![]() | 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 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
As I understand it, IPCC 2007 used a simple model for A1FI that did not, to use some lay speak, "include" certain feedbacks. But other models used for other scenarios did "include" feedbacks. As a non-modeller, what I get from that is that some models are programmed with the assumption feedbacks can happen, and others are not. Since I'm not a modeller, I'm having some trouble with this sentence,
Its my guess other readers who know the models don't always "include" feedbacks might experience the same problem so I'm hoping some text will emerge from this discussion to help those other readers. Thanks in advance for comments. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, so here's my problem with the text I quoted at the top of this subsection. "Feedback X" does not necessarily emerge from every single model. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The phrasing as it now exists is prone to misinterpretation that all feedbacks always emerge from all models, or an alternative false reading would be that if a feedback emerges it was a happy accident, not the result of sweat and brains and some assumptions about what to do in order to create a desired feedback. Moreover, here's this unsupported assertion from climate sensitivity
Before I try to draft alternative text for the following, anyone have any more input on this?
Thanks for reading.... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy has added to the reasons for uncertainty in the IPCC predictions "(4) an assumption in the models that temperature will rise in a linear fashion when in fact the rate of global temperature rise is accelerating[14]" . This is at odds with my understanding that the models used do not make any direct assumption about the shape of the temperature curve. I would have removed it but it appears to be supported by what seems a legitimate reference. -- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 00:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
“ | For the case of the global mean temperature however, we have enough modelling experience to have confidence that, to first order, global mean surface temperatures at decadal and longer timescales are a reasonably linear function of the global mean radiative forcings. This result is built in to simple energy balance models, but is confirmed (more or less) by more complex ocean-atmosphere coupled models and our understanding of long term paleo-climate change. | ” |
I was astonished after reading this article about Climate Change to see that no single reference is made to the GAIA theory of James Lovelock. As found some decades ago, the biosphere has a very powerful regulatory action on the climate. Hence, any serious climate mathematical model must include the important effects of the biosphere on the climate. Taking into account that these biological effects are very complex and difficult to model, the outcome of these climate models should have a high degree of uncertainty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuel.frn ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
In this edit Dave souza ( talk · contribs) sources the statement "the 20th century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden rise in global temperatures", but the sources provided are about Arctic warming, not global warming. I'm not going to revert because I think the text is right, but it needs better sourcing. - Atmoz ( talk) 21:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) which could also be added as a source if desired. .
dave souza,
talk
00:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The lede has be trimmed considerably, and makes for a more coherent overview, with one exception; Global Warming not only encompasses the current temperature rise, but the projected continuation as well. It isn't until well down in the lede that a higher rise is implied, which I believe results in a sense of vagueness about future expectations. I suggest that we add "and its projected continuation" back to the first sentence to clearly capture the expectations of the scientific consensus. An alternative could also be "...the current and future rise..." or "...the current and continuing rise...". - Skyemoor ( talk) 14:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The tone of this discussion is grossly contrary to the terms of the general sanctions
|
---|
You "protectors" of the AGW faith care more about your rules than subject matter, but ok, let's please remove the manufactured term "consensus" fro this article per: The authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the manufacture of consensus National Communication Association, Chicago, November, 2009 Jean Goodwin (goodwin@iastate.edu) Iowa State University 1. Introduction It is widely perceived that "manufactured controversy" has become a serious problem for contemporary civic deliberations. Advocates for special interests have been able to delay, or even derail, much-needed policies by creating an appearance of scientific doubts where there are in fact none. "Denialists" in controversies over policies towards AIDS or towards teaching biology tread a path first laid down by advocates for Big Tobacco, who famously proclaimed "doubt is our product" (Ceccarelli; Michaels; Weinel; Paroske). In this environment, the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seems a remarkable achievement. Through a series of (up to now) four reports starting in 1990, the IPCC has managed to establish as a political "given" that the earth is warming, and that human activity is a significant cause. The fourth report was the occasion for the Bush II administration's shift from statements like this: We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it. in 2001, with it's typical assertions of "uncertainty" as a reason for inaction, to statements like this: [The IPCC report] reflects the sizeable and robust body of knowledge regarding the physical science of climate change, including the finding that the Earth is warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming of the last 50 years. in 2007. How did the IPCC manage this feat? In opposition to those who would create an appearance of doubt, the IPCC has made evident a broad and deep agreement among scientists— they have "manufactured consensus." Mk 71.228.95.196 ( talk) 19:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC) ..may there be no more William Connolley's to protect bias...
Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Freeman Dyson, Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, McGraw-Hill Scientific Encyclopedia, Popular Technology's list of 900 peer reviewed papers.....It's not hard to find examples of scientists who dispute the IPCC's projections. In this context, "consensus" just seems to mean "don't disagree with me." Kauffner ( talk) 02:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Sockpuppetry. Again. Sigh. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello. There needs to be more discussion of the impact of methane on global warming (see http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/30/global-methane-initiative-moves-forward/). Cow flatulence is one main contributor. Could someone add a section on this? I can't seem to add one. Sweetbreads ( talk) 23:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Little is mentioned in this article about Solar expansion or the possibilty that the Sun is expanding & thus creating more heat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.198.106 ( talk) 23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The Sun is expanding at far too insignificant a rate to be causing global warming. Consider - the Sun has been expanding for several billion years, but the temperature profiles for the past millenia do not reflect this. Therefore, the expansion of the Sun is not a significant cause of global warming. Understand that we are talking about global warming on the order of decades - not eons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.82.3.52 ( talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I've added tags to this section of the introduction:
Using computer models of the climate system based on six greenhouse-gas emission scenarios, the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that global surface temperature is likely to rise 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by 2100,[7][8] and the upper limit of that range does not include any warming from the potential release of certain carbon cycle feedbacks.[9][neutrality] By 2010, more recent observations of emissions made the A1FI scenario the "business as usual" case[10], and confirmed that "the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories or even worse are being realised".[11][neutrality] Recent research suggests that including some carbon cycle feedbacks would result in a temperature rise of 4°C in the 2070's.[9][neutrality]
I'll explain each tag separately below: [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]
Using computer models of the climate system based on six greenhouse-gas emission scenarios, the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that global surface temperature is likely to rise 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by 2100,[7][8] and the upper limit of that range does not include any warming from the potential release of certain carbon cycle feedbacks.[9][neutrality]
The statement in bold is based on one paper. This is unbalanced. There are lots and lots of papers on climate change projections, and in my view, citing the results of one paper in the introduction is not acceptable. The article should represent, in a balanced and objective manner, all of the scientific literature. Individual findings or papers should not receive undue weight. It may be appropriate to cite the paper in a sub-article, e.g., the
global climate model article. Even then, however, it may still not be appropriate for the reason that I've already given. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]
The thaw and decay of even a small portion of the permafrost carbon could have substantial effects on atmospheric CO2 and methane concentrations. However, none of the climate projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, none of the recent permafrost projections, and none of the projections of the terrestrial carbon cycle account for the PCF (permafrost carbon feedback).
{{
cite journal}}
: Text "Vol 25" ignored (
help)Pools of concern include tropical peatland carbon, which is vulnerable to land clearing and drainage, and the large stores of organic carbon in Arctic permafrost, which are vulnerable to warming. Recent work is starting to quantify the amplifying effect of these vulnerabilities on climate change. There is increasing confidence that their net result will be to amplify the atmospheric CO2 and methane increases to 2100, thence amplifying climate change. The amplification factor is ill constrained, and best current estimates range from near zero to over 50%. Under the IPCC1 A2 emissions scenario, which predicts global warming of about 4C without carbon-climate feedbacks, an additional 0.1 to 1.5C is predicted from the vulnerability of land and ocean sinks. The additional effect of accelerated methane and CO2 emissions from thawing permafrost is potentially very significant but is not yet quantified.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)By 2010, more recent observations of emissions made the A1FI scenario the "business as usual" case[10], and confirmed that "the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories or even worse are being realised".[11][neutrality]
This sentence is misleading and lacks objectivity. The A1FI scenario projects future social and economic developments and related emissions over the course of the entire 21st century. A few years of emissions data does not make it the "BAU" case, since future emissions are uncertain. In other words, future emissions trajectories may be above or below the A1FI trajectory. The sentence is supported by two cited sources, however, these sources are not representative of the scientific literature. For example, a USGCRP report (PDF, pp22-23) states that:
Recent carbon dioxide emissions are, in fact, above the highest emissions scenario developed by the IPCC (...). Whether this will continue is uncertain. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]
A UNEP study (PDF, p55) states:
The majority of results in this report show that emissions in 2020 expected from the Copenhagen Accord pledges are higher than emission levels consistent with a “medium” or “likely” chance of staying below 2° C and 1.5° C. At the same time they also show that the range of 2020 emission levels from the Copenhagen Accord pledges tends to be consistent with the IAM pathways that have “likely” temperature increases of 2.5° C to 5° C up to the end of the twenty-first century. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]
These two sources support my argument that future emissions are uncertain, and depend on future social and economic development.
It is misleading to suggest that the A1FI scenario is now the "business-as-usual" emissions pathway for this reason. Even though this assertion is supported by two sources, these sources are not representative of the literature. When referring to "BAU" projections, it should be mentioned how wide the range of possible emissions pathways is in the published literature [4]. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]
Even with strong political will, the chances of shifting the global energy system fast enough to avoid 2C are slim. Trajectories that result in eventual temperature rises of 3C or 4C are much more likely, and the implications of these larger temperature changes require serious consideration. In this issue, Betts et al. use a series of global climate model simulations, accounting for uncertainty in key atmospheric and coupled-carbon-cycle feedbacks on climate, to explore the timings of climate change under a high-end, roughly business-as-usual scenario, IPCC SRES A1FI, where emissions have reached 30 Gt of CO2 (8 GtC) per year by 2100. All but two of the models reach 4C before the end of the twenty-first century, with the most sensitive model reaching 4C by 2061, a warming rate of 0.5C per decade. All the models warm by 2C between 2045 and 2060. This supports the message that an early peak and departure from a business-as-usual emissions pathway are essential if a maximum temperature below 4C is to be avoided with any degree of certainty.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
11:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)In addition the sentence states:
By 2010, more recent observations of emissions made the A1FI scenario the "business as usual" case[10], and confirmed that "the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories or even worse are being realised".[11][neutrality]
"Worst-case" lacks of objectivity. The IPCC do not refer to A1FI as the "worst-case" scenario. It is a value judgement made by the authors of the cited source. The only consensus I'm aware of on predominately adverse effects at higher levels of warming is by the IPCC, (Table SPM-3) but this does not specifically refer to the A1FI scenario. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]
Recent research suggests that including some carbon cycle feedbacks would result in a temperature rise of 4°C in the 2070's.[9][neutrality]
This is biased for the same reason I gave earlier. The article should give a balanced overview of the literature, and not place undue weight on the findings of one paper. Enescot ( talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale, with the instrumemtal temperature record overlaid in black. Should say Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale, with the instrumental temperature record overlaid in black. This is a semi-protected page and I do not know where to suggest this change. -- Ryagole ( talk) 15:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon
One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.
...
In 2003 Soon said at a US senate hearing that he had "not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any organisation that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change."
should this be added in this article, and if so, how? Kevin Baas talk 13:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article.
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change/Archive 64. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change/Archive 64 at the Reference desk. |
Extended content
|
---|
As everyone knows, there has been no significant warming this century. As everyone knows who knows anything about global warming, the climate "scientists" who run this page will never in a month of Sundays (30 years) admit that it isn't currently warming. However that doesn't stop it being against Wikipedia policy to hide the truth. 88.104.193.134 ( talk) 12:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
"The huge increase in coal-fired power stations in China has masked the impact of global warming in the last decade because of the cooling effect of their sulphur emissions, new research has revealed. But scientists warn that rapid warming is likely to resume when the short-lived sulphur pollution – which also causes acid rain – is cleaned up and the full heating effect of long-lived carbon dioxide is felt. The last decade was the hottest on record and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1998. But within that period, global surface temperatures did not show a rising trend, leading some to question whether climate change had stopped. The new study shows that while greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise, their warming effect on the climate was offset by the cooling produced by the rise in sulphur pollution. This combined with the sun entering a less intense part of its 11-year cycle and the peaking of the El Niño climate warming phenomenon. The number of coal-fired power stations in China multiplied enormously in that period: the electricity-generating capacity rose from just over 10 gigawatts (GW) in 2002 to over 80GW in 2006 (a large plant has about 1GW capacity). But rather than suggesting that cutting carbon emissions is less urgent due to the masking effect of the sulphur, Prof Robert Kaufman, at Boston University and who led the study, said: "If anything the paper suggests that reductions in carbon emissions will be more important as China installs scrubbers [on its coal-fired power stations], which reduce sulphur emissions. This, and solar insolation increasing as part of the normal solar cycle, [will mean] temperature is likely to increase faster." Prof Joanna Haigh, at Imperial College London, commented: "The researchers are making the important point that the warming due to the CO2 released by Chinese industrialisation has been partially masked by cooling due to reflection of solar radiation by sulphur emissions. On longer timescales, with cleaner emissions, the warming effect will be more marked." The cooling effect of sulphur pollution on climate has long been recognised by scientists studying volcanic eruptions, which have, for example, caused failed crops and famines in the past. Sulphur dioxide forms droplets of sulphuric acid in the stratosphere, which increases the reflection of the Sun's heat back to space, cooling the Earth's surface. The effect also explains the lack of global temperature rise seen between 1940 and 1970: the effect of the sulphur emissions from increased coal burning outpaced that of carbon emissions, until acid rain controls were introduced, after which temperature rose quickly. Some have even proposed sulphur dioxide could used to geoengineer the planet by deliberately injecting millions of tonnes into the atmosphere to combat warming. The new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday, analysed possible reasons for the flat 1998-2008 temperature trend using climate models and concluded that it was unlikely to be due simply to the random variation inherent in the planet's climate system. Instead it found the effect of sulphur, the sun and El Niño dominated, with the El Niño climate phase peaking in 1998 – the hottest year ever recorded – then moving into a phase dominated by its cooler mirror image, La Niña. The scientists ruled out changes in water vapour or carbon soot in the atmosphere as significant factors. They emphasised the rapid increase in coal burning in Asia, and in China in particular, noting that Chinese coal consumption doubled between 2002 and 2007: the previous doubling had taken 22 years. Michael E Mann, at Pennsylvania State University and not part of the research team, said the study was "a very solid, careful statistical analysis" which reinforces research showing "there is a clear impact of human activity on ongoing warming of our climate". It demonstrated, Mann said, that "the claim that 'global warming has stopped' is simply false." " Count Iblis ( talk) 15:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Here's the study that article is based on in case anyone is interested: "Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008" -1. Robert K. Kaufmann 2. Heikki Kauppi 3. Michael L. Mann 4. James H. Stock Abstract: "Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects."-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 08:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
a very strong (warming) El Niño and ends with a moderate (cooling) La Niña combined with an very low solar minimum. Yet the ocean kept warming. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
|
This thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article.
