![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | ← | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
I read in the Japan Times this morning that the International Livestock Research Institute just released a study saying that livestock emissions and their feed contribute a fifth of all greenhouse gasses. The paper made several recommendations on how to reduce the livestock emissions to help fight climate change. I assume we would rather use the paper itself as a source instead of the newspaper article about it, so does anyone have a link to the paper? I'll try to find it also. Cla68 ( talk) 01:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
It might make sense to discuss this on the talk page of an article on attribution first. -- TS 00:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/ Wikiaxis ( talk) 04:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
By adding a simple addition to the article's hatnote: For scientific and political disputes, see Global warming controversy and Climate change consensus. I propose this as an exception to the WP:hatnote guidelines, as discussed at talk:Hatnote and talk:Scientific opinion.. The reader is not guided to those pages, merely presented with clarification by the choice. This might have the added benefit of reducing content disputes on this talkpage. Respectfully, - PrBeacon (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
It would assist in interpreting/understanding the graph in question to provide this detail.
We should essentially transfer the graph to absolute degrees Celsius and/or Fahrenheit rather than using a zero point which abstracts the data from reality and makes it harder to interpret rather than easier since the ordinary reader is more likely to understand what the graph means. 130.56.89.139 ( talk) 19:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody really know what "scalable quantity" means? The term was coined above but there has been no clear explanation of what it means. If I have ten mugs each containing exactly the same quantity of tea and measure the temperature of each with a thermometer, I can take the average and predict that if they're mixed well in a large jug the temperature of the resulting body of tea will be that average. If I place a slug of lead into an urn of tea kept at 50 degrees, when after a while I take it out I predict that its temperature will be 50 degrees. So temperature seems to be a pretty simple quantity to manipulate using linear scales. What is it about it that isn't scalable?-- TS 14:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The two references "NRC, 2008, p. 2", and "World Bank, 2010, p. 71", are unclear. These should include links or at least the name of the documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael ages ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
Rp}}
[2], mostly because that's the one I know how to use. At the present, I have no preference for format as long as it's consistent throughout the article, so feel free to modify to another. -
Atmoz (
talk)
21:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)I notice something interesting about this article. Specifically, (quoted from the article) "At the time, almost all world leaders expressed their disappointment over President Bush's decision."
Does anyone realize that President CLINTON signed the Kyoto treaty? And that, therefore, President BUSH had nothing at all to do, for or against the treaty? It was in the hands of the US SENATE!, not Bush. Any Senator, from the moment CLINTON signed it, could have brought it up for a vote, INCLUDING any member of the DEMOCRAT MAJORITY that was voted in in '06. What the fuck is this "BLAME BUSH" shit? Bush had NOTHING AT ALL to do with it. He COULD have retracted Clinton's signature on the treaty, in which case you could blame him, if you are so inclined. But he didn't. Why does this article blame him for something he had nothing to do with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.49.180 ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion the sentence can be cut without loosing the main idea of the sentence, which is the Kyoto protocol. If we want to fill up space, perhaps the article should mention that the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012 and discuss, whether the Annex I countries will to reach their goals, and plans for what comes after Kyoto. For the last one there's already an article that we could use. 155.99.230.142 ( talk) 00:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the politics section has probably fossilized a bit. We should definitely look at how the related subsidiary articles have developed and try to summarise them into this article. To that end, the Kyoto-related articles are the place to look to. -- TS 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Some believe global warming is a hoax - this fact should be addressed in the issue. (I do.) Epicbeast9022 ( talk) 22:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per Jayen466, Souza and Rubin, cherry-picking local material isn't really appropriate to the discussion of the global phenomenon. -- TS 01:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
NPOV? "bigpondnews"? Change to "Some areas such as some Greenland farmers welcome (short-term) global warming effects"? Here's the contribution:
99.54.139.229 ( talk) 01:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Some areas such as Greenland farmers welcome global warming. [1]
(od) " Gloom and Doom"; must they always together? 99.29.185.148 ( talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At best this relates to scientific opinion on climate change. It is not relevant to the content of this article. -- TS 12:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I could not edit this page, so I was wondering if this references could be included:
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Finally+common+sense+global+warming/3675534/story.html
The reference notes that the Royal Society is now saying "There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given temperature increase. Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe."
Furthermore, they now say "There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different time scales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change."
Please add this new position by the Royal Society to the page. Thank you. Rendahl ( talk) 04:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
{{cot|Suggestion made repeatedly and repetitively despite clear consensus against. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 12:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)}}
At the moment there is no article on Wikipedia covering the politics of global warming. This article is defined as being very restrictive referring only to scientific literature. The result is that there is no article that covers the political aspects of global warming: the political implications of the scientific assessment.
This is very strange, because global warming is a very heated political topic, yet this article singularly fails to reflect some key aspects such as the history of the global warming political campaign, the key landmarks such as kyoto, Copenhagen, the various measures taken in various countries, etc. etc. etc. You could easily create a similar length article on the politics of global warming covering how public perception has changed, what kind of effects it has had in various countries, the various fights between differing nations as to how action should be shared. I don't know how this article became so "nerdified" into the science, but it is a glaring omission that it doesn't seem to even mention half the political issues.
However, given this article is already far too long I have a number of suggestions:
What do people think? Isonomia ( talk) 13:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. The timing of your proposal is interesting given the various global warming skeptic blogs that are currently suggesting using it as a wedge stratergy.© Geni 20:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A biographical article has now been started about this scientist and a discussion has been started at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. It would be inappropriate to add the names of individual dissenting scientists to this article. -- TS 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems relevant http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/ 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 04:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Lewis does make a very significant point in that the 'greenhouse gas' theory would require the existence of strong positive-feedback loops within the biosphere. Engineering experience (from numerous disciplines) suggests that such systems are rarely stable enough to exist for more than a short while. The notion that the earth's meteorology has existed for millions of years in the state of a positive-feedback loop is therefore improbable, and this makes the whole 'greenhouse gas' theory very suspect.
If there IS a positive-feedback mechanism at work here, it's the one by which publications stating categorically that global warming is fact rather than theory increase the rate at which such publications appear. It's just like putting a microphone in front of a loudspeaker. -- Anteaus ( talk) 16:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It says above
However, that is not true. In fact, the last edit to that page was 7 October 2010. Q Science ( talk) 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that this discussion is off topic here and it's being discussed in two much more appropriate venues, so would anybody mind if I moved this to the archive? -- TS 21:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This submission was objected to based on "Has <the> model *really* 'the advantage of accurately demonstrating and predicting effects of the Global Warming phenomenon' ?????" Obviously it has demonstrated the effects of "Global Warming," based on high-school thermo', both global and regional, as for predicting? perhaps this IS stating too much. owever, back in 1985, no one, for example was relating the loss of polar ice to this phenomenon, I don't think I saw anything on the relation until 1995, that was predictive for the time. Since the purpose is to understand GW globally I can soften the statement. Thanks GESICC ( talk) 06:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
All models are wrong, some models are useful. Please read...
A model for the phenomenon that yields intuitive results, and using only basic thermodynamics is to at first place the Earth and Sun in a state of thermal equilibrium. For initial understanding, no land masses are included in the model. The Earth can emit or absorb enough heat that it is warm at the equator and cool near the poles, which have ice caps. The total amount of ice remains constant, initially. The power of this model arises when we add a warming phenomenon that then sets the model out of equilibrium; burning wood, ethanol, fossil fuels†, radioactivity, more sunlight etc.. The first effect is not a dramatic increase in the Earth’s temperature (counter-intuitively), but a gradual reduction in the amount of ice near the poles. The glacial run-off, or heat absorbed by the ice melting (specific heat of ice) tends to keep the temperature of the Earth constant. Both of these phenomena have been observed: The non-drastic temperature change, contributing to controversy, is referenced throughout this article. While satellite models and geological surveys have demonstrated reduction in polar ice. [2] The model may be improved by the addition of land masses and geographic features. For example, the nearness of the glaciers in the Pacific Northwest caused a dramatic change in its climate during the 1990’s; unusually cold winters and snow. The continued retreat of the glaciers in recent years has caused a return to its former climate, as glacier water now warms before it reaches the Gulf of Alaska and the Pacific Coast. Another example is provided by the expansion of deserts-directly related to more water being driven from those regions by the increased heat and approach to a new equilibrium. Note that the model predicts non-dramatic temperature change due to Arctic Ice melting, when this ice is gone, new dynamics must replace it. Though simple, this model has the advantage of accurately demonstrating and predicting effects of the Global Warming phenomenon.
†= The burning of fossil fuels is the release of yesterday’s sunshine, effectively adding more sunlight or heat to the Earth.
GESICC ( talk) 06:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
Mr. Souza's objection was that it lacked a reference; provided. Water vapor is a green house gas (qv). Desert farming contributes roughly 5 gallons per ounce of product ( http://www.lacfb.org/commodity.pdf). QED, right? GESICC ( talk) 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
Hipocrite-You're mixing things up a bit. I do not see that if you move water to places it wasn't previously you are not redistributing it, I don't see how 'belief' enters the equation, it conservation of mass. “Dead zones” is referenced as another wiki-article, with sources, Oxygen dead zones are from the Carbon Dioxide cycle. GESICC ( talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
QED-is just an expression. How about replace it with "is that good enough?" If not, it puzzles me what would be, Palmdale water department would report it if it wasn't true--I am not trying to establish water vapor is a GH gas, already done. Establishing it as a local Green House gas is pointless, farming takes 6-9 months minimum, etc.. GESICC ( talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
True, (p/P + p/P +...) = (n/N+n/N...) RT, however, if there is water where there usually isn't the n & p of water is > 0. Piping huge amounts of a green house gas to places that do not normally have it contributes to green house effects, I can't prove this-it’s both a definition and physics. Or as above, if you want me to site a reference for that particular area, well, I can understand that, almost, that's a classical argument, do different laws of physics need to be reproved under different circumstances? Sometimes other variables are involved, after all, but in this case, it is not reasonable to assume other extenuating circumstance, inconceivably large amounts of water are being put into arid environments all over the world. Let me counter-point and ask the gedunkin question; if the equivalent number of moles of CO2 were being released instaed of H2O would you still have the objection? Thanks all, if you still think something is amiss, I'll lock it down. GESICC ( talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
Stephan-I agree water has a lifetime of days-if we turned off the spigot today, the effects might be gone tomorrow, but until the spigot is turned off, there is a constant source, so half-life simply contributes to the equilibrium of the local environ. Global Humidity may be remaining constant, but we are interested in the local effects of very warm areas, (the heat, because of the humidity scale, may be depressing humidity readings-?). This is also true of CO2; life-time in the environment is not germane so long as there are sources keeping the reaction to the left. [Subject change] Although I can no longer find references, the oceans used to be able to suck up all the CO2 man could hope to produce, not so much anymore, which is why I added a link to Dead Zones (ecology). (It’s ironic we discuss the effect of CO2 production of fossil fuels, more than we discuss the direct contribution of heat from fossil fuels (talk about your short lifetimes, but nobody is turning off the spigot!) try digging up a credible reference for that! Enough fossil fuels get burned every day to melt 400+ cubic meters of water-from waste heat alone!) GESICC ( talk) 20:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
CaC-Good bit of research, it is a short leap to evaporation from irrigation. Thanks. GESICC ( talk) 20:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
NASA's image at Flickr, which is provided with an explanatory caption, might well be edited into this text. "Recently, NASA researchers discovered that incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation increased in the tropics from the 1980s to the 1990s." The NASA image, dated 2001, might be correlated with contemporary Bush administration public observations about global warming.-- Wetman ( talk) 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this reference to a single paper for now. It was added today by Africangenesis. How well accepted is Wentz? Has it been replicated? Does the paper support the statement in which it is cited? -- TS 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Since when is peer review pubs, cited by other literature and not contradicted in 3 years insufficient?
Tony, please recall our discussion at [8]. My references meet the standards. The clique that had controlled this article drove me and many other good editors away. I read at wattsupwiththat that this problem might have been rectified. I hope you aren't continuing the problem. -- Africangenesis ( talk) 12:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I like Stephan Schulz's parsimonious summary of the paper, which is on the article now. [9] -- TS 12:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, other scientists are concerned about the implications of the Wentz results for the models. EOS stands for Earth Observations Systems, and is a weekly publication of the AGU. Articles probably have about the level of peer review as a conference paper. Lambert of the Hadley Center and Stine, Krakauer and Chiang of UC Berkely write: "Thus if GCMs do underestimate global precipitation changes, the simulation of other climate variables will be effected." Eos Vol 28 No. 21
In the same issue of Eos, Previdi and Liepert explain: "This non-radiative energy transfer takes primarily the form of latent and sensible heat fluxes with the latent heat flux being about 5 times larger than the sensible heat flux in the global mean. The latent heat flux from the surface to the troposphere is associated mainly with the evaporation of surface water. When this water condenses in the troposphere to form clouds and eventually precipitation, the troposphere heats up and then radiates this energy gain out to space. The radiative energy loss from the troposhere is equal to the energy heat gain at the surface. The global water cycle is therefore fundamentally a part of the global energy cycle and any changes in global mean precipitation and evaporation are consequently constrained by the energy budgets of the troposhere and surface."`-- Africangenesis ( talk) 14:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm only suggesting that we put back the qualification "may" into a reference to a single fairly recent and as yet unreplicated paper. In this decision I take into account the authors' own caveats which you yourself have clearly read, acknowledge and have understood. I don't think that is unreasonable. If you think similar qualifications should apply elsewhere in the article, make your case. Tasty monster (= TS ) 18:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you're giving me good critiques of the article as it stands at present, but I don't think you're convincing me that we should write about something because you say it is so. -- TS 23:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I made two edits yesterday on this article, my first edits on global warming since March, so I don't think I'm in danger of credibly being accused of exercising ownership.
