![]() | 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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
"Since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation"--although context implies "projected continuation [of this increase]," grammar permits "projected continuation [of the twentieth century]." I'm unsure how best to fix it, but have no doubt it should change. I hope my colleagues here won't mind if I go ahead and implement my best try: "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans ongoing since the mid-twentieth century."
I realize that "ongoing" might seem less of a hedge than "projected," but if a process is projected to continue, it is understood to be ongoing. If there is any logical distinction between the two phrases, it would be that "ongoing" makes no claim about the future. Cyrusc ( talk) 19:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
NASA JPL has also projected cooling for the next 30 years, [1] so this lede is imcomplete at best. Warming or cooling? NASA's got it covered whatever happens -- and don't forget it's a "scientific consensus." Kauffner ( talk) 02:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone have the Mann software to look at the potential hockeystick here?. -- DHeyward ( talk) 06:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Following the excellent examples in other articles, I have created an infobox for this and related articles. See Template:Global warming infobox. I hope it's helpful and suitable for inclusion in other related articles. Please edit as needed - I gave a shot at categorizing all the related articles, but the groupings could be improved or expanded. = Axlq 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)
If the lead picture in global warming articles is some sort of graph, that can easily be incorporated into the infobox, instead of the sunrise-over-earth picture I used. I also browse in a small window (my display is 1024x768 but my browser is usually around 800x700) and didn't have a problem with reading the lead. I notice someone put the other pics below the infobox, though.
I just made the template a bit narrower by decreasing the font size and shrinking the image. Anyone is free to edit that infobox to improve it. = Axlq 05:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
After a couple contributions I made to this article a couple years back which resulted in significant negative feedback, I'm adding a tidbit here and will allow you all to fight over whether it should be in this article or not. I found information regarding changes to the jet stream location in both hemispheres during the 1979-2001 period in a news article, which is now included within the jet stream article. Whether you think it is due to global warming or some other climate cycle I leave up to you all. Just making you aware of its existence. Thegreatdr ( talk) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The first citation is incorrect. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes 'most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations.'" The closest quote I can find in the citation is "It is very likely that the observed increase in methane concentration is due to anthropogenic activities, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel use, but relative contributions from different source types are not well determined" (pg 3). This is a very different statement. In the table assessing the probability of human causation the IPCC concludes that humans contribute to the range ranges from 50% to 66% (see pg 8 and footnote 6). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.123.227 ( talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is this page locked for anyone to edit? There seems to be a large number of unsubstantiated opinions here being presented as fact. One glaring example is the statement: "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]"
Where is the proof of this? The citations used are simply links to other sites claiming the same thing, but also not providing any real proof.
I know there are a number of lists available showing a growing number of individual, highly credible scientists who very clearly dispute the contention of alarming anthropogenic global warming. But I cannot find anywhere any lists of credible scientists who belief alarming anthropogenic global warming is a problem. That is not to say there are none, but it occurs to me the only way of proving a consensus one way or another would be for both sides to create a list of actual scientists (not political organizations) and compare. I can very quickly find a list of at least 400 credible scientists on the skeptic side. Check out the site below as proof.
Can anyone point out to me a list of at least 400 scientists who are "true believers"? If not, how can anyone rationally claim that "....the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
" The world's temperature is on course to rise by more than three degrees Centigrade despite efforts to combat global warming, Britain's chief scientist has warned. Sir David King issued a stark wake-up call that climate change could cause devastating consequences such as famine and drought for hundreds of millions of people unless the world's politicians take more urgent action."
, [www.theozonehole.com/recordlow.htm]Because atmospheric circulation patterns over the Arctic tend to "wobble," this Arctic ozone hole even could sweep over populated areas,
"Chemical losses in the total column of ozone over the Arctic have varied between about ... 24 April 2008 Ozone Hole Recovery May Reshape Southern Hemisphere"
Make your own conclusions, because you certainlly dont listen to either PhDs or renouned experts, or as you like to say reliable sources.
Whooah stop everything! I just followed up on the links to what the National Academy of Science's really said. They are not even claiming there is a consensus among all credible scientists. You people have taken thier quotes out of context. All they say is that they brought together some scientists, engineers and public officials (of thier selective choosing) to write reports, and those "...reports have assessed consensus findings on the sciences...." Not even remotely close to the same thing. -- Sirwells ( talk) 05:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears my original message has become difficult to read because some have inserted thier comments into my comments at awkward locations. I'm repeating my original comment and question below to make this thread less confusing for others to follow. Let's try and stay on topic. Enuja, I hope this clarifies things for you:
Why is this page locked for anyone to edit? There seems to be a large number of unsubstantiated opinions here being presented as fact. One glaring example is the statement: "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]"
Where is the proof of this? The citations used are simply links to other sites claiming the same thing, but also not providing any real proof.