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change/Archive 64. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change/Archive 64 at the Reference desk. |
Extended content
|
---|
In Science News by Nadia Drake July 30th, 2011; Vol.180 #3 (p. 17) ... Sulfur stalls surface temperature rise: Findings explain decade without warming ... Also see http://esciencenews.com/sources/the.guardian.science/2011/07/04/sulphur.chinese.power.stations.masking.climate.change and The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/04/sulphur-pollution-china-coal-climate 99.181.137.224 ( talk) 02:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
This thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article.
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change/Archive 64. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change/Archive 64 at the Reference desk. |
Extended content
|
---|
|
Add comparison shown in Scientific American's article The Last Great Global Warming: Surprising new evidence suggests the pace of the earth's most abrupt prehistoric warm-up paled in comparison to what we face today. The episode has lessons for our future by Lee R. Kump June 29, 2011. Quotation example ...
Back then, around 56 million years ago, I would have been drenched with sweat rather than fighting off a chill. Research had indicated that in the course of a few thousand years—a mere instant in geologic time—global temperatures rose five degrees Celsius, marking a planetary fever known to scientists as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. Climate zones shifted toward the poles, on land and at sea, forcing plants and animals to migrate, adapt or die. Some of the deepest realms of the ocean became acidified and oxygen-starved, killing off many of the organisms living there. It took nearly 200,000 years for the earth’s natural buffers to bring the fever down.
References include:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)See Wicked problem ... 99.181.134.19 ( talk) 07:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Global temperature rose five degrees Celsius 56 million years ago in response to a massive injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That intense gas release was only 10 percent of the rate at which heat-trapping greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere today. The speed of today’s rise is more troubling than the absolute magnitude, because adjusting to rapid climate change is very difficult.
There have been several subsections addressing various complaints about the lead. Before we spend a great deal of time wordsmithing subsections, let's revisit the basic structure of the lead
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lead_section) which states the lead should have no more than four paragraphs. Global warming is a broad topic, and IMO using four paragraphs is appropriate. Here's how I would like to see them arranged (not too different than today)
That's not so different than what we have now, except 3 and 4 were combined. (I later struck my own text)
Before we talk about streamlining, etc, is there some reason to structure the lede differently? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The current wp Planetary boundaries has for Control variables.
64.27.194.74 ( talk) 18:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
99.112.214.230 ( talk) 01:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a debate forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
One writer on global warming accused the deniers of being "white" and of being middle-aged or older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 15:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC) I too am upset that someone somewhere said something, unfortunately the fascists here demand sources. 137.111.13.200 ( talk) 01:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
People of all stripes can say all manner of things, but if it has nothing to contribute to the page then I am left wondering why this is relevant. 137.111.13.200 ( talk) 00:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
Wikipedia is not a debate forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Start interview: Mueller: We are here on the island of Sylt at the conference “Gegenwind” and I have with me Professor Dr. Malberg from Berlin. Professor Malberg, what do you say about wind power with regards to the climate discussion? Prof. Malberg: Wind power plants cannot be justified by the climate issue. I examined in detail what drives the climate and I looked at all the available data, from Europe, from USA, from Japan – all data were evaluated, and naturally the global data. It clearly shows that the climate is dominated by the sun, and then on top of that by the oceans, and then a little bit by the CO2 effect. I would estimate it has a magnitude of 10%, for Co2, and not more. More than 80% of the climate change is driven by the sun. That means relative to natural climate change, the influence by CO2 is very small, and so it does not justify any action for climate protection, where wind parks are built in order to save CO2. Sure you can do it, but it won’t have any impact on our climate, at least no real impact... [...snip]
- End - Mk 71.228.95.196 ( talk) 16:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
|
The approach here is hostile and unsuitable to an article covered by general sanctions
|
---|
Whoever keeps adding the easter eggs needs to fucking quit it. - Atmoz ( talk) 20:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
|
I have reverted this edit because it makes the article substantially worse.
I moved the reference to the 2010 Gallup Poll (which asked about 'global warming') from the lede to the section on public opinion. In addition, I added a later and seemingly contradictory poll from Yale & George Mason (which asked about 'climate change), as well as a U of Mich study that shows what the public says they believe depends on which term you use. This paradox renders it impossible to succinctly cover specific poll results in the lede. Therefore, I moved the Gallup text intact, and added this other stuff.
Anyone wanna shoot me? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
i couldn't find anything about "scibaby" in google.es 190.175.195.27 ( talk) 00:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Here [10], User:Squiddy reverted my edit.
There is no such thing as a direct measure of temperature. If you measure temperature on a mercury-in-glass thermometer you are measuring a length which is related to the thermal expansion of a liquid. There are lots of ways of measuring temperature. If I remember correctly from my thermodynamics course, gas thermometers are the gold standard but even may differ from true temperature as understood by the zeroth law of thermodynamics.
I don't normally revert reverts prior to discussion but I have in this case. IanOfNorwich ( talk) 13:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This issue has arisen as a result of a [ series of changes to the lead second paragraph].
In the more recent version the lead 2nd paragraph falsely asserts that in AR4, the IPCC projected that temps are "likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C". That statement is supposedly supported by an IPCC summary document referenced as citation #6. This document does not say we are likely to warm between 1.1 to 6.4 °C. Instead, at page 13 that document specifies likely ranges for the six specific emissions scenarios IPCC selected for use in AR4. IPCC made no statement as to which of those scenarios is more likely than any other. Therein lies the problem. The low number in this alleged range comes from the B1 scenario, and to quote from Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, some of the characteristics of the world that produces the B1 scenario are
Somewhere in the wiki help pages it says you don't have to provide a citation for the sky is blue. I think we all agree that our current world is not an example of the B1 characteristics listed above and that bringing such a world about would require vast changes in society. Because IPCC did not say it is likely that will happen, IPCC did not say temp rise is likely to be as low as 1.1C. On the other hand, IPCC also did not say that emissions are likely to remain high and produce a rise at the high end of the range.
The current text fails verification, and when someone back in time simply stuck a dash inbetween the the low end of the B1 emissions scenario (1.1 C) and the high end of the A1Fi scenario (6.4 C) they committed a WP:SYN. It's the same error in logic illustrated in this intentionally absurd example
I'm sure some will assert that the problem goes away because of the following sentence. That sentence is also a problem. The part about uncertainty and models' varying degrees of climate sensitivity is fine. The part about uncertainty over which emissions scenario will occur is some editors attempt to cure the prior WP:SYN. IPCC made no assertion that any scenario is more likely than any other. Forgiving the WP:SYN in the prior sentence with this text is to put an implied statement into IPCC's mouth that all the scenarios are equally likely.
I propose to take the approach in the prior version of the comparison I linked to above. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I was returning, in part, to an earlier version because it was well worded accurate (mostly) and succinct. I say mostly as it has the problem to which I think you are referring - that it kind of conflates physical uncertainties (climate sensitivity) with uncertainties of choice (ie emmisions). I'd like this fixed. But the lede has to remain short and well written.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
How about this replacing x,y,p and q with the correct figures: "Climate model projections summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further x to y °C (xx to yy °F) during the 21st century for the lowest emissions scenario and p to q°C (pp to qq °F) for the highest.[6] The uncertainty in these estimates arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[7]" -- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 15:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
(This is in response to Kim. I was interlining at this level when other comments appeared.)
As I noted above (though probably lost in the mass) WP:LEDE suggests inclusion in the lede depends on weight given in the article not the prominence of the source. The source must be reliable and the content should reflect the article. SRES was published in 2000. And no we can't say what course emissions will take in the future but we can say what course we are on. I'd like to see the citations NAEG mentioned. In the mean time I'm going to take the drastic step of trying to read through the article....-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 21:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I still prefer:
"Climate model projections are summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.5 to 1.9 °C (2.7 to 3.4 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 3.4 to 6.1 °C (6.1 to 11.0 °F) for their highest.[6] The uncertainty in these estimates arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[7]"
It's shorter, more accurately describes the IPCC as "summarising" rather than "using" models, refers more specifically to "climate models" rather than "computer models". I like the addition of the extra full stop and have adopted it above breaking one large sentence into two at the cost of the addition of two words.--
IanOfNorwich (
talk)
19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
So it is OK to have an enormous discussion about exactly what the IPCC predicted, but it's not permissible to point out that they did not predict the decade of cooling following 2001. There can be no clearly evidence that this article has nothing to do with science. You waffle on ad nausea regarding how many angels are on the head of a pin, and ignore the simple fact that it isn't warming ... 88.104.193.134 ( talk) 12:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've broken this off from the above topic for the sake of clarity. I'll try to copy the relavant content here in a mo(and add my comments)...-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 19:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I obviously wasn't reading your comments carefully enough. I've now had a look at page 233 of Warren and yes it does talk qualitatively about 2 feedback mechanisms not included in the current models, there will be plenty of others both positive and negative in any case(I trust less significant overall than those included in the models). But I don't think this is a great problem firstly as we are talking about uncertainty in these models and secondly because you have to draw the line somewhere in what is included in any model and that includes the part of the model relating to uncertainty. That has been done by the IPCC. It does not mean that we can't point out what's not in the models in the appropriate place - ie the climate models section or sub article.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 16:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Can this image be included:
. An estimate of the death toll per year would also be useful (death toll in 2003= 150000 people (ref= http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2003/12/61562 )
91.182.144.170 ( talk) 13:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Global Warming is a big topic. While it may be notable I'm not sure it has sufficient weight for inclusion here. It would probably make a useful addition to Effects of global warming or Regional effects of global warming-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 16:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we have consensus that this image is not useable here. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems this article has been mostly written and curated by men and women of science. However, in an interest to better represent multiple viewpoints, I would like to see an approach to Global Warming observed by men of faith presented as an alternative POV. I don't think a point-by-point refutation of the science is appropriate, but I would like to see the broader issues of global warming discussed in communities of faith discussed, as its validity or lack thereof is critical to several individuals dealing with faith in contemporary America and Canada. I'm not certain if the "Global warming controversy" page is appropriate, as that appears to be geared towards political discussion and debate on the manner. CurtisJasper ( talk) 07:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is about a scientific phenomenon. Specifically, it's about the fact that temperature readings when aggregated and averaged over the globe over all periods of the year have been rising for some decades at an accelerated rate. We have other articles covering various views on global warming. I wouldn't even be surprised if we had an article on religious views about global warming, and that would probably be a good topic for an article. Religious views, though, don't change scientific results. -- TS 01:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a very important and well maintained article on an important subject, so my decision to curate the talk page is quite ambitious. I want to leave the editing process as free as possible, but sometimes the discussion page can become quite noisy. That's mostly because, understandably, people come to this page to put their personal opinions up for discussion. I'm also painfully aware that the talk page may become very large. Today I have archived threads with the following titles:
For the most part they were obviously unproductive threads or had been hanging around going nowhere for over two weeks. Some of the discussions had been closed (mostly by me) as too hostile for a page under general sanctions. The reason for doing this was to stop the page growing stupidly large with unproductive discussion, in the hope of stimulating more discussion by reducing the page load time.
The page is still rather large: about 90kb in size. I think it's about right, though. About 40kb has been moved to the archive page. Please do restore any productive discussions that I have incorrectly archived. -- TS 04:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
This thread is archivable per wiki rules on grounds of disruption. Talk pages are for improving the article, but in the IP commenter's own words the IP is "not suggesting any of the above goes into the article, I'm merely criticising the article..." NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I used to accept the stance that "science says". But with the recent spate of good observational papers undermining all aspects of global warming "science", I decided to compare the empirical evidence for and against the doomsday scenario. Now, I've scanned this article several times looking for any scientific (i.e. observational/empirical evidence) to support the massive feedbacks and there is nothing ... nothing about the lack of empirical science supporting these feedbacks and nothing about all the science that as far as I can see proves these feedbacks to be bogus nonsense. So what is this supposed "science" that I'm failing to spot? Where is this this science behind this theory, because without any science for and so much (undescribed) science against, I really fail to see how this article meets requirements of NPOV particularly when it claims to be about the science. 88.104.204.122 ( talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
And just to reiterate, I'm not suggesting any of the above goes into the article, I'm merely criticising the article for not having much if any empirical science in it and listing the areas where I expected to get answers from this overtly warmist article and singularly failed to get much help. OK, I've given up on NPOV, but at least if it going to be warmist, it could be a helpful article and actually provide the scientific basis for the warmist position ... in otherwords, better it cover one side well than what it does at the moment! 88.104.204.122 ( talk) 22:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
|
In bold text below is my suggested addition to the section on greenhouse gases:
Over the last three decades of the 20th century, GDP per capita and population growth were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions.[51] CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[52][53]:71 Emissions can be attributed to different regions. The two figures opposite show annual greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2005, including land-use change. Attribution of emissions due to land-use change is a controversial issue.[54]:93[55]:289 For example, concentrating on more recent changes in land-use (as the figures opposite do) is likely to favour those regions that have deforested earlier, e.g., Europe.
