![]() | 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 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
The recent prot/unprot seems to have got rid of the semi. Can we have it back, please William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I feel that many of these edits are not improving the article - indeed, instead of becoming "easier to read", it becomes imprecise and ambiguous. And the replacement of clear dates and references ("a recent report", "sometime in the next 90 years") violate Wikipedia:MOS#Chronological_items. Please slow down and find substantial consensus for substantial changes. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Making the article easier to read is good. Unfortunately the rewriting has tended to make the material too vague, and has even introduced factual errors. We ought to be able to make the article easier to read while maintaining accuracy and clarity. This is easier to by making incremental changes (say, one subsection at a time) rather than large rewrites. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 13:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
TK, if you keep trying to force your rewrite without establishing consensus I will ask for probation sanctions to be imposed on you. Verbal chat 19:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Recently these two editors have created a series of new sections on this talk page to make it appear as if the 3rd paragraph of the lead has not been discussed.
Here is the paragraph:
There is no longer any scholarly debate in regards to the legitmacy of human-caused global warming. The scientific consensus states that this phenomenon is real and happening today.[6][7] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns[8][9] and deeply flawed research studies[10] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[11]
Instead of continuing the discussion on more recent sections or trying to come to consensus with other editors their strategy has been to simply create new sections and find consensus among themselves which serves to dismiss and ignore important and lengthy discussions from the community. They have used this strategy to make broad reverts and remove critical information.
1) why are you two acting in such an uncooperative way?
2) what do other editors think of this behaviour? Is it acceptable or contrary to the letter and spirit of wiki policies? Torontokid2006 ( talk) 07:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all, can I offer TK my std.advice: if you can't spell my name, use WMC it is much easier. Second, I think that your true problem is that you don't have consensus for your edits. As to new sections: yes that is a problem. We'll just have to live with it. In the one just above, about "some oil companies" I've explained extensively why I think that sentence was bad, and why I removed it. If you read that section (have you? You haven't replied) you'll find a lot of other people agreeing with me. So far I see me, MN, SBHB, AW, AR and CI (apologies if I've missed anyone) who don't like your version (I'm not saying they all have perfect agreement a bout what to replace it with, though I think all are leaning towards total removal). I see you liking your version - who else are you saying supports your version? I think all the people I've initialled, plus K and G, are happier with the current The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human-made global warming is real than your no scholarly debate (most of us because "overwhelming" is good enough and "no debate" just sounds bad; MN I'm sure would prefer something more skeptical but certainly doesn't want your version.
So: the problem is that you, TK, are trying to edit against consensus in (slightly unusually, we're used to the other way round) the "warmist" direction. And you're also trying to put too much politics in an article that is mostly about science (you want politics of global warming, which is a bit rubbish and could do with help). You need to recognise that, and stop. William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
[...] Instead of continuing the discussion on more recent sections or trying to come to consensus with other editors their strategy has been to simply create new sections and find consensus among themselves which serves to dismiss and ignore important and lengthy discussions from the community. They have used this strategy to make broad reverts and remove critical information.
[...] what do other editors think of this behaviour? Is it acceptable or contrary to the letter and spirit of wiki policies? – Torontokid2006
I think that it is important to judge your changes over a reasonable timespan. If your additions had been in the article for several months or years, then perhaps removal of them might have needed to take place more slowly. The fact that they had lasted so long would have indicated that many editors and readers had accepted them as being reasonable. However, your changes have only been around for several weeks. In my opinion, it therefore requires greater effort on your part to convince other editors of the merit of your additions. Editors like myself require time to review any changes. It is not reasonable to expect consensus to be reached in such a short period of time.
As a final point, my impression is that you are pursuing a particular agenda of advocating a particular interpretation of the politics of climate change. I think that this attitude is not in keeping in the way authoritative and objective assessments of climate change policy choose to frame this issue, e.g., the IPCC reports. It is also insensitive to the fact that the article should reflect a broad range of international viewpoints. There should be no attempt to implicitly advocate a particular agenda. In your case, this has clearly been to criticize oil companies and other interest groups for their activities. Enescot ( talk) 10:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
RE
this edit by Torontokid2006 with the edit summary Kenosis - Please see the talkpage section: "RfC how should opposition to the theory of global warming be described?" a consensus had been reached by RfC!:
I don't see much consensus for anything here at the present, and certainly not for poor writing (see the content). Looking at the supposed "RfC" in the brief section above on this talk page, and at the sections that follow leading up to here, it looks to me like there's not consensus for using Oreskes' study as a basis to prominently and absolutely state in the article lead that there's no longer any scholarly debate about the reality of anthropogenic global warming. The fact is that the remaining scholarly debate is at the margins--an extreme position --but it's simply not quite true at this particular time that there's no longer any scholarly debate. As a matter of fact, we've needed to deal with some of that scholarly debate very recently right here in this article with respect to
Nicola Scafetta's very debatable published work which implies that other factors could account for most or even all of observed warming in the 20th Century. And of course there's the ongoing advocacy positions of
Fred Seitz,
Fred Singer and
Bill Nierenberg, and other occasional scientists and academics who take a contra position to the scientific mainstream. Then of course there's the pseudoscientific approaches taken by
Christopher Monckton and others similiarly disposed.
..... What Orekes' study serves to do is to help document the strength of the scientific consensus. That consensus, is reasonably characterized as "overwhelming", as expressed by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the footnote. It doesn't quite [yet] rise to the level of "unequivocal" or "no longer any scholarly debate".
..... Also, it's not even necessarily correct to single out certain oil companies as funding the denial, as was done both in the third paragraph of the lead and in the new subsection on the oil companies' reaction. And that subsection, frankly, is also poorly written. At the moment the article has gone from FA-quality to a bit of a mess in several key places including that third paragraph of the lead I was just talking about. Whatever we collectively write in this article should be reasonably stable, sustainable, well written and not reliant on one academic (in this case Oreskes) to make major points in the lead. There are serious problems with the new subsection on the Oil companies' response, overly reliant on Oreskes' published work while also neglecting the heavy influence of other heavily funded "business interests" and conservative/free-market-type think tanks. ...
Kenosis (
talk)
13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I like to see a stronger statement. It is not simply that there is virtually no debate. When very rarely a sceptical paper questioning the fundamentals somehow gets published, you get a debate about the competence of the authors, the editorial processes leading to the acceptance of the paper etc. If there are any peer reviewed reactions, these will be comments on the paper discussing where the authors went wrong with basic physics. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged this article due to the following sentences which are neither NPOV or correct.
Since those are factually correct statements I remove the tag since you cannot get more NPOV than telling the facts.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton contributions 11:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Addendum: if you can supply RS stating there currently is an ongoing scientific debate I immediately will remove those statements myself!--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton contributions 11:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I know what the scientific method is, and it is something AGW proponents do not follow, the refusal to release date and methodology for instance, your continuing jibes are pointless so give them up. There are plenty of scientists who oppose the theory of AGW and publish papers saying this. There are books also refuting the AGW theory. To say there is no further debate over it is a lie and pov pushing. Your failure to actually talk about the points i have raised shows you are more interested in trying to belittle me. Comment on content not editor. mark nutley ( talk) 12:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Some reading material countering denialism. [6] [7] [8]--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton contributions 11:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Mark, with regards to the first point, it is very well sourced. We can't delete a reliably sourced, notable viewpoint just because you don't like it. As I said, if you have good sources that say otherwise, then we need to find a way to work the alternative point of view into the article. You say there is a paper by Singer and Avery that says otherwise, but you have not replied to a request for a references to that paper. You claimed that Scafetta said otherwise. I asked you to specify what Scafetta says about the debate. You have not replied to that either. You made a claim. I asked you to back it up. Instead of supporting your claim, you simply upped the ante with POV tags. "If the facts aren't on your side, pound the table" isn't acceptable. Guettarda ( talk) 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A POV tag is not an "I don't like it because I think the article is POV-tag". The POV tag is meant to let the article get the attention of readers/editors so that you can get more discussions to resolve some POV dispute. But in this case there is quite a strong consensus among the editors that there is no POV problem to be addressed. This is not like an article about some Palestine/Israel related conflict where you can have radically different views among the editors on many different points. Then both sides would want to have a POV-tag as both sides have some points to argue about and would welcome views of other editors on resolving these matters.
In this case, the issue is very narrow: Whether or not or not we can say that discussions in the scientific literature about the fundamentals (climate change is caused by CO2 emissions) still take place and what to write about that. Count Iblis ( talk) 14:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted to the pre-TK pre-POV tagged version, which was stable for some time. I don't see any consensus to change to the new version. I don't think that There is no longer any scholarly debate in regards to the legitmacy of human-caused global warming is blatantly false, but I don't think it is clearly true either; it is also unnecessary William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this is so talked about: I don't really like absence of scientific debate as an idea. The scienitific literature is full of people "debating" the details of global warming. There is very very little work that actively disputes the contention that humans are responsible for most of the warming; but that is perfectly well covered by the existing The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human-made global warming is real. I see no reason why we need the oil companies section, in the lede or at all. It should be in politics of global warming William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC) ( edit conflict)
OK, continuing with another of MN's concerns, I too am not happy with:
First, I don't think there is anything special about oil; the coal companies have been bad too. But even correcting it to "fossil fuel" companies I'm not sure it belongs in the lede (I presume it is another recent TK addition, but haven't checked).
deeply flawed research studies - well, yes Soon and Baliunas was indeed junk, and is now discarded (not formally; it is just that no-one believes it; alas it is controversial so has lots of cites, but all/most of the "this is trash" type cites). Again I doubt this is a point that MN and I will agree on, but never mind, lets not turn this into a discussion of S+B. Perhaps better, lets look at it as a sentence not supported by the refs: thecrimson study is about *one* paper; there is thus no justification from the ref for the plural "studies" in the text.
Supporting the does-not-belong are the references, which are weak. The thecrimson article is about a grant for $53k - this is such small beer for a place in the GW lede. The first Grauniad one is not their own reporting, but ref's a Greenpease report, which claims "Koch industries is playing a quiet but dominant role in the global warming debate". I'm not really convinced I believe that (disclaimer: I give Greenpeace money, but that doesn't mean I believe everything they say). The second [12] is better but still not really convincing (yes they were offering $10k, in a certain sense, but there isn't much evidence that it got spent).
I'm not convinced the sentence belongs at all; this is true even though I agree that there is a PR campaign (which I suspect MN does not). I've attempted a compromise edit (which is also probably a revert, even if not by the debased standards of Cl Ch; if I need to, my justification is that it is part of the previous edit, which the intervening anon vandalism does not affect). That removes the bit about funding deeply flawed research (I think that there is little evidence for funding research, certainly in comparison to the funding of PR, which is far larger) William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No problems, here are those who say it should go.
If your name is here in error please remove it :)
Those who want it in that i can see
If your name is here in error please remove it :)
The term "scholarly debate" has no precise meaning and should be deleted. TomHelms ( talk) 15:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I reverted a few minor terminological changes [16] since I didn't like them. I think we've been through the "is a phrase that" stuff before: it just isn't needed. Biosphere is also unneeded; and air is as good as atmosphere William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the "UN" part was fitting. Torontokid2006 ( talk) 07:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I was searching this article for information on "Climategate", and was shocked there was no mention. Should this be added?
BryantLee (
talk) 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Strike comment by serial puppeteer. -
Atmoz (
talk)
18:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You want the article Climatic Research Unit email controversy (to which "Climategate" redirects). That article is also listed at Global warming controversy (in the See also section); someone could probably make a good case for it to be summarized in the body text there (and here). - PrBeacon (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Intro
Current revision:
Climate model projections indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.[2] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions.
