![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
I strongly object to Obedium adding the word *measured* to the following text.
The measured global average air temperature near the Earth's surface ...
By definition, averages are computed, not measured. In the case of global temperature, a very complex model is used to perform that calculation. Q Science 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not say calculated instead? Seems like more precise language. Zoomwsu 02:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not just say "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface"? It's simpler, correct, and gets the idea across. Enuja (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The temperature measurements taken outside my house are not computed. Global temperature is. I don't see why we are arguing over avoiding this language since it provides a very relevant nuance. I prefer "computed" over "calculated". But perhaps a good option would be "modelled"? -- Childhood's End 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
All temperature measurements incorporate a model, from mercury-in-glass to PRTs. The original addition of "measured" was a poor idea; just say "The global average air temperature" as its been for ages William M. Connolley 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Please, I need help to translate this article to all the Wikipedias. This is an important theme, is a global probleme and we must put it in all the languages as possible as we can. Please, help!!!!!! Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.60.101.71 ( talk) 11:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no way a user, who claims scientists skeptical of a human cause for global warming are all in the pay of oil companies, should be permitted to fully protect this page from editing claiming "POV pushing". Clashwho 20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"rv per long discussion on talk page - "some" gives weigh [sic] too much weight to a a tiny oil-financed minority"
"During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people. Administrators should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However, this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page." ~ UBeR 21:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This full protection is driving me nuts. Take this for example:
Is it really necessary to have the same article inlinked in two consecutive sentences? I had planned to change this earlier today, but the article had already been locked. Minor fixes like this happen all the time, but now they can't be made due to the protection. Wouldn't it be easier to simply enforce that the sentence in question cannot be changed during the course of the discussion, instead of locking the entire article down over the sake of a single word (albeit an important one)? ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose full protection. Why not restrict just to registered users to avoid vandalism? Zoomwsu 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I've only just noticed that the protection is now by Navou, not Raul, and has been for a while William M. Connolley 11:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Oreskes’ essay is now outdated. Since it was published, more than 8,000 further papers on climate change have been published in the learned journals. In these papers, there is a discernible and accelerating trend away from unanimity even on her limited definition of “consensus”.
Schulte (2007: submitted) has brought Oreskes’ essay up to date by examining the 539 abstracts found using her search phrase “global climate change” between 2004 (her search had ended in 2003) and mid-February 2007. Even if Oreskes’ commentary in Science were true, the “consensus” has moved very considerably away from the unanimity she says she found.
Dr. Schulte’s results show that about 1.5% of the papers (just 9 out of 539) explicitly endorse the “consensus”, even in the limited sense defined by Oreskes. Though Oreskes found that 75% of the papers she reviewed explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus”, Dr. Schulte’s review of subsequent papers shows that fewer than half now give some degree of endorsement to the “consensus”. The abstract of his paper is worth quoting in full: “Fear of anthropogenic ‘global warming’ can adversely affect patients’ well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on “global climate change” found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes (2004), who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on “global climate change” had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 32 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to “catastrophic” climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.”
--Alexander 09:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus” was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change.
--Alexander 10:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
[5] --Alexander 14:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The article linked to by User:Alexander Feht (at the beginning of this section) entitled “Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, in the Science and Public Policy Institute website, is not a reliable source, but rather a demonstrably biased source on a website of a Washington DC organization that is in the business of pushing POVs skeptical of AGW.
Examples of featured articles on the SPPI website:
The article by "Viscount Monckton of Brenchley" “Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over" is a highly unreliable opinion piece, arising as it does out of Robert Ferguson's organization's website. It is written by Viscount Monckton of Brenchly. Monckton is not a scientist, but a retired business consultant with a very strong political bent, known for his conspiracy theories and intense skepticism of mainstream views in a number of arenas involving public policy and business, including HIV/AIDS. Monckton regards the global warming controversy as " ... [catalyzed by] the need of the international left for a new flag to rally round" following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989." ... Kenosis 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I want to have a link to this article ( Clathrate gun hypothesis) in here, simply to help people interested in the topic find it. I'm not interested in debating it, but it definitely is of interest and should be referenced. In "Feedbacks" there is an o.k. sentence (Positive feedback due to release of CO2 and CH4 from thawing permafrost is an additional mechanism contributing to warming. Possible positive feedback due to CH4 release from melting seabed ices is a further mechanism to be considered.) basically talking about it, all it needs is a "(see: Clathrate gun hypothesis)" put in. Hirsch.im.wald 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I propose changing the first paragraph under "Causes" to this.
The scientific method has not exposed the cause(s) for global warming, however many opinions and various degrees of consensus exist. Earth's climate is effected by a variety of known and unknown reasons. Below are some of the most common areas of consensus.
This change would maintain neutrality while respecting the Scientific Method. The fact is the causes of global warming have not been scientifically proven. There has only been consensus. To push a consensus as fact is unethical, untruthful, and degrades the wiki. The wiki should not have consensus or bias in scientific articles.
On the other hand, bias, opinion, and concensus deserves to be in the Global warming controversy area. Global Warming must remain bias free.
If I don't get debate on this, Im unilaterally changing it, and the editors can play revert-NAZI till they are blue in the face!!!!! -- Ronjamin 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The proposed edit is compltely fair and reasonable because it doesn't advocate one theory over another, which the current article does. Firstly, the definition of the Scientific Method illustrates clearly why this topic requires such a clarification.
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, [2] the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [3]
The advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced. The conclusions of an experiment will hold regardless of the state of mind, or the bias of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation.
The current article, which is based on consensus, cannot stand up to the Scientific Method because there are too many divergent opinions that are also based in sound science. This makes the article intentionally misleading and biased toward one view more than another, and makes the article and the wiki useless as a reference tool. Only the "unwashed masses" would use the wiki as a legitimate reference source when in fact, it is nothing more than opinions generated by the loudest voices.......in other words, mob rule.
Michael asserts that the article refers to "scientific consensus" as the "overriding conclusion of the scientific community. This is an obfuscation of reality. Just do a Google Search and you will find just as many divergent opinions on this topic by scientists that have credentials as you will find supporting this so-called "overriding consensus". This is the underlying problem, because consensus doesn't necessarily mean truth, fact, or anything that can be illustrated using the Scientific Method. Consensus in this form is what kept the black man in slavery because he was considered chattel instead of a man. Consensus in this form is kept Copernicus jailed when he used the scientific method to prove that the earth wasn't in the center of the universe, bucking the official consensus of the Catholic church. Consensus in this form is what sent millions of Jews to their grave when the Germans "knew" they were sub-human. Consensus in this form is what doomed millions to death when zealots thought killing cats was the answer to the plague because they were "evil". Ask anyone out there to use their eyes, and they will tell you that they see the world is flat. THERE IS NO ROOM for consensus in a scientific article unless it is presented in an unbiased way. Here, there is too much bias. Until there is definitive PROOF, it is all conjecture. To place conjecture as fact ruins the wiki and reduces it to nothing more than propaganda.
Now, the so-called balance that you cite is only presented to obfuscate the fact that there is no reliable, scientific proof one way or another. The reasons given are presented in a way that "appear" to be the final truth. This is unethical, deceitful, and again, detracts from the efficacy of the wiki.....unless the purpose of the wiki is to be the mouth-piece of whatever dogma is the most popular. Use the edit, it's fair, reasonable, and doesn't detract from any opinion or consensus or scientific theory. It makes the article less biased, which should be the main concern here instead of parroting one side over the other without PROOF.-- 70.89.231.121 13:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to believe the term "in recent decades and its projected continuation" is actually a part of the global warming defintion. The term "global warming" has no temporal connotations, only spatial (i.e., global) and thermal (i.e., warming). However, I guess we will need to continue to settle for the current definition, that sounds as though it was composed by a third grader. Obedium 04:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"Global warming" is descriptive of a physical phenomena, not the time period in which it occurs. One can say "global warming has been detected/measured/quantified in recent decades and based on current models is projected to continue," but the aspect of "recent decades" and "projected continuation" should not be tied directly to the defintion. This is contrasted with "The Ice Age," which has a specific temporal connotation. Obedium 06:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on discussion input, it has been modified to read: "Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Climate observations indicate the Earth may have entered a period of global warming in recent decades, with some climate models projecting its continuation in coming years." Obedium 02:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Climate observations indicate the Earth has entered a period of global warming in recent decades, with almost all climate models projecting its continuation in coming years.
(Unindent.) Here is a link to one of my attempts to get this thing to use valid references. I think I tried 3 times and it is possible that there is a more detailed list. (I recall one). I would find the others but I have a really narrow bandwidth today and it is hard. Raymond Arritt rejected on the first effort when I quoted a dictionary and refused to join in thereafter. -- Blue Tie 16:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the following introduction, which leaves room to accomodate the range of viewpoints encountered in this contentious subject, while still reflecting complete technical accuracy at a fairly high level of description. I believe this incorporates most of the recent suggestions:
Global warming commonly refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Climate observations indicate the Earth has recently entered a period of global warming, with an abundance of climate models projecting its continuation in coming years.
Obedium 04:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you might be right. The current second sentance "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last 100 years" really captures things more clearly for the average reader than my suggested edit. It is not what I think that matters, it is really what the layperson who typically visits these sites for information walks away with that matters. And it is clear when they see "0.74 ± 0.18 degrees over the last 100 years," the first impression is "so this is what all of the fuss is about?" Perhaps it is the actual numbers that convey the context of the issue more clearly than further wordsmithing of the intro. Obedium 06:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Blue Tie (I think) has a good point, which was made above. Global warming is considered to have begun in the Industrial Revolution with the release of GHGs at a large scale, which began in the 18th century. Good records of temperature became available in the mid-19th century, where the warming could be quantified. The GHGs have really only begun to overcome natural factors since the mid-20th century, and apparently so since 1980 or so. So I think we have to be a little careful when say global warming applies only to recent decades. ~ UBeR 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem lies in the fact the first sentence of this article is not really a definition, it is essentially a tautology, devoid of any real content. In the desire to keep things as a simple declarative sentence, it has pushed it in the direction of saying nothing. If a real definition is desired, a new starting point needs to be established, rather than simply trying to re-work the existing one, which is simplistic and empty.
