Talk:Climate change/Archive 26

Widespread misunderstanding of revert policy?
A perusal of the history would appear to show an unfortunate misunderstanding (at best) or perhaps even deliberate abuse (at worst) of the policy regarding revert/undo/rollback/what have you. The policy is clear: you are not to revert contributions, barring vandalism, except as a last resort. A revert should be seen as a revolting thing, to be avoided wherever possible. Prior consensus, sometimes years old and established long before recent editors came on board, does not mean permanent consensus. Every time a visitor loads an article in their browser, it is born anew and is fertile ground for editing. That you or I may not like those edits is not grounds for reverting them. It is grounds for further editing.

I don't think this is a misunderstanding in most cases; WP policy is thrown around quite freely here, which would seem to indicate that it is understood by most. Therefore, I won't insult anyone by providing links you have already bookmarked. I also don't think it is abuse in most cases, because I assume good faith. What I suspect is the most likely scenario is simple laziness; it is easier to revert than to spend several minutes pondering a newly contributed sentence or paragraph, trying to reformulate it in a way that will incorporate it while remaining factual. If new contributions are suspected to be factually wrong, every effort should be made -- by the editor who is considering a revert -- to determine the veracity of the content. In other words, just because a new editor adds a sentence but doesn't source it, you should not delete that sentence. It may be factual, but the unsophisticated editor doesn't understand the need to cite his or her facts. You, as a sophisticated editor and in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, should seek ways to incorporate that fresh material, rather than reasons to revert it.

That last bit is key: your instinctive goal should be inclusion, not exclusion.

If, after attempting to verify a statement, you determine that it is indeed unsupported, you should bring it up in talk, so that others (including, hopefully, the original contributor) might have a chance to verify it. If this also fails, removal is of course justified. This process seems to rarely take place in the GW article; it would appear that a large percentage of regular editors of this article could use a refresher course on reverting, in particular how and when it is to be used. Maintaining prior consensus does not apply.

Thanks for your consideration. --Triple-Deuce 22:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You just reverted the page - are you our kettle for today? --Tjsynkral 01:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not quite a revert. ~ UBeR 15:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

All this is largely beside the point. Most of the time the argument isn't about factual errors but the appropriatness of including stuff William M. Connolley 16:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it appropriate to include "few scientists disagree" without any good way to back that few up? --Tjsynkral 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you reinsert the reference if you yourself admit the source does not verify the statement? ~ UBeR 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is attributable, but I disagree with the research (or lack thereof) in the opinion article. --Tjsynkral 19:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not even attributable to AMQUA. ~ UBeR 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that the source doesn't hold water, we shouldn't use the word "few" at all. --Tjsynkral 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The circle completes itself William M. Connolley 22:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have nothing constructive to contribute, you're free to abscond from the discussion. I rather prefer it if you did. ~ UBeR 22:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so what do you propose? --Tjsynkral 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Terminating this unprofitable discussion and working to improve the article in other ways; failing that, improve other articles or do something else productive William M. Connolley 22:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, Tjsynkral, neverminding calls to end discussion (sounds irrational, stupid, and contrary to Wikipedia spirit), I'm not saying AMQUA holds no water; they're entitled to their opinion. What I think Triple-Deuce and I are saying is we're not reflecting their opinion on this article appropriately. For the most part, having no source is better than having a false or misrepresented source. ~ UBeR 23:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, having no source is original research. Completely against Wikipedia policy. --Tjsynkral 02:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Misrepresenting sources isn't a policy, sir or madam. ~ UBeR 03:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not flat-out misrepresentation (and your beef is with the GW side on that cite, anyway) - it's just a little flaky. But again, it is better than saying something with no source at all. There are only two acceptable ways for few or small or anything of that sort to appear: 1. with some kind of source to back it up, or 2. not to appear in the article at all. Uncited claims deserve to be deleted on the spot. --Tjsynkral 17:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone erased my entry and falsely accused me of vandalism.
Global warming WMD of overpopulation and Population Control —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.247.54.215 (talk • contribs).

I noticed that the article on global warming had exactly zero mentions of nuclear power. So I added one sentence stating that the United Nations has come out in favor of nuclear power as a way to combat global warming, and I cited my source. It was a legitimate source.

After I did this, someone erased it. Their only comment was "rv." I assume that comment means they are accusing me of vandalism. I was not vandalizing. My contribution was legitimate.

--grundle2600 May 13, 2007
 * No, I think the user just doesn't fully understand WP:AGF or WP:REVERT. WP:BOLD lets users be bold in their edits, and Wikipedia's spirit is to allow the free flow of information and contribution. On a particularly ostentatious article, however, people are a bit quick on reverting contributions that have even the slightest of error. You did nothing wrong and the err fell on the side of Arjuna808. Take note the the intro is particularly sensitive to edits on this article. Your contribution is perhaps better suited in the mitigation section, and I'm sure someone like myself would put the reference in proper format. Best of luck, mate. ~ UBeR 04:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --grundle2600


 * I'm sorry to disagree with UBeR here. This information belongs in the subarticle Mitigation of global warming not here. And you have to do something about the text as well. The article that you are quoting doesn't say that "The UN has come out in favor of nuclear power as a way to combat global warming." (actually the headline seems to do so - but the content doesn't). The article is referring to the AR4 SPM WGIII, and is putting quite alot of undue weight to something that is mentioned in passing (iirc - nuclear is to rise from 16% of global electricity generation to 18%). --Kim D. Petersen 09:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid grundle2600 is mistaken; I accused him/her of no such thing, I merely deleted (by reversion) the not-well-thought-out addition of an inaccurate statement that "The United Nations has come out in favor of nuclear power as a way to combat global warming", which 1. mistakenly conflates the United Nations with the IPCC; 2. does not "come out in favor", but rather is a more nuanced position on nuclear power as one approach among many; and 3. was material that was inappropriately placed. Mention of the IPCC's position on nuclear power is certainly worth mentioning (as per KDP's comment above), but you had it in the wrong place. In future, please try not to leap to false accusations so readily. Aloha, Arjuna 09:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think UBeR means "contentious", not "ostentatious", although I remain confused as to whom s/he thinks "doesn't fully understand WP:AGF or WP:REVERT" -- a statement which seems self-contradictory. Arjuna 09:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with A and KDP. And "rv" is revert; "rvv" is revert vandalism William M. Connolley 09:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. I got the abbreviations mixed up. Sorry. Thanks for the explanation. --grundle2600

