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 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
I was thinking of adding a few mages to this article. The first two would go in the politics section, and relate to Article 2 of the UNFCCC treaty:
Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). [2] The ultimate objective of the Convention is to prevent "dangerous" human interference of the climate system. [3] As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHG concentrations are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a sustainable fashion.
The Framework Convention was agreed in 1992, but since then, global emissions have risen. [4] [5] During negotiations, the G77 (a lobbying group in the United Nations representing 133 developing nations) [6]: 4 pushed for a mandate requiring developed countries to "[take] the lead" in reducing their emissions. [7] This was justified on the basis that: 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. [8]: 290 This mandate was sustained in the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention, [8]: 290 which entered into legal effect in 2005. [9]
In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, most developed countries accepted legally binding commitments to limit their emissions. These first-round commitments expire in 2012. [9] US President George W. Bush rejected the treaty on the basis that "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy." [6]: 5
At the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in 2009 at Copenhagen, several UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord. [10] Parties associated with the Accord (140 countries, as of November 2010) [11]: 9 aim to limit the future increase in global mean temperature to below 2 °C. [12] A preliminary assessment published in November 2010 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests a possible "emissions gap" between the voluntary pledges made in the Accord and the emissions cuts necessary to have a "likely" (greater than 66% probability) chance of meeting the 2 °C objective. [11]: 10–14 The UNEP assessment takes the 2 °C objective as being measured against the pre-industrial global mean temperature level. To having a likely chance of meeting the 2 °C objective, assessed studies generally indicated the need for global emissions to peak before 2020, with substantial declines in emissions thereafter [...]
See
climate change mitigation#Greenhouse gas concentrations and stabilization for the image sources.
As I've argued before on this talk page, I think that the relationship between emissions and concentrations should be explained in this article.
The other image I want to add shows some of the observed impacts of global warming. It could go in the "attributed and expected effects" section. The existing image on glaciers could be deleted:
Global warming may be detected in natural, ecological or social systems as a change having statistical significance. [14] Attribution of these changes e.g., to natural or human activities, is the next step following detection. [15]
Natural systems
Global warming has been detected in a number of systems. Some of these changes, e.g., based on the instrumental temperature record, have been described in the section on temperature changes. Rising sea levels and observed decreases in snow and ice extent are consistent with warming. [16] Most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is, with high probability, [D] attributable to human-induced changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. [17]
Even with current policies to reduce emissions, global emissions are still expected to continue to grow over the coming decades. [18] Over the course of the 21st century, increases in emissions at or above their current rate would very likely induce changes in the climate system larger than those observed in the 20th century.
In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, across a range of future emission scenarios, model-based estimates of sea level rise for the end of the 21st century (the year 2090-2099, relative to 1980-1999) range from 0.18 to 0.59 m. These estimates, however, were not given a likelihood due to a lack of scientific understanding, nor was an upper bound given for sea level rise. Over the course of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in sea level rise of 4–6 m or more. [19]
Changes in regional climate are expected to include greater warming over land, with most warming at high northern latitudes, and least warming over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean. [18] Snow cover area and sea ice extent are expected to decrease, with the Arctic expected to be largely ice-free in September by 2037. [20] The frequency of hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation will very likely increase.
Ecological systems
In terrestrial ecosystems, the earlier timing of spring events, and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges, have been linked with high confidence to recent warming. [16] Future climate change is expected to particularly affect certain ecosystems, including tundra, mangroves, and coral reefs. [18] It is expected that most ecosystems will be affected by higher atmospheric CO2 levels, combined with higher global temperatures. [21] Overall, it is expected that climate change will result in the extinction of many species and reduced diversity of ecosystems [...] [22]
The article does not, in my opinion, adequately convey the strength of evidence for the observed effects of global warming. I think that adding this image would help in addressing this problem.
Enescot (
talk)
01:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
`
The Other Views section states:
"Most scientists accept that humans are contributing to observed climate change"
The use of the word "accept" implies an absolute certainty about the theory of AGW. Akin to saying - Most scientists accept that the planet is round. Also in the following sentence -
"However, some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science -" The inclusion of the term "non-scientists" has a pejorative connotation, seeming to indicate that those who do not adhere to the theory have a less informed viewpoint. Do "non-scientists" not also adhere to the concept of AGW, so this should be mentioned in the first paragraph?
Suggestion for edit:
"Most (many?) scientists adhere to the theory that humans are contributing to observed climate change. National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions. However many other scientists question aspects of climate change science, specifically the link between human activity and climate change."
This (or something similar) provides a more neutral viewpoint for this section and adheres more to statement of fact than insertion of opinion regarding the theory of AGW.
ABLegler ( talk) 02:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Your suggested edit does not have a source provided to support it. The current edit is supported by two references, and is also implicitly supported by the article scientific opinion on climate change. I'll refer to the two sources cited:
The first is a report by the US National Research Council, which states:
Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1).
I do not see that there is a significant difference between the words “accept” and “agree”. However, I would be happy for the article to be changed to:
Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change
Note: this is also available in html format. Quote:
Misleading arguments: Many scientists do not think that climate change is a problem. Some scientists have signed petitions stating that climate change is not a problem.
There are some differences of opinion among scientists about some of the details of climate change and the contribution of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. Researchers continue to collect more data about climate change and to investigate different explanations for the evidence. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points, even if there is still some uncertainty about particular aspects, such as how the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change in the future.
In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.
There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC. They appear motivated in their arguments by opposition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, which seek urgent action to tackle climate change through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Often all these individuals and organisations have in common is their opposition to the growing consensus of the scientific community that urgent action is required through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. But the opponents are well-organised and well-funded. For instance, a petition was circulated between 1999 and 2001 by a campaigning organisation called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which called on the US Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition claimed that "proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
These extreme claims directly contradict the conclusions of the IPCC 2001 report, which states that "reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to stabilise their atmospheric concentrations would delay and reduce damages caused by climate change."
The petition was circulated together with a document written by individuals affiliated to OISM and to the George C Marshall Institute, another campaigning organisation. On 20 April 1998, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a warning about the document circulated with the petition because it had been presented "in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." The statement pointed out: "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."
I think the above text supports the use of the term “non-scientists”. Indeed, “non-scientists” is probably too weak a description of the deliberate effort by some to undermine public understanding of human-induced global warming.
For the sake of additional clarity, I've provided two other supporting references below:
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help) "The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" (page 3).Enescot ( talk) 02:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
CANVASS CALL - Proposed policy about overlinking in edit summaries
FYI I have
proposed a policy about links in edit summaries; Since this page is often the subject of improper overlinking in edit summaries by various IPs, I thought readers of this page would be an appropriate group to canvass, in case anyone has a pro or con opinion.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
(This comment was cut out from midstream in the prior thread and given its own section heading, since it has nothing to do with the prior thread) NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Talk pages are not a forum for debate; If you care to make changes, take time
to learn how to do it effectively; Entire thread is available by clicking "show"
|
---|
Somebody keeps reverting my changes. My changes cite the specific scientists with criticisms of global warming orthodoxy and note that some, including Nobel Prize winners, have resigned from the American Physical Society in protest of that organization's view that the evidence for man made global warming is "incontrovertible." I also cite sources showing that the Earth has been both warmer and colder in the past than now, and that periods of warmer Earth have generally been associated with increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Whomever makes these reversions is slanting the article toward regarding global warming as settled science. There is a controversy about it. The current version of the article correctly notes that most prominent scientific organizations that have put out statements about the subject take the view that man made global warming is supported by the evidence. However, it is also a fact that many scientists disagree. This is in contrast with basic equations of physics and chemistry, where nobody disagrees. Editing out the other side of the controversy impoverishes the article rather than improving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickcrane ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many people have done the reverting. My comments are accurate. Science is not about "mainstream" vs. "not mainstream.' It's about the gradual accumulation of evidence. F=ma and E=mc2 not because scientists have voted on it, but because all experiments confirm it true. The Earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past then now. It has generally been warmer, and has had rather high co2. All the graphs in the article under discussion are misleading because they exclude 4 billion years of Earth history and focus on an insignificant few decades. Global warming theory has been established by models, not experiments. That's not science. That's why some scientists have resigned from APS in protest. That's a very unusual thing for scientists to do. I do not think the media is biased in the direction of exaggerating the controversy. Rather, many media take a scoffing view towards anyone who questions global warming orthodoxy. I for one don't question the view that there is significant evidence in favor of the man caused hypothesis. But, as a doctoral level scientist with a master's in philosophy of science I can tell you that the evidence is nothing like as certain as that for current physical or chemical theories or for the theory of evolution. The evidence for global warming is more like that for evolution in Darwin's day, before we discovered all the "missing link" fossils and found the DNA basis for evolution.
The reason that I don't have as much facility with the mechanics of Wiki as you is that I have other things to do than to vandalize others' work. APS is a scientific organization. Climatology, otherwise known as weather forecasting is not a science. Computer models are not experiments. Criticizing APS is an ad hominem argument, not a factual or logical one. Your comments are completely devoid of facts about global warming. It's all your POV. The purpose of Wiki is to convey information, not to push POV. That's why my comments are factual. Vandalizing them doesn't increase the case for global warming. Rather, it appears consistent with the advocates of that hypothesis that attempt to persecute others with divergent opinions. It's much like the Catholic Church persecuting Galileo. It didn't prove anything. I await your comments on how the fact that the world has generally been warmer in the past than now, and often had similar co2 levels bears on the view that man is the only possible cause of temperatures now that are slightly higher now than a couple of hundred years ago.
|
Global warming is the temperature rise that is unequivocally underway in Earth's atmosphere and oceans.[2] With greater than 90% certainty,[3] scientists have determined that global warming is caused mostly by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[4][5][6] 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.[7][8][A]
This intro sounds like your almost trying to hide something. It goes so out of its way with "unequivocally" and "is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing". I am an engineer and you don't write like this.
This sounds so much better
Global warming is the temperature rise that is underway in Earth's atmosphere and oceans.
Also In the intro why would you say its not disputed add this to another section just say the affermitive and delete the negative sounds much better.
This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 ( talk) 21:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Yea thats what I am saying. You shoulden't have to add that. When I read this the first thing I thought was what are they hiding! People on the right side of an argument do not need to write qualifiers. Thats saved for the people on the wrong side of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.96.65 ( talk) 22:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I read "and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[7][8][A]" I just think ok then who does dispute it and why. Unequivocally is not a word that is needed in any scientific article. It takes away from the article and to me makes this more of a political thing then science. The person who wrote this prob is not an expert because when I write I do not use qualifiers like that before I state my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.46 ( talk) 16:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Whoa! How is this discussion not just a continuation of the prior discussion? Why are we getting into this again? Why this continuing effort to water down the lede by removing "unequivocal"? _
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
20:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy: I share your desire that it should be made clear that the Earth's atmosphere is warming. But I don't think anyone will be better informed by us keeping the term "unequivocally". As the IP contributor above notes it just makes it sound like we're defensive about something. I believe you and JJ are tilting at windmills here - we've got our own resident sceptics here haven't we? Do they really now doubt that the world has warmed over the last 100years? Well do you? Kaufner, Q Science, anyone else? It may be that there are some slightly deranged politicians in the US that doubt it but I don't think they'd spend long editing Wikipedia (or reading it) - they'd have to do too much looking at other people's views. Even if they did, do you think the u-word will make a difference with them? I don't but it might just make a difference with some people who think that the article doth protest too much. I believe the debate has moved on and so should the article.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 13:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The page got fat again. I've removed the following dormant sections to archive for the stated reasons:
I have also removed a discussion section started and maintained by an identified, now blocked, sock puppet. I did not archive it.
The result is to halve the size of this very large discussion page, which I hope will make life easier for everybody without curtailing any discussion.
I take care to avoid mistakes, but I'm human and I'm not in charge. Please do restore potentially fruitful ongoing discussions I may have inadvertently closed. -- TS 00:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I've performed another bout of aggressive trimming over the past day or two. The following items were removed:
Please inspect the history of Archive 64 here for annotations on why I removed each item.
The page size is now a manageable 80KB. As usual please restore any items removed in error or prematurely. -- TS 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
More archiving, usual criteria:
See history of archive 65 for annotations.
Usual offer applies: please revert any mistaken archiving without further discussion. -- TS 00:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The page got fat again. I've removed the following dormant sections to archive for the stated reasons:
I have also removed a discussion section started and maintained by an identified, now blocked, sock puppet. I did not archive it.
The result is to halve the size of this very large discussion page, which I hope will make life easier for everybody without curtailing any discussion.
I take care to avoid mistakes, but I'm human and I'm not in charge. Please do restore potentially fruitful ongoing discussions I may have inadvertently closed. -- TS 00:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I've performed another bout of aggressive trimming over the past day or two. The following items were removed:
Please inspect the history of Archive 64 here for annotations on why I removed each item.