I'm still in favor of restoring Stephan's "may have" qualification to the description of the singleton research paper which is the subject of this section. Africangenesis is raising interesting ideas, and I think we should write them up if they can be adequately sourced. First, though, if the relevant articles on climate modeling are out of date, we should improve them, then update this one to reflect their new content. -- TS 09:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This paper agrees that the precipitation observations are confirmed, and commences with the longer time frame apologia. [10]-- Africangenesis ( talk) 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Note to NuclearWarfare re your recent minor edit: the url is not pointless, even with a doi. It is an alternate way of getting there. Sometimes we have only one or the other, but having both is not to be despised. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Stephan, Are you quite sure that "any chemist can predict the continued ocean acidification." in light of the fact that CO2 has reduced soluability in the oceans as temperatures rise, and in light of the fact that there is still some uncertainty regarding sources and sinks of CO2? There is a reason these things are modeled and not just assumed. -- Africangenesis ( talk) 10:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The intro defines "global warming" as:
But the first graph shows warming from 1850 to present. Which period of global warming are we talking about? Or are we talking about global warming in general? If it's the latter, do we also need to talk about periods of global cooling?
I'd like this article to focus on the science of what makes earth's atmosphere get warmer (and cooler). There are both natural and anthropogenic causes.
I wish the article would explain in layman's terms the various theories (or the mainstream theory, if the other theories are too marginal to mention) of what has historically caused average terrestial near-surface air temperature to go up and down. I understand that ice cores shed some light on this. But I think there is scientific controversy over this (or maybe only political? it's hard to tell).
First of all, it would be good to tell whether carbon dioxide drives temperature or the other way around - or some combination. Is the science of this matter clearly understood? Is there a scientific consensus on it? Or is there a mainstream view, with enough dissent within the climate science community worth mentioning in the article?
Now please understand me. I've been warned (vaguely, but firmly) about jumping in. So I want to be very clear about the direction I think this article should take:
Fair enough? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
In reviewing this page, it is clear that only one POV is given. The only mention of serious concerns with the science of Global Warming is in a dismissive and marginalizing way. No mention of the comical errors and practices of the IPCC and it's methods is made. That needs to be presented early and honestly.
This is sad.
Is there anyone there to save Wikiperdia from the marginalization that will happen from this lack of balanced presentation?
If the goal is to be a reliable and authoritative resourse of information, than self interest, political bias, imbalanced and untrue information must be prevented or at least balanced with a complementary and thorough opposition POV.
Please begin to rebalance or clean this lop-sided article today.
If not, Wikipedia will not only continue to lose credibility but will become a joke to all but the most imbalanced and lop-sided researchers and a competitor will fill the gap and draw those who want truth and objectivity away.
Thanks-
Sean Deepsean666 ( talk) 02:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I do believe legitimate scientific journals should be referenced. I do not believe the request for "objectivity and accuracy" should be compared to Fox News "fair and balanced" and sumarily dismissed.
There is a tone, an approach taken throughout this article that anyone not saturated in the gospel can feel uncomfortable with.
My feedback is to discuss not the numerous scientific reports, journals and interlopers, but rather- a presentation of fact where it is not warrented and a thick smuggness in certainty of POV by writers
which is a turn-off and reinforces the opposing and growing POV that Global Warming is more a social agenda than fact based science.
For instance in the opening paragraph:
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century.[2][A] Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century has been caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which result from human activity such as the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation.[3] Global dimming, a result of increasing concentrations of atmospheric aerosols that block sunlight from reaching the surface, has partially countered the effects of warming induced by greenhouse gases.
The statement is not fact. It is not a law. It is a possible explanation of an observed phenomina. It should at least have a mention of this and be tied to the previous sentence. So accuracy and objectivity would have this sentence writen in such a way that it is clearly understood that it's an idea, a strong idea, a best explanaition so far identified by the IPCC. But it's not. To intelligent scientific and engineering or thoughtful minded people, it can leave a bad taste if not left open-minded, open for revision, open for growth and presented as a best idea. A scientific concensus and IPCC report does not make it fact. It makes it an accepted idea. Most turn out to be fact eventually, but many others have been long forgotten about and erased from memory and CVs.
My criticism is to improve the article. I utilize Wikipedia often. I want to read undistracted and learn, which I do most of the time. I don't want to start arguing with the material and it's writers. That's a bad sign. That's when I get into the editing discussions. It is challenging to present something you are passionate about objectively. This is a very important issue that has lost much momentum and credibility. Most of this I believe is due to the arrogance and oversight of it's proponents. The way back is not to wait until it blows over and be dismissive until then, but rather have some stones, look at it from anothers POV and readjust to acomodate.
Just some suggestions.
Deepsean666 ( talk) 22:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
As for whether it is a fact or an idea, it's both. The proportion of external forcing can be quantified (1.66±0.17 W/m2 with 90% confidence), which is fact. [11] Forcing can be thought of as causality, but it's much more complex than A→B because the climate cannot be directly experimented with. The "mainstream view" among scientist, however, remains yes (see prev. links). --CaC 155.99.231.56 ( talk) 04:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that the section regarding climate models needs some review at this point. In its current state, it avoids issues that are core to the underlying problematic. I will discuss a few points, but feel free to comment or add other ideas.
"The main tools for projecting future climate changes are mathematical models (...). Although they attempt to include as many processes as possible, simplifications of the actual climate system are inevitable because of the constraints of available computer power and limitations in knowledge of the climate system."
- Simplifications of the climate system in the models are inevitable first and foremost because there exists no mathematical equations for a cloud or for other physical processes. This issue is obscured by the current text.
- The issue of available computer power is irrelevant and should be removed. There are no scientific grounds to support that future computers will allow the development of climate models that do not need simplifications. Computer limitations in climate studies can be more correctly attributed to complexity issues rather than to a lack of power.
- Actually, there used to be a mention of the inherent
complexity of the underlying system as a cause for the need for simplifications, in lieu of "limitations in knowledge". I think the former was more accurate by far and should be re-introduced. Climate-related sciences cannot escape the fact that the object of their studies, i.e. the climate, is a complex system in the scientific sense, which has enormous implications with regard to modelling. Complexity science acknowledges it. See
[12] for a quick summary.
"The physical realism of models is tested by examining their ability to simulate current or past climates. Current climate models produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but do not simulate all aspects of climate."
- As stated these sentences are true but also obscure core issues, most importantly the fact that the ability to reproduce the past is not related to the ability to
predict the future.
--
Childhood's End (
talk)
19:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This is going to go the way of most discussions on verifiability, synthesis and the like. While I was out I browsed one or two articles on climate modeling using my tiny and not very powerful telephone. It looked to me as if those articles needed renovation. I would like to suggest that those who want to improve our coverage of climate models could do a lot worse than turn those from indifferent to middling articles into spectacularly good ones. Then we could summarise those articles in the section on modeling in this article. - TS 20:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Discovery of a critique suitable for WP of the accuracy of modeling of climate and of its extrapolation into the future, and of the value of more powerful computers in that effort is improbable. All one can accomplish is a general word of caution that isn't useful, especially if it is to buttress a general skepticism that amounts to suggesting that our best efforts to sort things out are so bad that we should abandon them and work from gut instincts alone. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of adding a hatnote to this section pointing to two articles on this subject that could benefit from expert improvement. -- TS 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The climate is a nonlinear dynamic system, and thus is chaotic. What we call the climate can be thought of as the attractor. The idea is to model the climate when perturbed by forcings and gather statistics to characterize how the attractor changes and find any tipping points. One of the reasons we don't have error ranges produced for the models based upon all the documented diagnostic issues, is that there is no way to analytically calculate them. It is a nonlinear system, any one of the errors might cause the climate to diverge from the actual climate of interest. Errors that may seem insignificant for the 20th century climate may grow in unpredictable ways as the climate changes. That is why the AR4 models that are known to under represent the negative feedback of the water cycle, under represent the positive surface albedo feedback, under represent the observed signature of the solar cycle, that get the tropical radiative imbalance wrong, and have cloud parameterization errors between two and three orders of magnitude larger than the 0.75W/m^2 energy imbalance of the 90s have credibility issues. That doesn't mean they are useless over all, they have produced qualitative insights, subsequently confirmed by observations. Quantitatively, they are not yet ready for a phenomenon as small as the recent warming with only 3 or so decades of quality data to constrain, and validate them.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 16:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This statement is false:
The first reference reports that the solar forcing is positive. What do y'all propose, especially those of you who have reverted?-- Africangenesis ( talk) 01:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It refers to the change over the last 250 years. Not in the last half century. It is currently at at the lowest point since the late 1940s (Steinhilber, F., J. Beer, and C. Fröhlich. 2009., ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/steinhilber2009tsi.txt) and the overall trend since 1950s is *down*. I actually ran the regressions."The positive forcing figure contradicts that."
The IPCC claims a small positive forcing not cooling for the latter half of the century.
Over particularly the 1950 to 2005 period, the combined natural forcing has been either negative or slightly positive (less than approximately 0.2 W m–2), reaffirming and extending the conclusions in the TAR. Therefore, it is exceptionally unlikely that natural RFs could have contributed a positive RF of comparable magnitude to the combined anthropogenic RF term over the period 1950 to 2005 (Figure 2.23)
Chapter 9 acknowledges a small possibility that the warming since 1950 is mostly due to solar
This text, also from chapter 9, explicitly discusses as a "delay", the lag in warming response due to aerosols:
"changes in solar forcing can potentially explain only a small fraction of the observationally based estimates of the increase in ocean heat content".
User "K" was the first one to apparently mis-understand the IPCC quote and transition solar from warming to cooling in the article. [15]. I will post a notice on his page, giving him an opportunity to provide a citation.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 19:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Evidently you didn't notice that the sentence immediately preceding the "small positive forcing" also referenced the second half of the 20th century and the figure which starts from 1850:
“ | Precipitation increased proportional to atmospheric humidity, and hence 2 to 3 times faster than the IPCC FAR models predicted. | ” |
Problem is FAR usually refers to First Assessment Report, which was three editions ago in 1990. I think the sentence refers to Fourth Assessment Report (usually abbreviated AR4 rather than FAR), which was published in 2007. Secondly, the IPCC itself doesn't make predictions, it reviews and assess them. So "faster than IPCC FAR models predicted" should be "faster than models reviewed in AR4". --CaC 155.99.230.161 ( talk) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
October 23, 2010 The graph of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations on the right hand side of the opening page is misleading in several ways:
JonathanQuick ( talk) 05:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This article repeats the idea that CO2 residence time is of the order of a hundered years or so but other papers say this not so. See this paper and the supporting cites: "Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide" R.H. Essenhigh* Energy Fuels, 2009, 23 (5), pp 2773–2784. The statement of residence time therefore needs correction -right? MarkC ( talk) 10:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. For perturbation of an equilibrium, the rate of return is the _sum_ of the forward and back rates. Since the CO2 record shows the seasonal variation the equilibrium time (1/e) cannot be ~100 years. To dismiss a paper and others it cited just because of the title of the Journal title is not scientific nor objective is it? On the other hand, an exponential never returns, so scientists don't characterize the return except in terms of the time const. or half time etc. Thus a 5 year time constant will reach 1- (1/e)^20 of its final value in one hundred years but what's the point of that figure, it's most misleading. Surely we could do with some better description of the assumptions that go into such an estimate or else say there's controversy? Cheers 125.237.187.133 ( talk) 12:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[8][9][10][B] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues."
By omission this gives the impression that the scientific debate is not continuing, and that those engaging in the political and public debates are being obstinate or at least merely political and unscientific. The continuing scientific debate demonstrates where the true scientific consensus is. The debate generally concedes that the direct effects of CO2 can explain about 30% of the recent warming, and would result in a warming of about 1 to 1.1 degrees C for both a CO2 doubling. Any greater attribution of the recent warming to CO2 and projections of greater warming require significant net positive feedbacks to CO2 in the current climate regime. Whether the net feedbacks are as positive as is implemented in the models, or are small or even negative is in dispute. If the feedbacks are small or negative, then most of the recent warming is due to other causes, internal climate variation (the PDO and NAO were in positive phases during the recent warming), other natural forcings such as solar (higher than average levels of activity during the latter half of the century and poorly understood), anthropogenic aerosols (poorly understood and quantified), anthopogenic black carbon (becoming better quantified and appreciated since the IPCC FAR). The small direct effect of CO2 forcing absent significant positive net feedback, is smaller than natural variation, and despite the fact the climate is perturbed in a warmer direction, the actual global temperature in a decade 100 years form now may actually be cooler. Thus all the extreme projections, concerns and proposed actions for the future are in dispute. That is the true climate consensus. Too bad we can't get it into the article in a form that describes the consensus and then presents the evidence on each side of the scientific dispute and the implications of each.