A real definition might read: “Global warming is the increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature, likely arising from an enhancement of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. Global warming is considered to arise from an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, above historical levels. It is commonly used to describe climate changes observed to occur in the period from the early part of the 20th century to the present, during which time this phenomena has been quantified through widespread surface and remote sensing temperature measurements. Although the specific time in which global warming in the current period was initiated is a source of debate, an abundance of current climate models project its continuation in the near future.” Obedium 04:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia article, not an essay, and thus should follow an inverted pyramid scheme of putting key details up front, with successive supporting, but less important details added later. You DO want to put details up front, so the reader can quickly get to a meaningful definition, and can fill in this definition with more details later. But, we will be stuck with the current empty phrasing given in the article, since it essentially derived by a committee so as to please the lowest common denominator. This is why Wikipedia will never be suitable as an academic resource. Obedium 05:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
However if you envisage statements like global warming will/may cause more floods, droughts, sea level rise ... and these are more important than the temperature change then it should be clear that the definition should have (or at least consider) increase in average temperature .... its associated effects and projected continuation. You could decide to separate effects from what global warming is but I get the impression that lots of things are blamed on global warming not on the effects of global warming so by common usage the effects should be in the definition. crandles 11:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed in a wide variety of discussions with people -- and smart people, every one of them -- that there seem to be two camps:
The thing is, they're both right: greenhouse gases clearly have an effect on global warming, AND YET the direct, non-solar contribution towards global warming by human power consumption is neglible...less than 1/10,000th of the sun's contribution.
The article is currently under semi-protect, and I am a die-hard fan of authoring/editing via IP addresses, so I offer the following, intended-toward-consensus-building paragraph to be inserted as the 2nd paragraph in the Global warming article:
World energy resources and consumption are substantially a point of focus regarding a causal analysis of global warming. By comparing the contribution from the sun to that contributed by human energy consumption, it can be readily understood that the direct human contribution to earth's heating is a very small fraction: the ratio of 1.5×1013 watts / 1.740×1017 watts is less than 1/10,000th (0.01%). Direct heating of the earth by humans is thus neglible. However, the facts make clear that the earth has been warming recently, and so mankind's contribution is understandably under close review. Global warming theories that do focus on mankind's contribution point towards the important side-effects of human energy consumption, such as greenhouse gases added to the earth's atmosphere.
-- 24.28.6.209 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
We should move portal templates to other section or remove the 2 columns in the references. Select one.
About external link, there is too many guys, also I do not think that is necessary subsection, a simple bold text fix it. Carlosguitar 23:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, Bozmo. exactly why did you remove that edit of mine? here is your explanation: "Worse. I would rather not have any statement than one which is blatantly misleading. US is historically No1 by a mile and probably still No1 by a mile except for dodgy tree accounting)" Exactly how is it misleading to state that a nation which is the No 1 emitter is "one of the top emitters"? That is not misleading at all. Would you mind explaining just what the heck you meant by that? -- Steve, Sm8900 01:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is Image:Global_Warming_Predictions.png normalized to 2000 when the IPCC practice listed on Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png is an average from 1961-1990? It would be easier to compare the models to the data if they were normalized to the same mean temperature. Is there something I am missing that prevents this? -- DHeyward 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In the article: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.163.212 ( talk) 05:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere Main article: Greenhouse effect The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warms a planet's atmosphere and surface.
Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F)... 33 Celcius is 91.4 Fahrenheit NOT 59, 59 Fahrenheit is 15 Celcius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.163.212 ( talk) 05:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Should the global warming article state there are alternative hypotheses not widely held to be the cause of global warming in lieu of supportive and reliable references?
If the comenter who states the Antarctic ice is increasing and others say the Arctic is decreasing then we have a QAGMA here. I have been to the Arctic recently and observed Glacier melting and spoke with the locals. there may be a new theory I can offer based on my readings that we are on the verge of discovering an ice age in the Southern Hemisphere (reasearch that)! Perhaps we are not out of the woods as www.polarbearsos.org references declining Polar Bear populations to come. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HAZWOPER On the otherside of the world observed was Jeepne Desiel in Manila and Cebu City in extreme while Arnold Governor of California USA pushed stopping hydrocarbons. We still are left with the delima of facts that yes this could be very dangerous so everyon must get on the ball to SAVE THE PLANET that don't mean drinks at some Chain in Chicago Dallas and Paris for Rock N Roll DMHCHICAGO —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMHCHICAGO ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Why can climatologist say for sure what the weather patterns will be like in 20,30,50, even 100 years later and yet they still screw up the 5 day forecast pretty much everyday? The climate is vastly complex and even the most sophisticated computer models get it wrong almost every time. We should say we are in a warming period. GHG do effect the weather, to an extent that has yet to be quantified. There is evidence that humans may be effecting the global weather system in ways we are just beginning to understand. Science is an ever changing being, and when people say that this theory is true and ridicule people for saying there may be something wrong with this becomes something that is not science.
My 2 cents is that they should at least be included in there own small section. For example, there is still quite a bit of legitimate scientific investigation into the solar activity question. Tons of papers have been published. Unfortunately anything published that even questions human caused global warming is automatically dismissed as being from an unreliable source. There is also a grown number of scientists who's material was used for the UN report that are now upset the way there work was "mischaracterized". The idea that not a single legitimate scientist questions the human caused theory is just silly. Basically an article about Global Warming shouldn't only include 1 view point. If there is a source that states there are scientists and researchers working on altnernate theories then there are obviously alternate theories and they shouldn't be dismissed. Elhector 21:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe per WP:WEIGHT that tiny minorities do not need to be mentioned. If we examine the scientific community, as opposed to general media, I don't believe there is enough support to mention it here. Global Warming Controversy seems a much better place. -- Skyemoor 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This looks like a good article overall. You have a section Issue debate, political processes and laws. Any disputes should go there. It seems to me that the NPOV policy works best if the main article is concerned with the topic, and dissenters have a chance to air their views in a different section (Criticism etc.) cf Sigmund Freud, Lacan, Charles Darwin, Fashionable Nonsense, psychoanalysis. The job of an encyclopaedia is to present the facts, not debate the issues. While it seems to me that human induced global warming is pretty much an open and such case, the fact is that there is debate over this issue. Let the dissenters link off to whatever place they want (cf you can find your way to Intelligent Design from Darwin). On that note, while I think ID is patent nonsense, it is a fact that some people hold this view and it is important to be able to read the arguments they put forward, if only to arm yourself against such loonies should you happen to meet one. MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I would be supportive of adding the proposed information if, as already mentioned by others in the RfC, it were for historical reasons (and stated as such, including that such theories have been fairly well debunked), but there are some issues that would need to be addressed first. There is a problem in defining what counts as "notable." I doubt that WP:WEIGHT can nor would be followed. Also, the Global Warming FAQ already takes care of a lot of information that would be needed for adding the information proposed. If there were a way to guide casual readers that could care less about the Talk page to the FAQ, this duplication would not be needed. Then again, a FAQ isn't really dictionary material. So to conclude, I am of the opinion that more commentary is needed to address the issues of notability and information duplication. Inclusion of alt. theories, even if for historical means, may bring more even more controversy to the article if these issues are not thoroughly addressed. Jason Patton 06:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that in some ways the article already handles these -- though not as well it should. I am not ad advocate of overly long articles and I think that if we were to put all the ideas that object to Global Warming in this article, it would be unweldy. Plus, I think it would lead to an article that reads badly. I think that linking in the article to other articles that handle these issues is probably best. So I tend to think the article does "OK" or perhaps almost OK in this area, even if it does not do "Great". -- Blue Tie 06:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Saying that the IPCC represents one viewpoint is a bit misleading. The way I see it is that the IPCC is the intersectaion of the views of many, many climate scientists. So, whats in the IPCC is the communality of the views of the majority of climate scientists. Brusegadi 01:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You've obviously never served on a scientific committee. The "intersection of many views" in actuality is the view of a few senior committee leads, with the rubber stamp of all the other junior members who are too afraid to go against the prevailing view (read: not get tenure, other committee assignments, etc.). The way the article is written, it sounds as though the IPCC has declared global warming is occurring, therefore it is true. The facts should first be emphasized in the article, with the appeal to authority coming later. Alternate viewpoints should be given a fair hearing--and there are many respected scientists who disagree with the global warming viewpoint espoused by the IPCC. This is the way science progresses. This article does not convey in any way how science proceeds. But, the Denver Post has given their imprimatur to this article, so I suppose any criticism is out of line. Obedium 04:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not "absurd" or in my "dreamland," it is reality. Scientists (particularly professors) fancy themselves as independent, yet they are just as susceptible to fads as a classroom of high school students. This is how we get Nanotechnology, Water/Life hypothesis on Mars, Global Cooling (then global warming), etc. DOE, DARPA, NSF, NOAA etc. hand out grants based on key emphasis areas/themes set by the agency program managers, and if your research doesn't fall into one of these themes (i.e. fads), well...you won't be hiring many graduate students. This is the problem with the article emphasizing the IPCC up front. Facts are paramount, not committees. Obedium 04:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the fact the last comments have nothing to do with my previous comments, I think this line of discussion has finally petered out. Obedium 14:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
A temperature of 30C is equivalent to 86F, but a change in temperature of 30C is equivalent to a change of 54F. The difference of 32F is because 0C is equivalent to 32F. Q Science 01:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Related to this change, reference [ 16] in the main article is a fluff piece having nothing to do with the sentence it is associated with. Should I just delete the reference or would someone else like to handle this? I don't want to start a war. Q Science 01:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, i think we need to discuss it in school with our teacher just to be sure of our answer. Pamnardalez 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed the comment that the U.S. is the largest emitter from this section for two reasons:
1. This is now contested. The article itself references the contradicting report in the Politics section. Since this is discussed later, there is no need to include it here in such simplified form.
2. This is uncited and should be if it were to remain. However, even if cited, this is again discussed more thoroughly and appropriately in the politics section. Leaving such a simple, parenthesized comment would be misleading considering the facts of the situation.
