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 55 | ← | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | → | Archive 65 |
I had a go here to incorporate the sense of this discussion and earlier ones.
My new proposed wording:
In essence, why refer to a guideline when we have policies? --
TS 02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Why GRL and J Clim? They're one of the main journals in climatology. It's just an example to make things concrete. I don't know why they're cited though. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 02:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Additions to intro
I've made some additions to the intro. I didn't think the intro was alarmist enough. Global warming/climate change is probably bad news for at least some people (if not most people), and that fact shouldn't be obscured.
Temperature changes addition
I've added this paragraph to the section:
In 2007, the IPCC concluded that warming of the climate system was "unequivocal." This conclusion was based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
The was one of the central conclusions of the last IPCC report, and it should be mentioned in this article.
GHG change
I've changed this because the previous revision was inaccurate. Previous revision:
CO2 concentrations are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The future rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. Accordingly, the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100 (an increase by 90-250% since 1750).[34]
The SRES scenarios are emissions scenarios, not concentration scenarios. The 2100 concentrations are projections based on these emissions scenarios. It is also wrong, because the 541-970 ppm figure is only for the six SRES marker scenarios, not, as was implied, the entire set of (forty) SRES scenarios. Another criticism is that uncertainty is not mentioned in the projection, in the sense that you are projecting concentrations from emissions scenarios. There's uncertainty about the carbon cycle, for example.
Attributed and expected effects
I've rewritten a large part of this section. My rewrite was based on my following concerns:
My revision was designed to address these issues. Enescot ( talk) 14:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thats the way to take it. There are problems with relying on IPCC's outdated 2007 projections, and oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf's Sealevelgate article, about a very real projection anomaly that ought to be an international scandal but somehow isn't, demonstrates this quite graphically. In short; Rahmstorf argues that sea level has risen in the past and is likely to rise in the future much faster than the models used by the IPCC. We should take notice of informed critiques of IPCC, and to represent IPCC's position as fully as possible. I'm not very familiar with this or with the critiques Enescot raises, but they are the kind of detail of which I would probably want to be aware, whereas, as Enescot says, the Northwest Passage stuff is neither here nor there. Americans and Canadians may regard that as possessing a symbolic relevance that people living in other continents find quite difficult to understand. While I haven't looked at Enescot's revision on health impacts, further work in this area is to be welcomed. -- TS 16:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Installation of air conditioning may be a rational adaptive action for individuals but will actually lead to increased fossil fuel consumption, so leading to further global warming. Should this not be pointed out here? Agricmarketing ( talk) 15:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
A smaller sign of adaptation – interesting, perhaps suitable for one of the sub-articles but not here. . . dave souza, talk 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please replace this:
Soot may cool or warm, depending on whether it is airborne or deposited. Atmospheric soot aerosols directly absorb solar radiation, which heats the atmosphere and cools the surface. Regionally (but not globally), as much as 50% of surface warming due to greenhouse gases may be masked by atmospheric brown clouds. [3]
with this:
Soot may cool or warm, depending on whether it is airborne or deposited. Atmospheric soot aerosols directly absorb solar radiation, which heats the atmosphere and cools the surface. In isolated areas with high soot production, such as rural India, as much as 50% of surface warming due to greenhouse gases may be masked by atmospheric brown clouds. [4]
Thanks. - 128.196.30.219 ( talk) 20:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
NASA: “It is nearly certain that a new record 12-month global temperature will be set in 2010″ « Climate Progress gives interesting information from an email written by Hansen, with a link to the full draft paper. Hansen also describes the misuse of FOIA requests and their effects. Statisticians reject global cooling - Environment- msnbc.com and Global cooling bites the dust: Hottest January followed by second hottest February. Now March is busting out. « Climate Progress also provide relevant information. . . dave souza, talk 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
To clarify for the benefit of Dikstr, Q22 applies to this paper even more than it would to a published paper. It doesn't matter who proposes its inclusion. We can afford to wait for the global average temperature for 2010 to be calculated after the measurements have been collected. Also, as previously noted, the temperature of any given year doesn't count for much. This article is about the rising trend over time, not years in which the global average temperatures set a record (albeit the latter occurrence is a predictable corollary of the former). Tasty monster (= TS ) 07:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with the revision I suggested above. Please note that I've directly referenced the section of the Synthesis report on the IPCC website. This version is not the same as the print version (I know of one difference between the PDF and html versions), so I'd prefer it if my referencing is not changed to the "cite book" style. The reason I mention this is because on a previous edit, I wasn't happy with another editor changing my citation style (for Schneider et al (2001), mention of report editors McCarthy et al was deleted). Another thing is that in another article, an editor was critical of my imprecise referencing. Referring to the html version allows editors easy access to the relevant section of the report. Enescot ( talk) 14:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
OK. Lets discuss my recommended alteration of the 1st paragraph of the Global Warming/Solar Variation section:
"Variations in solar output have been the cause of past climate changes.[46] Although solar forcing is estimated by climate models to be a minor component of global warming in recent decades,[47] recent research indicates a larger role comparable to that of anthropogenic greenhouse gas accumulation.[48]"
This seems like an eminently fair description of the current knowledge of the subject. And if you claim that ref 48 is an 'outlier' paper you'd better be prepared to justify it! References 46 - 48 are:
RealClimate: Please, show us your code is of course a WP:SPS giving the expert views of Rasmus E. Benestad and an update of discussions following his joint paper (Benestad and Schmidt 2009) regarding problems with Scafetta's papers. These issues are further analysed in Lockwood 2010 Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum which notes problems with use of the ACRIM TSI composite based on the application of an entirely inappropriate TSI reconstruction, multivariate fits resulting in dramatically reduced significance (unstated by Scafetta) and the analysis of Scafetta (2009) requiring an amplification of the solar input by a factor of 13.5 which Scafetta fails to explain or justify. Lockwood concludes that "the popular idea (at least on the Internet and in some parts of the media) that solar changes are some kind of alternative to GHG forcing in explaining the rise in surface temperatures has no credibility with almost all climate scientists." In a more recent posting, Benestad discusses More on sun-climate relations citing several new papers to conclude that "changes in the sun play a minor role in climate change on decadal to centennial scales. After all, 2009 was the second-warmest year on record, and by far the warmest in the southern hemisphere, despite the record solar minimum. The solar signal for the past 25 years is not just small but negative (i.e. cooling), but this has not noticeably slowed down global warming. But there are also many unknowns remaining". . . dave souza, talk 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If we want to be finicky, essentially everything we use to make scientific statement is "a model". But the influence of solar variations had been analysed using many different models, both so simple that most people won't recognise them as models, and full scale GCMs (Boris correct me if I speak nonsense ;-). Scafetta is a real outlier with a history of papers that fail to find much support in the scientific community. See Talk:Global_warming/FAQQ22. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 23:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
In the conclusion the authors say:Both ‘mixed’ composites demonstrate a significant TSI increase of 0.033 %/decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, comparable to the 0.037 % found in the ACRIM composite.
and"Within the uncertainty of the model we have concluded that the data support the view that TSI increased significantly (by about 0.033 %) between the successive solar minima of 1986 and 1996, confirming the trend found by the ACRIM TSI composite and contradicting the absence of a TSI trend in the PMOD and the KBS07 proxy model."
and"a corrected KBS07 proxy model is expected to reproduce the upward trend of the ACRIM TSI composite between the 1986 and 1996 TSI minima."
Note that in 2007, Scafetta and West asserted that there could be under their scenario as much as a 50% underestimate of the non-anthropogenic contribution to present-day global warming. By 2009, the assertion had become that "Within the uncertainty of the model we have concluded that the data support the view that TSI increased significantly (by about 0.033 %) between the successive solar minima of 1986 and 1996, confirming the trend found by the ACRIM TSI composite and contradicting the absence of a TSI trend [deduced by two of the methods considered by the IPCC].""This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades. [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008] Current climate models [IPCC 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming."
Not only are Scafetta's conclusions highly doubtful for inclusion in this particular article by WP:WEIGHT , to me they're clearly out of bounds w.r.t. WP:PSTS (part of the core content policy WP:NOR). While I'm not intractably stuck on resisting the inclusion of Scafetta's material in this particular article, to date at least, it seems clear to me that his conclusions and abstracts to date have insufficient weight within the scientific community to merit much of a published response, and that the proposed inclusion of his conclusory statements does not come anywhere close to meeting the standard set by WP:NOR. ... Kenosis ( talk) 04:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. [bold emphasis mine]
I find this discussion quite distressing. Why are Wikipedia editors making judgements about which viewpoints to include in an article based on technical analysis of the contents of academic papers? The point of WP:UNDUE is that important minority viewpoints should not be over-represented in articles, not that they shouldn't be mentioned at all. The Scafetta paper is in every way a reliable primary source, whether its contents are actually correct or not. What other topic area on Wikipedia would have editors arguing over whether a peer-reviewed paper can be mentioned in the article or not, based not on an editorial question about improving the article, but on their own original research into the validity of the paper's conclusions? Referencing a paper does not constitute an endorsement of its findings. The paper should be mentioned, in context, in a neutral way, and linked to for the educated reader to make up their own mind - just like it would be in any other topic. Thparkth ( talk) 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to include fringe or extreme minority views in this overview, the current statement allows for these exceptions by stating "but solar forcing is generally thought to be too small to account for a significant part of global warming in recent decades." Note the implications of "generally". In the more detailed account in the solar variation article it may be worth considering recent research by Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf. . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The solar forcing findings of Scafetta & West are new and a minority view at present but characterizing them as fringe or extreme and to be ignored is counterproductive to a reasoned discussion. Dikstr ( talk) 18:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The existing coverage of adaptation in this article is very poor:
A wide variety of measures have been suggested for adaptation to global warming, from the installation of air-conditioning equipment, to major infrastructure projects, such as abandoning settlements threatened by sea level rise.
Measures including water conservation,[87] water rationing, adaptive agricultural practices[88] including diversification, construction of flood defenses,[89] changes to medical care,[90] and interventions to protect threatened species[91] have all been suggested. A wide-ranging study of the possible opportunities for adaptation of infrastructure has been published by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers.[92]
Schneider et al
[7]:
A general conclusion on the basis of present understanding is that for market and social systems there is considerable adaptation potential, but the economic costs are potentially large, largely unknown and unequally distributed, as is the adaptation potential itself. For biological and geophysical systems, the adaptation potential is much less than in social and market systems. There is wide agreement that it will be much more difficult for both human and natural systems to adapt to larger magnitudes of global mean temperature change than to smaller ones, and that adaptation will be more difficult and/or costly for faster warming rates than for slower rates
In the article, this sentence is pointless:
A wide-ranging study of the possible opportunities for adaptation of infrastructure has been published by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers.[92]
Reference to this study can be moved to further reading section. My suggested revision is as follows:
A wide variety of measures have been suggested for adaptation to global warming, including: water conservation,[87] water rationing, adaptive agricultural practices[88] including diversification, construction of flood defenses,[89] changes to medical care,[90] and interventions to protect threatened species[91]. The capacity and potential for human systems to adapt is unevenly distributed across different regions and populations. The economic costs of adaptation are potentially large, but also largely unknown. Across the literature, there is wide agreement that adaptation will be more difficult for larger magnitudes and higher rates of climate change.
Ref:
[8]
Enescot (
talk) 14:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the way the article deals with its central topic, that of global warming. In my view it is ridiculous not to mention the IPCC's central conclusion, that warming of the climate system is "unequivocal." This is the most important conclusion of the IPCC report, which is the most widely cited report, most thoroughly reviewed report, and most widely accepted report that there is. To not cite this conclusion, in an article about "global warming", is preposterous.
So here's my suggested revision, which is to the section on temperature changes:
In their Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, the IPCC concluded that warming of the climate system was "unequivocal." Evidence supporting this finding included observed increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
The most common measure of global warming is the trend in globally averaged temperature near the Earth's surface. Expressed as a linear trend, [...]
Ref:
[9]
To be honest, the view that warming is "unequivocal" deserves to be mentioned in the article's introduction. In my opinion, it is more important that anything else in this entire article. I accept that the intro is too long, but if necessary, stuff from the intro should be deleted to make room for the "unequivocal" quote.
I made a similar revision to this article previously that was deleted. As I recall, (1) ChyranandChloe was critical of the use of the quote "unequivocal." (2) Kenosis suggested that in the preamble, the word "concluded" should replaced with the word "stated", i.e., "IPCC stated that..."
On point (1), with all due respect to CaC's analysis, I think it is irrelevant. While CaC is entitled to his/her own views on the IPCC assessment, it is an authorative assessment. Therefore, since the "unequivocal" statement is unquestionably extremely significant, it deserves to be mentioned in this article. If other editors are unhappy about this, they should cite sources that challenge the IPCC conclusion. However, in my view, since the IPCC represents the consensus view among experts, as supported by several national science academy statements, plus reports by the US National Research Council, any challenges would represent minority views. The IPCC does not directly assert that its conclusions represent majority views in the scientific community, but this is implied by the national academy statements. The point is also made explicitly in recent publications by the US NRC and the UKMO.
For these reasons, I think that any challenges to this particular IPCC conclusion should not be mentioned in this top-level article. Perhaps they can be included in sub-articles. I should also note that article, as it is at present, in my view, is excessively generous to minority views, for example, there is the long and confusing titled "debate and skepticism" section (the word "debate" is redundant – all aspects of science covered in this article have been debated by scientists). As an aside, the section is also absurdly US-centric.
On point (2), the IPCC conclusions, unlike the national academy statements, are based on a literature assessment. Therefore, the IPCC's conclusions are not just "statements", they are based on an assessment of available scientific evidence. Scientists usually make conclusions when they've assessed evidence. I don't know of any scientific papers that end with a "statements" section, they end with a "conclusions" section. To be entirely consistent with the IPCC report, the "unequivocal" statement is one of the findings presented in the report. However, it's not a great leap to say that this finding is reported because it something that the IPCC authors concluded as being correct. Anyway, I think the word "stated" does not accurately convey the fact that the IPCC report is based on an assessment of evidence. Enescot ( talk) 03:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
[...] we already say "Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century" - how is that, functionally, any different from "unequivocal"? – William M. Connolley
The questions (1) "what does the instrumental temperature record show?" and (2) "is warming actually happening?" are two separate questions. The IPCC statement answers (2), while your statement answers (1). The answer to (1) suggests a positive response to (2), but it does not answer it definitively. The answer to (2) draws on the answer to (1), but also on other lines of evidence:
Evidence supporting this finding included observed increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. – proposed edit
Therefore, I do not see the answers to questions (1) and (2) as being identical. The answer to question (2) is, in my view, more important than the answer to (1) because it draws on a greater body of evidence than the answer to (1):
The key (emphasis added) finding of IPCC AR4, "The warming in the climate system is unequivocal [...] ", is based on measurements made by many independent institutions worldwide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, the ocean and in the ice-covered areas of the Earth (...) – Co-chairs of IPCC Working Group I. Ref:
[10]
As you can see, the co-chairs of IPCC Working Group I identify the "unequivocal" statement as the "key" finding of the last assessment report.