Emissions can also be measured over longer time periods. Measuring cumulative CO2 emissions gives some indication of who is responsible for the build-up in the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere (IEA, 2007, p.199) and consequently, who is historically most responsible for the impacts of global warming (Banuri et al, 1996, p105; UNEP, 2010, p12; IPCC, 2001, p67). Between the start of the industrial revolution and 2004, developing and least-developed economies, who represent 80% of the world's population, accounted for 23% of cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning (Raupach et al, 2007, discussion section).
References:
I see this addition as only being fair. My interpretation of "fair" is based on my reading of the UNFCCC treaty, which most countries have ratified (
first bit of the treaty).
Enescot (
talk)
15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Why should regional annual emissions be preferred to regional cumulative emissions? In my opinion, concentrating on annual emissions, as this section of the article does, is implicitly biased in favour of rich countries. I should note that regional emissions are already mentioned in the later politics section of the article, i.e.,:
'[...] the developed world's emissions had contributed most to the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere; per-capita emissions (i.e., emissions per head of population) were still relatively low in developing countries; and the emissions of developing countries would grow to meet their development needs.[...]
In my opinion, the above info on regional emissions is perfectly acceptable since it is an objective description of a key part of UNFCCC negotiations.
One way of avoiding this problem would be to delete information on regional emissions in the greenhouse gas section of the article. Information could be added on sectoral emissions as a replacement. I think that the two diagrams on annual emissions should be deleted:
To replace these diagrams, a new figure could be added on sectoral emissions:
I think that info on regional emissions in the greenhouse gas section (in bold) should also be deleted: -
{i} Over the last three decades of the 20th century, gross domestic product per capita and population growth were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions.[45] CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[46][47]:71 Emissions can be attributed to different regions. The two figures opposite show annual greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2005, including land-use change. Attribution of emissions due to land-use change is a controversial issue.[48]:93[49]:289
The first part of the above paragraph {i} is already partly duplicated in the preceeding paragraph of the article, i.e.,:
Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.[44]
The issue of relating emissions to economic growth and population could then be integrated into the following paragraph of the article, i.e., :
[...] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.
Over the last three decades of the 20th century, increases in world population and gross domestic product per head of world population were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions scenarios, estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases, have been projected that depend upon uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments [...]
I've altered the first sentence since people may not know what "per capita" means.
Enescot (
talk)
19:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
These approaches are all equally valid and important to international discussions on the issue. By picking one and being silent about the others is to inject a POV even if that's unintentional. The US wants to look at annual emissions; China wants to look at cumulative; others want to look at sectors on a global level. What's a poor wiki schmuck to do? ANSWER: Don't pick one over the other, but report on the contentious international debate.
Where to do that is another question. Not in Global warming, I agree. But the Greenhouse Gasarticle suffers from an identity crisis. Parts of it appear to be intended to cover greenhouse gas in general (any planet, any geologic period). Other parts drift to coverage of Earth-right-now. I'd like to see the general aspects of Greenhouse gas merged with the general article Greenhouse effect, the remaining earth-right-now information being renamed Greenhouse gas buildup, and then this information could go there. Maybe someone can offer a better idea, but the main point is: we should report fact that there are massive policy and economic implications that favor one party or another for each of these number crunching methods and that's often the core of international treaty talks. So all these charts are useful, provided the presentation is well done. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Collapsed (again) per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not; This is a long list of news cites and quotes with no original thinking on the part of the IP poster. If the IP has some article specific improvement suggestion in mind, it would be useful if they spit it out instead of making everyone guess. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Airborne particles help explain why temperatures rose less last decade by Alexandra Witze August 13th, 2011; Vol.180 #4 (p. 5) ... Note title in print is different: "Ocean currents and sulfur haze deliver global warming hiatus: but increasing temperatures remain in long-term forecast" pages 5 & 6. (some content is different too) Online excerpt...97.87.29.188 ( talk) 20:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC) 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
with "suggested reading":
An "in print" difference, the conclusion ... "Yet even with such cooling influences, scientists say, global warming will win in the end. Eventually the thickening blanket of greenhouse gases will start global temperatures rocketing up again." 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Also see Category:Climate feedbacks and Category:Climate forcing 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC) More from "in print" version, preceeding the conclusion ...97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
99.181.138.215 ( talk) 03:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC) This is interesting research but doesn't significantly add to our knowledge of global warming yet. Its my understanding that over the past decade the warming has performed well within projections, based on the usual multidecadal baselines. -- TS 15:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
I think this information should be incorporated into the article. I am including a link to the original scientific paper, as well as a secondary source.
Perhaps the article could say, "A 2011 peer reviewed scientific paper showed that real world measurements of heat trappage by carbon dioxide was less than what had been predicted by computer models." 74.98.32.99 ( talk) 18:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
-- 74.98.32.99 ( talk) 18:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BT-FOWVtVQ4J:www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf+http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera&source=www.google.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.49.226 ( talk) 18:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
NASA "fringe" source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.49.226 ( talk) 19:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
May I remind editors to step away from casting judgement on the author and comment on the 'paper' itself, and discuss if it warrants inclusion from Wikipedia's guidelines and not whether you agree or not with their beliefs. Whether he is a creationist, a flat earther, a Mooney or likes painting his arse blue at the weekends is irrelevant. The same should be said for the Heartland institute, it is not our job (though it is common knowledge), to exclude information because they received money from oil companies or have had links with denialism in the past. This is not a court of law where we remove information saying X isn't a reliable witness, we look at the information itself and don't disparage the author, if it is a salient feature then we let other sources do that. Firstly we verify does the source meet the guidelines on reliably sourced, i.e. in this case was it peer reviewed and published in a location that is acceptable to Wikipedia. As JJ stated above look at the FAQ not every paper should be included as per WP:WEIGHT. The last criteria is notability, has the paper received attention in the mainstream press which might warrant it's inclusion, but my personal belief would be it needs to be pretty much in most of the broadsheets for this to apply. Cheers Khu kri 07:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
See FAQ at the top of this page, Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...? . . dave souza, talk 08:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Discussions of Dr Spencers past reliability are relevant in the context of establishing the weight to give this new paper. This is not an appropriate place to talk about the content in that paper. There are probably threads at RealClimate, SkepticalScience etc for objectively talking about the facts, methods, and interpretation in the paper. IMO, Dr Spencer's past track record merits caution, and this particular paper needs time to mature before it acquires sufficient wiki-weight to overcome his past unreliability. Also on weight, (A) Author must pay to be published in Remote Sensing. Does that make it self published? I don't know. What are the peer review policies for that journal? (B) Spencer's paper attacked computer models while remaining silent about tons of observational data. An outlier that attacks the existence of the inside of the circle while admitting through silence that there is an outside to the circle has a rather large conceptual flaw. For all these reasons, this paper presently carries very little weight with me, though I am reluctantly willing to admit that I may change my mind in the future. Will the new paper be cited as supporting material in a future peer-reviewed literature review article by reliable sources, or will those who understand it better find large holes in the methodology? We should wait and see. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm asking all parties to take a step back and remember that this topic, and this article in particular, are subject to some pretty stiff general sanctions. Please read, or read again, the description of the sanctions. Henceforth ensure that all of your comments and edits here and elsewhere conform to the spirit and the letter of the sanctions. -- TS 23:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
National Post, Investor's Business Daily and Grist have all mentioned Spencer's paper. I'm not sure if any of these sources is considered reliable for wikipedia articles, but I thought I'd post the links just in case. 74.98.46.59 ( talk) 19:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This case is an excellent example of how the right-wing climate disinformation media machine works. Roy Spencer, one of the handful of publishing climate scientist ideologues, gets his work into an obscure journal. Then James Taylor, an operative for a fossil fuel front group, claims it is "very important" on Forbes.com, a media website owned by a Republican billionaire. The Forbes blog post was redistributed by Yahoo! News, giving the headline "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" a further veneer of respectability, even though the full post is laughably hyperbolic, using "alarmist" or "alarmism" 15 times in nine paragraphs.
Count Iblis ( talk) 14:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The University of Alabama has issued this press release concerning the study. I don't know if this would count as a primary source or a secondary source, but it could be cited in article. 72.77.62.228 ( talk) 19:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting to compare the response to the Spencer paper which is 11 years of total globe coverage with this [22] paper which was similarly based on radiation measurements from the earth by satellite but this time three months of data from one part of the Pacific. The second was proclaimed as "unequivocal proof", the first is being dismissed. But this is only the first of a stack of papers coming out: CERN, Harde, Salby, and a couple others I forget the names. 88.104.207.84 ( talk) 00:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Other climate researchers have not been able to reproduce the results. Until that changes, further discussion is an inappropriate debate about the issue rather than a friendly dialogue about improving the article. I vote for deletion or archiving of this thread.
New content has been added about a public opinion survey in California. I don't have any problem with the veracity of it but I'm not sure that given the length of the article content on just California makes sense. We have, in the past, excluded discussions of some regional effects of GW due to the length of article that would be created if all area's were discussed with equal weight so the same (at least) should apply to public opion surveys.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 22:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess that the whole politics and public opinion sections would benefit from some work, and some information explaining the reason for the difference in views between the US public vs US scientists and most of the rest of the world, and a sentence could highlight the differences in California and the reasons for them. There are plenty of sources, in general, Merchants of Doubt for a start, (though personally I don't want to go through it again it somehow managed to bore and anger me at the same time) and those 2 studies into scientific opinion on climate change...-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
We've got a [citation needed] tag that's been there for ages. It is on "The most common measure of global warming is the trend in globally averaged temperature near the Earth's surface." It's one of those statements that while probably more or less true is practically impossible to find a citation for probably because it's a bit woolly. That sentence could be lost and worked into "Expressed as a linear trend, this temperature rose by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005." as "The Earth's average surface temperature, expressed as a linear trend, rose by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005." Which is a bit of a sledgehammer of a sentence if you are not into this stuff already. Any ideas?
Another thing I'd like see in the temperature changes section would be at least a mention of stratospheric temperatures (which are falling as expected (Karl et al. 2006)). Though this might be difficult without bamboozling new readers. I do think it is important because the it's a fairly intuitive effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which is recorded and not easily explained by, for example, solar variation driving tropospheric warming.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Based on those citations, I think the sentence with the citation needed tag should go away.
The stratosphere point is a good point for refuting the claim that surface temp increases are just from the sun, but I don't think that is the goal of the temp change section, and if refutation of one discredited theory creeps in, why not refutations of many? See [24] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thread lacks any specific suggestions for improving the article, and since article improvement is the sole purpose of this talk page, the thread is archivable as disruptive per wiki rules.
Extended content
|
---|
"it appears that a non-visible light irradiance effect on Earth’s cloud seeds has been confirmed. The way it is posited to work is that the effect of cosmic rays (modulated by the sun’s magnetic variations which either allow more or deflect more cosmic rays) creates cloud condensation nuclei in the Earth’s atmosphere. With more condensation nuclei, more clouds form and vice-versa. Clouds have significant effects on TSI at the surface." [25] Now try to tell me that there's no empirical evidence against this stupid idea that "CO2 did it". 88.104.207.14 ( talk) 19:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Most of the discussion on this page in the last few days has been the result of Scibaby's antics. The following were all Scibaby accounts:
We need to look at the user's contribs before responding and get him checkusered if it looks a likely sock. Will at least make it harder for him.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 18:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article. See also
WP:CIVIL and
WP:NOTAFORUM
|
---|
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.195.57 ( talk) 05:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
|
The opening paragraph states: "Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[4][5][A]"
It seems to me that this second sentence -- specifically, its second clause -- is at best misleading, if not simply false. What should be beyond doubt, however, is that this proposition is not supported by the sources cited in the footnote. Thus, even if this claim were true, other sources must be cited to verify it. (Please see the talk page of global warming controversy for an explanation why this statement is misleading or false.) Nowhere in the Statement of the Joint Science Academies is it indicated that no organization of standing disagrees with the IPCC assessment. I assume that this article was only cited as a source for the first clause of the sentence (that all the major academies of industrialized nations etc.), and not for the second (that no organization of standing disagrees). Oreskes' article, on the other hand, states only that "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies" (bold mine). It does NOT claim that no organization of standing disagrees with those statements. Obviously, it is one thing to claim that "no peer-reviewed articles among 1000 analysed disagreed with the IPCC statement", quite a different thing to say that no scientific organization of standing disagrees with the IPCC statement. To make the second claim, other sources are necessary. If I am wrong, please clarify why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenDen1 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
: Please add any comments to the redundant debate, already underway here Talk:Global_warming_controversy#No_Scientific_Organization_Disagrees NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Re this old discussion: It seems to be generally accepted now that Spencer's and Braswell's paper was severely flawed, and should not have been published. The editor in chief of Remote Sensing has just resigned, with an editorial that calls the paper "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted" and explicitly protests "against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements". Apparently, next week Geophysical Research Letters will also publish a formal rebuttal of the paper. This sequence of events is a good illustration of how FAQ-21 helps us to improve the article (or to keep it from deteriorating). -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 11:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not a debate forum
|
---|
Given that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, perpetrated by the power hungry and their paid (in full - with guranteed funding cancellation for lapse in submission) lap-dog ex-scientists, should Wikipedia take the bold step of not towing the mainstream line? -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Citing the IPCC publications is challenging, and has been not entirely satisfactory. I have worked out a citation format (below) that I think is much improved. If there are no objections I will convert the existing IPCC citations to this format. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 17:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |pdf=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
p. 34minor
Which reminds me, it's probably possible to link the page number...