In the end, I just felt that removing this kept the article factural and up to date. Overall, guys, the article is great! -- Jdcaust 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It's better to keep this statement out. Despite the fact that the word "historically" technically makes it accurate, it could easily be misconstrued to read that the US currently leads the world in GHG emissions. In any case, it's a bit confusing. Its place in the section is rather unnecessary anyways, so when coupled with the potential for confusion, it's better to leave it out. Zoomwsu 23:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
another editor has reverted it again, with the summary "clearly its relevant that such a large producer hasn't signed rv". is kazakhstan a large producer of greenhouse gases? one would surmise so, if the basis is that it is relevant due to output. by the same token, china - which may or may not be the new top emitter, is a signatory. what does that tell us - again, with this manner of relevancy imposed? Anastrophe 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the reference to the US being the historic top emitter, nor the reference to China having possibly passed the US belong in this section. Both statements carry a lot of implication with them and have the potential to mislead reader as to the justifications for those nations' positions (particularly the US). The parenthesis about the US implies that its historic role as the leader in GHG emissions is the reason it has not signed the Kyoto protocol, which is not the case (or at best a gross mischaracterization). Zoomwsu 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
My addition should not have been deleted. Per the discussion in this section, it was clear that the United States' justification needed to be included to avoid the possibility of confusion arising out of the "historical emitter" remark. I referenced a clear statement from the President (who I may remind you Callmebc is the head of State and Government in the US) that also cited a unanimous vote by the US Senate against ratification. The US has clearly demonstrated a consensus at the Federal level that the Kyoto Protocols would harm the US economy and, considering developing nation exemption, would do little to offset GHG emissions. This statement is a fact and its removal is inappropriate. The sentence also has the benefit of thematically connecting the first sentence with the sentence on state and local actions on the issue. In other words, it's a good transition to flow from the international level to the national level to the state and local level. Why it should be deleted for the life of me I don't understand! Zoomwsu 05:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
What the heck, user:TeaDrinker? Not even a comment on this page? What do you mean "uncritical"? The link explains the position of the US Government. I fail to see what purpose criticism has in this. Please follow Wikipedia policy and discuss changes before you revert them. Zoomwsu 05:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If it's politics we're worried about, I suggest removing the statement that talks about the US being the historic emitter. If we can't explain the US position in that paragraph, we should not allow readers to be misled by that unnecessary remark. Zoomwsu 14:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
user:Raymond arritt, we shouldn't leave out facts because of your distaste for politics. I make my justification for the edit above. Perhaps you'd like to follow Wikipedia policy and let an edit stand until it is discussed and consensus reached on the talk page. You're an experienced Wikipedia user, and I don't think I need to reference the relevant policies. In any case, please take it to the talk page before reverting. Zoomwsu 01:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I know this is a bit of departure from the subject at hand, but I would like to propose the following:
I'm generally opposed to the use of parenthesis in the middle of a sentence, and I thought this would be a way to restructure the present section without loss of meaning. Thoughts? ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 03:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Good changes. I share some of your opinion on parentheses. Zoomwsu 03:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, I've been busy, but I wanted to endorse Jc-S0CO's edit. Its a good, lucid compromise. -- Jdcaust 03:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with including a quote from a White House press release, explaining why the US did not ratify Kyoto. The consensus is that it is OK to emphasize that the US is "historically" the largest emitter and was one of few countries not to sign on to the treaty. In the US government, it is the role of the Executive Branch (i.e., the President) to negotiate and sign treaties with foreign governments. Thus, there is nothing inherently political about referencing a statment from the offical branch of government responsible for this decision. There is no reason to continue to delete this passage. Obedium 04:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Then I think we have a consensus. Let's take out all references to the Kyoto Protocol from the Global Warming article, and put them in the Kyoto article. Who wants to handle this? Obedium 14:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a neutral portrayal: See also kyoto, mitigation, adaptation. "A number of international climate initiatives have been proposed to reduce, reverse, or mitigate the effects of Global Warming. The Kyoto Protocol has been the primary treaty as an ammendment to UNFCCC. It was negotiated in 1997 and it expires in 2012.
Mitigation is when ... etc, etc
Adaptation is when ... etc, etc" -- DHeyward 16:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Kyoto Protocol already covers the points raised in the proposed amendment, in fuller detail, and in correct chronological sequence. Reference to the United States position as a greenhouse gas emitter is important in this context because it reflects on the effectiveness of treaty. If it were Kiribati that had not signed the treaty that would not have been a relevant point, although it might still have deserved a comment, as the entire nation faces the prospect of disappearing because of global warming. -- Michael Johnson 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Michael Johnson does not seem to not understand this is Wikipedia. The goal is not to put things in a good light or a bad light, it is to present facts. If you are going to mention Kyoto in general, and then add details singling out specific countries that did not sign on, there is nothing good/bad with respect to adding some explantory text as to why the countries did not sign on. Editors are getting so tied up in knots about straightforward additions that they cannot see straight with regard to simple editing principles. Obedium 05:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Having an explanation for the US is just begging to have an explanation for Australia. They also have the bad fame of big time emitters who have not ratified. Then curiosity begs for the third country (why have they not ratified, I read that, along with Argentina, they volunteered for restrictions...) On the other hand, many editors feel that the US is being singled out as the evil polluter that does not want to ratify the treaty. My rationale for exclusion is that being the historical #1 is notable in the context, and it is easy fact. Getting into the reasons the US did not sign the treaty might bring forth issues of weight and pov. Weight in the standard sense; is this relevant enough to GW? POV since we are only stating the stated reason the government gave and in politics the stated reason is not always the one worth discussing. I know that there are people in the US who had like ratification, so, where are their views explored? Why not provide a wiki link within the sentence to a detailed discussion of the US in the relevant wikipedia article? By only citing the government's issues, we take their POV and exclude other non-stated reasons. Finally, it gives the wrong impression that the US does not care about the environment because no other view of the US is presented. I do not feel strongly about this so feel free to ignore me. Brusegadi 05:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with POV--it has to do with proper editing. From a "POV" stand, it is a badge of honor that the U.S. is the number #1 emitter, and that they did not sign on to the treaty. This is the burden that comes with being the greatest producer of knowledge and technology in the world. From a content viewpoint, however, it is poor editing not to add a comment as to why the U.S. did not ratify. I suppose there is a desire to not delve into the issues of exemptions for smaller countries. Obedium 06:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There has been a bunch of back and fourth today about the sentence "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." The qualifier "few" has been changed to "many," "some," and deleted entirely. This has been discussed several times previously on talk, if memory serves, with "few" being acceptable. My own view on this, the purpose of the sentence is to charaterize the degree of acceptance of the IPCC conclusions. Not including this sentence would be unacceptable, since it would give the reader the impression that IPCC conclusions are universally accepted. Likewise, without a quantification, it would give the impression the IPCC conclusions are disputed by a substantial faction of scientists. Both would be misleading. I think few is a good word to use there; It acknowledges disagreement while noting widespread acceptance. The source does use "few" as well and I tend to think it is in line with the spirit of avoid weasel words. -- TeaDrinker 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"Many" isn't misleading, its vandalism/POV-pushing. As for "a few"... we've done all this before. Unless anyone is going to change their minds, or has any new arguments (none so far), this discussion is going nowhere, probably at great length :-) William M. Connolley 17:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It's many scientists, without question:
Why not change the entire sentence to say something more like "GW is a theory and the opinion of a majority of scientists, however their is still debate inside the scientific and public communities about it's legitimacy and other minor details." This way we don't argue about a tiny word and basically say the same thing, not all the scientist agree. Feel free to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.165.122 ( talk) 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the real issue here is that skeptics want there to be more language on how they feel, hence stronger words like 'many'. The believers believe so much that they just brush aside any skeptic or skeptic remark. Then there are people caught in the middle that want to make an truly informed decicion meaning listening to both sides. The problem is that there are scientists on both sides of this issue, a fact that shouldn't be ignored and isn't being ignored totally on this site. Argueing about if it should be few, many, lots, or tons what ever, doesn't answer anything at all.
To get back to the original topic, who here can give a legitimate reason to keep this as a citation for the sentence?
This is the sentence for which the article was selected as a source; but the article itself, which is primarily focused on criticizing Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," is clearly an opinion/attack piece which respectively fails both WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Given these conflicts with policy, and the lack of relevance to the sentence it is cited to support, and the lack of any evidence in the article which bolsters this claim, is there any legitimate reason to leave the citation where it is? I will emphasize that I do not suggest the sentence itself be changed at this time, merely that this ridiculously inappropriate citation be removed. ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 22:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Soco is absolutely right, mainly for his second reason. The statement "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution." simply does not support the statement "a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC". The two are completely different statements. The first is true, the second is false. This needs to be changed or removed. Paul Matthews 08:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The current text reads:
There are a relative few individual scientists [...]
There certainly are fewer scientistics who publically oppose the IPCC's main conclusions than scientists who publically endorse it, but however that (important) fact is worded it should be in English which doesn't seem archaic or ungrammatical. (My suggestion: "Comparitively fewer individual scientists [...]".) -- Wragge 19:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I commented on this a while back ago, why this was one of the only articles that does not have a opposing view, controversy, criticism section. I see nothing has been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.190.62.54 ( talk) 19:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not really see anything about the scientist that dispute global warming. This article is biased.
Chessmaster3
18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding above comments, we both all knows the effects of global warming so we better think or find a solution than to arguing each others.-- Pamnardalez 17:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
In the lead there is a sentence that reads, "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." When I go to this article, there is much more than a "few". Perhaps this should read "several" or "some" individual scientists - something more accurate. I know very little of the article or the disputes. I'm just reading through some of it for the first time but this statement came accross as bias by understating the number (I was expecting 3 or so but it lists like 40 scientists). Morphh (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note the rules for this discussion page, which indicate "This is not a forum for general discussion of editors' personal beliefs about global warming. Talk page guidelines are vigorously enforced on this page, as per this consensus. Any such messages will be deleted." Under these guidelines, most of the previous discussion should be deleted. Obedium 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
On this issue, there is truly no way to please everyone. This battle has been fought a hundred times, and once again, there will be no significant changes because of it. I used to think that it would be a worthwhile effort to change "few" to "some," but in the whole scheme of the article, there is really no point in doing so. As with the prior half-dozen debates over this troublesome word, there are hard-liners on both sides who will not see compromise; ranging from those who believe "many" is an appropriate descriptor, to those who think the sentence should be removed entirely. Scientists who are skeptical of global warming are clearly a small minority, and due to weight considerations, they should be acknowledged as such (hence not "many"). Only one scientific organization, the AAPG, has openly declared itself skeptical of AGW, and even they have expressed doubts on the position in recent months (hence "individual"). But at the same time, there are some scientists with respectable credentials and reputations who remain skeptical of aspects of the IPCC consensus opinion, and to erase all mention of their dissent would be utterly unacceptable. Since nobody seems able to find reliable statistics about the true number of qualified scientists who contest the IPCC's position (partially due to disagreement over the definition of who can be considered a climate scientist), we cannot assume a large number, but at the same time, in light of counterexamples, it would be demonstrative of prejudice and borderline libelous to dismiss them all as bought and paid for by energy interests. Given these uncertainties, and the unavoidable political mess that change has been repeatedly shown to create, the best solution would be to simply leave the sentence the way it is. ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 05:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, after discussion I thought I would be bold and make a good faith change to improve the sentence. I changed the word "few" to the definition of few, which is "a small number" (Webster). I think this says the same thing without the confusion of common small group usage of the word few. I also added the word "climate" to describe the scientists as from the discussion here, it appears that many are excluded if deemed non-climate scientists. Without this clarification, the statement appears to be false. I split them into two edits due to the aggressive nature of this article, hoping each change will be considered on its own merit and not suffer from a quick revert. Morphh (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had any time to work on this, but I wanted to get at least post a rough draft of what I'm thinking of for a new subsection covering the Arctic ice melt and its overall effect:
So am I heading in the right direction at least with this? -BC aka Callmebc 04:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know -- it started out as just "The Arctic Ice Melt" and then I thought to add Amplification for obvious reasons. There should be some graceful way to ref or connect to the other. Maybe also ephasize more of the "canary in a coal mine" aspect of the Arctic situation? It twas a rough draft, as I said, in more ways than one.... -BC aka Callmebc 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it isn't tenuous at all -- it's mainstream theory. Anyway that's just an adjunct to the Arctic situation, which of course is seriously undermentioned in the main article, especially in relation to solar variation. -BC aka Callmebc
See my previous reply. You might want to Google ""albedo" and "Arctic" for some background info. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Me thinks you have been getting your "science" from the wrong sources. See my previous answer. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The related theory and scientific models have always had this as an Arctic effect, not an Antarctic one. But I intend to mention the observed and predicted Antarctic effects in the next draft. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll endeavor to try to make it simple with both very introductory refs as well as more complete ones in later drafts. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I do believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that was just summary of sorts regarding most of the comments so far. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Statements like "The effects of global warming have been the most dramatic in the Arctic" and "Climate scientists have long regarded the highly sensitive Arctic as global warming's early warning system" are so qualitative, over-the-top and in need of extensive qualification there is no way this discussion can rightly be included in this article. To include such speculation would seriously undermine any hope of maintaining neutrality. Obedium 03:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why my previous comments were deleted? Zoomwsu 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I recently made a change to lead about the IPCC's projection of temperature increases by the end of the 21st century. In the given source (SPM), it states the likely range of temperatures will be between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees centigrade. The given source states this is the range for the globally-averaged surface warming for the end of the 21st century, which they define as the last 10 years of the century (2090-2099), relative to the 20 year average of 1980-1999. (It clearly states on Table 3, "°C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999"). This isn't a "graph" as Callmebc states, nor is it out of context, in my opinion. Furthermore, no where in the given source does this state this is the projected increase of temperature between 1990 and 2100, as it currently states in this article.