In respect of the proposed new wording, I'd rather not tie it too strongly to IPCC 2007 - William M. Connolley
I disagree. The issue of global warming is contested. Therefore, in my view, it is necessary to maintain a separation of IPCC conclusions from the "narrative" of the article. This is achieved in the way that I have written my edit. By not attributing the "unequivocal" statement, it suggests that editors of the article agree with the statement. Or, to put it differently, the statement represents a consensus view among editors. I don't think that either of these positions are correct. Personally I do not feel comfortable stating that warming is unequivocal without very clear attribution. I'm not an expert, and I have not assessed the evidence myself. So I am reliant on the IPCC's assessment, as is suggested in my edit.
I am willing to not use the unequivocal quote and not so directly attribute the warming statement to the IPCC. To do this, I suggest that several sources are referred to that support the unequivocal statement indirectly. I am not willing to compromise on the substantive point of the unequivocal quote, that is, that warming is a fact. To start off, here is source 1:
In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reaffirmed that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems – Joint-academies statement. Ref:
[11]
source 2:
The Earth is warming – US National Research Council. Ref (p.4):
[12]
source 3:
Earth is warming – UK Hadley Centre. Ref:
[13]
source 4:
Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced – USGCRP. Ref:
[14]
I think these sources are sufficient to justify having a non-atttributed statement in the article. I suggest:
Warming of the climate system is happening: evidence for this includes observed increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. - new proposed edit
To summarize:
(1) I do not agree that it is sufficient to state the instrumental temperature record and use that only as evidence for global warming. The edit I've suggested is an assessment of all the relevant evidence, which is different to simply citing the individual pieces of evidence that point to that conclusion.
(2) I am happy to go ahead with the unattributed revision that I've suggested here. I believe that the diversity and reliability of sources means that no "separation" is necessary between the narrative of the article and the views contained in the cited sources. Enescot ( talk) 04:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why recent acceleration of warming in the last forty years isn't mentioned in the lead? On the RSs we have including the IPCC, the substantial acceleration, particularly since the mid-Seventies, has quite clearly occurred, and is demonstrably continuing on this accelerated path even despite the exceptionally weak solar minimum we're presently going through. Seems to me a mention of "acceleration" or "accelerating", a word both scientists and laypersons understand, should perhaps be right up front, somewhere immediately after the first or second sentence of the lead. There's no mention in the lead that the past two decades are by a long shot the warmest since instrumental temperature records began, and by all credible reconstructions the warmest in at least 2000 years, presently exceeding even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period. Even the Moberg "Letter to Nature " graph published to debunk the smoothed-out " hockey stick" has it this way (the red line on the first composite graph at right). And by the averaged values of credible reconstructions going back some 12,000 years (shown in visual form in the third graph on the right) it's already the warmest since the end of the last ice age. ... Kenosis ( talk) 13:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Reference [2] < http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf> should be updated to: < http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf> 03:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.176.196 ( talk)
-- TS 00:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched pages by namespace#.28Main.29 .2F Talk William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is veering wildly off-topic. Please open a new thread to raise any concrete concerns about whether the article content conforms with all of Wikipedia's policies.
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions. That was on the war page. now this is like, 100% LIBERAL!!!!! Wikipedia must hate conservativism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjb0607 ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is my proposed edit of the section on "Attributed and expected effects":
Global warming may be detected in natural, ecological or social systems as a change having statistical significance (1). Attribution of these changes e.g., to natural or human activities, is the next step following detection (2).
Natural systems
Global warming has been detected in a number of systems. Some of these changes, e.g., based on the instrumental temperature record, have been described in the section on temperature changes. Rising sea levels and observed decreases in snow and ice extent are consistent with warming (3). Most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is, with high probability, (footnote) atttributable to human-induced changes in greenhouse gas concentrations (4).
Even with current policies to reduce emissions, global emissions are still expected to continue to grow over the coming decades (5). Over the course of the 21st century, increases in emissions at or above their current rate would very likely induce changes in the climate system larger than those observed in the 20th century.
In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, across a range of future emission scenarios, model-based estimates of sea level rise for the end of the 21st century (the year 2090-2099, relative to 1980-1999) range from 0.18 to 0.59 m. These estimates, however, were not given a likelihood due to a lack of scientific understanding, nor was an upper bound given for sea level rise. Over the course of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in sea level rise of 4-6 m or more (6).
Changes in regional climate are expected to include greater warming over land, with most warming at high northern latitudes, and least warming over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean (5). Snow cover area and sea ice extent are expected to decrease. The frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation will very likely increase.
Ecological systems
In terrestrial ecosystems, the earlier timing of spring events, and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges, have been linked with high confidence to recent warming (3). Future climate change is expected to particularly affect certain ecosystems, including tundra, mangroves, and coral reefs (5). It is expected that most ecosystems will be affected by higher atmospheric CO2 levels, combined with higher global temperatures (7). Overall, it is expected that climate change will result in the extinction of many species and reduced biodiversity of ecosystems (8).
Social systems
There is some evidence of regional climate change affecting systems related to human activities, including agricultural and forestry management activities at higher latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (3). Future climate change is expected to particularly affect some sectors and systems related to human activities (5). These include:
It is expected that some regions will be particularly affected by climate change, including the Arctic, Africa, small islands, and Asian and African megadeltas. Some people, such as the poor, young children, and the elderly, are particularly at risk, even in high-income areas.
Footnote: In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, this attribution is given a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement (9). According to the US National Research Council Report – Understanding and Responding to Climate Change - published in 2008, "[most] scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" (10).
References:
I've tried to condense down all the most important and highest confidence findings of the IPCC report into this section. I think that my structuring of topics is more logical than the existing revision, that divides impacts into "environmental" and "economic" sections. I also think that my revision is more logical in the way it covers the subject. Each section is organized according to observed impacts, followed by projected impacts. The existing revision haphazardly mixes up predicted impacts with observed impacts. Enescot ( talk) 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that information on the scientific basis for projections should be included, but in a sub-article. This is because the article is too long and more information about projections would make it even longer. Also, to add more info on ecosystem projections would be unbalanced without adding more info on the projections affecting natural and social systems. Enescot ( talk) 16:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. This is not a journal reference, but here is another site that proposes a connection between global warming and earthquakes, volcanic activity, etc. I remember that there was a recent scientific journal article that was not mentioned in the Wikipedia article because it was a single reference. Although there is likely disagreement on this, please discuss to include at least one sentence of information pertaining to the effects of global warming on earthquakes in the main article as this is a significant effect, and more people are now linking glacial uplift, tropical cyclones, and even other weather patterns to a heightened risk for earthquakes, and if water from sea level rise floods into volcanic basins, the effects of global warming on seismic activity may be further demonstrated as well, but first we need to include some information on global warming affecting factors for earthquake risks. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 23:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Of AH's links [16] is just about "How Storms Can Trigger Earthquakes ". There doesn't seem to be any GW connection at all. [17] looks to be another newspaper report about the same underlying paper. So is [18], but that report actually speculates about a link to GW. It also provides a link to the underlying paper which is nice: [19]. However the underlying paper *doesn't* talk about GW, so the stuff in [20] is likely just speculation from the newspaper. So we shouldn't use it.
[21] is about the recent volcano, really, plus some speculation; [22] is a bit vague.
If this is to have any substance there ought to be real papers that we could link to (secondary sources good, yes, but there must be real primary sources underneath) for (1) isostatic rebound or ice retreat causes volcanoes and (2) GW will cause more of them William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Here's my attempt to provide some info on a the issues brought up here:
Hope this is helpful, Awickert ( talk) 01:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's my proposed change to the section on "debate and skepticism.":
There are different views over what the appropriate policy response to climate change should be (1, 2). These competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs. In general, it seems likely that climate change will impose greater damages and risks in poorer regions (3).
Politics
Developing and developed countries have made different arguments over who should bear the burden of cutting emissions. Developing countries often concentrate on per-capita emissions, that is, the total emissions of a country divided by its population (4). Per-capita emissions in the industrialized countries are typically as much as ten times the average in developing countries (5). This is used to make the argument that the real problem of climate change is due to the profligate and unsustainable lifestyles of those living in rich countries (4). On the other hand, commentators from developed countries more often point out that it is total emissions that matter (4). Emissions from developing countries make up around half of the world's global emissions (6).
The Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005, sets legally binding emission limitations for most developed countries (7). Developing countries are not subject to limitations. This exemption led the U.S. (under President Bush) and a previous Australian Government to decide not to ratify the treaty.[95] At the time, almost all world leaders (including those of Canada, China, member states of the EU, Japan, South Africa, and Pacific Islands) expressed their disappointment over President Bush's decision (8). Australia has since ratified the Kyoto protocol.[96]
Public opinion
In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[105] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University finds that "results show the different stages of engagement[clarific] about global warming on each side of the Atlantic"; where Europe debates the appropriate responses while the United States debates whether climate change is happening.[vague][dubious][106]
Other views
Most scientists accept that humans are contributing to observed climate change (9). National science academies have made calls on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions (10). There are, however, some scientists and non-scientists who question aspects of the climate change science. Some doubt whether humans are responsible for recently observed warming, and some have also suggested that warming over the past decade has stopped (11, 12).
Organizations such as the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, and companies such as ExxonMobil, have challenged IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls.[109][110][111][112] Environmental organizations and public figures have emphasized changes in the current climate and the risks they entail, while promoting adaptation to changes in infrastructural needs and emissions reductions.[113] Some fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years,[114] or called for policies to reduce global warming.[115]
References:
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help) p.87{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)I've attempted to correct for what I see as a bias towards US views, and an under-representation of other views. I think that the section should be renamed either "views on global warming" or "opinions on global warming." I think that the title "debate and skepticism" is meaningless. To say that there is debate is pointless. What matters is what the competing viewpoints are. There is no need to say that there is "debate." The word "skepticism" is also unnecessary.
Tags
results show the different stages of engagement[clarific] about global warming on each side of the Atlantic"; where Europe debates the appropriate responses while the United States debates whether climate change is happening.[vague][dubious]
I think this is a poor sentence. What does "engagement" mean? It strikes me as one of those words that sounds impressive but conveys little information. The second part of the sentence is weak. The statements are generalizations. It would be better to state what percentages have certain views. At the moment, the sentence is too vague.
The dubious tag is over the US's views on climate change. According to lectures by Jon Krosnick [24] [25], the US public does, to a large extent, accept mainstream scientific views on climate change. In my view, to say that the "United States debates whether climate change is happening," is misleading. Enescot ( talk) 07:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Global Warming is a hoax created by liberals to get us to spend all our money for an imaginary danger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.145.98 ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the deletion of the above two comments. My understanding is that discussion entries should be left on Talk pages unless they are blatantly malicious. If y'all disagree with me, or if I went too far, please say so here and I'll avoid it in the future.
While I don't agree one iota with the "unsigned" post (and find it annoying as Hell), it isn't vandalism, per se, and I felt I had to defend his right to say it.
Don't everyone flame me at once, please! UncleBubba ( Talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42499
Count Iblis ( talk) 15:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The first line of this article says
The only provided reference is the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers" which does not contain the phrase "Global warming". The associated appendix defines Global Warming Potential but not Global Warming.
This reference abstract defines "Global warming" as
Merriam-Webster says
I suggest that these definitions do not agree and that the one currently used is nothing more than WP:OR. I know that there have been previous discussions with respect to this definition, but it seems obvious that the current definition either
Q Science ( talk) 05:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The index lists more than a half dozen threads. Most replies: Archive 31 - "Incorrect definition" (47) .. More recent: Archive 43 - "why is land temp excluded.." (and probably others since then)- PrBeacon ( talk) 18:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I took out [27] because I don't think it is right William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Opinions of politicians are not relevant to scientific subjects. In general, if a Wikipedia article is about science, people who, for example, can't do calculus are not entitled to an opinion. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
What about refreshing charts since the most is obsolete since 2005 many things was changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.23.137 ( talk • contribs)
David Archer has reviewed and evaluated this article for this study of WP's Featured Article process. Here's what the article says of his assessment:
Even among those articles that scored highly, there was room for improvement. For example, David Archer (Professor of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago and the author of Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast), scored the article on global warming at an eight [out of 10] and wrote that it was “very concise and clear”, but remarked that he could tell “it was not written by professional climate scientists” and noted an error in the way the article explained how clouds are included in climate models.
Anyone know what the error about the clouds he is talking about? Cla68 ( talk) 05:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Eight out of ten. Let that shut up the carpers and critics. Though it won't, and clearly hasn't. -- TS 01:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I think his 8/10 rating is quite laughable. Personally, I would say the article is "start" class. There is a ridiculous bias in the article towards US-based views and interests. Bias towards scientifically- and policy-illiterate "skepticism" is evident throughout, e.g., the pointless referencing to corrections due to the urban heat island (so small therefore why is it mentioned? – obviously to appease so-called skeptics), or to cosmic ray theory; the abysmal treatment of ethical issues, particularly with regard to the section on "skepticism and debate".