You see, none of the explanations you gave warranting deleting, Arjuna808. "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it." Just keep that in mind next time. ~ UBeR 17:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Uber, perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote, because clearly the reasons I gave were sufficient for deleting, regardless of one's attitude towards GW. Arjuna 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I found some new sources - the BBC and PBS - that are more reliable. And instead of putting the information in the global warming article, I put it somewhere else. If anyone disagrees with it, let's please try to fix it, instead of erasing it. Thank you for your advice everyone. Grundle2600 23:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna - while you're so quick to point out your perceived flaws in others, you should more-fully use the edit summary next time as opposed to just typing "rv" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.156.166.51 (talk • contribs).

why no arctic global warming topic
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Study:_Arctic_ice_could_be_gone_by_2020 it states taht there would be no ice left in arctic by 2020.I edited the arctic article but some annoying users always reverts this and says it has no place here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic manchurian candidate 10:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The models are known to have their worst discrepancies with the observations at high latitudes. I will keep this study in mind.--Africangenesis 12:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall an article I read about arctic circle nations investing somewhat more heavily in surveying and staking claims. I can't recall where I read that though. Does anyone have any sources for this? --Kim Bruning 14:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Video explaining Global Warming
http://spacegeek.org/ep3_QT.shtml I was wondering if this video would make a good addition to external links which has no video resources. It explains GW by comparing Earth to Mars and Venus. The video is 8 min long and is very good; however, there is an ad at the end of it (for a book).
 * Goldilocks and the 3 planets". Heh. That's an interesting introduction to the concept! :) --Kim Bruning 14:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Kyoto Treaty and nuclear power
The article on global warming mentions the Kyoto Treaty several times, but there is no mention of nuclear power at all. It seems to me that this is proof of a bias against nuclear power in this article.

France stopped mining coal 3 years ago because it gets almost all of its electricity from nuclear power. Although several western European countries use wind power, when the wind isn't blowing they import their electricity from France.

Any article about global warming and the Kyoto Treaty which does not mention nuclear power simply cannot be taken seriously, because without nuclear power, it is impossible to enforce the Kyoto Treaty or solve the problem of global warming. Grundle2600 14:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a paragrpah on nuclear power to the mitigation section, and I included 3 legitimate sources: the BBC, PBS, and CBS. Given that the Kyoto Treaty is mentioned in several sections all over the page, I think my mentioning of nuclear power in one single paragraph is quite reasonable. I hope that no one will delete it. Grundle2600 15:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no bias against nuclear power. The statement about wind energy is misleading, because it suggest that there are countries that generate a major fraction of their electricity from wind power. That's simply not the case. I agree that the only way to curb CO_2 emissions drastically is by using nuclear energy. But that can't be done by just building more nuclear powerplants, there are a lot of issues that have to be addressed.


 * E.g. you cannot start up nuclear powerplants as fast as coal fired powerplants to meet peak demands. This can be addressed by using nuclear power to produce hydrogen and build hydrogen fired powerplants. The hydrogen could also be used in cars etc. You can only have electric cars or hydrogen powered cars anyway in a CO_2 emission free world.


 * Another issue is where the nuclear fuel would come from. The known U-235 reserves won't last very long (about 50 years), so we'll have to use Fast breeder reactors to produce enough fuel from U-238 and Th-232 (there is then enough to power the world's energy needs for the next 30,000 years). Count Iblis 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. Actually, nuclear power combined with electric cars such as the Tesla Roadster mean that we can completely end the burning of fossil fuels. I added a sentence and link explaining that we nave enough uranium to last until the sun blows up in 5 billion years. I also added a sentence on electric cars. Grundle2600 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It simply doesn't belong here - thats it. Expand the section in Mitigation of global warming instead. This article isn't a discussion of the various methods to generate electricity nor the individual countries implementation of such. The section "Mitigation and Adaption" on this page is for a WP:SUMMARY of the subarticles - and what you are including is too much for such a summary. There is no specific reason to mention wind, hydro or nuclear here. You are putting WP:Undue_weight on specific subject. (Nb: i'm pro-nuclear). --Kim D. Petersen 16:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mr. Petersen that this should be a concise summary. Your work would probably be appreciated at Kyoto Protocol and Mitigation of global warming though! ~ UBeR 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice - all of you. Grundle2600 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Whose measure of exact temperature change is being used/cited?
Should the exact amount of temperature change at the beginning of this article have a citation? I'm not pretending to be an expert or even a scientist but I am very interested in Global Warming and I think the efforts made on this page to be methodical and exact are to be applauded. A citation for this exact amount of temperature change seems indispensable.Markisgreen 05:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They are found, as Raul654 said, in the next sentence's citation, which is the IPCC's Summary For Policymakers of their Fourth Assessment Report. A link can be found here (PDF). Cheers. ~ UBeR 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I read through the report. Thanks for the link.  I still think the sentence construction is unclear.  Its a minor point I know, just trying to make it more compelling.  Anyway, I see you guys are very involved in this issue and this article so I'll leave it alone.  Keep up the good work.  Sorry for the annoyance.Markisgreen 06:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... how is it unclear? I've read it again and thought it was pretty clear. Any insight would be helpful. Thanks. ~ UBeR 16:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question: From my first reading of this article, I found the second sentence of the article off-putting due to its lack of attribution and poor flow between the first few sentences. These are the opening sentences "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.

Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) during the past century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect."

Which I would re-write as follows: "Global warming is the observable phenomenon of consistently increasing average temperatures in the air and oceans on the surface of the earth. Over the most recent decades, numerous trends have been detected through careful measurement of environmental data suggesting that this phenomenon will continue.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74° +/- 0.18° C (1.3° +/- 0.32° F) during the past century. The IPCC, in an assessment report for policymakers, indicates in the conclusion of their report that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human-generated) greenhouse gas concentrations."[1] which lead to increased warming of air and water on the surface of the earth by exaggerating the atmosphere's greenhouse effect."

Just a minor suggestion. Nothing I'm real heated up about. I should be in bed.Markisgreen 06:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the only real problem I have with your suggestion is the "consistently increasing temperatures" since there hasn't been much change since 1998. ~ UBeR 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in getting into this with skeptics such as Uber who seem unpersuaded by hard facts, other than to state for the record that his statement is incorrect. Arjuna 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since 1998, not 1800. Watch (and read) your words more carefully next time. ~ UBeR 08:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You evidently did not bother to check the article I cited, the chart and graph on which demonstrates my point, as intended: post-1998. Arjuna 08:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the data fully supports my conclusions. Your simple attacks are but unfounded and ignorant polarizations. I ask that you stop. ~ UBeR 09:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Amusing. As I said, I had no intention of getting into this with you, and this is my last posting on this thread, whatever you may write in response. Suffice to say that you deliberately pick 1998, which as you well know was a major outlier year (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming), as your arbitrary baseline. This is a well known skeptic tactic of cooking the books. Remove that outlier year and the warming trend is not disputed. But nice try. Arjuna 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Now you see you are diverging from my original point. I don't think anyone disputes that there's been warming since 1999 (I certainly wasn't), so I don't see why you're arguing for it. If you look at the past 10 years though, the trend isn't readily obvious. You can pick the nine warmest years on record (which is what I really did) and you get the same thing. Picking the two warmest years isn't arbitrary. This was simply to say the statement "consistently increasing temperatures" isn't necessarily true, otherwise we'd see a straight line in the anomalies, which we don't obviously. There's a clear upwards trend, but that's quite different. You're attacking something that isn't there, I'm afraid. ~ UBeR 09:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * UBeR, you are cherry-picking (and you know it). So ... there has been consistent warming since 1999 - how about since 1997? (how about every year except 1998?) Picking a particular outlier is cherry-picking. A reasonable approach is to pick 2 years that aren't El Niño anomalies - and then you'll get the nice slow upward trend that Arjuna808 is talking about. Look at the trend - please. --Kim D. Petersen 14:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already recognized the trend. You're arguing for something no one is arguing against. I've already differentiated between consistently increasing and upward trends. Why can't you? ~ UBeR 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then i suggest that you explain yourself clearly - instead of making comments like this - which started the whole thing. (imho that one was disruptive then). --Kim D. Petersen 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC) [nb: and what on Earth do you mean by "why can't you"...(i can't differentiate about anything in your comment - since you only mention one thing "consistently increasing and upward trend" and .... what?)  --Kim D. Petersen 23:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's two things, not one. ~ UBeR 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Over the most recent decades, numerous trends have been detected through careful measurement of environmental data suggesting that this phenomenon will continue. - this is wrong: there is no implication that the trends will continue just from what they have done in the past William M. Connolley 08:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and that. I missed that. ~ UBeR 08:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What suggests that the trend will continue is the global energy imbalance. If that continues, the trend will continue, for awhile at least.  But that is a different from mere trend extrapolation.--Africangenesis 14:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, warming is expected even if we discontinue mass CO2 emissions. There's no clear sign that will stop any time soon though, so it's reasonable to expect future warming. ~ UBeR 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hockey Stick?

 * The fact that this articler LEADS WITH the hockey stick says it all, really. It's simply become funny.
 * That's not the hockey stick. Try hockey stick controversy first. ~ UBeR 08:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The section titled "Pre-human climate variations" uses the infamous "hockey stick" graphic showing a pronounced rise in global temperatures during recent decades. I suggest that this graphic should definitely not be used because serious flaws have been found in the methods used to create the graphic. See http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf for information. --76.2.44.243 14:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the hockey stick controversy. However, the graph you mention shows many different reconstructions: can you spot the hockey stick amongst them? Oh, and McK is a poor ref William M. Connolley 14:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Because you say so? 87.194.58.231 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it is a non peer-reviewed opinion piece written by an economist and presented at a politics conference? --Stephan Schulz 09:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this scientific proof that his opinion is wrong-headed? --Childhood&#39;s End 13:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but it is ordinary proof that it is a poor reference on a scientific topic. This would hold even if this were excellent work. --Stephan Schulz 13:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Their paper is published in Geophysical Research Letters, vol 32, in 2005. The graphic here doesnt really look like a hockey stick (M&M now call it a 'spaghetti graph'). I think it's OK to use it. But it's in the wrong place! Why is it in the section "Pre-human climate variations" when it relates to the last 1000 yrs? Also I think there should be a link to hockey stick controversy. Something like "Reconstructions of past temperature levels have proved controversial" maybe? Paul Matthews 14:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The paper cited up here is not published in GRL. The GRL paper is a better source (though not really a good one, given that several later publications disagree with it). "Reconstructions of past temperature levels have proved controversial" would be OR. We can agee that there is a controversy about one particular reconstruction... --Stephan Schulz 14:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Examination of the Hockey-stick so called flaws by an NRC panel : http://www.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11676.pdf --Galahaad 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, they say: Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions of Mann et al that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" Paul Matthews 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And the picture is still in the wrong place.
 * And "even less confidence" is specified as a 66% (2 in 1) confidence level. (Pf. Bloomberg at around 00:47:06-00:50:10 - at the press-conference as an answer to a journalist from Science) [url]http://www.nationalacademies.org/podcast/20060622.mp3[/url]). --Kim D. Petersen 00:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought that Wikipedia policy does not allow deletion of content from Talk pages.
I note that Raymond arritt appears to have completely deleted two comments from this Talk page because, in his opinion, they were irrelevant. I thought that was not permitted.