I won't revert Callmebc, but I hope someone else does. ~ UBeR 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Quoting measured values of 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) over a 100 year time frame is acceptable. Quoting "Climate models cited by the IPCC" with a predicted temperature delta of 600% over a 110 year time frame is not. Also "thanks to the large heat capacity of the oceans" is not language one would expect in an encyclopedia entry. This has been reverted. Obedium 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Since Dr. Arritt included it once again after it was deleted by Obedium, I'm curious as to where the 1990-2100 figure comes from. Both the SPM and the AR4 state, "Projected globally-averaged surface warmings for the end of the 21st century (2090–2099) relative to 1980–1999 are" 1.1 to 6.4 degrees centigrade. ~ UBeR 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer it to say "the temperature rise over the 21st century is likely to be..."; its close enough for the intro and much easier to understand William M. Connolley 15:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
See this, this, and this for starters. Isn't it well past the time we stop allowing politics to mess with the main article, as well as provoke time wasting and torturous "debates" on the Talk page, and let the science dictate what gets put where and emphasized how, and with truly proper weight? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, its worth noting that the "alarming rate" the usatoday talks about would indeed be alarming if the rate of increase were to continue. But at the moment, even the latest values are significantly less than 1%/y, which is the SRES a1b rates William M. Connolley 15:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
As I see this possibly becoming an edit war, I'd like to head this off. Iceage77 was concerned by this: "Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will rise a further", because the use of the word will "implies certainty". Of course, there is no certainty, but the question is do the "projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that ... temperature will rise..."? I would argue that they do, although hopefully everyone realizes that any projection is subject to uncertainty. (The edit to "will likely" is fine as well.) Ben Hocking ( talk| contribs) 17:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's well, well past the time for "Solar Variation" to be moved from "Causes". Aside from the RFC, the section itself is actually already pretty confusing and self-contradictory, starting with it ref'ing two variations of Henrik Svensmark's "Cosmic Ray" cloud seeding theory [27] and [28]. For one, it's not really a solar related, since Svenmark is referring to "galactic" cosmic rays (aka "GCR") coming from outside the solar system that would do his hypothetical ( very much so) cloud seeding. The only solar connection with his hypothesis is that the amount of GCR reaching the Earth might be modified by interference by the "solar wind". That leaves the paper by Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West of Duke [29] as the only semi-serious, at least, scientific paper promoting solar activity as a possible significant factor in global warming. However, the paper is based on a previous 2003 study by a group headed by Richard Willson, who thought that problems with satellite measurements may have underestimated the amount of solar radiance [30]. It's turned out, though, that Willson, and hence Scafetta and West, was mistaken: [31] [32]. Additionally, stuck incongruously in between the Svensmark stuff is this: Cooling in the lower stratosphere has been observed since at least 1960,[29] which would not be expected if solar activity were the main contributor to recent warming. Not exactly a good flow of thought in any case.
The last paragraph in the section really just debunks the whole idea. Given all this, is there really a single good reason to keep "solar variation" included under "Causes"? -BC aka Callmebc 14:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, that has zilch to do with the current global warming. There's been little doubt that solar cycles in the past have influenced climate [33], but so did asteroid crashes and volcanic activity. The topic of Global Warming in the current context is in regards to what's the deal with the current "cycle". Just because your car a few years ago stalled out after hitting a deep puddle doesn't quite explain why it did it this morning at a red light on dry land, with your fuel gauge needle dropped below the "E" mark. -BC aka Callmebc 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Ya think?
Should the global warming article state there are alternative hypotheses not widely held to be the cause of global warming in lieu of supportive and reliable references?
Yes: UBer, Blue Tie, Hal peridol, Zoomwsu (see below)
No: Jason Patton, Skyemoor
Absolutely not: Callmebc, 199.125.109.134
Move to another section: MarkAnthonyBoyle, Elhector (I think...)
Unclear Answers: 88.110.106.250, DMHCHICAGO
It would appear that the Nay's outweigh the Yay's. Care to dispute? -BC aka Callmebc 18:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Evidence regarding solar sunspot variance and precipitation goes back thousands of years.
For recent changes in solar activity see: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6591.html
For a presentation of tree ring data see: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041025/sunspot.html
For a description in how this data varies see: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1941JRASC..35..376M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.13.68 ( talk) 20:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing has changed since we last discussed this William M. Connolley 09:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The sun is an important factor which should not be relegated to the side. The article does a good job at stating what is the current mainstream belief (ghgs). I really feel no need to make a coffin and place the solar variation stuff in it under history. Also, I feel that there has been much discussion in very little time. I see things getting hostile. I would like to suggest to let some of this stuff sink in for a while. I just dont want to see people losing their civility towards one another. This may also give less active editors a chance to state their views and maybe contribute a fresh perspective. With arguments like this, sometimes the best thing to do is to wait a few hours and come back fresh. Brusegadi 03:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Whew, what a heated debate. It should be obvious that solar variation has an effect on climate change, and this obviousness is reflected in scientific literature. The literature also seems to demonstrate that it is still unclear the degree to which solar variations affect global temperature. I'm therefore quite baffled to see someone try to remove references to solar variation in the "causes" section. I strongly support mention of the solar hypothesis in the main article, because I think it contributes to the comprehensiveness and balance of the article. Look, Wikipedia is not a position paper, and it's important that we discuss topics in an encyclopedic manner. Solar variation is obviously important and is probably the strongest competing theory to AGW out there. On another note, I think I read somewhere on here that Svensmark's theories have been "discredited" or something like that. Can someone provide a few references to support this? I thought Svensmark is still publishing and active in GW research... Zoomwsu 23:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
AGW redirects to global warming where it doesn't appear at all. If it means "anthropogenic global warming", this abbreviation should be mentioned in global warming#Terminology. -- 89.60.168.106 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I am writing to discuss the issue of adding a link of our Global warming collection to wikipedia. Firstly, I apologise for the seeming stubborness but it is nothing like that, I didn't know someone was editing that quick, I thought my changes weren't saved, hence the repeated additions. But in all honesty, this link is to let people worldwide know of our comprehensive global warming collection that is free for anyone to read. King's college library is free and not for profit. Besides, there is no exhaustive literature search that includes and categorizes all the books about global warming such as our collection, which is still work in progress and growing. So we would greatly appreciate if you would re-post our link to the Global Warming page, with many thanks, Kings College Library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrium ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this link should be included. There's nothing notable at the site. If the bibliography content could be accessed online, you might have a case. Zoomwsu 02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
i added a very good educational resource that i have found very useful in my classes Energyadonis 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I made this small change [37] because the section is referring to measures in the 3 countries but this is a US measure. While Australia may not have 8 Northeastern states and Kazahkstan doesn't have any states, I think it's still wise to make it clear we're referring to the US here. 09:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Obedium seems to dislike this passage's lack of refs:
"Increasing global temperatures will cause sea level to rise, and is expected to increase the intensity of extreme weather events and to change the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors."
The editor removed it and I re-added it because I recall that we agreed the refs should be in the core of the article and not on the intro. I even have a diff where Uber removes refs added by Dr. Arrit and myself. I am ok with Uber's logic, but I wanted to make sure that everyone was ok with having the refs later on. Is that ok Obedium? Thanks, Brusegadi 05:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
After a paper by Lockwood and Fröhlich which appeared this year in Proc. R. Soc. A, the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al. has been proclaimed dead. Recently I discovered a reply by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen on the Danish National Space Center web pages which presents a new analysis including data up to the year 2006 and which rebuts the arguments of Lockwood and Fröhlich comprehensively. Since Lockwood and Fröhlich are presented in the WP article as main argument against any solar link, I thought it appropriate to include a link to the (as yet unpublished) reply of Lockwood and Fröhlich and a description of its content. It immediately got censored with the following reason given:
From my Talk Page:
I deleted your Svensmark add -- his Galactic Cosmic Ray theory hypothesis for global warming is really just fringe stuff now and not considered a serious alternative explanation anymore, and you were comparing a unpublished paper to a peer-reviewed analysis. Plus he already has way too many refs already on the Global Warming article, and there has been a debate on the Talk page about moving/removing those. -BC aka
Callmebc
23:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
N.Nahber 18:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why S+F-C have any kind of "right of reply"; if they can get their stuff into a published journal then it can be considered for inclusion, otherwise no. This section is already about as long as it should be and is a fair reflection of the balance of opinion and papers William M. Connolley 21:43, 28 October 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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
I strongly object to Obedium adding the word *measured* to the following text.