How many times are small islands referred to in this article? what about the effects of global warming on Africa? Why is there a dedicated section on economics and not threats to water supply or food production? The answer to me is straightforward: the editors of this article are more concerned with impacts in rich countries (largely monetary) than impacts in poor countries (largely non-monetary). In relation to this, my worst criticism of this article is that editors do not appear to be interested in the views and potential interests of people living in developing countries, who make up most of the world's population. Enescot ( talk) 15:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I asked for and obtained the review by Dr. Archer. I was told not to post the text of the review here, but can discuss it in general terms. The cloud error is this line, which I notice is unsourced in the article, "Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so are considered separately from water vapor and other gases." The error appears to be that clouds are considered separately, not because they are liquid or solid, but because they are an internal feedback to the climate system. Discussion? Cla68 ( talk) 12:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There is some other stuff in the review which Cla, oddly, neglected to mention:
I'll see if I can fix this up William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I changed the Archive threshold to 15days (up from 5). After a quick review of the latest archive I see a couple of issues that didnt get a chance to be discussed. PrBeacon ( talk) 20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Why not pay homage to the military and add "breathing" to "...caused by breathing, fossil fuel burning, and deforestation". This seemingly simple change will strengthen the "human causes" argument as well as emphasize the carbon dioxide component of the global warming causes. It will also strengthen the argument for war as a means of population control. Even the most deadly of battles in human history have been dwarfed by the unmitigated exponential population growth. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 20:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It could be interesting to mention how the Sun does influnece the local climate in Europe, instead of only mentioning the negative results which rule out a solar influence on the global climate. Count Iblis ( talk) 16:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's a draft I've put together for the section on "Responses to global warming":
Reducing the amount of future climate change is called mitigation of climate change. The IPCC defines mitigation as activities that reduce GHG emissions, or enhance the capacity of sinks to absorb GHGs from the atmosphere (1). Many countries, both developing and developed, are aiming to use cleaner technologies (2). Use of these technologies aids mitigation and could result in substantial reductions in CO2 emissions. Policies include targets for emissions reductions, increased use of renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency. Studies indicate substantial potential for future reductions in emissions (3).
Other policy responses include adaptation to climate change. Adaptation to climate change may be planned, e.g., by local or national government, or spontaneous, i.e., done privately without government intervention (4). The ability to adapt (called "adaptive capacity") is closely linked to social and economic development (3). Even societies with high capacities to adapt are still vulnerable to climate change. Planned adaptation is already occurring on a limited basis. The barriers, limits, and costs of future adaptation are not fully understood.
Another policy response is engineering of the climate (geoengineering). This policy response is sometimes grouped together with mitigation (5). Geoengineering is largely unproven, and reliable cost estimates for it have not yet been published (6).
UNFCCC
Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (7). The ultimate objective of Convention is the prevent "dangerous" human interference of the climate system (8). As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHGs are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where:
The UNFCCC recognizes differences among countries in their responsibility to act on climate change (9). In the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, most developed countries (listed in Annex I of the treaty) took on legally binding commitments to reduce their emissions (10). Policy measures taken in response to these commitments have reduced emissions (11). For many developing (non-Annex I) countries, poverty reduction is their overriding aim (12).
At the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in 2009 at Copenhagen, several UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord. Parties agreeing with the Accord aim to limit the future increase in global mean temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius (13).
References:
In my draft I've attempted to correct for what I see as a number of problems with the current revision used in the article:
Mitigation
Geoengineering
This section is way too long in proportion to the sizes of the sections on mitigation and adaptation. Geoengineering is unproven and no reliable cost estimates have been published for it. In the IPCC report, geoengineering does not receive anywhere near the amount of coverage that adaptation and mitigation get. I should note that the IPCC report's content is determined by what most world governments want in it. It should therefore act as some kind of guide as to how much coverage particular topics get. Additionally, the UNFCCC clearly emphasizes mitigation, i.e., avoiding dangerous interference by stabilizing GHG concentrations.
You can also look at the policies most countries have on climate change. It is quite clear that countries are concentrating most on reducing their emissions and adapting to future climate change. The fact that some US conservative groups prefer geoengineering to mitigation does not mean that it deserves preferential treatment in this article. Enescot ( talk) 02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100514/ap_on_sc/climate
This is an AP article that mentions the 15 member review panel that is currently examining the IPPC; 'The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri defended Friday the work of the thousands of scientists who contribute to its reports, even as he welcomed a review of procedures that produced errors undermining the panel's public credibility.'
"Pachauri told the committee's first review meeting that the panel's conclusions are valid, even in areas where mistakes were discovered. Pointing to the most glaring error, a claim that the world's glaciers will melt by 2035, Pachauri said glaciers are indeed melting, though not that fast. Nonetheless, glacial melt accounts for 28 percent of sea level rise, and the panel's assessment on glaciers contains "a lot of facts which we can ignore at our peril."
We should probably add a mention of the review panel in the article in regards to the IPCC. Mytwocents ( talk) 15:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
If I understand things correctly infra-red band energy from the sun is absorbed by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Part of this energy is stored in the bond angle energy (dipole moment) between the atoms of the greenhouse gases and the rest is converted to kinetic energy of the molecules moving around and bumping into each other.
Here is the problem that I have. By volume carbon dioxide has a specific heat of about 1.619 kJ per m^3 * Deg K, nitrogen is 1.299, and oxygen is 1.308. Taking 1 cu meter samples of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen and adding 1 Kilojoule of energy to each gives the following temperature changes (assuming standard temperature and pressure initial conditions):
Carbon Dioxide - .618 Kelvin temperature increase Oxygen - .765 Kelvin temperature increase Nitrogen - .770 Kelvin temperature increase
And so if the entire atmosphere were made of carbon dioxide, incoming radiant energy from the sun would result in a lower atmospheric temperature than if the entire atmosphere would be oxygen.
Now if changes in atmospheric thickness are the actual cause of global warming (more blankets no matter what they are made of) then my point is mute, but the fascination with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere seems misplaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.11.218 ( talk) 02:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
But this still doesn't explain why the focus is on carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas and not oxygen and nitrogen, when for a given amount of energy input (no matter the source), the change in temperature is less for carbon dioxide than it is for oxygen and nitrogen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.11.218 ( talk) 19:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess I don't have a firm grasp on the time periods involved between a greenhouse gas absorbing infra-red energy and then releasing that energy. Is the time-frame a day (absorption) / night (release) cycle like oceans (warm ocean breeze on a cool night) or something more complex like pressure / temperature conditions? Also, I don't know if the infrared absorption is a quantitized event. Does a given amount of carbon dioxide have a fixed limit to the amount of infra-red energy it can absorb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.11.218 ( talk) 02:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Add Still skeptical? Reports document climate change in the USA Today by the United States National Academy of Sciences &/or Scientists Reassert Man's Role in a Changing Climate? 99.29.184.183 ( talk) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is User:Arthur Rubin attempting to break the link from Global warming to Environmental migrant? POV? 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You trashed a list of works by Jeff Goodell too, which has been restored. So far not a concise clearly well-written book, but not a reason to delete. Are you on a rampage, hopefully not? 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You write like you are being reasonable, but what of your Chicago Climate Exchange deletions, also without explanation? Appears disingenuous: POV push by Bureaucracy tactics? Enough time spent in this spot, see Talk:Chicago Climate Exchange. 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 17:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
There are no diffs here, and the discussion is a bit terse to follow, but I do not agree that Environmental migrant should not be linked from Global warming, only from climate change. We have discussed in the past here that the two terms are mostly synonymous, with the current climate change being a global warming. The CC article therefore covers the whole history of changes, and GW focusses mostly on the current warming. Environmental migrant is largely about current migrations, with only two lines about the ones that accompanied past ice ages etc. Indeed, the lede there begins with a link to Global warming. If there is to be a link, it should be from here. Where was it? In the text? As a See Also? As a {main}? -- Nigelj ( talk) 18:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added tags to the section on greenhouse gases because of this section of text:
The greenhouse effect is the process by which
absorption and
emission of
infrared radiation by gases in the
atmosphere are purported to warm a
planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by
Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by
Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
[6] The existence of the greenhouse effect is a subject of controversy;
vague for example,
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the
Saint Petersburg-based
Pulkovo Observatory
[7]
[8] has stated that "ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."
[9]
unbalanced opinion? The question in terms of global warming is how the strength of the presumed greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
I see absolutely no reason for this scientist's views to take priority of the views of the majority of experts, as reflected in the IPCC reports, National Research Council reports, joint-scientific academy statements, etc. To include this scientist's viewpoint is therefore unbalanced and biased.
A fair treatment of so-called sceptic views is already included in the section views on global warming. Since "sceptical" views have such little scientific support, the amount of space given to them (two sentences) is appropriate. Actually, I think two sentences is rather generous. Enescot ( talk) 15:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Oookay. Yes, it was a sincere attempt at "writing for the enemy". Specifically, I was trying to put myself in the place of someone who doesn't understand the topic and thinks the popular press should be used in preference to the scientific literature. Note my sources satisfied WP:V: major newspapers and magazines, non-self published books, and so on. Maybe it didn't work out that well, so roll back whatever you want. But there's a good chance this is what the future will look like. (And yes, I was a little surprised that the material remained so long without comment.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 23:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This is all very well [29] but probably goes too far William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
In a word, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for the views of the scientific community w.r.t. scientific issues. So, yes, I support the removal of popular literature and newspaper accounts that manufacture controversy where there is no genuine scientific controversy, at least not about the basics of this topic. The question whether GHGs account for all of observed warming in the 20th and early 21st century is about as more controversial among the relevant scientific community as the question "where do babies come from?" is among the general public. And the statement presently in the article summarizing the view of the scientific community as being that present-day global warming is caused by increases in GHG's due to anthropogenic activity is a reasonable statement to straightforwardly make in the article lead. ..... Kenosis ( talk) 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)I would have thought it a given that the Daily Mail tabloid is an inherently unreliable source [for an article such as this, which deals with current science]. The policy WP:SOURCES plainly states in the first sentence: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Any number of background sources would confirm that the Daily Mail does not fit this definition of a WP:RS. See, e.g. The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids, by University of Oxford's Maxwell T. Boykoff, or this brief summary reporting of the Oxford study, or another brief review of Daily Mail "predictions" over the course of some 18 months, etc. And of course, the Mail is world famous as a tabloid that plays fast and loose with the truth, not for fact-checking and accuracy.
The ideas should be reported. But I agree, the sources were rubbish William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Add Tokyo University's Yoichi Kaya formula F=Pgef ?
F = global CO2 emissions (Includes combustion, flaring of natural gas, cement production, oxidation of nonfuel hydrocarbons, and transport.)
P = global Population (Total number of human beings, about 6 billion)
g = Consumption per person ( Gross World Product/Population)
e = energy intensity of gross world product (global energy consumption/gross world product)
f = carbon used to make all that energy (global CO2 emissions/global energy consumption)
[30] Wired (magazine) printed page 38, June 2010, by Julie Rehmeyer 99.54.142.111 ( talk) 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to suggest editing the current wikipedia page on global warming concerning the obvious bias towards the theory that global warming is caused by man. Wikipedia is a source for truthfull information not a venue for propagating a political agenda. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.108.51 ( talk) 07:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
An equation is documented at [10] that calculates average global temperatures since 1895 with a coefficient of determination of over 0.86. Anyone that can use a spreadsheet can verify it. Dan Pangburn ( talk) 22:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
At the end of the summary, the article states: "There is no debate amongst the scientific community as to whether or not human-made global warming is real.[6]" The reference is to a 6 year old article, basing the statement on IPCC reports - an organisation that is under criticism itself for driving political agendas. It is furthermore not a statement that is true today as a report from 2009 from Japans JSER or Japan Society of Energy and Resources is openly criticising that we call the conjecture about man made global warming truth. The Register took time and translated a portion of the report: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/ 85.228.18.105 ( talk) 07:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You cannot reason someone out of an opinion that they did not reason themselves into in the first place. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a "Good Job" header that features prominently on certain talk pages when some outside party compliments an article. What justification is there for removing a similar "bad job" header? One would think it would cause long-time editors on this page to reassess the page. Eugene ( talk) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Would Carbonated water/ Soft drinks and other releases of carbon dioxide from Carbonation add to global warming, and if so, enough to be included in an article? 99.60.127.42 ( talk) 03:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Me and WavePart are currently in an edit war and this thread will hopefully end this once and for all. WavePart, we need to compromise. I have found some really crucial sources that relate to the controversy of global warming and I think they are critical in the lead. Please help me to include this in the article. What is your issue with my sources??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest in edit warring, nor issue with your sources. If you will note, my most recent edit actually includes all of your sources. I simply have issues with including statements which technically contradict those sources, or with statements which state more than is supported by those sources. WavePart ( talk) 03:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Torontokid, you may want to read the 3RR page. I'm pretty sure you had at least 5 full or partial reverts there in the past 24 hours, which is somewhat in excess of the accepted level. (For example, your most recent edit is mostly a revert, not a change.) The goal of editing should be to try to identify a common ground. I have been been attempting to do this, but simply reverting back to your own versions many times a day does not accomplish this (and is highly frowned upon). WavePart ( talk) 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said, second reference, third paragraph. WavePart ( talk) 04:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Thparkth instead of constantly editing the page why don't we decide here first. Personally I think your latest edit "research described as 'methodologically flawed'" makes the sourced article seem like an opinion editorial when it's in fact a published news article. Let's give this source it's true weight. Torontokid2006 ( talk) 00:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC) As a tentative compromise can we both agree on the wording, "unreliable research"? Those were the exact words used in the article. Torontokid2006 ( talk) 00:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Global warming about how to describe opposition to the theory. Outside advice would be appreciated. TFD ( talk) 04:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Reading this talk page it has become evident certain editors misunderstand/misrepresent the scientific method. The demand for "absolute" proof for X is a silly one. There are no absolutes. However, when the overwhelming majority of scientist (no not vox populi or other non-experts) declare something as scientific fact this essentially means there is "no debate." To include the emotio-political-driven hysterics as sciemntific "debate" is disingenious at best. Also, even if we find one scintist opposing a certain theory this does not a "debate" make. In science we only speak of "debate" when something is discussed through the appropriate scientific channels. A friday evening exchange of opininion during happy hour does not count.
Other denialist-movements are not given that much space: AIDS denialism, vaccine controversy, Flat earth, Intelligent Design.