He seems also to have deleted much content from his own Talk page without archiving the content. Again, is that permitted?

Please don't mis-interpret this posting as a criticism of Raymond arritt. I just want to know whether or not such deletions from Talk pages are permitted. - mbeychok 02:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Both are permitted. In articles such as this, where many of the comments do not relate to improving the article content, removing irrelevant comments is a necessary way of keeping the size of the talk page down. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * --Akhilleus: Having just read WP:TALK, in the section on "Others' comments", it states Editing others' comments is not allowed. Exceptions are: ... and the following list of exceptions does not include irrelevancy as an exception. Are you sure that we are permitted to unilaterally judge someone else's Talk comment to be irrelevant and then delete it? - mbeychok 02:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been told that deletions from talk pages are not permitted. I can understand if major vandalism or abuse is removed. Does anyone have a link to the relevant policy? rossnixon 02:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally what he did is frowned upon. We don't want edit wars on talk pages.  Complete irrelevancies such as trolling or personal discussions are generally OK to delete.  Whether what he deleted was irrelevant was a judgement call, so probably should not have been done, I didn't feel strongly about it, but I will feel strongly if he insists upon these particular deletions, if someone restores them.--Africangenesis 02:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite sure that irrelevant comments can be removed. WP:TALK is a guideline, by the way, and the most relevant part of the guideline is "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." In the spirit of that quote, I hope that someone will delete this thread, as it doesn't have anything to do with improving the Global warming article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk pages should be reserved for discussing the article and how to improve them, NOT the topic of the article. See, e.g., talkheader. WP:TALK is a guideline that suggest we should discuss how to improve the article. Whether the two threads deleted by Dr. Arritt were just that or "irrelevant" is up for discussion. The key line I think we're looking for is the following, "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." P.S. there is no rule that states you have to archive your user talk page. ~ UBeR 03:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to explain my reasoning here, but Akhilleus and UBeR have already done so. It's hard enough to follow all the threads on this page without stuff like "WOW the size of california melted in antartica in 2005." But if community consensus is that anything goes, I'll not oppose it. Raymond Arritt 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what information was deleted, but I have seen relevant info deleted from Talk pages. IMHO, the best course of action is to restore the information and explain why it is relevant to improving the article. It will generally not be deleted a second time. RonCram 04:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the interpretation should be generous. Science that may eventually make it into the article or help reach or change the consensus of the article should be open for discussion.  Dicussion should not always have to be about a proposed change.--Africangenesis 04:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I follow Africangenesis and RonCram, and thus disagree with Uber and Akhilleus. Relevancy is a subjective judgment call. From the moment that you give discretion to anyone to delete talk pages because they find comments irrelevnat, you open the floodgates to arbitrary deletions and edit wars. None here, not even Mr. Arritt, holds the truth about what is relevant or not, or is exempt from subjective bias, or can always guess what may come out from a discussion that seemed irrelevant at its early stage. Except for the obvious, deleting talk pages can reasonably be construed as forbidden by WP policies, for good reason. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, "Whether the two threads deleted by Dr. Arritt were just that or 'irrelevant' is up for discussion." I was merely answering the question of whether or not Wikipedia allows deletion of content from talk pages. ~ UBeR 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Biased or Lacking Evidence in Article
I am more then sure that a few of the posters here have a zealous desire for proving Global Warming as being through and through fact, but there are just to many flaws right now for it to be considered as such.

With that in mind I tried to read this whole article without trying to express my own opinion but when I see right off the bat that it is stated that only a few scientists, most being un-credible, think that it is false is just outright false and more annoying then anything else. A large number of scientist (mainly prior supporters or (in some cases) some of the origional founders of the theory) have now left the alarmist camp and are now saying that Global Warming has now been greatly exagerated. It is not just a 95% majority in the scientific community that believes in Global Warming, it is closer to 60%-75%. Saying things like "a few" and "uncredited" scientists gives the impression that if you believe Global Warming is a misinterpentation of the facts then you must either be on your own or stupid, or both. To say such things is not only ignorant, but biased. --Joshic Shin 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you re-read it and pay special attention to the sources used. Also check scientific opinion on climate change. This article is well-supported, while your claims seem to be without any source. And scientific theories are not "proven" is a strict sense, although many may well be considered "fact" in an every day meaning. --Stephan Schulz 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect Joshic, your statements are vastly exaggerated, incorrect, and contrived beyond belief. A strong and notable majority of the relevant scientific community firmly believe that global warming is real and that humans are an integral part of why it is happening.UberCryxic 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well, I shall cite sources for you to read.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070208c.html has an article talking about how many climatoligists are having their jobs threatened if they do not go with the consensus.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id= talks about several prominit scientists who were once alarmist and are now critics. A very intresting person to note in this article is Dr. Claude Allegre, one of the first to sound off on Global Warming. (The person I was refrering to earlier)
 * You do realize that this article was authored by Marc Morano and posted to the blog of James "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" Inhofe, right? And that those two people don't exactly make the most objective sources of Global-warming related information. Raul654 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And lastly, a very long series of articles by the National Post, http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0, talked about how Global Warming is not happening in the way it is currently describe, if at all.


 * Thanks for the objective, neutral and authoritative sources. Raymond Arritt 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

CO2 emissions 2000-04 worse than IPCC worst-case scenario
Spotts, P. (May 22, 2007) "Global carbon emissions in overdrive" Christian Science Monitor


 * CO2 emissions from cars, factories, and power plants grew at an annual rate of 1.1 percent during the 1990s.... But from 2000 to 2004, CO2 emissions rates almost tripled to 3 percent a year – higher than any rate used in emissions scenarios for the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)....