The measured global average air temperature near the Earth's surface ...
By definition, averages are computed, not measured. In the case of global temperature, a very complex model is used to perform that calculation. Q Science 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not say calculated instead? Seems like more precise language. Zoomwsu 02:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not just say "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface"? It's simpler, correct, and gets the idea across. Enuja (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The temperature measurements taken outside my house are not computed. Global temperature is. I don't see why we are arguing over avoiding this language since it provides a very relevant nuance. I prefer "computed" over "calculated". But perhaps a good option would be "modelled"? -- Childhood's End 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
All temperature measurements incorporate a model, from mercury-in-glass to PRTs. The original addition of "measured" was a poor idea; just say "The global average air temperature" as its been for ages William M. Connolley 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Please, I need help to translate this article to all the Wikipedias. This is an important theme, is a global probleme and we must put it in all the languages as possible as we can. Please, help!!!!!! Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.60.101.71 ( talk) 11:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no way a user, who claims scientists skeptical of a human cause for global warming are all in the pay of oil companies, should be permitted to fully protect this page from editing claiming "POV pushing". Clashwho 20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"rv per long discussion on talk page - "some" gives weigh [sic] too much weight to a a tiny oil-financed minority"
"During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people. Administrators should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However, this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page." ~ UBeR 21:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This full protection is driving me nuts. Take this for example:
Is it really necessary to have the same article inlinked in two consecutive sentences? I had planned to change this earlier today, but the article had already been locked. Minor fixes like this happen all the time, but now they can't be made due to the protection. Wouldn't it be easier to simply enforce that the sentence in question cannot be changed during the course of the discussion, instead of locking the entire article down over the sake of a single word (albeit an important one)? ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose full protection. Why not restrict just to registered users to avoid vandalism? Zoomwsu 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I've only just noticed that the protection is now by Navou, not Raul, and has been for a while William M. Connolley 11:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Oreskes’ essay is now outdated. Since it was published, more than 8,000 further papers on climate change have been published in the learned journals. In these papers, there is a discernible and accelerating trend away from unanimity even on her limited definition of “consensus”.
Schulte (2007: submitted) has brought Oreskes’ essay up to date by examining the 539 abstracts found using her search phrase “global climate change” between 2004 (her search had ended in 2003) and mid-February 2007. Even if Oreskes’ commentary in Science were true, the “consensus” has moved very considerably away from the unanimity she says she found.
Dr. Schulte’s results show that about 1.5% of the papers (just 9 out of 539) explicitly endorse the “consensus”, even in the limited sense defined by Oreskes. Though Oreskes found that 75% of the papers she reviewed explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus”, Dr. Schulte’s review of subsequent papers shows that fewer than half now give some degree of endorsement to the “consensus”. The abstract of his paper is worth quoting in full: “Fear of anthropogenic ‘global warming’ can adversely affect patients’ well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on “global climate change” found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes (2004), who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on “global climate change” had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 32 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to “catastrophic” climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.”
--Alexander 09:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus” was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change.
--Alexander 10:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
[5] --Alexander 14:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The article linked to by User:Alexander Feht (at the beginning of this section) entitled “Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, in the Science and Public Policy Institute website, is not a reliable source, but rather a demonstrably biased source on a website of a Washington DC organization that is in the business of pushing POVs skeptical of AGW.
Examples of featured articles on the SPPI website:
The article by "Viscount Monckton of Brenchley" “Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over" is a highly unreliable opinion piece, arising as it does out of Robert Ferguson's organization's website. It is written by Viscount Monckton of Brenchly. Monckton is not a scientist, but a retired business consultant with a very strong political bent, known for his conspiracy theories and intense skepticism of mainstream views in a number of arenas involving public policy and business, including HIV/AIDS. Monckton regards the global warming controversy as " ... [catalyzed by] the need of the international left for a new flag to rally round" following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989." ... Kenosis 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I want to have a link to this article ( Clathrate gun hypothesis) in here, simply to help people interested in the topic find it. I'm not interested in debating it, but it definitely is of interest and should be referenced. In "Feedbacks" there is an o.k. sentence (Positive feedback due to release of CO2 and CH4 from thawing permafrost is an additional mechanism contributing to warming. Possible positive feedback due to CH4 release from melting seabed ices is a further mechanism to be considered.) basically talking about it, all it needs is a "(see: Clathrate gun hypothesis)" put in. Hirsch.im.wald 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I propose changing the first paragraph under "Causes" to this.
The scientific method has not exposed the cause(s) for global warming, however many opinions and various degrees of consensus exist. Earth's climate is effected by a variety of known and unknown reasons. Below are some of the most common areas of consensus.
This change would maintain neutrality while respecting the Scientific Method. The fact is the causes of global warming have not been scientifically proven. There has only been consensus. To push a consensus as fact is unethical, untruthful, and degrades the wiki. The wiki should not have consensus or bias in scientific articles.
On the other hand, bias, opinion, and concensus deserves to be in the Global warming controversy area. Global Warming must remain bias free.
If I don't get debate on this, Im unilaterally changing it, and the editors can play revert-NAZI till they are blue in the face!!!!! -- Ronjamin 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The proposed edit is compltely fair and reasonable because it doesn't advocate one theory over another, which the current article does. Firstly, the definition of the Scientific Method illustrates clearly why this topic requires such a clarification.
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, [2] the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [3]
The advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced. The conclusions of an experiment will hold regardless of the state of mind, or the bias of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation.
The current article, which is based on consensus, cannot stand up to the Scientific Method because there are too many divergent opinions that are also based in sound science. This makes the article intentionally misleading and biased toward one view more than another, and makes the article and the wiki useless as a reference tool. Only the "unwashed masses" would use the wiki as a legitimate reference source when in fact, it is nothing more than opinions generated by the loudest voices.......in other words, mob rule.
Michael asserts that the article refers to "scientific consensus" as the "overriding conclusion of the scientific community. This is an obfuscation of reality. Just do a Google Search and you will find just as many divergent opinions on this topic by scientists that have credentials as you will find supporting this so-called "overriding consensus". This is the underlying problem, because consensus doesn't necessarily mean truth, fact, or anything that can be illustrated using the Scientific Method. Consensus in this form is what kept the black man in slavery because he was considered chattel instead of a man. Consensus in this form is kept Copernicus jailed when he used the scientific method to prove that the earth wasn't in the center of the universe, bucking the official consensus of the Catholic church. Consensus in this form is what sent millions of Jews to their grave when the Germans "knew" they were sub-human. Consensus in this form is what doomed millions to death when zealots thought killing cats was the answer to the plague because they were "evil". Ask anyone out there to use their eyes, and they will tell you that they see the world is flat. THERE IS NO ROOM for consensus in a scientific article unless it is presented in an unbiased way. Here, there is too much bias. Until there is definitive PROOF, it is all conjecture. To place conjecture as fact ruins the wiki and reduces it to nothing more than propaganda.
Now, the so-called balance that you cite is only presented to obfuscate the fact that there is no reliable, scientific proof one way or another. The reasons given are presented in a way that "appear" to be the final truth. This is unethical, deceitful, and again, detracts from the efficacy of the wiki.....unless the purpose of the wiki is to be the mouth-piece of whatever dogma is the most popular. Use the edit, it's fair, reasonable, and doesn't detract from any opinion or consensus or scientific theory. It makes the article less biased, which should be the main concern here instead of parroting one side over the other without PROOF.-- 70.89.231.121 13:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to believe the term "in recent decades and its projected continuation" is actually a part of the global warming defintion. The term "global warming" has no temporal connotations, only spatial (i.e., global) and thermal (i.e., warming). However, I guess we will need to continue to settle for the current definition, that sounds as though it was composed by a third grader. Obedium 04:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"Global warming" is descriptive of a physical phenomena, not the time period in which it occurs. One can say "global warming has been detected/measured/quantified in recent decades and based on current models is projected to continue," but the aspect of "recent decades" and "projected continuation" should not be tied directly to the defintion. This is contrasted with "The Ice Age," which has a specific temporal connotation. Obedium 06:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on discussion input, it has been modified to read: "Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Climate observations indicate the Earth may have entered a period of global warming in recent decades, with some climate models projecting its continuation in coming years." Obedium 02:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Climate observations indicate the Earth has entered a period of global warming in recent decades, with almost all climate models projecting its continuation in coming years.
(Unindent.) Here is a link to one of my attempts to get this thing to use valid references. I think I tried 3 times and it is possible that there is a more detailed list. (I recall one). I would find the others but I have a really narrow bandwidth today and it is hard. Raymond Arritt rejected on the first effort when I quoted a dictionary and refused to join in thereafter. -- Blue Tie 16:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the following introduction, which leaves room to accomodate the range of viewpoints encountered in this contentious subject, while still reflecting complete technical accuracy at a fairly high level of description. I believe this incorporates most of the recent suggestions:
Global warming commonly refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Climate observations indicate the Earth has recently entered a period of global warming, with an abundance of climate models projecting its continuation in coming years.
Obedium 04:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you might be right. The current second sentance "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last 100 years" really captures things more clearly for the average reader than my suggested edit. It is not what I think that matters, it is really what the layperson who typically visits these sites for information walks away with that matters. And it is clear when they see "0.74 ± 0.18 degrees over the last 100 years," the first impression is "so this is what all of the fuss is about?" Perhaps it is the actual numbers that convey the context of the issue more clearly than further wordsmithing of the intro. Obedium 06:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Blue Tie (I think) has a good point, which was made above. Global warming is considered to have begun in the Industrial Revolution with the release of GHGs at a large scale, which began in the 18th century. Good records of temperature became available in the mid-19th century, where the warming could be quantified. The GHGs have really only begun to overcome natural factors since the mid-20th century, and apparently so since 1980 or so. So I think we have to be a little careful when say global warming applies only to recent decades. ~ UBeR 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem lies in the fact the first sentence of this article is not really a definition, it is essentially a tautology, devoid of any real content. In the desire to keep things as a simple declarative sentence, it has pushed it in the direction of saying nothing. If a real definition is desired, a new starting point needs to be established, rather than simply trying to re-work the existing one, which is simplistic and empty.