In any case, the "nevertheless" is POV. I am open to other compromise language, that the simplistic one that I proposed.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 12:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, this is the alternative wording which was among my changes which Stephan reverted and apparently objected to. The only change was "Nevertheless", to "Scientific".
-- Africangenesis ( talk) 12:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It's interesting that this 26 year old technical paper is "news". Would you be quoting it if it didn't offer a criticism of climate change models as they existed circa 1984? In any case, this is not the place to debate climate change. There was more debate in 1984 than there is today, because the evidence keeps getting stronger and stronger. References should be current. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please link that source, and demonstrate why it shows that there's current scientific debate about whether GW is occurring? Thanks. Jess talk| edits 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
can i suggest something like "The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, however there is continual scientific study t better undersand the matter. political and public debate continues." i think it would be helpful if you were all a little more accomodating. and africangenesis usually if you provide good references no one argues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinchsmate ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I've removed a link to a copy of a 1951 article on the sea's influence on the climate. It appears to be an extract from Rachel Carson's book
The Sea Around Us. Perhaps it would be useful linked from the article about the book, and conceivably it might be useful in a general history of climate science, but in this article I think it's little better than linkspam.
Tasty monster (=
TS )
10:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Global_warming#Politics needs clarification to Kyoto Protocol which will be expired soon, see Group of Two for example. New Protocols are in the works, such as from the Geoengineering article and Convention on Biological Diversity article relating to the Nagoya Protocol. 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Just as a heads-up, the Pearls Before Swine strip for November 18, 2010, features Rat editing the Global warming article to say that "jumping off your roof while imitating one of The Three Stooges is a good way to curb carbon emissions." Based on previous encounters between PBS fans and Wikipedia, this article could use a spot of extra attention for the next few days. - Dravecky ( talk) 07:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
why was the global warming is so much concern and why was it not mention in the 80's and the 90's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.222.128.250 ( talk) 02:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It was, it was called the greenhouse effect then. Climate change is the third name given to these phenomena, AGW is the most recent and the coolest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.97.225 ( talk) 10:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do the global warming / climate change folks point to sea level rise as proof when the Wikipedia "Sea Level Rise" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise shows a steady trend? This leads me to believe that the sea level rise information (graphs) in the climate change articles is presented in a way that shows bias. There are two graphs shown on Wikipedia's Sea Level Rise page... please add another higher quality graph showing the same data over the last 10 to 20 years. And add higher quality graphics and a legend showing all the individual data lines from each station. Then I can make a more informed view from data that isn't so skewed by bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.177.129 ( talk) 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the most common evidence for temperature rice is the temperature records. That is probably why this article or the article climate change doesn't include any graphs of the current sea level rice. You can however find the satelite data of the last 17 year sealevel here http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php ScientificStandard ( talk) 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the intrusion but this seem like a reasonable place to find directions to science regarding what the ideal temperature is for life on earth and how that is determined and is it sustainable in light of geologic record. It seems relevant if humans are going to embark on massive geoengineering either through carbon brokers or mitigation. And if possible, any sources of information on how humans may adapt when (not if) we encounter the next Little or Great Ice Age. This is not, I repeat, not POV. They are questions that I would honestly like to know the answer to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multiperspective ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See FAQ Q4. -- TS 13:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Could we include this reference in the article:
http://theweek.com/article/index/210181/irony-alert-the-unusually-chilly-global-warming-summit
"As negotiators from nearly 200 countries met in Cancun to strategize ways to keep the planet from getting hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F."
SuzBenson ( talk) 04:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
It was making a point. Few doubt that we went through a hot spell but many in Europe now believe we are entering a cold spell with poor summers for the last four years and increasingly bad winters with record cold temperatures in some countries like Britain. ( Cyberia3 ( talk) 00:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC))
Back in January of this year, I proposed the following change to the Global Warming Article. At the time, it was swept under the carpet despite a significant level of support from other Wikipedia editors who are blocked from making edits to the Article. I would like to re-propose this edit in light of my previous suggestion that we allow Skeptical perspectives to be included in the article:
Begin Proposal
Global warming is a scientific theory that became popular in the 1980s to explain the observed increase in global temperature. The theory was proposed as a human-caused phenomenon, and is often referred to as Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW). Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. However, the most recent decade has seen temperature declines in North America, Australia, and Europe. As a result, the controversy over human-caused global warming has increased. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The University of East Anglia, the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of other education and governmental institutions have recently come under increased scrutiny as revelations of missing source data and allegations of fraud revealed in the "Climategate" scandal have called some of the fundamental assumptions made by leading AGW scientists into doubt. Sources to cite:
Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing N. American temperatures over the last decade:
Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing European temperatures over the last 8 years (Compare Seasonal Averages):
Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing Australian temperatures over the last decade:
Sources to substantiate the fact of increasing public scrutiny:
Sources to cite to substantiate the initiation of fraud investigations:
Add Sections for:
Leaked emails have surfaced showing leading proponents of AGW theory to have manipulated data and taken actions to destroy raw data in an effort to thwart Freedom of Information Act Mcoers ( talk) 05:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, Climategate can't be used like that because the scientists have been cleared of scientific misconduct multiple times by the reports that were commissioned into the matter. Also, I was under the impression that (depending on which temperature chart you favour) that this year is going to be either the equal hottest or equal second hottest on record globally, so unless I've got that wrong, there can hardly be any justification that the temperature is declining. Hitthat ( talk) 07:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Mcoers ( talk) 13:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, Climategate can and should be used "like that" because the emails that were disclosed clearly show these scientists colluding to avoid compliance with FOIA requests to see their source data. In fact, no one has seen their source data. The only way they can come to the conclusions they do (like your mention of this being the "hottest" year on record - which it isn't) is by modifying the source data - I think the word they use is to "cleanse it". Well, the whole point of peer-review is that the peer must have access to the same data and be able to reproduce the result.
Since they've obliterated the ability to do that, I think it is reasonable to include the fact that the information is unverifiable. Mcoers ( talk) 14:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Cornice, for taking the time and effort to give an patient, informed, and reasoned answer. It is ironic that those who hold absolute beliefs contrary to fact accuse others of not listening. It is the global warming deniers who reflexively reject all data they don't like, and uncritically accept anything that seems to support their view. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You've begun a thread on the conflict of interests noticeboard. If you're here to talk about people's motivation, keep it there. I have no reason to reply to what you have to say here.
Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is policy. The primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia is through consensus (see WP:CON). Your text so far have failed either undue weight or original research. You do not have consensus. Unless you present references and text that satisfy undue weight and no original research, there doesn't need to be discussion. 67.190.48.91 ( talk) 09:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Your geology professor isn't wrong to believe it's not human-induced, but something on your part is that I don't think you're seeing the whole picture. There is less agreement that "temperates have risen due to human activity" than simply "temperatures have increased". 82% instead of 90%. [28] Good luck on you research topic. If you're here to look for a balanced view, I have an paper you might find interesting. The previous links are just to show that I'm not BSing you, which turns out to be a problem here in that people place opinions before reliable sources. The paper is " Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press". 174.52.224.148 ( talk) 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, you've only really asked one question. Stephan's a good man, his explanation of how climate is a lot more concrete. I would of just told you that climate is "average weather" and you could discount annual fluctuations; and as our knowledge grows it's essentially stochastic processes. Look, it sounds like you've got a lot of reading to do. Do you want me to point to you a couple of books to get you started? 174.52.224.148 ( talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It is time the first paragraph had a makeover because it really doesn't reflect the current status of issue, is difficult to read and really doesn't describe the scope of the article. May I suggest:-
Global warming (also known as as Anthropomorphic Global Warming or AGW) is the theory that human activity, particularly the emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, caused an apparent increase in average global surface temperature of 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century, and that further emissions will result in more warming. The concern over global warming started in the 1980s. When measured global temperature increased dramatically during the late 20th century, public concern rose until in ???? it was described as “the most important problem facing mankind”. This issue has generated much heated public debate, notably: the level of predicted temperature rise; the relative contributions of natural and man-made factors, and suggested future consequences of further emissions such as the predicted rate of sea level rise. Isonomia ( talk)
Mcoers- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html enter the period of interest from 1900 to 2010 and notice the trend. Ninahexan ( talk) 06:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTFORUM | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it." http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557597/201012221907/The-Abiding-Faith-Of-Warm-ongers.htm But since wikipedia is a leftist website, there is no chance that this non-falsifiable theory of Global Warming will receive adequate counter-argument in its propaganda article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 ( talk) 08:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Science is not democratic. If fifty million people believe that the earth is flat, the wikipedia article should still state that the earth is round. Read the FAQs at the beginning of the article. The number of scientists who deny global warming is decreasing, not increasing. The evidence for global warming is increasing, not decreasing. The science behind global warming has been well understood for more than seventy years. The vast majority of people who provide talking points against global warming are politically or economically motivated and couldn't solve a freshman calculus problem to save their lives. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Rick Norwood, please try to keep a cool head. Also, Science is not Wikipedia. If 50 million people believed the earth was flat, it should be included in the article of Earth. Not because it is "right" or "wrong", but because it is believed. The amount of information about it, though, is limited by the inforcment of the Undue Weight rule. WikIpedia articles should have a NPOV, as you should know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar123abc ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how the (easy) question of falsifiability of global warming is any different from the question of how other scientific theories are falsifiable. All that would be necessary is to show that ten year average temperatures have not gone up but rather have gone down or stayed the same, or that CO2 levels have not risen, that the oceans are not rising and becoming more acidic, that the ice cap is not melting, that CO2 is actually transparent to infrared, or that burning fossil fuels does not produce CO2. Any one of these would "falsify" global warming. None are at all likely, but they could happen if the global warming deniers were correct. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Please see WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
One such programme dealt, I think, with the International Geophysical Year. On the programme there were two photographs shown of a Swiss glacier. The much earlier photograph showed a more substantial glacier than then existed. The reduction is size was very clearly obvious. An even earlier reference was mentioned in the 1950s national press and I think quoted in some school text books. There had been a 1920/30s expediton, using a submarine, to the Artic and the late 1950s charts were showing considerably less ice than had been present in the 1920 and 30s. The indications of global warming seem to have been around for some time. AT Kunene ( talk) 13:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The point is that the conservative meme that global warming is a recent invention is clearly false. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
|
I've reverted this change, which at first sight seems to be a sensible normalization of language to make it consistent, because on examination the word "average" in the sentence refers to a different kind of mathematical entity from that referred to here as the mean. The use of different words here helps to cue the reader to that fact.
The entity referred to here as "global mean surface temperature difference" is the variable being plotted by year, but the quantity referred to as "the 1961–1990 average" is a baseline scalar constant which is subtracted from the global mean temperature to obtain the anomaly which is plotted. It is a mean-of-means, if you like, or rather a mean over the range 1961-1990 versus a mean over the range of each year. -- TS 01:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Every now and then I check back to this article to see if the "Editors" have allowed any skeptical information to creep into the article. Unfortunately, this article is still lacking any serious acknowledgment of the skeptical perspective.
The only times the skeptical perspective is even mentioned it is at the end of the article and couched in the fact that skeptical scientists are "funded" by the oil industry. Well, they aren't ALL funded by the oil industry. And sadly, there is no mention of the fact that many of the advocates' funding comes from government sources that would benefit from increasing regulation on energy production.
In the past, I have suggested that the folks who have editorial control over this page would be more intellectually honest if they would include a prominent skeptic who could negotiate a more balanced perspective. My suggestions were deleted by some ambitious editor. I suppose it was vandalism of some sort.
So, here I am again, pushing the idea of AT LEAST INCLUDING someone from the skeptical side of the aisle who could provide proper balance. I mean, are you people so threatened that you can't even listen to the other side?