The page size is now a manageable 80KB. As usual please restore any items removed in error or prematurely. -- TS 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Collapsing argumentative unsourced comment;
WP:NOTAFORUM; Click show to read thread anyway
|
---|
Two sentences of this read :- "Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects of the warming include 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." This is given with no reference but is reported as fact when it is merely the opinion of whatever editor wrote it. In truth at present the Arctic sea ice is slightly thicker than usual and polar bears numbers are at a 30 year high. Smokey TheCat 22:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
|
While the "observations" thread is unfolding - and I do have an open mind about clear proposals, with reasons, for how to improve the article - in the meantime I do think the article could be intimidating to a reader with only a bit of science background and new to the issue. However else the article may be changed as a result of the "observations" thread, or any other thread, would anyone object if during the interim I made the section headings a bit more newcomer-friendly?
No changes to text or to order of sections, but rewrite 1st level section headings as follows:
Thanks for comments NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ian, what the hell are you doing unilaterally removing "unequivocal" from the lead sentence? Did you think you could "stealth" it out? You certainly know that is not a "minor" change, as you have participated in previous discussions (you know how to use the archive). What gives? Has someone swiped your password? _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 15:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
"Scientists have determined"..."using unequivocal evidence"..."of observed and projected surface temperature"..."the incontrovertible truth"..."of how right I really was all along". OK. OK. The IPCC didn't say that. Probably not the last part anyway. Kauffner ( talk) 07:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
JJ, I agree that the existence of the warming is not (in the sources) subject to uncertainty, but here I have to direct you to the archive. I am pretty clear on what is causing Global warming, so are you and NewsAndEventsGuy and I think we agree. Unfortunately, the IPCC has only deigned to tell us that it's more than 90% sure that the cause is primarily anthropogenic and everyone else (Royal Soc, US Academy of Sciences) seem to have followed that line. This was pointed out User:Udippuy a user who has made no other contributions to Wikipedia but he is nonetheless, as far as I can tell, right on this one. Yes I do prefer NAEG's change. I still think it does not read well but I don't have the immense resources of time, intelligence, will and persistence that would be needed to even attempt a decent rewrite (at least not just now). It's because I think this subject so important that I believe this article should be (and sound) accurate, neutral and authoritative.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 22:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Ian for complaining about my first draft, and JJ for insisting we keep "unequivocal". Ya'll might be interested in this pithy description of how IPCC's thoughts on the subject we've debated (certainty of warming and certainty of cause) evolved through the 1st four assessment reports: See section 3.1.1.
Does arbitration 1RR or the wiki generic default 3RR apply to this article? There are different banners on this articles talk page and (for one example) Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This policy also applies. Count Iblis ( talk) 17:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
One of the statements in the section on geoengineering is not supported by the cited source:
Another policy response is deliberate modifications to the climate system, known as (geoengineering). This policy response is sometimes grouped together with mitigation.[125] Although some proposed geoengineering techniques are well understood, the most promising are under ongoing development, and reliable cost estimates for them have not yet been published (IPCC, 2007c). Geoengineering encompasses a range of techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or to reflect incoming sunlight. As most geoengineering techniques would affect the entire globe, deployment would likely require global public acceptance and an adequate global legal and regulatory framework, as well as significant further scientific research.[127]
The cited source is
IPCC (2007c), which states:
17. Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects. [emphasis added] Reliable cost estimates for these options have not been published (medium agreement, limited evidence) [11.2].
This is not consistent with what is in the article. My suggested revision:
Another policy response is geoengineering of the climate. Geoengineering encompasses a range of techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or to reflect incoming sunlight. Little is known about the effectiveness, costs or potential side effects of geoengineering options (Barker et al, 2007). As most geoengineering techniques would affect the entire globe, deployment would likely require global public acceptance and an adequate global legal and regulatory framework, as well as significant further scientific research.[127]
Reference:
Enescot ( talk) 17:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman Warm Period was created this July and has been tagged for verifiability. -- TS 20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This is really just an attempt to push a few anti-science canards
|
---|
As most people know, global temperatures have not risen this century. So, against the patently obvious, I assumed there had to be a precise citation reference backing up the word "continuing" in the sentence: "Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal[2]" One could say: "global warming is a rise in temperature ..." as this would be a definition which we could then test to see whether it was happening. One could even say: "global warming is a rise over several decades". But the word "continuing" is a statement of fact: of what is (supposedly) happening. It is not a definition. Without a clear factual citation backing up, it so patently absurd in light of the lack of warming that it is laughable. Moreover, this "continuing" rise is just a matter of opinion - I don't think its warming, most other people I know don't think it is warming - who are these people who say it is? Do they exist? When did they hold this opinion? Last week? Last year? Last decade? Did they ever hold this opinion? It is just some sayso opinion which cannot be objectively challenged because there is no citation on which it is based, no factual record set which can be checked to verify whether it is still correct. In short, without any evidence to support its inclusion in such a prominent position is the most obvious sign of an article which is little short of blatant baseless propaganda which immediately undermines anything following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.201.135 ( talk) 12:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Debate thread contains no specific suggestions for article improvement
WP:TALK; click show to read anyway
|
---|
http://www.politicalcrush.com/conspiracies/big-green-money-machine-environmentalist-propaganda-dwarfs-paid-climate-skepticism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.100.152 ( talk) 18:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
This author is a political analyst and opinion-editorialist, with articles published at AmericanThinker. He holds a Master’s degree in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies and is a PhD. student in Political Science, with specializations in International Relations and Comparative Politics. He speaks fluent Russian and worked in Moscow as a copy editor for the economic news agency Prime-Tass (prime-tass.com) and was International Programs Manager for Russia’s first liberal arts college. He believes that defeating socialism (and all other forms of collectivism) once and for all means thoroughly discrediting the ideology utilizing reason, evidence, history, and philosophy. He is currently editing his first fiction novel. **Not reliable enough for you?-- 69.130.100.152 ( talk) 19:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
|
WP:NOTAFORUM; No one who refers to the scientific consensus as a DOOMSDAY CULT should lecture about NPOV; click show to read thread anyway
|
---|
In an article in the independent, Hansen said: "Climate sceptics are winning the argument with the public over global warming," [3] The requirement of wikipedia are for neutral point of view. Can I spell that out neutral POINT OF VIEW. Hansen has now said the neutral point of view ... not the scientific neutral point of view ... but the neutral point of view an average point of view of all humanity not a very insular group who have a particular outlook on science. The neutral point of view is now decidedly sceptical. The inference is very clear, that the article should represent a neutral point of view. That means as the argument is now decidedly in favour of sceptics, then the sceptic view should be represented in a substantial part of the article. Can I just point out that Hansen specifically says: "global warming". This is an article about global warming. The neutral point of view as articulated by one of the people often referred to here as the authority for the "science" has stated unequivocally that the sceptic argument is winning. How much of the sceptic position do we see here? Does it mention the pause in temperature? The lack of trend in climate extremes? The failure of almost every climate prediction? The multitude of evidence against positive feedbacks? No, there is not one attempt to represent a neutral point of view, only the view of people like Hansen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 ( talk) 15:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
To see how a popular subject with scientific content is dealt with I would like to draw everyone's attention to Extraterrestrial life This has the following sections:
This clearly shows that the scientific section is very much a minority where a subject refers to the popular area. There are some here who are trying to argue that because the e.g. search for aliens is scientific, then an article on aliens must be written by the scientists searching for extra terrestrial life. This is palpable nonsense. A minority science view of a subject, dominating a popular subject is not supported by WP:UNDUE. Like Aliens, Global warming is a contentious view, scientists disagree just as many in the public still believe outrageous calims like 60m sea level rise a burning up earth and that it is all the sins of mankind. This is the public perception of the alarmists. I don't think an article on global warming should fail to mention all the strange beliefs that have at one time or other been pushed by alarmists and called science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 ( talk) 09:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Look again at what James Hansen actually said. "Climate sceptics are winning the argument with the public over global warming". People who doubted the Apollo lunar landings were successful in swinging poll numbers during the 1990s. All it took was a single television special Did we ever land on moon?, several books, and the growth of the Internet. Around half of the population still believe in ghosts. None of this alters the science of Global Warming and NPOV does not require that we rewrite this article to reflect opinion polls. Hansen's remarks are better suited to Public opinion on climate change. — ThePowerofX 10:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
I have polished the canonical IPCC citation template and documentation (currently at User_talk:J._Johnson#Canonical IPCC citations. Peviously I was thinking of copying it here and letting it get buried in the archives, with a link from the FAQ. But the archives are static, and this will be revised when AR5 comes out. So I was wondering if it would be better to put the whole thing in the FAQ. Or perhaps a separate 'doc' subpage. Suggestions? - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
See article change I just made, in attempt to address the grammar and writing style comments of the above thread. Note that no one has complained about the reliability of the sources, or whether the text accurately reports what they say. If there are continuing debates about content, please reiterate them. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I made the above comment about this being written poorly. It should be this. This is much better and takes out the buzz words that take away from the merit of the article.
Also the end "This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries." As someone reading this and not a climate scientist (im an electrical engineer) I have no idea if this refers to the Global Warming or the Man Made part. So do all the National Science Academies agree that the globe is warming or do they all agree that we are causing it. I do not know the answer so this should be fixed by someone who knows about this topic. I actualy do this for my job write documents like this so sorry about this but you never just put IPCC I don't know who they are you write Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) then change the next occurence t0 IPCC. I have put the 2 corrections on this into my paragraphs above.
To be honest the true problem is the writers seem to not know much about writing tech. You are mixing up the global warming with the causes which are 2 diffrent concepts. It would be BEST to use 2 paragraph intro one about the undisputed fact that the globe is warming and the other about the causes with the references about both seperate. Its really confusing. I am no expert im just saying it is and an expert should fix this. As is it sounds like its written by a political hack and I am much less likely to read the rest. While politics should have a part in funding they shoulden't be the ones explaining this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faridafarid ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I wish I could edit this but I can not for some reason here is how it should be first the unequivocal is fine at first I thought it wasent but the problem is that the quote is taken off the webpage by taking part of the phrase and not the whole thing. Here is how it should be when I can edit ill change it eventualy cause its funny bad now. Also it says recognized change to supported. I deleted the negative but you can add it back in either way this is so much better.
[Insert info about causes in a paragraph here not an expert] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 ( talk) 16:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Based on above comments, and some new thought on my part I am about to change the article text as follows
for the following reasons:
In sum, the struck text seems to have a very high cost, skin-of-teeth sources, all for relatively little return on investment. So I guess I agree it should go away and I made that change today. I look forward to any dissenting opinions. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
Based on comments from this thread, I propose to substitute the current lead paragraph 1 with this (cites omitted but I'll include them if this goes live)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 04:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
For further comments please see the new thread [ here ] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The way the prior discussion is going I wonder if we need to revisit the definition of global warming (and with a view to documenting this in the FAQ). A glance through the archives showed various prior discussions, but I didn't see ("said the blind man...") any authoritative scientific source. Curiously, the IPCC (TAR and AR4) doesn't seem to define "global warming" anywhere; the definition in the glossary is for "Global Warming Potential". The EPA has a definition ("an average increase in temperatures near the Earth's surface"), though I would be a lot happier with an IPCC definition. There is also a distinction to be made from "global warming" as a generic term for any such increase in temperature, and the current and continuing episode. And there is the general confusion of global warming itself, and "global warming" as a general reference to all of the related climate change consequences. I think it would be good if we could sort out all that, with some solid sources. _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Here are a few more definitions from US agenices; They all have a dimension that it is us, as opposed to very likely us.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The article now begins, "For scientific disputes, see Scientific opinion on climate change..." We are not here to teach the controversy; there is no scientific dispute on any major point. There is a large and comprehensive 'Global warming and climate change' link template at the foot of the article and hundreds of hyperlinks throughout the text. I'm not even sure about "For the Sonny Rollins album see Global Warming (album)" - I've never heard of him or it and I don't think we're here to plug his album for him. I suggest a complete cull of the big block of whatever-these-things-are-called from the top of the page. -- Nigelj ( talk) 22:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Several recent threads have addressed issues with the lead, and in particular the flow, the accessability, complaints about jargon, the defintions, etc. Also among the suggestions was the idea of going back a year to see what worked well. Pulling all those comments together, here is my proposed rewrite for lead paragraph #1 and the first part of #2. Note that the temp info from paragraph 2 was moved into paragraph 1, and was not simply deleted. Also the notions that the temp rise is continuing and that it is rapid are strongly implied but not explicitly stated - just for the sake of readability. Here is the text, and also a demo-diff so you can see the references and overall look. I reverted the demo to the current text pending comments.
[ Here is the diff ] (Especially note the new reference about the last 3 decades.) NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
conflict edit, apparently. Responding to Kim's question why is there so much lead work and what has happened? ANSWER: In response to the recent thread "Add 'is believed to be'", I studied the sources in this article and found that they did not in fact jive with the lead first paragraph, specifically, we said humans ARE the cause, whereas the sources say we are most likely (as in > 90% certain). My POV rebels at having to dumb down the certainty that humans are the cause, but hey - that's what the sources say, and there has been a great deal of debate about this in recent threads.
