This page 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.

I think this entry is superfluous; the political aspects of anthropogenic global warming are just about identical to the political aspects of all (man+nature) global warming, since we can't do anything about natural global warming. A better place might be with greenhouse gases. --TheCunctator

I also find it somewhat confusing; the Democratic party is said to consider anthropogenic global warming a huge threat, but then it goes on to describe how not a single Democrat politician supported the Kyoto protocols. And then there's that odd reference to Enron. I don't know if this article is biased in any particular direction, but it feels that way somehow. To make you feel better, very few politicians supported Kyoto initially, regardless of being right or left.

Responding to the unsigned paragraph above

1. Democratic support and non-support is puzzling (but real). Perhaps there is a political strategy involved. I'm not sure whether we should analyze and comment on the Clinton Administration's strategy, but the 95-0 Senate vote is a fact and should be reported.

I'm glad the bit about Enron came out: it was only breaking news, and really of a political or financial nature. This article should be scientific.

Ed Poor

This article seems to be totally focused on the US political aspects of an international issue, and in any case, if every single Democrat voted against the Kyoto protocols, then it is clearly not the case that "the Democratic Party" supports it. I think this article gives the Democrats much more credit for being progressive and pro-environment on this issue than they deserve. soulpatch

Ah, but the Democrats didn't vote against it. The treaty never was submitted to the Senate for ratification. What was actually voted was a resolution -- not the treaty itself. If you check around, you'll see that Democrats are adamant supporters of the treaty, ratified or not. Go and talk to some people, or check out campaign literature or visit some websites. Or dip into Gore's Earth in the Balance. But you're right about the "more credit...than they deserve"; I think they only rode the issue to get votes in 2000. -- Ed Poor

My understanding is that those who opposed the treaty, held that position partly because of China and India (and their rapidly growing economies) are excluded and because of widespread emissions trading. Brian Pearson 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Editors who question "The science working group of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) recognizes that the climate models in the IPCC Second and Third Assessment Reports are seriously flawed." should read the Executive Summary in the IPCC Scientific basis document about physical climate processes [1]. -- SEWilco 16:26, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The UN created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization which aims to be objective, but its opponents assert that it has misrepresented scientific reports because of political pressure. The IPCC says its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. [2]

SEPP, an organization which claims to be non-partisan [3], presents a number of objections to interpretation of the available data on global warming. In particular, they point out that temperature measurements from weather balloons show no warming whatsoever in the 1979 to 1996 period when land-based thermometers show record-breaking rises (they won't tell you that the longer-term balloon record from 1958 matches the land-based record well). Also, they present evidence that rising temperatures cause sea level to fall (not rise, as orthodox global warming theory predicts) although this is widely disbelieved. However, the oil corporation ExxonMobil is one of SEPP's sponsors.

I don't think the above 2 paragraphs are really relevant to the Anthropogenic global warming article. But where should they go? William, Martin, Eloquence, SEWilco, what do you think?

( William M. Connolley 19:27, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)) In some logical world, this page would hold the anthro aspects of GW. But in fact the GW page has most of the stuff, because you can't separate the two (ie, you can't quantify the anthro without some idea of the natural; and vice versa). So this page is doomed to be an orphan. Perhaps it should be reduced further.

( SEWilco 20:37, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I agree. At the moment it (and anthropogenic global cooling) should just state the definition of the term and direct people to global warming for details of all the issues. When the anthro effects can be identified, they can be described here.

If " global warming" means not just any period in which the air temperature went up, but "the theory that emissions have been heating the air too much" -- then anthropogenic GW isn't really a separate article.

I propose the following division of articles:

articles about how warm or cool the air has been

• global temperature record -- multiple articles, this link might be wrong
• Little Ice Age -- a long cold spell
• Medieval Climate Optimum -- put the "green" in Greenland

articles about what cause the air to heat up or cool down

• urban heat island -- cities keep getting bigger and hotter
• solar variability -- more light, more heat?
• global warming hypothesis -- CO2 makes the air heat up too much

The above list is not complete, so let's work on it together. -- Uncle Ed 16:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

( William M. Connolley 17:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)) OK, if you haven't seen it already it would be worth you looking at: User:William_M._Connolley/Wiki_pages_related_to_climate_change which is my classification of what we have now.

What you are proposing for surface air temperature (at least, you recently created sat, so I presume you had some use for it... not glob t rec) is already covered in historical temperature record. Its not clear why you want a new page - see my message on your talk page. Following on from that is t-rec-of-the-last 1000 years. Etc etc. Errrm... anyway, you clearly haven't looked through what we have yet. *This* current page is about attribution, which is not covered anywhere else. Arguably it should be renamed, but not merged. A lot of the v old talk above should be archived: it talks about a page that no longer exists.

Yer right, boss. Our conversations are getting scattered all over the place. But since we are working together, that's okay. We seem to find each other's scattered comments okay.

I hadn't seen your classification scheme, so obviously my little attempt is amateurish. But hey, what can I say? I always read the Amateur Scientist section of Scientific American, and now I'm an amateur journalist! -- Uncle Ed

( William M. Connolley 18:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)) AFAIK the solar/cosmic-ray climate connection is all up in the air at the moment. There are various theories and mechanisms, none command any wide acceptance. I've qualified S's recent addition to reflect that viewpoint. Presenting that paper in science as the-state-of-the-debate would be wrong.

Probably, that stuff is worth its own page: there is a lot of it, far more than just the science paper, and it can't all go on this page.

Please read the new articles and consider commenting on them and/or moving some material to either one. Note that climate forcings is not specific to global climate forcings, so if it makes sense to create a separate section please do.

I hope this helps get this part of Wikipedia sorted out.

Posted to all discussion pages listed in the "See Also" section of global climate change. -- Ben 03:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

( William M. Connolley 20:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I consider the Njau refs somewhat desparate. Renewable energy isn't a climate journal. The 1999 paper has been cited 7 times... all by Njau. Never by anyone else. The abstract [4] is gobbledegook. In 1999 Njau published 5 other papers - all in Renewable energy (actually one other, in the well known Nuovo Cimento. Only he has ever cited it). One of them has never been cited by anyone, even him. Of the other 4, only one has ever been cited by anyone but Njau, and that only once. He is clearly a minor author peddling his pet theories, but no-one is listening.

The 2005 paper hasn't been published yet - at least Elsevier lists it for april [5] so I don't think it should be in there. It contains 17 refs... 9 of which are to his own papers. Reading the abstract for that paper it is clear why its published in such a minor journal - its clearly dubious stuff.