75.18.208.222 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good news. Unfortunately, as science has found, CO2 has a diminishing influence on temperature. The curve rapidly tails off once you get a bit past 150ppm. rossnixon 02:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not good news! ~ UBeR 02:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not good news that global warming isn't as bad as you thought?

External review
Quote from article:
 * On the much-debated topic of global warming, Colorado State University's Scott Denning called the Wikipedia entry "a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia. Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen," said Denning, the Monfort Professor of Atmospheric Science.


 * Denning said he was pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy." Students who want to study up on the controversy, however, find plenty of links if they want them. Denning wishes Wikipedia offered better links to basic weather science. "Apparently there is still a role for real textbooks and professors!" he said.

--BMF81 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. This is a few weeks old, and was duly noted back then. ~ UBeR 02:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Global Premium Carbon Bonds
Novel ways to decarbonize our economies need to be discussed because this promotes more efficient use of fossil fuels and lower amounts of all atmospheric pollutants including greenhouse gases. There are a variety of ways to finance the decarbonization process. Please see the entry "Global Premium Carbon Bonds". I would like the following statement added to the "Mitigation and Adaptation" section of the Global Warming page at the end of the discussion of emissions trading:  The market for tradeable carbon economic instruments will be in the hundreds of billions within years. A novel approach to carbon financing is through Global Premium Carbon Bonds.

Jimmyookpik 00:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree. What might seem novel to one person might be complete rubbish to another. Without a reliable source (which unfortunately is not much because of some people), I doubt you'll be able to get anything included. ~ UBeR 02:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats strange advice/text UBeR since you know that it doesn't belong on this page, both because it would be undue weight here - but mostly because it belongs on the Mitigation of global warming page. (what does "some people" mean?) --Kim D. Petersen 05:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's strange advice at all. It's been Wikipedia's policy since the get-go. If you don't have verifiable or reliable sources for information, it cannot be included in an article. And by some people I mean people who arbitrarily and foolishly felt it prudent and acceptable to use shoddy sources for scientific material in this article, despite a fairly long and logical de facto trend that was just opposite of that for this grandiose article. ~ UBeR 06:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Uber. Arjuna 04:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its notable (yet?) William M. Connolley 17:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like the phrase below added to the Mitigation and Adaptation section of this page because there is no mention of the types of economic instruments that can be traded. Examples of such instruments should be given because if carbon emissions trading is acknowledged to be important, then what are examples of the instruments that are tradeable? After the phrase: "One important innovation has been the development of greenhouse gas emissions trading through which companies, in conjunction with government, agree to cap their emissions or to purchase credits from those below their allowances."

There should be the phrase: " Global Premium Carbon Bonds would stimulate saving, investment and trading in long term global emissions sparing capabilities because of their broad public appeal and their powerful incentive toward extended holding periods." 66.79.240.218 19:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First discuss this on the Mitigation article; the section here is a summary of that article. Once (and if) included, then if it is appropriate at a summary level, it can be included in this article's Mitigation summary section. --Skyemoor 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For some useful details on this topic, try this search for the phrase "Global Premium Carbon Bonds." Raymond Arritt 19:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The first graph
I believe shows a distorted representation of the situation.

Should there not be a graph showing the little ice age etc?

And there was a great global warming after the ancient ice ages should not that also be included?