If that was the rock in the pond, all this 1st paragraph lead editing that Kim finds so curious is just the ripples as the text settles down into a smooth reading easy flowing lead appropriate form that includes the >90% certainty nuance. After my first edit along these lines 4-8 weeks ago or so, every subsequent change Ive made to paragraph 1 has been about refining that text in response to comments like yours. Note that the current form is directly based on some of the text from a year ago, as you suggested, Kim. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I was the one who complained before that it was bad. It is a lot better now then it was before.
collapsing combative unsourced comments;
WP:NOTAFORUM; click show to read anyway
|
---|
There is just one thing
Maybe site this. scientists are more then 100% certain that none of global warming is caused by man would be a true statement. I am sure there are a few. This would add credibility to the statement. Saying scientists just sounds to generic. Faridafarid ( talk) 17:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I guess I mean now that I think of this site something or nothing don't site scientists. It sounds like something you would do in a dental floss add. Faridafarid ( talk) 17:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
|
There's a "not in citation given" tag in the introduction to the section on "attribution and expected effects". I've prepared a revision which hopefully addresses this problem:
"Detection" is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. Detection does not imply attribution of the detected change to a particular cause. "Attribution" of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence (Hegerl et al, 2007). Detection and attribution may also be applied to observed changes in physical, ecological and social systems (Rosenzweig et al, 2007).
References:
I suggest that the "species migration" sub-section is moved to the climate change and ecosystems sub-article. I would also like the information on limits of human survivability in the "social systems" sub-section to be moved to the climate change, industry and society sub-article. In my opinion, these two topics are not important enough to be covered in this top-level article. Enescot ( talk) 01:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I suggest we change the title from
to
because the text of the section barely mentions attribution, and a fair bit of attribution discussion is in the section called "Initial causes of temperature changes (External forcings)" NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we have a problem with non-ref footnotes. See "‹The template Cref2 is being considered for deletion.› [A]" in the lede for example. Think there are 4 in all. HELP:FOOT may help. I need to get some sleep and can't untangle it myself right now.....-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 23:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a remarkable degree of bias in this section towards UK and US public opinion. I've highlighted in bold what I view to be the most biased text:
In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149] A 2010 poll by the Office of National Statistics found that 75% of UK respondents were at least "fairly convinced" that the world's climate is changing, compared to 87% in a similar survey in 2006.[150] A January 2011 ICM poll in the UK found 83% of respondents viewed climate change as a current or imminent threat, while 14% said it was no threat. Opinion was unchanged from an August 2009 poll asking the same question, though there had been a slight polarisation of opposing views.[151]
A survey in October, 2009 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed decreasing public perception in the United States that global warming was a serious problem. All political persuasions showed reduced concern with lowest concern among Republicans, only 35% of whom considered there to be solid evidence of global warming.[152] The cause of this marked difference in public opinion between the United States and the global public is uncertain but the hypothesis has been advanced that clearer communication by scientists both directly and through the media would be helpful in adequately informing the American public of the scientific consensus and the basis for it.[153] The U.S. public appears to be unaware of the extent of scientific consensus regarding the issue, with 59% believing that scientists disagree "significantly" on global warming.[154]
By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]
On the other hand, in May 2011 a joint poll by Yale and George Mason Universities found that nearly half the people in the USA (47%) attribute global warming to human activities, compared to 36% blaming it on natural causes. Only 5% of the 35% who were "disengaged", "doubtful", or "dismissive" of global warming were aware that 97% of publishing US climate scientists agree global warming is happening and is primarily caused by humans.[157]
Researchers at the University of Michigan have found that the public's belief as to the causes of global warming depends on the wording choice used in the polls.[158]
In the United States, according to the Public Policy Institute of California's (PPIC) eleventh annual survey on environmental policy issues, 75% said they believe global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life in California.[159]
A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.[160]
A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."[161]
I suggest that the text in bold is removed and moved to the sub-article on public opinion on global warming. My revision includes info on a poll (in bold) by the World Bank focussing on developing countries viewpoints. I think this addition is important since it goes some way to addressing what I view to be the bias towards developed countries views and "is warming happening?" questions. More information should be included on questions concerning what should be done about global warming:
In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149]
A 2009 poll commissioned by the World Bank targeted public attitudes in developing countries towards climate policy (World Bank, p.2). Polling was conducted among 13,518 respondents in 15 nations - Bangladesh, China, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Russia, Senegal, Turkey, the United States, and Vietnam. The publics in all countries polled saw climate change as a serious problem (World Bank, p.2). In most countries, the public believed that scientists agree that climate change is an urgent problem which is understood well enough that action should be taken (World Bank, p.3). In 14 countries, clear majorities thought that if their countries act on climate change, other countries would be encouraged to act (World Bank, p.3). In nearly all countries, majorities supported key national steps to deal with climate change, even when the steps were described only in terms of costs, not benefits (World Bank, p.3).
By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]
Additional reference:
Enescot ( talk) 05:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
QUESTION: Given the volume of traffic on the two ENGLISH-wiki pages (100 hits vs 10,000 hits per day), is it more important to highlight the Europe-USA difference and connection to public education, or some globalized average opinion from the distant corners of the globe? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Collapsed per
WP:NOTAFORUM: initial statement unsupported biased opinion, adequately rebutted, and not addressing anY particular possible improvement of the article.
|
---|
There needs to be a section that outlines the evidence that, if true, completely debunks global warming. There has been research that shows that the Earth is no longer heating up. Antarctica is getting bigger. The research gives evidence that Earth is actually cooling instead of heating up. Until this is done, then, in my opinion, this article has "bias" written all over it and shouldn't even be featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mast3rlinkx ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Arctic cooling in winter actually amplifies global warming, see here: Count Iblis ( talk) 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
|
This article published yesterday by the Economist presents the results of an independent study by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group,(with a skeptical view and different methodology). The study confirms the well-known warming trends from NASA GISS, NOA and HarCru). Is this reference good enough RS for including a summary in the article? or shall we wait for the supporting paper to be published? I rather ask first than beginning an edit war. Thanks-- Mariordo ( talk) 03:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Climate change: The heat is on; A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming Oct 22nd 2011 from the print edition, page 99; regardin Berkeley Earth, NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRU. (Source: Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature)
See Richard A. Muller, Climatic Research Unit is a "CRU', and also see Climatic Research Unit and related CRU hacking incident. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
To summarize why it's a bad idea to consider anything about the BEST project for inclusion in this particular article:
It's probably of considerable importance to American politics, but this article isn't about American politics.
The paper may, when finally reviewed and properly published, be a useful source for articles such as urban heat island. It has confirmed that the urban heat island effect does not account for the instrumental temperature trend. -- TS 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change statement, "The only members of the UNFCCC that were asked to sign the treaty but have not yet ratified it are the USA and Afghanistan," located at the end of the fourth paragraph. Russia, Japan, and Canada all elected not to sign the extension.
76.88.148.92 ( talk) 02:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The page got fat again.
More archiving, usual criteria:
See history of archive 65 for annotations.
Usual offer applies: please revert any mistaken archiving without further discussion. -- TS 00:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
And more:
As usual, please restore any sections archived in error. -- TS 11:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This regards the question Enescot raised about chapter titles. Strictly speaking it is independent of whether {{ Harv}} links are used, or not. But converting to Harv also involves upgrading the citations, so this is properly discussed here.
Keep in mind the distinction between the reference that contains the full bibliographic details of the source (the report), which Harv links to with somethng like "IPCC AR4 WG1 2007", and the citation, which points to a specific location within the the source. Also keep in mind that WP:verification is facilitated by having the citation as specific as possible. This usually means having page numbers. But here it is more specific to identify sections or sub-sections. And I think we are agreed that linking to the on-line text is highly desireable, perhaps even expected for the canonical citation format.
The citation format requested by the IPCC for technical summaries and chapters (but not Summaries for Policymakers or FAQ sections) includes authors, year, and chapter title ( example). Our style as currently evolved is lead author only, followed by "et al.", some form of chapter and/or section title, and optional page number. The question is how to formulate the "title" to reference both the chapter (as Enescot desires, and I do not oppose) and section or sub-section (as I strongly desire).
A simple approach is to include everything, which has a distinct advantage in providing the complete context, but is also quite long, as witness this example:
Question: should we include the intervening levels? I think it would be sufficient to cite just the lowest (most specific) section (e.g.: 4.6.2.1.1 Mass budget), followed by the page number, if we are not too particular about all the intervening context.
Strictly speaking this does reference the chapter, as in the IPCC work the section numbering includes the chapter ("4"); this is countenanced by citation authorities such as CMOS. However, I am not adverse to explictly citing the chapter. I think we should include the chapter number (as "Chapter 4", "Chap. 4", or "Ch. 4"), as that is both sufficient and generally more significant to most people than the title. But should we also include the title?
Comments? _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: Forgot to mention that the non-chapter sections, such as the Summaries for Policymakers, are not numbered, so should have the title (or acronym, such as SPM). The above regards the numbered chapters only. _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have found the page number a convenient place to link to a pdf, but at this point I see that only as optional. (Authors discussed in section just above.)
Are we done here? If so I recommend someone manually archive it. If it's still apparently finished on Friday 11th, I'll do it myself. -- TS 22:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
http://my.news.yahoo.com/biggest-jump-ever-seen-global-warming-gases-183955211.html Portal:Current_events/2011_November_3 99.109.125.146 ( talk) 23:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
How to include the chapter authors in citations of the IPCC reports needs careful consideration. For chapters and technical summaries (but not the FAQs or SMPs) the IPCC Working Groups request attribution of all of the lead authors in (see example, bottom of page). However, this is a lot of cluttering details of extremely limited interest, and also contrary to long accepted practice of reducing lists of three or more authors to something like "Solomon et al.". My recommendation here is that we follow standard practice.
As to how this is to be done: one possibility is to do this within the cite/citaiton templates, using the "author" and "chapter" parameters. I recommend against this. First, because it is useful to use "author" for identifying the report as a whole. Second, because something like "Ch. 8" (in reference to a given report) is more meaningful to most of our readers (and most of our editors) than the unfamiliar "Randall 2007". Second, if each chapter has a separate reference (the full bibliographic record, noting the distinction I made in the section above between reference and citation) then there is a lot of repetition of material (full title, list of editors, publisher, ISBNs), which only confuses and hides the essential differences.
My recommendation is that attribution of the author(s) be done in the citation, like this:
where the IPCC AR4 WG1 2007 is the Harv link to the full reference:
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link) (pb:
978-0-521-70596-7).Note that the full reference contains all the bibliographic details, but is listed only once, with the contituent elements (the chapters) linking to it. Also, additional details of the citation specification -- such as chapter titles, section headers, or page numbers -- can be included in the citation.
This does not cover all possible details, but I hope that as far as it goes it will be satisfactory.
I think this mostly addresses the concerns I've raised in the previous thread. On my talk page, NewsAndEventsGuy requested that I post examples of where I felt that loss of citation information was important. I thought that I might as well post these examples here for other editors to look at. It should help to clarify the concerns that I raised previously. With the citation style you've put forward, the problem had concerning the citation in example 1 would not apply. I think that example 2 shows that retaining the name of the IPCC chapter may be beneficial for the "robustness" of citations, should any errors creep in.
The most important example I feel is the loss of the IPCC chapter from the citation. Here is a citation I used in current sea level rise:
(1.1) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). "Magnitudes of impact".
Summary for Policymakers. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press. This version: GRID-Arendal website.
ISBN
0521880106. Retrieved 2011-06-18. {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
You changed this to:
(1.2)
Magnitudes of impact, in
IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
As I stated earlier on, the above example does not apply to your current suggested citation style, where the SPM bit would be retained. I changed citation (1.2) to this:
(1.3) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Magnitudes of impact". Summary for Policymakers
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spmsspm-c-15-magnitudes-of.html. Retrieved 2011-10-09. {{
cite book}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) in
IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
which is pretty much the same as the citation style you've proposed.
I made an error in a url link to an IPCC report chapter:
(2.1) Fischlin, A. (2007). "4.4.9 Oceans and shallow seas - Impacts".
Chapter 4: Ecosystems, their Properties, Goods and Services. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press (CUP), Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Print version: CUP. This version: IPCC website.
ISBN
0521880106. Retrieved 2011-07-29. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |display-authors=1
(
help); Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help): 234
However, as you can see, the rest of the citation gives more than enough information for another editor to track down the correct url/supporting text. Citation 1.1 was changed to:
(2.2) Fischlin, A.,
Section 4.4.9: Oceans and shallow seas -
Impacts, p. 234, in
IPCC AR4 WG1 2007.
verification needed
Citation 2.2 is less helpful than 2.1, and unfortunately redirects the reader to the WG1 report, and not WG2. This is probably because 2.1 contains the incorrect url which links to a WG1 report. The difference is that the single error in 2.1 is much easier to correct than the two errors in 2.2.
Enescot (
talk)
08:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a good issue to take up regarding chapter titles and section headers. But the style I propose does not preclude any options here (is even more accomodating), so I would like to defer that until some other details are sorted out.
Regarding your #Example 1 (above), I am not clear on what the issue is. I will point out that (as I think I have stated before) in making these conversions I am not trying (generally) to improve them, to make up all the deficiencies of the originals. In this case I did drop the "Summary for Policymakers" (a disimprovement -- sorry). In this case the citation could done more particularly (more fully) as:
(1.4) Summary for Policymakers, section C: Current knowledge about future impacts: Magnitudes of impact, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
Which is to say: chapter (the SMP), section ("number" and title), and subsection. This is a bit lengthy, which gets back to the discussion I would like to defer a bit. The point I would make here is that omitting or inserting any of this identifying text ("detail"), for better or worse, is fully accomodable; this does not really bear on the use of Harv or the IPCC citation.