In short, mention the absence of scientific debate.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton contributions 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Even for articles on a non-science subject WP:RS doesn't exclude non-peer-reviewed sources, indeed there are several within the footnotes of this article. The term "scientific debate" doesn't necessarilly mean only inconsistency in the peer-reviewed literature. For example, a published letter to the editor of a scientific journal would surely count as scientific debate but would not be part of the Oreskes study. What the abstract says, and what the article should therefore say is: "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC". That's a substantial part of the scientific debate but not all of it and there simply isn't a reliable source to support the idea that there's "no debate". -- 188.221.105.68 ( talk) 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way we get the graphs redone? Reconstructed Temperature uses Mike Mann's famous "Nature trick" of hiding inconvenient data behind a big, thick black line. Here is graph of the same data presented in a less partisan way. Kauffner ( talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Since WavePart has now been blocked, [34] as the nominator I am closing this RfC. If anyone disagrees, they may relist the RfC. TFD ( talk) 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
While I believe in global warming, I think the revisions to the intro in last day go too far. The current version just seems a little angry. The purpose of oil companies' PR campaigning, however wrong it may be, is obviously not to "confuse the public". That is ridiculous. They're trying to change public opinion. Besides, the reasons for public scepticism are actually far more complicated than this intro allows. To attribute this to a single cause, and in such colourful language, creates a problem of undue weight. I'd also question the use of the phrase "multinational oil and coal corporations". It's one of those clichés that have become popular in recent years, more resonant of campaign literature than an encyclopedia, and while it may be true in the case of oil companies, the largest coal companies are headquartered and trade in a single country with only limited overseas operations. Again, I'm not denying anything, I'm just suggesting that some small changes be made to the wording to make this sound a little calmer and more disinterested. -- 188.221.105.68 ( talk) 17:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I've completely removed the text "one major reason being that some oil companies have funded public relations campaigns and faulty research[7] to discredit the global scientific consensus.[8][9]Almost identical public relations and faulty research[10] strategies were used leading up to the tobacco/cancer lawsuits in the United States and around the world.[11]" First, a discussion of tobacco doesn't really belong in the intro to global warming. (It serves a purpose of persuasion, which is undesirable here, rather than providing encyclopedic information.) Second, the sources do not support the strong claims made there. For example, the citation after the first "faulty" does not call the research faulty, it says the research "draws fire". The citation numbered 8 there also doesn't state that the studies are faulty, it says that a Greenpeace report states that groups are spreading inaccurate information. You cannot take an citation which makes a factual statement saying there is a conflict, and use it to write a statement drawing a conclusion supporting one side of the conflict described in the citation. That is an incorrect use of the citation process, and is necessarily injecting an original POV to the statements from the cited sources. WavePart ( talk) 09:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Protected for 24 hours due to the current outbreak of revert warring. {{ editprotected}} can be used to request consensus edits until the protection expires. Thanks, EyeSerene talk 08:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey everyone, if you haven't noticed already, the lead has a duplicate 2nd paragraph (obviously a mistake). Can we have consensus to remove the second 2nd paragraph? Torontokid2006 ( talk) 21:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
the lead has a duplicate 2nd paragraph would an admin please remove it mark nutley ( talk) 21:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The Argo project has published the following snippet about ocean warming on their web: [36] and has a nice graph showing how the heat content of the world oceans have changed the last 50 years or so. I seems like it would complement the surface temperature graphs nicely, maybe it could find its way into the article somehow? Apis ( talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
How does this relate to Lyman et al. [38], [39]? William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I've no objection to the closing of the RfC and I think "overwhelming consensus" is a very good summary. As yet there's been little discussion of the sentence about the role of oil companies that was recently added. If the intro is going to contain discussion about the reasons for public scepticism, and I'm not sure it's necessary, it needs to be a balanced one. Other possible reasons include media scepticism, a general public antipathy towards scare stories, recent events at the University of East Anglia, some very noisy dissent from a number of scientists outside the peer review process and a lack of public understanding. Clearly there isn't room for all that but I don't understand by what criteria these oil companies are singled out. The impression given is that the article was written by somebody who doesn't like oil companies. -- 188.221.105.68 ( talk) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
To say that a fringe view is popular is a contradiction in terms. Pew asked Americans to prioritize 20 political topics and global warming was dead last. [40] If you actually believed the claims put forward by IPCC so forth, wouldn't this be a higher priority than say, lobbyists? Seventy percent of Americans goes way beyond "people who consume a lot of energy." Kauffner ( talk) 04:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I tookout the section on oil companies. It is a subset of politics. It doesn't belong William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It certainly seems most are in favour of removing the line, which doesn't fit. I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning Toronto: I don't have evidence that oil companies aren't the overwhelming driver of public opinion therefore you are entitled to put something in that suggests they are??? -- 188.221.105.68 ( talk) 12:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no longer any scholarly debate on this issue.[clarific] The scientific consensus is that human-caused global warming is real.[6][7][clarific] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues.[clarif][improper synthesis] Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns[8][9] and deeply flawed research studies[10][pov-statement] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[pov-statement]
I think this paragraph is more something you'd expect to find on the Greenpeace website rather than on an encyclopedia.
There is no longer any scholarly debate on this issue.
What issue to do with global warming are we talking about?
Nevertheless, political and public debate continues.
I have a two criticisms of this sentence. Firstly, while there may be a broad scientific consensus about human-induced warming, the issue of possible policy responses is not purely a scientific question. This sentence does not specify what "debate" is about. If it is about purely scientific questions (e.g., the value of the climate sensitivity), then it should say so. If it isn't, i.e., it refers to debate over policy, then it should not imply that scientific consensus favours a particular climate change policy. My separation of "scientific" and "policy" views, is, of course, a simplification to some degree. This is because scientific confidence levels in this field have important policy implications.
Secondly, as I've stated previously, saying that there is "debate" is a fairly vacuous statement. Debate over science and policy issues will always exist. What matters is (a) what the opposing viewpoints are, (b) how important these differing viewpoints are, and (c) who supports these differing viewpoints.
Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns[8][9] and deeply flawed research studies[10][pov-statement] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[pov-statement]
This is an exceedingly weak sentence, and is clearly POV. This article should present information in an objective and neutral fashion. This sentence fails to do this. It is an analysis of oil companies intentions. Analysis should not be included unless that analysis is explicitly attributed to a particular source. It is not appropriate for the article to implicitly be aligned with a particular source. This is unless that source represents a consensus view, e.g., as supported by science academy statements or authorative scientific assessments.
I would prefer that the paragraph I've highlighted be removed entirely. It should not be included in the intro. The intro should present the most important and strongest points to do with the article's subject. It should not be used as a way of favouring particular viewpoints which do not necessarily represent a consensus view.
Views section
I've added neutrality and undue weight tags to this section. It is entirely inappropriate for this section to place so much weight on particular viewpoints. It is basically advocating particular policy viewpoints, and places undue weight on views in rich countries, solely focussing on the US.
Bias
Implicitly, the section attempts to convince the reader that inaction on climate change can be blamed on oil companies. This is biased in several ways:
1. It assumes that people agree with criticisms of these organizations. This is done implicitly in the way that criticisms are not explicitly attributed to any sources.
For example:
Source X has linked efforts to avoid regulation of emissions to the activities of oil companies
That would be acceptable, since the article is not aligning itself to source X. Rather, source X is cited since some editor believes that source X's views are important in some way.
2. The section promotes a particular interpretation of oil companies and related companies. It is implied that their activities are wrong.
To put it differently, it is assumed that the reader agrees with the interpretation of the activities of these oil companies which an editor has put forward. This is unacceptable. The article should be neutral with respect to different points-of-view. It is not acceptable for the article to implicitly align itself with criticisms of oil companies.
3. The section places undue weight on certain viewpoints
The views presented are entirely US-based. This is unacceptable. The article's title is global warming. It is not "US views on global warming." Therefore attention should be paid to maintaining a even and balanced coverage of all world views. Disproportionate weight should not be placed on views that are US-based.
Disproportionate weight is placed on the views of Oreskes. There are lots of publications on global warming. It is unacceptable for this article to cite one book over all others. A balanced treatment would cover all publications in all countries, and not just one book.
Split-up
Due to the excessive length of this article, focus should be on quality and importance. Popular books are important, but are less important than the scientific literature. Popular books are also less important that the views of particular countries and important organizations.
The issue over split-up is also clearly related to my points above on bias. If you were to offer an overview of the popular publications on climate change, it would require an expansion of an already over-long article. Also, to counter bias towards US-views, you'd need to give a proportionate amount of space to views in other countries.
To sum up, my view is that all of this content should be removed. It can be put in a sub-article. Efforts should be made to cover all views, and that includes views of those outside of the US, i.e., international viewpoints. Neutrality should also be maintained with respect to national viewpoints. On both of these counts, the existing section fails completely. Enescot ( talk) 05:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1."Reading this talk page it has become evident certain editors misunderstand/misrepresent the scientific method. The demand for "absolute" proof for X is a silly one. There are no absolutes. However, when the overwhelming majority of scientist (no not vox populi or other non-experts) declare something as scientific fact this essentially means there is "no debate." To include the emotio-political-driven hysterics as sciemntific "debate" is disingenious at best. Also, even if we find one scintist opposing a certain theory this does not a "debate" make. In science we only speak of "debate" when something is discussed through the appropriate scientific channels. A friday evening exchange of opininion during happy hour does not count.
Other denialist-movements are not given that much space: AIDS denialism, vaccine controversy, Flat earth, Intelligent Design.
In short, mention the absence of scientific debate.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
2. (Sorry for repeating myself, apparently replies part of the way up go unnoticed...) That's a straw man question. "Debate" obviously does not only occur in peer-reviewed journals, and thus you cannot claim "no debate" among a community by looking only at peer-reviewed articles. You can make plenty of OTHER claims by looking at peer-reviewed journals, but "no debate among scientists" is not one of them. You could perhaps even say "No debate in climatology journals", but you certainly can't say "no debate" among scientists, as if the entirety of their lives are constrained to journal article writing. It's just a factually incorrect misrepresentation to state one thing as another in that manner. WavePart (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but there is no scholarly debate at all about whether humans influence climate, there is debate on other issues within climate change, but for that particular one, there is none. Here of course there is the caveat that there (as in all fields) are some individuals who will dispute anything (see WP:FRINGE). This is not limited to the literature - it is simply "inconceivable" from a scientific point of view, to paraphrase Christy again, that we haven't influenced climate. -Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC) My objection there, which I still stand by 100%, and have repeated many times, is on the claim that there is no debate in the scientific community. Communities are made of people, and you cannot make sweeping claims about a body of people based on analysis of a body of literature. That just fails the test of basic logic, which I would prefer if we could uphold here. It would be like saying, "All members of American communities think people should be allowed to have guns" and citing the constitutional amendments as proof, and then arguing that it's a valid statement because the constitution is the supreme law. It doesn't quite work that way. WavePart (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC) There is no statement made about all of the community (at least not in any version i've seen). But if you want community responses, then see Scientific opinion on climate change, which cooks down to: No scientific body disputes anthropogenic influences to climate, and all major national and international scientific bodies support the current scientific assessment. That there is no scholarly debate over whether humans are influencing climate is a simple and accurate statement, which reflects the literature as well as the direct statements from scientific bodies. We can't invent dissent.. Sorry. That would be promoting a WP:FRINGE viewpoint... and stating that there is debate about whether we influence climate is a very fringe viewpoint. Consensus is not unanimity (although it comes extremely close on this particular item of climate change) You will have to provide evidence of debate if you are going to argue down this road - since otherwise you are trying to get us to prove a negative --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC) So you are admitting that there is no proof? Then the claim should be taken out of the article. Does the Christy quote represent peer-reviewed research? Kauffner (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) The inability to prove a negative is precisely why you don't write an article which goes out of its way to claim negatives are proven. We should simply write the things we CAN specifically document, for which there are plenty. WavePart (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC) It is documentable. Christy's statement is one of many that does so (and do take into account that Christy is one of the more well-known sceptics). The opinion of the community can be assessed by both assessment reports, but also by the statements from scientific bodies. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC) So after all this interesting discussion, we still have one editor aggressively editing to keep the phrases "There is no debate amongst the scientific community"[25] (instead of "There is no substantive debate") and "The scientific community agrees that..."[26] (instead of "The scientific community largely agrees that...") in the article. I'm sure this is being done in good faith, but I'm not sure that it reflects a consensus from the discussion above. I would like to establish if there is a consensus for this wording, versus some (any) less absolute statement.
I know there are a thousand other issues that arise from this, but I'd like to have opinions specifically on whether we should say "there is no debate" and "the scientific community agrees" or whether these phrases should be qualified to make them lest absolute. Thparkth (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
And I'll go first. I do not support the absolute statements. There is debate, although it is almost entirely not happening in peer-reviewed publications. So let's say "no scholarly debate" or "no debate in scientific journals" instead, since that's apparently what we mean. The scientific community is not 100% in agreement if there is even one dissenter, and there are quite a lot more than that. Let's say "the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that" or words to that effect. Thparkth (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Torontokid2006 ( talk) 07:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually what's sad is that these discussions go round & round and editors create new sections with overlong posts and replies, instead of orderly contributing to existing threads. - PrBeacon (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm extremely unhappy that my templates and tags have been removed. My impression was that you could add tags to an article provided that you gave a reason. I did give a reason, which has been ignored. The fact that the issue has been debated among editors here is frankly of no interest to me. Other editors may think that the views presented on oil companies in the article are unbiased. I think this is a poor reflection on the objectivity and judgement of these editors.
The main issue to do with climate change is in assessing the costs and benefits of climate policy. One cost is that faced by energy-intensive industries. To try and make out that this is the only consideration of policymakers is basically a conspiracy theory. If true, we wouldn't have the UNFCCC, or individual countries implementing aggressive policies to reduce emissions.
You also wouldn't have had developing countries pressing developed countries to reduce emissions significantly. If the malign influence of oil companies was so bad, they would presumably not be at all concerned about climate change. It would also be inconsistent with the actions of most countries in approving the various IPCC assessments.
In terms of the popular literature on climate change, I see no justification for concentrating on Oreskes' work over other authors. Ignoring international views (works by Chinese or Indian writers, for example), you could possibly cite Bjorn Lomborg's work on climate change, or Pilmer's or Singer's. A balanced overview of the popular literature in English-speaking countries would include mention of such viewpoints. Choosing Oreskes' analysis over these other viewpoints strikes me as blatant political and literary bias. Enescot ( talk) 05:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: More than one of |first1=
and |first=
specified (
help); More than one of |last1=
and |last=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: More than one of |first1=
and |first=
specified (
help); More than one of |last1=
and |last=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |author-separator=
ignored (
help)
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 55 | ← | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | → | Archive 65 |
I had a go here to incorporate the sense of this discussion and earlier ones.