The current revision does not specify a baseline for temperature rise. Specifying the baseline is essential, otherwise the temperature increase has no meaning. Also, it implied that the temperature projections are a "likely" range, which isn't entirely true. They are a "likely" range for the six SRES emission scenarios used. The scenarios are intended to represent a range of possible futures, but I don't think the IPCC describes them as a "likely" range of future emissions.
Another criticism is that the second sentence suggests that the physical science uncertainty is only due to the climate sensitivity. My impression is that other uncertainties are also important, such as natural climate variability, the role of carbon sinks, and other uncertainties surrounding climate models. I don't think that it's correct to lump together all physical science uncertainties as being due to the climate sensitivity.
Suggested revision:
Climate models were used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to project the average rise in global average temperature for the 2090-2099 period, relative to the average temperature over the 1980-1999 period. Across a range of different emission scenarios, models showed a likely increase in global average temperature of 1.1 to 6.4 deg C. The range of 1.1 to 6.4 deg C is due to scientific uncertainties and uncertainties surrounding future emission levels of greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gas section
Current 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).[42] Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.
Suggested 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. Using a range of possible emission scenarios (the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios), climate models suggest that by 2100, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could range between 541 and 970 ppm. This is an increase of 90 to 250% above the concentration in the year 1750. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.
This is a minor revision. I've corrected a misuse of the SRES scenarios, which are emission scenarios, and not concentration scenarios. The two are different since you can only get concentrations from emissions by using a climate model. Another minor error is that only six of the SRES scenarios were used in making this projection of concentrations. The current revision gives the impression that all forty of the SRES scenarios were used.
I've also changed the wording to give a greater impression of uncertainty, i.e., by using the word "could." You could also mention that the true range might be larger, as is indicated in the TAR Synthesis report, but I thought that this was probably unnecessary. Enescot ( talk) 05:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Torontokid2006
How about this?
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report contains estimates of how much global warming could happen by the end of the 21st century. Estimates range between 1.1 to 6.4 deg C of warming. This rise is relative to the average temperature at the end of the 20th century. This range of possible temperature increases is partly due to uncertainties over how the climate system will respond to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The range is also due to uncertainties over how emissions of greenhouse gases will change in the future.
On the second part, how about this?
CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. Estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases have been made, and are called "emission scenarios." In some scenarios, greenhouse gases continue to rise over the century, while in others, emissions are reduced. The future rate of emissions will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.
Emission scenarios have been used to produce estimates of how atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will change in the future. Using a range of possible emission scenarios (the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios), models suggest that by 2100, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could range between 541 and 970 ppm. This is an increase of 90 to 250% above the concentration in the year 1750. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.
Reply to William M. Connolley
My terminology must be incorrect in using the word "climate models". The Synthesis report refers to this part of the
TAR Working Group I report, which describes how the concentration estimates were made:
Two simplified, fast models (ISAM and Bern-CC) were used to project future CO2 concentrations under IS92a and six SRES scenarios, and to project future emissions under five CO2 stabilisation scenarios. Both models represent ocean and terrestrial climate feedbacks, in a way consistent with process-based models, and allow for uncertainties in climate sensitivity and in ocean and terrestrial responses to CO2 and climate.
I could remove reference to "climate models" and say that these are "models":
Using a range of possible emission scenarios (the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios), models suggest that by 2100, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could range between 541 and 970 ppm. Enescot ( talk) 10:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Second reply
Don't like; it is always hard to parse "average rise in global average temperature for the 2090-2099 period" because you naturally read it as the rise from 2090 to 2099. For the time period, "over the 21st century" is fine. Also don't like "Climate models were used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" to - no reason to tie this to AR4.
"such as natural climate variability" - not very important over the century timescale. "due to scientific uncertainties" - don't like, too vague. You *can* lump all the climate-physical bits into the cl sens - that is what it is for. GHG concs depend on sources and sinks, so could replace "and uncertainties surrounding future emission levels of greenhouse gases" with "and uncertainties surrounding future levels of greenhouse gases maybe." That hides the source/sink question, but that can be done in detail later William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the 21st century would be acceptable. I don't agree that the projections should not be tied to AR4. The projections specifically relate to the AR4 emission scenarios and the climate models that were used in making these projections.
"such as natural climate variability" - not very important over the century timescale. "due to scientific uncertainties" - don't like, too vague. You *can* lump all the climate-physical bits into the cl sens - that is what it is for. - WMC
The point about me omitting climate sensitivity is also to do with clarity. The existing revision goes:
Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.[2] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions.
I do not like the second sentence. Saying that "The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations" is too complex. The sentence as a whole is cumbersome.
Where in AR4 does it say that climate sensitivity is adequate in explaining differences in model results? What about naturally-induced climatic changes, such as volcano eruptions? Obviously these cannot be included in projections, but they are a source of uncertainty.
I am also unhappy with the unnecessary separation of models from projections. Uncertainty in projections should be treated from a broad perspective. It should not be attributed as being due to "using" climate models. Rather, the uncertainty within and "outside" of the models, like the climate sensitivity or other external factors, should be talked about. The whole purpose of having scientists is for them to explain why the uncertainty is there. To say that uncertainty is due to the use of a particular model is not helpful.
Overall, I do not agree with the current explanation of climate sensitivity that is in the introduction. I think that it is confusing for the average reader.
I accept your criticism about the vagueness of my suggestion. However, I think that attributing uncertainty to science is more understandable to the average reader than attributing it to the climate sensitivity. If you are to mention the climate sensitivity, the term must be defined. My suggestion to Torontokid was:
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report contains estimates of how much global warming could happen by the end of the 21st century. Estimates range between 1.1 to 6.4 deg C of warming. This rise is relative to the average temperature at the end of the 20th century. This range of possible temperature increases is partly due to uncertainties over how the climate system will respond to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The range is also due to uncertainties over how emissions of greenhouse gases will change in the future.
The sentence:
This range of possible temperature increases is partly due to uncertainties over how the climate system will respond to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Is based on this bit of
AR4. If you want to mention climate sensitivity instead, the paragraph would go:
This range of possible temperature increases is partly due to uncertainties over the climate sensitivity. The climate sensitivity is...
I don't know how to define climate sensitivity. The IPCC goes with:
Climate sensitivity In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in the annual mean global surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration. Due to computational constraints, the equilibrium climate sensitivity in a climate model is usually estimated by running an atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a mixed-layer ocean model, because equilibrium climate sensitivity is largely determined by atmospheric processes. Efficient models can be run to equilibrium with a dynamic ocean.
The effective climate sensitivity is a related measure that circumvents the requirement of equilibrium. It is evaluated from model output for evolving non-equilibrium conditions. It is a measure of the strengths of the climate feedbacks at a particular time and may vary with forcing history and climate state. The climate sensitivity parameter (units: °C (W m–2)–1) refers to the equilibrium change in the annual mean global surface temperature following a unit change in radiative forcing. [19]
Which of these definitions would be appropriate?
Enescot (
talk)
09:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
Apparently got lost somewhere.
The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.
I don't know where it was originally, or if it's even needed anymore. - Atmoz ( talk) 21:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Atmoz -- what do you prefer about File:Instrumental Temperature Record.png versus the File:Instrumental Temperature Record (NASA).svg? The SVG version has lots of advantages, as described in WP:SVG and Category:Graph_images_that_should_be_in_SVG_format, and if you have aesthetic suggestions I'd be happy to try to incorporate them. -- Autopilot ( talk) 16:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with A / Stephan. I've reverted to the old plot on Climate pattern William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Given two identical plot, one svg and the other png, I actually prefer using svg. (Although with the issues pointed out by Apis, I don't know...) However, these two are not identical. In my opinion, the png image simply "looks better". Very quantitative, I know. I really like the grayed background in the png. It gives a more professional appearance. Also, the svg fonts are all way to small, even at 500px. - Atmoz ( talk) 22:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The wording of the final sentence in the first paragraph seems to be somewhat more definitive than that of the supporting reference. Would it be advisable to adopt language more closely resembling that used in the cited NAS literature? The exact quotes from the NAS document that I believe are being referenced are “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” and/or “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Missionamp ( talk) 15:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Trolling. If there are legitimate source-based concerns, please start a new section. - 2/0 ( cont.) 21:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article is written in a way as if global warming has already been established as fact. This needs to be changed if Wikipedia is to be considered legitimate. This is not NPOV; more criticism should be made available on the main page. There is more evidence to show global warming is a naturally occurring cycle, and sources which claim otherwise are simply not reliable. The IPCC is not made up of scientists at all, and has actually been discredited and proven to be a fraud. Data released by the IPCC and Al Gore is not WP:RS. The main article should be changed to better reflect the facts, or a NPOV tag added. Removing the opposition is an act of censorship. The FACT is that the debate about global warming still continues, and since that debate has not yet been concluded, global warming cannot yet be considered an established fact either, but in actuality is nothing more than a grand rumour. Pictures of graphs and computer models do not reflect what has happened in reality, and yet pictures are treated like WP:RS in the main article. The globe has in fact been cooling over the past ten years, yet this is not even acknowledged. Now, I don't have an account so I can't add the NPOV tag, but after reading through the talk page, it seems like it was already there but has since been inappropriately removed by an act of vandalism. The NPOV tag needs to be reapplied. 174.89.52.142 ( talk) 19:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
|
The issues discussed in the Controversies section relate significantly to attempts to implement legislation in an attempt to control global warming (which in reality is unnecessary since 70% + of surface heat retention is from water vapor and it appears that humans are responsible for less than 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere).
These issues will likely affect future attempts at any legislation, so requires particular highlight in the opener.
Also as an unrelated side note: CO2 is responsible for 26% max heat retention, increasing CO2 beyond a certain level will reduce warming due to the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere. There is no possibility that 100% of this CO2 is the result of human activity. I would put it at less than 5%, the recent increases being due to the carbon cycle. As such it seems absurd to tax ourselves and give our money away to satisfy the concerns expressed by some. 120.20.93.176 ( talk) 03:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Editors, if you have time, please weigh in about whether or not this recently removed subsection should be included in this article. I am arguing for its inclusion simply because we already have "public opinion" and "politics". We are missing the "private" or "corporate reaction" to the science. I think a compromise would be naming the subsection "corporate (or private) reaction" if "oil industry reaction" seems too narrow. The removal occurs below line 346. [22] Torontokid2006 ( talk) 18:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
@TK: just above, there is a section of you complaining about people starting new sections. Just above that is a section on this very subject. Please take your own advice William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
After much thought, I think it would serve the editors' best interests to place a reference link at the top of the page to an article that discusses the global debate over how much impact humans have in the climate, which would include skeptics POV because it would not be a scientific article. I find people placing debate on this article because there doesn't seem to be much attention on people that disagree with this theory. However, since it is a scientific article I find no reason to have disagreement on it, and I akin it to having arguments against the theory of relativity on that article. It just doesn't make sense to me; it's like having an argument implying the Watergate scandal didn't occur on Nixon's page. As much as they may disagree on the basis of principle, I think that MANY people viewing this article aren't looking for the scientific presentation, but are more concerned with the geo-political response to the theory. -- Cflare ( talk) 13:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Unconstructive forum-type discussion by IP, no evidence provided, fails WP:TALK. . dave souza, talk 10:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
67.165.202.101 ( talk) 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)It is not a disagreement on principle, it is a disagreement based on research that has been silenced. Many of the scientists who are named as the original founders of the theory have stated that the focus of their research was global warming that was not man made; and the small portion of man made warming was negligible and not statistically significant. This small portion of the original research was then focused on by “scientists” paid by funding for this very purpose. If they discovered no relationship between man and global climate change, they have no jobs; so it was in their economic interest to continue to find “proof” that man made climate change is significant. If that isn’t a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is. The fact that NONE of these researched and verified facts are not allowed to be posted on this “user editable” encyclopedia is ridiculous. Be better than the left wing liberal media and show both sides of the argument, or have this article be about global climate change not due to man made warming; then have a separate section about the debate of man made effects.
|
Intro
The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[6][7][8][B] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. The Kyoto Protocol is...