FatherTree 14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Look a little further down. Raymond Arritt 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes the 2000 year chart should be first. And the black line should be elimiated because it is so out of sync with the other lines. FatherTree 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's odd, because the black line represents actual temperature records that have been physically measured. ~ UBeR 20:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But only back to 1850. What would that line be in 900AD. It might be much higher than in 2000 AD. The black line is POV. It seems we are about as warm now as we were in 900 AD. And in a unbiased representation one line of data so skewed would be thrown out. FatherTree 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The black line is POV?? wow.  the black line is directly measured data, and it is directly comparable with the rest of the graph.  bikeable (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We do not have that same type of measurement from 900 AD the last period of global warming. So it makes the global warming now look worse that what it was in 900 AD. And if the black line is so accurate then the others must be erroneous. FatherTree 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case the first graph should not be first. It jus shows recent trends and does not show the warming in the middle ages. And this graph was designed by a group who believe that global warming is a problem and are presenting the data to push their POV. FatherTree 21:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which diagram are you now talking about? The first image shows the instrumental temperature record. The red line in that diagram is equivalent to the black one in Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png further down. And the black line there is in good agreement (within error estimates) with all the temperature reconstructions. The instrumental temperature record is not seriously under debate, and similar versions have been published by more than one organization. --Stephan Schulz 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What is under debate is whether global warming is caused by humans or is it a naturally occurring thing. We cannot make conclusions on that by using data that only comes from the present period. Data that comes from all periods shows that global warming happens without intervention from humans FatherTree 13:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is under debate is whether global warming is caused by humans or is it a naturally occurring thing.  Not in the scientific community. If you want to inject political debate, go to Global warming controversy.  --Skyemoor 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, attribution is not only or even primarily based on the temperature record. We do have a reasonably good (though far from perfect) understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms that cause warming. Svante Arrhenius has predicted it long before anybody could measure it. The current warming corrobates the theory, it is not used to induce it.--Stephan Schulz 14:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Explain why you believe there is no debate on this in the 'scientific community'? FatherTree 15:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Scientific opinion on climate change. --Stephan Schulz 15:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No scientist now doubts the anthropogenic origin of global warming. Right? ~ UBeR 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you and I know, a few do. But extremely few are doing it in peer-reviewed publications. Newspaper editorials and think tank publications do not make a scientific debate. --Stephan Schulz 19:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it would be nice to have no scientists disagreeing, as Skyemoor would have it, but that's not the case. ~ UBeR 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I went througt that. However did not see a double blind controlled study. And some of the comments were more like 'humans probably have a part in global warming' The graphs in the article show that global warming happened before industrialization. So how can we really be sure now? I remember in the 70s the scientists said we were headed for an ice age. What happened to that? FatherTree 15:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, "scientists" didn't, or at least only very few of them, in a very weak manner (strictly speaking, minus AGW, we probably are, albeit it's a long way off). Newspapers sensationalised it, and were wrong about it. And we are "really sure", again, because we understand the underlying physics to a reasonably degree. In real science, there is no "proof", and there always is an element of uncertainty. But AGW is extremely well supported. --Stephan Schulz 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No controlled double blind study means its a guess. We had cooling in the 40s and at that time CO2 was going up. Why did the temps go down then? FatherTree 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you need a controlled double-blind study to know you put your pants on this morning, or do you just have to guess? For the answer to your question, try reading the article- "Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[29] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability." (Global warming). johnpseudo 18:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether you like it or not Science has to follow the scientific method. The studies you showed me did not. Does not mean they do not have some truth but they are not conclusive or even highly probable. FatherTree 18:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(redent)Indeed, and the scientific method does not require controlled double blind studies - indeed, "double blind" studies only make sense if the subject of the research is a sentinent being (traditionally human). General relativity has not been tested in double blind studies, and neither has statistical thermodynamics or Quantum electrodynamics. --Stephan Schulz 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * General relativity, statistical mechanics, QED: all these theories can be tested with controlled experiment or natural observation. AGW can be tested by natural observation as well, but we have to wait quite awhile to record enough data to obtain a conclusive result. As I've stated before in here, climate science and all heavily model driven scientific fields are dependent upon real data as feedback to perfect the model. It's naive to think "understanding" is great enough to account for all variables. History has many theories which proceeded relativity, statistical mechanics and QED. However, during their day these model were neither wrong nor right, just filled their niche at the time. The same can be said for the current state of climate science with particular regard to AGW.
 * Wouldn't you have to be able to predict the future to make that statement? ~ UBeR 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Moreover, attribution is not only or even primarily based on the temperature record. We do have a reasonably good (though far from perfect) understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms that cause warming." The warming is larger than can be accounted for by the underlying mechanisms, so positive feedbacks are needed, and models are needed to "understand" them. Those models have to be better than "reasonably good" to be useful for attribution and projection. The models are being doubted "in peer review publications".--Africangenesis 09:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can find papers douting the attribution studies, do please direct attention to them, probably at the attribution page. OTOH if all you have are papers discussing the merits of GCms, don't bother William M. Connolley 09:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree, if we also didn't have any attribution and projection based on the models in the article. If you dig below the IPCC surface, models are all there is.  Now that we have the WG1 final reports, lets migrate all the "summary" conclusions down to their supporting WG1 peer review citations.--Africangenesis 09:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all there could be a double-blind on this. These results are interpreted by 'sentient' beings. Now also there could be stat analysis of the graphs. I am sure they would not be statistically significant. I can tell just by looking at them but that would be verified by a stat analysis. Global temperatures have a natural level of variance. And what is being said is that in the last 50 years the variance greatly exceeds the natural variance which is not true. This could easliy be shown by a stat analysis. Of course there is a funding issue here. There is no incentive to show that global warming is not a problem. Does not make poliical hay. The first graph is POV and most of the others are. FatherTree 11:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "This could easliy be shown by a stat analysis" >>> only if it was badly done. There is a problem even if badly done though, which is that a post-hoc analysis of data can only be hypothesis generating (since if you look at data post hoc you are bound to see patterns somewhere). If you want to infer something from data within meaningful error bands you have to do a predictive study which ain't really open to you on historical data. But I am sure you know all this and are enjoying waving your branches. --BozMo talk 12:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not true. Then what you are saying is that there is no way to tell if humans are causing global warming. We can look at the past data and see say that during the non human time there was a variation of +/- 10% then if we look at the human data and see that it goes beyond 10% it might be causal. below prob not. now if the human data is like 50% above almost certainly we have a causal. lower % s would have to analyzed by z scores or t tests or whatever. FatherTree 12:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice try again. I did not say "no way to tell" I implied that you cannot get there with post hoc statistics, which is broadly true, you can't. You also cannot use conventional falsifiable hypothesis. These however are poor man's science, popular only with people who haven't noticed how the real world works. I suggest you start by reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. --BozMo talk 12:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This is how most scientific studies are done. I suggest you analyze some research studies in various disciplines. Go over about 50 of them and tell me what you find. FatherTree 12:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The published articles on these data actually do use statistical analyses that are quite a bit more advanced than a z test or a t test, and they show statistically significant warming. Actually, the very statement that anthropogenic variance exceeds natural variance directly implies what type of test they used, and it's neither a z nor a t. 193.190.253.150 10:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Casual passer-by


 * What stat analysis do they use? What type of test was implied? FatherTree 23:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PCA (Principal component analysis) is the main one.

It should be noted that temperatures increased more dramitcally in the medival warm period (BEFORE cars and jets and oil derricks), and it was a time of prosperity, good crops and longer lives. Shouldn't the graph display that (New User)