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |pdf=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)Whaddya think? . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Section 10.3.1: Time-Evolving Global Change,
p. 34. <==Once this is settled, someone please add a FAQ with the result.... I'm sure I won't remember by the time AR5 arrives. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Done!! And you all are welcome to view and comment. Some points to note:
Various lessons learned:
I voted (once!) in a global-warming-related discussion/survey a little over a year ago (as I recall) and a lunatic began making wild accusations about my identity, my "other accounts", and my agenda. Very nice. Not only don't I want to change anything in this article, I'm reluctant to comment. But I feel compelled. Am I the only one who thinks that this article conflates "the climate is changing" with "why the climate is changing"? TreacherousWays ( talk) 20:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the "bright 11-year-old" standard for Wikipedia. The answer to your question seems to be "nobody else has chimed in so far". I agree the article has gotten "lumpy" in places, due to too many hasty edits. I hope you'll help improve it, and I'm sorry about your earlier experience. Controversial topics sometimes bring out the worst in us. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
On any other article, I might use the preferred Bold, Revert, Discuss model. Past experience and observation have taught be that Good Faith is in short supply in these spaces, and there's always one hombre trying to figure out just who's fastest. I prefer to belly up to the bar and act peaceable. TreacherousWays ( talk) 18:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
(A) I don't see where this article is troubled with religious based misunderstandings, (B) I don't know how your idea differs from present reality since there already are detail articles on most components of this subjectm, and (C) most important of all, please see how J Johnson addressed a problem he saw.
Wiki (and the world) needs more people like J Johnson. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I have looked at the article's organisation again, and found the following structure:
It looks to me as if we only need to move section 5 right behind section 1 and the article's overall structure will be fine. Hans Adler 14:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah-HA!!! I feel much, much, much better after finding this. I was really kind of embarrassed and feeling like a dope. To be honest. It's the "wikipedia is not a scientific journal" thingy. TreacherousWays ( talk) 21:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Argumentative thread lacks article improvement ideas. See
WP:NOTAFORUM
|
---|
( Kauffner's comments were off-topic so I have carved this out as a separate sub-section. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC) ) These graphs are presented like they are some big QED. But Earth has always been either warming or cooling, will continue to do so, and so what? I had no idea that there was a major trend with humidity. That certainly makes hard to justify focusing on CO2. This stuff goes in cycles. Before AGW, there was the ozone hole. At one time, that was going to destroy world too. Now no one even keeps track of it. Kauffner ( talk) 17:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
|
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Isnt there an inherent contradiction between Peak Oil and simple extrapolation CO2 use models? Doesnt global warming in the long run correct itself, since we can only burn so much oil-- less than 100 years worth? Mrdthree ( talk) 20:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been making general observations regarding the article and expressing my opinion that it should be made more general, less technical, and focus exclusively on what global warming is, using wikilinks to other more detailed articles to address the role of the IPCC, various climatic models, and proposed corrective actions. This proposed lede was taken largely from the current article lede, just generalized and heavily trimmed. Is there any support among the editors for revising the article in the same manner?
Although the terms "global warming" and "global cooling" can be used to describe cyclic variations in global temperature, the term "global warming" has been generally used since the mid-1970's to describe the current global warming event, which dates from the mid-1700's. Since the late 1800's, measured average global temperature has risen approximately 0.74°C(ref) NOAA Global Warming FAQ(/ref), and further warming is predicted by reputable scientific organizations including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.
Predicted impacts of global warming include: rising sea levels; changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation; an expansion of subtropical deserts; the retreat of glaciers; permafrost and sea ice; more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts and heavy rainfall events; species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes; and changes in agricultural yields.
The current rise in global temperatures has been fairly rapid, and is attributed in large part to the presence of human-produced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although greenhouse gases can be produced by natural events (volcanos, for example), the vast majority of scientists believe that the additional human sources such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agricultural activity have created an imbalance in the global temperature-regulation system, and that corrective actions to reduce those human sources should be taken. TreacherousWays ( talk) 13:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz, I thank you for taking the time to seriously reply. You mention that this was a featured article. Yes it was. That was in 2006, when the article was about 58k bytes long. It's now over 147k bytes and growing inexorably toward 150k. You stated with what I took to be some indignation that you " ... expect a contributor who suggests a major change to the lede of a carefully balanced featured article to spend the time and effort to acquire a reasonable understanding of the domain of discourse ... " The domain of discourse isn't Global warming, it's the focus, technical level, and readability of the general (and introductory?) article on Global warming. I believe that you and other editors are assuming a base level of knowledge that simply isn't there. By way of example, you identify Bjørn Lomborg as someone who should be reasonably well-known. Perhaps he is, within certain technical communitites, but he isn't generally well-known any more than the IPCC is generally well-known. Recognizing that I have been unable to generate any consensus for changing the article, I gracefully withdraw with thanks for the consideration offered. TreacherousWays ( talk) 18:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Ever since seeing the "Rate this page" poll put on a page I was reading once, I at once checked to see if it was on the Global Warming page just for fun. It was not there at the time, as it seems it must have been still being implemented. But yesterday when I came here I saw it there, and I looked at the poll results. When I look at it, it shows this for ratings:
Trustworthy: 238609295 out of 5
Objective: 1.8 out of 5 (that was funny to see...)
Complete: 238609296 out of 5
Well-written: 252645137 out of 5
Obviously, something is terrible wrong with it. So I was wondering if anyone else sees it in this way when checking the results, and if it is indeed a wide-spread problem where it be appropriate to report this problem?
For one working properly, see the poll at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropy for an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 ( talk) 04:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not a general discussion or debate forum. Click "see all" to read debate/general discussion comments
|
---|
Unfortunately 1.8 out of 5 for objectivity seems about right. The article fails to address the scientific fact of dramatic pre-human global warming. Check out this graph from a different WP article which shows dramatic global warming from 11-9,000 years ago: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png How - if AGW theory is correct - could such a dramatic temperature rise occur in the past without any human CO2 to cause it? The significant pre-human warming periods completely disprove the radical AGW theory that human CO2 is solely responsible for global warming, and begs the key question: What role does human CO2 play in global warming - major, minor or infinitesimal? The article would be credible if these questions were addressed. Without any discussion of this glaring problem for AGW theory, the article fails. 1.8 for objectivity is generous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortlieb ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Another graph from WP shows a sea level rise of approximately 140 feet in the last 24,000 years. The chart shows nearly all the rise happened before humans made any CO2. That this magnitude of global warming happened without any human CO2 creates an puzzle for AGW theory - to explain the mechanisms that drove warming before human CO2, and then isolate those mechanisms from human CO2 and then deduce what part of the present warming is due to nature and what part to man. The chart: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortlieb ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
|
The WP article seems unnecessarily biased and "politically correct" - and doesn't fairly reflect logical questions about the extent of human influence on the earth's climate. For instance, WP states in another article that global temperature has risen dramatically about 11-9,000 years ago without any human CO2. Here's a link to the graph of world temperature over the last 12,000 years:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
If AGW theory is correct then what caused this huge temperature rise? The WP article completely ignores the problem of degrees - perhaps manmade CO2 can raise the temperature, but so can the earth, sky, oceans, and sun (obviously). So I support a complete revamping of the tone of the article to get away from the politically popular AGW theory and back to what is known as scientific fact. Thank you. Rortlieb ( talk) 10:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortlieb ( talk • contribs)
There is no issue here. The holocene temperature shifts are explained by known cyclical processes and this is explained adequately in our article. -- TS 02:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
While I do not doubt that global warming is caused by human activities, it is unscientific to conclude that this is the case by correlation alone - no matter how many scientific authorities agree that this is the most likely cause, the impact that humans hold over climate change is a theory.
This does not mean that it's "just a theory" there are lots of theories that have substantial evidence in support. It seems though with the political and social importance climate change holds, we don't mind saying, with absolute certainty, that humans cause global climate change - which the evidence does overwhelmingly support.
Furthermore, wikipedia cannot speak for all scientific bodies.
I recommend changing the first paragraph to:
Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is believed to be caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by the vast majority of scientific bodies of national or international standing.[4][5][A] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.240.200 ( talk) 19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your first point, only an omniscient being(s) (e.g., God) can positively say what anything "is". All the rest of us merely believe things to be the way they "is". I am believed (even by myself) to be opposed to changing every form of the word "is" to some form of "is believed to be" on the encyclopedia. Since this article reports the mainstream scientific view, as opposed to a philosophic view, let's keep that text the way it is. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The IPCC's use of the term very likely is used to denote that the probability is greater than 90%. That does not put an upper bound on the probability as assesed by the IPCC. The sentence in question is not cited directly to the IPCC. The summary of the second citation to the US National Academy of Science's "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" is unequivocal in stating that recent climatic changes "are in large part caused by human activities".-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 12:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Indicating that the concept that human activity contributes to climate change is a theory is certainly appropriate to avoid inserting the bias of the editors into this article and to maintain objective neutrality on such a controversial topic. As requested above, find the Senate report from 2007 containing the names of 400 scientists, some former IPCC reviewers among them, who dispute the theory:
ABLegler ( talk) 02:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Upfront, there is zero doubt in my own mind that increases in GHGs caused by humans is driving global warming. But allow me to put on my NPOV wiki editor hat to look at our citations for the word "is" in the lead. 'lo and behold, the first one (Understanding and Responding to Climate Change" waffles by saying most scientists agree with the conclusion. That document doesn't just say THATS HOW IT IS without pulling punches. Similarly, our other citation from National Research Council mirrors the IPCC's language (my hat off to the IP who corrected me on this). Both state that we're warming (IPCC uses term "unequivocal") but that it's merely "very likely" due to human GHGs..... and "very likely" stops short of "is". Say again, IPCC and our second cite in the article distinguish between the uncertainty that we're warming ("unequivocal") and whether its due to human GHGs ("very likely"). In legal circles careful use of different terms of art suggests a different intended meaning. So I have been persuaded we either need different citations to support "is", or else the text needs to mirror the IPCC and National Research Council's use of these different thresholds of certainty. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I've restored NewsAndEventsGuy's comments to there original location where he wants them. I've restored Udippuy comment's and moved them to after NewsAndEventsGuy's which is where I think they now make most sense (please move them back if preferred). I think we can quite easily WP:AFG as far as Udippuy's relocation of NewsAndEventsGuy's comments go but please bear in mind that editors can (not unreasonably) be touchy about any alteration of there comments. The problem here (with moving etc of edits) is mainly one of convention. Personally I think it much clearer if all new comments go at the bottom of the titled section, indentation can usually be used to indicate what the comment is in response to. Where a thread needs to fork a new headed section should be created. Otherwise it becomes almost impossible to properly follow the discussion (which can be hard enough anyway). On the actual topic of this discussion, I regret I don't have time right now to fully digest Udippuy's many detailed arguments but will do so as soon as time allows....-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 13:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Udippuy, I entirely agree with your last, up to the sentence "Saying that "it is caused by" is equivalent to saying that the probability is exactly equal to 100%.". It is not possible to be exactly 100% certain about anything, yet we often make unequivocal statements. The question is what level of certainty justifies a plain statement of fact. This depends on many factor's such as context. I do not think that readers would expect a higher threshold of certainty for a statement to be made in an encyclopedia (such as this) than in the National Academy of Sciences report. The authors of the US' National Academy of Science report obviously felt that in that context a plain statement was justified. While they discuss the probabilities of other statements near by the following is left as a plain statement:
“ | Conclusion 1: Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems. | ” |
They do go on to discuss the confidence in the "following" findings. If the report were based purely on the work of the IPCC we might reasonably question reliability of US' National Academy of Science report as a source for drawing conclusions unsupported by their sources, but it is not. In short the statement is supported by the source. I do note, however, that we should be saying "mainly", "largely", "in large part" or some similar formulation. As to your broader points can I suggest that they be addressed in another headed thread to keep everything as easy to follow as possible. Though I will say here that while I think there is room for improvement in the style of the opening paragraph that we shouldn't confuse this article with
climate change which covers the broader topic while this article covers the recent warming (inexerably linked with it cause) and the first para attempts to define the topic per
WP:LEDE
NewsAndEventsGuy:My objection to your proposed change is the same as above - ie the current wording is supported by a reliable source.--
IanOfNorwich (
talk)
13:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for a few days of absence. It seems to me that we've reached an agreement on modifying the second sentence of the lede to something like: "Global warming is considered to be very likely caused by the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3]". Notice that I'm not using the verb "believed" but "considered", which is maybe more appropriate in a scientific context. If everybody agrees I'll proceed with the change. Udippuy ( talk) 19:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI only - at the tail end of a l-o-n-g thread above I have started to forcefully push for a change in the opening sentence of the lede. This is just to call attention for a strong consensus. Please add remarks to that thread.