A real definition might read: “Global warming is the increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature, likely arising from an enhancement of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. Global warming is considered to arise from an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, above historical levels. It is commonly used to describe climate changes observed to occur in the period from the early part of the 20th century to the present, during which time this phenomena has been quantified through widespread surface and remote sensing temperature measurements. Although the specific time in which global warming in the current period was initiated is a source of debate, an abundance of current climate models project its continuation in the near future.” Obedium 04:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia article, not an essay, and thus should follow an inverted pyramid scheme of putting key details up front, with successive supporting, but less important details added later. You DO want to put details up front, so the reader can quickly get to a meaningful definition, and can fill in this definition with more details later. But, we will be stuck with the current empty phrasing given in the article, since it essentially derived by a committee so as to please the lowest common denominator. This is why Wikipedia will never be suitable as an academic resource. Obedium 05:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
However if you envisage statements like global warming will/may cause more floods, droughts, sea level rise ... and these are more important than the temperature change then it should be clear that the definition should have (or at least consider) increase in average temperature .... its associated effects and projected continuation. You could decide to separate effects from what global warming is but I get the impression that lots of things are blamed on global warming not on the effects of global warming so by common usage the effects should be in the definition. crandles 11:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed in a wide variety of discussions with people -- and smart people, every one of them -- that there seem to be two camps:
The thing is, they're both right: greenhouse gases clearly have an effect on global warming, AND YET the direct, non-solar contribution towards global warming by human power consumption is neglible...less than 1/10,000th of the sun's contribution.
The article is currently under semi-protect, and I am a die-hard fan of authoring/editing via IP addresses, so I offer the following, intended-toward-consensus-building paragraph to be inserted as the 2nd paragraph in the Global warming article:
World energy resources and consumption are substantially a point of focus regarding a causal analysis of global warming. By comparing the contribution from the sun to that contributed by human energy consumption, it can be readily understood that the direct human contribution to earth's heating is a very small fraction: the ratio of 1.5×1013 watts / 1.740×1017 watts is less than 1/10,000th (0.01%). Direct heating of the earth by humans is thus neglible. However, the facts make clear that the earth has been warming recently, and so mankind's contribution is understandably under close review. Global warming theories that do focus on mankind's contribution point towards the important side-effects of human energy consumption, such as greenhouse gases added to the earth's atmosphere.
-- 24.28.6.209 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
We should move portal templates to other section or remove the 2 columns in the references. Select one.
About external link, there is too many guys, also I do not think that is necessary subsection, a simple bold text fix it. Carlosguitar 23:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, Bozmo. exactly why did you remove that edit of mine? here is your explanation: "Worse. I would rather not have any statement than one which is blatantly misleading. US is historically No1 by a mile and probably still No1 by a mile except for dodgy tree accounting)" Exactly how is it misleading to state that a nation which is the No 1 emitter is "one of the top emitters"? That is not misleading at all. Would you mind explaining just what the heck you meant by that? -- Steve, Sm8900 01:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is Image:Global_Warming_Predictions.png normalized to 2000 when the IPCC practice listed on Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png is an average from 1961-1990? It would be easier to compare the models to the data if they were normalized to the same mean temperature. Is there something I am missing that prevents this? -- DHeyward 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
In the article: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.163.212 ( talk) 05:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere Main article: Greenhouse effect The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warms a planet's atmosphere and surface.
Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F)... 33 Celcius is 91.4 Fahrenheit NOT 59, 59 Fahrenheit is 15 Celcius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.163.212 ( talk) 05:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Should the global warming article state there are alternative hypotheses not widely held to be the cause of global warming in lieu of supportive and reliable references?
If the comenter who states the Antarctic ice is increasing and others say the Arctic is decreasing then we have a QAGMA here. I have been to the Arctic recently and observed Glacier melting and spoke with the locals. there may be a new theory I can offer based on my readings that we are on the verge of discovering an ice age in the Southern Hemisphere (reasearch that)! Perhaps we are not out of the woods as www.polarbearsos.org references declining Polar Bear populations to come. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HAZWOPER On the otherside of the world observed was Jeepne Desiel in Manila and Cebu City in extreme while Arnold Governor of California USA pushed stopping hydrocarbons. We still are left with the delima of facts that yes this could be very dangerous so everyon must get on the ball to SAVE THE PLANET that don't mean drinks at some Chain in Chicago Dallas and Paris for Rock N Roll DMHCHICAGO —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMHCHICAGO ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Why can climatologist say for sure what the weather patterns will be like in 20,30,50, even 100 years later and yet they still screw up the 5 day forecast pretty much everyday? The climate is vastly complex and even the most sophisticated computer models get it wrong almost every time. We should say we are in a warming period. GHG do effect the weather, to an extent that has yet to be quantified. There is evidence that humans may be effecting the global weather system in ways we are just beginning to understand. Science is an ever changing being, and when people say that this theory is true and ridicule people for saying there may be something wrong with this becomes something that is not science.
My 2 cents is that they should at least be included in there own small section. For example, there is still quite a bit of legitimate scientific investigation into the solar activity question. Tons of papers have been published. Unfortunately anything published that even questions human caused global warming is automatically dismissed as being from an unreliable source. There is also a grown number of scientists who's material was used for the UN report that are now upset the way there work was "mischaracterized". The idea that not a single legitimate scientist questions the human caused theory is just silly. Basically an article about Global Warming shouldn't only include 1 view point. If there is a source that states there are scientists and researchers working on altnernate theories then there are obviously alternate theories and they shouldn't be dismissed. Elhector 21:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe per WP:WEIGHT that tiny minorities do not need to be mentioned. If we examine the scientific community, as opposed to general media, I don't believe there is enough support to mention it here. Global Warming Controversy seems a much better place. -- Skyemoor 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This looks like a good article overall. You have a section Issue debate, political processes and laws. Any disputes should go there. It seems to me that the NPOV policy works best if the main article is concerned with the topic, and dissenters have a chance to air their views in a different section (Criticism etc.) cf Sigmund Freud, Lacan, Charles Darwin, Fashionable Nonsense, psychoanalysis. The job of an encyclopaedia is to present the facts, not debate the issues. While it seems to me that human induced global warming is pretty much an open and such case, the fact is that there is debate over this issue. Let the dissenters link off to whatever place they want (cf you can find your way to Intelligent Design from Darwin). On that note, while I think ID is patent nonsense, it is a fact that some people hold this view and it is important to be able to read the arguments they put forward, if only to arm yourself against such loonies should you happen to meet one. MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I would be supportive of adding the proposed information if, as already mentioned by others in the RfC, it were for historical reasons (and stated as such, including that such theories have been fairly well debunked), but there are some issues that would need to be addressed first. There is a problem in defining what counts as "notable." I doubt that WP:WEIGHT can nor would be followed. Also, the Global Warming FAQ already takes care of a lot of information that would be needed for adding the information proposed. If there were a way to guide casual readers that could care less about the Talk page to the FAQ, this duplication would not be needed. Then again, a FAQ isn't really dictionary material. So to conclude, I am of the opinion that more commentary is needed to address the issues of notability and information duplication. Inclusion of alt. theories, even if for historical means, may bring more even more controversy to the article if these issues are not thoroughly addressed. Jason Patton 06:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that in some ways the article already handles these -- though not as well it should. I am not ad advocate of overly long articles and I think that if we were to put all the ideas that object to Global Warming in this article, it would be unweldy. Plus, I think it would lead to an article that reads badly. I think that linking in the article to other articles that handle these issues is probably best. So I tend to think the article does "OK" or perhaps almost OK in this area, even if it does not do "Great". -- Blue Tie 06:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Saying that the IPCC represents one viewpoint is a bit misleading. The way I see it is that the IPCC is the intersectaion of the views of many, many climate scientists. So, whats in the IPCC is the communality of the views of the majority of climate scientists. Brusegadi 01:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You've obviously never served on a scientific committee. The "intersection of many views" in actuality is the view of a few senior committee leads, with the rubber stamp of all the other junior members who are too afraid to go against the prevailing view (read: not get tenure, other committee assignments, etc.). The way the article is written, it sounds as though the IPCC has declared global warming is occurring, therefore it is true. The facts should first be emphasized in the article, with the appeal to authority coming later. Alternate viewpoints should be given a fair hearing--and there are many respected scientists who disagree with the global warming viewpoint espoused by the IPCC. This is the way science progresses. This article does not convey in any way how science proceeds. But, the Denver Post has given their imprimatur to this article, so I suppose any criticism is out of line. Obedium 04:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not "absurd" or in my "dreamland," it is reality. Scientists (particularly professors) fancy themselves as independent, yet they are just as susceptible to fads as a classroom of high school students. This is how we get Nanotechnology, Water/Life hypothesis on Mars, Global Cooling (then global warming), etc. DOE, DARPA, NSF, NOAA etc. hand out grants based on key emphasis areas/themes set by the agency program managers, and if your research doesn't fall into one of these themes (i.e. fads), well...you won't be hiring many graduate students. This is the problem with the article emphasizing the IPCC up front. Facts are paramount, not committees. Obedium 04:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the fact the last comments have nothing to do with my previous comments, I think this line of discussion has finally petered out. Obedium 14:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
A temperature of 30C is equivalent to 86F, but a change in temperature of 30C is equivalent to a change of 54F. The difference of 32F is because 0C is equivalent to 32F. Q Science 01:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Related to this change, reference [ 16] in the main article is a fluff piece having nothing to do with the sentence it is associated with. Should I just delete the reference or would someone else like to handle this? I don't want to start a war. Q Science 01:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, i think we need to discuss it in school with our teacher just to be sure of our answer. Pamnardalez 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed the comment that the U.S. is the largest emitter from this section for two reasons:
1. This is now contested. The article itself references the contradicting report in the Politics section. Since this is discussed later, there is no need to include it here in such simplified form.
2. This is uncited and should be if it were to remain. However, even if cited, this is again discussed more thoroughly and appropriately in the politics section. Leaving such a simple, parenthesized comment would be misleading considering the facts of the situation.