My new proposed wording:
In essence, why refer to a guideline when we have policies? --
TS 02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Why GRL and J Clim? They're one of the main journals in climatology. It's just an example to make things concrete. I don't know why they're cited though. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 02:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Additions to intro
I've made some additions to the intro. I didn't think the intro was alarmist enough. Global warming/climate change is probably bad news for at least some people (if not most people), and that fact shouldn't be obscured.
Temperature changes addition
I've added this paragraph to the section:
In 2007, the IPCC concluded that warming of the climate system was "unequivocal." This conclusion was based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
The was one of the central conclusions of the last IPCC report, and it should be mentioned in this article.
GHG change
I've changed this because the previous revision was inaccurate. Previous revision:
CO2 concentrations are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The future rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. Accordingly, the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100 (an increase by 90-250% since 1750).[34]
The SRES scenarios are emissions scenarios, not concentration scenarios. The 2100 concentrations are projections based on these emissions scenarios. It is also wrong, because the 541-970 ppm figure is only for the six SRES marker scenarios, not, as was implied, the entire set of (forty) SRES scenarios. Another criticism is that uncertainty is not mentioned in the projection, in the sense that you are projecting concentrations from emissions scenarios. There's uncertainty about the carbon cycle, for example.
Attributed and expected effects
I've rewritten a large part of this section. My rewrite was based on my following concerns:
My revision was designed to address these issues. Enescot ( talk) 14:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thats the way to take it. There are problems with relying on IPCC's outdated 2007 projections, and oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf's Sealevelgate article, about a very real projection anomaly that ought to be an international scandal but somehow isn't, demonstrates this quite graphically. In short; Rahmstorf argues that sea level has risen in the past and is likely to rise in the future much faster than the models used by the IPCC. We should take notice of informed critiques of IPCC, and to represent IPCC's position as fully as possible. I'm not very familiar with this or with the critiques Enescot raises, but they are the kind of detail of which I would probably want to be aware, whereas, as Enescot says, the Northwest Passage stuff is neither here nor there. Americans and Canadians may regard that as possessing a symbolic relevance that people living in other continents find quite difficult to understand. While I haven't looked at Enescot's revision on health impacts, further work in this area is to be welcomed. -- TS 16:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Installation of air conditioning may be a rational adaptive action for individuals but will actually lead to increased fossil fuel consumption, so leading to further global warming. Should this not be pointed out here? Agricmarketing ( talk) 15:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
A smaller sign of adaptation – interesting, perhaps suitable for one of the sub-articles but not here. . . dave souza, talk 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please replace this:
Soot may cool or warm, depending on whether it is airborne or deposited. Atmospheric soot aerosols directly absorb solar radiation, which heats the atmosphere and cools the surface. Regionally (but not globally), as much as 50% of surface warming due to greenhouse gases may be masked by atmospheric brown clouds. [3]
with this:
Soot may cool or warm, depending on whether it is airborne or deposited. Atmospheric soot aerosols directly absorb solar radiation, which heats the atmosphere and cools the surface. In isolated areas with high soot production, such as rural India, as much as 50% of surface warming due to greenhouse gases may be masked by atmospheric brown clouds. [4]
Thanks. - 128.196.30.219 ( talk) 20:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
NASA: “It is nearly certain that a new record 12-month global temperature will be set in 2010″ « Climate Progress gives interesting information from an email written by Hansen, with a link to the full draft paper. Hansen also describes the misuse of FOIA requests and their effects. Statisticians reject global cooling - Environment- msnbc.com and Global cooling bites the dust: Hottest January followed by second hottest February. Now March is busting out. « Climate Progress also provide relevant information. . . dave souza, talk 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
To clarify for the benefit of Dikstr, Q22 applies to this paper even more than it would to a published paper. It doesn't matter who proposes its inclusion. We can afford to wait for the global average temperature for 2010 to be calculated after the measurements have been collected. Also, as previously noted, the temperature of any given year doesn't count for much. This article is about the rising trend over time, not years in which the global average temperatures set a record (albeit the latter occurrence is a predictable corollary of the former). Tasty monster (= TS ) 07:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with the revision I suggested above. Please note that I've directly referenced the section of the Synthesis report on the IPCC website. This version is not the same as the print version (I know of one difference between the PDF and html versions), so I'd prefer it if my referencing is not changed to the "cite book" style. The reason I mention this is because on a previous edit, I wasn't happy with another editor changing my citation style (for Schneider et al (2001), mention of report editors McCarthy et al was deleted). Another thing is that in another article, an editor was critical of my imprecise referencing. Referring to the html version allows editors easy access to the relevant section of the report. Enescot ( talk) 14:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
OK. Lets discuss my recommended alteration of the 1st paragraph of the Global Warming/Solar Variation section:
"Variations in solar output have been the cause of past climate changes.[46] Although solar forcing is estimated by climate models to be a minor component of global warming in recent decades,[47] recent research indicates a larger role comparable to that of anthropogenic greenhouse gas accumulation.[48]"
This seems like an eminently fair description of the current knowledge of the subject. And if you claim that ref 48 is an 'outlier' paper you'd better be prepared to justify it! References 46 - 48 are:
RealClimate: Please, show us your code is of course a WP:SPS giving the expert views of Rasmus E. Benestad and an update of discussions following his joint paper (Benestad and Schmidt 2009) regarding problems with Scafetta's papers. These issues are further analysed in Lockwood 2010 Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum which notes problems with use of the ACRIM TSI composite based on the application of an entirely inappropriate TSI reconstruction, multivariate fits resulting in dramatically reduced significance (unstated by Scafetta) and the analysis of Scafetta (2009) requiring an amplification of the solar input by a factor of 13.5 which Scafetta fails to explain or justify. Lockwood concludes that "the popular idea (at least on the Internet and in some parts of the media) that solar changes are some kind of alternative to GHG forcing in explaining the rise in surface temperatures has no credibility with almost all climate scientists." In a more recent posting, Benestad discusses More on sun-climate relations citing several new papers to conclude that "changes in the sun play a minor role in climate change on decadal to centennial scales. After all, 2009 was the second-warmest year on record, and by far the warmest in the southern hemisphere, despite the record solar minimum. The solar signal for the past 25 years is not just small but negative (i.e. cooling), but this has not noticeably slowed down global warming. But there are also many unknowns remaining". . . dave souza, talk 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If we want to be finicky, essentially everything we use to make scientific statement is "a model". But the influence of solar variations had been analysed using many different models, both so simple that most people won't recognise them as models, and full scale GCMs (Boris correct me if I speak nonsense ;-). Scafetta is a real outlier with a history of papers that fail to find much support in the scientific community. See Talk:Global_warming/FAQQ22. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 23:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
In the conclusion the authors say:Both ‘mixed’ composites demonstrate a significant TSI increase of 0.033 %/decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, comparable to the 0.037 % found in the ACRIM composite.
and"Within the uncertainty of the model we have concluded that the data support the view that TSI increased significantly (by about 0.033 %) between the successive solar minima of 1986 and 1996, confirming the trend found by the ACRIM TSI composite and contradicting the absence of a TSI trend in the PMOD and the KBS07 proxy model."
and"a corrected KBS07 proxy model is expected to reproduce the upward trend of the ACRIM TSI composite between the 1986 and 1996 TSI minima."
Note that in 2007, Scafetta and West asserted that there could be under their scenario as much as a 50% underestimate of the non-anthropogenic contribution to present-day global warming. By 2009, the assertion had become that "Within the uncertainty of the model we have concluded that the data support the view that TSI increased significantly (by about 0.033 %) between the successive solar minima of 1986 and 1996, confirming the trend found by the ACRIM TSI composite and contradicting the absence of a TSI trend [deduced by two of the methods considered by the IPCC].""This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades. [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008] Current climate models [IPCC 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming."
Not only are Scafetta's conclusions highly doubtful for inclusion in this particular article by WP:WEIGHT , to me they're clearly out of bounds w.r.t. WP:PSTS (part of the core content policy WP:NOR). While I'm not intractably stuck on resisting the inclusion of Scafetta's material in this particular article, to date at least, it seems clear to me that his conclusions and abstracts to date have insufficient weight within the scientific community to merit much of a published response, and that the proposed inclusion of his conclusory statements does not come anywhere close to meeting the standard set by WP:NOR. ... Kenosis ( talk) 04:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. [bold emphasis mine]
I find this discussion quite distressing. Why are Wikipedia editors making judgements about which viewpoints to include in an article based on technical analysis of the contents of academic papers? The point of WP:UNDUE is that important minority viewpoints should not be over-represented in articles, not that they shouldn't be mentioned at all. The Scafetta paper is in every way a reliable primary source, whether its contents are actually correct or not. What other topic area on Wikipedia would have editors arguing over whether a peer-reviewed paper can be mentioned in the article or not, based not on an editorial question about improving the article, but on their own original research into the validity of the paper's conclusions? Referencing a paper does not constitute an endorsement of its findings. The paper should be mentioned, in context, in a neutral way, and linked to for the educated reader to make up their own mind - just like it would be in any other topic. Thparkth ( talk) 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to include fringe or extreme minority views in this overview, the current statement allows for these exceptions by stating "but solar forcing is generally thought to be too small to account for a significant part of global warming in recent decades." Note the implications of "generally". In the more detailed account in the solar variation article it may be worth considering recent research by Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf. . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The solar forcing findings of Scafetta & West are new and a minority view at present but characterizing them as fringe or extreme and to be ignored is counterproductive to a reasoned discussion. Dikstr ( talk) 18:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The existing coverage of adaptation in this article is very poor:
A wide variety of measures have been suggested for adaptation to global warming, from the installation of air-conditioning equipment, to major infrastructure projects, such as abandoning settlements threatened by sea level rise.
Measures including water conservation,[87] water rationing, adaptive agricultural practices[88] including diversification, construction of flood defenses,[89] changes to medical care,[90] and interventions to protect threatened species[91] have all been suggested. A wide-ranging study of the possible opportunities for adaptation of infrastructure has been published by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers.[92]
Schneider et al
[7]:
A general conclusion on the basis of present understanding is that for market and social systems there is considerable adaptation potential, but the economic costs are potentially large, largely unknown and unequally distributed, as is the adaptation potential itself. For biological and geophysical systems, the adaptation potential is much less than in social and market systems. There is wide agreement that it will be much more difficult for both human and natural systems to adapt to larger magnitudes of global mean temperature change than to smaller ones, and that adaptation will be more difficult and/or costly for faster warming rates than for slower rates
In the article, this sentence is pointless:
A wide-ranging study of the possible opportunities for adaptation of infrastructure has been published by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers.[92]
Reference to this study can be moved to further reading section. My suggested revision is as follows:
A wide variety of measures have been suggested for adaptation to global warming, including: water conservation,[87] water rationing, adaptive agricultural practices[88] including diversification, construction of flood defenses,[89] changes to medical care,[90] and interventions to protect threatened species[91]. The capacity and potential for human systems to adapt is unevenly distributed across different regions and populations. The economic costs of adaptation are potentially large, but also largely unknown. Across the literature, there is wide agreement that adaptation will be more difficult for larger magnitudes and higher rates of climate change.
Ref:
[8]
Enescot (
talk) 14:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the way the article deals with its central topic, that of global warming. In my view it is ridiculous not to mention the IPCC's central conclusion, that warming of the climate system is "unequivocal." This is the most important conclusion of the IPCC report, which is the most widely cited report, most thoroughly reviewed report, and most widely accepted report that there is. To not cite this conclusion, in an article about "global warming", is preposterous.
So here's my suggested revision, which is to the section on temperature changes:
In their Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, the IPCC concluded that warming of the climate system was "unequivocal." Evidence supporting this finding included observed increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
The most common measure of global warming is the trend in globally averaged temperature near the Earth's surface. Expressed as a linear trend, [...]
Ref:
[9]
To be honest, the view that warming is "unequivocal" deserves to be mentioned in the article's introduction. In my opinion, it is more important that anything else in this entire article. I accept that the intro is too long, but if necessary, stuff from the intro should be deleted to make room for the "unequivocal" quote.
I made a similar revision to this article previously that was deleted. As I recall, (1) ChyranandChloe was critical of the use of the quote "unequivocal." (2) Kenosis suggested that in the preamble, the word "concluded" should replaced with the word "stated", i.e., "IPCC stated that..."
On point (1), with all due respect to CaC's analysis, I think it is irrelevant. While CaC is entitled to his/her own views on the IPCC assessment, it is an authorative assessment. Therefore, since the "unequivocal" statement is unquestionably extremely significant, it deserves to be mentioned in this article. If other editors are unhappy about this, they should cite sources that challenge the IPCC conclusion. However, in my view, since the IPCC represents the consensus view among experts, as supported by several national science academy statements, plus reports by the US National Research Council, any challenges would represent minority views. The IPCC does not directly assert that its conclusions represent majority views in the scientific community, but this is implied by the national academy statements. The point is also made explicitly in recent publications by the US NRC and the UKMO.
For these reasons, I think that any challenges to this particular IPCC conclusion should not be mentioned in this top-level article. Perhaps they can be included in sub-articles. I should also note that article, as it is at present, in my view, is excessively generous to minority views, for example, there is the long and confusing titled "debate and skepticism" section (the word "debate" is redundant – all aspects of science covered in this article have been debated by scientists). As an aside, the section is also absurdly US-centric.
On point (2), the IPCC conclusions, unlike the national academy statements, are based on a literature assessment. Therefore, the IPCC's conclusions are not just "statements", they are based on an assessment of available scientific evidence. Scientists usually make conclusions when they've assessed evidence. I don't know of any scientific papers that end with a "statements" section, they end with a "conclusions" section. To be entirely consistent with the IPCC report, the "unequivocal" statement is one of the findings presented in the report. However, it's not a great leap to say that this finding is reported because it something that the IPCC authors concluded as being correct. Anyway, I think the word "stated" does not accurately convey the fact that the IPCC report is based on an assessment of evidence. Enescot ( talk) 03:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
[...] we already say "Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century" - how is that, functionally, any different from "unequivocal"? – William M. Connolley
The questions (1) "what does the instrumental temperature record show?" and (2) "is warming actually happening?" are two separate questions. The IPCC statement answers (2), while your statement answers (1). The answer to (1) suggests a positive response to (2), but it does not answer it definitively. The answer to (2) draws on the answer to (1), but also on other lines of evidence:
Evidence supporting this finding included observed increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. – proposed edit
Therefore, I do not see the answers to questions (1) and (2) as being identical. The answer to question (2) is, in my view, more important than the answer to (1) because it draws on a greater body of evidence than the answer to (1):
The key (emphasis added) finding of IPCC AR4, "The warming in the climate system is unequivocal [...] ", is based on measurements made by many independent institutions worldwide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, the ocean and in the ice-covered areas of the Earth (...) – Co-chairs of IPCC Working Group I. Ref:
[10]
As you can see, the co-chairs of IPCC Working Group I identify the "unequivocal" statement as the "key" finding of the last assessment report.