Here's an example of the sort of rubbish he is writing:

A previous publication by the author predicted that global temperature patterns will switch from the sinusoidal (amplitude-modulation) state into which it has been since 1944 into a node-antinode (amplitude-modulation) state somewhere over the 1997-2012 period. Here we present record-backed evidence which shows that the state change just mentioned is apparently in the process of starting up. By its very nature, this imminent (node-antinode) state is expected to make global temperature vary significantly above and below a common mean which itself may be approximately constant or may at certain times undergo relatively slow drifts. Furthermore we present a historical example in which records of temperature-sensitive indicators show that at least some regional temperature patterns have at least once switched from the sinusoidal (amplitude-modulation) state to the node-antinode state under global climate conditions that were fairly similar to those of the present. Finally we propose possible physical causes of the latter historical switch from sinusoidal state to node-antinode state.

Thats from a 2000 paper, cited by... nobody.

He publishes something you disagree with and you immediately engage in ad hominem attacks? As for the April 2005 publication date, that journal is already available on the web, as I read it a few hours ago. So I don't think it qualifies as "not published yet". — Cortonin | Talk 21:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

( William M. Connolley 22:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Stop eveading the issue: his work is cited by no-one and published exclusively in minor journals. Neither is an ad-hom. Nor is describing the abstract above as rubbish.

What part of "Wikipedia does not endorse a best answer, source it to someone or remove it" do you not understand??? It's straight out of NPOV policy, follow it! — Cortonin | Talk 17:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find that's one of the problems with True Believers, they don't see their opinions as anything but absolute fact. In their eyes, it isn't POV because they absolutely know it to be true. What does one do in this situation? -- JonGwynne 17:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

( William M. Connolley 21:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)) This [6] has got to be one of the worst edits I've seen for a long while, with the edit summary Removed POV paragraph - not only does it violate wiki policy, it isn't relevant to the article. The para itself is well balanced, and how can it possibly be regarded as not relevant? It seems perfectly clear that JG has essentially degnerated to vandalising the articles.

Here are some facts for you William: The statement "The current best answer is, roughly, most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" is grotesquely POV. First of all, it fails to mention who is responsibole for deciding the "best answer". I'll assume that since you're such a big fan of this statement, that the IPCC is somehow responsible for it. However, the statement is unattributed. Second, the statement is completely subjective. Even if this is the IPCC's official opinion as to what the best answer is, then it still isn't an absolute fact it is opinion and, therefore, POV. In other words, it isn't relevant to the discussion and it is a clear violation of wikipedia policy with regard to POV - as you have been repeatedly informed. So, the real question is why do you insist on pushing unattributed POV when you know it is a violation of wikipedia policy to do so? -- JonGwynne 00:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

( William M. Connolley 22:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I've just reverted what I suspect is a JonGwynne sockpuppet, User:Springmourning44. Oddly, this new entrant to the debate has chosen to re-do a JG revert, with no explanation. Whoever it may be, its been blocked anyway.

I think the sound of black helicopters you were talking about earlier may be confusing you William, I don't use sock-puppets. BTW, since you bring them up, what interest do you think your personal, unfounded suspicions hold for other people here? -- JonGwynne 22:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget that the US National Academy of Sciences concurred with the IPCC conclusion that the majority of the temperature rise last century was most likely due to anthropogenic influences. If the IPCC is to be cited explicitly as a source of this scientific opinion, then so too should the NAS, and perhaps also all the other scientists who did not take part in either IPCC or NAS reports but have arrived at the same conclusion. It would seem to be biased to attribute that conclusion only to a subset of those who hold it. Daniel Collins 22:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then list it as both. Such evaluations must be sourced and attributed. — Cortonin | Talk 03:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

( William M. Connolley 13:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) JG changed "expressed" to "according to". This was a pointless tweak, but makes the sense worse, by implying the views are restricted to those bodies; whereas they are merely expressing the general consensus. Hence reverted.

"20C temperature trends (including early 20C changes, where solar forcing is non-negligible) there is no obvious need for a high sensitivity to solar forcing. Indeed, a significantly higher sensitivity to solar forcing would make early 20C"

I'm unsure if this is saying 20th century or 20 degrees Celsius. I assume century, but if someone who knows could fix them one way or the other, that would be good.

Wikibofh 8 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

Century. Sorry... I'll fix it. William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 16:57:05 (UTC).

What should be in this article is a link to Axial_tilt. That and the related Arctic_Circle and Antarctic_circle need a bit of numbers disambiguation on the variation in how much Earth's axial tilt changes.

Climate change is driven by BOTH variations in solar output and the continously varying tilt of Earth's axis, which at present is decreasing. Think about the effect that has on the amount of surface area that's in constant darkness from 24 hours to six months per year, and how that affects the net heat loss. See also Solar_variation.

I never see or hear anyone talking about these two things _combined_. It's always "It's all THIS that's the cause!".

Discovery Channel's recent documentary on "The Little Ice Age" hit upon just about every possible factor _except_ axial tilt change, and nobody on the show proposed any theory combining more than one factor. They were all "THIS caused it. Those other things? Piffle! Irrelevant!".

It's time for people who study each of these things to get together, get their (bleep) together and quit butting heads over who's "right" and realize that none of their pet theories works in isolation!

Is there a better place to find out what has caused these regions to warm? Is there a ball of CO2 hovering over them? Or is the cause of regional rise and falls of temperature completely unrelated to the rise or fall of global temperature? Should I be asking this some place else or on a different article?

I doubt this is the right place. First, we don't do original research, and secondly, this article primarily deals with global temperature. Changes in regional climates are not unrelated to global temperature, but neither is it a simple, monotone correlation. One of the famous questions is what happens to northern European climate when the North Atlantic Drift shuts down due to melting of polar ice... -- Stephan Schulz 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No citation is provided for the "indeed" sentence I deleted. The sentence is probably an erroneous statement of the idea of trying to explain all 20th century warming with solar and without GHGs. That would require enough solar in the latter half century to overshoot the warming in the first half. However, this explanation is not what the indeed text says, and the indeed text is false. There could be a "significant" increase in sensitivity to solar that compatible with the first half century, there is room for reallocation of forcing to solar there. That "significant" increase in sensitivity to solar would not be enough to fully explain the latter half of the 20th century, but more would be attributed to solar than the TAR, and probably even Stolt did. -- Poodleboy 13:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

PB added:

However, the models may have significant errors in their representation of surface albedo. Positive albedo biases due to inaccuracies in representing snow cover and desert albedos would have the effect of reducing model sensitivity to solar forcing. [7] [8] [9] [10]

To me this looks like more of his obsession with albedo in models. Havin looked at his refs, I don't see any of them addressing the question of model sensitivity to solar forcing.