I know there are a number of lists available showing a growing number of individual, highly credible scientists who very clearly dispute the contention of alarming anthropogenic global warming. But I cannot find anywhere any lists of credible scientists who belief alarming anthropogenic global warming is a problem. That is not to say there are none, but it occurs to me the only way of proving a consensus one way or another would be for both sides to create a list of actual scientists (not political organizations) and compare. I can very quickly find a list of at least 400 credible scientists on the skeptic side. Check out the site below as proof.
Can anyone point out to me a list of at least 400 scientists who are "true believers"? If not, how can anyone rationally claim that "....the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions."?-- Sirwells ( talk) 12:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Raymond, I don't think Sirwells has a problem with the "over thirty scientific societies" part but instead has a problem with the "overwhelming majority of scientists" part.
Sirwells, what government are you talking about? The US government, headed by a president who spent a lot of time being very vocal about being skeptical of anthropogenic global warming until recently? Yes, there is a lot of effect-of-global warming work being done in the big, well funded LTER ( Long Term Ecological Research Network) sites (along with a lot of other, completely unrelated work), but most researchers are professors (or their students or employees) who get small grants to fund their work but live off of teaching money. And even if grants only went out to people who "believed" in anthropogenic global warming, if it wasn't happening, their research would come back with data that said so! And that data would get published, and people would change their minds! If there is no anthropogenic global warming, the evidence will eventually lean that way, and the consensus on what is happening will change. And none of this matters, because Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth. So, be patient. To link an amusing comic -> [4]. - Enuja ( talk) 04:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that an older ScienceDaily article was suggested, though a much more recent article has superceded it. Not WP:RS, of course. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm Skyemoor ( talk) 01:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The following research is being reported by the CSIRO and its main conclusions seem somewhat extreme. Can someone who is expert or familiar with this work comment with regard to its respectability prior to consideration for inclusion.
http://www.csiro.au/news/KyotoProtocolConference-CETF.html
The research – to be published in the journal; Global Environmental Change – provides five key conclusions:
-CO2 emissions grow by 3.1 per cent per annum over 2004–2030
-Atmospheric CO2 concentration levels >900 ppm CO2-e are achieved by 2100.
-Even if severe emission cuts are implemented from 2030, warming of 2.2 – 4.7°C could occur by 2100, whereas if the current high emissions path is followed, the most likely range is 3.4 – 7.2°C
-Four key vulnerabilities assessed with high risks of adverse impacts for coral reefs, ocean circulation, melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and species extinction
-The current policy mix cannot adequately manage these risks, which can be reduced but not eliminated by early global action over the period 2010–2015. Theo Pardilla ( talk) 11:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added a request for citation for the following statement, as it contradicts all the statistics that I have on climate change.
The article that is provided as a reference for that paragraph says nothing about recent studies, and only includes the following line, which is hardly the same thing as the statement above:
Either a proper reference should be provided (and should highlight the contentious nature of this claim), or the sentence should be changed to reflect the given reference, or it should be removed completely. I don't like to jump in change articles that I don't regularly contribute to as I don't know the history of them, but hopefully someone who is familiar can decide the most appropriate course of action. Cheers, JenLouise ( talk) 05:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be "not germane", actually. I'm leaving this here, although I'd like to restate that I don't think a conversation about consensus and science is directly relevant to building this article. This is background knowledge needed to build the article, but it is not about the article, so much of it shouldn't be on the this talk page. Enuja ( talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm replying here instead of on Talk:Global warming because I don't think this is germane to the article. It is not naive to think that scientists report the actual results of their experiments instead of falsifying them. Falsified data is very rare, and people figure it out when they can't replicate the results. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja ( talk)
Where do you think the consensus of the IPCC comes from in the first place? It comes from reading the literature. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja ( talk)
It comes from cherry-picked literature, written by, in many cases, the very same people who write reports for the IPCC. I have yet to see any raw numbers indicative of there being "overwhelmingly" more scientists who "believe" vs "don't believe". The IPCC was tasked by the United Nations to prove that AGW is a significant problem. That is exactly what they did. There is not a single source being used as proof of consensus which is backed by any data in the form of surveys or polls. This so-called "consensus" is a house of cards which will eventually come crumbling down as the earth's climate continues to not get warmer and in fact get cooler as the current studies (which people like you have blocked from gettig on wikipedia) our now predicting.--Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a huge number of working climate scientists have serious problems with the IPCC: however, they think it is far, far too conservative. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja ( talk)