I agree with your initiative. Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rortlieb (
talk
In essence, almost every edit by me on this page is an act of page maintenance. Anybody wondering if I made a mistake should simply undo my edits without asking. -- TS 02:49, 5 November 2011 (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 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
As I understand it, IPCC 2007 used a simple model for A1FI that did not, to use some lay speak, "include" certain feedbacks. But other models used for other scenarios did "include" feedbacks. As a non-modeller, what I get from that is that some models are programmed with the assumption feedbacks can happen, and others are not. Since I'm not a modeller, I'm having some trouble with this sentence,
Its my guess other readers who know the models don't always "include" feedbacks might experience the same problem so I'm hoping some text will emerge from this discussion to help those other readers. Thanks in advance for comments. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, so here's my problem with the text I quoted at the top of this subsection. "Feedback X" does not necessarily emerge from every single model. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The phrasing as it now exists is prone to misinterpretation that all feedbacks always emerge from all models, or an alternative false reading would be that if a feedback emerges it was a happy accident, not the result of sweat and brains and some assumptions about what to do in order to create a desired feedback. Moreover, here's this unsupported assertion from climate sensitivity
Before I try to draft alternative text for the following, anyone have any more input on this?
Thanks for reading.... NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy has added to the reasons for uncertainty in the IPCC predictions "(4) an assumption in the models that temperature will rise in a linear fashion when in fact the rate of global temperature rise is accelerating[14]" . This is at odds with my understanding that the models used do not make any direct assumption about the shape of the temperature curve. I would have removed it but it appears to be supported by what seems a legitimate reference. -- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 00:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
“ | For the case of the global mean temperature however, we have enough modelling experience to have confidence that, to first order, global mean surface temperatures at decadal and longer timescales are a reasonably linear function of the global mean radiative forcings. This result is built in to simple energy balance models, but is confirmed (more or less) by more complex ocean-atmosphere coupled models and our understanding of long term paleo-climate change. | ” |
I was astonished after reading this article about Climate Change to see that no single reference is made to the GAIA theory of James Lovelock. As found some decades ago, the biosphere has a very powerful regulatory action on the climate. Hence, any serious climate mathematical model must include the important effects of the biosphere on the climate. Taking into account that these biological effects are very complex and difficult to model, the outcome of these climate models should have a high degree of uncertainty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuel.frn ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
In this edit Dave souza ( talk · contribs) sources the statement "the 20th century instrumental temperature record shows a sudden rise in global temperatures", but the sources provided are about Arctic warming, not global warming. I'm not going to revert because I think the text is right, but it needs better sourcing. - Atmoz ( talk) 21:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) which could also be added as a source if desired. .
dave souza,
talk
00:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The lede has be trimmed considerably, and makes for a more coherent overview, with one exception; Global Warming not only encompasses the current temperature rise, but the projected continuation as well. It isn't until well down in the lede that a higher rise is implied, which I believe results in a sense of vagueness about future expectations. I suggest that we add "and its projected continuation" back to the first sentence to clearly capture the expectations of the scientific consensus. An alternative could also be "...the current and future rise..." or "...the current and continuing rise...". - Skyemoor ( talk) 14:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The tone of this discussion is grossly contrary to the terms of the general sanctions
|
---|
You "protectors" of the AGW faith care more about your rules than subject matter, but ok, let's please remove the manufactured term "consensus" fro this article per: The authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the manufacture of consensus National Communication Association, Chicago, November, 2009 Jean Goodwin (goodwin@iastate.edu) Iowa State University 1. Introduction It is widely perceived that "manufactured controversy" has become a serious problem for contemporary civic deliberations. Advocates for special interests have been able to delay, or even derail, much-needed policies by creating an appearance of scientific doubts where there are in fact none. "Denialists" in controversies over policies towards AIDS or towards teaching biology tread a path first laid down by advocates for Big Tobacco, who famously proclaimed "doubt is our product" (Ceccarelli; Michaels; Weinel; Paroske). In this environment, the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seems a remarkable achievement. Through a series of (up to now) four reports starting in 1990, the IPCC has managed to establish as a political "given" that the earth is warming, and that human activity is a significant cause. The fourth report was the occasion for the Bush II administration's shift from statements like this: We do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it. in 2001, with it's typical assertions of "uncertainty" as a reason for inaction, to statements like this: [The IPCC report] reflects the sizeable and robust body of knowledge regarding the physical science of climate change, including the finding that the Earth is warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming of the last 50 years. in 2007. How did the IPCC manage this feat? In opposition to those who would create an appearance of doubt, the IPCC has made evident a broad and deep agreement among scientists— they have "manufactured consensus." Mk 71.228.95.196 ( talk) 19:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC) ..may there be no more William Connolley's to protect bias...
Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Freeman Dyson, Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, McGraw-Hill Scientific Encyclopedia, Popular Technology's list of 900 peer reviewed papers.....It's not hard to find examples of scientists who dispute the IPCC's projections. In this context, "consensus" just seems to mean "don't disagree with me." Kauffner ( talk) 02:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Sockpuppetry. Again. Sigh. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello. There needs to be more discussion of the impact of methane on global warming (see http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/30/global-methane-initiative-moves-forward/). Cow flatulence is one main contributor. Could someone add a section on this? I can't seem to add one. Sweetbreads ( talk) 23:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Little is mentioned in this article about Solar expansion or the possibilty that the Sun is expanding & thus creating more heat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.198.106 ( talk) 23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The Sun is expanding at far too insignificant a rate to be causing global warming. Consider - the Sun has been expanding for several billion years, but the temperature profiles for the past millenia do not reflect this. Therefore, the expansion of the Sun is not a significant cause of global warming. Understand that we are talking about global warming on the order of decades - not eons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.82.3.52 ( talk) 17:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I've added tags to this section of the introduction:
Using computer models of the climate system based on six greenhouse-gas emission scenarios, the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that global surface temperature is likely to rise 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by 2100,[7][8] and the upper limit of that range does not include any warming from the potential release of certain carbon cycle feedbacks.[9][neutrality] By 2010, more recent observations of emissions made the A1FI scenario the "business as usual" case[10], and confirmed that "the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories or even worse are being realised".[11][neutrality] Recent research suggests that including some carbon cycle feedbacks would result in a temperature rise of 4°C in the 2070's.[9][neutrality]
I'll explain each tag separately below: [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]
Using computer models of the climate system based on six greenhouse-gas emission scenarios, the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that global surface temperature is likely to rise 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by 2100,[7][8] and the upper limit of that range does not include any warming from the potential release of certain carbon cycle feedbacks.[9][neutrality]
The statement in bold is based on one paper. This is unbalanced. There are lots and lots of papers on climate change projections, and in my view, citing the results of one paper in the introduction is not acceptable. The article should represent, in a balanced and objective manner, all of the scientific literature. Individual findings or papers should not receive undue weight. It may be appropriate to cite the paper in a sub-article, e.g., the
global climate model article. Even then, however, it may still not be appropriate for the reason that I've already given. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]
The thaw and decay of even a small portion of the permafrost carbon could have substantial effects on atmospheric CO2 and methane concentrations. However, none of the climate projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, none of the recent permafrost projections, and none of the projections of the terrestrial carbon cycle account for the PCF (permafrost carbon feedback).
{{
cite journal}}
: Text "Vol 25" ignored (
help)Pools of concern include tropical peatland carbon, which is vulnerable to land clearing and drainage, and the large stores of organic carbon in Arctic permafrost, which are vulnerable to warming. Recent work is starting to quantify the amplifying effect of these vulnerabilities on climate change. There is increasing confidence that their net result will be to amplify the atmospheric CO2 and methane increases to 2100, thence amplifying climate change. The amplification factor is ill constrained, and best current estimates range from near zero to over 50%. Under the IPCC1 A2 emissions scenario, which predicts global warming of about 4C without carbon-climate feedbacks, an additional 0.1 to 1.5C is predicted from the vulnerability of land and ocean sinks. The additional effect of accelerated methane and CO2 emissions from thawing permafrost is potentially very significant but is not yet quantified.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)By 2010, more recent observations of emissions made the A1FI scenario the "business as usual" case[10], and confirmed that "the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories or even worse are being realised".[11][neutrality]
This sentence is misleading and lacks objectivity. The A1FI scenario projects future social and economic developments and related emissions over the course of the entire 21st century. A few years of emissions data does not make it the "BAU" case, since future emissions are uncertain. In other words, future emissions trajectories may be above or below the A1FI trajectory. The sentence is supported by two cited sources, however, these sources are not representative of the scientific literature. For example, a USGCRP report (PDF, pp22-23) states that:
Recent carbon dioxide emissions are, in fact, above the highest emissions scenario developed by the IPCC (...). Whether this will continue is uncertain. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]
A UNEP study (PDF, p55) states:
The majority of results in this report show that emissions in 2020 expected from the Copenhagen Accord pledges are higher than emission levels consistent with a “medium” or “likely” chance of staying below 2° C and 1.5° C. At the same time they also show that the range of 2020 emission levels from the Copenhagen Accord pledges tends to be consistent with the IAM pathways that have “likely” temperature increases of 2.5° C to 5° C up to the end of the twenty-first century. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]
These two sources support my argument that future emissions are uncertain, and depend on future social and economic development.
It is misleading to suggest that the A1FI scenario is now the "business-as-usual" emissions pathway for this reason. Even though this assertion is supported by two sources, these sources are not representative of the literature. When referring to "BAU" projections, it should be mentioned how wide the range of possible emissions pathways is in the published literature [4]. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]
Even with strong political will, the chances of shifting the global energy system fast enough to avoid 2C are slim. Trajectories that result in eventual temperature rises of 3C or 4C are much more likely, and the implications of these larger temperature changes require serious consideration. In this issue, Betts et al. use a series of global climate model simulations, accounting for uncertainty in key atmospheric and coupled-carbon-cycle feedbacks on climate, to explore the timings of climate change under a high-end, roughly business-as-usual scenario, IPCC SRES A1FI, where emissions have reached 30 Gt of CO2 (8 GtC) per year by 2100. All but two of the models reach 4C before the end of the twenty-first century, with the most sensitive model reaching 4C by 2061, a warming rate of 0.5C per decade. All the models warm by 2C between 2045 and 2060. This supports the message that an early peak and departure from a business-as-usual emissions pathway are essential if a maximum temperature below 4C is to be avoided with any degree of certainty.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
11:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)In addition the sentence states:
By 2010, more recent observations of emissions made the A1FI scenario the "business as usual" case[10], and confirmed that "the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories or even worse are being realised".[11][neutrality]
"Worst-case" lacks of objectivity. The IPCC do not refer to A1FI as the "worst-case" scenario. It is a value judgement made by the authors of the cited source. The only consensus I'm aware of on predominately adverse effects at higher levels of warming is by the IPCC, (Table SPM-3) but this does not specifically refer to the A1FI scenario. [Enescot (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]
Recent research suggests that including some carbon cycle feedbacks would result in a temperature rise of 4°C in the 2070's.[9][neutrality]
This is biased for the same reason I gave earlier. The article should give a balanced overview of the literature, and not place undue weight on the findings of one paper. Enescot ( talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale, with the instrumemtal temperature record overlaid in black. Should say Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale, with the instrumental temperature record overlaid in black. This is a semi-protected page and I do not know where to suggest this change. -- Ryagole ( talk) 15:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon
One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.
...
In 2003 Soon said at a US senate hearing that he had "not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any organisation that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change."
should this be added in this article, and if so, how? Kevin Baas talk 13:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article.
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change/Archive 64. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change/Archive 64 at the Reference desk. |
Extended content
|
---|
As everyone knows, there has been no significant warming this century. As everyone knows who knows anything about global warming, the climate "scientists" who run this page will never in a month of Sundays (30 years) admit that it isn't currently warming. However that doesn't stop it being against Wikipedia policy to hide the truth. 88.104.193.134 ( talk) 12:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
"The huge increase in coal-fired power stations in China has masked the impact of global warming in the last decade because of the cooling effect of their sulphur emissions, new research has revealed. But scientists warn that rapid warming is likely to resume when the short-lived sulphur pollution – which also causes acid rain – is cleaned up and the full heating effect of long-lived carbon dioxide is felt. The last decade was the hottest on record and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1998. But within that period, global surface temperatures did not show a rising trend, leading some to question whether climate change had stopped. The new study shows that while greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise, their warming effect on the climate was offset by the cooling produced by the rise in sulphur pollution. This combined with the sun entering a less intense part of its 11-year cycle and the peaking of the El Niño climate warming phenomenon. The number of coal-fired power stations in China multiplied enormously in that period: the electricity-generating capacity rose from just over 10 gigawatts (GW) in 2002 to over 80GW in 2006 (a large plant has about 1GW capacity). But rather than suggesting that cutting carbon emissions is less urgent due to the masking effect of the sulphur, Prof Robert Kaufman, at Boston University and who led the study, said: "If anything the paper suggests that reductions in carbon emissions will be more important as China installs scrubbers [on its coal-fired power stations], which reduce sulphur emissions. This, and solar insolation increasing as part of the normal solar cycle, [will mean] temperature is likely to increase faster." Prof Joanna Haigh, at Imperial College London, commented: "The researchers are making the important point that the warming due to the CO2 released by Chinese industrialisation has been partially masked by cooling due to reflection of solar radiation by sulphur emissions. On longer timescales, with cleaner emissions, the warming effect will be more marked." The cooling effect of sulphur pollution on climate has long been recognised by scientists studying volcanic eruptions, which have, for example, caused failed crops and famines in the past. Sulphur dioxide forms droplets of sulphuric acid in the stratosphere, which increases the reflection of the Sun's heat back to space, cooling the Earth's surface. The effect also explains the lack of global temperature rise seen between 1940 and 1970: the effect of the sulphur emissions from increased coal burning outpaced that of carbon emissions, until acid rain controls were introduced, after which temperature rose quickly. Some have even proposed sulphur dioxide could used to geoengineer the planet by deliberately injecting millions of tonnes into the atmosphere to combat warming. The new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday, analysed possible reasons for the flat 1998-2008 temperature trend using climate models and concluded that it was unlikely to be due simply to the random variation inherent in the planet's climate system. Instead it found the effect of sulphur, the sun and El Niño dominated, with the El Niño climate phase peaking in 1998 – the hottest year ever recorded – then moving into a phase dominated by its cooler mirror image, La Niña. The scientists ruled out changes in water vapour or carbon soot in the atmosphere as significant factors. They emphasised the rapid increase in coal burning in Asia, and in China in particular, noting that Chinese coal consumption doubled between 2002 and 2007: the previous doubling had taken 22 years. Michael E Mann, at Pennsylvania State University and not part of the research team, said the study was "a very solid, careful statistical analysis" which reinforces research showing "there is a clear impact of human activity on ongoing warming of our climate". It demonstrated, Mann said, that "the claim that 'global warming has stopped' is simply false." " Count Iblis ( talk) 15:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Here's the study that article is based on in case anyone is interested: "Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008" -1. Robert K. Kaufmann 2. Heikki Kauppi 3. Michael L. Mann 4. James H. Stock Abstract: "Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects."-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 08:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
a very strong (warming) El Niño and ends with a moderate (cooling) La Niña combined with an very low solar minimum. Yet the ocean kept warming. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
|
This thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article.