The second sentence is poor. It implies that debate continues regardless of the scientific consensus. This is not correct. Part of the debate may be about the science, but another part is due to determining what the appropriate policy response should be. Science does not prescribe an appropriate policy response. This is incorrectly implied in the current revision. My suggested revision is:
There are different political and public views on what should be done about global warming
Views on global warming
Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.[119][120]
I don't like this sentence. It is true that population growth is linked with emissions, but there are also other factors, such as economic consumption, technological change, energy efficiency, decarbonization of the economy etc. It is therefore biased to single out population growth. I suggest that the sentence is removed. It can be replaced with something from the IPCC report.
You can divide emissions correlation between observed trends and projected trends. With regard to observed trends, this bit from the IPCC report is appropriate:
GDP/capita and population growth were the main drivers of the increase in global emissions during the last three decades of the 20th century.
This can be rewritten and moved to the greenhouse gas section of the article:
(i) Between the years 1970 and 2004, growth in gross domestic product and population were the main drivers of growth in CO2 emissions. (ii) CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[41][42] (iii) Estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases have been made, and are called "emissions scenarios." (iv) The future level of emissions will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.
With regard to future emission trends, I think that sentence (iv) is already an adequate summary.
Enescot (
talk)
07:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No matter what you believe about the climate, the anti-growth policies promoted by the environmentalists only undermine our ability to deal with its, as Freeman Dyson has argued in detail. [23] Growth and technological advances leave us better prepared for whatever the future might bring. Dyson's favorite example is the genetic engineering could allows us to create trees that absorb more CO2. Kauffner ( talk) 02:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to say "there is no substantial debate among scientists" or "there is no serious debate among scientists" or "there is no debate among climate scientists" or a thousand other formulations, but to say "there is no debate" as several editors are currently trying to insist we should do in the lead is really inappropriate, especially given that the source used to insert it does not support this statement. The source says that the impression that there is "substantive disagreement" is wrong, and that the impression that there is "disagreement among climate scientists" is wrong. This cannot be used to support a claim that there is no debate in the scientific community at all. All it takes is a single bona-fide scientist (in any discipline) to hold a contrary position, and the statement that "there is no debate among scientists" is false. We know that there is at least one.
Attempting to insert this clearly overstated, clearly incorrect phrase actually reduces the credibility of the article and plays up to those who imagine Wikipedia is controlled by a hotbed of far-left environmentalists ;) Oh, and avoiding WP:FRINGE problems doesn't permit us to oversimplify to the extent of falsehood.
Thparkth ( talk) 22:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
What is it that there is no debate about? The "reality of anthropogenic climate change"? This sounds more like an article of faith than a proposition that is testable scientifically. If the issue if whether the earth is likely to warm, cool and stay about the same, there are certainly differing opinions. There is also debate about the "hockey stick" -- the idea that the climate in the last century is something unprecedented or at least out the ordinary. Kauffner ( talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It's mildly amusing to think what would be a non-substantive debate. - Atmoz ( talk) 05:09, 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" [27] (instead of "There is no substantive debate") and "The scientific community agrees that..." [28] (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)
From here: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/#ixzz0rONPXy3M The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony. “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.” Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia—the university of Climategate fame—is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on “Climate scenario development” for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters. Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here: http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf Ikilled007 ( talk) 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
User:b_calder Bob Calder 19:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I can point to a Wikipedia entry that lists scientists who disagree in some form with what is claimed to be the 'consensus' List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming PeterBFreeman ( talk) 10:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Here I am adding debate. The first paragraph of the main article(titled, "Global Warming"), as of July 5, 2010 12:41 P.M. Eastern, contains the sentence: "The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring." That is misleading. The sentence references 4 articles, all of which essentially say that "Local climates are subject to change." The article should be re-written and/or should contain the Neutrality/Disputed tag.
Jsolebello (
talk)
16:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello, Civilian, University of Rhode Island, Class of 2006
It would be better if you could choose who you debate with. 76.106.186.17 ( talk) 03:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E. Solebello
Here is an example, from the Joint Science Academy's statement: "the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century." That statement implies that all of the Earth's surface warmed.
The easy, short-term solution is to re-name the article: "The Global Warming Scare." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.186.17 ( talk) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in on an article I haven't worked on before, a friend and I were discussing the reliability, neutrality, etc. of Wikipedia. I do not like this sentence:
I think it's pretty hard to find on an objective meaning for "scientific consensus." I'd prefer an "A says B about C," facts about opinions, formulation. In this case, I'd propose something like this:
OK? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the "scientists" promoting man-made global warming theory have a vested interest (funding) in continuing what most objective (not funded to conduct research on climate or other global warming issues) scientists believe to be a highly flawed theory. The Earth has been warming for 18,000 years or so, and will likely continue to do so for a long time (although whatever triggers the start of a new glacial period could kick in). Global sea level has been rising throughout this warming period. The rate of global sea level rise has not shown a significant increase during the past 50 years. This lack of a significant increase in the rate of global mean sea level rise effectively DESTROYS the man-made global warming theory. It's time for the marxist, earth-worshiping "scientists" to find a new sow to suckle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.78.121.3 ( talk) 21:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Just an FYI 7&8 are down. Aaron Bowen ( talk) 04:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please change:
<ref>[http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf Understanding and Responding to Climate Change]</ref>
To:
<ref>[http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf Understanding and Responding to Climate Change]</ref>
Thanks. - 128.196.30.219 ( talk) 17:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Done
Hipocrite (
talk)
17:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
'Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation'.
Eh, no it's not!!! 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' may (if proven) be considered for that definition. Global Warming is a process that predates the mid-20th century and also predates man. The problem with that opening sentence is it skillfully disquises 'AGW' as being Global Warming, as being what everyone is talking about. In doing so it also suggests a concensus amongst scientists that Anthropogenic Global Warming is Global Warming. The two processes are desparately different and should be discussed as such. Global Warming, Global Cooling is a natural process that has taken place since there was an atmosphere on this planet. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a disruptive, potential imbalance to the natural process that has (apparently) been taking effect since the mid-20th century. There is no evidence to suggest the outlandish claims made by exponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming are if-fact going to happen. They have used computer models to predict 'potential scenarios'. This is total hocum! No better than reading your stars in the paper. WE CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE!!! We can only GUESS!!! Surely the predictions that were made several years ago, that were due to be taking place now, but aren't, can be taken as a yard stick (if you will) to all future modelling. I am pretty certain we would then see results more akin to the results of proper science based on observation and empirical data which point to the fact that it's not going to be all that bad, after all a warm planet is far more desirable than a cold, cooling cooler planet (which I believe is now happening) and that has been suggested by someone in the IPCC that the 'cooling trend' will continue for another 30 years. Also, if your going to refer to Global Dimming, can you please suggest it's effects as Anthropogenic Global Cooling. If we are to be lead to believe that our pumping of greenhouse gases (this terminology needs a radical overhaul as well) into the atmosphere is resulting in the planet warming up, is it too much to suggest that the countering effects of atmospheric aerosols (placed there by man) that have potentially negated the effects of the warming be considered Anthropogenic Global Cooling? I can imagine to use such a term would infact confuse people too much; are we warming, are we cooling? And we can't have people getting confused now can we? Off-course not. Confusion suggests debate, as we all know the warmists out there in the MSM will not allow that.
Can you also please have this page released to editing? I am not a scientist and have no intention of offering an edit to such a piece. However, I am a tax payer and an inquisitive mind and do like to find out both sides of a discussion before siding with one camp or the other.
Thank you Killthegore ( talk) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The title of this article should be changed to "Global Warming Theory", or, at least, we should use the word 'theory' in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolebello ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a "Global Warming Controversy" article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy), which is enough to merit a major warning on the main page. 76.106.186.17 ( talk) 01:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello
I propose that the first sentence should say this:
"Global Warming is the theory that the "average temperature" of the entire Earth's "near-surface" air, and entire oceans, has increased since the mid-20th century. The theory also claims that the temperatures will continue to increase in the future." Jsolebello ( talk) 21:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello
It would be good to have Joe E Solebello and "killthegore" (see the the previous thread here) to testify as witnesses in the ArbCom case. What I want to know is how they formed their opinions. Count Iblis ( talk) 22:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't take offence when editors refer to a fact you have neglected to investigate and suggest that you should "read up on it."
|
---|
|
That's two votes for a title change. Jsolebello ( talk) 15:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello
Ok, Amatulic believes the title is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolebello ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
No to changing the title, since this article is about the warming itself, not just scientific explanations of it (discussions of mitigation strategies, politics of action, etc. would be inappropriate in an article just on the scientific theory). Explicitly calling the way scientists explain this warming a theory is redundant at best, and an attempt to prop up the position of skeptics at worst. Check the archives - this has been discussed dozens of times. — DroEsperanto ( talk) 23:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Enough non-science. Maybe we should fold some of this [34] in here or about William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Rahmstorf's "Statement C" should say something like "Anthropogenic Global Warming will have no strong effect on Humanity in the short or long-term, positive or negative."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.186.17 ( talk • contribs)
I prefer the warmest decade plot to the warmest month one. Mostly because any one month is closer to weather than to climate; we're aiming for long-term stuff, not just news William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
How come one plot shows "no data" for most of Greenland and points north, and the other show extreme warming in the same area? Also, why does one show the Antarctic Peninsula warm and the other cold? I agree that an equal-area projection is preferred, but so is accurate data. Q Science ( talk) 16:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
NOAA (2010-07-15). "June, April to June, and Year-to-Date Global Temperatures are Warmest on Record". Retrieved 2010-07-17.. Since there is clearly a rough consensus for the equal-area plot I'll see if I can convince gnuplot to plot it that way and also track down the NASA dataset for comparison. -- Autopilot ( talk) 19:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Cal sems to be on a bit of a campaign to replace RS's with non-RS's. Quite why is a mystery. But I hope he will stop. Cla: per endless discussion, RC is an RS for cliamte stuff. Fringe books by "skeptics" aren't William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) No, Schmidt is not the only source. As with almost everything else he has said about climate (El Niño is caused by earthquakes; most CO2 is from volcanoes) Plimer is in violent disagreement with what is universally accepted by those competent in the field. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 23:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, how about if we just go with Kiehl and Trenberth for now, and supplement with peer-reviewed sources as time allows? Cla68 gets a win by knocking out one from RC, while we avoid misleading the reader by including Plimer's nonsense. Deal? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be an assumption on Cla68's part that Plimer's opinion should be included in the article simply because Plimer published it in a book. How would this work if we applied it to other articles on science? If we were to give weight to minority sources simply by virtue of their having been published in books, Wikipedia's science coverage would be very different. This isn't how we do things here. -- TS 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have listed a new proposal at the talkpage of WikiProject Environment regarding Wikipedia articles that could be started based on the global warming subject, as it occurs per year. The idea is to either create yearly articles detailing the effects, observations, etc. of global warming and climate change given reliable sources per year (to avoid synthesis) based on an extensive list that could be further developed, or to create a timeline of major developments in both climate science and climate-related occurrences in the real world, new modelling simulations, etc. (somewhat similar to History of climate change science ). If there is any interest in the proposal, please discuss basic concerns related to the existing articles and the incorporation of new articles here, and specific details on the WikiProject talk page. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
In reporting science, we're really limited by the peer reviewed literature. Global warming is a very significant phenomenon, both in the instrumental and satellite temperature records and in multiple lines of climate-related research, from basic research through to trying to understand the causes and mechanisms in operation in earth's climate. For general discussion of climate research there are articles such as climatology. As long as the thermometers, the seasons, the primary literature and review articles reflect the reality of global warming, we as an encyclopedia don't have the option of treating it as if it didn't exist. -- TS 13:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Intro
The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[6][7][8][B] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. The Kyoto Protocol is...