There are some minor issues here, such as citing the IPCC as author. More accurately it should be the Working Group, but I think it is quite acceptable leave off the "author" in this case. If the IPCC is cited as the author, then the acronym is preferable.
The "retrieved" date (access date) is also well left off. Even though we are linking to a web page, that refers to the work, which is not as changeable as a web page, having a definite form and publication date. (We have also discussed errata on my talk page.)
A more significant difference, not obviously visible, is that you used a {{ cite book}} template for the citation (followed by the "in IPCC..."), where I just wrote it out. (Likely this is what you meant above by "purely written text citations".) I could quibble about how that was used, but I don't see (yet??) any problem in the concept.
I have to go now, so back to Example 2 later.
Ah! Having slept on the matter I now recall why I am adverse to using a template in the citation in the manner of example 1.3. My biggest objection is the inclusion of bibliographic details (the reference) in the article text, where the intermingling confuses and obfuscates both text and reference. To the extent that only details of the citation (such as chapter, section, page) are included, and not of the reference (series, publisher, isbn, etc.), are included this objection is minimized. But I am also concerned that having {{
cite xxx}}
or {{
citation}}
templates in the notes would confuse the different usage in citations and references, sliding back to having the entire reference buried in the text. (And even to named refs.) So while at one level this particular use of {{
cite xxx}}
is not exactly an issue in switching to Harv, at another level it is. I am somewhat opposed, but open to further discussion. _
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
18:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
In your
#Example 2 I believe your point is about which form an error is most easily detected and corrected. (Note that I did detect the error, and tagged it.) In that case I suspect the original error was due to misreading "Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" for "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". You have to agree that the signal-to-noise ratio here is pretty low, because of all the redundant clutter. This exactly why I want to use Harv, so cluttering details can be pulled out of the text and put into a separate section and linked to with Harv. _
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
19:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
There are a few more details regarding implementation, but in regard to the basic question of using {{ Harv}}, is everyone on-board with proceeding? No further questions? _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
When I revised the IPCC references in this article I followed the extant form of including the entire reference (template) in each note. But as I gained experience in other articles it has become strongly apparent that having the reference (the templated bibliographic details of a source) in a separate section, and only citing the source, using {{ Harv}} templates, in the note is much easier. I have also worked out some improvements in the citation form (see my talk page, or Current sea level rise), and if I implement those I would also like to start converting to citing with Harv. Any objections? _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict]
Better yet, here is a side-by-side comparison. Original note using "|quote", [23] and revised note with text outside the template. [24]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: length (
help)
dead link
statecl
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).spm1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link). "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level."
And how I would do the note with Harv. [1]
References
We don't need no stinkin' "quote" parameter! _
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
18:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I understand that using the citation template we don't need the quote parameter, and you're example 1 and 2 appear to have identical results. But between those two choices, why not use the quote parameter? Reasons to use it appear to be (1) it exists, (2) it produces the same result, and (3) newcomer editors won't know all this carefully nuanced background, but will instead be more likely to see the help guide for the template, complete with info about the quote parameter. Also, at least for my brain, stringing info via
is easy to comprehend, as oppposed to
Is there some reason why, when using a citation template, you think we should not use the quote parameter? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Please interline answers to each as we go.
1. I thought Harv was going to produce something (like this, 2011). Instead there is a footnote number. What happened to the thing (like this, 2011) you were talking about earlier?
2. Would refs done with citation templates appear in one reflist and refs done with harv appear in another, or would they all appear in the same reflist?
{{
citation}}
or {{
cite xxx}}
template, which creates the reference. Harv templates (where ever they are) link to "citation" templates (where ever they are). Yes, the terminology is confusing (just what did you mean by "refs"?), and we are stuck with it. Which is why I keep insisting on proper distinctions, and clarity and consistency in usage.3. I can't see how they can appear in the same one, since refs with citation templates get numbers in order, and earlier you said Harv would alpha sort them ones formatted with harv. Please explain?
4. If they appear in the same list, but mixed up, will the footnote numbers still make sense?
5. In your harv example, when I click on IPCC AR4 SYR I jump to the citation templated reference, which is very confusing and maybe not what you intended. Why would we use Harv AND a citation template?
6. While harv might be a huge advantage to a harv-trained editor working on their own project, is it reasonable to expect newcomer editors to easily find the information and program their brains accordingly?
I applaud your efforts, and yet at the moment I have a strong intuitive belief that the answer to #6 is so strongly "no" that all the benefits of harv combined won't be able to overcome the new-editor learning curve hurdle. But I'm trying to keep an open mind. A better example perhaps would be to just process 20% of the article and then revert it, as a demo edit. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 03:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm opposed to any information being deleted from IPCC citations. This is something I've noticed on current sea level rise and this article – see User talk:J. Johnson#Enescot comment. I think the following should be kept:
As I've stated on User talk:J. Johnson#Enescot comment, some of these details have been removed on recent revisions to climate change articles, notably on current sea level rise, where details on the chapter of the IPCC report referred to were removed from at least two citations. Without this information, users of the CUP version would not know where to find the supporting reference (see note). Also, the IPCC report chapters represent the work of the IPCC authors, and not the IPCC itself. This is of some significance, since in the SAR, there was a dispute between one lead author (David Pearce) and the IPCC over the content of the Summary for Policymakers document. In general, I think citations should contain as much information as possible, and I do not see what is to be gained from removing the information I've mentioned. Enescot ( talk) 05:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I have resolved all questions satisfactorily. So back to the orignal question: are we ready for {{ Harv}}? Okay if I convert citations to using Harv templates as I update them? _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes, I was intending to start with just the IPCC citations. But the principle of consistency would then imply conversion (eventually) of the rest of the citations. And given the expressions of Harv anxiety above, I think we are not resolved on this, and further discussion is necesary.
I agree that Planck's law (which uses {{ Harv}} templates) has its hideous aspects. But, please, that is as much a misuse of Harv as anything inherent in Harv itself. For example, look at notes 50-53: all "Jeans 1905x" (these are the short citations). None of these has the page number, which is one the main reasons for have Harv in the first place: to allow multiple citation, with specific location (page numbers), of a source without have to repeat (and most likely incorrectly and/or inconsistently) the full bibliographic details of the source. But this example gets worse: these notes are linked from the text with one of those hideous concatenations of links: [50][51][52][53]. With Harv all of these could have been put into a single footnote (like this: [1]). Or, if a general reference is appropriate, in combined citation (like this: [2]). These are simply not feasible using named refs.
References
I submit that this is less hideous than the current state of affairs at Planck's law. (For further illustration please see Puget Sound faults#Notes.)
Contrast this with Climatic Research Unit email controversy#References (similar to Global warming#References). These notes have a lot more text than at Planck's Law (though not as much as at Puget Sound faults), which I think conveys a softer, fuller feeling; I suspect that appeals to a lot of editors. But all that cushioning obscures the essential information, and obscures a lot of inconsistencies (which is what prompted me to tackle this). Consider: if you wanted to see if Andrew Friedman of the Washington Post was cited, or any of the IPCC reports, the only feasible approach is to use the search function in your browser (try it!), because relying on refs precludes putting the references in alphabetical (or any other) order. It is very much a strong advantage at Planck's Law#Bibliography that the reader can readily see what sources the editors have used.
The statement that at Planck's Law there is no backlink from a reference to the text is not strictly correct, and at any rate is also applies generally to all articles. What is backlinked is the note (footnote). The confusion is because at the other articles the full reference is dumped into the note (which I argue is a problem in itself), whereas at Planck's Law#References, Puget Sound faults#Notes, etc., the note contains a short citation, which is just as backlinked to the text as any other content contained in a note.
There is also the difficulty/ease of editing. Even though I already favored Harv, I was still surprised at how much easier it was to revise the IPCC citations using Harv (as at Climate change#Notes) than "simply" replacing the entire reference in the note (as at Global warming#References). (You all are welcome to engage in similar comparative exercises.) Indeed, the hardest part of all that work was not with Harv, but dealing with all the named refs. That is the truly hideous bit: having to deal with named refs.
Which leads to my central objection to the widespread practice of dumping the bibilographic details into the article text (often repeatedly): it confuses both text and bibliography, making editing harder.
In summary: the true "hideousness" is not the superficial aspects of using short citations at Planck's Law (which isn't even due to Harv), but the grotesquese results of using named refs instead of Harv. I suspect the real issue here is anxiety about using Harv. I assure you is a LOT easier than not using it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Are we done here? -- TS 22:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I am still cleaning up some of the IPCC citations, but the Harv links have been implemented, so you all can take a look at how it works. Which I think is – real good! Take a look at Global warming#References to see the clunky but pretty nearly complete bibliographic references to the reports. Then scroll up into the Notes section, and see how (most of) the IPCC citations have a detailed specification (lead author, chapter, section, optional page) that then points to the report (e.g., "in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007"). The Notes generally and individually are much clearer not having all the bibliographic detail in each citation. (If not convinced, take a look at one of the early September versions.) All this is acheived by replacing the citation template formerly included in each citation with the simple "{{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1 2007}}".
I am not quite yet ready to start converting the non-IPCC citations, but that should be contemplated, as it would be definite improvement to the article. Questions? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Some interesting effects late today as I moved the reflist from References to Notes, and made other adjustments, but it should be stable now. This for setting up a list of references (not the {{ reflist}} that catches footnotes) for Harv. The footnotes now come after the notes from the cref stuff, and – as was discussed a month ago – if cref is discontinued we can just move those notes into the regular footnotes.
Time for a break. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 01:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
For anyone that's interested: an update. I have mostly replaced the full in-cite IPCC references with Harv links, and the article is significantly smaller, and the citations no longer have that over-stuffed look to them. They also look pretty messy because I have been tagging things (mostly incomplete citaitons, with no section or page numbers, also some doubtful citations), but that is getting cleared up as I take successive passes through the notes. Currently I'm at about note 108, take a look above and below that to see typical changes. Enough for today. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a remarkable degree of bias in this section towards UK and US public opinion. I've highlighted in bold what I view to be the most biased text:
In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149] A 2010 poll by the Office of National Statistics found that 75% of UK respondents were at least "fairly convinced" that the world's climate is changing, compared to 87% in a similar survey in 2006.[150] A January 2011 ICM poll in the UK found 83% of respondents viewed climate change as a current or imminent threat, while 14% said it was no threat. Opinion was unchanged from an August 2009 poll asking the same question, though there had been a slight polarisation of opposing views.[151]
A survey in October, 2009 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed decreasing public perception in the United States that global warming was a serious problem. All political persuasions showed reduced concern with lowest concern among Republicans, only 35% of whom considered there to be solid evidence of global warming.[152] The cause of this marked difference in public opinion between the United States and the global public is uncertain but the hypothesis has been advanced that clearer communication by scientists both directly and through the media would be helpful in adequately informing the American public of the scientific consensus and the basis for it.[153] The U.S. public appears to be unaware of the extent of scientific consensus regarding the issue, with 59% believing that scientists disagree "significantly" on global warming.[154]
By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]
On the other hand, in May 2011 a joint poll by Yale and George Mason Universities found that nearly half the people in the USA (47%) attribute global warming to human activities, compared to 36% blaming it on natural causes. Only 5% of the 35% who were "disengaged", "doubtful", or "dismissive" of global warming were aware that 97% of publishing US climate scientists agree global warming is happening and is primarily caused by humans.[157]
Researchers at the University of Michigan have found that the public's belief as to the causes of global warming depends on the wording choice used in the polls.[158]
In the United States, according to the Public Policy Institute of California's (PPIC) eleventh annual survey on environmental policy issues, 75% said they believe global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life in California.[159]
A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.[160]
A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."[161]
I suggest that the text in bold is removed and moved to the sub-article on public opinion on global warming. My revision includes info on a poll (in bold) by the World Bank focussing on developing countries viewpoints. I think this addition is important since it goes some way to addressing what I view to be the bias towards developed countries views and "is warming happening?" questions. More information should be included on questions concerning what should be done about global warming:
In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149]
A 2009 poll commissioned by the World Bank targeted public attitudes in developing countries towards climate policy (World Bank, p.2). Polling was conducted among 13,518 respondents in 15 nations - Bangladesh, China, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Russia, Senegal, Turkey, the United States, and Vietnam. The publics in all countries polled saw climate change as a serious problem (World Bank, p.2). In most countries, the public believed that scientists agree that climate change is an urgent problem which is understood well enough that action should be taken (World Bank, p.3). In 14 countries, clear majorities thought that if their countries act on climate change, other countries would be encouraged to act (World Bank, p.3). In nearly all countries, majorities supported key national steps to deal with climate change, even when the steps were described only in terms of costs, not benefits (World Bank, p.3).
By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]
Additional reference:
Enescot ( talk) 05:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
QUESTION: Given the volume of traffic on the two ENGLISH-wiki pages (100 hits vs 10,000 hits per day), is it more important to highlight the Europe-USA difference and connection to public education, or some globalized average opinion from the distant corners of the globe? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Was that my premature archiving? If so, apologies. -- TS 17:04, 22 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 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
I was thinking of adding a few mages to this article. The first two would go in the politics section, and relate to Article 2 of the UNFCCC treaty:
Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). [2] The ultimate objective of the Convention is to prevent "dangerous" human interference of the climate system. [3] As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHG concentrations are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a sustainable fashion.