In the end, I just felt that removing this kept the article factural and up to date. Overall, guys, the article is great! -- Jdcaust 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It's better to keep this statement out. Despite the fact that the word "historically" technically makes it accurate, it could easily be misconstrued to read that the US currently leads the world in GHG emissions. In any case, it's a bit confusing. Its place in the section is rather unnecessary anyways, so when coupled with the potential for confusion, it's better to leave it out. Zoomwsu 23:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
another editor has reverted it again, with the summary "clearly its relevant that such a large producer hasn't signed rv". is kazakhstan a large producer of greenhouse gases? one would surmise so, if the basis is that it is relevant due to output. by the same token, china - which may or may not be the new top emitter, is a signatory. what does that tell us - again, with this manner of relevancy imposed? Anastrophe 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the reference to the US being the historic top emitter, nor the reference to China having possibly passed the US belong in this section. Both statements carry a lot of implication with them and have the potential to mislead reader as to the justifications for those nations' positions (particularly the US). The parenthesis about the US implies that its historic role as the leader in GHG emissions is the reason it has not signed the Kyoto protocol, which is not the case (or at best a gross mischaracterization). Zoomwsu 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
My addition should not have been deleted. Per the discussion in this section, it was clear that the United States' justification needed to be included to avoid the possibility of confusion arising out of the "historical emitter" remark. I referenced a clear statement from the President (who I may remind you Callmebc is the head of State and Government in the US) that also cited a unanimous vote by the US Senate against ratification. The US has clearly demonstrated a consensus at the Federal level that the Kyoto Protocols would harm the US economy and, considering developing nation exemption, would do little to offset GHG emissions. This statement is a fact and its removal is inappropriate. The sentence also has the benefit of thematically connecting the first sentence with the sentence on state and local actions on the issue. In other words, it's a good transition to flow from the international level to the national level to the state and local level. Why it should be deleted for the life of me I don't understand! Zoomwsu 05:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
What the heck, user:TeaDrinker? Not even a comment on this page? What do you mean "uncritical"? The link explains the position of the US Government. I fail to see what purpose criticism has in this. Please follow Wikipedia policy and discuss changes before you revert them. Zoomwsu 05:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If it's politics we're worried about, I suggest removing the statement that talks about the US being the historic emitter. If we can't explain the US position in that paragraph, we should not allow readers to be misled by that unnecessary remark. Zoomwsu 14:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
user:Raymond arritt, we shouldn't leave out facts because of your distaste for politics. I make my justification for the edit above. Perhaps you'd like to follow Wikipedia policy and let an edit stand until it is discussed and consensus reached on the talk page. You're an experienced Wikipedia user, and I don't think I need to reference the relevant policies. In any case, please take it to the talk page before reverting. Zoomwsu 01:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I know this is a bit of departure from the subject at hand, but I would like to propose the following:
I'm generally opposed to the use of parenthesis in the middle of a sentence, and I thought this would be a way to restructure the present section without loss of meaning. Thoughts? ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 03:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Good changes. I share some of your opinion on parentheses. Zoomwsu 03:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, I've been busy, but I wanted to endorse Jc-S0CO's edit. Its a good, lucid compromise. -- Jdcaust 03:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with including a quote from a White House press release, explaining why the US did not ratify Kyoto. The consensus is that it is OK to emphasize that the US is "historically" the largest emitter and was one of few countries not to sign on to the treaty. In the US government, it is the role of the Executive Branch (i.e., the President) to negotiate and sign treaties with foreign governments. Thus, there is nothing inherently political about referencing a statment from the offical branch of government responsible for this decision. There is no reason to continue to delete this passage. Obedium 04:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Then I think we have a consensus. Let's take out all references to the Kyoto Protocol from the Global Warming article, and put them in the Kyoto article. Who wants to handle this? Obedium 14:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a neutral portrayal: See also kyoto, mitigation, adaptation. "A number of international climate initiatives have been proposed to reduce, reverse, or mitigate the effects of Global Warming. The Kyoto Protocol has been the primary treaty as an ammendment to UNFCCC. It was negotiated in 1997 and it expires in 2012.
Mitigation is when ... etc, etc
Adaptation is when ... etc, etc" -- DHeyward 16:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Kyoto Protocol already covers the points raised in the proposed amendment, in fuller detail, and in correct chronological sequence. Reference to the United States position as a greenhouse gas emitter is important in this context because it reflects on the effectiveness of treaty. If it were Kiribati that had not signed the treaty that would not have been a relevant point, although it might still have deserved a comment, as the entire nation faces the prospect of disappearing because of global warming. -- Michael Johnson 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Michael Johnson does not seem to not understand this is Wikipedia. The goal is not to put things in a good light or a bad light, it is to present facts. If you are going to mention Kyoto in general, and then add details singling out specific countries that did not sign on, there is nothing good/bad with respect to adding some explantory text as to why the countries did not sign on. Editors are getting so tied up in knots about straightforward additions that they cannot see straight with regard to simple editing principles. Obedium 05:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Having an explanation for the US is just begging to have an explanation for Australia. They also have the bad fame of big time emitters who have not ratified. Then curiosity begs for the third country (why have they not ratified, I read that, along with Argentina, they volunteered for restrictions...) On the other hand, many editors feel that the US is being singled out as the evil polluter that does not want to ratify the treaty. My rationale for exclusion is that being the historical #1 is notable in the context, and it is easy fact. Getting into the reasons the US did not sign the treaty might bring forth issues of weight and pov. Weight in the standard sense; is this relevant enough to GW? POV since we are only stating the stated reason the government gave and in politics the stated reason is not always the one worth discussing. I know that there are people in the US who had like ratification, so, where are their views explored? Why not provide a wiki link within the sentence to a detailed discussion of the US in the relevant wikipedia article? By only citing the government's issues, we take their POV and exclude other non-stated reasons. Finally, it gives the wrong impression that the US does not care about the environment because no other view of the US is presented. I do not feel strongly about this so feel free to ignore me. Brusegadi 05:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with POV--it has to do with proper editing. From a "POV" stand, it is a badge of honor that the U.S. is the number #1 emitter, and that they did not sign on to the treaty. This is the burden that comes with being the greatest producer of knowledge and technology in the world. From a content viewpoint, however, it is poor editing not to add a comment as to why the U.S. did not ratify. I suppose there is a desire to not delve into the issues of exemptions for smaller countries. Obedium 06:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There has been a bunch of back and fourth today about the sentence "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." The qualifier "few" has been changed to "many," "some," and deleted entirely. This has been discussed several times previously on talk, if memory serves, with "few" being acceptable. My own view on this, the purpose of the sentence is to charaterize the degree of acceptance of the IPCC conclusions. Not including this sentence would be unacceptable, since it would give the reader the impression that IPCC conclusions are universally accepted. Likewise, without a quantification, it would give the impression the IPCC conclusions are disputed by a substantial faction of scientists. Both would be misleading. I think few is a good word to use there; It acknowledges disagreement while noting widespread acceptance. The source does use "few" as well and I tend to think it is in line with the spirit of avoid weasel words. -- TeaDrinker 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"Many" isn't misleading, its vandalism/POV-pushing. As for "a few"... we've done all this before. Unless anyone is going to change their minds, or has any new arguments (none so far), this discussion is going nowhere, probably at great length :-) William M. Connolley 17:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It's many scientists, without question:
Why not change the entire sentence to say something more like "GW is a theory and the opinion of a majority of scientists, however their is still debate inside the scientific and public communities about it's legitimacy and other minor details." This way we don't argue about a tiny word and basically say the same thing, not all the scientist agree. Feel free to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.165.122 ( talk) 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the real issue here is that skeptics want there to be more language on how they feel, hence stronger words like 'many'. The believers believe so much that they just brush aside any skeptic or skeptic remark. Then there are people caught in the middle that want to make an truly informed decicion meaning listening to both sides. The problem is that there are scientists on both sides of this issue, a fact that shouldn't be ignored and isn't being ignored totally on this site. Argueing about if it should be few, many, lots, or tons what ever, doesn't answer anything at all.
To get back to the original topic, who here can give a legitimate reason to keep this as a citation for the sentence?
This is the sentence for which the article was selected as a source; but the article itself, which is primarily focused on criticizing Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," is clearly an opinion/attack piece which respectively fails both WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Given these conflicts with policy, and the lack of relevance to the sentence it is cited to support, and the lack of any evidence in the article which bolsters this claim, is there any legitimate reason to leave the citation where it is? I will emphasize that I do not suggest the sentence itself be changed at this time, merely that this ridiculously inappropriate citation be removed. ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 22:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Soco is absolutely right, mainly for his second reason. The statement "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution." simply does not support the statement "a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC". The two are completely different statements. The first is true, the second is false. This needs to be changed or removed. Paul Matthews 08:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The current text reads:
There are a relative few individual scientists [...]
There certainly are fewer scientistics who publically oppose the IPCC's main conclusions than scientists who publically endorse it, but however that (important) fact is worded it should be in English which doesn't seem archaic or ungrammatical. (My suggestion: "Comparitively fewer individual scientists [...]".) -- Wragge 19:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I commented on this a while back ago, why this was one of the only articles that does not have a opposing view, controversy, criticism section. I see nothing has been done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.190.62.54 ( talk) 19:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not really see anything about the scientist that dispute global warming. This article is biased.
Chessmaster3
18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding above comments, we both all knows the effects of global warming so we better think or find a solution than to arguing each others.-- Pamnardalez 17:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
In the lead there is a sentence that reads, "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." When I go to this article, there is much more than a "few". Perhaps this should read "several" or "some" individual scientists - something more accurate. I know very little of the article or the disputes. I'm just reading through some of it for the first time but this statement came accross as bias by understating the number (I was expecting 3 or so but it lists like 40 scientists). Morphh (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note the rules for this discussion page, which indicate "This is not a forum for general discussion of editors' personal beliefs about global warming. Talk page guidelines are vigorously enforced on this page, as per this consensus. Any such messages will be deleted." Under these guidelines, most of the previous discussion should be deleted. Obedium 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
On this issue, there is truly no way to please everyone. This battle has been fought a hundred times, and once again, there will be no significant changes because of it. I used to think that it would be a worthwhile effort to change "few" to "some," but in the whole scheme of the article, there is really no point in doing so. As with the prior half-dozen debates over this troublesome word, there are hard-liners on both sides who will not see compromise; ranging from those who believe "many" is an appropriate descriptor, to those who think the sentence should be removed entirely. Scientists who are skeptical of global warming are clearly a small minority, and due to weight considerations, they should be acknowledged as such (hence not "many"). Only one scientific organization, the AAPG, has openly declared itself skeptical of AGW, and even they have expressed doubts on the position in recent months (hence "individual"). But at the same time, there are some scientists with respectable credentials and reputations who remain skeptical of aspects of the IPCC consensus opinion, and to erase all mention of their dissent would be utterly unacceptable. Since nobody seems able to find reliable statistics about the true number of qualified scientists who contest the IPCC's position (partially due to disagreement over the definition of who can be considered a climate scientist), we cannot assume a large number, but at the same time, in light of counterexamples, it would be demonstrative of prejudice and borderline libelous to dismiss them all as bought and paid for by energy interests. Given these uncertainties, and the unavoidable political mess that change has been repeatedly shown to create, the best solution would be to simply leave the sentence the way it is. ~ S0CO( talk| contribs) 05:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, after discussion I thought I would be bold and make a good faith change to improve the sentence. I changed the word "few" to the definition of few, which is "a small number" (Webster). I think this says the same thing without the confusion of common small group usage of the word few. I also added the word "climate" to describe the scientists as from the discussion here, it appears that many are excluded if deemed non-climate scientists. Without this clarification, the statement appears to be false. I split them into two edits due to the aggressive nature of this article, hoping each change will be considered on its own merit and not suffer from a quick revert. Morphh (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had any time to work on this, but I wanted to get at least post a rough draft of what I'm thinking of for a new subsection covering the Arctic ice melt and its overall effect:
So am I heading in the right direction at least with this? -BC aka Callmebc 04:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know -- it started out as just "The Arctic Ice Melt" and then I thought to add Amplification for obvious reasons. There should be some graceful way to ref or connect to the other. Maybe also ephasize more of the "canary in a coal mine" aspect of the Arctic situation? It twas a rough draft, as I said, in more ways than one.... -BC aka Callmebc 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it isn't tenuous at all -- it's mainstream theory. Anyway that's just an adjunct to the Arctic situation, which of course is seriously undermentioned in the main article, especially in relation to solar variation. -BC aka Callmebc
See my previous reply. You might want to Google ""albedo" and "Arctic" for some background info. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Me thinks you have been getting your "science" from the wrong sources. See my previous answer. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The related theory and scientific models have always had this as an Arctic effect, not an Antarctic one. But I intend to mention the observed and predicted Antarctic effects in the next draft. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll endeavor to try to make it simple with both very introductory refs as well as more complete ones in later drafts. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I do believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that was just summary of sorts regarding most of the comments so far. -BC aka Callmebc 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Statements like "The effects of global warming have been the most dramatic in the Arctic" and "Climate scientists have long regarded the highly sensitive Arctic as global warming's early warning system" are so qualitative, over-the-top and in need of extensive qualification there is no way this discussion can rightly be included in this article. To include such speculation would seriously undermine any hope of maintaining neutrality. Obedium 03:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why my previous comments were deleted? Zoomwsu 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I recently made a change to lead about the IPCC's projection of temperature increases by the end of the 21st century. In the given source (SPM), it states the likely range of temperatures will be between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees centigrade. The given source states this is the range for the globally-averaged surface warming for the end of the 21st century, which they define as the last 10 years of the century (2090-2099), relative to the 20 year average of 1980-1999. (It clearly states on Table 3, "°C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999"). This isn't a "graph" as Callmebc states, nor is it out of context, in my opinion. Furthermore, no where in the given source does this state this is the projected increase of temperature between 1990 and 2100, as it currently states in this article.