Therefore, they support the conclusions of the IPCC, because at least (and probably more than) what the IPCC says is true. If you do, in fact, have recent polls of scientists that say that their is no consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change, please bring that information to the relevant pages. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja ( talk)
I honestly don't know what you mean when you say that it is obvious that the majority of climate scientists (or people with equivalent area education) don't buy the IPCC. I do not of any data that says this, much less any data that makes it obvious. (Lists of people's names are pretty useless, and not relevant.) added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja ( talk)
If you've got new data and published analysis, please share it with the other people who edit these pages. - Enuja (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC) added to User talk:Sirwells
Although I don't work in a climate field, my boss did his post-doc on a grant that existed to get people with directly opposite views about a system to work on it together to figure out what was really going on. Science really is about testing hypotheses, and people really do use money from grants to test things, not just to support existing consensus. Where everyone agrees, future research is actually really hard to get funding for. Luckily for climate change funding, we don't understand everything about the climate or about the future. - Enuja (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC) added to User talk:Sirwells
How do you figure out who knows enough about climate change to be part of a scientific consensus or controversy? The only methods I can think of are "who publishes on climate change" "who is a member of related scientific society" and "who goes to relevant scientific meetings". What criteria could we use? A poll of a randomized sample of authors and society members would be good. Bray and von Storch, 1996 looks to be the most recent of that sort (although it doesn't look randomized). The only good, up to date information that exists on what scientists think about climate change is statements published by scientific societies and the IPCC report itself. - Enuja ( talk)
Shouldn't (more) appropriate title go like: global climate change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.76.122 ( talk) 12:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving a note on this page, since it is one of the more active climate articles on wikipedia. So far, no one from the meteorology or tropical cyclone projects has come forward to review it after four weeks. One of you all should have enough knowledge to know if it is ready or not for GA, and if not, why. Thegreatdr ( talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The GW article should be delisted as a GA. It is too biased. 209.59.50.192 ( talk) 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit new to making changes to controversial wikipedia articles. I and others have requested changes to be made with respect to the non-NPOV stance of this article (i.e. I don't need the overall tone of the article to agree with my point of view, but obvious and major proof of recent global COOLING trends for example might be germane to an article on global warming.) -- due to all this I would like to motion that we work on bringing this article some balance.
A little NPOV, just a LITTLE, would be nice. Editors should not be threatening to block people when they try to inject some dissenting opinion into a controversial topic. Global warming is a controversial topic, but one wouldn't think so from reading this article.
Thanks!
Significance is a POV. I'm merely showing data from reliable sources (in fact, the same sources that the article uses to indicate global warming). The data currently cited is old. Why would anyone resist updating this article with the most recent information from the very sources the article currently cites?
Significance is determined by the data. Not by the most prominent opinion. If so most prominent climate organizations are predicting a "lull" in warming for the next few years. That's not relevant? If a tenth of the data sample, the past ten years of cooling or null warming, is irrelevant then climate science really is a different kind of science. But catastrophic global warming is just around the corner, I assure you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.143.91 ( talk) 05:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) This is early 2008. How are results from the 2007 IPCC report old or out of date? The IPCC report is drawing from the published data available at the time it was written (mid to late last year), so it's absolutely fine to include more recent published data and analysis (but you are unlikely to find it, since the last IPCC report was so recent). We don't need to use just Science and Nature as peer-reviewed sources. There are other peer-reviewed journals out there, and any reputable one will do. I think it makes sense to update the article; but I also think we have been updating the article. Instead of complaining that the IPCC doesn't release reports often enough, make sure all of the IPCC references are to the 2007 report. If you read a news story, find the peer-reviewed article that the news story was based on, read the article, figure which sub-topic of global warming it's about, edit that Wikipedia sub-article, then go to the summary section in this article of the article you've edited, see if the information in the sub-article you changed is in this article, and change it here as well if needed. It makes sense to update this article whenever possible, but work from the bottom up. Change the details, then change the summaries to reflect any differences in details. - Enuja ( talk) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Bj: To return to the beginning of all this: This should be updated with the data for the hundred years ending 2007. There are myriad sources for that data. I propose to make no additional comments to the sentence, paragraph, images or the rest of the article at this time. Now you discover the obvious: it makes no difference. So you need to pick different time intervals to find this mythical cooling trend. But there is no cooling trend, so its a waste of time. Adding junk from Watts won't work, for the obvious reason William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we need to make room somewhere for