Now, there is plenty of precedence on Wikipedia for including alternate perspectives in the presentation of controversial subjects (even when the alternate view has it's own article). Some examples:
I propose that the Global Warming article would be stronger if skeptical perspectives were given proper treatment. Unfortunately, I expect that some "editor" will simple delete this suggestion as irrelevant. And of course, that would be dishonest. Mcoers ( talk) 04:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
COMPLEXITY ISSUES - - Another area of concern that should be addressed is the very complex nature of the issue. The issue is not an either/or issue, yet too often climate change is presented as if it were, and that people should support one position or the other. The truth is not just a question of whether climate change is happening, but several other questions, such as: - - How severe is the climate change, if any? - What part do humans play in climate change? - How important is CO2 in affecting climate change? - Whether the other influences on climate, such as the sun's variability, outweigh the impact of human actions. - - The economic costs of climate change - Whether the effort to prevent climate change is possible, or desirable. - The economic costs of trying to mitigate or prevent climate change. - Whether CO2 is a pollutant, it being a natural substance useful to plants. - - Scientists no doubt would add many other aspects to this list. - - It seems likely that the debate on climate change is a "false dichotomy", in which many people seem to demand people choose either/or, rather than recognizing that there is a multiplicity of possibilities that are not clear cut, and which, therefore, do not allow for an easy solution, even if one is desired. - - The costs of trying to prevent climate change, for example, could be disastrous to poor countries, just as some claim that climate change itself is disastrous to such countries. - - Some have also pointed out that humans have generally been better off in warmer climates rather than colder (due to the impact on crops, etc.) - Higher temperatures might cause problems for some areas, while opening huge areas for growing crops, such as in Canada and Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.25 ( talk) 12:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Since global warming is a long term change in the ten year average, looking at one particular decade would show nothing about global warming one way or the other. Look at the graph. The yearly averages go up and down, the ten year averages go up and up. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
COMPLEXITY ISSUES
Another area of concern that should be addressed is the very complex nature of the issue. It is not just a question of whether climate change is happening, but several other questions, such as:
How severe is the climate change, if any? What part do humans play in climate change? How important is CO2 in affecting climate change? Whether the other influences on climate, such as the sun's variability, outweigh the impact of human actions.
The economic costs of climate change Whether the effort to prevent climate change is possible, or desirable. The economic costs of trying to mitigate or prevent climate change. Whether CO2 is a pollutant, it being a natural substance useful to plants.
Scientists no doubt would add many other aspects to this list.
It seems likely that the debate on climate change is a "false dichotomy", in which many people seem to demand people choose either/or, rather than recognizing that there is a multiplicity of possibilities that are not clear cut, and which, therefore, do not allow for an easy solution, even if one is desired.
The costs of trying to prevent climate change, for example, could be disastrous to poor countries, just as some claim that climate change itself is disastrous to such countries.
Some have also pointed out that humans have generally been better off in warmer climates rather than colder (due to the impact on crops, etc.) Higher temperatures might cause problems for some areas, while opening huge areas for growing crops, such as in Canada and Russia.
W —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.169.72.25 (
talk)
12:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest the wikipedia articles for 'climate change', 'global warming', etc. are in need of re-organising and re-writing in order to give the most accurate, impartial definitions of the terms according to common international usage. It is apparent to me that the definitions of climate change and global warming currently used in wikipedia have been overly influenced by contrarians in the debate. This is further evidenced by the comments in this discussion page on a 'fairer representation of the skeptical side'.
This article in the guardian gives a far clearer explanation of the term 'climate change' and 'global warming':
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/21/what-is-climate-change
"Any process that causes adjustments to a climate system – from a volcanic eruption to a cyclical change in solar activity – could be described as creating "climate change".
Today, however, the phrase is most often used as shorthand for anthropogenic climate change – in other words, climate change caused by humans. The principal way in which humans are understood to be affecting the climate is through the release of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the air.
Climate change is used interchangeably with another phrase – "global warming" – reflecting the strong warming trend that scientists have observed over the past century or so. Strictly speaking, however, climate change is a more accurate phrase than global warming, not least because rising temperatures can cause a host of other climatic impacts, such as changes in rainfall patterns."
Please could people respond if the agree or disagree? ( 86.152.178.230 ( talk) 15:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC))
Here's some reading relevant to this debate:
- nasa article on why they use climate change on their website rather than global warming http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
- this article and study suggests that using 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' could negatively affect public perceptions of the issue. It notes that conservative strategist Frank Luntz also thought that switching terms from "global warming" to "climate change" would be an effective way for climate skeptics to downplay the urgency of the issue. Personally I don't agree with their interpretation. Cases where local temperatures don't increase tend to get interpreted, by certain politicians and sections of the media at least, as evidence against global warming, particularly the recent cold winters in Europe and US. I have noticed so called 'skeptics' trying to capitalise on this on many occasions.
- this study suggests the two terms are rated more or less equally in terms of their importance: http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/gw-language-choices.pdf (notes that this is contrary to Luntz interpretation)
- this study suggest that the two terms usage depends on politcal positioning, but suggests that recently 'climate change' is used more by democrats and 'global warming' by republicans http://sitemaker.umich.edu/jschuldt/files/schuldt__konrath____schwarz__in_press__poq_.pdf
I suppose there are various issues around the psychological responses the terms tend to elicit in the lay audience, and around the history of the politicisation of the two terms (particularly in the US) and how this interacts with public interpretation. However, I still maintain though that 'climate change' is both more accurate and useful. I would be interested to hear others' opinions. I hope people don't think I am wasting time and energy. I think this debate is worth having, and is certainly relevant to these articles. 217.43.25.223 ( talk) 13:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to agree with the line of reasoning. If you want to change this, you need be a whole lot more convincing than either GW and CC has been used interchangeably or CC is a more accurate term than GW. The level that would convince me is if (1) the majority of dictionary and etymology resources agree that CC and GW are synonymous or CC is a more accurate term than GW, and (2) the change in public usage of CC and GW is ubiquitous with CC or GW as the most common name. So far, dictionaries reflect the current usage on Wikipedia, [32] [33] and it is not apparently clear that the common name of GW is CC or vise-versa. 155.99.230.82 ( talk) 02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
All this aside, do you have a proposal providing a specific piece of text to add, removed, or change? It's nice to argue abstracts, but if you're really inclined to not "want to waste peoples' time". Then an actual proposal leading to an edit to the article would be better than a request about something you believe. 155.99.230.140 ( talk)
I would think "climate change" has to be considered a better/more accurate term, given that even proponents of the "global warming" theory state that global warming can actually cause cooling in certain circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.25 ( talk) 12:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
After a discussion on Stephan Schulz' talk page, I have made some revisions to a previous edit of mine and moved it here for further debate. The current text of this section is as follows. The proposed addition to this section is underlined.
The ARC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank (as is the Competitive Enterprise Institute discussed in the preceding sentence), and an arm of the larger Ayn Rand Institute. Dr. Keith Lockitch, the author of the article in question, is a fellow at the ARC who has written numerous press releases and articles on the organization's behalf [34]. Being as this paragraph in the article is about the stances of libertarian think tanks and free-enterprise institutes, I think this addition is both context-appropriate and notable. There are, however, as discussed on Stephan's page, some questions about which organization this article should be attributed to. The article was written by (as seen on Page 2), and is currently hosted on, the ARC's Web site, but was printed in Energy and Environment. Thoughts? » S0CO( talk| contribs) 20:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The essential difference between science and other ways of acquiring knowledge is that scientists spend at least as much time trying to disprove their own ideas as they do trying to prove them. They know that their ideas will not stand up to replication if they are flawed. Taking Global Warming as an example, in the decades since the idea was generally accepted, if there had been a decline in ten year average temperatures, it would have been back to the old drawing board. But average temperatures continue to rise.
The ARI, in contrast, has already made up its mind. It is not interested in putting Objectivism to the test. Instead, it puts facts to the test, and if the facts contradict Objectivism, then it argues against the facts instead of modifying its beliefs to fit new data. It is not a good source for scientific opinion. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Detusche Bank is not a primary source. Only science published in refereed journals is a primary source. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
CurtisSwain: I was responding to SOCO just above my previous post, who seemed to think Detusche Bank was being quoted as a primary source. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The article primary source gives a good definition. In the case of global warming, a primary source is a published, refereed paper by a climate scientist. An article in a journal reporting what the scientists published is a secondary source. So is a book or textbook by an expert which summarizes the published literature. An encyclopedia article which summarizes what the secondary sources report is a tertiary source. Wikipedia usually uses reliable secondary sources, and is itself a tertiary source. Commentary is not a "source" at all -- except that commentary by Joe Smith is a primary source on what Joe Smith has written. It belongs in the "Joe Smith" article. When a subject such as global warming becomes so controversial that Wikipedia has a second article on the controversy, what Joe Smith says becomes a primary source for that article, and commentary by knowledgeable people on Joe Smith's views becomes a secondary source for that article. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. [Emphasis added]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here is a thought-provoking article from Quadrant (2009) on the thermodynamics of the alleged greenhouse-gas effect. It raises some very serious questions as to whether the theorized energy-transfers from atmosphere to ocean by way of atmospheric CO2 are even feasible, given the relative masses and specific-heats of the two fluids. -Does anyone have any thoughts on this? -- Anteaus ( talk) 15:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Surely it is time the following quote was included:
This is an important quote right from those in the CRU at the heart of climategate and sums up the way the "scientists" have been involved in spreading alarmist views that failed to materialise. I propose a new section providing a critical analysis of these claims to include the above quote. Isonomia ( talk) 18:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Around 4 years ago I mentioned the lack of cooling and I was told it had to be 10 years of cooling to get into the article. Well now we have a full decade of cooling and/or no warming and with January 2011 just about falling off the scale, it doesn't look likely we'll get any warming soon. We are now well below the IPCC prediction of 1.4-5.8C warming per decade, there's not a global warmist model that predicted this period of cooling. When will this article be brought up to date? Isonomia ( talk) 18:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Given that most of the Earth is ocean, I wouldn't use instrumental data as a measure of global temperature. And you always have to wonder what Hansen is up to. But 2010 was the second warmest year on record, according to both the radiosonde and satellite data. It's behind only 1998, the year of the El Niño spike. Kauffner ( talk) 03:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I've moved this section "Rain" here from the "Attributed and expected effects" section because I think the sourcing is a bit hit-and-miss by our normal standards on this article:
Softpedia? Don't think so. The other two links are to abstracts, one from a 2008 AGU paper and the other from a 2008 letter to Nature. Our other attribution sections are referenced to the heavily reviewed IPCC AR4, so this looks a bit too much like cherry picking for my taste. -- TS 15:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I would think that the best source would be a reference work that specializes in science like Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. Their article on "global warming" certainly takes a more balanced view than this one does, which takes the "hockey stick" interpretation at face value and contains no hint that there has ever been any controversy about it. Currently, the references are overwhelmingly to primary sources. This is quite problematic since thousands of scientific papers have been published on this subject and they often express divergent views. Kauffner ( talk) 06:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It sounds a bit odd to hear somebody promoting a mere encyclopedia in preference to our multiple authoritative sources. I remember Lar and I looked at the Britannica once to determine whether there was any imbalance in our coverage. His view was that there was, but I couldn't see it. Our coverage over the whole encyclopedia was huge compared to Britannica which barely mentioned alternative views at all. Searching Britannica for the names of prominent skeptical scientists, for instance, drew a blank. I'd be frankly surprised to see any significant difference in Van Nostrand's coverage, but perhaps somebody might want to raise concrete examples from that book and we'll see where we can go with this. -- TS 14:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
On the off chance that anyone still thinks Van Nostrand's is some sort of second-rate source, I'd like to note that it has been cited by the federal courts on at least 46 occasions and was even described as an "authoritative reference work" by the U.S. Court of International Trade in the case of Digital Equipment Corporation vs. U.S. (1988). It was cited by the Supreme Court of the United States in Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. NRDC (1983). Kauffner ( talk) 12:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. ( WP:DUE)
where is the criticism about the nonexistance of global warming from many scientists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.69.205 ( talk) 15:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The sea surface temperature article has been revamped due to improvements made in the numerical weather prediction article. When doing a web search, I ran across the wikipedia article regarding satellite temperature measurements, so I started incorporating some of the SST article information into it. After I noticed the article structure, I was initially confused. A cursory review of the article shows that its content goes well beyond its name. It looks strongly linked to this article, and even mentions information you would not expect to be involved in an article with its name. My question is: Should that article be renamed, something like Satellite temperature measurements (climate change), or should the information within the article be aligned with its current title? If so, the order of the article would need to be flipped, surface information/SST first (since that's where we all live and that information was first available via satellites, so it makes sense chronologically as well) with a decent amount of material eliminated since it goes beyond the scope of its title. Thoughts? Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The dramatic degree to which industrial development under capitalism has reduced the risk of harm from severe climate events in the industrialized world is significantly under-appreciated in the climate debate. Consequently, so too is the degree to which green climate and energy policies would undermine the protection that industrial capitalism affords—by interfering with individual freedoms, distorting market forces, and impeding continued industrial development and economic growth. The effect of such policies would, ironically, be a worsening of overall vulnerability to climate.
DB Climate Change Advisors is the brand name for the institutional climate change investment division of Deutsche Asset Management, the asset management arm of Deutsche Bank AG.