The second sentence is poor. It implies that debate continues regardless of the scientific consensus. This is not correct. Part of the debate may be about the science, but another part is due to determining what the appropriate policy response should be. Science does not prescribe an appropriate policy response. This is incorrectly implied in the current revision. My suggested revision is:
There are different political and public views on what should be done about global warming
Views on global warming
Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.[119][120]
I don't like this sentence. It is true that population growth is linked with emissions, but there are also other factors, such as economic consumption, technological change, energy efficiency, decarbonization of the economy etc. It is therefore biased to single out population growth. I suggest that the sentence is removed. It can be replaced with something from the IPCC report.
You can divide emissions correlation between observed trends and projected trends. With regard to observed trends, this bit from the IPCC report is appropriate:
GDP/capita and population growth were the main drivers of the increase in global emissions during the last three decades of the 20th century.
This can be rewritten and moved to the greenhouse gas section of the article:
(i) Between the years 1970 and 2004, growth in gross domestic product and population were the main drivers of growth in CO2 emissions. (ii) CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[41][42] (iii) Estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases have been made, and are called "emissions scenarios." (iv) The future level of emissions will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.
With regard to future emission trends, I think that sentence (iv) is already an adequate summary.
Enescot (
talk)
07:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No matter what you believe about the climate, the anti-growth policies promoted by the environmentalists only undermine our ability to deal with its, as Freeman Dyson has argued in detail. [37] Growth and technological advances leave us better prepared for whatever the future might bring. Dyson's favorite example is the genetic engineering could allows us to create trees that absorb more CO2. Kauffner ( talk) 02:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Shoudn't this page be titled "The Global Warming Theory?" This theory isn't proven, and need much more evidence. As well as that, the article is presented as fact, not a theory. This is clearly not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.96.158 ( talk) 14:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
While I like the etymology material that was recently added, it made me wonder about news reports and pundit interviews I have heard over the past few months, which claimed that the term "climate change" was introduced as a synonym into the political debate by conservative politicians / denialists who felt that the term "global warming" was too alarmist. I have now heard variations on this theme often enough that I wonder it deserves mention. I tried, and failed, to find anything authoritative that could be used as a source, though. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 05:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry folks, I seem to have pressed the wrong link when running a diff, and accidentally rolled back an edit here. I've undone it. -- TS 22:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The sub-section "Predicting disasters" added by OrpheusSang doesn't seem to fit under "Adaptation." Three reasons. First, it's sourced to the Guardian, compared to the IPCC and the Journal of Geophysical Research, it seems more newsworthy than noteworthy in an encyclopedic article. Second, so far it's just a meeting, there are many others such as COP15, and not a lot has been set in stone; holistically and in my opinion, I don't think it's notable. Third and finally, the section title "Predicting disasters" and the sentence "[...] early warning system, that would predict meteorological disasters caused by global warming" seems premature and inaccurate; to my understanding predicting meteorological events is to weather, not climate, climate's the statical distribution of these events. Therefore I believe it should be removed or moved. --CaC 72.251.76.95 ( talk) 06:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
On August 15, 2010 The Observer reported that that the following week scientists from the world's three leading meteorological organisations: The US National Center for Atmospheric Research, the UK Met Office and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would meet in Boulder, Colorado to set out plans to set up an early warning system, that would predict meteorological disasters caused by global warming. The meeting was to come in the wake of disasters including record flooding in Pakistan, a heatwave in and around Moscow and the splintering of a giant island of ice off the Greenland ice cap.ref http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/15/climate-change-predict-next-disaster
— moved from article by dave souza, talk 07:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit added the following caveat to the caption of the image Commons:File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png:
As it stands I believe this is an overstatement. The divergence problem only affects a proportion of boreal tree ring proxies. Other proxies are not affected. I'm also in some doubt as to the weight this should have in this overview article. -- TS 18:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642 Its going to be a good day when the world will finally see that Wikipedia is stuffed full of pseudo-scientific "bullies" who impose theory as fact in an effort to manipulate what they WANT science to be, versus what is the actual truth. Most wikipedians are white, leftist, anti-capitalist, and global warmists who emotionally WANT anthropogenic global warming to be fact, and are far less open to the idea that it may not be a fact at all. for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility, lets hope that all these reports coming out are just one big Rush Limbaugh conspiracy. You wont cite an article like this will you? http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642 Of course not. Thats because this is not about science, but emotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.52.158 ( talk) 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
How strange, that scientists, who spend their entire lives studying the subject, are driven exclusively by emotion, while conservative talk radio hosts, with no training at all, are never emotional. Maybe it is all the mathematics that scientists have to learn that make them so much more emotional than talk radio hosts. Rick Norwood ( talk) 11:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of giving this section a more descriptive title. There is a detailed, and decidedly more sober, article on the subject at the CSM. From that article:
I'm sure we'll want to write it up in the article on the IPCC. -- TS 16:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel I ought to flag my creation of Media coverage of climate change in case anyone's interested in contributing to it or linking to it, etc. Rd232 talk 13:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
With media interest in climate change plummeting like a stone, this is hardly the time to start a new article on an already tired and out of date subject. It would be much better to consolidate the enormous verbose articles in this area into a couple of historical documents which future historians may find useful when they come to research the various environmental fads of past eras. 85.211.173.217 ( talk) 08:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
In the article aren't mentioned deesagreement theories, but they exist. For a neutral explanation of the argument I suggest to cite the theory of ‘Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres’ of the hungarian ex NASA deployer Ferenc Miskolczi. Original theory: http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
95.232.245.175 ( talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a solution to the debate over Consensus versus Proven Facts could be to rename the article "Climate Change: A General Consensus" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz Spinner ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The first and most pertinent definition of consensus is "general agreement". Perhaps some people get it confused with unanimous. Nonetheless, anyone who is familiar with how science operates will understand exactly what consensus means, precisely because rational appraisal of evidence and theoretical prediction is required to make judgements. Hence, peer review. Ninahexan ( talk) 01:32, 8 September 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.
The proposal is based on unsupported original research, there is no substantial support for it and none is likely to materialize, and in the light of that there is consensus to archive. -- TS 19:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article describes global warming as a continuing process. This assertion is now clearly at odds with the Royal society who make it clear that: "This warming has not been gradual, but has been largely concentrated in two periods, from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000." In order to accommodate this change in scientific thinking I suggest the following change to the first sentence:
You are trying to synthesize a general trend out of specific statements. This is not helpful. You are misrepresenting the source, which says nothing about global warming not continuing, or not happening currently. It discusses two periods of more substantial warming, which is discussed in this article - "Global temperature is subject to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. The relative stability in temperature from 2002 to 2009 is consistent with such an episode." Hipocrite ( talk) 19:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)
Measurements show that averaged over the globe, the surface has warmed by about 0.8oC (with an uncertainty of about ±0.2oC) since 1850. This warming has not been gradual, but has been largely concentrated in two periods, from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000. The warming periods are found in three independent temperature records over land, over sea and in ocean surface water. Even within these warming periods there has been considerable year-to-year variability. The warming has also not been geographically uniform – some regions, most markedly the high-latitude northern continents, have experienced greater warming; a few regions have experienced little warming, or even a slight cooling.
When these surface temperatures are averaged over periods of a decade, to remove some of the year-to-year variability, each decade since the 1970s has been clearly warmer (given known uncertainties) than the one immediately preceding it. The decade 2000-2009 was, globally, around 0.15oC warmer than the decade 1990-1999.
The proposition is that the first sentence is changed to reflect the Royal Society position so that it now reads: "Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the of Earth's near-surface air and oceans as was experienced from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000." It is not to say: it is cooling. The fact it is widely accepted that global warming has stopped, is A reason for putting this change. Note for those who are purposely being obstructive IT IS ONLY ONE REASON lump it or like it, it doesn't matter because the point under discussion is whether the lead should reflect the position of the pre-eminent scientific body. 85.211.202.125 ( talk) 23:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, enough with the jokes. Can we get back to discussing the article? Guettarda ( talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The proposal was addressed. The proposal is wrong. It took a quote out of context, and it suggests that warming in certain periods implies cooling in all other periods. It is widely known that global warming has stopped by conservative news sources, who also know that global warming never started and that global warming when it started was not caused by burning fossil fuels. They also know that thousands of climate scientists doubt global warming and that all climate scientists are liers. They also know that nobody minds it when they contradict themselves. Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems fitting that there is no critic section of this in relation to articles about how humans are not contributing to the global climate change.
Almost all references to the opposite of "man made global warming" is conveniently not to be found. If man can cause global warming, can it cause global cooling like in the 70's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.197.90 ( talk) 15:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Really? Why? It's not remotely a reliable source for climate predictions, the reference is two years old, and the "Brattleboro Reformer" may be reliable for local information, but is hardly a source of wide notability. Moreover, the quote (if it is one) is unclear - is Joseph D'Aleo contributing to the OFA or to the BR? The whole sentence is also grammatically challenged, and at least archaically quaint, not encyclopaedic. Is the intro ("Said ...") also lifted from the article (in which case it should be marked as a quote) or the creation of a Wikipedian? -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 07:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking at Talk:Old Farmer's Almanac and at the article itself, I see that the item was included in the article. I've commented on that, and then noticed that somebody had recently said that the publication in question was a quite different one with a similar name: Farmer's Almanac. The claim seems credible, but I'm still investigating.
On the sourcing, I have to ask that those who suggested this please stop dredging the barrel ever deeper. Sourcing science facts cannot be done from daft almanacs, books written by retired accountants, newspaper articles of any description, newspaper opinion columns written by writers infamous for their scientific incompetence, and the like. We are living through the golden age of science--more scientific information is available to scientists and the public, from extensively reviewed sources, than at any other time in history. There is no need to muddy our reporting of the known facts with nonsense and obfuscation. -- TS 23:56, 8 September 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.
Uncertainty is covered in all relevant sources and the new report does not introduce anything new. In the circumstances, change of content does not seem to be merited. -- TS 00:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Following the change in position of the Royal society, the lede fails to adequately signal the uncertainties in this subject and to address this I suggest including the following quote in the lede: "The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty" [41] Isonomia ( talk) 12:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Our lede (i.e. our summary), sentence by sentence goes: [defn] [average rise] [cause (human)] [counter (dimming)]. The RS summary similarly reduced, goes [cause (human)] [uncertainty/range] [risks] [politics]. It is clear that we have a more tempered summary already than the RS: we place two statements before stating the cause (they place it first); we mention global dimming very prominently, which they omit at this level; they go straight from the science into stating the substantiality of the risks and so the importance that "decision makers take account of [climate science's] findings", which we do not venture into this high up the article. So, by a point-by-point comparison, even after this alleged "change of position", our introduction to GW is more muted than that of the RS. I can't see why anyone would want to argue with this, other than to argue that we should be more definite. -- Nigelj ( talk) 12:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
On the original claim at the head of this section, that there has been a "change in position of the Royal society", what evidence do we have to support that? I notice that the Daily Mail also seems to claim that the Society has changed its position, but from the statement of John Pethica I see no sign of a change. -- TS 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | ← | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
The recent prot/unprot seems to have got rid of the semi. Can we have it back, please William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I feel that many of these edits are not improving the article - indeed, instead of becoming "easier to read", it becomes imprecise and ambiguous. And the replacement of clear dates and references ("a recent report", "sometime in the next 90 years") violate Wikipedia:MOS#Chronological_items. Please slow down and find substantial consensus for substantial changes. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Making the article easier to read is good. Unfortunately the rewriting has tended to make the material too vague, and has even introduced factual errors. We ought to be able to make the article easier to read while maintaining accuracy and clarity. This is easier to by making incremental changes (say, one subsection at a time) rather than large rewrites. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 13:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
TK, if you keep trying to force your rewrite without establishing consensus I will ask for probation sanctions to be imposed on you. Verbal chat 19:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Recently these two editors have created a series of new sections on this talk page to make it appear as if the 3rd paragraph of the lead has not been discussed.
