definition. "In recent decades" has no relevance to what global warming means, as GW is a phenomenon that has happened before in history (e.g. when Earth emerged from the Ice Ages and Little Ice Age), regardless of whether there's a scientific concensus that people are causing it this time. Will people stop reverting it without reason or debate on the subject? Thank you. Nufacion 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
See this thread. Arjuna 01:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Also its wrong to limit a discussion of global warming to the current warming or past warming or climate change as its the projections or models of future warming that have the most importent consequences for mankind. Rktect 23:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Is is possible to finally get rid of the solar contribution section in this article in light of the study refererenced in http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm ? U236
Forsters says :"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," and Lockwood concludes that: "This should settle the debate,". Sounds pretty definitive and they did the leg work to back it up. Your "far from negligeble" claim is now offside. So respectfully much more is required than a "no"
I'd like to have this ripple through the zillions of global warming pages that refer quizzicaly to the solar variability boogeymand and the cosmic ray canard.
Can we have consensus that there is no more ambiguity on these two specific issues anymore?
U236 14:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, this will do for now. I'm sure William is already busy propagating these findings where appropriate. U236 16:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I would think that something with a bit more rigor than a blurb on BBC news would be necessary. The article is actually pretty thin on specifics, for example there's not a single mention of what they derived their measurements from. The only accurate - that is, not affected by global weather itself - means of measuring solar output would necessarily be from instrumentation in solar orbit. Yet i'm pretty sure such instrumentation has only been available for a few decades. Another issue, unaddressed, is the observed global warming on Mars....But let me put it this way: Recently there was some discussion about a study that had shown that China had surpassed the US in GHG emissions. Inclusion of this was fought vigorously, because the results were 'too new' and since wikipedia "isn't a news service" there was no urgency in adding it. Seems we have a double-standard here - this article is all of two days old. Anastrophe 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is one paper, and should not be included until there is more consensus. I have seen many times references removed from this article for papers (even peer reviewed ones) that cast some doubt on an aspect of global warming because it is the only paper etc. Same standard needs to apply here. Lucid-dream 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Global Warming has been going on for longer than the 20 to 40 years mentioned. I suspect it's a range because it can't be eliminated. Secondly, solar effects are widely believed responsible for the medieval warming period. Also, the article confirmed cosmic ray effects on cloud formation and since cloud formation is probably the biggest unknown in global warming models, it seems a little premature to remove it. I would like to understand why the "Clean maritime air" theory of cosmic ray cloud formation proposed by the author is no longer valid considering that the earth is 70% covered by oceans. -- Tbeatty 02:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I added MiszaBot to this talk page. This bot will automatically archive any topic over 30 days old from now on. ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph in this section requires either heavy revision or outright deletion. It basically rehashes the points made in the rest of the section. The content is as follows:
This was originally placed as a separate section called "Other Effects" immediately following the introduction to the article, but does not introduce any new material or cite any sources. I merged it into the section it is in now because it had no reason to be where it was, but due to the above rationale, if it cannot be incorporated into the rest of the section then I move to delete the paragraph entirely. ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
"although temperate regions are projected to experience some minor benefits, such as fewer deaths due to cold exposure.[48]" This line made me chuckle. This section suggests that the long term effects of the current trend in global warming will be overwhelmingly negative. This section does not feel neutral.-- 12.206.104.132 06:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
T is increasing at a faster than average rate in the northern hemisphere not just because of CO2 emmissions but for all the reasons given in the article including methane releases in Siberia. Rktect 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- The grand-daddy of subsurface sealed ice layers is a very large structure in Siberia called the ice complex [Hubberten and Romanovskii, 2001]. The most important means of eroding the ice complex is laterally, by a melt-erosion process called thermokarst erosion [Gavrilov et al., 2003]. The ice layer is exposed to the warming waters of the ocean. As the ice melts, the land collapses, exposing more ice. The northern coast of Siberia has been eroding for thousands of years, but rates are accelerating. Entire islands have disappeared in historical time [Romankevich, 1984]. Concentrations of dissolved methane on the Siberian shelf reached 25 times higher than atmospheric saturation, indicating escape of methane from coastal erosion into the atmosphere [Shakhova et al., 2005]. Total amounts of methane hydrate in permafrost soils are very poorly known, with estimates ranging from 7.5 to 400 Gton C (estimates compiled by [Gornitz and Fung, 1994]).