The planet is warming and it is likely to continue to warm as a consequence of increased greenhouse gas emissions.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | ← | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
I read in the Japan Times this morning that the International Livestock Research Institute just released a study saying that livestock emissions and their feed contribute a fifth of all greenhouse gasses. The paper made several recommendations on how to reduce the livestock emissions to help fight climate change. I assume we would rather use the paper itself as a source instead of the newspaper article about it, so does anyone have a link to the paper? I'll try to find it also. Cla68 ( talk) 01:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
It might make sense to discuss this on the talk page of an article on attribution first. -- TS 00:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/white-house-global-warming-global-climate-disruption/ Wikiaxis ( talk) 04:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
By adding a simple addition to the article's hatnote: For scientific and political disputes, see Global warming controversy and Climate change consensus. I propose this as an exception to the WP:hatnote guidelines, as discussed at talk:Hatnote and talk:Scientific opinion.. The reader is not guided to those pages, merely presented with clarification by the choice. This might have the added benefit of reducing content disputes on this talkpage. Respectfully, - PrBeacon (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
It would assist in interpreting/understanding the graph in question to provide this detail.
We should essentially transfer the graph to absolute degrees Celsius and/or Fahrenheit rather than using a zero point which abstracts the data from reality and makes it harder to interpret rather than easier since the ordinary reader is more likely to understand what the graph means. 130.56.89.139 ( talk) 19:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody really know what "scalable quantity" means? The term was coined above but there has been no clear explanation of what it means. If I have ten mugs each containing exactly the same quantity of tea and measure the temperature of each with a thermometer, I can take the average and predict that if they're mixed well in a large jug the temperature of the resulting body of tea will be that average. If I place a slug of lead into an urn of tea kept at 50 degrees, when after a while I take it out I predict that its temperature will be 50 degrees. So temperature seems to be a pretty simple quantity to manipulate using linear scales. What is it about it that isn't scalable?-- TS 14:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The two references "NRC, 2008, p. 2", and "World Bank, 2010, p. 71", are unclear. These should include links or at least the name of the documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael ages ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
Rp}}
[2], mostly because that's the one I know how to use. At the present, I have no preference for format as long as it's consistent throughout the article, so feel free to modify to another. -
Atmoz (
talk)
21:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)I notice something interesting about this article. Specifically, (quoted from the article) "At the time, almost all world leaders expressed their disappointment over President Bush's decision."
Does anyone realize that President CLINTON signed the Kyoto treaty? And that, therefore, President BUSH had nothing at all to do, for or against the treaty? It was in the hands of the US SENATE!, not Bush. Any Senator, from the moment CLINTON signed it, could have brought it up for a vote, INCLUDING any member of the DEMOCRAT MAJORITY that was voted in in '06. What the fuck is this "BLAME BUSH" shit? Bush had NOTHING AT ALL to do with it. He COULD have retracted Clinton's signature on the treaty, in which case you could blame him, if you are so inclined. But he didn't. Why does this article blame him for something he had nothing to do with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.49.180 ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion the sentence can be cut without loosing the main idea of the sentence, which is the Kyoto protocol. If we want to fill up space, perhaps the article should mention that the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012 and discuss, whether the Annex I countries will to reach their goals, and plans for what comes after Kyoto. For the last one there's already an article that we could use. 155.99.230.142 ( talk) 00:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the politics section has probably fossilized a bit. We should definitely look at how the related subsidiary articles have developed and try to summarise them into this article. To that end, the Kyoto-related articles are the place to look to. -- TS 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Some believe global warming is a hoax - this fact should be addressed in the issue. (I do.) Epicbeast9022 ( talk) 22:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per Jayen466, Souza and Rubin, cherry-picking local material isn't really appropriate to the discussion of the global phenomenon. -- TS 01:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
NPOV? "bigpondnews"? Change to "Some areas such as some Greenland farmers welcome (short-term) global warming effects"? Here's the contribution:
99.54.139.229 ( talk) 01:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Some areas such as Greenland farmers welcome global warming. [1]
(od) " Gloom and Doom"; must they always together? 99.29.185.148 ( talk) 16:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At best this relates to scientific opinion on climate change. It is not relevant to the content of this article. -- TS 12:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I could not edit this page, so I was wondering if this references could be included:
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Finally+common+sense+global+warming/3675534/story.html
The reference notes that the Royal Society is now saying "There is currently insufficient understanding of the enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica to predict exactly how much the rate of sea level rise will increase above that observed in the past century for a given temperature increase. Similarly, the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe."
Furthermore, they now say "There is very strong evidence to indicate that climate change has occurred on a wide range of different time scales from decades to many millions of years; human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change."
Please add this new position by the Royal Society to the page. Thank you. Rendahl ( talk) 04:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
{{cot|Suggestion made repeatedly and repetitively despite clear consensus against. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 12:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)}}
At the moment there is no article on Wikipedia covering the politics of global warming. This article is defined as being very restrictive referring only to scientific literature. The result is that there is no article that covers the political aspects of global warming: the political implications of the scientific assessment.
This is very strange, because global warming is a very heated political topic, yet this article singularly fails to reflect some key aspects such as the history of the global warming political campaign, the key landmarks such as kyoto, Copenhagen, the various measures taken in various countries, etc. etc. etc. You could easily create a similar length article on the politics of global warming covering how public perception has changed, what kind of effects it has had in various countries, the various fights between differing nations as to how action should be shared. I don't know how this article became so "nerdified" into the science, but it is a glaring omission that it doesn't seem to even mention half the political issues.
However, given this article is already far too long I have a number of suggestions:
What do people think? Isonomia ( talk) 13:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. The timing of your proposal is interesting given the various global warming skeptic blogs that are currently suggesting using it as a wedge stratergy.© Geni 20:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A biographical article has now been started about this scientist and a discussion has been started at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. It would be inappropriate to add the names of individual dissenting scientists to this article. -- TS 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems relevant http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/ 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 04:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Lewis does make a very significant point in that the 'greenhouse gas' theory would require the existence of strong positive-feedback loops within the biosphere. Engineering experience (from numerous disciplines) suggests that such systems are rarely stable enough to exist for more than a short while. The notion that the earth's meteorology has existed for millions of years in the state of a positive-feedback loop is therefore improbable, and this makes the whole 'greenhouse gas' theory very suspect.
If there IS a positive-feedback mechanism at work here, it's the one by which publications stating categorically that global warming is fact rather than theory increase the rate at which such publications appear. It's just like putting a microphone in front of a loudspeaker. -- Anteaus ( talk) 16:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It says above
However, that is not true. In fact, the last edit to that page was 7 October 2010. Q Science ( talk) 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that this discussion is off topic here and it's being discussed in two much more appropriate venues, so would anybody mind if I moved this to the archive? -- TS 21:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
This submission was objected to based on "Has <the> model *really* 'the advantage of accurately demonstrating and predicting effects of the Global Warming phenomenon' ?????" Obviously it has demonstrated the effects of "Global Warming," based on high-school thermo', both global and regional, as for predicting? perhaps this IS stating too much. owever, back in 1985, no one, for example was relating the loss of polar ice to this phenomenon, I don't think I saw anything on the relation until 1995, that was predictive for the time. Since the purpose is to understand GW globally I can soften the statement. Thanks GESICC ( talk) 06:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
All models are wrong, some models are useful. Please read...
A model for the phenomenon that yields intuitive results, and using only basic thermodynamics is to at first place the Earth and Sun in a state of thermal equilibrium. For initial understanding, no land masses are included in the model. The Earth can emit or absorb enough heat that it is warm at the equator and cool near the poles, which have ice caps. The total amount of ice remains constant, initially. The power of this model arises when we add a warming phenomenon that then sets the model out of equilibrium; burning wood, ethanol, fossil fuels†, radioactivity, more sunlight etc.. The first effect is not a dramatic increase in the Earth’s temperature (counter-intuitively), but a gradual reduction in the amount of ice near the poles. The glacial run-off, or heat absorbed by the ice melting (specific heat of ice) tends to keep the temperature of the Earth constant. Both of these phenomena have been observed: The non-drastic temperature change, contributing to controversy, is referenced throughout this article. While satellite models and geological surveys have demonstrated reduction in polar ice. [2] The model may be improved by the addition of land masses and geographic features. For example, the nearness of the glaciers in the Pacific Northwest caused a dramatic change in its climate during the 1990’s; unusually cold winters and snow. The continued retreat of the glaciers in recent years has caused a return to its former climate, as glacier water now warms before it reaches the Gulf of Alaska and the Pacific Coast. Another example is provided by the expansion of deserts-directly related to more water being driven from those regions by the increased heat and approach to a new equilibrium. Note that the model predicts non-dramatic temperature change due to Arctic Ice melting, when this ice is gone, new dynamics must replace it. Though simple, this model has the advantage of accurately demonstrating and predicting effects of the Global Warming phenomenon.
†= The burning of fossil fuels is the release of yesterday’s sunshine, effectively adding more sunlight or heat to the Earth.
GESICC ( talk) 06:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
Mr. Souza's objection was that it lacked a reference; provided. Water vapor is a green house gas (qv). Desert farming contributes roughly 5 gallons per ounce of product ( http://www.lacfb.org/commodity.pdf). QED, right? GESICC ( talk) 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
Hipocrite-You're mixing things up a bit. I do not see that if you move water to places it wasn't previously you are not redistributing it, I don't see how 'belief' enters the equation, it conservation of mass. “Dead zones” is referenced as another wiki-article, with sources, Oxygen dead zones are from the Carbon Dioxide cycle. GESICC ( talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
QED-is just an expression. How about replace it with "is that good enough?" If not, it puzzles me what would be, Palmdale water department would report it if it wasn't true--I am not trying to establish water vapor is a GH gas, already done. Establishing it as a local Green House gas is pointless, farming takes 6-9 months minimum, etc.. GESICC ( talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
True, (p/P + p/P +...) = (n/N+n/N...) RT, however, if there is water where there usually isn't the n & p of water is > 0. Piping huge amounts of a green house gas to places that do not normally have it contributes to green house effects, I can't prove this-it’s both a definition and physics. Or as above, if you want me to site a reference for that particular area, well, I can understand that, almost, that's a classical argument, do different laws of physics need to be reproved under different circumstances? Sometimes other variables are involved, after all, but in this case, it is not reasonable to assume other extenuating circumstance, inconceivably large amounts of water are being put into arid environments all over the world. Let me counter-point and ask the gedunkin question; if the equivalent number of moles of CO2 were being released instaed of H2O would you still have the objection? Thanks all, if you still think something is amiss, I'll lock it down. GESICC ( talk) 04:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
Stephan-I agree water has a lifetime of days-if we turned off the spigot today, the effects might be gone tomorrow, but until the spigot is turned off, there is a constant source, so half-life simply contributes to the equilibrium of the local environ. Global Humidity may be remaining constant, but we are interested in the local effects of very warm areas, (the heat, because of the humidity scale, may be depressing humidity readings-?). This is also true of CO2; life-time in the environment is not germane so long as there are sources keeping the reaction to the left. [Subject change] Although I can no longer find references, the oceans used to be able to suck up all the CO2 man could hope to produce, not so much anymore, which is why I added a link to Dead Zones (ecology). (It’s ironic we discuss the effect of CO2 production of fossil fuels, more than we discuss the direct contribution of heat from fossil fuels (talk about your short lifetimes, but nobody is turning off the spigot!) try digging up a credible reference for that! Enough fossil fuels get burned every day to melt 400+ cubic meters of water-from waste heat alone!) GESICC ( talk) 20:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
CaC-Good bit of research, it is a short leap to evaporation from irrigation. Thanks. GESICC ( talk) 20:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)GESICC
NASA's image at Flickr, which is provided with an explanatory caption, might well be edited into this text. "Recently, NASA researchers discovered that incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation increased in the tropics from the 1980s to the 1990s." The NASA image, dated 2001, might be correlated with contemporary Bush administration public observations about global warming.-- Wetman ( talk) 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed this reference to a single paper for now. It was added today by Africangenesis. How well accepted is Wentz? Has it been replicated? Does the paper support the statement in which it is cited? -- TS 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Since when is peer review pubs, cited by other literature and not contradicted in 3 years insufficient?
Tony, please recall our discussion at [8]. My references meet the standards. The clique that had controlled this article drove me and many other good editors away. I read at wattsupwiththat that this problem might have been rectified. I hope you aren't continuing the problem. -- Africangenesis ( talk) 12:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I like Stephan Schulz's parsimonious summary of the paper, which is on the article now. [9] -- TS 12:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, other scientists are concerned about the implications of the Wentz results for the models. EOS stands for Earth Observations Systems, and is a weekly publication of the AGU. Articles probably have about the level of peer review as a conference paper. Lambert of the Hadley Center and Stine, Krakauer and Chiang of UC Berkely write: "Thus if GCMs do underestimate global precipitation changes, the simulation of other climate variables will be effected." Eos Vol 28 No. 21
In the same issue of Eos, Previdi and Liepert explain: "This non-radiative energy transfer takes primarily the form of latent and sensible heat fluxes with the latent heat flux being about 5 times larger than the sensible heat flux in the global mean. The latent heat flux from the surface to the troposphere is associated mainly with the evaporation of surface water. When this water condenses in the troposphere to form clouds and eventually precipitation, the troposphere heats up and then radiates this energy gain out to space. The radiative energy loss from the troposhere is equal to the energy heat gain at the surface. The global water cycle is therefore fundamentally a part of the global energy cycle and any changes in global mean precipitation and evaporation are consequently constrained by the energy budgets of the troposhere and surface."`-- Africangenesis ( talk) 14:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm only suggesting that we put back the qualification "may" into a reference to a single fairly recent and as yet unreplicated paper. In this decision I take into account the authors' own caveats which you yourself have clearly read, acknowledge and have understood. I don't think that is unreasonable. If you think similar qualifications should apply elsewhere in the article, make your case. Tasty monster (= TS ) 18:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you're giving me good critiques of the article as it stands at present, but I don't think you're convincing me that we should write about something because you say it is so. -- TS 23:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I made two edits yesterday on this article, my first edits on global warming since March, so I don't think I'm in danger of credibly being accused of exercising ownership.