the recently published prediction that the next decade or so is going to be at a flat global temperature as a shorter-term oscillation masks the current anthropogenic warming. I know William Connelley doesn't like to include recently published papers, but, since it takes quite some time for refutations to be published most of the time, I strongly disagree. We should consider all papers published in any one journal as equally reliable, no matter if the paper is from 1908 or 2008. Papers often need to be put in context, (include papers with the opposite conclusion, toss out old papers when a bunch of new ones change the story, include in the text the date of publication for something so fresh off the presses that it hasn't been vetted outside of the peer review process) but that's not too hard. - Enuja ( talk) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I would like to add this, but I'm hoping to solicit more input on how to word it. I had initially wanted to opt for the direct quote (less issues with controversial wording, etc.), but Enuja suggested that it's much better to paraphrase than to quote. That's understandable. I offered a possible paraphrase, but I find it more awkward than the direct quote. I found myself struggling to say it any other way as well as the quote itself. If there aren't any suggestions (or other objections) for a while, I'll just add it (as described a few posts above. Bjquinn ( talk) 04:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) No, William Connolley, a blog post is not a good way to add context for a new study.
Bjquinn, I'm sorry I haven't been more helpful with putting this new article into the paper. In order to make wording or context suggestions, I'd need to carefully read the Global Warming#Recent section and all of its references, and I haven't had time to do that recently. As a suggestion, the context that William posts in one of his blog posts (this [6] Science article) might be good to use. But I have no comment on actual wording until I do some work I simply don't have time for right now. Hopefully someone else does, or you should just be bold and put it in yourself (but, from a quick glance, your paraphrase is still much too similar to the article's text). - Enuja ( talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking again at the Recent section, I don't think this article fits. It looks like it would fit better in Global warming#Climate models, adding to the existing one-sentence paragraph on clouds in models (broadening the paragraph to include ocean circulation). Another thing to do would be to go to the Global climate model article and these new sources there. I haven't even read all of that article, though, so I can't help you with which articles should be where in that article. - Enuja ( talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to fill-out the newly-created Environmental policy of the United States#Global Warming article, and I was hoping someone could help me by creating a two or three paragraph blurb on what the United States has done in relation to global warming. Kyoto, feet-dragging, potential for carbon cap in the upcoming election, etc. Thanks in advance! johnpseudo 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this global warming dogma. I can tell that no one with a science background has written in this section. It describes that global warming is an average increase in temperature, but that is about far as it goes. Is anyone else picking that fact up? It doesn't even explain the act of global warming. Probably because there is no consensus. Every time I ask someone the process of global warming, I hear a different theory. I know green house gases is an easy answer, but the "how" doesn't get answered. Let me think of a few theories off the top of my head.
Rays of light, bounce off the oceans, come back up and get trapped by the CO2. Rays of light, go into the ocean, heating it, this heat rises and can't escape because of the CO2. The CO2 in the atmosphere filters out the Earth's long wave radiation, which in turn, changes which radiation the Earth blocks from the sun.
That was just a few running through my head that I've heard lately. Since there is such a consensus (according to Al Gore), I'm sure someone can clear that up for me. After we clear up that, we can get to the proof. The actual study and information that shows greenhouse gases are responsible for warming. I noticed most of the "proof" posted is just correlated information and the "effects" of global warming. Granted, you have to post the effects of global warming in this article, but it doesn't constitute proof. Do I really need to show the fallacy in correlated "proof"? All I seem to get is the "greenhouse gases went up and temperature went up, therefore greenhouse gases made temperature go up." That's not science. That's retardation.
Hope someone can come up with the proof. I've been waiting for too many years for it.
Cheers! -- Capitalist Shrugged ( talk) 22:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Global Warming is the product of too many industrial companies polluting the world in gas. This is a very important subject of the world today. Every time something happens, like hurricane or tornadoes, the world's population becomes very paranoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.136.55 ( talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that the relative contribution of different anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases should go into Attribution of recent climate change instead of into this higher level article. User:Tressor recently added this [7] paragraph to the Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere section. Do other editors think this paragraph belongs where it is now, in Attribution of recent climate change, or somewhere else? - Enuja ( talk) 04:30, 30 May 2008 (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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
"Since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation"--although context implies "projected continuation [of this increase]," grammar permits "projected continuation [of the twentieth century]." I'm unsure how best to fix it, but have no doubt it should change. I hope my colleagues here won't mind if I go ahead and implement my best try: "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans ongoing since the mid-twentieth century."