I won't revert Callmebc, but I hope someone else does. ~ UBeR 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Quoting measured values of 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) over a 100 year time frame is acceptable. Quoting "Climate models cited by the IPCC" with a predicted temperature delta of 600% over a 110 year time frame is not. Also "thanks to the large heat capacity of the oceans" is not language one would expect in an encyclopedia entry. This has been reverted. Obedium 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Since Dr. Arritt included it once again after it was deleted by Obedium, I'm curious as to where the 1990-2100 figure comes from. Both the SPM and the AR4 state, "Projected globally-averaged surface warmings for the end of the 21st century (2090–2099) relative to 1980–1999 are" 1.1 to 6.4 degrees centigrade. ~ UBeR 04:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer it to say "the temperature rise over the 21st century is likely to be..."; its close enough for the intro and much easier to understand William M. Connolley 15:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
See this, this, and this for starters. Isn't it well past the time we stop allowing politics to mess with the main article, as well as provoke time wasting and torturous "debates" on the Talk page, and let the science dictate what gets put where and emphasized how, and with truly proper weight? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, its worth noting that the "alarming rate" the usatoday talks about would indeed be alarming if the rate of increase were to continue. But at the moment, even the latest values are significantly less than 1%/y, which is the SRES a1b rates William M. Connolley 15:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
As I see this possibly becoming an edit war, I'd like to head this off. Iceage77 was concerned by this: "Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will rise a further", because the use of the word will "implies certainty". Of course, there is no certainty, but the question is do the "projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that ... temperature will rise..."? I would argue that they do, although hopefully everyone realizes that any projection is subject to uncertainty. (The edit to "will likely" is fine as well.) Ben Hocking ( talk| contribs) 17:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's well, well past the time for "Solar Variation" to be moved from "Causes". Aside from the RFC, the section itself is actually already pretty confusing and self-contradictory, starting with it ref'ing two variations of Henrik Svensmark's "Cosmic Ray" cloud seeding theory [27] and [28]. For one, it's not really a solar related, since Svenmark is referring to "galactic" cosmic rays (aka "GCR") coming from outside the solar system that would do his hypothetical ( very much so) cloud seeding. The only solar connection with his hypothesis is that the amount of GCR reaching the Earth might be modified by interference by the "solar wind". That leaves the paper by Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West of Duke [29] as the only semi-serious, at least, scientific paper promoting solar activity as a possible significant factor in global warming. However, the paper is based on a previous 2003 study by a group headed by Richard Willson, who thought that problems with satellite measurements may have underestimated the amount of solar radiance [30]. It's turned out, though, that Willson, and hence Scafetta and West, was mistaken: [31] [32]. Additionally, stuck incongruously in between the Svensmark stuff is this: Cooling in the lower stratosphere has been observed since at least 1960,[29] which would not be expected if solar activity were the main contributor to recent warming. Not exactly a good flow of thought in any case.
The last paragraph in the section really just debunks the whole idea. Given all this, is there really a single good reason to keep "solar variation" included under "Causes"? -BC aka Callmebc 14:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, that has zilch to do with the current global warming. There's been little doubt that solar cycles in the past have influenced climate [33], but so did asteroid crashes and volcanic activity. The topic of Global Warming in the current context is in regards to what's the deal with the current "cycle". Just because your car a few years ago stalled out after hitting a deep puddle doesn't quite explain why it did it this morning at a red light on dry land, with your fuel gauge needle dropped below the "E" mark. -BC aka Callmebc 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Ya think?
Should the global warming article state there are alternative hypotheses not widely held to be the cause of global warming in lieu of supportive and reliable references?
Yes: UBer, Blue Tie, Hal peridol, Zoomwsu (see below)
No: Jason Patton, Skyemoor
Absolutely not: Callmebc, 199.125.109.134
Move to another section: MarkAnthonyBoyle, Elhector (I think...)
Unclear Answers: 88.110.106.250, DMHCHICAGO
It would appear that the Nay's outweigh the Yay's. Care to dispute? -BC aka Callmebc 18:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Evidence regarding solar sunspot variance and precipitation goes back thousands of years.
For recent changes in solar activity see: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6591.html
For a presentation of tree ring data see: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041025/sunspot.html
For a description in how this data varies see: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1941JRASC..35..376M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.13.68 ( talk) 20:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing has changed since we last discussed this William M. Connolley 09:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The sun is an important factor which should not be relegated to the side. The article does a good job at stating what is the current mainstream belief (ghgs). I really feel no need to make a coffin and place the solar variation stuff in it under history. Also, I feel that there has been much discussion in very little time. I see things getting hostile. I would like to suggest to let some of this stuff sink in for a while. I just dont want to see people losing their civility towards one another. This may also give less active editors a chance to state their views and maybe contribute a fresh perspective. With arguments like this, sometimes the best thing to do is to wait a few hours and come back fresh. Brusegadi 03:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Whew, what a heated debate. It should be obvious that solar variation has an effect on climate change, and this obviousness is reflected in scientific literature. The literature also seems to demonstrate that it is still unclear the degree to which solar variations affect global temperature. I'm therefore quite baffled to see someone try to remove references to solar variation in the "causes" section. I strongly support mention of the solar hypothesis in the main article, because I think it contributes to the comprehensiveness and balance of the article. Look, Wikipedia is not a position paper, and it's important that we discuss topics in an encyclopedic manner. Solar variation is obviously important and is probably the strongest competing theory to AGW out there. On another note, I think I read somewhere on here that Svensmark's theories have been "discredited" or something like that. Can someone provide a few references to support this? I thought Svensmark is still publishing and active in GW research... Zoomwsu 23:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
AGW redirects to global warming where it doesn't appear at all. If it means "anthropogenic global warming", this abbreviation should be mentioned in global warming#Terminology. -- 89.60.168.106 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I am writing to discuss the issue of adding a link of our Global warming collection to wikipedia. Firstly, I apologise for the seeming stubborness but it is nothing like that, I didn't know someone was editing that quick, I thought my changes weren't saved, hence the repeated additions. But in all honesty, this link is to let people worldwide know of our comprehensive global warming collection that is free for anyone to read. King's college library is free and not for profit. Besides, there is no exhaustive literature search that includes and categorizes all the books about global warming such as our collection, which is still work in progress and growing. So we would greatly appreciate if you would re-post our link to the Global Warming page, with many thanks, Kings College Library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedrium ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this link should be included. There's nothing notable at the site. If the bibliography content could be accessed online, you might have a case. Zoomwsu 02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
i added a very good educational resource that i have found very useful in my classes Energyadonis 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I made this small change [37] because the section is referring to measures in the 3 countries but this is a US measure. While Australia may not have 8 Northeastern states and Kazahkstan doesn't have any states, I think it's still wise to make it clear we're referring to the US here. 09:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Obedium seems to dislike this passage's lack of refs:
"Increasing global temperatures will cause sea level to rise, and is expected to increase the intensity of extreme weather events and to change the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors."
The editor removed it and I re-added it because I recall that we agreed the refs should be in the core of the article and not on the intro. I even have a diff where Uber removes refs added by Dr. Arrit and myself. I am ok with Uber's logic, but I wanted to make sure that everyone was ok with having the refs later on. Is that ok Obedium? Thanks, Brusegadi 05:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
After a paper by Lockwood and Fröhlich which appeared this year in Proc. R. Soc. A, the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al. has been proclaimed dead. Recently I discovered a reply by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen on the Danish National Space Center web pages which presents a new analysis including data up to the year 2006 and which rebuts the arguments of Lockwood and Fröhlich comprehensively. Since Lockwood and Fröhlich are presented in the WP article as main argument against any solar link, I thought it appropriate to include a link to the (as yet unpublished) reply of Lockwood and Fröhlich and a description of its content. It immediately got censored with the following reason given:
From my Talk Page:
I deleted your Svensmark add -- his Galactic Cosmic Ray theory hypothesis for global warming is really just fringe stuff now and not considered a serious alternative explanation anymore, and you were comparing a unpublished paper to a peer-reviewed analysis. Plus he already has way too many refs already on the Global Warming article, and there has been a debate on the Talk page about moving/removing those. -BC aka
Callmebc
23:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
N.Nahber 18:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why S+F-C have any kind of "right of reply"; if they can get their stuff into a published journal then it can be considered for inclusion, otherwise no. This section is already about as long as it should be and is a fair reflection of the balance of opinion and papers William M. Connolley 21:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)