The Framework Convention was agreed in 1992, but since then, global emissions have risen. [4] [5] During negotiations, the G77 (a lobbying group in the United Nations representing 133 developing nations) [6]: 4 pushed for a mandate requiring developed countries to "[take] the lead" in reducing their emissions. [7] This was justified on the basis that: 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. [8]: 290 This mandate was sustained in the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention, [8]: 290 which entered into legal effect in 2005. [9]
In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, most developed countries accepted legally binding commitments to limit their emissions. These first-round commitments expire in 2012. [9] US President George W. Bush rejected the treaty on the basis that "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy." [6]: 5
At the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in 2009 at Copenhagen, several UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord. [10] Parties associated with the Accord (140 countries, as of November 2010) [11]: 9 aim to limit the future increase in global mean temperature to below 2 °C. [12] A preliminary assessment published in November 2010 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests a possible "emissions gap" between the voluntary pledges made in the Accord and the emissions cuts necessary to have a "likely" (greater than 66% probability) chance of meeting the 2 °C objective. [11]: 10–14 The UNEP assessment takes the 2 °C objective as being measured against the pre-industrial global mean temperature level. To having a likely chance of meeting the 2 °C objective, assessed studies generally indicated the need for global emissions to peak before 2020, with substantial declines in emissions thereafter [...]
See
climate change mitigation#Greenhouse gas concentrations and stabilization for the image sources.
As I've argued before on this talk page, I think that the relationship between emissions and concentrations should be explained in this article.
The other image I want to add shows some of the observed impacts of global warming. It could go in the "attributed and expected effects" section. The existing image on glaciers could be deleted:
Global warming may be detected in natural, ecological or social systems as a change having statistical significance. [14] Attribution of these changes e.g., to natural or human activities, is the next step following detection. [15]
Natural systems
Global warming has been detected in a number of systems. Some of these changes, e.g., based on the instrumental temperature record, have been described in the section on temperature changes. Rising sea levels and observed decreases in snow and ice extent are consistent with warming. [16] Most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is, with high probability, [D] attributable to human-induced changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. [17]
Even with current policies to reduce emissions, global emissions are still expected to continue to grow over the coming decades. [18] Over the course of the 21st century, increases in emissions at or above their current rate would very likely induce changes in the climate system larger than those observed in the 20th century.
In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, across a range of future emission scenarios, model-based estimates of sea level rise for the end of the 21st century (the year 2090-2099, relative to 1980-1999) range from 0.18 to 0.59 m. These estimates, however, were not given a likelihood due to a lack of scientific understanding, nor was an upper bound given for sea level rise. Over the course of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in sea level rise of 4–6 m or more. [19]
Changes in regional climate are expected to include greater warming over land, with most warming at high northern latitudes, and least warming over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean. [18] Snow cover area and sea ice extent are expected to decrease, with the Arctic expected to be largely ice-free in September by 2037. [20] The frequency of hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation will very likely increase.
Ecological systems
In terrestrial ecosystems, the earlier timing of spring events, and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges, have been linked with high confidence to recent warming. [16] Future climate change is expected to particularly affect certain ecosystems, including tundra, mangroves, and coral reefs. [18] It is expected that most ecosystems will be affected by higher atmospheric CO2 levels, combined with higher global temperatures. [21] Overall, it is expected that climate change will result in the extinction of many species and reduced diversity of ecosystems [...] [22]
The article does not, in my opinion, adequately convey the strength of evidence for the observed effects of global warming. I think that adding this image would help in addressing this problem.
Enescot (
talk)
01:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
`
The Other Views section states:
"Most scientists accept that humans are contributing to observed climate change"
The use of the word "accept" implies an absolute certainty about the theory of AGW. Akin to saying - Most scientists accept that the planet is round. Also in the following sentence -
"However, some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science -" The inclusion of the term "non-scientists" has a pejorative connotation, seeming to indicate that those who do not adhere to the theory have a less informed viewpoint. Do "non-scientists" not also adhere to the concept of AGW, so this should be mentioned in the first paragraph?
Suggestion for edit:
"Most (many?) scientists adhere to the theory that humans are contributing to observed climate change. National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions. However many other scientists question aspects of climate change science, specifically the link between human activity and climate change."
This (or something similar) provides a more neutral viewpoint for this section and adheres more to statement of fact than insertion of opinion regarding the theory of AGW.
ABLegler ( talk) 02:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Your suggested edit does not have a source provided to support it. The current edit is supported by two references, and is also implicitly supported by the article scientific opinion on climate change. I'll refer to the two sources cited:
The first is a report by the US National Research Council, which states:
Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1).
I do not see that there is a significant difference between the words “accept” and “agree”. However, I would be happy for the article to be changed to:
Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change
Note: this is also available in html format. Quote:
Misleading arguments: Many scientists do not think that climate change is a problem. Some scientists have signed petitions stating that climate change is not a problem.
There are some differences of opinion among scientists about some of the details of climate change and the contribution of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. Researchers continue to collect more data about climate change and to investigate different explanations for the evidence. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points, even if there is still some uncertainty about particular aspects, such as how the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change in the future.
In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.
There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC. They appear motivated in their arguments by opposition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, which seek urgent action to tackle climate change through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Often all these individuals and organisations have in common is their opposition to the growing consensus of the scientific community that urgent action is required through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. But the opponents are well-organised and well-funded. For instance, a petition was circulated between 1999 and 2001 by a campaigning organisation called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which called on the US Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition claimed that "proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
These extreme claims directly contradict the conclusions of the IPCC 2001 report, which states that "reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to stabilise their atmospheric concentrations would delay and reduce damages caused by climate change."
The petition was circulated together with a document written by individuals affiliated to OISM and to the George C Marshall Institute, another campaigning organisation. On 20 April 1998, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a warning about the document circulated with the petition because it had been presented "in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." The statement pointed out: "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."
I think the above text supports the use of the term “non-scientists”. Indeed, “non-scientists” is probably too weak a description of the deliberate effort by some to undermine public understanding of human-induced global warming.
For the sake of additional clarity, I've provided two other supporting references below:
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help) "The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" (page 3).Enescot ( talk) 02:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
CANVASS CALL - Proposed policy about overlinking in edit summaries
FYI I have
proposed a policy about links in edit summaries; Since this page is often the subject of improper overlinking in edit summaries by various IPs, I thought readers of this page would be an appropriate group to canvass, in case anyone has a pro or con opinion.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
(This comment was cut out from midstream in the prior thread and given its own section heading, since it has nothing to do with the prior thread) NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Talk pages are not a forum for debate; If you care to make changes, take time
to learn how to do it effectively; Entire thread is available by clicking "show"
|
---|
Somebody keeps reverting my changes. My changes cite the specific scientists with criticisms of global warming orthodoxy and note that some, including Nobel Prize winners, have resigned from the American Physical Society in protest of that organization's view that the evidence for man made global warming is "incontrovertible." I also cite sources showing that the Earth has been both warmer and colder in the past than now, and that periods of warmer Earth have generally been associated with increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Whomever makes these reversions is slanting the article toward regarding global warming as settled science. There is a controversy about it. The current version of the article correctly notes that most prominent scientific organizations that have put out statements about the subject take the view that man made global warming is supported by the evidence. However, it is also a fact that many scientists disagree. This is in contrast with basic equations of physics and chemistry, where nobody disagrees. Editing out the other side of the controversy impoverishes the article rather than improving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickcrane ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many people have done the reverting. My comments are accurate. Science is not about "mainstream" vs. "not mainstream.' It's about the gradual accumulation of evidence. F=ma and E=mc2 not because scientists have voted on it, but because all experiments confirm it true. The Earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past then now. It has generally been warmer, and has had rather high co2. All the graphs in the article under discussion are misleading because they exclude 4 billion years of Earth history and focus on an insignificant few decades. Global warming theory has been established by models, not experiments. That's not science. That's why some scientists have resigned from APS in protest. That's a very unusual thing for scientists to do. I do not think the media is biased in the direction of exaggerating the controversy. Rather, many media take a scoffing view towards anyone who questions global warming orthodoxy. I for one don't question the view that there is significant evidence in favor of the man caused hypothesis. But, as a doctoral level scientist with a master's in philosophy of science I can tell you that the evidence is nothing like as certain as that for current physical or chemical theories or for the theory of evolution. The evidence for global warming is more like that for evolution in Darwin's day, before we discovered all the "missing link" fossils and found the DNA basis for evolution.
The reason that I don't have as much facility with the mechanics of Wiki as you is that I have other things to do than to vandalize others' work. APS is a scientific organization. Climatology, otherwise known as weather forecasting is not a science. Computer models are not experiments. Criticizing APS is an ad hominem argument, not a factual or logical one. Your comments are completely devoid of facts about global warming. It's all your POV. The purpose of Wiki is to convey information, not to push POV. That's why my comments are factual. Vandalizing them doesn't increase the case for global warming. Rather, it appears consistent with the advocates of that hypothesis that attempt to persecute others with divergent opinions. It's much like the Catholic Church persecuting Galileo. It didn't prove anything. I await your comments on how the fact that the world has generally been warmer in the past than now, and often had similar co2 levels bears on the view that man is the only possible cause of temperatures now that are slightly higher now than a couple of hundred years ago.
|
Global warming is the temperature rise that is unequivocally underway in Earth's atmosphere and oceans.[2] With greater than 90% certainty,[3] scientists have determined that global warming is caused mostly by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[4][5][6] 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.[7][8][A]
This intro sounds like your almost trying to hide something. It goes so out of its way with "unequivocally" and "is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing". I am an engineer and you don't write like this.
This sounds so much better
Global warming is the temperature rise that is underway in Earth's atmosphere and oceans.
Also In the intro why would you say its not disputed add this to another section just say the affermitive and delete the negative sounds much better.
This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 ( talk) 21:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Yea thats what I am saying. You shoulden't have to add that. When I read this the first thing I thought was what are they hiding! People on the right side of an argument do not need to write qualifiers. Thats saved for the people on the wrong side of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.96.65 ( talk) 22:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I read "and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[7][8][A]" I just think ok then who does dispute it and why. Unequivocally is not a word that is needed in any scientific article. It takes away from the article and to me makes this more of a political thing then science. The person who wrote this prob is not an expert because when I write I do not use qualifiers like that before I state my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.46 ( talk) 16:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Whoa! How is this discussion not just a continuation of the prior discussion? Why are we getting into this again? Why this continuing effort to water down the lede by removing "unequivocal"? _
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
20:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy: I share your desire that it should be made clear that the Earth's atmosphere is warming. But I don't think anyone will be better informed by us keeping the term "unequivocally". As the IP contributor above notes it just makes it sound like we're defensive about something. I believe you and JJ are tilting at windmills here - we've got our own resident sceptics here haven't we? Do they really now doubt that the world has warmed over the last 100years? Well do you? Kaufner, Q Science, anyone else? It may be that there are some slightly deranged politicians in the US that doubt it but I don't think they'd spend long editing Wikipedia (or reading it) - they'd have to do too much looking at other people's views. Even if they did, do you think the u-word will make a difference with them? I don't but it might just make a difference with some people who think that the article doth protest too much. I believe the debate has moved on and so should the article.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 13:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The page got fat again. I've removed the following dormant sections to archive for the stated reasons:
I have also removed a discussion section started and maintained by an identified, now blocked, sock puppet. I did not archive it.
The result is to halve the size of this very large discussion page, which I hope will make life easier for everybody without curtailing any discussion.
I take care to avoid mistakes, but I'm human and I'm not in charge. Please do restore potentially fruitful ongoing discussions I may have inadvertently closed. -- TS 00:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I've performed another bout of aggressive trimming over the past day or two. The following items were removed:
Please inspect the history of Archive 64 here for annotations on why I removed each item.
The page size is now a manageable 80KB. As usual please restore any items removed in error or prematurely. -- TS 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
More archiving, usual criteria:
See history of archive 65 for annotations.
Usual offer applies: please revert any mistaken archiving without further discussion. -- TS 00:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The page got fat again. I've removed the following dormant sections to archive for the stated reasons:
I have also removed a discussion section started and maintained by an identified, now blocked, sock puppet. I did not archive it.
The result is to halve the size of this very large discussion page, which I hope will make life easier for everybody without curtailing any discussion.
I take care to avoid mistakes, but I'm human and I'm not in charge. Please do restore potentially fruitful ongoing discussions I may have inadvertently closed. -- TS 00:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I've performed another bout of aggressive trimming over the past day or two. The following items were removed:
Please inspect the history of Archive 64 here for annotations on why I removed each item.