As for stronger-solar-makes-early-20th-C inexplicable, I admit thats unreferenced but it seems obvious: if you can explain the T from current models, with no solar amplification, there seems to not too much room for solar amplification. Unless you turned down the solar forcing in the reconstructions William M. Connolley 13:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you would turn down the GHG sensitivity. Since less solar would be being reflected into space, it would be contributing a larger share of the warming and the heat storage in the ocean. Note that Gregory in his climate sensitivity analysis, found positive forcing in the late 19th century that would already commit some warming in the 20th. Presumably with climate models without positive albedo bias, he would find even greater committed warming and solar heat storage in the oceans. Roesch addresses the positive albedo bias, the increased solar radiative flux absorption is obvious.-- Poodleboy 14:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider forcing, F = F_solar + F_GHG + F_volcanic, etc. Your position seems to be based on the assumption that T(t) is proportional to F(t) [neglecting commitment, heat storage, and other time dependent effects for now], and hence to get the right temperature history T(t) we basically have a specified total forcing history that we have to match. And consequently if F_solar is underestimated then F_GHG is probably overestimated, etc. Is this basically your logic? I.e. A fixed amount of forcing that needs to be partitioned among causes?

If so, then your problem is basically that attribution studies don't assume this. It is too hard and the models simply aren't good enough to make those matches without noticable systematic errors in both total T and F. So instead the focus is on how much each forcing has changed in time. Saying that ΔF = ΔF_solar + ΔF_GHG + ΔF_volcanic, etc, allows researchers to minimize the effects of any systematic errors that are present at both the beginning and end of their studies. For example, if albedo is 0.01 too high in 1900 and 0.01 too high in 2000, then F_solar is underestimated by ~3-4 W/m^2 at all times, but the associated error in ΔF_solar will be less than 0.1 W/m^2. Focusing on the change in forcing, as most attribution studies do, allows us to estimate the impact of that change even in the face of considerable systematic biases. Dragons flight 15:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of past work has focused on how much forcing has changed in time, basically attempting signal detection. Signal detection is valuable on geologic time scales, with low frequency signals and a lot of data to analyze, but the thermal inertial of the ocean dampens high frequencies. If you want to attribute warming of the last 30 years, you can't assume that solar is contributing nothing to the temperature increase or the heat storage in the ocean, just because the solar pattern of cyclic forcing has essentially remained the same for that period. Solar forcing is at highs that have not equilibrated yet (recall the Solanki references), in fact the equilibration to this recent 60+ year long plateau of solar forcing was only just beginning 30 years ago because volcanic aerosol forcing actually was strong enough to override the solar and impose a period of cooling.

With the advent of models coupled with the oceans, that can impose conservation-of-energy constraints, the energy budget has to balance. Nearly everything in the models are highly parameterized. It is tough enough to do ab initio physics on large molecules, you are not doing it on a global climate system. The models are parameterized to the known observations, and the hope is that they become useful for gaining insight and making predictions. If the models are matching the record of heat storage in the ocean, and it is discovered they were doing while throwing away 10 to 20 watts/m^2 (orthogonal to the sun) of energy. They must have been getting that energy elsewhere. The GHGs act cheifly to blanket the earth, reducing the radiation of heat into space at certain parts of the spectrum and retaining that warmth in the atmosphere. They are the most likely place for the "correcting" error that balanced the energy budget. They work off of solar energy after all, with very little of the energy budget being geothermal, with less solar energy absorbed, the models had be parameterized to do a better job retaining it to match the temperature and heat storage. Of course, the budget can be being balanced elsewhere, perhaps modeling less negative feedback to counter the GHG forcing. The net result is a higher model sensitivity to GHG forcing than would result with proper attribution of solar forcing, and unfortunately less appreciation for the contribution of natural solar variation and more extreme predictions from GHGs scenerios.

You are wrong about attribution studies and underestimate the quality of our models, with the advent of coupled models they are balancing energy budgets and producing realistic qualitative climate behavior, this process of creeping improvements in the parameterizations will eventually yield tools of predictive value. The importance of spectrally correct parameterization of the albedo was just unappreciated until recently and the cumulative size of the errors in all the major models is a new result. When the albedos are fixed, there will be a big jump in credibility and a lot of interesting new science. The hope is that there isn't more errors of similar magnitude left to be discovered. The understanding and parameterization of the cloud physics, will I suspect be the final major frontier. Incremental improvements in realism will be the story after that.