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change/Archive 64. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change/Archive 64 at the Reference desk. |
Extended content
|
---|
In Science News by Nadia Drake July 30th, 2011; Vol.180 #3 (p. 17) ... Sulfur stalls surface temperature rise: Findings explain decade without warming ... Also see http://esciencenews.com/sources/the.guardian.science/2011/07/04/sulphur.chinese.power.stations.masking.climate.change and The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/04/sulphur-pollution-china-coal-climate 99.181.137.224 ( talk) 02:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
This thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article.
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Climate change/Archive 64. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Climate change/Archive 64 at the Reference desk. |
Extended content
|
---|
|
Add comparison shown in Scientific American's article The Last Great Global Warming: Surprising new evidence suggests the pace of the earth's most abrupt prehistoric warm-up paled in comparison to what we face today. The episode has lessons for our future by Lee R. Kump June 29, 2011. Quotation example ...
Back then, around 56 million years ago, I would have been drenched with sweat rather than fighting off a chill. Research had indicated that in the course of a few thousand years—a mere instant in geologic time—global temperatures rose five degrees Celsius, marking a planetary fever known to scientists as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM. Climate zones shifted toward the poles, on land and at sea, forcing plants and animals to migrate, adapt or die. Some of the deepest realms of the ocean became acidified and oxygen-starved, killing off many of the organisms living there. It took nearly 200,000 years for the earth’s natural buffers to bring the fever down.
References include:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)See Wicked problem ... 99.181.134.19 ( talk) 07:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Global temperature rose five degrees Celsius 56 million years ago in response to a massive injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That intense gas release was only 10 percent of the rate at which heat-trapping greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere today. The speed of today’s rise is more troubling than the absolute magnitude, because adjusting to rapid climate change is very difficult.
There have been several subsections addressing various complaints about the lead. Before we spend a great deal of time wordsmithing subsections, let's revisit the basic structure of the lead
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lead_section) which states the lead should have no more than four paragraphs. Global warming is a broad topic, and IMO using four paragraphs is appropriate. Here's how I would like to see them arranged (not too different than today)
That's not so different than what we have now, except 3 and 4 were combined. (I later struck my own text)
Before we talk about streamlining, etc, is there some reason to structure the lede differently? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The current wp Planetary boundaries has for Control variables.
64.27.194.74 ( talk) 18:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
99.112.214.230 ( talk) 01:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a debate forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
One writer on global warming accused the deniers of being "white" and of being middle-aged or older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 15:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC) I too am upset that someone somewhere said something, unfortunately the fascists here demand sources. 137.111.13.200 ( talk) 01:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
People of all stripes can say all manner of things, but if it has nothing to contribute to the page then I am left wondering why this is relevant. 137.111.13.200 ( talk) 00:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) |
Wikipedia is not a debate forum |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Start interview: Mueller: We are here on the island of Sylt at the conference “Gegenwind” and I have with me Professor Dr. Malberg from Berlin. Professor Malberg, what do you say about wind power with regards to the climate discussion? Prof. Malberg: Wind power plants cannot be justified by the climate issue. I examined in detail what drives the climate and I looked at all the available data, from Europe, from USA, from Japan – all data were evaluated, and naturally the global data. It clearly shows that the climate is dominated by the sun, and then on top of that by the oceans, and then a little bit by the CO2 effect. I would estimate it has a magnitude of 10%, for Co2, and not more. More than 80% of the climate change is driven by the sun. That means relative to natural climate change, the influence by CO2 is very small, and so it does not justify any action for climate protection, where wind parks are built in order to save CO2. Sure you can do it, but it won’t have any impact on our climate, at least no real impact... [...snip]
- End - Mk 71.228.95.196 ( talk) 16:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
|
The approach here is hostile and unsuitable to an article covered by general sanctions
|
---|
Whoever keeps adding the easter eggs needs to fucking quit it. - Atmoz ( talk) 20:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
|
I have reverted this edit because it makes the article substantially worse.
I moved the reference to the 2010 Gallup Poll (which asked about 'global warming') from the lede to the section on public opinion. In addition, I added a later and seemingly contradictory poll from Yale & George Mason (which asked about 'climate change), as well as a U of Mich study that shows what the public says they believe depends on which term you use. This paradox renders it impossible to succinctly cover specific poll results in the lede. Therefore, I moved the Gallup text intact, and added this other stuff.
Anyone wanna shoot me? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
i couldn't find anything about "scibaby" in google.es 190.175.195.27 ( talk) 00:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Here [10], User:Squiddy reverted my edit.
There is no such thing as a direct measure of temperature. If you measure temperature on a mercury-in-glass thermometer you are measuring a length which is related to the thermal expansion of a liquid. There are lots of ways of measuring temperature. If I remember correctly from my thermodynamics course, gas thermometers are the gold standard but even may differ from true temperature as understood by the zeroth law of thermodynamics.
I don't normally revert reverts prior to discussion but I have in this case. IanOfNorwich ( talk) 13:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This issue has arisen as a result of a [ series of changes to the lead second paragraph].
In the more recent version the lead 2nd paragraph falsely asserts that in AR4, the IPCC projected that temps are "likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C". That statement is supposedly supported by an IPCC summary document referenced as citation #6. This document does not say we are likely to warm between 1.1 to 6.4 °C. Instead, at page 13 that document specifies likely ranges for the six specific emissions scenarios IPCC selected for use in AR4. IPCC made no statement as to which of those scenarios is more likely than any other. Therein lies the problem. The low number in this alleged range comes from the B1 scenario, and to quote from Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, some of the characteristics of the world that produces the B1 scenario are
Somewhere in the wiki help pages it says you don't have to provide a citation for the sky is blue. I think we all agree that our current world is not an example of the B1 characteristics listed above and that bringing such a world about would require vast changes in society. Because IPCC did not say it is likely that will happen, IPCC did not say temp rise is likely to be as low as 1.1C. On the other hand, IPCC also did not say that emissions are likely to remain high and produce a rise at the high end of the range.
The current text fails verification, and when someone back in time simply stuck a dash inbetween the the low end of the B1 emissions scenario (1.1 C) and the high end of the A1Fi scenario (6.4 C) they committed a WP:SYN. It's the same error in logic illustrated in this intentionally absurd example
I'm sure some will assert that the problem goes away because of the following sentence. That sentence is also a problem. The part about uncertainty and models' varying degrees of climate sensitivity is fine. The part about uncertainty over which emissions scenario will occur is some editors attempt to cure the prior WP:SYN. IPCC made no assertion that any scenario is more likely than any other. Forgiving the WP:SYN in the prior sentence with this text is to put an implied statement into IPCC's mouth that all the scenarios are equally likely.
I propose to take the approach in the prior version of the comparison I linked to above. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 09:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I was returning, in part, to an earlier version because it was well worded accurate (mostly) and succinct. I say mostly as it has the problem to which I think you are referring - that it kind of conflates physical uncertainties (climate sensitivity) with uncertainties of choice (ie emmisions). I'd like this fixed. But the lede has to remain short and well written.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
How about this replacing x,y,p and q with the correct figures: "Climate model projections summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further x to y °C (xx to yy °F) during the 21st century for the lowest emissions scenario and p to q°C (pp to qq °F) for the highest.[6] The uncertainty in these estimates arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[7]" -- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 15:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
(This is in response to Kim. I was interlining at this level when other comments appeared.)
As I noted above (though probably lost in the mass) WP:LEDE suggests inclusion in the lede depends on weight given in the article not the prominence of the source. The source must be reliable and the content should reflect the article. SRES was published in 2000. And no we can't say what course emissions will take in the future but we can say what course we are on. I'd like to see the citations NAEG mentioned. In the mean time I'm going to take the drastic step of trying to read through the article....-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 21:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I still prefer:
"Climate model projections are summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.5 to 1.9 °C (2.7 to 3.4 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 3.4 to 6.1 °C (6.1 to 11.0 °F) for their highest.[6] The uncertainty in these estimates arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[7]"
It's shorter, more accurately describes the IPCC as "summarising" rather than "using" models, refers more specifically to "climate models" rather than "computer models". I like the addition of the extra full stop and have adopted it above breaking one large sentence into two at the cost of the addition of two words.--
IanOfNorwich (
talk)
19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
So it is OK to have an enormous discussion about exactly what the IPCC predicted, but it's not permissible to point out that they did not predict the decade of cooling following 2001. There can be no clearly evidence that this article has nothing to do with science. You waffle on ad nausea regarding how many angels are on the head of a pin, and ignore the simple fact that it isn't warming ... 88.104.193.134 ( talk) 12:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've broken this off from the above topic for the sake of clarity. I'll try to copy the relavant content here in a mo(and add my comments)...-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 19:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I obviously wasn't reading your comments carefully enough. I've now had a look at page 233 of Warren and yes it does talk qualitatively about 2 feedback mechanisms not included in the current models, there will be plenty of others both positive and negative in any case(I trust less significant overall than those included in the models). But I don't think this is a great problem firstly as we are talking about uncertainty in these models and secondly because you have to draw the line somewhere in what is included in any model and that includes the part of the model relating to uncertainty. That has been done by the IPCC. It does not mean that we can't point out what's not in the models in the appropriate place - ie the climate models section or sub article.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 16:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Can this image be included:
. An estimate of the death toll per year would also be useful (death toll in 2003= 150000 people (ref= http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2003/12/61562 )
91.182.144.170 ( talk) 13:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Global Warming is a big topic. While it may be notable I'm not sure it has sufficient weight for inclusion here. It would probably make a useful addition to Effects of global warming or Regional effects of global warming-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 16:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we have consensus that this image is not useable here. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems this article has been mostly written and curated by men and women of science. However, in an interest to better represent multiple viewpoints, I would like to see an approach to Global Warming observed by men of faith presented as an alternative POV. I don't think a point-by-point refutation of the science is appropriate, but I would like to see the broader issues of global warming discussed in communities of faith discussed, as its validity or lack thereof is critical to several individuals dealing with faith in contemporary America and Canada. I'm not certain if the "Global warming controversy" page is appropriate, as that appears to be geared towards political discussion and debate on the manner. CurtisJasper ( talk) 07:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is about a scientific phenomenon. Specifically, it's about the fact that temperature readings when aggregated and averaged over the globe over all periods of the year have been rising for some decades at an accelerated rate. We have other articles covering various views on global warming. I wouldn't even be surprised if we had an article on religious views about global warming, and that would probably be a good topic for an article. Religious views, though, don't change scientific results. -- TS 01:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a very important and well maintained article on an important subject, so my decision to curate the talk page is quite ambitious. I want to leave the editing process as free as possible, but sometimes the discussion page can become quite noisy. That's mostly because, understandably, people come to this page to put their personal opinions up for discussion. I'm also painfully aware that the talk page may become very large. Today I have archived threads with the following titles:
For the most part they were obviously unproductive threads or had been hanging around going nowhere for over two weeks. Some of the discussions had been closed (mostly by me) as too hostile for a page under general sanctions. The reason for doing this was to stop the page growing stupidly large with unproductive discussion, in the hope of stimulating more discussion by reducing the page load time.
The page is still rather large: about 90kb in size. I think it's about right, though. About 40kb has been moved to the archive page. Please do restore any productive discussions that I have incorrectly archived. -- TS 04:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
This thread is archivable per wiki rules on grounds of disruption. Talk pages are for improving the article, but in the IP commenter's own words the IP is "not suggesting any of the above goes into the article, I'm merely criticising the article..." NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I used to accept the stance that "science says". But with the recent spate of good observational papers undermining all aspects of global warming "science", I decided to compare the empirical evidence for and against the doomsday scenario. Now, I've scanned this article several times looking for any scientific (i.e. observational/empirical evidence) to support the massive feedbacks and there is nothing ... nothing about the lack of empirical science supporting these feedbacks and nothing about all the science that as far as I can see proves these feedbacks to be bogus nonsense. So what is this supposed "science" that I'm failing to spot? Where is this this science behind this theory, because without any science for and so much (undescribed) science against, I really fail to see how this article meets requirements of NPOV particularly when it claims to be about the science. 88.104.204.122 ( talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
And just to reiterate, I'm not suggesting any of the above goes into the article, I'm merely criticising the article for not having much if any empirical science in it and listing the areas where I expected to get answers from this overtly warmist article and singularly failed to get much help. OK, I've given up on NPOV, but at least if it going to be warmist, it could be a helpful article and actually provide the scientific basis for the warmist position ... in otherwords, better it cover one side well than what it does at the moment! 88.104.204.122 ( talk) 22:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
|
In bold text below is my suggested addition to the section on greenhouse gases:
Over the last three decades of the 20th century, GDP per capita and population growth were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions.[51] CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[52][53]:71 Emissions can be attributed to different regions. The two figures opposite show annual greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2005, including land-use change. Attribution of emissions due to land-use change is a controversial issue.[54]:93[55]:289 For example, concentrating on more recent changes in land-use (as the figures opposite do) is likely to favour those regions that have deforested earlier, e.g., Europe.