I'm still in favor of restoring Stephan's "may have" qualification to the description of the singleton research paper which is the subject of this section. Africangenesis is raising interesting ideas, and I think we should write them up if they can be adequately sourced. First, though, if the relevant articles on climate modeling are out of date, we should improve them, then update this one to reflect their new content. -- TS 09:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This paper agrees that the precipitation observations are confirmed, and commences with the longer time frame apologia. [10]-- Africangenesis ( talk) 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Note to NuclearWarfare re your recent minor edit: the url is not pointless, even with a doi. It is an alternate way of getting there. Sometimes we have only one or the other, but having both is not to be despised. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Stephan, Are you quite sure that "any chemist can predict the continued ocean acidification." in light of the fact that CO2 has reduced soluability in the oceans as temperatures rise, and in light of the fact that there is still some uncertainty regarding sources and sinks of CO2? There is a reason these things are modeled and not just assumed. -- Africangenesis ( talk) 10:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The intro defines "global warming" as:
But the first graph shows warming from 1850 to present. Which period of global warming are we talking about? Or are we talking about global warming in general? If it's the latter, do we also need to talk about periods of global cooling?
I'd like this article to focus on the science of what makes earth's atmosphere get warmer (and cooler). There are both natural and anthropogenic causes.
I wish the article would explain in layman's terms the various theories (or the mainstream theory, if the other theories are too marginal to mention) of what has historically caused average terrestial near-surface air temperature to go up and down. I understand that ice cores shed some light on this. But I think there is scientific controversy over this (or maybe only political? it's hard to tell).
First of all, it would be good to tell whether carbon dioxide drives temperature or the other way around - or some combination. Is the science of this matter clearly understood? Is there a scientific consensus on it? Or is there a mainstream view, with enough dissent within the climate science community worth mentioning in the article?
Now please understand me. I've been warned (vaguely, but firmly) about jumping in. So I want to be very clear about the direction I think this article should take:
Fair enough? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
In reviewing this page, it is clear that only one POV is given. The only mention of serious concerns with the science of Global Warming is in a dismissive and marginalizing way. No mention of the comical errors and practices of the IPCC and it's methods is made. That needs to be presented early and honestly.
This is sad.
Is there anyone there to save Wikiperdia from the marginalization that will happen from this lack of balanced presentation?
If the goal is to be a reliable and authoritative resourse of information, than self interest, political bias, imbalanced and untrue information must be prevented or at least balanced with a complementary and thorough opposition POV.
Please begin to rebalance or clean this lop-sided article today.
If not, Wikipedia will not only continue to lose credibility but will become a joke to all but the most imbalanced and lop-sided researchers and a competitor will fill the gap and draw those who want truth and objectivity away.
Thanks-
Sean Deepsean666 ( talk) 02:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I do believe legitimate scientific journals should be referenced. I do not believe the request for "objectivity and accuracy" should be compared to Fox News "fair and balanced" and sumarily dismissed.
There is a tone, an approach taken throughout this article that anyone not saturated in the gospel can feel uncomfortable with.
My feedback is to discuss not the numerous scientific reports, journals and interlopers, but rather- a presentation of fact where it is not warrented and a thick smuggness in certainty of POV by writers
which is a turn-off and reinforces the opposing and growing POV that Global Warming is more a social agenda than fact based science.
For instance in the opening paragraph:
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century.[2][A] Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century has been caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which result from human activity such as the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation.[3] Global dimming, a result of increasing concentrations of atmospheric aerosols that block sunlight from reaching the surface, has partially countered the effects of warming induced by greenhouse gases.
The statement is not fact. It is not a law. It is a possible explanation of an observed phenomina. It should at least have a mention of this and be tied to the previous sentence. So accuracy and objectivity would have this sentence writen in such a way that it is clearly understood that it's an idea, a strong idea, a best explanaition so far identified by the IPCC. But it's not. To intelligent scientific and engineering or thoughtful minded people, it can leave a bad taste if not left open-minded, open for revision, open for growth and presented as a best idea. A scientific concensus and IPCC report does not make it fact. It makes it an accepted idea. Most turn out to be fact eventually, but many others have been long forgotten about and erased from memory and CVs.
My criticism is to improve the article. I utilize Wikipedia often. I want to read undistracted and learn, which I do most of the time. I don't want to start arguing with the material and it's writers. That's a bad sign. That's when I get into the editing discussions. It is challenging to present something you are passionate about objectively. This is a very important issue that has lost much momentum and credibility. Most of this I believe is due to the arrogance and oversight of it's proponents. The way back is not to wait until it blows over and be dismissive until then, but rather have some stones, look at it from anothers POV and readjust to acomodate.
Just some suggestions.
Deepsean666 ( talk) 22:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
As for whether it is a fact or an idea, it's both. The proportion of external forcing can be quantified (1.66±0.17 W/m2 with 90% confidence), which is fact. [11] Forcing can be thought of as causality, but it's much more complex than A→B because the climate cannot be directly experimented with. The "mainstream view" among scientist, however, remains yes (see prev. links). --CaC 155.99.231.56 ( talk) 04:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that the section regarding climate models needs some review at this point. In its current state, it avoids issues that are core to the underlying problematic. I will discuss a few points, but feel free to comment or add other ideas.
"The main tools for projecting future climate changes are mathematical models (...). Although they attempt to include as many processes as possible, simplifications of the actual climate system are inevitable because of the constraints of available computer power and limitations in knowledge of the climate system."
- Simplifications of the climate system in the models are inevitable first and foremost because there exists no mathematical equations for a cloud or for other physical processes. This issue is obscured by the current text.
- The issue of available computer power is irrelevant and should be removed. There are no scientific grounds to support that future computers will allow the development of climate models that do not need simplifications. Computer limitations in climate studies can be more correctly attributed to complexity issues rather than to a lack of power.
- Actually, there used to be a mention of the inherent
complexity of the underlying system as a cause for the need for simplifications, in lieu of "limitations in knowledge". I think the former was more accurate by far and should be re-introduced. Climate-related sciences cannot escape the fact that the object of their studies, i.e. the climate, is a complex system in the scientific sense, which has enormous implications with regard to modelling. Complexity science acknowledges it. See
[12] for a quick summary.
"The physical realism of models is tested by examining their ability to simulate current or past climates. Current climate models produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but do not simulate all aspects of climate."
- As stated these sentences are true but also obscure core issues, most importantly the fact that the ability to reproduce the past is not related to the ability to
predict the future.
--
Childhood's End (
talk)
19:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This is going to go the way of most discussions on verifiability, synthesis and the like. While I was out I browsed one or two articles on climate modeling using my tiny and not very powerful telephone. It looked to me as if those articles needed renovation. I would like to suggest that those who want to improve our coverage of climate models could do a lot worse than turn those from indifferent to middling articles into spectacularly good ones. Then we could summarise those articles in the section on modeling in this article. - TS 20:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Discovery of a critique suitable for WP of the accuracy of modeling of climate and of its extrapolation into the future, and of the value of more powerful computers in that effort is improbable. All one can accomplish is a general word of caution that isn't useful, especially if it is to buttress a general skepticism that amounts to suggesting that our best efforts to sort things out are so bad that we should abandon them and work from gut instincts alone. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of adding a hatnote to this section pointing to two articles on this subject that could benefit from expert improvement. -- TS 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The climate is a nonlinear dynamic system, and thus is chaotic. What we call the climate can be thought of as the attractor. The idea is to model the climate when perturbed by forcings and gather statistics to characterize how the attractor changes and find any tipping points. One of the reasons we don't have error ranges produced for the models based upon all the documented diagnostic issues, is that there is no way to analytically calculate them. It is a nonlinear system, any one of the errors might cause the climate to diverge from the actual climate of interest. Errors that may seem insignificant for the 20th century climate may grow in unpredictable ways as the climate changes. That is why the AR4 models that are known to under represent the negative feedback of the water cycle, under represent the positive surface albedo feedback, under represent the observed signature of the solar cycle, that get the tropical radiative imbalance wrong, and have cloud parameterization errors between two and three orders of magnitude larger than the 0.75W/m^2 energy imbalance of the 90s have credibility issues. That doesn't mean they are useless over all, they have produced qualitative insights, subsequently confirmed by observations. Quantitatively, they are not yet ready for a phenomenon as small as the recent warming with only 3 or so decades of quality data to constrain, and validate them.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 16:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This statement is false:
The first reference reports that the solar forcing is positive. What do y'all propose, especially those of you who have reverted?-- Africangenesis ( talk) 01:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It refers to the change over the last 250 years. Not in the last half century. It is currently at at the lowest point since the late 1940s (Steinhilber, F., J. Beer, and C. Fröhlich. 2009., ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/steinhilber2009tsi.txt) and the overall trend since 1950s is *down*. I actually ran the regressions."The positive forcing figure contradicts that."
The IPCC claims a small positive forcing not cooling for the latter half of the century.
Over particularly the 1950 to 2005 period, the combined natural forcing has been either negative or slightly positive (less than approximately 0.2 W m–2), reaffirming and extending the conclusions in the TAR. Therefore, it is exceptionally unlikely that natural RFs could have contributed a positive RF of comparable magnitude to the combined anthropogenic RF term over the period 1950 to 2005 (Figure 2.23)
Chapter 9 acknowledges a small possibility that the warming since 1950 is mostly due to solar
This text, also from chapter 9, explicitly discusses as a "delay", the lag in warming response due to aerosols:
"changes in solar forcing can potentially explain only a small fraction of the observationally based estimates of the increase in ocean heat content".
User "K" was the first one to apparently mis-understand the IPCC quote and transition solar from warming to cooling in the article. [15]. I will post a notice on his page, giving him an opportunity to provide a citation.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 19:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Evidently you didn't notice that the sentence immediately preceding the "small positive forcing" also referenced the second half of the 20th century and the figure which starts from 1850:
“ | Precipitation increased proportional to atmospheric humidity, and hence 2 to 3 times faster than the IPCC FAR models predicted. | ” |
Problem is FAR usually refers to First Assessment Report, which was three editions ago in 1990. I think the sentence refers to Fourth Assessment Report (usually abbreviated AR4 rather than FAR), which was published in 2007. Secondly, the IPCC itself doesn't make predictions, it reviews and assess them. So "faster than IPCC FAR models predicted" should be "faster than models reviewed in AR4". --CaC 155.99.230.161 ( talk) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
October 23, 2010 The graph of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations on the right hand side of the opening page is misleading in several ways:
JonathanQuick ( talk) 05:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This article repeats the idea that CO2 residence time is of the order of a hundered years or so but other papers say this not so. See this paper and the supporting cites: "Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide" R.H. Essenhigh* Energy Fuels, 2009, 23 (5), pp 2773–2784. The statement of residence time therefore needs correction -right? MarkC ( talk) 10:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. For perturbation of an equilibrium, the rate of return is the _sum_ of the forward and back rates. Since the CO2 record shows the seasonal variation the equilibrium time (1/e) cannot be ~100 years. To dismiss a paper and others it cited just because of the title of the Journal title is not scientific nor objective is it? On the other hand, an exponential never returns, so scientists don't characterize the return except in terms of the time const. or half time etc. Thus a 5 year time constant will reach 1- (1/e)^20 of its final value in one hundred years but what's the point of that figure, it's most misleading. Surely we could do with some better description of the assumptions that go into such an estimate or else say there's controversy? Cheers 125.237.187.133 ( talk) 12:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[8][9][10][B] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues."
By omission this gives the impression that the scientific debate is not continuing, and that those engaging in the political and public debates are being obstinate or at least merely political and unscientific. The continuing scientific debate demonstrates where the true scientific consensus is. The debate generally concedes that the direct effects of CO2 can explain about 30% of the recent warming, and would result in a warming of about 1 to 1.1 degrees C for both a CO2 doubling. Any greater attribution of the recent warming to CO2 and projections of greater warming require significant net positive feedbacks to CO2 in the current climate regime. Whether the net feedbacks are as positive as is implemented in the models, or are small or even negative is in dispute. If the feedbacks are small or negative, then most of the recent warming is due to other causes, internal climate variation (the PDO and NAO were in positive phases during the recent warming), other natural forcings such as solar (higher than average levels of activity during the latter half of the century and poorly understood), anthropogenic aerosols (poorly understood and quantified), anthopogenic black carbon (becoming better quantified and appreciated since the IPCC FAR). The small direct effect of CO2 forcing absent significant positive net feedback, is smaller than natural variation, and despite the fact the climate is perturbed in a warmer direction, the actual global temperature in a decade 100 years form now may actually be cooler. Thus all the extreme projections, concerns and proposed actions for the future are in dispute. That is the true climate consensus. Too bad we can't get it into the article in a form that describes the consensus and then presents the evidence on each side of the scientific dispute and the implications of each.