Frankly, I am extremely excited about the science. Because the solar forcing is distributed so differently than the GHG forcing, this may explain some of the troubling problems the models have had replicating the multi-decadal climate modes and certain aspects of the ocean circulation, and result in better convergence of model results. Perhaps with these corrections, we will gain more insight into these aspects of the climate. The next few years should yield real insight into the climate, current, past and future. -- Poodleboy 03:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to attribute warming of the last 30 years, you can't assume that solar is contributing nothing to the temperature increase or the heat storage in the ocean - I don't understand this. There is no such assumption. Also, I reiterate my unanswered point that PB is reading too much into his refs: the assertion of a bias in sensitivity is his own, not in the refs William M. Connolley 07:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is that assumption. Dragons Flight proposed focusing only on ΔF. The solar activity is has not significantly changed in the last 30 years, so his approach would not attribute any warming to solar for that period. The bias is in albedo, unless you contend that the models will still match the heat stored in the ocean even after their albedo bias is corrected then, then they have an error elsewhere they have to correct to match the energy budget. But the conclusion of a bias in sensitivity can be arrived at by other means also. The models have different sensitivities, so most of them must be biased.-- Poodleboy 08:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted, cos your refs still don't support your text. You say search the first reference for the word "bias", you will find what you seem to be missing, well the first ref contains the word bias, but nothing I can see about climate sensitivity. So Positive albedo biases due to inaccuracies in representing snow cover and desert albedos would have the effect of reducing model sensitivity to solar forcing. seems to be purely your own; it shouldn't have your refs following it, pretending to back it up, cos they don't. Also, as DF has pointed out, the errors in solar forcing implied by the albedo errors are tiny, and (I think) don't rate a mention. None of the models are perfect William M. Connolley 09:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot I had written about sensitivity to "solar" forcing, I had been responding here as if I had written about sensitivity to "GHG" forcing. But how can you question this solar forcing statement at all. If the albedos are bias high, then more solar energy is being reflected into space than in the models than in the observations. Since albedo is a proportion, the higher the forcing is the higher the bias is. Negative results, unfortunately usually don't get publish. The biases reported in the abstract are significant. The values DF and I have been discussing are on the order of the well mixed GHG forcing, do you consider that insignificant?-- Poodleboy 09:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the values you have been discussing, as DF says above, are less than 0.1 w/m2. Thats small. I don't know what you mean about "-ve results": a result that all model sensitivities were too high, or biased high, would be publishable. But oddly, the people writing the albedo papers *haven't* drawn the conclusions from them that you've jumped to William M. Connolley 14:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, DF and I were discussing the impact of an albedo error of 0.01. That was over 10 watts/m^2 orthogonal, or 3.5 watts/m^2 mapped to the earth's surface. I.e., equivilent to the GHG forcings.-- Poodleboy 06:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, thats the *total* solar. You need to factor in, as DF did, the change in solar, which reduces your number by 100 at least and probably more William M. Connolley 07:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The total solar is on the order 1364 watts/m^2, so that is not what DF and I were talking about. This is not about the "change" in solar, it is about the difference in solar reflected by the models vs the solar reflected into space as observed. We were analyzing the implications of a 0.01 albedo error. I don't think you have been paying attention to the discussion.-- Poodleboy 09:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. *total* solar is 136x; per unit area its 350-ish; albedo err of 0.01 is then 3.5 w/m2. But thats not the *forcing* number; what you then need is the *change* in the forcing; which is 1% of that. This is what DF and I have patiently been trying to explain to you with little success so far William M. Connolley 11:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the 3.5 watts is the globally averaged change in forcing (an increase in forcing in this case) to bring the models in conformance with the observed albedo. Of course, the actual changes will be locally much greater than 3.5 watts/m^2 in the land areas where the positive biases have actually identified. You have applied the 0.01 twice once explicitly, and then again as 1%-- Poodleboy 09:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there are two separate 0.01's. The first is the albedo err (which we're talking of as assumed definite; I'm by no means convinced); the second is the change in solar forcing (??? 1% is far too large anyway, at least over 20th C). As DF wrote above: ΔF = ΔF_solar + ΔF_GHG + ΔF_volcanic. Since pre-industrial, ΔF_GHG is about 2.4 w/m2; ΔF_solar is... about 0.1. If you care about attributing to the various components, then the models, presumably, introduce an error of ΔF_solar*albedo error. The F_solar*albedo error is subsumed elsewhere. the 3.5 watts is the globally averaged change in forcing (an increase in forcing in this case) to bring the models in conformance with the observed albedo is a component that doesn't matter for attribution, because its a constant William M. Connolley 18:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it does matter, because the extra 3.5 watts/m^2 extra radiation that was being reflected into space was energy the models were erronenously finding elsewhere since they were matching the energy stored in the ocean. In other words, they were finding that energy to store in the ocean with an error elsewhere in their model. The models are constrained by observations, and one of those observations is the energy budget with energy being stored in the ocean, i.e., the rise in sea level. The new observations they have to match is the globally averaged spectral albedo, and hopefully also the local albedo details.-- Poodleboy 22:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there is an extra 3.5 (lets say). But its a constant. It doesn't matter that much where it comes from; it doesn't affect the attribution much. The models are constrained by observations - not quite sure what you mean by that William M. Connolley 13:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• "The Earth as Modified by Human Action", 1868, George P. Marsh [11] assumes anthropogenic change as given fact: "The object of the present volume is: to indicate the character and,approximately, the extent of the changes produced by human action in the physical conditions of the globe we inhabit..." This book gives an extremely thorough description of the multiple ways in which humans have most definitely and observably contributed to climate change.

I've moved this to talk. I don't think its very relevant to attribution of GW William M. Connolley 06:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed from article by William:

The range of views held by working climate scientists does not show up in the political version of the debate, according to Roger Pielke Jr., a University of Colorado political scientist who studies the politics of climate science. [12]

Isn't this a well-referenced view? Why did you remove it? -- Uncle Ed 17:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

While I can't speak for William, you seem to be misrepresenting Pielke's position. You placed that quote under a section heading "Is there a consensus?", but the truth is that Pielke believes there is a scientific consensus. His complaint is that the political debate is being mischaracterized as a battle between caricatured positions (e.g. "alarmist" vs. "contrarian"), neither of which reflect the nuanced and detailed consensus within the climate community. Dragons flight 18:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Perhaps I've confused the views of father and son. Pielke senior is a scientist, did you mean him? Or did I miss something specific you can point me to (hint, hint)? -- Uncle Ed 19:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Pielke, Jr: "Like Oreskes, I am happy to take the IPCC as the best assessment of state of climate science, and its conclusions as an accurate measure of the central tendency of views among the climate science community. The work of the IPCC, including its certainties and uncertainties, is plenty good enough for the development and promulgation of a steady stream of policy options on climate." [13] The linked page also elaborates on his views both in the main post and through a serious of comments made below it. He is not absolutist and acknowledges that a diversity of nuanced opinion exists, but he argues that a consensus defined by the "central tendency" of climate scientists supports the IPCC and policy action to address global warming. Dragons flight 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into this. I'd like the passage restored, with attribution to John whoever, the guy who wrote it.

Despite the high esteem in which I hold you, my anonymous friend, your opinion carries no weight here. I mean, I'd love to cite you as a source, but unless you're planning to out yourself you're a published author it's not gonna happen. -- Uncle Ed 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, when was the last time you looked at my user page? Dragons flight 20:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, confusing you with someone else, Robert. -- Uncle Ed 21:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You're expecting Ed to have read up on things...? Anyway: I removed it because (a) even if correct, its a bizarre lead-in to the section (b) its not correct. The is the attribution page, and its about science, not the politicial view of the science, which (as RR (thats a hint, Ed) has pointed out) is what RP Jr is talking about William M. Connolley 20:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed still seems to be on his one-man campaign to challenge the view that there *is* a consensus. I don't think thats tenable - Lindzen may well disagree with the consensus, for example, but not with its existence. Indeed, thats what he is railing against. How else does According to some global warming skeptics like Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Sallie Baliunas, scientists whose views and positions run counter to scientific consensus have found it more difficult to secure funding and publish their work, alleging that their difficulties are the result of an intentional suppression of intellectual dissent against "mainstream" theories make any sense? Oh, and Peiser is (a) wrong (and Ed, before you ask for a source for that, do please check all the previous sources you've been given) and (b) not published William M. Connolley 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are too many people giving too much weight to "consensus". Assuming there is some degree of consensus, it doesn't follow that they are right about it. Brian Pearson 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the section Detection and Attribution, Detection is defined to be a specific demonstration of statistical significance, but then we go on to claim implicitly that there is no uncertainty, or "margin of error" to be dealt with when discussing Detection:

Detection does not imply attribution, and is easier than attribution. Unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments with multiple copies of the climate system, which is not possible. Attribution, as described above, can therefore only be done within some margin of error.