Based on modelling results...
Looks like the next edit war is shaping up over the "bsed on modelling results bit". I regard this as deceptive: its based on modelling, obs and theory. To describe it as only based on models seems odd William M. Connolley 11:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Come up with observations and theory (independent of models), that support the contention of small. Such will be at least controversial, since non-model correlation evidence tends to support a larger role for solar than the AR4 models do.  The provided citations, including the IPCC conclusions are model based and the model evidence is hampered by poor representation of solar influences.--Africangenesis 11:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is bound to be model based because of the lack of repeatability. But you need to provide good support for a statement like "model evidence is hampered by poor representation of solar influences" unless you mean it trivially (i.e. you just mean it in the sense that every model is inevitably hampered by poor representation of most of its elements). I don't have a deep understanding of climate but I have seen too many people believe they spotted the flaw in too many theories not to recognise an Urban Myth phenomenon about how these kinds of beliefs get adopted. --BozMo talk 11:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * BozMo, all the models have poor representation of solar influences, but not trivially, but by IPCC diagnostic subprojects, that showed they all have a positive surface albedo bias against the observations, we've discussed Roesch above. Also note that all poorly reflected the ice albedo positive feedback also discussed above.  I am also following a new paper on solar influences which showed all the AR4 models (except two?) lacked the solar pattern of warming detected in the observations.  I will document all of this when I move to put this in the article.  Of course there are lots of other serious documented problems with the models.--Africangenesis 12:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Roesch has been archived off. Search for Roesch on, for the ice albedo positive (warming) feedback that the models fail to represent,search on Arctic above, and read that paper.--Africangenesis 12:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit wars are indeed silly, as are people who think they are one-sided. First of all, I have no objection to the idea that these are model based: of course they are. But they are not purely model based: the models themselves, the numbers they crunch, come from observations. To describe them as purely model based is thuse deceptive. "The model evidence is hampered by poor representation of solar influences" - there is no evidence for this (its irreleveant to the discussion of course, please try to be disciplined and not drift off). "since non-model correlation evidence tends to support a larger role for solar than the AR4 models do" - I think we're all agreed that correlation by itself proves nothing. The solar people really don't do attribution stuff at all, because they aren't that sophisticated. They really do seem to be stuck at the level of drawing two graphs and mathcing the wiggles (or rather, drawing lots and lots of graphs and selecting the ones with the best matches) William M. Connolley 11:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Model problem denialism rears its unsupportable head. Ad hominem attacks on the solar people.  Let's stick to the subject, how do you get to "small" without the models, after all you had a heck of a time documenting the small until the recent cite, and it was very model based.  The bottom line is, I add appropriate and informative text supported by the pre-existing cite, and you revert without any supporting cite. --Africangenesis 12:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the new paper I am following  The relevant interesting quote for solar and models is: --Africangenesis 12:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Our procedure for the solar-cycle signal yields an interesting pattern of warming over the globe. It may be suggestive of some common fast feedback mechanisms that amplify the initial radiative forcing. Currently no GCM has succeeded in simulating a solar-cycle response of the observed amplitude near the surface. Clearly a correct simulation of a global-scale warming on decadal time scale is needed before predictions into the future on multi-decadal scale can be accepted with confidence."


 * No, "ad hom" would be if I argued against the people themselves. Arguing against their methods isn't. Please don't throw stupid accusations around. And do please read what I say: of course you can't get to small without the models: you can't get anywhere without the models. But neither can you get to small without the obs... you can't get anywhere without the obs. As for the paper: I *do* hope that its a draft rather than a published one, cos there is a terrible error at line 27. These mathmos really ought to talk to some cliamte people before submitting William M. Connolley 13:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a draft, and hasn't been published yet. That is why I have been waiting.  The UV is more variable than the TSI, but I would have liked more references for this part.  That issue would tend to lower their derivation of climate sensitivity.  I also don't like their factor of 20 on relative to the CO2 doubling forcing. I'd prefer a comparison at the surface, where CO2 requires a much larger adjustment due to the lapse rate feedback.--Africangenesis 13:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets hope it gets some competent referees then to knock out the obvious errors and leave only the subtle ones William M. Connolley 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets hope it is decided on the science and not the politics.--Africangenesis 15:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A weird comment, which further has nothing obvious to do with the article. So, have you spotted the obvious flaw yet? I even gave you the line number as a hint William M. Connolley 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No I guess not, they don't give references for their figures, so I'm not sure they're using the right figures to calculate what they claim. The correctness of the figure would impact the sensitivity they calculate, but not the pattern they detected as far as I can tell.


 * Given how political the IPCC was, with reports that language was specifically disputed because skeptics would latch onto it, even though the language was correct, it is natural to be concerned that statements such as I quoted above would come under some pressure.--Africangenesis 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Assume their numbers are correct, what have they forgotten? As to your quote: since no-one has yet *demonstrated* a solar-cycle response in sfc T, as they themselves note, its probably just as well that no GCM has found it William M. Connolley 16:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * William, let's end the guessing game. I don't know whether you have something profound or pedantic in mind. I hope it isn't the use of units of power for energy, because Hansen does the same thing. I'll be a good sport and go for the semi-profound, they write as if the power they calculated gets deposited in the troposphere, but they are not taking into account albedo, at least not explicitly, etc.  --Africangenesis 16:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Text Macros?
What is the point of all these "TEXT" comments? johnpseudo 16:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed those and assumed they're a workaround to get the graphs to align properly on the right. Anyone know for certain? Raymond Arritt 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They are to make the editing of the source easier. The source is pretty hard to read with the long references interleaved.  By placing the text macro at the end of a reference, before starting the text of the article again, we can separate the text at the beginning of a line, yet still have it separated from the preceding paragraph flow by only a space.  Note that for references at the end of a paragraph, there is no need for the text macro.  It is only needed for references in the middle of a paragraph.  It makes finding where the text of a paragraph picks up again, easier.  BTW, I don't know for "certain", I've only inferred this from usage.  It works and it helps if we adopt this practice. --Africangenesis 16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If find the the "text macros" rather unhelpful and perhaps a bit worse than before. ~ UBeR 08:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes using and sometimes removing them is making diffs rather hard to read. I went ahead and removed them since that seemed they were inconsistently used and removal seemed to be the direction folks were leaning here.  I don't think they are a big deal, although I too lean against their use.  --TeaDrinker 07:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You and UBeR form a consensus? The prior state was that they were sometimes used and sometimes not.  I upgraded it to fully consistent use, until UBeR did a piecemeal removal.  BTW, they are not really macros, just comments labeled in such a way that makes their mere formatting use consistent.  Perhaps if we went through and made the citation formats into a consistent one field per line, we could achieve the same effect of making finding the text easier.  I am just surprised that you two cannot adjust.  I didn't introduce the text, I just made it consistent. --Africangenesis 10:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't misunderstand, I have no strong feelings either way. Thanks for taking the time to reformat the citations.  My primary concern was having people revert to versions which used them differently. Since your version prior to my removing the hidden text did not use them, and Arjuna808's revert re-introduced them, I thought it would be reasonable (and uncontroversial) to simpy remove them from Arjuna808's version.  Let me know if there is more I can do to address our concerns.  -TeaDrinker 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanx, I think it was all for the best, because just formating the citations is cleaner. I'm learning this as I'm going along.  I don't know who came up with the text idea, but we need some kind of formating to help with the citations so tightly interleaved with the text.--Africangenesis 18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