Here is the paragraph:
There is no longer any scholarly debate in regards to the legitmacy of human-caused global warming. The scientific consensus states that this phenomenon is real and happening today.[6][7] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns[8][9] and deeply flawed research studies[10] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[11]
Instead of continuing the discussion on more recent sections or trying to come to consensus with other editors their strategy has been to simply create new sections and find consensus among themselves which serves to dismiss and ignore important and lengthy discussions from the community. They have used this strategy to make broad reverts and remove critical information.
1) why are you two acting in such an uncooperative way?
2) what do other editors think of this behaviour? Is it acceptable or contrary to the letter and spirit of wiki policies? Torontokid2006 ( talk) 07:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all, can I offer TK my std.advice: if you can't spell my name, use WMC it is much easier. Second, I think that your true problem is that you don't have consensus for your edits. As to new sections: yes that is a problem. We'll just have to live with it. In the one just above, about "some oil companies" I've explained extensively why I think that sentence was bad, and why I removed it. If you read that section (have you? You haven't replied) you'll find a lot of other people agreeing with me. So far I see me, MN, SBHB, AW, AR and CI (apologies if I've missed anyone) who don't like your version (I'm not saying they all have perfect agreement a bout what to replace it with, though I think all are leaning towards total removal). I see you liking your version - who else are you saying supports your version? I think all the people I've initialled, plus K and G, are happier with the current The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human-made global warming is real than your no scholarly debate (most of us because "overwhelming" is good enough and "no debate" just sounds bad; MN I'm sure would prefer something more skeptical but certainly doesn't want your version.
So: the problem is that you, TK, are trying to edit against consensus in (slightly unusually, we're used to the other way round) the "warmist" direction. And you're also trying to put too much politics in an article that is mostly about science (you want politics of global warming, which is a bit rubbish and could do with help). You need to recognise that, and stop. William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
[...] Instead of continuing the discussion on more recent sections or trying to come to consensus with other editors their strategy has been to simply create new sections and find consensus among themselves which serves to dismiss and ignore important and lengthy discussions from the community. They have used this strategy to make broad reverts and remove critical information.
[...] what do other editors think of this behaviour? Is it acceptable or contrary to the letter and spirit of wiki policies? – Torontokid2006
I think that it is important to judge your changes over a reasonable timespan. If your additions had been in the article for several months or years, then perhaps removal of them might have needed to take place more slowly. The fact that they had lasted so long would have indicated that many editors and readers had accepted them as being reasonable. However, your changes have only been around for several weeks. In my opinion, it therefore requires greater effort on your part to convince other editors of the merit of your additions. Editors like myself require time to review any changes. It is not reasonable to expect consensus to be reached in such a short period of time.
As a final point, my impression is that you are pursuing a particular agenda of advocating a particular interpretation of the politics of climate change. I think that this attitude is not in keeping in the way authoritative and objective assessments of climate change policy choose to frame this issue, e.g., the IPCC reports. It is also insensitive to the fact that the article should reflect a broad range of international viewpoints. There should be no attempt to implicitly advocate a particular agenda. In your case, this has clearly been to criticize oil companies and other interest groups for their activities. Enescot ( talk) 10:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
RE
this edit by Torontokid2006 with the edit summary Kenosis - Please see the talkpage section: "RfC how should opposition to the theory of global warming be described?" a consensus had been reached by RfC!:
I don't see much consensus for anything here at the present, and certainly not for poor writing (see the content). Looking at the supposed "RfC" in the brief section above on this talk page, and at the sections that follow leading up to here, it looks to me like there's not consensus for using Oreskes' study as a basis to prominently and absolutely state in the article lead that there's no longer any scholarly debate about the reality of anthropogenic global warming. The fact is that the remaining scholarly debate is at the margins--an extreme position --but it's simply not quite true at this particular time that there's no longer any scholarly debate. As a matter of fact, we've needed to deal with some of that scholarly debate very recently right here in this article with respect to
Nicola Scafetta's very debatable published work which implies that other factors could account for most or even all of observed warming in the 20th Century. And of course there's the ongoing advocacy positions of
Fred Seitz,
Fred Singer and
Bill Nierenberg, and other occasional scientists and academics who take a contra position to the scientific mainstream. Then of course there's the pseudoscientific approaches taken by
Christopher Monckton and others similiarly disposed.
..... What Orekes' study serves to do is to help document the strength of the scientific consensus. That consensus, is reasonably characterized as "overwhelming", as expressed by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the footnote. It doesn't quite [yet] rise to the level of "unequivocal" or "no longer any scholarly debate".
..... Also, it's not even necessarily correct to single out certain oil companies as funding the denial, as was done both in the third paragraph of the lead and in the new subsection on the oil companies' reaction. And that subsection, frankly, is also poorly written. At the moment the article has gone from FA-quality to a bit of a mess in several key places including that third paragraph of the lead I was just talking about. Whatever we collectively write in this article should be reasonably stable, sustainable, well written and not reliant on one academic (in this case Oreskes) to make major points in the lead. There are serious problems with the new subsection on the Oil companies' response, overly reliant on Oreskes' published work while also neglecting the heavy influence of other heavily funded "business interests" and conservative/free-market-type think tanks. ...
Kenosis (
talk)
13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I like to see a stronger statement. It is not simply that there is virtually no debate. When very rarely a sceptical paper questioning the fundamentals somehow gets published, you get a debate about the competence of the authors, the editorial processes leading to the acceptance of the paper etc. If there are any peer reviewed reactions, these will be comments on the paper discussing where the authors went wrong with basic physics. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged this article due to the following sentences which are neither NPOV or correct.
Since those are factually correct statements I remove the tag since you cannot get more NPOV than telling the facts.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton contributions 11:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Addendum: if you can supply RS stating there currently is an ongoing scientific debate I immediately will remove those statements myself!--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton contributions 11:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I know what the scientific method is, and it is something AGW proponents do not follow, the refusal to release date and methodology for instance, your continuing jibes are pointless so give them up. There are plenty of scientists who oppose the theory of AGW and publish papers saying this. There are books also refuting the AGW theory. To say there is no further debate over it is a lie and pov pushing. Your failure to actually talk about the points i have raised shows you are more interested in trying to belittle me. Comment on content not editor. mark nutley ( talk) 12:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Some reading material countering denialism. [6] [7] [8]--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton contributions 11:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Mark, with regards to the first point, it is very well sourced. We can't delete a reliably sourced, notable viewpoint just because you don't like it. As I said, if you have good sources that say otherwise, then we need to find a way to work the alternative point of view into the article. You say there is a paper by Singer and Avery that says otherwise, but you have not replied to a request for a references to that paper. You claimed that Scafetta said otherwise. I asked you to specify what Scafetta says about the debate. You have not replied to that either. You made a claim. I asked you to back it up. Instead of supporting your claim, you simply upped the ante with POV tags. "If the facts aren't on your side, pound the table" isn't acceptable. Guettarda ( talk) 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A POV tag is not an "I don't like it because I think the article is POV-tag". The POV tag is meant to let the article get the attention of readers/editors so that you can get more discussions to resolve some POV dispute. But in this case there is quite a strong consensus among the editors that there is no POV problem to be addressed. This is not like an article about some Palestine/Israel related conflict where you can have radically different views among the editors on many different points. Then both sides would want to have a POV-tag as both sides have some points to argue about and would welcome views of other editors on resolving these matters.
In this case, the issue is very narrow: Whether or not or not we can say that discussions in the scientific literature about the fundamentals (climate change is caused by CO2 emissions) still take place and what to write about that. Count Iblis ( talk) 14:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted to the pre-TK pre-POV tagged version, which was stable for some time. I don't see any consensus to change to the new version. I don't think that There is no longer any scholarly debate in regards to the legitmacy of human-caused global warming is blatantly false, but I don't think it is clearly true either; it is also unnecessary William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Since this is so talked about: I don't really like absence of scientific debate as an idea. The scienitific literature is full of people "debating" the details of global warming. There is very very little work that actively disputes the contention that humans are responsible for most of the warming; but that is perfectly well covered by the existing The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human-made global warming is real. I see no reason why we need the oil companies section, in the lede or at all. It should be in politics of global warming William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC) ( edit conflict)
OK, continuing with another of MN's concerns, I too am not happy with:
First, I don't think there is anything special about oil; the coal companies have been bad too. But even correcting it to "fossil fuel" companies I'm not sure it belongs in the lede (I presume it is another recent TK addition, but haven't checked).
deeply flawed research studies - well, yes Soon and Baliunas was indeed junk, and is now discarded (not formally; it is just that no-one believes it; alas it is controversial so has lots of cites, but all/most of the "this is trash" type cites). Again I doubt this is a point that MN and I will agree on, but never mind, lets not turn this into a discussion of S+B. Perhaps better, lets look at it as a sentence not supported by the refs: thecrimson study is about *one* paper; there is thus no justification from the ref for the plural "studies" in the text.
Supporting the does-not-belong are the references, which are weak. The thecrimson article is about a grant for $53k - this is such small beer for a place in the GW lede. The first Grauniad one is not their own reporting, but ref's a Greenpease report, which claims "Koch industries is playing a quiet but dominant role in the global warming debate". I'm not really convinced I believe that (disclaimer: I give Greenpeace money, but that doesn't mean I believe everything they say). The second [12] is better but still not really convincing (yes they were offering $10k, in a certain sense, but there isn't much evidence that it got spent).
I'm not convinced the sentence belongs at all; this is true even though I agree that there is a PR campaign (which I suspect MN does not). I've attempted a compromise edit (which is also probably a revert, even if not by the debased standards of Cl Ch; if I need to, my justification is that it is part of the previous edit, which the intervening anon vandalism does not affect). That removes the bit about funding deeply flawed research (I think that there is little evidence for funding research, certainly in comparison to the funding of PR, which is far larger) William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No problems, here are those who say it should go.
If your name is here in error please remove it :)
Those who want it in that i can see
If your name is here in error please remove it :)
The term "scholarly debate" has no precise meaning and should be deleted. TomHelms ( talk) 15:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I reverted a few minor terminological changes [16] since I didn't like them. I think we've been through the "is a phrase that" stuff before: it just isn't needed. Biosphere is also unneeded; and air is as good as atmosphere William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the "UN" part was fitting. Torontokid2006 ( talk) 07:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I was searching this article for information on "Climategate", and was shocked there was no mention. Should this be added?
BryantLee (
talk) 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Strike comment by serial puppeteer. -
Atmoz (
talk)
18:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You want the article Climatic Research Unit email controversy (to which "Climategate" redirects). That article is also listed at Global warming controversy (in the See also section); someone could probably make a good case for it to be summarized in the body text there (and here). - PrBeacon (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Intro
Current revision:
Climate model projections indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.[2] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions.