Rktect 10:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop adding vast quantities of text here and address RA's point: do you think that warming is greatest in the NH because GHG concs are largest there? This is what your text added to the GW page appears to imply, and its wrong. There are (many) other problems with your text but it seems best to sort this out first William M. Connolley 11:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
IPCC projections for GGH show CO2 concentrations could reach 1000 ppmv by 2100 they reach the point where holding it to linear increase is no longer possible by 2030. Methane concentrations 25 times worse than CO2 concentrations are now at 2000 ppb and will reach 3750 by 2100 based on the 1994 data and thats increased dramatically by the 2005 data. No2 concentrations will be at 450 by 2100
Here is where the methane is discussed in summary... IPCC projections for GGH show CO2 concentrations could reach 1000 ppmv by 2100 they reach the point where holding it to linear increase is no longer possible by 2030. Methane concentrations 25 times worse than CO2 concentrations are now at 2000 ppb and will reach 3750 by 2100 based on the 1994 data and thats increased dramatically by the 2005 data. No2 concentrations will be at 450 by 2100
1. Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase Increases in greenhouse gas concentrations since preindustrial times (i.e., since about 1750) have led to a positive radiative forcing2 of climate, tending to warm the surface and to produce other changes of climate. There is evidence that tropospheric ozone concentrations in the Northern Hemisphere have increased since preindustrial times because of human activity and that this has resulted in a positive radiative forcing. This forcing is not yet well characterized, but it is estimated to be about 0.4 Wm2 (15% of that from the longlived greenhouse gases).
If carbon dioxide emissions were maintained at near current (1994) levels, they would lead to a nearly constant rate of increase in atmospheric concentrations for at least two centuries, reaching about 500 ppmv (approaching twice the preindustrial lets compromise these are ecerts from the excert Rktect 16:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[cut spam - WMC] Rktect 15:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are all long-lived greenhouse gases.
"Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values." The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm). The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppb) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb). The primary source of the increase in carbon dioxide is fossil fuel use, but land-use changes also make a contribution. The primary source of the increase in methane is very likely to be a combination of human agricultural activities and fossil fuel use. How much each contributes is not well determined. Nitrous oxide concentrations have risen from a pre-industrial value of 270 ppb to a 2005 value of 319 ppb. More than a third of this rise is due to human activity, primarily agriculture.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rktect ( talk • contribs).
Lets look at your contribution:
You simply cannot stuff inaccurate unsourced stuff like this into a mature article and hope to have it remain William M. Connolley 18:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
An estimated 500 gigatons of carbon have been flash frozen in yedoma regions, and 900 tons in permafrost worldwide. This large store would more than double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere today if it is released.
tipping point ..... It is feared that Siberia's thawing lake region, which comprises 90 percent of the Russian permafrost zone, will release methane into the atmosphere at a rate that will overwhelm human actions to curtail carbon dioxide emissions.
As the permafrost thaws as a result of global warming caused by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, large quantities of methane are released. When methane gets out it causes more warming in a vicious cycle, and the release of even more methane, and so it goes on. Scientists refer to this as a positive feedback loop.
Chris Field, director of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, says "that's the thing that is scary about this whole thing. There are lots of mechanisms that tend to be self-perpetuating and relatively few that tend to shut it off."
Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk State University describes permafrost melting as an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible". He says the entire western Siberian sub-Arctic region has begun to melt in the last three or four years.
Larry Smith of the University of California Los Angeles, has estimated that the western Siberian bog alone contains 70 billion tonnes of methane, which is 25 percent of all methane stored on the land surface worldwide.