There most certainly is uncertainty in Detection! We are dealing with experimental (and therefore uncertain) data, and unproven (in a strict sense, as all theoretical models are, strictly) (and therefore uncertain) models. Statistical significance itself is a somewhat arbitrary thing (5% significance level? 10% level? 0.5% level?). Thus the implication that Detection does not entail any uncertainty is a gross abuse of statistics, is very misleading to those not familiar with statistics, and should be remedied! Jon Wilson 24.162.120.52 01:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your interpretation. As you say, detection is done to some level of stat sig. There is nothing in what you quote that asserts or implies absolute certainty in det William M. Connolley 21:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My reading of this concern is that, while detection might be 'easier', in that statistically significant results are more readily obtained, even a statistically significant result is still subject to uncertainty (or "a margin of error", even if that margin of error is statistically small). There still exists uncertainty in many (most?) relevant areas of climate science and ignoring that uncertainty risks assigning certainty to an inherently uncertain understanding of a complex system. Statisticians understand the nature of statistics. Many others don't and might interpret words like 'consensus' and 'statistically significant' as meaning that there exists absolute certainty where uncertainty still exists. Hope this helps. Ofomamad 16:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Ofomamad

That was a bit wordy - apologies. Structure of the wording in question is: 'D is easier than A. Unequivocal A would require X, which is not possible. A therefore can only be done within a margin of error.' Implies Unequivocal D can be obtained, either using X or some other way, without a margin of error, which is false. D is not unequivocal - it is also "done within some margin of error", but the opposite is implied here. Hope that's more clear. Ofomamad 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Ofomamad

Svensmark's recent research on cosmic rays is certain to gain many followers, but I just found a very interesting article written in 2004 that predicted global cooling by 2006 because of increased cosmic rays. The fact temperatures were down in 2006 says something, although I have not yet found proof that cloud or cosmic rays were increased (I would not doubt it). [14] The article itself is only on google cache, so the charts and images do not show. [15] RonCram 13:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm... 2006 is the warmest year on record for the US, and the 6th-warmest worldwide. And that despite the fact that for the first half of the year ENSO was in El Nina. Where did you get the "fact" that temperatures were down? -- Stephan Schulz 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, we are talking about global temperatures - not US temperatures. Hansen, Jones and others had predicted that 2006 would be the warmest ever globally, breaking the record of 1998. It didn't happen. In fact, temperatures were down significantly from 2005. Your comment regarding La Nina is incorrect. Conditions changed from La Nina to El Nino in February, 2006. [16] RonCram 01:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The article reads "The most fiercely-contested question in current climate change research is over attribution of climate change to either natural/internal or human factors..." -- most significant perhaps, but most fiercely contested seems misleading given that there is a consensus... -- Nethgirb

Attribution goes beyond whether any human contribution is estimated to be zero or non-zero. If the human component were non-zero but very small, then arguably the optimal response might be to do nothing (as warming might happen at roughly the same rate over much the same period anyway). If any human component were relatively very large, then that might be suggestive of the need for a response to any anthropogenic forcing, with the magnitude of the response positively related to the magnitude of the attribution (as action might make an important difference over meaningful timeframes if any athropogenic contribution were estimated to be relatively very large). On this reading, there does not seem to be a consensus surrounding attribution, although the IPCC use of the word "most" appears to imply that there exists a consensus that any human component is > 50%. Does anyone have references for supporting evidence of this implied consensus of > 50% attribution? Ofomamad 16:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Ofomamad

I'm not sure I understand the question. The IPCC is very clear in stating that "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations". If you read the SPM leading up to this, you get a fairly detailed discussion of the different radiative forcings. Greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the positive forcings, but the effect is reduced by some negative forcings like aerosols. I find >50% a bit misleading, because it they attribute much more than half of the positive forcings to greenhouse gases, but it certainly is not incorrect (and the forcings cannot simply be added up and divided anyways). -- Stephan Schulz 18:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely because "forcings cannot be simply added up and divided" that creates the problem of explicitly attributing "most" (i.e. >50%) of ΔT to anthropogenic variables. The statistical relationship may be stronger for the anthropogenic (Y) variables than the non-anthropogenic (non-Y) variables modelled, but that is not the same as an empirically determined attribution of X% (where X>50%). I have found no published evidence of X>50% (only that the statistical power is higher for Y than for the non-Y variables modelled), thus am seeking assistance finding such evidence to validate the claim made in the IPCC's SPM.

It seems you're assuming that attribution is done by statistical regression, which isn't the case (please clarify if otherwise). Read the SPM and supporting chapters in the full report for details. Raymond Arritt 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was just reading chp2 of the AR4 and it will explain forcings for you rather well. ~ UBeR 18:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I took out:

* Bratcher and Giese, "Tropical Pacific decadal variability and global warming" [17] published in 2002, points to oceanic events (with a four year lag in temperatures) causing climate shifts - a 1972 event caused a climate shift resulting in warmer temperatures from 1976 until 2002. An event in 2002 caused Giese to predict a climate shift and cooler temperatures beginning in 2006. Giese's prediction came true when 2006 temperatures were cooler than 2005 even though 2006 was an El Nino year. Giese concludes the results of his study "indicate that the human forced portion of global warming may be less than previously described."

because I don't see that it fits the description of *important* results. Also its badly misrepresented: B+G don't predict cooling, they say: If tropical Pacific SST responds to these subsurface changes in a similar way, then it could be an indication of a climate regime shift to pre-1976 conditions. Given the considerable effect that tropical Pacific SST has on global atmospheric circulation, a climate shift to pre-1976 conditions could lessen the warming trend that has existed since 1976. which is very different. Also they make no specific predictions about 2006 that I can see. William M. Connolley 20:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

William, of course you don't see it as *important* since it conflicts with your POV, but that does not change the fact it is important. The specific prediction for 2006 results from the four year lag from their observation in 2002. Giese predicted a return to pre-1976 conditions which was a period of global cooling. You did not quote the entire passage. "A similar situation existed in the early 1940’s when SST records show an equatorial Pacific cooling with the period from 1942–1976 generally cooler than the period following the 1976 climate shift [Zhang et al., 1997]." If you think my wording overstates the case, feel free to edit my wording. But the entry needs to stay. RonCram 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is it important? Has it gained wide notice? No. There was no specific prediction (let alone of 2006): note the "*If* tropical Pacific SST responds..." and a lessened warming trend - not a cooling.