In respect of the proposed new wording, I'd rather not tie it too strongly to IPCC 2007 - William M. Connolley
I disagree. The issue of global warming is contested. Therefore, in my view, it is necessary to maintain a separation of IPCC conclusions from the "narrative" of the article. This is achieved in the way that I have written my edit. By not attributing the "unequivocal" statement, it suggests that editors of the article agree with the statement. Or, to put it differently, the statement represents a consensus view among editors. I don't think that either of these positions are correct. Personally I do not feel comfortable stating that warming is unequivocal without very clear attribution. I'm not an expert, and I have not assessed the evidence myself. So I am reliant on the IPCC's assessment, as is suggested in my edit.
I am willing to not use the unequivocal quote and not so directly attribute the warming statement to the IPCC. To do this, I suggest that several sources are referred to that support the unequivocal statement indirectly. I am not willing to compromise on the substantive point of the unequivocal quote, that is, that warming is a fact. To start off, here is source 1:
In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reaffirmed that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems – Joint-academies statement. Ref:
[11]
source 2:
The Earth is warming – US National Research Council. Ref (p.4):
[12]
source 3:
Earth is warming – UK Hadley Centre. Ref:
[13]
source 4:
Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced – USGCRP. Ref:
[14]
I think these sources are sufficient to justify having a non-atttributed statement in the article. I suggest:
Warming of the climate system is happening: evidence for this includes observed increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. - new proposed edit
To summarize:
(1) I do not agree that it is sufficient to state the instrumental temperature record and use that only as evidence for global warming. The edit I've suggested is an assessment of all the relevant evidence, which is different to simply citing the individual pieces of evidence that point to that conclusion.
(2) I am happy to go ahead with the unattributed revision that I've suggested here. I believe that the diversity and reliability of sources means that no "separation" is necessary between the narrative of the article and the views contained in the cited sources. Enescot ( talk) 04:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why recent acceleration of warming in the last forty years isn't mentioned in the lead? On the RSs we have including the IPCC, the substantial acceleration, particularly since the mid-Seventies, has quite clearly occurred, and is demonstrably continuing on this accelerated path even despite the exceptionally weak solar minimum we're presently going through. Seems to me a mention of "acceleration" or "accelerating", a word both scientists and laypersons understand, should perhaps be right up front, somewhere immediately after the first or second sentence of the lead. There's no mention in the lead that the past two decades are by a long shot the warmest since instrumental temperature records began, and by all credible reconstructions the warmest in at least 2000 years, presently exceeding even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period. Even the Moberg "Letter to Nature " graph published to debunk the smoothed-out " hockey stick" has it this way (the red line on the first composite graph at right). And by the averaged values of credible reconstructions going back some 12,000 years (shown in visual form in the third graph on the right) it's already the warmest since the end of the last ice age. ... Kenosis ( talk) 13:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Reference [2] < http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf> should be updated to: < http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf> 03:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.176.196 ( talk)
-- TS 00:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched pages by namespace#.28Main.29 .2F Talk William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is veering wildly off-topic. Please open a new thread to raise any concrete concerns about whether the article content conforms with all of Wikipedia's policies.
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions. That was on the war page. now this is like, 100% LIBERAL!!!!! Wikipedia must hate conservativism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjb0607 ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is my proposed edit of the section on "Attributed and expected effects":
Global warming may be detected in natural, ecological or social systems as a change having statistical significance (1). Attribution of these changes e.g., to natural or human activities, is the next step following detection (2).
Natural systems
Global warming has been detected in a number of systems. Some of these changes, e.g., based on the instrumental temperature record, have been described in the section on temperature changes. Rising sea levels and observed decreases in snow and ice extent are consistent with warming (3). Most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is, with high probability, (footnote) atttributable to human-induced changes in greenhouse gas concentrations (4).
Even with current policies to reduce emissions, global emissions are still expected to continue to grow over the coming decades (5). Over the course of the 21st century, increases in emissions at or above their current rate would very likely induce changes in the climate system larger than those observed in the 20th century.
In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, across a range of future emission scenarios, model-based estimates of sea level rise for the end of the 21st century (the year 2090-2099, relative to 1980-1999) range from 0.18 to 0.59 m. These estimates, however, were not given a likelihood due to a lack of scientific understanding, nor was an upper bound given for sea level rise. Over the course of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in sea level rise of 4-6 m or more (6).
Changes in regional climate are expected to include greater warming over land, with most warming at high northern latitudes, and least warming over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean (5). Snow cover area and sea ice extent are expected to decrease. The frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation will very likely increase.
Ecological systems
In terrestrial ecosystems, the earlier timing of spring events, and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges, have been linked with high confidence to recent warming (3). Future climate change is expected to particularly affect certain ecosystems, including tundra, mangroves, and coral reefs (5). It is expected that most ecosystems will be affected by higher atmospheric CO2 levels, combined with higher global temperatures (7). Overall, it is expected that climate change will result in the extinction of many species and reduced biodiversity of ecosystems (8).
Social systems
There is some evidence of regional climate change affecting systems related to human activities, including agricultural and forestry management activities at higher latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (3). Future climate change is expected to particularly affect some sectors and systems related to human activities (5). These include:
It is expected that some regions will be particularly affected by climate change, including the Arctic, Africa, small islands, and Asian and African megadeltas. Some people, such as the poor, young children, and the elderly, are particularly at risk, even in high-income areas.
Footnote: In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, this attribution is given a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement (9). According to the US National Research Council Report – Understanding and Responding to Climate Change - published in 2008, "[most] scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" (10).
References:
I've tried to condense down all the most important and highest confidence findings of the IPCC report into this section. I think that my structuring of topics is more logical than the existing revision, that divides impacts into "environmental" and "economic" sections. I also think that my revision is more logical in the way it covers the subject. Each section is organized according to observed impacts, followed by projected impacts. The existing revision haphazardly mixes up predicted impacts with observed impacts. Enescot ( talk) 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that information on the scientific basis for projections should be included, but in a sub-article. This is because the article is too long and more information about projections would make it even longer. Also, to add more info on ecosystem projections would be unbalanced without adding more info on the projections affecting natural and social systems. Enescot ( talk) 16:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. This is not a journal reference, but here is another site that proposes a connection between global warming and earthquakes, volcanic activity, etc. I remember that there was a recent scientific journal article that was not mentioned in the Wikipedia article because it was a single reference. Although there is likely disagreement on this, please discuss to include at least one sentence of information pertaining to the effects of global warming on earthquakes in the main article as this is a significant effect, and more people are now linking glacial uplift, tropical cyclones, and even other weather patterns to a heightened risk for earthquakes, and if water from sea level rise floods into volcanic basins, the effects of global warming on seismic activity may be further demonstrated as well, but first we need to include some information on global warming affecting factors for earthquake risks. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 23:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Of AH's links [16] is just about "How Storms Can Trigger Earthquakes ". There doesn't seem to be any GW connection at all. [17] looks to be another newspaper report about the same underlying paper. So is [18], but that report actually speculates about a link to GW. It also provides a link to the underlying paper which is nice: [19]. However the underlying paper *doesn't* talk about GW, so the stuff in [20] is likely just speculation from the newspaper. So we shouldn't use it.
[21] is about the recent volcano, really, plus some speculation; [22] is a bit vague.
If this is to have any substance there ought to be real papers that we could link to (secondary sources good, yes, but there must be real primary sources underneath) for (1) isostatic rebound or ice retreat causes volcanoes and (2) GW will cause more of them William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Here's my attempt to provide some info on a the issues brought up here:
Hope this is helpful, Awickert ( talk) 01:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's my proposed change to the section on "debate and skepticism.":
There are different views over what the appropriate policy response to climate change should be (1, 2). These competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases against the costs. In general, it seems likely that climate change will impose greater damages and risks in poorer regions (3).
Politics
Developing and developed countries have made different arguments over who should bear the burden of cutting emissions. Developing countries often concentrate on per-capita emissions, that is, the total emissions of a country divided by its population (4). Per-capita emissions in the industrialized countries are typically as much as ten times the average in developing countries (5). This is used to make the argument that the real problem of climate change is due to the profligate and unsustainable lifestyles of those living in rich countries (4). On the other hand, commentators from developed countries more often point out that it is total emissions that matter (4). Emissions from developing countries make up around half of the world's global emissions (6).
The Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005, sets legally binding emission limitations for most developed countries (7). Developing countries are not subject to limitations. This exemption led the U.S. (under President Bush) and a previous Australian Government to decide not to ratify the treaty.[95] At the time, almost all world leaders (including those of Canada, China, member states of the EU, Japan, South Africa, and Pacific Islands) expressed their disappointment over President Bush's decision (8). Australia has since ratified the Kyoto protocol.[96]
Public opinion
In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[105] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University finds that "results show the different stages of engagement[clarific] about global warming on each side of the Atlantic"; where Europe debates the appropriate responses while the United States debates whether climate change is happening.[vague][dubious][106]
Other views
Most scientists accept that humans are contributing to observed climate change (9). National science academies have made calls on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions (10). There are, however, some scientists and non-scientists who question aspects of the climate change science. Some doubt whether humans are responsible for recently observed warming, and some have also suggested that warming over the past decade has stopped (11, 12).
Organizations such as the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, and companies such as ExxonMobil, have challenged IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls.[109][110][111][112] Environmental organizations and public figures have emphasized changes in the current climate and the risks they entail, while promoting adaptation to changes in infrastructural needs and emissions reductions.[113] Some fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years,[114] or called for policies to reduce global warming.[115]
References:
{{
cite book}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help) p.87{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)I've attempted to correct for what I see as a bias towards US views, and an under-representation of other views. I think that the section should be renamed either "views on global warming" or "opinions on global warming." I think that the title "debate and skepticism" is meaningless. To say that there is debate is pointless. What matters is what the competing viewpoints are. There is no need to say that there is "debate." The word "skepticism" is also unnecessary.
Tags
results show the different stages of engagement[clarific] about global warming on each side of the Atlantic"; where Europe debates the appropriate responses while the United States debates whether climate change is happening.[vague][dubious]
I think this is a poor sentence. What does "engagement" mean? It strikes me as one of those words that sounds impressive but conveys little information. The second part of the sentence is weak. The statements are generalizations. It would be better to state what percentages have certain views. At the moment, the sentence is too vague.
The dubious tag is over the US's views on climate change. According to lectures by Jon Krosnick [24] [25], the US public does, to a large extent, accept mainstream scientific views on climate change. In my view, to say that the "United States debates whether climate change is happening," is misleading. Enescot ( talk) 07:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Global Warming is a hoax created by liberals to get us to spend all our money for an imaginary danger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.145.98 ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the deletion of the above two comments. My understanding is that discussion entries should be left on Talk pages unless they are blatantly malicious. If y'all disagree with me, or if I went too far, please say so here and I'll avoid it in the future.
While I don't agree one iota with the "unsigned" post (and find it annoying as Hell), it isn't vandalism, per se, and I felt I had to defend his right to say it.
Don't everyone flame me at once, please! UncleBubba ( Talk) 00:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42499
Count Iblis ( talk) 15:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The first line of this article says
The only provided reference is the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers" which does not contain the phrase "Global warming". The associated appendix defines Global Warming Potential but not Global Warming.
This reference abstract defines "Global warming" as
Merriam-Webster says
I suggest that these definitions do not agree and that the one currently used is nothing more than WP:OR. I know that there have been previous discussions with respect to this definition, but it seems obvious that the current definition either
Q Science ( talk) 05:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The index lists more than a half dozen threads. Most replies: Archive 31 - "Incorrect definition" (47) .. More recent: Archive 43 - "why is land temp excluded.." (and probably others since then)- PrBeacon ( talk) 18:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I took out [27] because I don't think it is right William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Opinions of politicians are not relevant to scientific subjects. In general, if a Wikipedia article is about science, people who, for example, can't do calculus are not entitled to an opinion. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
What about refreshing charts since the most is obsolete since 2005 many things was changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.23.137 ( talk • contribs)
David Archer has reviewed and evaluated this article for this study of WP's Featured Article process. Here's what the article says of his assessment:
Even among those articles that scored highly, there was room for improvement. For example, David Archer (Professor of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago and the author of Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast), scored the article on global warming at an eight [out of 10] and wrote that it was “very concise and clear”, but remarked that he could tell “it was not written by professional climate scientists” and noted an error in the way the article explained how clouds are included in climate models.
Anyone know what the error about the clouds he is talking about? Cla68 ( talk) 05:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Eight out of ten. Let that shut up the carpers and critics. Though it won't, and clearly hasn't. -- TS 01:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I think his 8/10 rating is quite laughable. Personally, I would say the article is "start" class. There is a ridiculous bias in the article towards US-based views and interests. Bias towards scientifically- and policy-illiterate "skepticism" is evident throughout, e.g., the pointless referencing to corrections due to the urban heat island (so small therefore why is it mentioned? – obviously to appease so-called skeptics), or to cosmic ray theory; the abysmal treatment of ethical issues, particularly with regard to the section on "skepticism and debate".