The current revision does not specify a baseline for temperature rise. Specifying the baseline is essential, otherwise the temperature increase has no meaning. Also, it implied that the temperature projections are a "likely" range, which isn't entirely true. They are a "likely" range for the six SRES emission scenarios used. The scenarios are intended to represent a range of possible futures, but I don't think the IPCC describes them as a "likely" range of future emissions.
Another criticism is that the second sentence suggests that the physical science uncertainty is only due to the climate sensitivity. My impression is that other uncertainties are also important, such as natural climate variability, the role of carbon sinks, and other uncertainties surrounding climate models. I don't think that it's correct to lump together all physical science uncertainties as being due to the climate sensitivity.
Suggested revision:
Climate models were used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to project the average rise in global average temperature for the 2090-2099 period, relative to the average temperature over the 1980-1999 period. Across a range of different emission scenarios, models showed a likely increase in global average temperature of 1.1 to 6.4 deg C. The range of 1.1 to 6.4 deg C is due to scientific uncertainties and uncertainties surrounding future emission levels of greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gas section
Current 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).[42] Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.
Suggested 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. Using a range of possible emission scenarios (the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios), climate models suggest that by 2100, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could range between 541 and 970 ppm. This is an increase of 90 to 250% above the concentration in the year 1750. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.
This is a minor revision. I've corrected a misuse of the SRES scenarios, which are emission scenarios, and not concentration scenarios. The two are different since you can only get concentrations from emissions by using a climate model. Another minor error is that only six of the SRES scenarios were used in making this projection of concentrations. The current revision gives the impression that all forty of the SRES scenarios were used.
I've also changed the wording to give a greater impression of uncertainty, i.e., by using the word "could." You could also mention that the true range might be larger, as is indicated in the TAR Synthesis report, but I thought that this was probably unnecessary. Enescot ( talk) 05:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Torontokid2006
How about this?
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report contains estimates of how much global warming could happen by the end of the 21st century. Estimates range between 1.1 to 6.4 deg C of warming. This rise is relative to the average temperature at the end of the 20th century. This range of possible temperature increases is partly due to uncertainties over how the climate system will respond to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The range is also due to uncertainties over how emissions of greenhouse gases will change in the future.
On the second part, how about this?
CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. Estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases have been made, and are called "emission scenarios." In some scenarios, greenhouse gases continue to rise over the century, while in others, emissions are reduced. The future rate of emissions will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.
Emission scenarios have been used to produce estimates of how atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will change in the future. Using a range of possible emission scenarios (the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios), models suggest that by 2100, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could range between 541 and 970 ppm. This is an increase of 90 to 250% above the concentration in the year 1750. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.
Reply to William M. Connolley
My terminology must be incorrect in using the word "climate models". The Synthesis report refers to this part of the
TAR Working Group I report, which describes how the concentration estimates were made:
Two simplified, fast models (ISAM and Bern-CC) were used to project future CO2 concentrations under IS92a and six SRES scenarios, and to project future emissions under five CO2 stabilisation scenarios. Both models represent ocean and terrestrial climate feedbacks, in a way consistent with process-based models, and allow for uncertainties in climate sensitivity and in ocean and terrestrial responses to CO2 and climate.
I could remove reference to "climate models" and say that these are "models":
Using a range of possible emission scenarios (the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios), models suggest that by 2100, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could range between 541 and 970 ppm. Enescot ( talk) 10:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Second reply
Don't like; it is always hard to parse "average rise in global average temperature for the 2090-2099 period" because you naturally read it as the rise from 2090 to 2099. For the time period, "over the 21st century" is fine. Also don't like "Climate models were used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" to - no reason to tie this to AR4.
"such as natural climate variability" - not very important over the century timescale. "due to scientific uncertainties" - don't like, too vague. You *can* lump all the climate-physical bits into the cl sens - that is what it is for. GHG concs depend on sources and sinks, so could replace "and uncertainties surrounding future emission levels of greenhouse gases" with "and uncertainties surrounding future levels of greenhouse gases maybe." That hides the source/sink question, but that can be done in detail later William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the 21st century would be acceptable. I don't agree that the projections should not be tied to AR4. The projections specifically relate to the AR4 emission scenarios and the climate models that were used in making these projections.
"such as natural climate variability" - not very important over the century timescale. "due to scientific uncertainties" - don't like, too vague. You *can* lump all the climate-physical bits into the cl sens - that is what it is for. - WMC
The point about me omitting climate sensitivity is also to do with clarity. The existing revision goes:
Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.[2] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions.
I do not like the second sentence. Saying that "The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations" is too complex. The sentence as a whole is cumbersome.
Where in AR4 does it say that climate sensitivity is adequate in explaining differences in model results? What about naturally-induced climatic changes, such as volcano eruptions? Obviously these cannot be included in projections, but they are a source of uncertainty.
I am also unhappy with the unnecessary separation of models from projections. Uncertainty in projections should be treated from a broad perspective. It should not be attributed as being due to "using" climate models. Rather, the uncertainty within and "outside" of the models, like the climate sensitivity or other external factors, should be talked about. The whole purpose of having scientists is for them to explain why the uncertainty is there. To say that uncertainty is due to the use of a particular model is not helpful.
Overall, I do not agree with the current explanation of climate sensitivity that is in the introduction. I think that it is confusing for the average reader.
I accept your criticism about the vagueness of my suggestion. However, I think that attributing uncertainty to science is more understandable to the average reader than attributing it to the climate sensitivity. If you are to mention the climate sensitivity, the term must be defined. My suggestion to Torontokid was:
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report contains estimates of how much global warming could happen by the end of the 21st century. Estimates range between 1.1 to 6.4 deg C of warming. This rise is relative to the average temperature at the end of the 20th century. This range of possible temperature increases is partly due to uncertainties over how the climate system will respond to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The range is also due to uncertainties over how emissions of greenhouse gases will change in the future.
The sentence:
This range of possible temperature increases is partly due to uncertainties over how the climate system will respond to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Is based on this bit of
AR4. If you want to mention climate sensitivity instead, the paragraph would go:
This range of possible temperature increases is partly due to uncertainties over the climate sensitivity. The climate sensitivity is...
I don't know how to define climate sensitivity. The IPCC goes with:
Climate sensitivity In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in the annual mean global surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration. Due to computational constraints, the equilibrium climate sensitivity in a climate model is usually estimated by running an atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a mixed-layer ocean model, because equilibrium climate sensitivity is largely determined by atmospheric processes. Efficient models can be run to equilibrium with a dynamic ocean.
The effective climate sensitivity is a related measure that circumvents the requirement of equilibrium. It is evaluated from model output for evolving non-equilibrium conditions. It is a measure of the strengths of the climate feedbacks at a particular time and may vary with forcing history and climate state. The climate sensitivity parameter (units: °C (W m–2)–1) refers to the equilibrium change in the annual mean global surface temperature following a unit change in radiative forcing. [19]
Which of these definitions would be appropriate?
Enescot (
talk)
09:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
Apparently got lost somewhere.
The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.
I don't know where it was originally, or if it's even needed anymore. - Atmoz ( talk) 21:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Atmoz -- what do you prefer about File:Instrumental Temperature Record.png versus the File:Instrumental Temperature Record (NASA).svg? The SVG version has lots of advantages, as described in WP:SVG and Category:Graph_images_that_should_be_in_SVG_format, and if you have aesthetic suggestions I'd be happy to try to incorporate them. -- Autopilot ( talk) 16:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with A / Stephan. I've reverted to the old plot on Climate pattern William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Given two identical plot, one svg and the other png, I actually prefer using svg. (Although with the issues pointed out by Apis, I don't know...) However, these two are not identical. In my opinion, the png image simply "looks better". Very quantitative, I know. I really like the grayed background in the png. It gives a more professional appearance. Also, the svg fonts are all way to small, even at 500px. - Atmoz ( talk) 22:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The wording of the final sentence in the first paragraph seems to be somewhat more definitive than that of the supporting reference. Would it be advisable to adopt language more closely resembling that used in the cited NAS literature? The exact quotes from the NAS document that I believe are being referenced are “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” and/or “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Missionamp ( talk) 15:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Trolling. If there are legitimate source-based concerns, please start a new section. - 2/0 ( cont.) 21:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article is written in a way as if global warming has already been established as fact. This needs to be changed if Wikipedia is to be considered legitimate. This is not NPOV; more criticism should be made available on the main page. There is more evidence to show global warming is a naturally occurring cycle, and sources which claim otherwise are simply not reliable. The IPCC is not made up of scientists at all, and has actually been discredited and proven to be a fraud. Data released by the IPCC and Al Gore is not WP:RS. The main article should be changed to better reflect the facts, or a NPOV tag added. Removing the opposition is an act of censorship. The FACT is that the debate about global warming still continues, and since that debate has not yet been concluded, global warming cannot yet be considered an established fact either, but in actuality is nothing more than a grand rumour. Pictures of graphs and computer models do not reflect what has happened in reality, and yet pictures are treated like WP:RS in the main article. The globe has in fact been cooling over the past ten years, yet this is not even acknowledged. Now, I don't have an account so I can't add the NPOV tag, but after reading through the talk page, it seems like it was already there but has since been inappropriately removed by an act of vandalism. The NPOV tag needs to be reapplied. 174.89.52.142 ( talk) 19:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
|
The issues discussed in the Controversies section relate significantly to attempts to implement legislation in an attempt to control global warming (which in reality is unnecessary since 70% + of surface heat retention is from water vapor and it appears that humans are responsible for less than 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere).
These issues will likely affect future attempts at any legislation, so requires particular highlight in the opener.
Also as an unrelated side note: CO2 is responsible for 26% max heat retention, increasing CO2 beyond a certain level will reduce warming due to the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere. There is no possibility that 100% of this CO2 is the result of human activity. I would put it at less than 5%, the recent increases being due to the carbon cycle. As such it seems absurd to tax ourselves and give our money away to satisfy the concerns expressed by some. 120.20.93.176 ( talk) 03:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Editors, if you have time, please weigh in about whether or not this recently removed subsection should be included in this article. I am arguing for its inclusion simply because we already have "public opinion" and "politics". We are missing the "private" or "corporate reaction" to the science. I think a compromise would be naming the subsection "corporate (or private) reaction" if "oil industry reaction" seems too narrow. The removal occurs below line 346. [22] Torontokid2006 ( talk) 18:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
@TK: just above, there is a section of you complaining about people starting new sections. Just above that is a section on this very subject. Please take your own advice William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
After much thought, I think it would serve the editors' best interests to place a reference link at the top of the page to an article that discusses the global debate over how much impact humans have in the climate, which would include skeptics POV because it would not be a scientific article. I find people placing debate on this article because there doesn't seem to be much attention on people that disagree with this theory. However, since it is a scientific article I find no reason to have disagreement on it, and I akin it to having arguments against the theory of relativity on that article. It just doesn't make sense to me; it's like having an argument implying the Watergate scandal didn't occur on Nixon's page. As much as they may disagree on the basis of principle, I think that MANY people viewing this article aren't looking for the scientific presentation, but are more concerned with the geo-political response to the theory. -- Cflare ( talk) 13:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Unconstructive forum-type discussion by IP, no evidence provided, fails WP:TALK. . dave souza, talk 10:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
67.165.202.101 ( talk) 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)It is not a disagreement on principle, it is a disagreement based on research that has been silenced. Many of the scientists who are named as the original founders of the theory have stated that the focus of their research was global warming that was not man made; and the small portion of man made warming was negligible and not statistically significant. This small portion of the original research was then focused on by “scientists” paid by funding for this very purpose. If they discovered no relationship between man and global climate change, they have no jobs; so it was in their economic interest to continue to find “proof” that man made climate change is significant. If that isn’t a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is. The fact that NONE of these researched and verified facts are not allowed to be posted on this “user editable” encyclopedia is ridiculous. Be better than the left wing liberal media and show both sides of the argument, or have this article be about global climate change not due to man made warming; then have a separate section about the debate of man made effects.
|
Intro
The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[6][7][8][B] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. The Kyoto Protocol is...