As for the Schmidt thing... that seems so far from reality that I'm baffled you put it in. Schmidt, of course, is with RC and won't agree with your Original interpretation of his work. Nor is C12/13 the major reason to attribute CO2 to humans. Please get real William M. Connolley 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

William, you know as well as I that people use the C13 to C12 ratio to attempt to prove mankind is responsible for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Read this bit from RealClimate. [18] The NASA piece proves that the ratio widens and tightens by purely natural mechanisms, mechanisms which are impossible for us to measure. My entry did not claim that Schmidt was a skeptic, only that this report proves that isotopes cannot be used to blame mankind. RonCram 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As it sez on RC: There are actually multiple, largely independent lines of reasoning, discussed in some detail in the IPCC TAR report, Chapter 3. One of the best illustrations of this point, however, is not given in IPCC. Indeed, it seems not all that well appreciated in the scientific community, and is worth making more widely known. So no, you can't use RC to prove that we don't know that CO2 is anthro, since we don't. Asserting that the CO2 increase is not known to be anthro pushes you out onto the wild fringes of skepticism and destroys your credibility. And I don't even see why the Schidt piece you linked to makes your point William M. Connolley 09:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The argument seems to be as follows: Development of the C12/C13 ratios are consistent with the massive influx of carbon from fossil resources and hence confirm what we expect in the first place (given that we introduce massive amounts of fossil carbon into the atmosphere). Therefore the only reason we have to believe that we introduce massive amounts of fossil carbon is the change in the C12/C13 ration. But 55 million years ago, another event changes the C12/C13 ratio (over about 100000 years) and hence we know nothing anymore... -- Stephan Schulz 10:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

William and Stephan - First of all, Real Climate is wrong. The IPCC does discuss the C13 to C12 ratio and says it points to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, the characteristic isotopic signatures of fossil fuel (its lack of 14C, and depleted content of 13C) leave their mark in the atmosphere. [19] The article I linked to proves that this line of reasoning is bogus. 13C can be "depleted" by purely natural mechanisms. Seeing the hand of man where it is not necessarily active is poor science. These guys are jumping to conclusions that are not warranted. Recent studies show this line of argument is no longer valid. RonCram 03:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ron, you start being unneccesarily dense. The primary reason for our knowledge of man's contribution to the CO2 increase is the fact that we do release massive amounts of CO2 - in fact, we release about 2 times more than shows up in the atmosphere, with much of the rest currently absorbed by the oceans and biosphere. The C in the CO2 we release also has a very distinct isotopic signature - essentially no C14 and very reduced amounts of C13. And this very change is reflected in the atmosphere. What is your explanation? Squirrels collecting the CO2 we produce, and storing it underground while at the same time some other source of fossil Carbon is convenienty converted to CO2 at just the right rate to fool us? Science does not do absolute proof, but this is as close as it can possibly get. -- Stephan Schulz 08:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I think this whole line of argument is way oversold. I would think that to get an accurate measure of man's contribution based on isotopes, you would need a stable baseline of the isotopes. When this line of argument was first advanced to me, I was told nature did provide a stable baseline. Now I learn it does not. Is it possible to decipher man's contribution in a scenario with a changing baseline? Perhaps, but it seems to me that arguing from the total change makes much more sense than an argument based on isotopes. Regardless of my thoughts, I am ready to concede the point. RonCram 00:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

William, you deleted my entry on Giese again. He predicted a return to pre-1976 conditions after 4 years from his study. His study was 2002. Temperatures did cool in 2006. The entry is correct. RonCram 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

William, you are reverting without any comment. You have not demonstrated any inaccuracy in my entry. And you are deleting two entries at the same time. RonCram 19:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

RC continues to misrepresent B+G. First of all, I maintain my doubt that its important enough to list. But even past that, RC has it wrong: RC added:

Bratcher and Giese, "Tropical Pacific decadal variability and global warming" [20] published in 2002, points to oceanic events (with a four year lag in temperatures) causing climate shifts - a 1972 event caused a climate shift resulting in warmer temperatures from 1976 until 2002. An event in 2002 caused Giese to predict a climate shift to pre-1976 conditions by 2006. Giese's prediction came true when 2006 temperatures were cooler than 2005 even though 2006 was an El Nino year. No climate model considers oceanic events as a climate forcing. Giese concludes the results of his study "indicate that the human forced portion of global warming may be less than previously described."

The lag is *about* 4 years, and the paper says this, not precisely 4. The paper cannot possibly be about an event in 2002 - "An event in 2002 caused..." is an invention by RC - because it was received in March 2002 by GRL, which means it must have been begun in early 2002 at best. Fig 1 shows temperatures to 2000 and 5-y smoothed ENSO to 2001. The paper does say if negative anomalies follow a pattern similar to the positive anomalies in the mid–1970’s, then a cool tropical Pacific SST anomaly may soon weaken the global warming signal. but note the if, the may, and the lack of a timescale. And later: If tropical Pacific SST responds to these subsurface changes in a similar way, then it could be an indication of a climate regime shift to pre-1976 conditions. Given the considerable effect that tropical Pacific SST has on global atmospheric circulation, a climate shift to pre-1976 conditions could lessen the warming trend that has existed since 1976 - again, note the if, the could be, the could. And that it ends with "lessen the warming trend" - not *cooling*. Adn there is no 4-y timescale given.

In short, RC has misread the paper William M. Connolley 19:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

William (ie. Kim), your excessive obfuscating is growing wearisome. So the cooling trend began in late 2005. Is that really significant to readers of an encyclopedia? If you insist, we can quote the entire Giese paper. But nothing you have said above indicates that Giese's study is not appropriate for this section of the article. The main point is Giese's conclusion: The results presented here do not preclude the possibility that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases have contributed to global warming. However the results do indicate that the human forced portion of global warming may be less than previously described. Instead of trying to make the entry better, you have just deleted the information, proving that you care more for censoring science than you do for an accurate encyclopedia. Using Kim to do you your dirty work only makes you look bad. RonCram 14:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what this "ie Kim" nonsense is. You kept insisting that B+G was abou an event in 2002. I point out this was impossible; it clearly means you didn't both read the paper but only read into it what you wanted to see. Thankfully you've removed that, but the never version is still very bad: No climate models consider oceanic events as a climate forcing - what does this mean? All climate models had predicted 2006 would set record temperatures - this is complete nonsense - where did you get it from? And in all, the paper remains of no particular importance. The main point is... - its certainly the main point to you, but thats not enough William M. Connolley 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