How many times are small islands referred to in this article? what about the effects of global warming on Africa? Why is there a dedicated section on economics and not threats to water supply or food production? The answer to me is straightforward: the editors of this article are more concerned with impacts in rich countries (largely monetary) than impacts in poor countries (largely non-monetary). In relation to this, my worst criticism of this article is that editors do not appear to be interested in the views and potential interests of people living in developing countries, who make up most of the world's population. Enescot ( talk) 15:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I asked for and obtained the review by Dr. Archer. I was told not to post the text of the review here, but can discuss it in general terms. The cloud error is this line, which I notice is unsourced in the article, "Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so are considered separately from water vapor and other gases." The error appears to be that clouds are considered separately, not because they are liquid or solid, but because they are an internal feedback to the climate system. Discussion? Cla68 ( talk) 12:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There is some other stuff in the review which Cla, oddly, neglected to mention:
I'll see if I can fix this up William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I changed the Archive threshold to 15days (up from 5). After a quick review of the latest archive I see a couple of issues that didnt get a chance to be discussed. PrBeacon ( talk) 20:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Why not pay homage to the military and add "breathing" to "...caused by breathing, fossil fuel burning, and deforestation". This seemingly simple change will strengthen the "human causes" argument as well as emphasize the carbon dioxide component of the global warming causes. It will also strengthen the argument for war as a means of population control. Even the most deadly of battles in human history have been dwarfed by the unmitigated exponential population growth. Brian Everlasting ( talk) 20:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It could be interesting to mention how the Sun does influnece the local climate in Europe, instead of only mentioning the negative results which rule out a solar influence on the global climate. Count Iblis ( talk) 16:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's a draft I've put together for the section on "Responses to global warming":
Reducing the amount of future climate change is called mitigation of climate change. The IPCC defines mitigation as activities that reduce GHG emissions, or enhance the capacity of sinks to absorb GHGs from the atmosphere (1). Many countries, both developing and developed, are aiming to use cleaner technologies (2). Use of these technologies aids mitigation and could result in substantial reductions in CO2 emissions. Policies include targets for emissions reductions, increased use of renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency. Studies indicate substantial potential for future reductions in emissions (3).
Other policy responses include adaptation to climate change. Adaptation to climate change may be planned, e.g., by local or national government, or spontaneous, i.e., done privately without government intervention (4). The ability to adapt (called "adaptive capacity") is closely linked to social and economic development (3). Even societies with high capacities to adapt are still vulnerable to climate change. Planned adaptation is already occurring on a limited basis. The barriers, limits, and costs of future adaptation are not fully understood.
Another policy response is engineering of the climate (geoengineering). This policy response is sometimes grouped together with mitigation (5). Geoengineering is largely unproven, and reliable cost estimates for it have not yet been published (6).
UNFCCC
Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (7). The ultimate objective of Convention is the prevent "dangerous" human interference of the climate system (8). As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHGs are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where:
The UNFCCC recognizes differences among countries in their responsibility to act on climate change (9). In the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, most developed countries (listed in Annex I of the treaty) took on legally binding commitments to reduce their emissions (10). Policy measures taken in response to these commitments have reduced emissions (11). For many developing (non-Annex I) countries, poverty reduction is their overriding aim (12).
At the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in 2009 at Copenhagen, several UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord. Parties agreeing with the Accord aim to limit the future increase in global mean temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius (13).
References:
In my draft I've attempted to correct for what I see as a number of problems with the current revision used in the article:
Mitigation
Geoengineering
This section is way too long in proportion to the sizes of the sections on mitigation and adaptation. Geoengineering is unproven and no reliable cost estimates have been published for it. In the IPCC report, geoengineering does not receive anywhere near the amount of coverage that adaptation and mitigation get. I should note that the IPCC report's content is determined by what most world governments want in it. It should therefore act as some kind of guide as to how much coverage particular topics get. Additionally, the UNFCCC clearly emphasizes mitigation, i.e., avoiding dangerous interference by stabilizing GHG concentrations.
You can also look at the policies most countries have on climate change. It is quite clear that countries are concentrating most on reducing their emissions and adapting to future climate change. The fact that some US conservative groups prefer geoengineering to mitigation does not mean that it deserves preferential treatment in this article. Enescot ( talk) 02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100514/ap_on_sc/climate
This is an AP article that mentions the 15 member review panel that is currently examining the IPPC; 'The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri defended Friday the work of the thousands of scientists who contribute to its reports, even as he welcomed a review of procedures that produced errors undermining the panel's public credibility.'
"Pachauri told the committee's first review meeting that the panel's conclusions are valid, even in areas where mistakes were discovered. Pointing to the most glaring error, a claim that the world's glaciers will melt by 2035, Pachauri said glaciers are indeed melting, though not that fast. Nonetheless, glacial melt accounts for 28 percent of sea level rise, and the panel's assessment on glaciers contains "a lot of facts which we can ignore at our peril."
We should probably add a mention of the review panel in the article in regards to the IPCC. Mytwocents ( talk) 15:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
If I understand things correctly infra-red band energy from the sun is absorbed by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Part of this energy is stored in the bond angle energy (dipole moment) between the atoms of the greenhouse gases and the rest is converted to kinetic energy of the molecules moving around and bumping into each other.
Here is the problem that I have. By volume carbon dioxide has a specific heat of about 1.619 kJ per m^3 * Deg K, nitrogen is 1.299, and oxygen is 1.308. Taking 1 cu meter samples of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen and adding 1 Kilojoule of energy to each gives the following temperature changes (assuming standard temperature and pressure initial conditions):
Carbon Dioxide - .618 Kelvin temperature increase Oxygen - .765 Kelvin temperature increase Nitrogen - .770 Kelvin temperature increase
And so if the entire atmosphere were made of carbon dioxide, incoming radiant energy from the sun would result in a lower atmospheric temperature than if the entire atmosphere would be oxygen.
Now if changes in atmospheric thickness are the actual cause of global warming (more blankets no matter what they are made of) then my point is mute, but the fascination with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere seems misplaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.11.218 ( talk) 02:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
But this still doesn't explain why the focus is on carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas and not oxygen and nitrogen, when for a given amount of energy input (no matter the source), the change in temperature is less for carbon dioxide than it is for oxygen and nitrogen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.11.218 ( talk) 19:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess I don't have a firm grasp on the time periods involved between a greenhouse gas absorbing infra-red energy and then releasing that energy. Is the time-frame a day (absorption) / night (release) cycle like oceans (warm ocean breeze on a cool night) or something more complex like pressure / temperature conditions? Also, I don't know if the infrared absorption is a quantitized event. Does a given amount of carbon dioxide have a fixed limit to the amount of infra-red energy it can absorb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.11.218 ( talk) 02:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Add Still skeptical? Reports document climate change in the USA Today by the United States National Academy of Sciences &/or Scientists Reassert Man's Role in a Changing Climate? 99.29.184.183 ( talk) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is User:Arthur Rubin attempting to break the link from Global warming to Environmental migrant? POV? 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You trashed a list of works by Jeff Goodell too, which has been restored. So far not a concise clearly well-written book, but not a reason to delete. Are you on a rampage, hopefully not? 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You write like you are being reasonable, but what of your Chicago Climate Exchange deletions, also without explanation? Appears disingenuous: POV push by Bureaucracy tactics? Enough time spent in this spot, see Talk:Chicago Climate Exchange. 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 17:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
There are no diffs here, and the discussion is a bit terse to follow, but I do not agree that Environmental migrant should not be linked from Global warming, only from climate change. We have discussed in the past here that the two terms are mostly synonymous, with the current climate change being a global warming. The CC article therefore covers the whole history of changes, and GW focusses mostly on the current warming. Environmental migrant is largely about current migrations, with only two lines about the ones that accompanied past ice ages etc. Indeed, the lede there begins with a link to Global warming. If there is to be a link, it should be from here. Where was it? In the text? As a See Also? As a {main}? -- Nigelj ( talk) 18:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added tags to the section on greenhouse gases because of this section of text:
The greenhouse effect is the process by which
absorption and
emission of
infrared radiation by gases in the
atmosphere are purported to warm a
planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by
Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by
Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
[6] The existence of the greenhouse effect is a subject of controversy;
vague for example,
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the
Saint Petersburg-based
Pulkovo Observatory
[7]
[8] has stated that "ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."
[9]
unbalanced opinion? The question in terms of global warming is how the strength of the presumed greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
I see absolutely no reason for this scientist's views to take priority of the views of the majority of experts, as reflected in the IPCC reports, National Research Council reports, joint-scientific academy statements, etc. To include this scientist's viewpoint is therefore unbalanced and biased.
A fair treatment of so-called sceptic views is already included in the section views on global warming. Since "sceptical" views have such little scientific support, the amount of space given to them (two sentences) is appropriate. Actually, I think two sentences is rather generous. Enescot ( talk) 15:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Oookay. Yes, it was a sincere attempt at "writing for the enemy". Specifically, I was trying to put myself in the place of someone who doesn't understand the topic and thinks the popular press should be used in preference to the scientific literature. Note my sources satisfied WP:V: major newspapers and magazines, non-self published books, and so on. Maybe it didn't work out that well, so roll back whatever you want. But there's a good chance this is what the future will look like. (And yes, I was a little surprised that the material remained so long without comment.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 23:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This is all very well [29] but probably goes too far William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
In a word, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for the views of the scientific community w.r.t. scientific issues. So, yes, I support the removal of popular literature and newspaper accounts that manufacture controversy where there is no genuine scientific controversy, at least not about the basics of this topic. The question whether GHGs account for all of observed warming in the 20th and early 21st century is about as more controversial among the relevant scientific community as the question "where do babies come from?" is among the general public. And the statement presently in the article summarizing the view of the scientific community as being that present-day global warming is caused by increases in GHG's due to anthropogenic activity is a reasonable statement to straightforwardly make in the article lead. ..... Kenosis ( talk) 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)I would have thought it a given that the Daily Mail tabloid is an inherently unreliable source [for an article such as this, which deals with current science]. The policy WP:SOURCES plainly states in the first sentence: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Any number of background sources would confirm that the Daily Mail does not fit this definition of a WP:RS. See, e.g. The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids, by University of Oxford's Maxwell T. Boykoff, or this brief summary reporting of the Oxford study, or another brief review of Daily Mail "predictions" over the course of some 18 months, etc. And of course, the Mail is world famous as a tabloid that plays fast and loose with the truth, not for fact-checking and accuracy.
The ideas should be reported. But I agree, the sources were rubbish William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Add Tokyo University's Yoichi Kaya formula F=Pgef ?
F = global CO2 emissions (Includes combustion, flaring of natural gas, cement production, oxidation of nonfuel hydrocarbons, and transport.)
P = global Population (Total number of human beings, about 6 billion)
g = Consumption per person ( Gross World Product/Population)
e = energy intensity of gross world product (global energy consumption/gross world product)
f = carbon used to make all that energy (global CO2 emissions/global energy consumption)
[30] Wired (magazine) printed page 38, June 2010, by Julie Rehmeyer 99.54.142.111 ( talk) 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to suggest editing the current wikipedia page on global warming concerning the obvious bias towards the theory that global warming is caused by man. Wikipedia is a source for truthfull information not a venue for propagating a political agenda. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.108.51 ( talk) 07:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
An equation is documented at [10] that calculates average global temperatures since 1895 with a coefficient of determination of over 0.86. Anyone that can use a spreadsheet can verify it. Dan Pangburn ( talk) 22:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
At the end of the summary, the article states: "There is no debate amongst the scientific community as to whether or not human-made global warming is real.[6]" The reference is to a 6 year old article, basing the statement on IPCC reports - an organisation that is under criticism itself for driving political agendas. It is furthermore not a statement that is true today as a report from 2009 from Japans JSER or Japan Society of Energy and Resources is openly criticising that we call the conjecture about man made global warming truth. The Register took time and translated a portion of the report: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/ 85.228.18.105 ( talk) 07:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You cannot reason someone out of an opinion that they did not reason themselves into in the first place. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a "Good Job" header that features prominently on certain talk pages when some outside party compliments an article. What justification is there for removing a similar "bad job" header? One would think it would cause long-time editors on this page to reassess the page. Eugene ( talk) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Would Carbonated water/ Soft drinks and other releases of carbon dioxide from Carbonation add to global warming, and if so, enough to be included in an article? 99.60.127.42 ( talk) 03:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Me and WavePart are currently in an edit war and this thread will hopefully end this once and for all. WavePart, we need to compromise. I have found some really crucial sources that relate to the controversy of global warming and I think they are critical in the lead. Please help me to include this in the article. What is your issue with my sources??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torontokid2006 ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest in edit warring, nor issue with your sources. If you will note, my most recent edit actually includes all of your sources. I simply have issues with including statements which technically contradict those sources, or with statements which state more than is supported by those sources. WavePart ( talk) 03:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Torontokid, you may want to read the 3RR page. I'm pretty sure you had at least 5 full or partial reverts there in the past 24 hours, which is somewhat in excess of the accepted level. (For example, your most recent edit is mostly a revert, not a change.) The goal of editing should be to try to identify a common ground. I have been been attempting to do this, but simply reverting back to your own versions many times a day does not accomplish this (and is highly frowned upon). WavePart ( talk) 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said, second reference, third paragraph. WavePart ( talk) 04:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Thparkth instead of constantly editing the page why don't we decide here first. Personally I think your latest edit "research described as 'methodologically flawed'" makes the sourced article seem like an opinion editorial when it's in fact a published news article. Let's give this source it's true weight. Torontokid2006 ( talk) 00:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC) As a tentative compromise can we both agree on the wording, "unreliable research"? Those were the exact words used in the article. Torontokid2006 ( talk) 00:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Global warming about how to describe opposition to the theory. Outside advice would be appreciated. TFD ( talk) 04:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Reading this talk page it has become evident certain editors misunderstand/misrepresent the scientific method. The demand for "absolute" proof for X is a silly one. There are no absolutes. However, when the overwhelming majority of scientist (no not vox populi or other non-experts) declare something as scientific fact this essentially means there is "no debate." To include the emotio-political-driven hysterics as sciemntific "debate" is disingenious at best. Also, even if we find one scintist opposing a certain theory this does not a "debate" make. In science we only speak of "debate" when something is discussed through the appropriate scientific channels. A friday evening exchange of opininion during happy hour does not count.
Other denialist-movements are not given that much space: AIDS denialism, vaccine controversy, Flat earth, Intelligent Design.