The page size is now a manageable 80KB. As usual please restore any items removed in error or prematurely. -- TS 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Collapsing argumentative unsourced comment;
WP:NOTAFORUM; Click show to read thread anyway
|
---|
Two sentences of this read :- "Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects of the warming include 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." This is given with no reference but is reported as fact when it is merely the opinion of whatever editor wrote it. In truth at present the Arctic sea ice is slightly thicker than usual and polar bears numbers are at a 30 year high. Smokey TheCat 22:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
|
While the "observations" thread is unfolding - and I do have an open mind about clear proposals, with reasons, for how to improve the article - in the meantime I do think the article could be intimidating to a reader with only a bit of science background and new to the issue. However else the article may be changed as a result of the "observations" thread, or any other thread, would anyone object if during the interim I made the section headings a bit more newcomer-friendly?
No changes to text or to order of sections, but rewrite 1st level section headings as follows:
Thanks for comments NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ian, what the hell are you doing unilaterally removing "unequivocal" from the lead sentence? Did you think you could "stealth" it out? You certainly know that is not a "minor" change, as you have participated in previous discussions (you know how to use the archive). What gives? Has someone swiped your password? _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 15:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
"Scientists have determined"..."using unequivocal evidence"..."of observed and projected surface temperature"..."the incontrovertible truth"..."of how right I really was all along". OK. OK. The IPCC didn't say that. Probably not the last part anyway. Kauffner ( talk) 07:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
JJ, I agree that the existence of the warming is not (in the sources) subject to uncertainty, but here I have to direct you to the archive. I am pretty clear on what is causing Global warming, so are you and NewsAndEventsGuy and I think we agree. Unfortunately, the IPCC has only deigned to tell us that it's more than 90% sure that the cause is primarily anthropogenic and everyone else (Royal Soc, US Academy of Sciences) seem to have followed that line. This was pointed out User:Udippuy a user who has made no other contributions to Wikipedia but he is nonetheless, as far as I can tell, right on this one. Yes I do prefer NAEG's change. I still think it does not read well but I don't have the immense resources of time, intelligence, will and persistence that would be needed to even attempt a decent rewrite (at least not just now). It's because I think this subject so important that I believe this article should be (and sound) accurate, neutral and authoritative.-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 22:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Ian for complaining about my first draft, and JJ for insisting we keep "unequivocal". Ya'll might be interested in this pithy description of how IPCC's thoughts on the subject we've debated (certainty of warming and certainty of cause) evolved through the 1st four assessment reports: See section 3.1.1.
Does arbitration 1RR or the wiki generic default 3RR apply to this article? There are different banners on this articles talk page and (for one example) Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 22:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This policy also applies. Count Iblis ( talk) 17:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
One of the statements in the section on geoengineering is not supported by the cited source:
Another policy response is deliberate modifications to the climate system, known as (geoengineering). This policy response is sometimes grouped together with mitigation.[125] Although some proposed geoengineering techniques are well understood, the most promising are under ongoing development, and reliable cost estimates for them have not yet been published (IPCC, 2007c). Geoengineering encompasses a range of techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or to reflect incoming sunlight. As most geoengineering techniques would affect the entire globe, deployment would likely require global public acceptance and an adequate global legal and regulatory framework, as well as significant further scientific research.[127]
The cited source is
IPCC (2007c), which states:
17. Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects. [emphasis added] Reliable cost estimates for these options have not been published (medium agreement, limited evidence) [11.2].
This is not consistent with what is in the article. My suggested revision:
Another policy response is geoengineering of the climate. Geoengineering encompasses a range of techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or to reflect incoming sunlight. Little is known about the effectiveness, costs or potential side effects of geoengineering options (Barker et al, 2007). As most geoengineering techniques would affect the entire globe, deployment would likely require global public acceptance and an adequate global legal and regulatory framework, as well as significant further scientific research.[127]
Reference:
Enescot ( talk) 17:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman Warm Period was created this July and has been tagged for verifiability. -- TS 20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This is really just an attempt to push a few anti-science canards
|
---|
As most people know, global temperatures have not risen this century. So, against the patently obvious, I assumed there had to be a precise citation reference backing up the word "continuing" in the sentence: "Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal[2]" One could say: "global warming is a rise in temperature ..." as this would be a definition which we could then test to see whether it was happening. One could even say: "global warming is a rise over several decades". But the word "continuing" is a statement of fact: of what is (supposedly) happening. It is not a definition. Without a clear factual citation backing up, it so patently absurd in light of the lack of warming that it is laughable. Moreover, this "continuing" rise is just a matter of opinion - I don't think its warming, most other people I know don't think it is warming - who are these people who say it is? Do they exist? When did they hold this opinion? Last week? Last year? Last decade? Did they ever hold this opinion? It is just some sayso opinion which cannot be objectively challenged because there is no citation on which it is based, no factual record set which can be checked to verify whether it is still correct. In short, without any evidence to support its inclusion in such a prominent position is the most obvious sign of an article which is little short of blatant baseless propaganda which immediately undermines anything following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.201.135 ( talk) 12:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Debate thread contains no specific suggestions for article improvement
WP:TALK; click show to read anyway
|
---|
http://www.politicalcrush.com/conspiracies/big-green-money-machine-environmentalist-propaganda-dwarfs-paid-climate-skepticism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.100.152 ( talk) 18:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
This author is a political analyst and opinion-editorialist, with articles published at AmericanThinker. He holds a Master’s degree in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies and is a PhD. student in Political Science, with specializations in International Relations and Comparative Politics. He speaks fluent Russian and worked in Moscow as a copy editor for the economic news agency Prime-Tass (prime-tass.com) and was International Programs Manager for Russia’s first liberal arts college. He believes that defeating socialism (and all other forms of collectivism) once and for all means thoroughly discrediting the ideology utilizing reason, evidence, history, and philosophy. He is currently editing his first fiction novel. **Not reliable enough for you?-- 69.130.100.152 ( talk) 19:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
|
WP:NOTAFORUM; No one who refers to the scientific consensus as a DOOMSDAY CULT should lecture about NPOV; click show to read thread anyway
|
---|
In an article in the independent, Hansen said: "Climate sceptics are winning the argument with the public over global warming," [3] The requirement of wikipedia are for neutral point of view. Can I spell that out neutral POINT OF VIEW. Hansen has now said the neutral point of view ... not the scientific neutral point of view ... but the neutral point of view an average point of view of all humanity not a very insular group who have a particular outlook on science. The neutral point of view is now decidedly sceptical. The inference is very clear, that the article should represent a neutral point of view. That means as the argument is now decidedly in favour of sceptics, then the sceptic view should be represented in a substantial part of the article. Can I just point out that Hansen specifically says: "global warming". This is an article about global warming. The neutral point of view as articulated by one of the people often referred to here as the authority for the "science" has stated unequivocally that the sceptic argument is winning. How much of the sceptic position do we see here? Does it mention the pause in temperature? The lack of trend in climate extremes? The failure of almost every climate prediction? The multitude of evidence against positive feedbacks? No, there is not one attempt to represent a neutral point of view, only the view of people like Hansen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 ( talk) 15:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
To see how a popular subject with scientific content is dealt with I would like to draw everyone's attention to Extraterrestrial life This has the following sections:
This clearly shows that the scientific section is very much a minority where a subject refers to the popular area. There are some here who are trying to argue that because the e.g. search for aliens is scientific, then an article on aliens must be written by the scientists searching for extra terrestrial life. This is palpable nonsense. A minority science view of a subject, dominating a popular subject is not supported by WP:UNDUE. Like Aliens, Global warming is a contentious view, scientists disagree just as many in the public still believe outrageous calims like 60m sea level rise a burning up earth and that it is all the sins of mankind. This is the public perception of the alarmists. I don't think an article on global warming should fail to mention all the strange beliefs that have at one time or other been pushed by alarmists and called science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 ( talk) 09:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Look again at what James Hansen actually said. "Climate sceptics are winning the argument with the public over global warming". People who doubted the Apollo lunar landings were successful in swinging poll numbers during the 1990s. All it took was a single television special Did we ever land on moon?, several books, and the growth of the Internet. Around half of the population still believe in ghosts. None of this alters the science of Global Warming and NPOV does not require that we rewrite this article to reflect opinion polls. Hansen's remarks are better suited to Public opinion on climate change. — ThePowerofX 10:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
I have polished the canonical IPCC citation template and documentation (currently at User_talk:J._Johnson#Canonical IPCC citations. Peviously I was thinking of copying it here and letting it get buried in the archives, with a link from the FAQ. But the archives are static, and this will be revised when AR5 comes out. So I was wondering if it would be better to put the whole thing in the FAQ. Or perhaps a separate 'doc' subpage. Suggestions? - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
See article change I just made, in attempt to address the grammar and writing style comments of the above thread. Note that no one has complained about the reliability of the sources, or whether the text accurately reports what they say. If there are continuing debates about content, please reiterate them. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I made the above comment about this being written poorly. It should be this. This is much better and takes out the buzz words that take away from the merit of the article.
Also the end "This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries." As someone reading this and not a climate scientist (im an electrical engineer) I have no idea if this refers to the Global Warming or the Man Made part. So do all the National Science Academies agree that the globe is warming or do they all agree that we are causing it. I do not know the answer so this should be fixed by someone who knows about this topic. I actualy do this for my job write documents like this so sorry about this but you never just put IPCC I don't know who they are you write Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) then change the next occurence t0 IPCC. I have put the 2 corrections on this into my paragraphs above.
To be honest the true problem is the writers seem to not know much about writing tech. You are mixing up the global warming with the causes which are 2 diffrent concepts. It would be BEST to use 2 paragraph intro one about the undisputed fact that the globe is warming and the other about the causes with the references about both seperate. Its really confusing. I am no expert im just saying it is and an expert should fix this. As is it sounds like its written by a political hack and I am much less likely to read the rest. While politics should have a part in funding they shoulden't be the ones explaining this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faridafarid ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I wish I could edit this but I can not for some reason here is how it should be first the unequivocal is fine at first I thought it wasent but the problem is that the quote is taken off the webpage by taking part of the phrase and not the whole thing. Here is how it should be when I can edit ill change it eventualy cause its funny bad now. Also it says recognized change to supported. I deleted the negative but you can add it back in either way this is so much better.
[Insert info about causes in a paragraph here not an expert] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 ( talk) 16:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Based on above comments, and some new thought on my part I am about to change the article text as follows
for the following reasons:
In sum, the struck text seems to have a very high cost, skin-of-teeth sources, all for relatively little return on investment. So I guess I agree it should go away and I made that change today. I look forward to any dissenting opinions. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
Based on comments from this thread, I propose to substitute the current lead paragraph 1 with this (cites omitted but I'll include them if this goes live)
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 04:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
For further comments please see the new thread [ here ] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The way the prior discussion is going I wonder if we need to revisit the definition of global warming (and with a view to documenting this in the FAQ). A glance through the archives showed various prior discussions, but I didn't see ("said the blind man...") any authoritative scientific source. Curiously, the IPCC (TAR and AR4) doesn't seem to define "global warming" anywhere; the definition in the glossary is for "Global Warming Potential". The EPA has a definition ("an average increase in temperatures near the Earth's surface"), though I would be a lot happier with an IPCC definition. There is also a distinction to be made from "global warming" as a generic term for any such increase in temperature, and the current and continuing episode. And there is the general confusion of global warming itself, and "global warming" as a general reference to all of the related climate change consequences. I think it would be good if we could sort out all that, with some solid sources. _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Here are a few more definitions from US agenices; They all have a dimension that it is us, as opposed to very likely us.
NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The article now begins, "For scientific disputes, see Scientific opinion on climate change..." We are not here to teach the controversy; there is no scientific dispute on any major point. There is a large and comprehensive 'Global warming and climate change' link template at the foot of the article and hundreds of hyperlinks throughout the text. I'm not even sure about "For the Sonny Rollins album see Global Warming (album)" - I've never heard of him or it and I don't think we're here to plug his album for him. I suggest a complete cull of the big block of whatever-these-things-are-called from the top of the page. -- Nigelj ( talk) 22:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Several recent threads have addressed issues with the lead, and in particular the flow, the accessability, complaints about jargon, the defintions, etc. Also among the suggestions was the idea of going back a year to see what worked well. Pulling all those comments together, here is my proposed rewrite for lead paragraph #1 and the first part of #2. Note that the temp info from paragraph 2 was moved into paragraph 1, and was not simply deleted. Also the notions that the temp rise is continuing and that it is rapid are strongly implied but not explicitly stated - just for the sake of readability. Here is the text, and also a demo-diff so you can see the references and overall look. I reverted the demo to the current text pending comments.
[ Here is the diff ] (Especially note the new reference about the last 3 decades.) NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
conflict edit, apparently. Responding to Kim's question why is there so much lead work and what has happened? ANSWER: In response to the recent thread "Add 'is believed to be'", I studied the sources in this article and found that they did not in fact jive with the lead first paragraph, specifically, we said humans ARE the cause, whereas the sources say we are most likely (as in > 90% certain). My POV rebels at having to dumb down the certainty that humans are the cause, but hey - that's what the sources say, and there has been a great deal of debate about this in recent threads.