William, my comment was to you but it was Kim that deleted my entry. Again, he did it without any effort to make the entry better or to prove it didn't belong - he just deleted it. Your claim I did not read the paper is completely bogus. I read the paper carefully. The timing of the observations and the cooling is just a smokescreen for your POV. An encyclopedia is not expected to use the same careful wording of a scientific paper, especially when discussing annual temperature averages. So the observations probably happened in 2001 and were published in early 2002, resulting in cooler temps in late 2005 but really affected the 2006 annual avg temps much more. This is the "about" four years I was talking about. Nothing you have said has debunked anything I wrote. "No climate models consider oceanic events as a climate forcing" means exactly what it says. Climate models consider CO2, solar variability, and other factors. Climate models do not factor in the conditions and observations of Dr. Giese. This is why Dr. Giese concludes "the results do indicate that the human forced portion of global warming may be less than previously described." Regarding the point that 2006 was predicted to be the warmest year ever, I could find lots of such predictions - Hansen, Jones, Mann. All in all, the paper is of extreme importance. Just as Einstein was recognized as great because his theory was proven correct, so too is Giese's prediction proving to be correct. That is the main point. RonCram 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing you have said has debunked anything I wrote: except you have at last admitted that the even could not possibly have been in 2002, as you had previously repeatedly insisted. Regarding the point that 2006 was predicted to be the warmest year ever...: no, you actually wrote, and have left in the article, All climate models had predicted 2006 would set record temperatures. Are you now backing away from that to asserting that someone predicted it? Do please provide several climate models that predict such, or take the sentence out of the article. This is the "about" four years I was talking about - no, you did *not* write "about" 4 years - you insisted on exactly 4 years. B+G does not make any prediction - it is far too hedged with ifs and buts, and contains no specific dates - it is only you who have arbitrarily decided that B+G meant 2006, based on your invention of an event in 2002. On your logic, B+G could have meant 2001, and therefore predicted a cold 2005, but you need to insist on 2005 being warm. No climate models consider oceanic events as a climate forcing - this is in essence wrong. GCMs contain oceans, which are fully able to provide forcing as in the real world. Its clear that what you are writing is your own OR based on B+G. BTW, given this is B+G, why do you insist on using the second author? William M. Connolley 16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

William, IMHO the word "about" was not required in an encyclopedia when talking about averaged annual temperatures. If you thought it was required, you could have added the word instead of deleting the entire entry. If you think you can find a climate model which includes the observations and predictions Giese made, please provide a link and I will agree to remove the sentence. If not, and you still think some change to the wording is required - feel free to make the change in wording. If I do not find your change acceptable, we can discuss it. Regarding B+G, I mention both in the entry. However, Dr. Giese is the professor and Batcher was only a Ph.D. candidate. RonCram 17:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You are shifting and turning, but cannot hide the fact that your additions are wrong. You have inserted into the article All climate models had predicted 2006 would set record temperatures. This appears to be a fact entirely of your own invention, and completely sourceless, as well as being wrong (assuming you really mean climate models). a climate model which includes the observations and predictions Giese made - what does this mean? A climate model that includes predictions? IMHO the word "about" was not required in an encyclopedia when talking about averaged annual temperatures - sheer revisionism. You needed it to be exactly 4 years to make your fantasy prediction make any sense. I've reverted it again to remove your falsehoods William M. Connolley 19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

RonCram, yes... i deleted the entry, and William has summed up my opposition quite accurately. As you may remember this paper was discussed on the Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus - so i do know the paper. And i cannot say that your entry in any way is representative of it. I didn't edit it - because there wasn't anything to salvage. -- Kim D. Petersen 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I revised the entry to read as below.

• Bratcher and Giese, "Tropical Pacific decadal variability and global warming" [21] published in 2002, observed conditions that "could be an indication of a climate regime shift to pre-1976 conditions." (The Earth was in a cooling trend from 1945 to 1975 and then saw warmer temperatures from 1976 through 2002.) Climate models cited by IPCC TAR did not consider as a climate forcing the conditions and possible climate regime shift that Giese predicted. Giese concludes: The results presented here do not preclude the possibility that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases have contributed to global warming. However the results do indicate that the human forced portion of global warming may be less than previously described."

The climate forcings considered by IPCC TAR can be seen on the graphic on this article. It should be clear that no climate model has considered a regime shift such as that predicted by Giese prior to his paper. While I expect future climate models will include Giese's observations and predictions, I do not believe (as yet) that any climate models have. I have asked William (or anyone) to provide evidence any climate models have considered Giese's observations and predictions and no such evidence has been forthcoming. Certainly this will happen. It will be interesting to see how these models react. RonCram 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

William, you quote me and then comment: IMHO the word "about" was not required in an encyclopedia when talking about averaged annual temperatures - sheer revisionism. You needed it to be exactly 4 years to make your fantasy prediction make any sense. I've reverted it again to remove your falsehoods. Sheer hogwash. "About 4 years" could be 3.5 to 4.5 years. When you factor in the time required to write and publish the study and factor in the fact the data set is averaging annual temperatures, such approximations disappear into insignificance. The entire "four year" argument you are putting forward is nothing but a red herring. I have completely removed it, not because it was wrong but because it was inconsequential. The main point is that the IPCC's climate models do not consider an important theory of climate shifts. RonCram 19:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Still you shift and turn. You have, finally, removed the blatant untruths from your text. However now B+G are no longer predicting anything, still less anything that has come true, there is no obvious claim for notability - other than it including the quote you like. Now you are left with your main point being OR: that GCMs don't consider climate shifts. You bolster this with your reading of climate forcings, but yet again you are wrong. The regime shift that B+G consider is internal to the ocean-atmos system (well, mostly in the ocean) not an *external* forcing at all. So yes, coupled GCMs contain the same physics and may well have such regime shifts. Without some backup, your assertion that these *aren't* considered is nothing but OR on your part. I am not required to demonstrate the falsity of words you add: you are required to add only verifiable sourced material: which your "main point" isn't William M. Connolley 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

William, B+G's observations led them to write that oceanic events "could be an indication of a climate regime shift to pre-1976 conditions." Most people will understand that to be a prediction. Giese's "climate shift" is not considered by any computer model considered by the IPCC since it was published after the TAR. This is self-evident, not OR. I have restored the entry. Everything in the entry itself is well-sourced and not OR. As to your argument of importance, Giese's study is far more important than Barnett which has already been disproved. RonCram 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You are completely shameless. You have made claim after claim for this article that you've been forced to withdraw. Now you shift to the idea that Barnett has been disproven, which is yet more OR on your part. This is self-evident, not OR is the claim of the OR-ist time after time, its not even original :-). This is a scientific paper, to be read by scientists, not "most people". You have Climate models cited by IPCC TAR did not consider as a climate forcing the conditions and possible climate regime shift that Giese predicted - this is B+G and you should *not* be writing G - there is no prediction. You have continually misrepresented this paper and you still are William M. Connolley 21:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