In any case, the "nevertheless" is POV. I am open to other compromise language, that the simplistic one that I proposed.-- Africangenesis ( talk) 12:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, this is the alternative wording which was among my changes which Stephan reverted and apparently objected to. The only change was "Nevertheless", to "Scientific".
-- Africangenesis ( talk) 12:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It's interesting that this 26 year old technical paper is "news". Would you be quoting it if it didn't offer a criticism of climate change models as they existed circa 1984? In any case, this is not the place to debate climate change. There was more debate in 1984 than there is today, because the evidence keeps getting stronger and stronger. References should be current. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please link that source, and demonstrate why it shows that there's current scientific debate about whether GW is occurring? Thanks. Jess talk| edits 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
can i suggest something like "The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, however there is continual scientific study t better undersand the matter. political and public debate continues." i think it would be helpful if you were all a little more accomodating. and africangenesis usually if you provide good references no one argues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinchsmate ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I've removed a link to a copy of a 1951 article on the sea's influence on the climate. It appears to be an extract from Rachel Carson's book
The Sea Around Us. Perhaps it would be useful linked from the article about the book, and conceivably it might be useful in a general history of climate science, but in this article I think it's little better than linkspam.
Tasty monster (=
TS )
10:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Global_warming#Politics needs clarification to Kyoto Protocol which will be expired soon, see Group of Two for example. New Protocols are in the works, such as from the Geoengineering article and Convention on Biological Diversity article relating to the Nagoya Protocol. 209.255.78.138 ( talk) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Just as a heads-up, the Pearls Before Swine strip for November 18, 2010, features Rat editing the Global warming article to say that "jumping off your roof while imitating one of The Three Stooges is a good way to curb carbon emissions." Based on previous encounters between PBS fans and Wikipedia, this article could use a spot of extra attention for the next few days. - Dravecky ( talk) 07:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
why was the global warming is so much concern and why was it not mention in the 80's and the 90's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.222.128.250 ( talk) 02:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It was, it was called the greenhouse effect then. Climate change is the third name given to these phenomena, AGW is the most recent and the coolest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.97.225 ( talk) 10:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do the global warming / climate change folks point to sea level rise as proof when the Wikipedia "Sea Level Rise" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise shows a steady trend? This leads me to believe that the sea level rise information (graphs) in the climate change articles is presented in a way that shows bias. There are two graphs shown on Wikipedia's Sea Level Rise page... please add another higher quality graph showing the same data over the last 10 to 20 years. And add higher quality graphics and a legend showing all the individual data lines from each station. Then I can make a more informed view from data that isn't so skewed by bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.177.129 ( talk) 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the most common evidence for temperature rice is the temperature records. That is probably why this article or the article climate change doesn't include any graphs of the current sea level rice. You can however find the satelite data of the last 17 year sealevel here http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php ScientificStandard ( talk) 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the intrusion but this seem like a reasonable place to find directions to science regarding what the ideal temperature is for life on earth and how that is determined and is it sustainable in light of geologic record. It seems relevant if humans are going to embark on massive geoengineering either through carbon brokers or mitigation. And if possible, any sources of information on how humans may adapt when (not if) we encounter the next Little or Great Ice Age. This is not, I repeat, not POV. They are questions that I would honestly like to know the answer to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multiperspective ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See FAQ Q4. -- TS 13:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Could we include this reference in the article:
http://theweek.com/article/index/210181/irony-alert-the-unusually-chilly-global-warming-summit
"As negotiators from nearly 200 countries met in Cancun to strategize ways to keep the planet from getting hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F."
SuzBenson ( talk) 04:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
It was making a point. Few doubt that we went through a hot spell but many in Europe now believe we are entering a cold spell with poor summers for the last four years and increasingly bad winters with record cold temperatures in some countries like Britain. ( Cyberia3 ( talk) 00:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC))
Back in January of this year, I proposed the following change to the Global Warming Article. At the time, it was swept under the carpet despite a significant level of support from other Wikipedia editors who are blocked from making edits to the Article. I would like to re-propose this edit in light of my previous suggestion that we allow Skeptical perspectives to be included in the article:
Begin Proposal
Global warming is a scientific theory that became popular in the 1980s to explain the observed increase in global temperature. The theory was proposed as a human-caused phenomenon, and is often referred to as Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW). Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. However, the most recent decade has seen temperature declines in North America, Australia, and Europe. As a result, the controversy over human-caused global warming has increased. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The University of East Anglia, the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of other education and governmental institutions have recently come under increased scrutiny as revelations of missing source data and allegations of fraud revealed in the "Climategate" scandal have called some of the fundamental assumptions made by leading AGW scientists into doubt. Sources to cite:
Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing N. American temperatures over the last decade:
Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing European temperatures over the last 8 years (Compare Seasonal Averages):
Source to cite to substantiate the fact of decreasing Australian temperatures over the last decade:
Sources to substantiate the fact of increasing public scrutiny:
Sources to cite to substantiate the initiation of fraud investigations:
Add Sections for:
Leaked emails have surfaced showing leading proponents of AGW theory to have manipulated data and taken actions to destroy raw data in an effort to thwart Freedom of Information Act Mcoers ( talk) 05:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, Climategate can't be used like that because the scientists have been cleared of scientific misconduct multiple times by the reports that were commissioned into the matter. Also, I was under the impression that (depending on which temperature chart you favour) that this year is going to be either the equal hottest or equal second hottest on record globally, so unless I've got that wrong, there can hardly be any justification that the temperature is declining. Hitthat ( talk) 07:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Mcoers ( talk) 13:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, Climategate can and should be used "like that" because the emails that were disclosed clearly show these scientists colluding to avoid compliance with FOIA requests to see their source data. In fact, no one has seen their source data. The only way they can come to the conclusions they do (like your mention of this being the "hottest" year on record - which it isn't) is by modifying the source data - I think the word they use is to "cleanse it". Well, the whole point of peer-review is that the peer must have access to the same data and be able to reproduce the result.
Since they've obliterated the ability to do that, I think it is reasonable to include the fact that the information is unverifiable. Mcoers ( talk) 14:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Cornice, for taking the time and effort to give an patient, informed, and reasoned answer. It is ironic that those who hold absolute beliefs contrary to fact accuse others of not listening. It is the global warming deniers who reflexively reject all data they don't like, and uncritically accept anything that seems to support their view. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You've begun a thread on the conflict of interests noticeboard. If you're here to talk about people's motivation, keep it there. I have no reason to reply to what you have to say here.
Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is policy. The primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia is through consensus (see WP:CON). Your text so far have failed either undue weight or original research. You do not have consensus. Unless you present references and text that satisfy undue weight and no original research, there doesn't need to be discussion. 67.190.48.91 ( talk) 09:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Your geology professor isn't wrong to believe it's not human-induced, but something on your part is that I don't think you're seeing the whole picture. There is less agreement that "temperates have risen due to human activity" than simply "temperatures have increased". 82% instead of 90%. [28] Good luck on you research topic. If you're here to look for a balanced view, I have an paper you might find interesting. The previous links are just to show that I'm not BSing you, which turns out to be a problem here in that people place opinions before reliable sources. The paper is " Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press". 174.52.224.148 ( talk) 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, you've only really asked one question. Stephan's a good man, his explanation of how climate is a lot more concrete. I would of just told you that climate is "average weather" and you could discount annual fluctuations; and as our knowledge grows it's essentially stochastic processes. Look, it sounds like you've got a lot of reading to do. Do you want me to point to you a couple of books to get you started? 174.52.224.148 ( talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It is time the first paragraph had a makeover because it really doesn't reflect the current status of issue, is difficult to read and really doesn't describe the scope of the article. May I suggest:-
Global warming (also known as as Anthropomorphic Global Warming or AGW) is the theory that human activity, particularly the emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, caused an apparent increase in average global surface temperature of 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century, and that further emissions will result in more warming. The concern over global warming started in the 1980s. When measured global temperature increased dramatically during the late 20th century, public concern rose until in ???? it was described as “the most important problem facing mankind”. This issue has generated much heated public debate, notably: the level of predicted temperature rise; the relative contributions of natural and man-made factors, and suggested future consequences of further emissions such as the predicted rate of sea level rise. Isonomia ( talk)
Mcoers- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html enter the period of interest from 1900 to 2010 and notice the trend. Ninahexan ( talk) 06:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTFORUM | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it." http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/557597/201012221907/The-Abiding-Faith-Of-Warm-ongers.htm But since wikipedia is a leftist website, there is no chance that this non-falsifiable theory of Global Warming will receive adequate counter-argument in its propaganda article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 ( talk) 08:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Science is not democratic. If fifty million people believe that the earth is flat, the wikipedia article should still state that the earth is round. Read the FAQs at the beginning of the article. The number of scientists who deny global warming is decreasing, not increasing. The evidence for global warming is increasing, not decreasing. The science behind global warming has been well understood for more than seventy years. The vast majority of people who provide talking points against global warming are politically or economically motivated and couldn't solve a freshman calculus problem to save their lives. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Rick Norwood, please try to keep a cool head. Also, Science is not Wikipedia. If 50 million people believed the earth was flat, it should be included in the article of Earth. Not because it is "right" or "wrong", but because it is believed. The amount of information about it, though, is limited by the inforcment of the Undue Weight rule. WikIpedia articles should have a NPOV, as you should know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar123abc ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how the (easy) question of falsifiability of global warming is any different from the question of how other scientific theories are falsifiable. All that would be necessary is to show that ten year average temperatures have not gone up but rather have gone down or stayed the same, or that CO2 levels have not risen, that the oceans are not rising and becoming more acidic, that the ice cap is not melting, that CO2 is actually transparent to infrared, or that burning fossil fuels does not produce CO2. Any one of these would "falsify" global warming. None are at all likely, but they could happen if the global warming deniers were correct. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Please see WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
One such programme dealt, I think, with the International Geophysical Year. On the programme there were two photographs shown of a Swiss glacier. The much earlier photograph showed a more substantial glacier than then existed. The reduction is size was very clearly obvious. An even earlier reference was mentioned in the 1950s national press and I think quoted in some school text books. There had been a 1920/30s expediton, using a submarine, to the Artic and the late 1950s charts were showing considerably less ice than had been present in the 1920 and 30s. The indications of global warming seem to have been around for some time. AT Kunene ( talk) 13:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The point is that the conservative meme that global warming is a recent invention is clearly false. Rick Norwood ( talk) 12:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
|
I've reverted this change, which at first sight seems to be a sensible normalization of language to make it consistent, because on examination the word "average" in the sentence refers to a different kind of mathematical entity from that referred to here as the mean. The use of different words here helps to cue the reader to that fact.
The entity referred to here as "global mean surface temperature difference" is the variable being plotted by year, but the quantity referred to as "the 1961–1990 average" is a baseline scalar constant which is subtracted from the global mean temperature to obtain the anomaly which is plotted. It is a mean-of-means, if you like, or rather a mean over the range 1961-1990 versus a mean over the range of each year. -- TS 01:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Every now and then I check back to this article to see if the "Editors" have allowed any skeptical information to creep into the article. Unfortunately, this article is still lacking any serious acknowledgment of the skeptical perspective.
The only times the skeptical perspective is even mentioned it is at the end of the article and couched in the fact that skeptical scientists are "funded" by the oil industry. Well, they aren't ALL funded by the oil industry. And sadly, there is no mention of the fact that many of the advocates' funding comes from government sources that would benefit from increasing regulation on energy production.
In the past, I have suggested that the folks who have editorial control over this page would be more intellectually honest if they would include a prominent skeptic who could negotiate a more balanced perspective. My suggestions were deleted by some ambitious editor. I suppose it was vandalism of some sort.
So, here I am again, pushing the idea of AT LEAST INCLUDING someone from the skeptical side of the aisle who could provide proper balance. I mean, are you people so threatened that you can't even listen to the other side?