I realize that "ongoing" might seem less of a hedge than "projected," but if a process is projected to continue, it is understood to be ongoing. If there is any logical distinction between the two phrases, it would be that "ongoing" makes no claim about the future. Cyrusc ( talk) 19:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
NASA JPL has also projected cooling for the next 30 years, [1] so this lede is imcomplete at best. Warming or cooling? NASA's got it covered whatever happens -- and don't forget it's a "scientific consensus." Kauffner ( talk) 02:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone have the Mann software to look at the potential hockeystick here?. -- DHeyward ( talk) 06:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Following the excellent examples in other articles, I have created an infobox for this and related articles. See Template:Global warming infobox. I hope it's helpful and suitable for inclusion in other related articles. Please edit as needed - I gave a shot at categorizing all the related articles, but the groupings could be improved or expanded. = Axlq 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)
If the lead picture in global warming articles is some sort of graph, that can easily be incorporated into the infobox, instead of the sunrise-over-earth picture I used. I also browse in a small window (my display is 1024x768 but my browser is usually around 800x700) and didn't have a problem with reading the lead. I notice someone put the other pics below the infobox, though.
I just made the template a bit narrower by decreasing the font size and shrinking the image. Anyone is free to edit that infobox to improve it. = Axlq 05:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
After a couple contributions I made to this article a couple years back which resulted in significant negative feedback, I'm adding a tidbit here and will allow you all to fight over whether it should be in this article or not. I found information regarding changes to the jet stream location in both hemispheres during the 1979-2001 period in a news article, which is now included within the jet stream article. Whether you think it is due to global warming or some other climate cycle I leave up to you all. Just making you aware of its existence. Thegreatdr ( talk) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The first citation is incorrect. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes 'most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations.'" The closest quote I can find in the citation is "It is very likely that the observed increase in methane concentration is due to anthropogenic activities, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel use, but relative contributions from different source types are not well determined" (pg 3). This is a very different statement. In the table assessing the probability of human causation the IPCC concludes that humans contribute to the range ranges from 50% to 66% (see pg 8 and footnote 6). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.123.227 ( talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is this page locked for anyone to edit? There seems to be a large number of unsubstantiated opinions here being presented as fact. One glaring example is the statement: "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]"
Where is the proof of this? The citations used are simply links to other sites claiming the same thing, but also not providing any real proof.
I know there are a number of lists available showing a growing number of individual, highly credible scientists who very clearly dispute the contention of alarming anthropogenic global warming. But I cannot find anywhere any lists of credible scientists who belief alarming anthropogenic global warming is a problem. That is not to say there are none, but it occurs to me the only way of proving a consensus one way or another would be for both sides to create a list of actual scientists (not political organizations) and compare. I can very quickly find a list of at least 400 credible scientists on the skeptic side. Check out the site below as proof.
Can anyone point out to me a list of at least 400 scientists who are "true believers"? If not, how can anyone rationally claim that "....the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
" The world's temperature is on course to rise by more than three degrees Centigrade despite efforts to combat global warming, Britain's chief scientist has warned. Sir David King issued a stark wake-up call that climate change could cause devastating consequences such as famine and drought for hundreds of millions of people unless the world's politicians take more urgent action."
, [www.theozonehole.com/recordlow.htm]Because atmospheric circulation patterns over the Arctic tend to "wobble," this Arctic ozone hole even could sweep over populated areas,
"Chemical losses in the total column of ozone over the Arctic have varied between about ... 24 April 2008 Ozone Hole Recovery May Reshape Southern Hemisphere"
Make your own conclusions, because you certainlly dont listen to either PhDs or renouned experts, or as you like to say reliable sources.
Whooah stop everything! I just followed up on the links to what the National Academy of Science's really said. They are not even claiming there is a consensus among all credible scientists. You people have taken thier quotes out of context. All they say is that they brought together some scientists, engineers and public officials (of thier selective choosing) to write reports, and those "...reports have assessed consensus findings on the sciences...." Not even remotely close to the same thing. -- Sirwells ( talk) 05:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It appears my original message has become difficult to read because some have inserted thier comments into my comments at awkward locations. I'm repeating my original comment and question below to make this thread less confusing for others to follow. Let's try and stay on topic. Enuja, I hope this clarifies things for you:
Why is this page locked for anyone to edit? There seems to be a large number of unsubstantiated opinions here being presented as fact. One glaring example is the statement: "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]"
Where is the proof of this? The citations used are simply links to other sites claiming the same thing, but also not providing any real proof.