William, you are shameless. Your reputation for being among the most POV editors on wikipedia is evidently well-deserved. IMHO Barnett's thesis has been disproven since the oceans have been cooling since 2003. However, my opinion is not in the entry. You are merely attempting to change the subject. You admitted there were no errors in my entry and you have not identified any errors now. You complain that I should be naming both B+G and not just G. Very well. I will be happy to make that change (even though B was only a graduate student at the time). However, your claim there is no prediction is wishful thinking. B+G wrote that what they observed "could be an indication of a climate regime shift to pre-1976 conditions." This is a prediction to anyone - scientist or not - who is not intentionally blind to anything contrary to the IPCC. Regardless of any of this, your main goal is to keep their conclusion out of the article - namely, that the IPCC has overestimated the role of mankind in climate change. William, you should be ashamed of yourself. You are evidently incapable of doing the right thing. I suggest we bring in other editors to decide this dispute. Hopefully, we can find some editors who are not subject to the same kind of groupthink as some of your followers. RonCram 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Took out the predicted bit as I don't see a prediction in their paper. Mainly just a caution regarding uncertainties in observed natural cycles and they point out a ...similar, but opposite in sign, pattern as that seen prior to the 1976 climate shift and emphasize the importance of understanding the separation between natural variability and anthropogenic forcing in the climate system. Let's not read more into the article than is there. Vsmith 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. Now essentially everything of RC's is stripped out, we return to: why is this paper significant? According to RC, the main point is that the IPCC's climate models do not consider an important theory of climate shifts. I don't believe that; you've removed it. With the main point gone, why does the entry remain? William M. Connolley 09:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't know 'bout the significance - it can go as far as I'm concerned, the paper was an interesting read but important to this article? - doubt it. Vsmith 12:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Now i just reread the B+G paper - and am i correct in stating that the hypothesised return should have happened around 3-4 years ago - according to the hypothesis? If so - then the "prediction" has actually already been falsified by current data. -- Kim D. Petersen 01:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kim, to answer your question, you are incorrect. The study was performed in 2001 or very early 2002 and changes in the climate regime was expected "about" four years later (late 2005 or early 2006). 2005 was a warm year and 2006 was significantly cooler than expected since it was an El Nino year. RonCram 00:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RonCram, but unfortunatly for that argument, the observations are about subsurface temperature anomalies in the tropical Pacific, which is according to the hypothesis correlated with air temperature by a lag of 7 years. At the time of publication it was around 7 years since the subsurface tropical pacific temp started to fall - so the effect should have been noticeable around 3-4 years ago - as i said - it is not the publication date that sets the timeline - but the observation. -- Kim D. Petersen 02:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you determine their timescales. But since the "main point" was removed, I've taken out the entry again, as its obviously pointless William M. Connolley 09:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

William, I am restoring it. The point is that "subsequent to the TAR" research has been done that concluded "that the human forced portion of global warming may be less than previously described." There is no way you can claim this is pointless as it goes to the very heart of the debate. As I stated before, I think we need to bring in some outside editors to help resolve this conflict. RonCram 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RC, your shifting of ground is amazing! A direct quote from you is The main point is that the IPCC's climate models do not consider an important theory of climate shifts just above. Now that this bit has been removed, you have changed your "main point" yet again (previous shifts, you'll recall, include the "prediction" that wasn't). The entry remains non-notable; removed William M. Connolley 10:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

William, IMHO the ground is not shifting. I may not have expressed myself well in the earlier post, but my position is unchanged. The main point stated as: "IPCC do not consider the Giese study" is pretty much the other side of the coin of the point just above: "Giese disagrees with the IPCC." I am not sure why you do not see those two as related. They are two sides of the same coin. I am restoring the entry. RonCram 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RC wrote: main point is that the IPCC's climate models do not consider an important theory of climate shifts (the sentence doesn't really make sense from a modelling viewpoint but no matter). TO state that your position is unchanged is nonsense. I think you have *now* finally come to your true "main point": you want someone disagreeing with the IPCC. But just disagreeing with IPCC is not enough to make this notable (unless you are asserting that there are so few paper disagreeing that one that does is automatically notable? Its a possible viewpoint, but not one I'd expect from you) William M. Connolley 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a science scholar, but just wanted to add my opinion as someone who came to this article looking to understand the causes to climate change. I wanted to add my support to the B+G section staying. Even if it isn't notable on its own, I think it's important to have opposition opinions (or a criticism) section in an article like this. -- Bill.matthews 17:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill, thanks for your input. William, it is notable because the observations B+G made caused them to make a prediction of a climate shift to pre-1976 conditions (a cooling period even though we had rising CO2). B+G stated there would be a four year lag from the observations to lower surface temperatures. All of this has proven out. The oceans started cooling in 2003 resulting in lower than expected temperatures in 2006. The standard argument for any pro-AGW person is that "any" evidence that contradicts the IPCC is not notable. Such an argument is intellectually bankrupt. The IPCC has dramatically toned down their catastrophic warnings about AGW (see the analysis of Lord Monckton below) showing they were way off base to begin with. RonCram 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Now we're going round in circles: now you've shifted gorund yet again to it being the prediction thats notable. Your text used to have "prediction" in it, but was removed by me and by Vsmith who both can't see any prediction there. If you think there is a prediction, and its part of its importance, then the text you add needs to have that in. Now you're back at "4 year lag" having previously admitted to "about"; we also don't even know what its "about 4 year" *from* - please do point to the date in the paper that you expect (about/exactly) a 4 year lag from. Without this, how can any "prediction" be evaluated? Bill - the text at the start of this section reads Some important results include: - if you think B+G is worth having but not notable, you need to revise that text. For my part, I'd rather have it only list important things. As to Mocktons anaylsis - its trash. IPCC hasn't toned itself down - Monckton has simply got his figures wrong. But I don't suppose you bothered to check them, you just took him on trust? William M. Connolley 20:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Lord Monckton has a very readable analysis. Here are some excerpts:

FIGURES in the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

Also, the UN, in its 2007 report, has more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. It suggests that the rate of sea-level rise is up from 2mm/yr to 3mm/year – no more than one foot in a century.

UN scientists faced several problems their computer models had not predicted. Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast. Concentrations of methane in the air are actually falling.

The Summary for Policymakers was issued February 2, 2007, but the report on which the Summary is based will not be published until May. This strange separation of the publication dates has raised in some minds the possibility that the Summary (written by political representatives of governments) will be taken as a basis for altering the science chapters (written by scientists, and supposedly finalized and closed in December 2006).

The draft of the science chapters, now being circulated to governments for last-minute comments, reveals that the tendency of computers to over-predict rises in temperature and sea level has forced a major rethink.

The report’s generally more cautiously-expressed projections confirm scientists’ warnings that the UN’s heavy reliance on computer models had exaggerated the temperature effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.

You can read the full report here. [22] RonCram 01:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to? Better read [23] William M. Connolley 19:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This page 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.