Emissions can also be measured over longer time periods. Measuring cumulative CO2 emissions gives some indication of who is responsible for the build-up in the concentration of the gas in the atmosphere (IEA, 2007, p.199) and consequently, who is historically most responsible for the impacts of global warming (Banuri et al, 1996, p105; UNEP, 2010, p12; IPCC, 2001, p67). Between the start of the industrial revolution and 2004, developing and least-developed economies, who represent 80% of the world's population, accounted for 23% of cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning (Raupach et al, 2007, discussion section).
References:
I see this addition as only being fair. My interpretation of "fair" is based on my reading of the UNFCCC treaty, which most countries have ratified (
first bit of the treaty).
Enescot (
talk)
15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Why should regional annual emissions be preferred to regional cumulative emissions? In my opinion, concentrating on annual emissions, as this section of the article does, is implicitly biased in favour of rich countries. I should note that regional emissions are already mentioned in the later politics section of the article, i.e.,:
'[...] the developed world's emissions had contributed most to the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere; per-capita emissions (i.e., emissions per head of population) were still relatively low in developing countries; and the emissions of developing countries would grow to meet their development needs.[...]
In my opinion, the above info on regional emissions is perfectly acceptable since it is an objective description of a key part of UNFCCC negotiations.
One way of avoiding this problem would be to delete information on regional emissions in the greenhouse gas section of the article. Information could be added on sectoral emissions as a replacement. I think that the two diagrams on annual emissions should be deleted:
To replace these diagrams, a new figure could be added on sectoral emissions:
I think that info on regional emissions in the greenhouse gas section (in bold) should also be deleted: -
{i} Over the last three decades of the 20th century, gross domestic product per capita and population growth were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions.[45] CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[46][47]:71 Emissions can be attributed to different regions. The two figures opposite show annual greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2005, including land-use change. Attribution of emissions due to land-use change is a controversial issue.[48]:93[49]:289
The first part of the above paragraph {i} is already partly duplicated in the preceeding paragraph of the article, i.e.,:
Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.[44]
The issue of relating emissions to economic growth and population could then be integrated into the following paragraph of the article, i.e., :
[...] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.
Over the last three decades of the 20th century, increases in world population and gross domestic product per head of world population were the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions scenarios, estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases, have been projected that depend upon uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments [...]
I've altered the first sentence since people may not know what "per capita" means.
Enescot (
talk)
19:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
These approaches are all equally valid and important to international discussions on the issue. By picking one and being silent about the others is to inject a POV even if that's unintentional. The US wants to look at annual emissions; China wants to look at cumulative; others want to look at sectors on a global level. What's a poor wiki schmuck to do? ANSWER: Don't pick one over the other, but report on the contentious international debate.
Where to do that is another question. Not in Global warming, I agree. But the Greenhouse Gasarticle suffers from an identity crisis. Parts of it appear to be intended to cover greenhouse gas in general (any planet, any geologic period). Other parts drift to coverage of Earth-right-now. I'd like to see the general aspects of Greenhouse gas merged with the general article Greenhouse effect, the remaining earth-right-now information being renamed Greenhouse gas buildup, and then this information could go there. Maybe someone can offer a better idea, but the main point is: we should report fact that there are massive policy and economic implications that favor one party or another for each of these number crunching methods and that's often the core of international treaty talks. So all these charts are useful, provided the presentation is well done. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Collapsed (again) per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not; This is a long list of news cites and quotes with no original thinking on the part of the IP poster. If the IP has some article specific improvement suggestion in mind, it would be useful if they spit it out instead of making everyone guess. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Airborne particles help explain why temperatures rose less last decade by Alexandra Witze August 13th, 2011; Vol.180 #4 (p. 5) ... Note title in print is different: "Ocean currents and sulfur haze deliver global warming hiatus: but increasing temperatures remain in long-term forecast" pages 5 & 6. (some content is different too) Online excerpt...97.87.29.188 ( talk) 20:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC) 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
with "suggested reading":
An "in print" difference, the conclusion ... "Yet even with such cooling influences, scientists say, global warming will win in the end. Eventually the thickening blanket of greenhouse gases will start global temperatures rocketing up again." 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Also see Category:Climate feedbacks and Category:Climate forcing 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC) More from "in print" version, preceeding the conclusion ...97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
99.181.138.215 ( talk) 03:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC) This is interesting research but doesn't significantly add to our knowledge of global warming yet. Its my understanding that over the past decade the warming has performed well within projections, based on the usual multidecadal baselines. -- TS 15:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC) |
I think this information should be incorporated into the article. I am including a link to the original scientific paper, as well as a secondary source.
Perhaps the article could say, "A 2011 peer reviewed scientific paper showed that real world measurements of heat trappage by carbon dioxide was less than what had been predicted by computer models." 74.98.32.99 ( talk) 18:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
-- 74.98.32.99 ( talk) 18:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BT-FOWVtVQ4J:www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf+http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera&source=www.google.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.49.226 ( talk) 18:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
NASA "fringe" source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.49.226 ( talk) 19:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
May I remind editors to step away from casting judgement on the author and comment on the 'paper' itself, and discuss if it warrants inclusion from Wikipedia's guidelines and not whether you agree or not with their beliefs. Whether he is a creationist, a flat earther, a Mooney or likes painting his arse blue at the weekends is irrelevant. The same should be said for the Heartland institute, it is not our job (though it is common knowledge), to exclude information because they received money from oil companies or have had links with denialism in the past. This is not a court of law where we remove information saying X isn't a reliable witness, we look at the information itself and don't disparage the author, if it is a salient feature then we let other sources do that. Firstly we verify does the source meet the guidelines on reliably sourced, i.e. in this case was it peer reviewed and published in a location that is acceptable to Wikipedia. As JJ stated above look at the FAQ not every paper should be included as per WP:WEIGHT. The last criteria is notability, has the paper received attention in the mainstream press which might warrant it's inclusion, but my personal belief would be it needs to be pretty much in most of the broadsheets for this to apply. Cheers Khu kri 07:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
See FAQ at the top of this page, Q21: What about this really interesting recent peer reviewed paper I read or read about, that says...? . . dave souza, talk 08:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Discussions of Dr Spencers past reliability are relevant in the context of establishing the weight to give this new paper. This is not an appropriate place to talk about the content in that paper. There are probably threads at RealClimate, SkepticalScience etc for objectively talking about the facts, methods, and interpretation in the paper. IMO, Dr Spencer's past track record merits caution, and this particular paper needs time to mature before it acquires sufficient wiki-weight to overcome his past unreliability. Also on weight, (A) Author must pay to be published in Remote Sensing. Does that make it self published? I don't know. What are the peer review policies for that journal? (B) Spencer's paper attacked computer models while remaining silent about tons of observational data. An outlier that attacks the existence of the inside of the circle while admitting through silence that there is an outside to the circle has a rather large conceptual flaw. For all these reasons, this paper presently carries very little weight with me, though I am reluctantly willing to admit that I may change my mind in the future. Will the new paper be cited as supporting material in a future peer-reviewed literature review article by reliable sources, or will those who understand it better find large holes in the methodology? We should wait and see. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm asking all parties to take a step back and remember that this topic, and this article in particular, are subject to some pretty stiff general sanctions. Please read, or read again, the description of the sanctions. Henceforth ensure that all of your comments and edits here and elsewhere conform to the spirit and the letter of the sanctions. -- TS 23:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
National Post, Investor's Business Daily and Grist have all mentioned Spencer's paper. I'm not sure if any of these sources is considered reliable for wikipedia articles, but I thought I'd post the links just in case. 74.98.46.59 ( talk) 19:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This case is an excellent example of how the right-wing climate disinformation media machine works. Roy Spencer, one of the handful of publishing climate scientist ideologues, gets his work into an obscure journal. Then James Taylor, an operative for a fossil fuel front group, claims it is "very important" on Forbes.com, a media website owned by a Republican billionaire. The Forbes blog post was redistributed by Yahoo! News, giving the headline "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" a further veneer of respectability, even though the full post is laughably hyperbolic, using "alarmist" or "alarmism" 15 times in nine paragraphs.
Count Iblis ( talk) 14:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The University of Alabama has issued this press release concerning the study. I don't know if this would count as a primary source or a secondary source, but it could be cited in article. 72.77.62.228 ( talk) 19:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting to compare the response to the Spencer paper which is 11 years of total globe coverage with this [22] paper which was similarly based on radiation measurements from the earth by satellite but this time three months of data from one part of the Pacific. The second was proclaimed as "unequivocal proof", the first is being dismissed. But this is only the first of a stack of papers coming out: CERN, Harde, Salby, and a couple others I forget the names. 88.104.207.84 ( talk) 00:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Other climate researchers have not been able to reproduce the results. Until that changes, further discussion is an inappropriate debate about the issue rather than a friendly dialogue about improving the article. I vote for deletion or archiving of this thread.
New content has been added about a public opinion survey in California. I don't have any problem with the veracity of it but I'm not sure that given the length of the article content on just California makes sense. We have, in the past, excluded discussions of some regional effects of GW due to the length of article that would be created if all area's were discussed with equal weight so the same (at least) should apply to public opion surveys.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 22:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess that the whole politics and public opinion sections would benefit from some work, and some information explaining the reason for the difference in views between the US public vs US scientists and most of the rest of the world, and a sentence could highlight the differences in California and the reasons for them. There are plenty of sources, in general, Merchants of Doubt for a start, (though personally I don't want to go through it again it somehow managed to bore and anger me at the same time) and those 2 studies into scientific opinion on climate change...-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
We've got a [citation needed] tag that's been there for ages. It is on "The most common measure of global warming is the trend in globally averaged temperature near the Earth's surface." It's one of those statements that while probably more or less true is practically impossible to find a citation for probably because it's a bit woolly. That sentence could be lost and worked into "Expressed as a linear trend, this temperature rose by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005." as "The Earth's average surface temperature, expressed as a linear trend, rose by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005." Which is a bit of a sledgehammer of a sentence if you are not into this stuff already. Any ideas?
Another thing I'd like see in the temperature changes section would be at least a mention of stratospheric temperatures (which are falling as expected (Karl et al. 2006)). Though this might be difficult without bamboozling new readers. I do think it is important because the it's a fairly intuitive effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which is recorded and not easily explained by, for example, solar variation driving tropospheric warming.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 09:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Based on those citations, I think the sentence with the citation needed tag should go away.
The stratosphere point is a good point for refuting the claim that surface temp increases are just from the sun, but I don't think that is the goal of the temp change section, and if refutation of one discredited theory creeps in, why not refutations of many? See [24] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thread lacks any specific suggestions for improving the article, and since article improvement is the sole purpose of this talk page, the thread is archivable as disruptive per wiki rules.
Extended content
|
---|
"it appears that a non-visible light irradiance effect on Earth’s cloud seeds has been confirmed. The way it is posited to work is that the effect of cosmic rays (modulated by the sun’s magnetic variations which either allow more or deflect more cosmic rays) creates cloud condensation nuclei in the Earth’s atmosphere. With more condensation nuclei, more clouds form and vice-versa. Clouds have significant effects on TSI at the surface." [25] Now try to tell me that there's no empirical evidence against this stupid idea that "CO2 did it". 88.104.207.14 ( talk) 19:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Most of the discussion on this page in the last few days has been the result of Scibaby's antics. The following were all Scibaby accounts:
We need to look at the user's contribs before responding and get him checkusered if it looks a likely sock. Will at least make it harder for him.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 18:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article. See also
WP:CIVIL and
WP:NOTAFORUM
|
---|
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.195.57 ( talk) 05:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
|
The opening paragraph states: "Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[4][5][A]"
It seems to me that this second sentence -- specifically, its second clause -- is at best misleading, if not simply false. What should be beyond doubt, however, is that this proposition is not supported by the sources cited in the footnote. Thus, even if this claim were true, other sources must be cited to verify it. (Please see the talk page of global warming controversy for an explanation why this statement is misleading or false.) Nowhere in the Statement of the Joint Science Academies is it indicated that no organization of standing disagrees with the IPCC assessment. I assume that this article was only cited as a source for the first clause of the sentence (that all the major academies of industrialized nations etc.), and not for the second (that no organization of standing disagrees). Oreskes' article, on the other hand, states only that "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies" (bold mine). It does NOT claim that no organization of standing disagrees with those statements. Obviously, it is one thing to claim that "no peer-reviewed articles among 1000 analysed disagreed with the IPCC statement", quite a different thing to say that no scientific organization of standing disagrees with the IPCC statement. To make the second claim, other sources are necessary. If I am wrong, please clarify why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenDen1 ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
: Please add any comments to the redundant debate, already underway here Talk:Global_warming_controversy#No_Scientific_Organization_Disagrees NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Re this old discussion: It seems to be generally accepted now that Spencer's and Braswell's paper was severely flawed, and should not have been published. The editor in chief of Remote Sensing has just resigned, with an editorial that calls the paper "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted" and explicitly protests "against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements". Apparently, next week Geophysical Research Letters will also publish a formal rebuttal of the paper. This sequence of events is a good illustration of how FAQ-21 helps us to improve the article (or to keep it from deteriorating). -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 11:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not a debate forum
|
---|
Given that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, perpetrated by the power hungry and their paid (in full - with guranteed funding cancellation for lapse in submission) lap-dog ex-scientists, should Wikipedia take the bold step of not towing the mainstream line? -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Citing the IPCC publications is challenging, and has been not entirely satisfactory. I have worked out a citation format (below) that I think is much improved. If there are no objections I will convert the existing IPCC citations to this format. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 17:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |pdf=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
p. 34minor
Which reminds me, it's probably possible to link the page number...