The second sentence is poor. It implies that debate continues regardless of the scientific consensus. This is not correct. Part of the debate may be about the science, but another part is due to determining what the appropriate policy response should be. Science does not prescribe an appropriate policy response. This is incorrectly implied in the current revision. My suggested revision is:
There are different political and public views on what should be done about global warming
Views on global warming
Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.[119][120]
I don't like this sentence. It is true that population growth is linked with emissions, but there are also other factors, such as economic consumption, technological change, energy efficiency, decarbonization of the economy etc. It is therefore biased to single out population growth. I suggest that the sentence is removed. It can be replaced with something from the IPCC report.
You can divide emissions correlation between observed trends and projected trends. With regard to observed trends, this bit from the IPCC report is appropriate:
GDP/capita and population growth were the main drivers of the increase in global emissions during the last three decades of the 20th century.
This can be rewritten and moved to the greenhouse gas section of the article:
(i) Between the years 1970 and 2004, growth in gross domestic product and population were the main drivers of growth in CO2 emissions. (ii) CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[41][42] (iii) Estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases have been made, and are called "emissions scenarios." (iv) The future level of emissions will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.
With regard to future emission trends, I think that sentence (iv) is already an adequate summary.
Enescot (
talk)
07:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No matter what you believe about the climate, the anti-growth policies promoted by the environmentalists only undermine our ability to deal with its, as Freeman Dyson has argued in detail. [23] Growth and technological advances leave us better prepared for whatever the future might bring. Dyson's favorite example is the genetic engineering could allows us to create trees that absorb more CO2. Kauffner ( talk) 02:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to say "there is no substantial debate among scientists" or "there is no serious debate among scientists" or "there is no debate among climate scientists" or a thousand other formulations, but to say "there is no debate" as several editors are currently trying to insist we should do in the lead is really inappropriate, especially given that the source used to insert it does not support this statement. The source says that the impression that there is "substantive disagreement" is wrong, and that the impression that there is "disagreement among climate scientists" is wrong. This cannot be used to support a claim that there is no debate in the scientific community at all. All it takes is a single bona-fide scientist (in any discipline) to hold a contrary position, and the statement that "there is no debate among scientists" is false. We know that there is at least one.
Attempting to insert this clearly overstated, clearly incorrect phrase actually reduces the credibility of the article and plays up to those who imagine Wikipedia is controlled by a hotbed of far-left environmentalists ;) Oh, and avoiding WP:FRINGE problems doesn't permit us to oversimplify to the extent of falsehood.
Thparkth ( talk) 22:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
What is it that there is no debate about? The "reality of anthropogenic climate change"? This sounds more like an article of faith than a proposition that is testable scientifically. If the issue if whether the earth is likely to warm, cool and stay about the same, there are certainly differing opinions. There is also debate about the "hockey stick" -- the idea that the climate in the last century is something unprecedented or at least out the ordinary. Kauffner ( talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It's mildly amusing to think what would be a non-substantive debate. - Atmoz ( talk) 05:09, 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" [27] (instead of "There is no substantive debate") and "The scientific community agrees that..." [28] (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)
From here: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/#ixzz0rONPXy3M The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony. “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.” Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia—the university of Climategate fame—is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on “Climate scenario development” for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters. Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here: http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf Ikilled007 ( talk) 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
User:b_calder Bob Calder 19:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I can point to a Wikipedia entry that lists scientists who disagree in some form with what is claimed to be the 'consensus' List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming PeterBFreeman ( talk) 10:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Here I am adding debate. The first paragraph of the main article(titled, "Global Warming"), as of July 5, 2010 12:41 P.M. Eastern, contains the sentence: "The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring." That is misleading. The sentence references 4 articles, all of which essentially say that "Local climates are subject to change." The article should be re-written and/or should contain the Neutrality/Disputed tag.
Jsolebello (
talk)
16:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello, Civilian, University of Rhode Island, Class of 2006
It would be better if you could choose who you debate with. 76.106.186.17 ( talk) 03:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E. Solebello
Here is an example, from the Joint Science Academy's statement: "the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century." That statement implies that all of the Earth's surface warmed.
The easy, short-term solution is to re-name the article: "The Global Warming Scare." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.186.17 ( talk) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in on an article I haven't worked on before, a friend and I were discussing the reliability, neutrality, etc. of Wikipedia. I do not like this sentence:
I think it's pretty hard to find on an objective meaning for "scientific consensus." I'd prefer an "A says B about C," facts about opinions, formulation. In this case, I'd propose something like this:
OK? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the "scientists" promoting man-made global warming theory have a vested interest (funding) in continuing what most objective (not funded to conduct research on climate or other global warming issues) scientists believe to be a highly flawed theory. The Earth has been warming for 18,000 years or so, and will likely continue to do so for a long time (although whatever triggers the start of a new glacial period could kick in). Global sea level has been rising throughout this warming period. The rate of global sea level rise has not shown a significant increase during the past 50 years. This lack of a significant increase in the rate of global mean sea level rise effectively DESTROYS the man-made global warming theory. It's time for the marxist, earth-worshiping "scientists" to find a new sow to suckle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.78.121.3 ( talk) 21:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Just an FYI 7&8 are down. Aaron Bowen ( talk) 04:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please change:
<ref>[http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf Understanding and Responding to Climate Change]</ref>
To:
<ref>[http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf Understanding and Responding to Climate Change]</ref>
Thanks. - 128.196.30.219 ( talk) 17:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Done
Hipocrite (
talk)
17:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
'Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation'.
Eh, no it's not!!! 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' may (if proven) be considered for that definition. Global Warming is a process that predates the mid-20th century and also predates man. The problem with that opening sentence is it skillfully disquises 'AGW' as being Global Warming, as being what everyone is talking about. In doing so it also suggests a concensus amongst scientists that Anthropogenic Global Warming is Global Warming. The two processes are desparately different and should be discussed as such. Global Warming, Global Cooling is a natural process that has taken place since there was an atmosphere on this planet. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a disruptive, potential imbalance to the natural process that has (apparently) been taking effect since the mid-20th century. There is no evidence to suggest the outlandish claims made by exponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming are if-fact going to happen. They have used computer models to predict 'potential scenarios'. This is total hocum! No better than reading your stars in the paper. WE CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE!!! We can only GUESS!!! Surely the predictions that were made several years ago, that were due to be taking place now, but aren't, can be taken as a yard stick (if you will) to all future modelling. I am pretty certain we would then see results more akin to the results of proper science based on observation and empirical data which point to the fact that it's not going to be all that bad, after all a warm planet is far more desirable than a cold, cooling cooler planet (which I believe is now happening) and that has been suggested by someone in the IPCC that the 'cooling trend' will continue for another 30 years. Also, if your going to refer to Global Dimming, can you please suggest it's effects as Anthropogenic Global Cooling. If we are to be lead to believe that our pumping of greenhouse gases (this terminology needs a radical overhaul as well) into the atmosphere is resulting in the planet warming up, is it too much to suggest that the countering effects of atmospheric aerosols (placed there by man) that have potentially negated the effects of the warming be considered Anthropogenic Global Cooling? I can imagine to use such a term would infact confuse people too much; are we warming, are we cooling? And we can't have people getting confused now can we? Off-course not. Confusion suggests debate, as we all know the warmists out there in the MSM will not allow that.
Can you also please have this page released to editing? I am not a scientist and have no intention of offering an edit to such a piece. However, I am a tax payer and an inquisitive mind and do like to find out both sides of a discussion before siding with one camp or the other.
Thank you Killthegore ( talk) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The title of this article should be changed to "Global Warming Theory", or, at least, we should use the word 'theory' in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolebello ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a "Global Warming Controversy" article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy), which is enough to merit a major warning on the main page. 76.106.186.17 ( talk) 01:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello
I propose that the first sentence should say this:
"Global Warming is the theory that the "average temperature" of the entire Earth's "near-surface" air, and entire oceans, has increased since the mid-20th century. The theory also claims that the temperatures will continue to increase in the future." Jsolebello ( talk) 21:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello
It would be good to have Joe E Solebello and "killthegore" (see the the previous thread here) to testify as witnesses in the ArbCom case. What I want to know is how they formed their opinions. Count Iblis ( talk) 22:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't take offence when editors refer to a fact you have neglected to investigate and suggest that you should "read up on it."
|
---|
|
That's two votes for a title change. Jsolebello ( talk) 15:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello
Ok, Amatulic believes the title is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolebello ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
No to changing the title, since this article is about the warming itself, not just scientific explanations of it (discussions of mitigation strategies, politics of action, etc. would be inappropriate in an article just on the scientific theory). Explicitly calling the way scientists explain this warming a theory is redundant at best, and an attempt to prop up the position of skeptics at worst. Check the archives - this has been discussed dozens of times. — DroEsperanto ( talk) 23:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Enough non-science. Maybe we should fold some of this [34] in here or about William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Rahmstorf's "Statement C" should say something like "Anthropogenic Global Warming will have no strong effect on Humanity in the short or long-term, positive or negative."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.186.17 ( talk • contribs)
I prefer the warmest decade plot to the warmest month one. Mostly because any one month is closer to weather than to climate; we're aiming for long-term stuff, not just news William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
How come one plot shows "no data" for most of Greenland and points north, and the other show extreme warming in the same area? Also, why does one show the Antarctic Peninsula warm and the other cold? I agree that an equal-area projection is preferred, but so is accurate data. Q Science ( talk) 16:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
NOAA (2010-07-15). "June, April to June, and Year-to-Date Global Temperatures are Warmest on Record". Retrieved 2010-07-17.. Since there is clearly a rough consensus for the equal-area plot I'll see if I can convince gnuplot to plot it that way and also track down the NASA dataset for comparison. -- Autopilot ( talk) 19:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Cal sems to be on a bit of a campaign to replace RS's with non-RS's. Quite why is a mystery. But I hope he will stop. Cla: per endless discussion, RC is an RS for cliamte stuff. Fringe books by "skeptics" aren't William M. Connolley ( talk) 12:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) No, Schmidt is not the only source. As with almost everything else he has said about climate (El Niño is caused by earthquakes; most CO2 is from volcanoes) Plimer is in violent disagreement with what is universally accepted by those competent in the field. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 23:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, how about if we just go with Kiehl and Trenberth for now, and supplement with peer-reviewed sources as time allows? Cla68 gets a win by knocking out one from RC, while we avoid misleading the reader by including Plimer's nonsense. Deal? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be an assumption on Cla68's part that Plimer's opinion should be included in the article simply because Plimer published it in a book. How would this work if we applied it to other articles on science? If we were to give weight to minority sources simply by virtue of their having been published in books, Wikipedia's science coverage would be very different. This isn't how we do things here. -- TS 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have listed a new proposal at the talkpage of WikiProject Environment regarding Wikipedia articles that could be started based on the global warming subject, as it occurs per year. The idea is to either create yearly articles detailing the effects, observations, etc. of global warming and climate change given reliable sources per year (to avoid synthesis) based on an extensive list that could be further developed, or to create a timeline of major developments in both climate science and climate-related occurrences in the real world, new modelling simulations, etc. (somewhat similar to History of climate change science ). If there is any interest in the proposal, please discuss basic concerns related to the existing articles and the incorporation of new articles here, and specific details on the WikiProject talk page. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
In reporting science, we're really limited by the peer reviewed literature. Global warming is a very significant phenomenon, both in the instrumental and satellite temperature records and in multiple lines of climate-related research, from basic research through to trying to understand the causes and mechanisms in operation in earth's climate. For general discussion of climate research there are articles such as climatology. As long as the thermometers, the seasons, the primary literature and review articles reflect the reality of global warming, we as an encyclopedia don't have the option of treating it as if it didn't exist. -- TS 13:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Intro
The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[6][7][8][B] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. The Kyoto Protocol is...