Now, there is plenty of precedence on Wikipedia for including alternate perspectives in the presentation of controversial subjects (even when the alternate view has it's own article). Some examples:
I propose that the Global Warming article would be stronger if skeptical perspectives were given proper treatment. Unfortunately, I expect that some "editor" will simple delete this suggestion as irrelevant. And of course, that would be dishonest. Mcoers ( talk) 04:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
COMPLEXITY ISSUES - - Another area of concern that should be addressed is the very complex nature of the issue. The issue is not an either/or issue, yet too often climate change is presented as if it were, and that people should support one position or the other. The truth is not just a question of whether climate change is happening, but several other questions, such as: - - How severe is the climate change, if any? - What part do humans play in climate change? - How important is CO2 in affecting climate change? - Whether the other influences on climate, such as the sun's variability, outweigh the impact of human actions. - - The economic costs of climate change - Whether the effort to prevent climate change is possible, or desirable. - The economic costs of trying to mitigate or prevent climate change. - Whether CO2 is a pollutant, it being a natural substance useful to plants. - - Scientists no doubt would add many other aspects to this list. - - It seems likely that the debate on climate change is a "false dichotomy", in which many people seem to demand people choose either/or, rather than recognizing that there is a multiplicity of possibilities that are not clear cut, and which, therefore, do not allow for an easy solution, even if one is desired. - - The costs of trying to prevent climate change, for example, could be disastrous to poor countries, just as some claim that climate change itself is disastrous to such countries. - - Some have also pointed out that humans have generally been better off in warmer climates rather than colder (due to the impact on crops, etc.) - Higher temperatures might cause problems for some areas, while opening huge areas for growing crops, such as in Canada and Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.25 ( talk) 12:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Since global warming is a long term change in the ten year average, looking at one particular decade would show nothing about global warming one way or the other. Look at the graph. The yearly averages go up and down, the ten year averages go up and up. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
COMPLEXITY ISSUES
Another area of concern that should be addressed is the very complex nature of the issue. It is not just a question of whether climate change is happening, but several other questions, such as:
How severe is the climate change, if any? What part do humans play in climate change? How important is CO2 in affecting climate change? Whether the other influences on climate, such as the sun's variability, outweigh the impact of human actions.
The economic costs of climate change Whether the effort to prevent climate change is possible, or desirable. The economic costs of trying to mitigate or prevent climate change. Whether CO2 is a pollutant, it being a natural substance useful to plants.
Scientists no doubt would add many other aspects to this list.
It seems likely that the debate on climate change is a "false dichotomy", in which many people seem to demand people choose either/or, rather than recognizing that there is a multiplicity of possibilities that are not clear cut, and which, therefore, do not allow for an easy solution, even if one is desired.
The costs of trying to prevent climate change, for example, could be disastrous to poor countries, just as some claim that climate change itself is disastrous to such countries.
Some have also pointed out that humans have generally been better off in warmer climates rather than colder (due to the impact on crops, etc.) Higher temperatures might cause problems for some areas, while opening huge areas for growing crops, such as in Canada and Russia.
W —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.169.72.25 (
talk)
12:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest the wikipedia articles for 'climate change', 'global warming', etc. are in need of re-organising and re-writing in order to give the most accurate, impartial definitions of the terms according to common international usage. It is apparent to me that the definitions of climate change and global warming currently used in wikipedia have been overly influenced by contrarians in the debate. This is further evidenced by the comments in this discussion page on a 'fairer representation of the skeptical side'.
This article in the guardian gives a far clearer explanation of the term 'climate change' and 'global warming':
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/21/what-is-climate-change
"Any process that causes adjustments to a climate system – from a volcanic eruption to a cyclical change in solar activity – could be described as creating "climate change".
Today, however, the phrase is most often used as shorthand for anthropogenic climate change – in other words, climate change caused by humans. The principal way in which humans are understood to be affecting the climate is through the release of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the air.
Climate change is used interchangeably with another phrase – "global warming" – reflecting the strong warming trend that scientists have observed over the past century or so. Strictly speaking, however, climate change is a more accurate phrase than global warming, not least because rising temperatures can cause a host of other climatic impacts, such as changes in rainfall patterns."
Please could people respond if the agree or disagree? ( 86.152.178.230 ( talk) 15:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC))
Here's some reading relevant to this debate:
- nasa article on why they use climate change on their website rather than global warming http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
- this article and study suggests that using 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' could negatively affect public perceptions of the issue. It notes that conservative strategist Frank Luntz also thought that switching terms from "global warming" to "climate change" would be an effective way for climate skeptics to downplay the urgency of the issue. Personally I don't agree with their interpretation. Cases where local temperatures don't increase tend to get interpreted, by certain politicians and sections of the media at least, as evidence against global warming, particularly the recent cold winters in Europe and US. I have noticed so called 'skeptics' trying to capitalise on this on many occasions.
- this study suggests the two terms are rated more or less equally in terms of their importance: http://woods.stanford.edu/docs/surveys/gw-language-choices.pdf (notes that this is contrary to Luntz interpretation)
- this study suggest that the two terms usage depends on politcal positioning, but suggests that recently 'climate change' is used more by democrats and 'global warming' by republicans http://sitemaker.umich.edu/jschuldt/files/schuldt__konrath____schwarz__in_press__poq_.pdf
I suppose there are various issues around the psychological responses the terms tend to elicit in the lay audience, and around the history of the politicisation of the two terms (particularly in the US) and how this interacts with public interpretation. However, I still maintain though that 'climate change' is both more accurate and useful. I would be interested to hear others' opinions. I hope people don't think I am wasting time and energy. I think this debate is worth having, and is certainly relevant to these articles. 217.43.25.223 ( talk) 13:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to agree with the line of reasoning. If you want to change this, you need be a whole lot more convincing than either GW and CC has been used interchangeably or CC is a more accurate term than GW. The level that would convince me is if (1) the majority of dictionary and etymology resources agree that CC and GW are synonymous or CC is a more accurate term than GW, and (2) the change in public usage of CC and GW is ubiquitous with CC or GW as the most common name. So far, dictionaries reflect the current usage on Wikipedia, [32] [33] and it is not apparently clear that the common name of GW is CC or vise-versa. 155.99.230.82 ( talk) 02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
All this aside, do you have a proposal providing a specific piece of text to add, removed, or change? It's nice to argue abstracts, but if you're really inclined to not "want to waste peoples' time". Then an actual proposal leading to an edit to the article would be better than a request about something you believe. 155.99.230.140 ( talk)
I would think "climate change" has to be considered a better/more accurate term, given that even proponents of the "global warming" theory state that global warming can actually cause cooling in certain circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.25 ( talk) 12:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
After a discussion on Stephan Schulz' talk page, I have made some revisions to a previous edit of mine and moved it here for further debate. The current text of this section is as follows. The proposed addition to this section is underlined.
The ARC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank (as is the Competitive Enterprise Institute discussed in the preceding sentence), and an arm of the larger Ayn Rand Institute. Dr. Keith Lockitch, the author of the article in question, is a fellow at the ARC who has written numerous press releases and articles on the organization's behalf [34]. Being as this paragraph in the article is about the stances of libertarian think tanks and free-enterprise institutes, I think this addition is both context-appropriate and notable. There are, however, as discussed on Stephan's page, some questions about which organization this article should be attributed to. The article was written by (as seen on Page 2), and is currently hosted on, the ARC's Web site, but was printed in Energy and Environment. Thoughts? » S0CO( talk| contribs) 20:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The essential difference between science and other ways of acquiring knowledge is that scientists spend at least as much time trying to disprove their own ideas as they do trying to prove them. They know that their ideas will not stand up to replication if they are flawed. Taking Global Warming as an example, in the decades since the idea was generally accepted, if there had been a decline in ten year average temperatures, it would have been back to the old drawing board. But average temperatures continue to rise.
The ARI, in contrast, has already made up its mind. It is not interested in putting Objectivism to the test. Instead, it puts facts to the test, and if the facts contradict Objectivism, then it argues against the facts instead of modifying its beliefs to fit new data. It is not a good source for scientific opinion. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Detusche Bank is not a primary source. Only science published in refereed journals is a primary source. Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
CurtisSwain: I was responding to SOCO just above my previous post, who seemed to think Detusche Bank was being quoted as a primary source. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The article primary source gives a good definition. In the case of global warming, a primary source is a published, refereed paper by a climate scientist. An article in a journal reporting what the scientists published is a secondary source. So is a book or textbook by an expert which summarizes the published literature. An encyclopedia article which summarizes what the secondary sources report is a tertiary source. Wikipedia usually uses reliable secondary sources, and is itself a tertiary source. Commentary is not a "source" at all -- except that commentary by Joe Smith is a primary source on what Joe Smith has written. It belongs in the "Joe Smith" article. When a subject such as global warming becomes so controversial that Wikipedia has a second article on the controversy, what Joe Smith says becomes a primary source for that article, and commentary by knowledgeable people on Joe Smith's views becomes a secondary source for that article. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. [Emphasis added]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here is a thought-provoking article from Quadrant (2009) on the thermodynamics of the alleged greenhouse-gas effect. It raises some very serious questions as to whether the theorized energy-transfers from atmosphere to ocean by way of atmospheric CO2 are even feasible, given the relative masses and specific-heats of the two fluids. -Does anyone have any thoughts on this? -- Anteaus ( talk) 15:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Surely it is time the following quote was included:
This is an important quote right from those in the CRU at the heart of climategate and sums up the way the "scientists" have been involved in spreading alarmist views that failed to materialise. I propose a new section providing a critical analysis of these claims to include the above quote. Isonomia ( talk) 18:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Around 4 years ago I mentioned the lack of cooling and I was told it had to be 10 years of cooling to get into the article. Well now we have a full decade of cooling and/or no warming and with January 2011 just about falling off the scale, it doesn't look likely we'll get any warming soon. We are now well below the IPCC prediction of 1.4-5.8C warming per decade, there's not a global warmist model that predicted this period of cooling. When will this article be brought up to date? Isonomia ( talk) 18:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Given that most of the Earth is ocean, I wouldn't use instrumental data as a measure of global temperature. And you always have to wonder what Hansen is up to. But 2010 was the second warmest year on record, according to both the radiosonde and satellite data. It's behind only 1998, the year of the El Niño spike. Kauffner ( talk) 03:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I've moved this section "Rain" here from the "Attributed and expected effects" section because I think the sourcing is a bit hit-and-miss by our normal standards on this article:
Softpedia? Don't think so. The other two links are to abstracts, one from a 2008 AGU paper and the other from a 2008 letter to Nature. Our other attribution sections are referenced to the heavily reviewed IPCC AR4, so this looks a bit too much like cherry picking for my taste. -- TS 15:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I would think that the best source would be a reference work that specializes in science like Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. Their article on "global warming" certainly takes a more balanced view than this one does, which takes the "hockey stick" interpretation at face value and contains no hint that there has ever been any controversy about it. Currently, the references are overwhelmingly to primary sources. This is quite problematic since thousands of scientific papers have been published on this subject and they often express divergent views. Kauffner ( talk) 06:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It sounds a bit odd to hear somebody promoting a mere encyclopedia in preference to our multiple authoritative sources. I remember Lar and I looked at the Britannica once to determine whether there was any imbalance in our coverage. His view was that there was, but I couldn't see it. Our coverage over the whole encyclopedia was huge compared to Britannica which barely mentioned alternative views at all. Searching Britannica for the names of prominent skeptical scientists, for instance, drew a blank. I'd be frankly surprised to see any significant difference in Van Nostrand's coverage, but perhaps somebody might want to raise concrete examples from that book and we'll see where we can go with this. -- TS 14:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
On the off chance that anyone still thinks Van Nostrand's is some sort of second-rate source, I'd like to note that it has been cited by the federal courts on at least 46 occasions and was even described as an "authoritative reference work" by the U.S. Court of International Trade in the case of Digital Equipment Corporation vs. U.S. (1988). It was cited by the Supreme Court of the United States in Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. NRDC (1983). Kauffner ( talk) 12:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. ( WP:DUE)
where is the criticism about the nonexistance of global warming from many scientists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.69.205 ( talk) 15:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The sea surface temperature article has been revamped due to improvements made in the numerical weather prediction article. When doing a web search, I ran across the wikipedia article regarding satellite temperature measurements, so I started incorporating some of the SST article information into it. After I noticed the article structure, I was initially confused. A cursory review of the article shows that its content goes well beyond its name. It looks strongly linked to this article, and even mentions information you would not expect to be involved in an article with its name. My question is: Should that article be renamed, something like Satellite temperature measurements (climate change), or should the information within the article be aligned with its current title? If so, the order of the article would need to be flipped, surface information/SST first (since that's where we all live and that information was first available via satellites, so it makes sense chronologically as well) with a decent amount of material eliminated since it goes beyond the scope of its title. Thoughts? Thegreatdr ( talk) 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
The dramatic degree to which industrial development under capitalism has reduced the risk of harm from severe climate events in the industrialized world is significantly under-appreciated in the climate debate. Consequently, so too is the degree to which green climate and energy policies would undermine the protection that industrial capitalism affords—by interfering with individual freedoms, distorting market forces, and impeding continued industrial development and economic growth. The effect of such policies would, ironically, be a worsening of overall vulnerability to climate.
DB Climate Change Advisors is the brand name for the institutional climate change investment division of Deutsche Asset Management, the asset management arm of Deutsche Bank AG.
The planet is warming and it is likely to continue to warm as a consequence of increased greenhouse gas emissions.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)