Siberia has warmed faster than anywhere else on Earth - average temperatures have increased 3°C in the last 40 years.
Rktect 11:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
an environmental organisation whose business is to whip up concern
The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750.
Can we have the specific level of atmospheric concentration? Also, the sentence is lacking a citation.
RedRabbit1983
14:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I should have read a little further. RedRabbit1983 14:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Everyone "knew" in the 1970s that the planet was fast on its way to an ice age. Now everyone "knows" that the planet is fast on its way to being like Venus. Just something to think about. And, yes, I stole that quote, I forgot the name of the user.
Hi. How can I make a change to this article. Thanks. Anthony R. Hansen User:Anthony R. Hansen
Yeah, global warming is a death sentance that will end all life on earth. Just like anthrax was. Just like the bird flu was. Just like Y2K was. Just like mad cow was. Just like robots taking over the world was. Don't you people realize that politicians and the media make up "end of the world" scenarios whenever it suits them. Remember all the duct tape and plastic sheeting you bought a few years ago so you would be safe from a chemical/nuclear attack? 75.2.219.195 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
a change of one degree farenheit over the course of a hundred years
- Now lets not pretend small changes in temperature cannot create big differences here on Earth. Take for example the Little Ice Age, a period marked by temperatures just 1.8 to 4 degrees F cooler than today. The results were devastating. The Vikings in Greenland were killed off because of the frigid temperatures (though they didn't necessarily have to). Frost Fairs took place on the Thames. The Black Death claimed millions of lives. Disease run rampant during this time. Famine killed countless amounts of people. On the other hand, during the Medieval Warm Period that occurred just before the Little Ice Age, also marked by just a small amount of degrees increase, there was amazing prosperity (which why it is also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum). The Vikings found lush green lands in Greenland. England was growing vineyards that rivaled those of France. The diseases that plagued them previously virtually vanished. Crops and populations flourished. So just small amounts of change in temperature can have real effects that can impact the human life in substantial ways. Just small changes in temperatures have the potential to change the course of history (e.g. the French Revolution or the 30 Years' War). We are creatures of our climate. How it changes directly changes what we do and how we do it. Anthony R. Hansen 00:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That is one IPCC scenario. It assumes we are willing to spend 1800 trillion on mediation to hold emmissions to 500 ppm. If we choose not to spend the money, then at the other extreme of IPCC scenarios we have 1500 ppm and six degrees Celsius. With that increase the poles melt, the sea levels rise, the cities flood, the crops fail, the oceans, die; etc; Global warming is caused by humans. Taking the perspective that we can continue to do nothing and the problem will take care of itself may be accurate, but that sort of Gaian solution probably isn't in our best interests. Rktect 15:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Global warming is just a bunch of hype, like 75.2.219.195 pointed out. The democrats make the stuff up to scare us into voting for them, while the economy goes down the tubes. I lived through the 70's and remember distinctly all the global cooling hype. It's time to face facts: This is a science in it's infancy, and the economy is of too much importance to risk. 12va34 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Science doesn't take political sides. Ignore the media and the politicos, and just look at the science. You'll come up with a different conclusion. Anthony R. Hansen 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a talk page dedicated to improving the article. Please provide peer-reviewed references to bolster your claims, though make sure that you avoid using tiny minority opinions. Please see Scientific opinion on climate change. -- Skyemoor 19:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Where did "Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F)" come from? Whose data is this and how was it extrapolated? If not cited, this should be removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.169.189.226 ( talk • contribs).
[17] Is ther is a way to use some of the data from this web link for this article? It shows really well that arctic ice is decreasing rapidly.
I am all for finding a second source but I do not have any other site. They mention where they get their data: "Snow and ice data provided by the National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA". I looked at their web site and I couldn't find anything about the ice right away (but it's a big web site) [18] Maybe you can find something there. Hifisoftware 00:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Here found something: [19] But it's nowhere as easy to read as charts on the original link. Hifisoftware 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)