The second sentence is poor. It implies that debate continues regardless of the scientific consensus. This is not correct. Part of the debate may be about the science, but another part is due to determining what the appropriate policy response should be. Science does not prescribe an appropriate policy response. This is incorrectly implied in the current revision. My suggested revision is:
There are different political and public views on what should be done about global warming
Views on global warming
Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.[119][120]
I don't like this sentence. It is true that population growth is linked with emissions, but there are also other factors, such as economic consumption, technological change, energy efficiency, decarbonization of the economy etc. It is therefore biased to single out population growth. I suggest that the sentence is removed. It can be replaced with something from the IPCC report.
You can divide emissions correlation between observed trends and projected trends. With regard to observed trends, this bit from the IPCC report is appropriate:
GDP/capita and population growth were the main drivers of the increase in global emissions during the last three decades of the 20th century.
This can be rewritten and moved to the greenhouse gas section of the article:
(i) Between the years 1970 and 2004, growth in gross domestic product and population were the main drivers of growth in CO2 emissions. (ii) CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[41][42] (iii) Estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases have been made, and are called "emissions scenarios." (iv) The future level of emissions will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.
With regard to future emission trends, I think that sentence (iv) is already an adequate summary.
Enescot (
talk)
07:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No matter what you believe about the climate, the anti-growth policies promoted by the environmentalists only undermine our ability to deal with its, as Freeman Dyson has argued in detail. [37] Growth and technological advances leave us better prepared for whatever the future might bring. Dyson's favorite example is the genetic engineering could allows us to create trees that absorb more CO2. Kauffner ( talk) 02:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Shoudn't this page be titled "The Global Warming Theory?" This theory isn't proven, and need much more evidence. As well as that, the article is presented as fact, not a theory. This is clearly not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.96.158 ( talk) 14:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
While I like the etymology material that was recently added, it made me wonder about news reports and pundit interviews I have heard over the past few months, which claimed that the term "climate change" was introduced as a synonym into the political debate by conservative politicians / denialists who felt that the term "global warming" was too alarmist. I have now heard variations on this theme often enough that I wonder it deserves mention. I tried, and failed, to find anything authoritative that could be used as a source, though. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 05:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry folks, I seem to have pressed the wrong link when running a diff, and accidentally rolled back an edit here. I've undone it. -- TS 22:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The sub-section "Predicting disasters" added by OrpheusSang doesn't seem to fit under "Adaptation." Three reasons. First, it's sourced to the Guardian, compared to the IPCC and the Journal of Geophysical Research, it seems more newsworthy than noteworthy in an encyclopedic article. Second, so far it's just a meeting, there are many others such as COP15, and not a lot has been set in stone; holistically and in my opinion, I don't think it's notable. Third and finally, the section title "Predicting disasters" and the sentence "[...] early warning system, that would predict meteorological disasters caused by global warming" seems premature and inaccurate; to my understanding predicting meteorological events is to weather, not climate, climate's the statical distribution of these events. Therefore I believe it should be removed or moved. --CaC 72.251.76.95 ( talk) 06:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
On August 15, 2010 The Observer reported that that the following week scientists from the world's three leading meteorological organisations: The US National Center for Atmospheric Research, the UK Met Office and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would meet in Boulder, Colorado to set out plans to set up an early warning system, that would predict meteorological disasters caused by global warming. The meeting was to come in the wake of disasters including record flooding in Pakistan, a heatwave in and around Moscow and the splintering of a giant island of ice off the Greenland ice cap.ref http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/15/climate-change-predict-next-disaster
— moved from article by dave souza, talk 07:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit added the following caveat to the caption of the image Commons:File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png:
As it stands I believe this is an overstatement. The divergence problem only affects a proportion of boreal tree ring proxies. Other proxies are not affected. I'm also in some doubt as to the weight this should have in this overview article. -- TS 18:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642 Its going to be a good day when the world will finally see that Wikipedia is stuffed full of pseudo-scientific "bullies" who impose theory as fact in an effort to manipulate what they WANT science to be, versus what is the actual truth. Most wikipedians are white, leftist, anti-capitalist, and global warmists who emotionally WANT anthropogenic global warming to be fact, and are far less open to the idea that it may not be a fact at all. for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility, lets hope that all these reports coming out are just one big Rush Limbaugh conspiracy. You wont cite an article like this will you? http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642 Of course not. Thats because this is not about science, but emotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.52.158 ( talk) 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
How strange, that scientists, who spend their entire lives studying the subject, are driven exclusively by emotion, while conservative talk radio hosts, with no training at all, are never emotional. Maybe it is all the mathematics that scientists have to learn that make them so much more emotional than talk radio hosts. Rick Norwood ( talk) 11:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of giving this section a more descriptive title. There is a detailed, and decidedly more sober, article on the subject at the CSM. From that article:
I'm sure we'll want to write it up in the article on the IPCC. -- TS 16:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel I ought to flag my creation of Media coverage of climate change in case anyone's interested in contributing to it or linking to it, etc. Rd232 talk 13:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
With media interest in climate change plummeting like a stone, this is hardly the time to start a new article on an already tired and out of date subject. It would be much better to consolidate the enormous verbose articles in this area into a couple of historical documents which future historians may find useful when they come to research the various environmental fads of past eras. 85.211.173.217 ( talk) 08:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
In the article aren't mentioned deesagreement theories, but they exist. For a neutral explanation of the argument I suggest to cite the theory of ‘Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres’ of the hungarian ex NASA deployer Ferenc Miskolczi. Original theory: http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
95.232.245.175 ( talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a solution to the debate over Consensus versus Proven Facts could be to rename the article "Climate Change: A General Consensus" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz Spinner ( talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The first and most pertinent definition of consensus is "general agreement". Perhaps some people get it confused with unanimous. Nonetheless, anyone who is familiar with how science operates will understand exactly what consensus means, precisely because rational appraisal of evidence and theoretical prediction is required to make judgements. Hence, peer review. Ninahexan ( talk) 01:32, 8 September 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.
The proposal is based on unsupported original research, there is no substantial support for it and none is likely to materialize, and in the light of that there is consensus to archive. -- TS 19:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article describes global warming as a continuing process. This assertion is now clearly at odds with the Royal society who make it clear that: "This warming has not been gradual, but has been largely concentrated in two periods, from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000." In order to accommodate this change in scientific thinking I suggest the following change to the first sentence:
You are trying to synthesize a general trend out of specific statements. This is not helpful. You are misrepresenting the source, which says nothing about global warming not continuing, or not happening currently. It discusses two periods of more substantial warming, which is discussed in this article - "Global temperature is subject to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. The relative stability in temperature from 2002 to 2009 is consistent with such an episode." Hipocrite ( talk) 19:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)
Measurements show that averaged over the globe, the surface has warmed by about 0.8oC (with an uncertainty of about ±0.2oC) since 1850. This warming has not been gradual, but has been largely concentrated in two periods, from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000. The warming periods are found in three independent temperature records over land, over sea and in ocean surface water. Even within these warming periods there has been considerable year-to-year variability. The warming has also not been geographically uniform – some regions, most markedly the high-latitude northern continents, have experienced greater warming; a few regions have experienced little warming, or even a slight cooling.
When these surface temperatures are averaged over periods of a decade, to remove some of the year-to-year variability, each decade since the 1970s has been clearly warmer (given known uncertainties) than the one immediately preceding it. The decade 2000-2009 was, globally, around 0.15oC warmer than the decade 1990-1999.
The proposition is that the first sentence is changed to reflect the Royal Society position so that it now reads: "Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the of Earth's near-surface air and oceans as was experienced from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000." It is not to say: it is cooling. The fact it is widely accepted that global warming has stopped, is A reason for putting this change. Note for those who are purposely being obstructive IT IS ONLY ONE REASON lump it or like it, it doesn't matter because the point under discussion is whether the lead should reflect the position of the pre-eminent scientific body. 85.211.202.125 ( talk) 23:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, enough with the jokes. Can we get back to discussing the article? Guettarda ( talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The proposal was addressed. The proposal is wrong. It took a quote out of context, and it suggests that warming in certain periods implies cooling in all other periods. It is widely known that global warming has stopped by conservative news sources, who also know that global warming never started and that global warming when it started was not caused by burning fossil fuels. They also know that thousands of climate scientists doubt global warming and that all climate scientists are liers. They also know that nobody minds it when they contradict themselves. Rick Norwood ( talk) 18:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems fitting that there is no critic section of this in relation to articles about how humans are not contributing to the global climate change.
Almost all references to the opposite of "man made global warming" is conveniently not to be found. If man can cause global warming, can it cause global cooling like in the 70's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.197.90 ( talk) 15:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Really? Why? It's not remotely a reliable source for climate predictions, the reference is two years old, and the "Brattleboro Reformer" may be reliable for local information, but is hardly a source of wide notability. Moreover, the quote (if it is one) is unclear - is Joseph D'Aleo contributing to the OFA or to the BR? The whole sentence is also grammatically challenged, and at least archaically quaint, not encyclopaedic. Is the intro ("Said ...") also lifted from the article (in which case it should be marked as a quote) or the creation of a Wikipedian? -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 07:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking at Talk:Old Farmer's Almanac and at the article itself, I see that the item was included in the article. I've commented on that, and then noticed that somebody had recently said that the publication in question was a quite different one with a similar name: Farmer's Almanac. The claim seems credible, but I'm still investigating.
On the sourcing, I have to ask that those who suggested this please stop dredging the barrel ever deeper. Sourcing science facts cannot be done from daft almanacs, books written by retired accountants, newspaper articles of any description, newspaper opinion columns written by writers infamous for their scientific incompetence, and the like. We are living through the golden age of science--more scientific information is available to scientists and the public, from extensively reviewed sources, than at any other time in history. There is no need to muddy our reporting of the known facts with nonsense and obfuscation. -- TS 23:56, 8 September 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.
Uncertainty is covered in all relevant sources and the new report does not introduce anything new. In the circumstances, change of content does not seem to be merited. -- TS 00:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Following the change in position of the Royal society, the lede fails to adequately signal the uncertainties in this subject and to address this I suggest including the following quote in the lede: "The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty" [41] Isonomia ( talk) 12:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Our lede (i.e. our summary), sentence by sentence goes: [defn] [average rise] [cause (human)] [counter (dimming)]. The RS summary similarly reduced, goes [cause (human)] [uncertainty/range] [risks] [politics]. It is clear that we have a more tempered summary already than the RS: we place two statements before stating the cause (they place it first); we mention global dimming very prominently, which they omit at this level; they go straight from the science into stating the substantiality of the risks and so the importance that "decision makers take account of [climate science's] findings", which we do not venture into this high up the article. So, by a point-by-point comparison, even after this alleged "change of position", our introduction to GW is more muted than that of the RS. I can't see why anyone would want to argue with this, other than to argue that we should be more definite. -- Nigelj ( talk) 12:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
On the original claim at the head of this section, that there has been a "change in position of the Royal society", what evidence do we have to support that? I notice that the Daily Mail also seems to claim that the Society has changed its position, but from the statement of John Pethica I see no sign of a change. -- TS 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)