I know there are a number of lists available showing a growing number of individual, highly credible scientists who very clearly dispute the contention of alarming anthropogenic global warming. But I cannot find anywhere any lists of credible scientists who belief alarming anthropogenic global warming is a problem. That is not to say there are none, but it occurs to me the only way of proving a consensus one way or another would be for both sides to create a list of actual scientists (not political organizations) and compare. I can very quickly find a list of at least 400 credible scientists on the skeptic side. Check out the site below as proof.
Can anyone point out to me a list of at least 400 scientists who are "true believers"? If not, how can anyone rationally claim that "....the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions."?-- Sirwells ( talk) 12:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Raymond, I don't think Sirwells has a problem with the "over thirty scientific societies" part but instead has a problem with the "overwhelming majority of scientists" part.
Sirwells, what government are you talking about? The US government, headed by a president who spent a lot of time being very vocal about being skeptical of anthropogenic global warming until recently? Yes, there is a lot of effect-of-global warming work being done in the big, well funded LTER ( Long Term Ecological Research Network) sites (along with a lot of other, completely unrelated work), but most researchers are professors (or their students or employees) who get small grants to fund their work but live off of teaching money. And even if grants only went out to people who "believed" in anthropogenic global warming, if it wasn't happening, their research would come back with data that said so! And that data would get published, and people would change their minds! If there is no anthropogenic global warming, the evidence will eventually lean that way, and the consensus on what is happening will change. And none of this matters, because Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth. So, be patient. To link an amusing comic -> [4]. - Enuja ( talk) 04:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that an older ScienceDaily article was suggested, though a much more recent article has superceded it. Not WP:RS, of course. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm Skyemoor ( talk) 01:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The following research is being reported by the CSIRO and its main conclusions seem somewhat extreme. Can someone who is expert or familiar with this work comment with regard to its respectability prior to consideration for inclusion.
http://www.csiro.au/news/KyotoProtocolConference-CETF.html
The research – to be published in the journal; Global Environmental Change – provides five key conclusions:
-CO2 emissions grow by 3.1 per cent per annum over 2004–2030
-Atmospheric CO2 concentration levels >900 ppm CO2-e are achieved by 2100.
-Even if severe emission cuts are implemented from 2030, warming of 2.2 – 4.7°C could occur by 2100, whereas if the current high emissions path is followed, the most likely range is 3.4 – 7.2°C
-Four key vulnerabilities assessed with high risks of adverse impacts for coral reefs, ocean circulation, melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and species extinction
-The current policy mix cannot adequately manage these risks, which can be reduced but not eliminated by early global action over the period 2010–2015. Theo Pardilla ( talk) 11:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added a request for citation for the following statement, as it contradicts all the statistics that I have on climate change.
The article that is provided as a reference for that paragraph says nothing about recent studies, and only includes the following line, which is hardly the same thing as the statement above:
Either a proper reference should be provided (and should highlight the contentious nature of this claim), or the sentence should be changed to reflect the given reference, or it should be removed completely. I don't like to jump in change articles that I don't regularly contribute to as I don't know the history of them, but hopefully someone who is familiar can decide the most appropriate course of action. Cheers, JenLouise ( talk) 05:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be "not germane", actually. I'm leaving this here, although I'd like to restate that I don't think a conversation about consensus and science is directly relevant to building this article. This is background knowledge needed to build the article, but it is not about the article, so much of it shouldn't be on the this talk page. Enuja ( talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm replying here instead of on Talk:Global warming because I don't think this is germane to the article. It is not naive to think that scientists report the actual results of their experiments instead of falsifying them. Falsified data is very rare, and people figure it out when they can't replicate the results. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja ( talk)
Where do you think the consensus of the IPCC comes from in the first place? It comes from reading the literature. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja ( talk)
It comes from cherry-picked literature, written by, in many cases, the very same people who write reports for the IPCC. I have yet to see any raw numbers indicative of there being "overwhelmingly" more scientists who "believe" vs "don't believe". The IPCC was tasked by the United Nations to prove that AGW is a significant problem. That is exactly what they did. There is not a single source being used as proof of consensus which is backed by any data in the form of surveys or polls. This so-called "consensus" is a house of cards which will eventually come crumbling down as the earth's climate continues to not get warmer and in fact get cooler as the current studies (which people like you have blocked from gettig on wikipedia) our now predicting.--Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a huge number of working climate scientists have serious problems with the IPCC: however, they think it is far, far too conservative. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja ( talk)