In short, mention the absence of scientific debate.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton contributions 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Even for articles on a non-science subject WP:RS doesn't exclude non-peer-reviewed sources, indeed there are several within the footnotes of this article. The term "scientific debate" doesn't necessarilly mean only inconsistency in the peer-reviewed literature. For example, a published letter to the editor of a scientific journal would surely count as scientific debate but would not be part of the Oreskes study. What the abstract says, and what the article should therefore say is: "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC". That's a substantial part of the scientific debate but not all of it and there simply isn't a reliable source to support the idea that there's "no debate". -- 188.221.105.68 ( talk) 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way we get the graphs redone? Reconstructed Temperature uses Mike Mann's famous "Nature trick" of hiding inconvenient data behind a big, thick black line. Here is graph of the same data presented in a less partisan way. Kauffner ( talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Since WavePart has now been blocked, [34] as the nominator I am closing this RfC. If anyone disagrees, they may relist the RfC. TFD ( talk) 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
While I believe in global warming, I think the revisions to the intro in last day go too far. The current version just seems a little angry. The purpose of oil companies' PR campaigning, however wrong it may be, is obviously not to "confuse the public". That is ridiculous. They're trying to change public opinion. Besides, the reasons for public scepticism are actually far more complicated than this intro allows. To attribute this to a single cause, and in such colourful language, creates a problem of undue weight. I'd also question the use of the phrase "multinational oil and coal corporations". It's one of those clichés that have become popular in recent years, more resonant of campaign literature than an encyclopedia, and while it may be true in the case of oil companies, the largest coal companies are headquartered and trade in a single country with only limited overseas operations. Again, I'm not denying anything, I'm just suggesting that some small changes be made to the wording to make this sound a little calmer and more disinterested. -- 188.221.105.68 ( talk) 17:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I've completely removed the text "one major reason being that some oil companies have funded public relations campaigns and faulty research[7] to discredit the global scientific consensus.[8][9]Almost identical public relations and faulty research[10] strategies were used leading up to the tobacco/cancer lawsuits in the United States and around the world.[11]" First, a discussion of tobacco doesn't really belong in the intro to global warming. (It serves a purpose of persuasion, which is undesirable here, rather than providing encyclopedic information.) Second, the sources do not support the strong claims made there. For example, the citation after the first "faulty" does not call the research faulty, it says the research "draws fire". The citation numbered 8 there also doesn't state that the studies are faulty, it says that a Greenpeace report states that groups are spreading inaccurate information. You cannot take an citation which makes a factual statement saying there is a conflict, and use it to write a statement drawing a conclusion supporting one side of the conflict described in the citation. That is an incorrect use of the citation process, and is necessarily injecting an original POV to the statements from the cited sources. WavePart ( talk) 09:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Protected for 24 hours due to the current outbreak of revert warring. {{ editprotected}} can be used to request consensus edits until the protection expires. Thanks, EyeSerene talk 08:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey everyone, if you haven't noticed already, the lead has a duplicate 2nd paragraph (obviously a mistake). Can we have consensus to remove the second 2nd paragraph? Torontokid2006 ( talk) 21:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
the lead has a duplicate 2nd paragraph would an admin please remove it mark nutley ( talk) 21:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The Argo project has published the following snippet about ocean warming on their web: [36] and has a nice graph showing how the heat content of the world oceans have changed the last 50 years or so. I seems like it would complement the surface temperature graphs nicely, maybe it could find its way into the article somehow? Apis ( talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
How does this relate to Lyman et al. [38], [39]? William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I've no objection to the closing of the RfC and I think "overwhelming consensus" is a very good summary. As yet there's been little discussion of the sentence about the role of oil companies that was recently added. If the intro is going to contain discussion about the reasons for public scepticism, and I'm not sure it's necessary, it needs to be a balanced one. Other possible reasons include media scepticism, a general public antipathy towards scare stories, recent events at the University of East Anglia, some very noisy dissent from a number of scientists outside the peer review process and a lack of public understanding. Clearly there isn't room for all that but I don't understand by what criteria these oil companies are singled out. The impression given is that the article was written by somebody who doesn't like oil companies. -- 188.221.105.68 ( talk) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
To say that a fringe view is popular is a contradiction in terms. Pew asked Americans to prioritize 20 political topics and global warming was dead last. [40] If you actually believed the claims put forward by IPCC so forth, wouldn't this be a higher priority than say, lobbyists? Seventy percent of Americans goes way beyond "people who consume a lot of energy." Kauffner ( talk) 04:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I tookout the section on oil companies. It is a subset of politics. It doesn't belong William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It certainly seems most are in favour of removing the line, which doesn't fit. I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning Toronto: I don't have evidence that oil companies aren't the overwhelming driver of public opinion therefore you are entitled to put something in that suggests they are??? -- 188.221.105.68 ( talk) 12:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no longer any scholarly debate on this issue.[clarific] The scientific consensus is that human-caused global warming is real.[6][7][clarific] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues.[clarif][improper synthesis] Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns[8][9] and deeply flawed research studies[10][pov-statement] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[pov-statement]
I think this paragraph is more something you'd expect to find on the Greenpeace website rather than on an encyclopedia.
There is no longer any scholarly debate on this issue.
What issue to do with global warming are we talking about?
Nevertheless, political and public debate continues.
I have a two criticisms of this sentence. Firstly, while there may be a broad scientific consensus about human-induced warming, the issue of possible policy responses is not purely a scientific question. This sentence does not specify what "debate" is about. If it is about purely scientific questions (e.g., the value of the climate sensitivity), then it should say so. If it isn't, i.e., it refers to debate over policy, then it should not imply that scientific consensus favours a particular climate change policy. My separation of "scientific" and "policy" views, is, of course, a simplification to some degree. This is because scientific confidence levels in this field have important policy implications.
Secondly, as I've stated previously, saying that there is "debate" is a fairly vacuous statement. Debate over science and policy issues will always exist. What matters is (a) what the opposing viewpoints are, (b) how important these differing viewpoints are, and (c) who supports these differing viewpoints.
Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns[8][9] and deeply flawed research studies[10][pov-statement] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[pov-statement]
This is an exceedingly weak sentence, and is clearly POV. This article should present information in an objective and neutral fashion. This sentence fails to do this. It is an analysis of oil companies intentions. Analysis should not be included unless that analysis is explicitly attributed to a particular source. It is not appropriate for the article to implicitly be aligned with a particular source. This is unless that source represents a consensus view, e.g., as supported by science academy statements or authorative scientific assessments.
I would prefer that the paragraph I've highlighted be removed entirely. It should not be included in the intro. The intro should present the most important and strongest points to do with the article's subject. It should not be used as a way of favouring particular viewpoints which do not necessarily represent a consensus view.
Views section
I've added neutrality and undue weight tags to this section. It is entirely inappropriate for this section to place so much weight on particular viewpoints. It is basically advocating particular policy viewpoints, and places undue weight on views in rich countries, solely focussing on the US.
Bias
Implicitly, the section attempts to convince the reader that inaction on climate change can be blamed on oil companies. This is biased in several ways:
1. It assumes that people agree with criticisms of these organizations. This is done implicitly in the way that criticisms are not explicitly attributed to any sources.
For example:
Source X has linked efforts to avoid regulation of emissions to the activities of oil companies
That would be acceptable, since the article is not aligning itself to source X. Rather, source X is cited since some editor believes that source X's views are important in some way.
2. The section promotes a particular interpretation of oil companies and related companies. It is implied that their activities are wrong.
To put it differently, it is assumed that the reader agrees with the interpretation of the activities of these oil companies which an editor has put forward. This is unacceptable. The article should be neutral with respect to different points-of-view. It is not acceptable for the article to implicitly align itself with criticisms of oil companies.
3. The section places undue weight on certain viewpoints
The views presented are entirely US-based. This is unacceptable. The article's title is global warming. It is not "US views on global warming." Therefore attention should be paid to maintaining a even and balanced coverage of all world views. Disproportionate weight should not be placed on views that are US-based.
Disproportionate weight is placed on the views of Oreskes. There are lots of publications on global warming. It is unacceptable for this article to cite one book over all others. A balanced treatment would cover all publications in all countries, and not just one book.
Split-up
Due to the excessive length of this article, focus should be on quality and importance. Popular books are important, but are less important than the scientific literature. Popular books are also less important that the views of particular countries and important organizations.
The issue over split-up is also clearly related to my points above on bias. If you were to offer an overview of the popular publications on climate change, it would require an expansion of an already over-long article. Also, to counter bias towards US-views, you'd need to give a proportionate amount of space to views in other countries.
To sum up, my view is that all of this content should be removed. It can be put in a sub-article. Efforts should be made to cover all views, and that includes views of those outside of the US, i.e., international viewpoints. Neutrality should also be maintained with respect to national viewpoints. On both of these counts, the existing section fails completely. Enescot ( talk) 05:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1."Reading this talk page it has become evident certain editors misunderstand/misrepresent the scientific method. The demand for "absolute" proof for X is a silly one. There are no absolutes. However, when the overwhelming majority of scientist (no not vox populi or other non-experts) declare something as scientific fact this essentially means there is "no debate." To include the emotio-political-driven hysterics as sciemntific "debate" is disingenious at best. Also, even if we find one scintist opposing a certain theory this does not a "debate" make. In science we only speak of "debate" when something is discussed through the appropriate scientific channels. A friday evening exchange of opininion during happy hour does not count.
Other denialist-movements are not given that much space: AIDS denialism, vaccine controversy, Flat earth, Intelligent Design.
In short, mention the absence of scientific debate.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
2. (Sorry for repeating myself, apparently replies part of the way up go unnoticed...) That's a straw man question. "Debate" obviously does not only occur in peer-reviewed journals, and thus you cannot claim "no debate" among a community by looking only at peer-reviewed articles. You can make plenty of OTHER claims by looking at peer-reviewed journals, but "no debate among scientists" is not one of them. You could perhaps even say "No debate in climatology journals", but you certainly can't say "no debate" among scientists, as if the entirety of their lives are constrained to journal article writing. It's just a factually incorrect misrepresentation to state one thing as another in that manner. WavePart (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but there is no scholarly debate at all about whether humans influence climate, there is debate on other issues within climate change, but for that particular one, there is none. Here of course there is the caveat that there (as in all fields) are some individuals who will dispute anything (see WP:FRINGE). This is not limited to the literature - it is simply "inconceivable" from a scientific point of view, to paraphrase Christy again, that we haven't influenced climate. -Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC) My objection there, which I still stand by 100%, and have repeated many times, is on the claim that there is no debate in the scientific community. Communities are made of people, and you cannot make sweeping claims about a body of people based on analysis of a body of literature. That just fails the test of basic logic, which I would prefer if we could uphold here. It would be like saying, "All members of American communities think people should be allowed to have guns" and citing the constitutional amendments as proof, and then arguing that it's a valid statement because the constitution is the supreme law. It doesn't quite work that way. WavePart (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC) There is no statement made about all of the community (at least not in any version i've seen). But if you want community responses, then see Scientific opinion on climate change, which cooks down to: No scientific body disputes anthropogenic influences to climate, and all major national and international scientific bodies support the current scientific assessment. That there is no scholarly debate over whether humans are influencing climate is a simple and accurate statement, which reflects the literature as well as the direct statements from scientific bodies. We can't invent dissent.. Sorry. That would be promoting a WP:FRINGE viewpoint... and stating that there is debate about whether we influence climate is a very fringe viewpoint. Consensus is not unanimity (although it comes extremely close on this particular item of climate change) You will have to provide evidence of debate if you are going to argue down this road - since otherwise you are trying to get us to prove a negative --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC) So you are admitting that there is no proof? Then the claim should be taken out of the article. Does the Christy quote represent peer-reviewed research? Kauffner (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) The inability to prove a negative is precisely why you don't write an article which goes out of its way to claim negatives are proven. We should simply write the things we CAN specifically document, for which there are plenty. WavePart (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC) It is documentable. Christy's statement is one of many that does so (and do take into account that Christy is one of the more well-known sceptics). The opinion of the community can be assessed by both assessment reports, but also by the statements from scientific bodies. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC) So after all this interesting discussion, we still have one editor aggressively editing to keep the phrases "There is no debate amongst the scientific community"[25] (instead of "There is no substantive debate") and "The scientific community agrees that..."[26] (instead of "The scientific community largely agrees that...") in the article. I'm sure this is being done in good faith, but I'm not sure that it reflects a consensus from the discussion above. I would like to establish if there is a consensus for this wording, versus some (any) less absolute statement.
I know there are a thousand other issues that arise from this, but I'd like to have opinions specifically on whether we should say "there is no debate" and "the scientific community agrees" or whether these phrases should be qualified to make them lest absolute. Thparkth (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
And I'll go first. I do not support the absolute statements. There is debate, although it is almost entirely not happening in peer-reviewed publications. So let's say "no scholarly debate" or "no debate in scientific journals" instead, since that's apparently what we mean. The scientific community is not 100% in agreement if there is even one dissenter, and there are quite a lot more than that. Let's say "the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that" or words to that effect. Thparkth (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Torontokid2006 ( talk) 07:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually what's sad is that these discussions go round & round and editors create new sections with overlong posts and replies, instead of orderly contributing to existing threads. - PrBeacon (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm extremely unhappy that my templates and tags have been removed. My impression was that you could add tags to an article provided that you gave a reason. I did give a reason, which has been ignored. The fact that the issue has been debated among editors here is frankly of no interest to me. Other editors may think that the views presented on oil companies in the article are unbiased. I think this is a poor reflection on the objectivity and judgement of these editors.
The main issue to do with climate change is in assessing the costs and benefits of climate policy. One cost is that faced by energy-intensive industries. To try and make out that this is the only consideration of policymakers is basically a conspiracy theory. If true, we wouldn't have the UNFCCC, or individual countries implementing aggressive policies to reduce emissions.
You also wouldn't have had developing countries pressing developed countries to reduce emissions significantly. If the malign influence of oil companies was so bad, they would presumably not be at all concerned about climate change. It would also be inconsistent with the actions of most countries in approving the various IPCC assessments.
In terms of the popular literature on climate change, I see no justification for concentrating on Oreskes' work over other authors. Ignoring international views (works by Chinese or Indian writers, for example), you could possibly cite Bjorn Lomborg's work on climate change, or Pilmer's or Singer's. A balanced overview of the popular literature in English-speaking countries would include mention of such viewpoints. Choosing Oreskes' analysis over these other viewpoints strikes me as blatant political and literary bias. Enescot ( talk) 05:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: More than one of |first1=
and |first=
specified (
help); More than one of |last1=
and |last=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: More than one of |first1=
and |first=
specified (
help); More than one of |last1=
and |last=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |author-separator=
ignored (
help)