If that was the rock in the pond, all this 1st paragraph lead editing that Kim finds so curious is just the ripples as the text settles down into a smooth reading easy flowing lead appropriate form that includes the >90% certainty nuance. After my first edit along these lines 4-8 weeks ago or so, every subsequent change Ive made to paragraph 1 has been about refining that text in response to comments like yours. Note that the current form is directly based on some of the text from a year ago, as you suggested, Kim. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I was the one who complained before that it was bad. It is a lot better now then it was before.
collapsing combative unsourced comments;
WP:NOTAFORUM; click show to read anyway
|
---|
There is just one thing
Maybe site this. scientists are more then 100% certain that none of global warming is caused by man would be a true statement. I am sure there are a few. This would add credibility to the statement. Saying scientists just sounds to generic. Faridafarid ( talk) 17:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I guess I mean now that I think of this site something or nothing don't site scientists. It sounds like something you would do in a dental floss add. Faridafarid ( talk) 17:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
|
There's a "not in citation given" tag in the introduction to the section on "attribution and expected effects". I've prepared a revision which hopefully addresses this problem:
"Detection" is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. Detection does not imply attribution of the detected change to a particular cause. "Attribution" of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence (Hegerl et al, 2007). Detection and attribution may also be applied to observed changes in physical, ecological and social systems (Rosenzweig et al, 2007).
References:
I suggest that the "species migration" sub-section is moved to the climate change and ecosystems sub-article. I would also like the information on limits of human survivability in the "social systems" sub-section to be moved to the climate change, industry and society sub-article. In my opinion, these two topics are not important enough to be covered in this top-level article. Enescot ( talk) 01:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I suggest we change the title from
to
because the text of the section barely mentions attribution, and a fair bit of attribution discussion is in the section called "Initial causes of temperature changes (External forcings)" NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we have a problem with non-ref footnotes. See "‹The template Cref2 is being considered for deletion.› [A]" in the lede for example. Think there are 4 in all. HELP:FOOT may help. I need to get some sleep and can't untangle it myself right now.....-- IanOfNorwich ( talk) 23:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a remarkable degree of bias in this section towards UK and US public opinion. I've highlighted in bold what I view to be the most biased text:
In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149] A 2010 poll by the Office of National Statistics found that 75% of UK respondents were at least "fairly convinced" that the world's climate is changing, compared to 87% in a similar survey in 2006.[150] A January 2011 ICM poll in the UK found 83% of respondents viewed climate change as a current or imminent threat, while 14% said it was no threat. Opinion was unchanged from an August 2009 poll asking the same question, though there had been a slight polarisation of opposing views.[151]
A survey in October, 2009 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed decreasing public perception in the United States that global warming was a serious problem. All political persuasions showed reduced concern with lowest concern among Republicans, only 35% of whom considered there to be solid evidence of global warming.[152] The cause of this marked difference in public opinion between the United States and the global public is uncertain but the hypothesis has been advanced that clearer communication by scientists both directly and through the media would be helpful in adequately informing the American public of the scientific consensus and the basis for it.[153] The U.S. public appears to be unaware of the extent of scientific consensus regarding the issue, with 59% believing that scientists disagree "significantly" on global warming.[154]
By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]
On the other hand, in May 2011 a joint poll by Yale and George Mason Universities found that nearly half the people in the USA (47%) attribute global warming to human activities, compared to 36% blaming it on natural causes. Only 5% of the 35% who were "disengaged", "doubtful", or "dismissive" of global warming were aware that 97% of publishing US climate scientists agree global warming is happening and is primarily caused by humans.[157]
Researchers at the University of Michigan have found that the public's belief as to the causes of global warming depends on the wording choice used in the polls.[158]
In the United States, according to the Public Policy Institute of California's (PPIC) eleventh annual survey on environmental policy issues, 75% said they believe global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life in California.[159]
A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.[160]
A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."[161]
I suggest that the text in bold is removed and moved to the sub-article on public opinion on global warming. My revision includes info on a poll (in bold) by the World Bank focussing on developing countries viewpoints. I think this addition is important since it goes some way to addressing what I view to be the bias towards developed countries views and "is warming happening?" questions. More information should be included on questions concerning what should be done about global warming:
In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149]
A 2009 poll commissioned by the World Bank targeted public attitudes in developing countries towards climate policy (World Bank, p.2). Polling was conducted among 13,518 respondents in 15 nations - Bangladesh, China, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Russia, Senegal, Turkey, the United States, and Vietnam. The publics in all countries polled saw climate change as a serious problem (World Bank, p.2). In most countries, the public believed that scientists agree that climate change is an urgent problem which is understood well enough that action should be taken (World Bank, p.3). In 14 countries, clear majorities thought that if their countries act on climate change, other countries would be encouraged to act (World Bank, p.3). In nearly all countries, majorities supported key national steps to deal with climate change, even when the steps were described only in terms of costs, not benefits (World Bank, p.3).
By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]
Additional reference:
Enescot ( talk) 05:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
QUESTION: Given the volume of traffic on the two ENGLISH-wiki pages (100 hits vs 10,000 hits per day), is it more important to highlight the Europe-USA difference and connection to public education, or some globalized average opinion from the distant corners of the globe? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Collapsed per
WP:NOTAFORUM: initial statement unsupported biased opinion, adequately rebutted, and not addressing anY particular possible improvement of the article.
|
---|
There needs to be a section that outlines the evidence that, if true, completely debunks global warming. There has been research that shows that the Earth is no longer heating up. Antarctica is getting bigger. The research gives evidence that Earth is actually cooling instead of heating up. Until this is done, then, in my opinion, this article has "bias" written all over it and shouldn't even be featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mast3rlinkx ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Arctic cooling in winter actually amplifies global warming, see here: Count Iblis ( talk) 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
|
This article published yesterday by the Economist presents the results of an independent study by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group,(with a skeptical view and different methodology). The study confirms the well-known warming trends from NASA GISS, NOA and HarCru). Is this reference good enough RS for including a summary in the article? or shall we wait for the supporting paper to be published? I rather ask first than beginning an edit war. Thanks-- Mariordo ( talk) 03:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Climate change: The heat is on; A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming Oct 22nd 2011 from the print edition, page 99; regardin Berkeley Earth, NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRU. (Source: Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature)
See Richard A. Muller, Climatic Research Unit is a "CRU', and also see Climatic Research Unit and related CRU hacking incident. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
To summarize why it's a bad idea to consider anything about the BEST project for inclusion in this particular article:
It's probably of considerable importance to American politics, but this article isn't about American politics.
The paper may, when finally reviewed and properly published, be a useful source for articles such as urban heat island. It has confirmed that the urban heat island effect does not account for the instrumental temperature trend. -- TS 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change statement, "The only members of the UNFCCC that were asked to sign the treaty but have not yet ratified it are the USA and Afghanistan," located at the end of the fourth paragraph. Russia, Japan, and Canada all elected not to sign the extension.
76.88.148.92 ( talk) 02:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The page got fat again.
More archiving, usual criteria:
See history of archive 65 for annotations.
Usual offer applies: please revert any mistaken archiving without further discussion. -- TS 00:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
And more:
As usual, please restore any sections archived in error. -- TS 11:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This regards the question Enescot raised about chapter titles. Strictly speaking it is independent of whether {{ Harv}} links are used, or not. But converting to Harv also involves upgrading the citations, so this is properly discussed here.
Keep in mind the distinction between the reference that contains the full bibliographic details of the source (the report), which Harv links to with somethng like "IPCC AR4 WG1 2007", and the citation, which points to a specific location within the the source. Also keep in mind that WP:verification is facilitated by having the citation as specific as possible. This usually means having page numbers. But here it is more specific to identify sections or sub-sections. And I think we are agreed that linking to the on-line text is highly desireable, perhaps even expected for the canonical citation format.
The citation format requested by the IPCC for technical summaries and chapters (but not Summaries for Policymakers or FAQ sections) includes authors, year, and chapter title ( example). Our style as currently evolved is lead author only, followed by "et al.", some form of chapter and/or section title, and optional page number. The question is how to formulate the "title" to reference both the chapter (as Enescot desires, and I do not oppose) and section or sub-section (as I strongly desire).
A simple approach is to include everything, which has a distinct advantage in providing the complete context, but is also quite long, as witness this example:
Question: should we include the intervening levels? I think it would be sufficient to cite just the lowest (most specific) section (e.g.: 4.6.2.1.1 Mass budget), followed by the page number, if we are not too particular about all the intervening context.
Strictly speaking this does reference the chapter, as in the IPCC work the section numbering includes the chapter ("4"); this is countenanced by citation authorities such as CMOS. However, I am not adverse to explictly citing the chapter. I think we should include the chapter number (as "Chapter 4", "Chap. 4", or "Ch. 4"), as that is both sufficient and generally more significant to most people than the title. But should we also include the title?
Comments? _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: Forgot to mention that the non-chapter sections, such as the Summaries for Policymakers, are not numbered, so should have the title (or acronym, such as SPM). The above regards the numbered chapters only. _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have found the page number a convenient place to link to a pdf, but at this point I see that only as optional. (Authors discussed in section just above.)
Are we done here? If so I recommend someone manually archive it. If it's still apparently finished on Friday 11th, I'll do it myself. -- TS 22:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
http://my.news.yahoo.com/biggest-jump-ever-seen-global-warming-gases-183955211.html Portal:Current_events/2011_November_3 99.109.125.146 ( talk) 23:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
How to include the chapter authors in citations of the IPCC reports needs careful consideration. For chapters and technical summaries (but not the FAQs or SMPs) the IPCC Working Groups request attribution of all of the lead authors in (see example, bottom of page). However, this is a lot of cluttering details of extremely limited interest, and also contrary to long accepted practice of reducing lists of three or more authors to something like "Solomon et al.". My recommendation here is that we follow standard practice.
As to how this is to be done: one possibility is to do this within the cite/citaiton templates, using the "author" and "chapter" parameters. I recommend against this. First, because it is useful to use "author" for identifying the report as a whole. Second, because something like "Ch. 8" (in reference to a given report) is more meaningful to most of our readers (and most of our editors) than the unfamiliar "Randall 2007". Second, if each chapter has a separate reference (the full bibliographic record, noting the distinction I made in the section above between reference and citation) then there is a lot of repetition of material (full title, list of editors, publisher, ISBNs), which only confuses and hides the essential differences.
My recommendation is that attribution of the author(s) be done in the citation, like this:
where the IPCC AR4 WG1 2007 is the Harv link to the full reference:
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link) (pb:
978-0-521-70596-7).Note that the full reference contains all the bibliographic details, but is listed only once, with the contituent elements (the chapters) linking to it. Also, additional details of the citation specification -- such as chapter titles, section headers, or page numbers -- can be included in the citation.
This does not cover all possible details, but I hope that as far as it goes it will be satisfactory.
I think this mostly addresses the concerns I've raised in the previous thread. On my talk page, NewsAndEventsGuy requested that I post examples of where I felt that loss of citation information was important. I thought that I might as well post these examples here for other editors to look at. It should help to clarify the concerns that I raised previously. With the citation style you've put forward, the problem had concerning the citation in example 1 would not apply. I think that example 2 shows that retaining the name of the IPCC chapter may be beneficial for the "robustness" of citations, should any errors creep in.
The most important example I feel is the loss of the IPCC chapter from the citation. Here is a citation I used in current sea level rise:
(1.1) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). "Magnitudes of impact".
Summary for Policymakers. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press. This version: GRID-Arendal website.
ISBN
0521880106. Retrieved 2011-06-18. {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
You changed this to:
(1.2)
Magnitudes of impact, in
IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
As I stated earlier on, the above example does not apply to your current suggested citation style, where the SPM bit would be retained. I changed citation (1.2) to this:
(1.3) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Magnitudes of impact". Summary for Policymakers
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spmsspm-c-15-magnitudes-of.html. Retrieved 2011-10-09. {{
cite book}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) in
IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
which is pretty much the same as the citation style you've proposed.
I made an error in a url link to an IPCC report chapter:
(2.1) Fischlin, A. (2007). "4.4.9 Oceans and shallow seas - Impacts".
Chapter 4: Ecosystems, their Properties, Goods and Services. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press (CUP), Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Print version: CUP. This version: IPCC website.
ISBN
0521880106. Retrieved 2011-07-29. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |display-authors=1
(
help); Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help): 234
However, as you can see, the rest of the citation gives more than enough information for another editor to track down the correct url/supporting text. Citation 1.1 was changed to:
(2.2) Fischlin, A.,
Section 4.4.9: Oceans and shallow seas -
Impacts, p. 234, in
IPCC AR4 WG1 2007.
verification needed
Citation 2.2 is less helpful than 2.1, and unfortunately redirects the reader to the WG1 report, and not WG2. This is probably because 2.1 contains the incorrect url which links to a WG1 report. The difference is that the single error in 2.1 is much easier to correct than the two errors in 2.2.
Enescot (
talk)
08:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a good issue to take up regarding chapter titles and section headers. But the style I propose does not preclude any options here (is even more accomodating), so I would like to defer that until some other details are sorted out.
Regarding your #Example 1 (above), I am not clear on what the issue is. I will point out that (as I think I have stated before) in making these conversions I am not trying (generally) to improve them, to make up all the deficiencies of the originals. In this case I did drop the "Summary for Policymakers" (a disimprovement -- sorry). In this case the citation could done more particularly (more fully) as:
(1.4) Summary for Policymakers, section C: Current knowledge about future impacts: Magnitudes of impact, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
Which is to say: chapter (the SMP), section ("number" and title), and subsection. This is a bit lengthy, which gets back to the discussion I would like to defer a bit. The point I would make here is that omitting or inserting any of this identifying text ("detail"), for better or worse, is fully accomodable; this does not really bear on the use of Harv or the IPCC citation.