Therefore, they support the conclusions of the IPCC, because at least (and probably more than) what the IPCC says is true. If you do, in fact, have recent polls of scientists that say that their is no consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change, please bring that information to the relevant pages. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja ( talk)
I honestly don't know what you mean when you say that it is obvious that the majority of climate scientists (or people with equivalent area education) don't buy the IPCC. I do not of any data that says this, much less any data that makes it obvious. (Lists of people's names are pretty useless, and not relevant.) added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja ( talk)
If you've got new data and published analysis, please share it with the other people who edit these pages. - Enuja (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC) added to User talk:Sirwells
Although I don't work in a climate field, my boss did his post-doc on a grant that existed to get people with directly opposite views about a system to work on it together to figure out what was really going on. Science really is about testing hypotheses, and people really do use money from grants to test things, not just to support existing consensus. Where everyone agrees, future research is actually really hard to get funding for. Luckily for climate change funding, we don't understand everything about the climate or about the future. - Enuja (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC) added to User talk:Sirwells
How do you figure out who knows enough about climate change to be part of a scientific consensus or controversy? The only methods I can think of are "who publishes on climate change" "who is a member of related scientific society" and "who goes to relevant scientific meetings". What criteria could we use? A poll of a randomized sample of authors and society members would be good. Bray and von Storch, 1996 looks to be the most recent of that sort (although it doesn't look randomized). The only good, up to date information that exists on what scientists think about climate change is statements published by scientific societies and the IPCC report itself. - Enuja ( talk)
Shouldn't (more) appropriate title go like: global climate change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.76.122 ( talk) 12:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving a note on this page, since it is one of the more active climate articles on wikipedia. So far, no one from the meteorology or tropical cyclone projects has come forward to review it after four weeks. One of you all should have enough knowledge to know if it is ready or not for GA, and if not, why. Thegreatdr ( talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The GW article should be delisted as a GA. It is too biased. 209.59.50.192 ( talk) 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit new to making changes to controversial wikipedia articles. I and others have requested changes to be made with respect to the non-NPOV stance of this article (i.e. I don't need the overall tone of the article to agree with my point of view, but obvious and major proof of recent global COOLING trends for example might be germane to an article on global warming.) -- due to all this I would like to motion that we work on bringing this article some balance.
A little NPOV, just a LITTLE, would be nice. Editors should not be threatening to block people when they try to inject some dissenting opinion into a controversial topic. Global warming is a controversial topic, but one wouldn't think so from reading this article.
Thanks!
Significance is a POV. I'm merely showing data from reliable sources (in fact, the same sources that the article uses to indicate global warming). The data currently cited is old. Why would anyone resist updating this article with the most recent information from the very sources the article currently cites?
Significance is determined by the data. Not by the most prominent opinion. If so most prominent climate organizations are predicting a "lull" in warming for the next few years. That's not relevant? If a tenth of the data sample, the past ten years of cooling or null warming, is irrelevant then climate science really is a different kind of science. But catastrophic global warming is just around the corner, I assure you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.143.91 ( talk) 05:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) This is early 2008. How are results from the 2007 IPCC report old or out of date? The IPCC report is drawing from the published data available at the time it was written (mid to late last year), so it's absolutely fine to include more recent published data and analysis (but you are unlikely to find it, since the last IPCC report was so recent). We don't need to use just Science and Nature as peer-reviewed sources. There are other peer-reviewed journals out there, and any reputable one will do. I think it makes sense to update the article; but I also think we have been updating the article. Instead of complaining that the IPCC doesn't release reports often enough, make sure all of the IPCC references are to the 2007 report. If you read a news story, find the peer-reviewed article that the news story was based on, read the article, figure which sub-topic of global warming it's about, edit that Wikipedia sub-article, then go to the summary section in this article of the article you've edited, see if the information in the sub-article you changed is in this article, and change it here as well if needed. It makes sense to update this article whenever possible, but work from the bottom up. Change the details, then change the summaries to reflect any differences in details. - Enuja ( talk) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Bj: To return to the beginning of all this: This should be updated with the data for the hundred years ending 2007. There are myriad sources for that data. I propose to make no additional comments to the sentence, paragraph, images or the rest of the article at this