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |pdf=
(
help); Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)Whaddya think? . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
Section 10.3.1: Time-Evolving Global Change,
p. 34. <==Once this is settled, someone please add a FAQ with the result.... I'm sure I won't remember by the time AR5 arrives. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Done!! And you all are welcome to view and comment. Some points to note:
Various lessons learned:
I voted (once!) in a global-warming-related discussion/survey a little over a year ago (as I recall) and a lunatic began making wild accusations about my identity, my "other accounts", and my agenda. Very nice. Not only don't I want to change anything in this article, I'm reluctant to comment. But I feel compelled. Am I the only one who thinks that this article conflates "the climate is changing" with "why the climate is changing"? TreacherousWays ( talk) 20:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the "bright 11-year-old" standard for Wikipedia. The answer to your question seems to be "nobody else has chimed in so far". I agree the article has gotten "lumpy" in places, due to too many hasty edits. I hope you'll help improve it, and I'm sorry about your earlier experience. Controversial topics sometimes bring out the worst in us. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
On any other article, I might use the preferred Bold, Revert, Discuss model. Past experience and observation have taught be that Good Faith is in short supply in these spaces, and there's always one hombre trying to figure out just who's fastest. I prefer to belly up to the bar and act peaceable. TreacherousWays ( talk) 18:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
(A) I don't see where this article is troubled with religious based misunderstandings, (B) I don't know how your idea differs from present reality since there already are detail articles on most components of this subjectm, and (C) most important of all, please see how J Johnson addressed a problem he saw.
Wiki (and the world) needs more people like J Johnson. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I have looked at the article's organisation again, and found the following structure:
It looks to me as if we only need to move section 5 right behind section 1 and the article's overall structure will be fine. Hans Adler 14:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah-HA!!! I feel much, much, much better after finding this. I was really kind of embarrassed and feeling like a dope. To be honest. It's the "wikipedia is not a scientific journal" thingy. TreacherousWays ( talk) 21:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Argumentative thread lacks article improvement ideas. See
WP:NOTAFORUM
|
---|
( Kauffner's comments were off-topic so I have carved this out as a separate sub-section. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC) ) These graphs are presented like they are some big QED. But Earth has always been either warming or cooling, will continue to do so, and so what? I had no idea that there was a major trend with humidity. That certainly makes hard to justify focusing on CO2. This stuff goes in cycles. Before AGW, there was the ozone hole. At one time, that was going to destroy world too. Now no one even keeps track of it. Kauffner ( talk) 17:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
|
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Isnt there an inherent contradiction between Peak Oil and simple extrapolation CO2 use models? Doesnt global warming in the long run correct itself, since we can only burn so much oil-- less than 100 years worth? Mrdthree ( talk) 20:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been making general observations regarding the article and expressing my opinion that it should be made more general, less technical, and focus exclusively on what global warming is, using wikilinks to other more detailed articles to address the role of the IPCC, various climatic models, and proposed corrective actions. This proposed lede was taken largely from the current article lede, just generalized and heavily trimmed. Is there any support among the editors for revising the article in the same manner?
Although the terms "global warming" and "global cooling" can be used to describe cyclic variations in global temperature, the term "global warming" has been generally used since the mid-1970's to describe the current global warming event, which dates from the mid-1700's. Since the late 1800's, measured average global temperature has risen approximately 0.74°C(ref) NOAA Global Warming FAQ(/ref), and further warming is predicted by reputable scientific organizations including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.
Predicted impacts of global warming include: rising sea levels; changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation; an expansion of subtropical deserts; the retreat of glaciers; permafrost and sea ice; more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts and heavy rainfall events; species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes; and changes in agricultural yields.
The current rise in global temperatures has been fairly rapid, and is attributed in large part to the presence of human-produced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although greenhouse gases can be produced by natural events (volcanos, for example), the vast majority of scientists believe that the additional human sources such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agricultural activity have created an imbalance in the global temperature-regulation system, and that corrective actions to reduce those human sources should be taken. TreacherousWays ( talk) 13:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz, I thank you for taking the time to seriously reply. You mention that this was a featured article. Yes it was. That was in 2006, when the article was about 58k bytes long. It's now over 147k bytes and growing inexorably toward 150k. You stated with what I took to be some indignation that you " ... expect a contributor who suggests a major change to the lede of a carefully balanced featured article to spend the time and effort to acquire a reasonable understanding of the domain of discourse ... " The domain of discourse isn't Global warming, it's the focus, technical level, and readability of the general (and introductory?) article on Global warming. I believe that you and other editors are assuming a base level of knowledge that simply isn't there. By way of example, you identify Bjørn Lomborg as someone who should be reasonably well-known. Perhaps he is, within certain technical communitites, but he isn't generally well-known any more than the IPCC is generally well-known. Recognizing that I have been unable to generate any consensus for changing the article, I gracefully withdraw with thanks for the consideration offered. TreacherousWays ( talk) 18:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Ever since seeing the "Rate this page" poll put on a page I was reading once, I at once checked to see if it was on the Global Warming page just for fun. It was not there at the time, as it seems it must have been still being implemented. But yesterday when I came here I saw it there, and I looked at the poll results. When I look at it, it shows this for ratings:
Trustworthy: 238609295 out of 5
Objective: 1.8 out of 5 (that was funny to see...)
Complete: 238609296 out of 5
Well-written: 252645137 out of 5
Obviously, something is terrible wrong with it. So I was wondering if anyone else sees it in this way when checking the results, and if it is indeed a wide-spread problem where it be appropriate to report this problem?
For one working properly, see the poll at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropy for an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 ( talk) 04:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not a general discussion or debate forum. Click "see all" to read debate/general discussion comments
|
---|
Unfortunately 1.8 out of 5 for objectivity seems about right. The article fails to address the scientific fact of dramatic pre-human global warming. Check out this graph from a different WP article which shows dramatic global warming from 11-9,000 years ago: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png How - if AGW theory is correct - could such a dramatic temperature rise occur in the past without any human CO2 to cause it? The significant pre-human warming periods completely disprove the radical AGW theory that human CO2 is solely responsible for global warming, and begs the key question: What role does human CO2 play in global warming - major, minor or infinitesimal? The article would be credible if these questions were addressed. Without any discussion of this glaring problem for AGW theory, the article fails. 1.8 for objectivity is generous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortlieb ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Another graph from WP shows a sea level rise of approximately 140 feet in the last 24,000 years. The chart shows nearly all the rise happened before humans made any CO2. That this magnitude of global warming happened without any human CO2 creates an puzzle for AGW theory - to explain the mechanisms that drove warming before human CO2, and then isolate those mechanisms from human CO2 and then deduce what part of the present warming is due to nature and what part to man. The chart: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortlieb ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
|
The WP article seems unnecessarily biased and "politically correct" - and doesn't fairly reflect logical questions about the extent of human influence on the earth's climate. For instance, WP states in another article that global temperature has risen dramatically about 11-9,000 years ago without any human CO2. Here's a link to the graph of world temperature over the last 12,000 years:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
If AGW theory is correct then what caused this huge temperature rise? The WP article completely ignores the problem of degrees - perhaps manmade CO2 can raise the temperature, but so can the earth, sky, oceans, and sun (obviously). So I support a complete revamping of the tone of the article to get away from the politically popular AGW theory and back to what is known as scientific fact. Thank you. Rortlieb ( talk) 10:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rortlieb ( talk • contribs)
There is no issue here. The holocene temperature shifts are explained by known cyclical processes and this is explained adequately in our article. -- TS 02:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
While I do not doubt that global warming is caused by human activities, it is unscientific to conclude that this is the case by correlation alone - no matter how many scientific authorities agree that this is the most likely cause, the impact that humans hold over climate change is a theory.
This does not mean that it's "just a theory" there are lots of theories that have substantial evidence in support. It seems though with the political and social importance climate change holds, we don't mind saying, with absolute certainty, that humans cause global climate change - which the evidence does overwhelmingly support.
Furthermore, wikipedia cannot speak for all scientific bodies.
I recommend changing the first paragraph to:
Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is believed to be caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by the vast majority of scientific bodies of national or international standing.[4][5][A] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.240.200 ( talk) 19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your first point, only an omniscient being(s) (e.g., God) can positively say what anything "is". All the rest of us merely believe things to be the way they "is". I am believed (even by myself) to be opposed to changing every form of the word "is" to some form of "is believed to be" on the encyclopedia. Since this article reports the mainstream scientific view, as opposed to a philosophic view, let's keep that text the way it is. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The IPCC's use of the term very likely is used to denote that the probability is greater than 90%. That does not put an upper bound on the probability as assesed by the IPCC. The sentence in question is not cited directly to the IPCC. The summary of the second citation to the US National Academy of Science's "Advancing the Science of Climate Change" is unequivocal in stating that recent climatic changes "are in large part caused by human activities".-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 12:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Indicating that the concept that human activity contributes to climate change is a theory is certainly appropriate to avoid inserting the bias of the editors into this article and to maintain objective neutrality on such a controversial topic. As requested above, find the Senate report from 2007 containing the names of 400 scientists, some former IPCC reviewers among them, who dispute the theory:
ABLegler ( talk) 02:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Upfront, there is zero doubt in my own mind that increases in GHGs caused by humans is driving global warming. But allow me to put on my NPOV wiki editor hat to look at our citations for the word "is" in the lead. 'lo and behold, the first one (Understanding and Responding to Climate Change" waffles by saying most scientists agree with the conclusion. That document doesn't just say THATS HOW IT IS without pulling punches. Similarly, our other citation from National Research Council mirrors the IPCC's language (my hat off to the IP who corrected me on this). Both state that we're warming (IPCC uses term "unequivocal") but that it's merely "very likely" due to human GHGs..... and "very likely" stops short of "is". Say again, IPCC and our second cite in the article distinguish between the uncertainty that we're warming ("unequivocal") and whether its due to human GHGs ("very likely"). In legal circles careful use of different terms of art suggests a different intended meaning. So I have been persuaded we either need different citations to support "is", or else the text needs to mirror the IPCC and National Research Council's use of these different thresholds of certainty. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I've restored NewsAndEventsGuy's comments to there original location where he wants them. I've restored Udippuy comment's and moved them to after NewsAndEventsGuy's which is where I think they now make most sense (please move them back if preferred). I think we can quite easily WP:AFG as far as Udippuy's relocation of NewsAndEventsGuy's comments go but please bear in mind that editors can (not unreasonably) be touchy about any alteration of there comments. The problem here (with moving etc of edits) is mainly one of convention. Personally I think it much clearer if all new comments go at the bottom of the titled section, indentation can usually be used to indicate what the comment is in response to. Where a thread needs to fork a new headed section should be created. Otherwise it becomes almost impossible to properly follow the discussion (which can be hard enough anyway). On the actual topic of this discussion, I regret I don't have time right now to fully digest Udippuy's many detailed arguments but will do so as soon as time allows....-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 13:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Udippuy, I entirely agree with your last, up to the sentence "Saying that "it is caused by" is equivalent to saying that the probability is exactly equal to 100%.". It is not possible to be exactly 100% certain about anything, yet we often make unequivocal statements. The question is what level of certainty justifies a plain statement of fact. This depends on many factor's such as context. I do not think that readers would expect a higher threshold of certainty for a statement to be made in an encyclopedia (such as this) than in the National Academy of Sciences report. The authors of the US' National Academy of Science report obviously felt that in that context a plain statement was justified. While they discuss the probabilities of other statements near by the following is left as a plain statement:
“ | Conclusion 1: Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems. | ” |
They do go on to discuss the confidence in the "following" findings. If the report were based purely on the work of the IPCC we might reasonably question reliability of US' National Academy of Science report as a source for drawing conclusions unsupported by their sources, but it is not. In short the statement is supported by the source. I do note, however, that we should be saying "mainly", "largely", "in large part" or some similar formulation. As to your broader points can I suggest that they be addressed in another headed thread to keep everything as easy to follow as possible. Though I will say here that while I think there is room for improvement in the style of the opening paragraph that we shouldn't confuse this article with
climate change which covers the broader topic while this article covers the recent warming (inexerably linked with it cause) and the first para attempts to define the topic per
WP:LEDE
NewsAndEventsGuy:My objection to your proposed change is the same as above - ie the current wording is supported by a reliable source.--
IanOfNorwich (
talk)
13:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for a few days of absence. It seems to me that we've reached an agreement on modifying the second sentence of the lede to something like: "Global warming is considered to be very likely caused by the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3]". Notice that I'm not using the verb "believed" but "considered", which is maybe more appropriate in a scientific context. If everybody agrees I'll proceed with the change. Udippuy ( talk) 19:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI only - at the tail end of a l-o-n-g thread above I have started to forcefully push for a change in the opening sentence of the lede. This is just to call attention for a strong consensus. Please add remarks to that thread.
I agree with your initiative. Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rortlieb (
talk
In essence, almost every edit by me on this page is an act of page maintenance. Anybody wondering if I made a mistake should simply undo my edits without asking. -- TS 02:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)