There are some minor issues here, such as citing the IPCC as author. More accurately it should be the Working Group, but I think it is quite acceptable leave off the "author" in this case. If the IPCC is cited as the author, then the acronym is preferable.
The "retrieved" date (access date) is also well left off. Even though we are linking to a web page, that refers to the work, which is not as changeable as a web page, having a definite form and publication date. (We have also discussed errata on my talk page.)
A more significant difference, not obviously visible, is that you used a {{ cite book}} template for the citation (followed by the "in IPCC..."), where I just wrote it out. (Likely this is what you meant above by "purely written text citations".) I could quibble about how that was used, but I don't see (yet??) any problem in the concept.
I have to go now, so back to Example 2 later.
Ah! Having slept on the matter I now recall why I am adverse to using a template in the citation in the manner of example 1.3. My biggest objection is the inclusion of bibliographic details (the reference) in the article text, where the intermingling confuses and obfuscates both text and reference. To the extent that only details of the citation (such as chapter, section, page) are included, and not of the reference (series, publisher, isbn, etc.), are included this objection is minimized. But I am also concerned that having {{
cite xxx}}
or {{
citation}}
templates in the notes would confuse the different usage in citations and references, sliding back to having the entire reference buried in the text. (And even to named refs.) So while at one level this particular use of {{
cite xxx}}
is not exactly an issue in switching to Harv, at another level it is. I am somewhat opposed, but open to further discussion. _
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
18:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
In your
#Example 2 I believe your point is about which form an error is most easily detected and corrected. (Note that I did detect the error, and tagged it.) In that case I suspect the original error was due to misreading "Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" for "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". You have to agree that the signal-to-noise ratio here is pretty low, because of all the redundant clutter. This exactly why I want to use Harv, so cluttering details can be pulled out of the text and put into a separate section and linked to with Harv. _
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
19:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
There are a few more details regarding implementation, but in regard to the basic question of using {{ Harv}}, is everyone on-board with proceeding? No further questions? _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
When I revised the IPCC references in this article I followed the extant form of including the entire reference (template) in each note. But as I gained experience in other articles it has become strongly apparent that having the reference (the templated bibliographic details of a source) in a separate section, and only citing the source, using {{ Harv}} templates, in the note is much easier. I have also worked out some improvements in the citation form (see my talk page, or Current sea level rise), and if I implement those I would also like to start converting to citing with Harv. Any objections? _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict]
Better yet, here is a side-by-side comparison. Original note using "|quote", [23] and revised note with text outside the template. [24]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: length (
help)
dead link
statecl
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).spm1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link). "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level."
And how I would do the note with Harv. [1]
References
We don't need no stinkin' "quote" parameter! _
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
18:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I understand that using the citation template we don't need the quote parameter, and you're example 1 and 2 appear to have identical results. But between those two choices, why not use the quote parameter? Reasons to use it appear to be (1) it exists, (2) it produces the same result, and (3) newcomer editors won't know all this carefully nuanced background, but will instead be more likely to see the help guide for the template, complete with info about the quote parameter. Also, at least for my brain, stringing info via
is easy to comprehend, as oppposed to
Is there some reason why, when using a citation template, you think we should not use the quote parameter? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Please interline answers to each as we go.
1. I thought Harv was going to produce something (like this, 2011). Instead there is a footnote number. What happened to the thing (like this, 2011) you were talking about earlier?
2. Would refs done with citation templates appear in one reflist and refs done with harv appear in another, or would they all appear in the same reflist?
{{
citation}}
or {{
cite xxx}}
template, which creates the reference. Harv templates (where ever they are) link to "citation" templates (where ever they are). Yes, the terminology is confusing (just what did you mean by "refs"?), and we are stuck with it. Which is why I keep insisting on proper distinctions, and clarity and consistency in usage.3. I can't see how they can appear in the same one, since refs with citation templates get numbers in order, and earlier you said Harv would alpha sort them ones formatted with harv. Please explain?
4. If they appear in the same list, but mixed up, will the footnote numbers still make sense?
5. In your harv example, when I click on IPCC AR4 SYR I jump to the citation templated reference, which is very confusing and maybe not what you intended. Why would we use Harv AND a citation template?
6. While harv might be a huge advantage to a harv-trained editor working on their own project, is it reasonable to expect newcomer editors to easily find the information and program their brains accordingly?
I applaud your efforts, and yet at the moment I have a strong intuitive belief that the answer to #6 is so strongly "no" that all the benefits of harv combined won't be able to overcome the new-editor learning curve hurdle. But I'm trying to keep an open mind. A better example perhaps would be to just process 20% of the article and then revert it, as a demo edit. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 03:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm opposed to any information being deleted from IPCC citations. This is something I've noticed on current sea level rise and this article – see User talk:J. Johnson#Enescot comment. I think the following should be kept:
As I've stated on User talk:J. Johnson#Enescot comment, some of these details have been removed on recent revisions to climate change articles, notably on current sea level rise, where details on the chapter of the IPCC report referred to were removed from at least two citations. Without this information, users of the CUP version would not know where to find the supporting reference (see note). Also, the IPCC report chapters represent the work of the IPCC authors, and not the IPCC itself. This is of some significance, since in the SAR, there was a dispute between one lead author (David Pearce) and the IPCC over the content of the Summary for Policymakers document. In general, I think citations should contain as much information as possible, and I do not see what is to be gained from removing the information I've mentioned. Enescot ( talk) 05:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I think I have resolved all questions satisfactorily. So back to the orignal question: are we ready for {{ Harv}}? Okay if I convert citations to using Harv templates as I update them? _ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes, I was intending to start with just the IPCC citations. But the principle of consistency would then imply conversion (eventually) of the rest of the citations. And given the expressions of Harv anxiety above, I think we are not resolved on this, and further discussion is necesary.
I agree that Planck's law (which uses {{ Harv}} templates) has its hideous aspects. But, please, that is as much a misuse of Harv as anything inherent in Harv itself. For example, look at notes 50-53: all "Jeans 1905x" (these are the short citations). None of these has the page number, which is one the main reasons for have Harv in the first place: to allow multiple citation, with specific location (page numbers), of a source without have to repeat (and most likely incorrectly and/or inconsistently) the full bibliographic details of the source. But this example gets worse: these notes are linked from the text with one of those hideous concatenations of links: [50][51][52][53]. With Harv all of these could have been put into a single footnote (like this: [1]). Or, if a general reference is appropriate, in combined citation (like this: [2]). These are simply not feasible using named refs.
References
I submit that this is less hideous than the current state of affairs at Planck's law. (For further illustration please see Puget Sound faults#Notes.)
Contrast this with Climatic Research Unit email controversy#References (similar to Global warming#References). These notes have a lot more text than at Planck's Law (though not as much as at Puget Sound faults), which I think conveys a softer, fuller feeling; I suspect that appeals to a lot of editors. But all that cushioning obscures the essential information, and obscures a lot of inconsistencies (which is what prompted me to tackle this). Consider: if you wanted to see if Andrew Friedman of the Washington Post was cited, or any of the IPCC reports, the only feasible approach is to use the search function in your browser (try it!), because relying on refs precludes putting the references in alphabetical (or any other) order. It is very much a strong advantage at Planck's Law#Bibliography that the reader can readily see what sources the editors have used.
The statement that at Planck's Law there is no backlink from a reference to the text is not strictly correct, and at any rate is also applies generally to all articles. What is backlinked is the note (footnote). The confusion is because at the other articles the full reference is dumped into the note (which I argue is a problem in itself), whereas at Planck's Law#References, Puget Sound faults#Notes, etc., the note contains a short citation, which is just as backlinked to the text as any other content contained in a note.
There is also the difficulty/ease of editing. Even though I already favored Harv, I was still surprised at how much easier it was to revise the IPCC citations using Harv (as at Climate change#Notes) than "simply" replacing the entire reference in the note (as at Global warming#References). (You all are welcome to engage in similar comparative exercises.) Indeed, the hardest part of all that work was not with Harv, but dealing with all the named refs. That is the truly hideous bit: having to deal with named refs.
Which leads to my central objection to the widespread practice of dumping the bibilographic details into the article text (often repeatedly): it confuses both text and bibliography, making editing harder.
In summary: the true "hideousness" is not the superficial aspects of using short citations at Planck's Law (which isn't even due to Harv), but the grotesquese results of using named refs instead of Harv. I suspect the real issue here is anxiety about using Harv. I assure you is a LOT easier than not using it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Are we done here? -- TS 22:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I am still cleaning up some of the IPCC citations, but the Harv links have been implemented, so you all can take a look at how it works. Which I think is – real good! Take a look at Global warming#References to see the clunky but pretty nearly complete bibliographic references to the reports. Then scroll up into the Notes section, and see how (most of) the IPCC citations have a detailed specification (lead author, chapter, section, optional page) that then points to the report (e.g., "in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007"). The Notes generally and individually are much clearer not having all the bibliographic detail in each citation. (If not convinced, take a look at one of the early September versions.) All this is acheived by replacing the citation template formerly included in each citation with the simple "{{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1 2007}}".
I am not quite yet ready to start converting the non-IPCC citations, but that should be contemplated, as it would be definite improvement to the article. Questions? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Some interesting effects late today as I moved the reflist from References to Notes, and made other adjustments, but it should be stable now. This for setting up a list of references (not the {{ reflist}} that catches footnotes) for Harv. The footnotes now come after the notes from the cref stuff, and – as was discussed a month ago – if cref is discontinued we can just move those notes into the regular footnotes.
Time for a break. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 01:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
For anyone that's interested: an update. I have mostly replaced the full in-cite IPCC references with Harv links, and the article is significantly smaller, and the citations no longer have that over-stuffed look to them. They also look pretty messy because I have been tagging things (mostly incomplete citaitons, with no section or page numbers, also some doubtful citations), but that is getting cleared up as I take successive passes through the notes. Currently I'm at about note 108, take a look above and below that to see typical changes. Enough for today. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a remarkable degree of bias in this section towards UK and US public opinion. I've highlighted in bold what I view to be the most biased text:
In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149] A 2010 poll by the Office of National Statistics found that 75% of UK respondents were at least "fairly convinced" that the world's climate is changing, compared to 87% in a similar survey in 2006.[150] A January 2011 ICM poll in the UK found 83% of respondents viewed climate change as a current or imminent threat, while 14% said it was no threat. Opinion was unchanged from an August 2009 poll asking the same question, though there had been a slight polarisation of opposing views.[151]
A survey in October, 2009 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed decreasing public perception in the United States that global warming was a serious problem. All political persuasions showed reduced concern with lowest concern among Republicans, only 35% of whom considered there to be solid evidence of global warming.[152] The cause of this marked difference in public opinion between the United States and the global public is uncertain but the hypothesis has been advanced that clearer communication by scientists both directly and through the media would be helpful in adequately informing the American public of the scientific consensus and the basis for it.[153] The U.S. public appears to be unaware of the extent of scientific consensus regarding the issue, with 59% believing that scientists disagree "significantly" on global warming.[154]
By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]
On the other hand, in May 2011 a joint poll by Yale and George Mason Universities found that nearly half the people in the USA (47%) attribute global warming to human activities, compared to 36% blaming it on natural causes. Only 5% of the 35% who were "disengaged", "doubtful", or "dismissive" of global warming were aware that 97% of publishing US climate scientists agree global warming is happening and is primarily caused by humans.[157]
Researchers at the University of Michigan have found that the public's belief as to the causes of global warming depends on the wording choice used in the polls.[158]
In the United States, according to the Public Policy Institute of California's (PPIC) eleventh annual survey on environmental policy issues, 75% said they believe global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life in California.[159]
A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.[160]
A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."[161]
I suggest that the text in bold is removed and moved to the sub-article on public opinion on global warming. My revision includes info on a poll (in bold) by the World Bank focussing on developing countries viewpoints. I think this addition is important since it goes some way to addressing what I view to be the bias towards developed countries views and "is warming happening?" questions. More information should be included on questions concerning what should be done about global warming:
In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149]
A 2009 poll commissioned by the World Bank targeted public attitudes in developing countries towards climate policy (World Bank, p.2). Polling was conducted among 13,518 respondents in 15 nations - Bangladesh, China, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Russia, Senegal, Turkey, the United States, and Vietnam. The publics in all countries polled saw climate change as a serious problem (World Bank, p.2). In most countries, the public believed that scientists agree that climate change is an urgent problem which is understood well enough that action should be taken (World Bank, p.3). In 14 countries, clear majorities thought that if their countries act on climate change, other countries would be encouraged to act (World Bank, p.3). In nearly all countries, majorities supported key national steps to deal with climate change, even when the steps were described only in terms of costs, not benefits (World Bank, p.3).
By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]
Additional reference:
Enescot ( talk) 05:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
QUESTION: Given the volume of traffic on the two ENGLISH-wiki pages (100 hits vs 10,000 hits per day), is it more important to highlight the Europe-USA difference and connection to public education, or some globalized average opinion from the distant corners of the globe? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Was that my premature archiving? If so, apologies. -- TS 17:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)