time. Now you discover the obvious: it makes no difference. So you need to pick different time intervals to find this mythical cooling trend. But there is no cooling trend, so its a waste of time. Adding junk from Watts won't work, for the obvious reason William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we need to make room somewhere for the recently published prediction that the next decade or so is going to be at a flat global temperature as a shorter-term oscillation masks the current anthropogenic warming. I know William Connelley doesn't like to include recently published papers, but, since it takes quite some time for refutations to be published most of the time, I strongly disagree. We should consider all papers published in any one journal as equally reliable, no matter if the paper is from 1908 or 2008. Papers often need to be put in context, (include papers with the opposite conclusion, toss out old papers when a bunch of new ones change the story, include in the text the date of publication for something so fresh off the presses that it hasn't been vetted outside of the peer review process) but that's not too hard. - Enuja ( talk) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I would like to add this, but I'm hoping to solicit more input on how to word it. I had initially wanted to opt for the direct quote (less issues with controversial wording, etc.), but Enuja suggested that it's much better to paraphrase than to quote. That's understandable. I offered a possible paraphrase, but I find it more awkward than the direct quote. I found myself struggling to say it any other way as well as the quote itself. If there aren't any suggestions (or other objections) for a while, I'll just add it (as described a few posts above. Bjquinn ( talk) 04:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) No, William Connolley, a blog post is not a good way to add context for a new study.
Bjquinn, I'm sorry I haven't been more helpful with putting this new article into the paper. In order to make wording or context suggestions, I'd need to carefully read the Global Warming#Recent section and all of its references, and I haven't had time to do that recently. As a suggestion, the context that William posts in one of his blog posts (this [6] Science article) might be good to use. But I have no comment on actual wording until I do some work I simply don't have time for right now. Hopefully someone else does, or you should just be bold and put it in yourself (but, from a quick glance, your paraphrase is still much too similar to the article's text). - Enuja ( talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking again at the Recent section, I don't think this article fits. It looks like it would fit better in Global warming#Climate models, adding to the existing one-sentence paragraph on clouds in models (broadening the paragraph to include ocean circulation). Another thing to do would be to go to the Global climate model article and these new sources there. I haven't even read all of that article, though, so I can't help you with which articles should be where in that article. - Enuja ( talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to fill-out the newly-created Environmental policy of the United States#Global Warming article, and I was hoping someone could help me by creating a two or three paragraph blurb on what the United States has done in relation to global warming. Kyoto, feet-dragging, potential for carbon cap in the upcoming election, etc. Thanks in advance! johnpseudo 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this global warming dogma. I can tell that no one with a science background has written in this section. It describes that global warming is an average increase in temperature, but that is about far as it goes. Is anyone else picking that fact up? It doesn't even explain the act of global warming. Probably because there is no consensus. Every time I ask someone the process of global warming, I hear a different theory. I know green house gases is an easy answer, but the "how" doesn't get answered. Let me think of a few theories off the top of my head.
Rays of light, bounce off the oceans, come back up and get trapped by the CO2. Rays of light, go into the ocean, heating it, this heat rises and can't escape because of the CO2. The CO2 in the atmosphere filters out the Earth's long wave radiation, which in turn, changes which radiation the Earth blocks from the sun.
That was just a few running through my head that I've heard lately. Since there is such a consensus (according to Al Gore), I'm sure someone can clear that up for me. After we clear up that, we can get to the proof. The actual study and information that shows greenhouse gases are responsible for warming. I noticed most of the "proof" posted is just correlated information and the "effects" of global warming. Granted, you have to post the effects of global warming in this article, but it doesn't constitute proof. Do I really need to show the fallacy in correlated "proof"? All I seem to get is the "greenhouse gases went up and temperature went up, therefore greenhouse gases made temperature go up." That's not science. That's retardation.
Hope someone can come up with the proof. I've been waiting for too many years for it.
Cheers! -- Capitalist Shrugged ( talk) 22:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Global Warming is the product of too many industrial companies polluting the world in gas. This is a very important subject of the world today. Every time something happens, like hurricane or tornadoes, the world's population becomes very paranoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.136.55 ( talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that the relative contribution of different anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases should go into Attribution of recent climate change instead of into this higher level article. User:Tressor recently added this [7] paragraph to the Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere section. Do other editors think this paragraph belongs where it is now, in Attribution of recent climate change, or somewhere else? - Enuja ( talk) 04:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)