assume good faith
I have added the roesch and stroeve cites, showing all the AR4 models getting the surface albedo and ice-albedo feedbacks wrong. Arritt has done a revert of properly cited material that has been discussed. He should assume good faith. He assumed these would be non-consensus, when the community has not evaluated them. If the community is intellectually honest (I am assuming good faith), they will have no problem with these additions. I am open to having them either in the intro or in the model section, but they should be with the projection numbers so they are in proper perspective.--Africangenesis 21:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be rather contradictory of WP:BOLD to have request permission to add content every time. ~ UBeR 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a point where WP:BOLD runs head on into WP:TEND. Raymond Arritt 02:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As Africangenesis surely knows, such large, substantive changes should be properly discussed first. Although some/many/all (?) of Africangenesis' edits may be perfectly acceptable, given the complex nature of the material, in order to continue to assume good faith, incremental changes, rather than such large-scale revisions, should be the approach here. I second Arritt's comments. Arjuna 03:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The changes would not have seemed large scale in the diffs if UbER had not shifted the material into the model section. The material added was neither bold nor tendacious, it was cite material that had been discussed here above and in the material just archived.  No one has pointed out any problems with the cites.--Africangenesis 10:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The only content change I made was moving Africangensis' new content to the "Climate models" section, which was something like two sentences. ~ UBeR 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In one edit You moved text, deleted several text "macros" and lost the "increased warming feedback" footnote, which is why in a subsequent edit summary I asked "UbER, you deleted a footnote, I'm restoring, can you check your work to make sure you didn't delete anything else? -- thanx" It is easier for  you and others to check your work if you do it in simple parts.  Separate text moves, from macro deletions, from footnote deletions.  It is also the reason substantive contributions should not be immediately removed.  The full edit may still be in progress, being done in parts to make it easier for the community to follow.--Africangenesis 10:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what I did. I moved you text to climate models section, where it belongs (I actually suggest you begin working at the article titled climate model). I also deleted your note you were using as a reference. You're free to make a notes section if it really warrants it. I deleted the text macros, but like I said, it wasn't a content change. ~ UBeR 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You did not disclose the deletion of the note, there are other notes in the reference section.--Africangenesis 21:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where? ~ UBeR 06:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad. It must have been on a different article.  Deleting a note is still a content change.--Africangenesis 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Solar radiation as a cause of global warming
The last two sentences of the first paragraph in the "causes" section currently (2007-05-26) read: "Contrasting with the scientific consensus, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain most of the observed increase in global temperatures. Among these hypotheses are that the warming is caused by natural fluctuations in the climate or that warming is mainly a result of variations in solar radiation." This wording states two views which are not supported by primary references. First it suggests that some research views solar radiation as a primary cause of global warming. Secondly, it suggests that a belief in solar radiation as a contributing factor to warming are outside the scientific mainstream. The current reference is to a media article (secondary reference). If these views are supported in research literature, such references should be added.

There are peer-reviewed research articles which support that solar variation is a contributing factor (Solanki 2004, Stott 2007). But neither of these sources claim that solar variation is the major cause of global warming. Stott et al. say, "results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse gas incresases explain most of the global warning observed in the second half of the twentieth century." Solanki et al. arrive at similar conclusions, saying "Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusal climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."

I made edits regaring this issue which were reverted. I won't attempt to make edits again, but I request that other editors find a satisfactory way to resolve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peanutvampire (talk • contribs)
 * I believe I saw an edit summary saying your information was already in the article in a different place. I haven't checked myself.  Although, Solanki did say at one time that solar variability was unlikely to have been the dominant cause for the last three decades, it is unclear whether he was familiar with the climate commitment literature.--Africangenesis 22:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, Peanutvampire. Recently, Dr. Arritt changed "some" to "most." I don't think it was unwise, as I don't think anyone doubts the Sun plays a role. Perhaps, think it's being underestimated would be better phrasing. As for secondary vs. primary references, WP:OR suggests secondary over primary. However, I agree with using primarily primary sources. ~ UBeR 22:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was because of the context "Contrasting with the scientific consensus..." Stating that "some" of the changes are due to solar variation, etc. is part of the consensus view.  The departure from consensus arrives when these factors are argued to dominate over the anthropogenic contribution; i.e., they produced "most" of the temperature increase.  Raymond Arritt 23:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that UBeR's wording--the contribution of solar variation may be "underestimated"--would be an improvement over the current. Maybe better yet:  solar variation amplified by cloud feedbacks have been proposed as an alternative cause.  This wording is consistent with the detailed section on solar variation.  Regarding primary vs. secondary sources--they are complementary, include both!


 * Africangenesis the Solanki&Krivova paper specifically takes this into account . Solanki btw. doesn't just dismiss solar variability as a dominant cause - he also dismisses the cosmic ray/cloud hypothesis as being a major cause. (in toto: both combined a max of 30% of the warming since 1970) --Kim D. Petersen 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Solanki only shifts by 11 years, the climate commitment studies show that temperature can take decades to equilibrate, and the energy imbalance from a new forcing continues for centuries of heat storage into the ocean. So, Solanki did not show familiarity with the studies.  As to cosmic rays, he also claims more than he actually demonstrated. --Africangenesis 23:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Africangenesis, the graph is shiftet 11 years, as it shows a nice correlation - that doesn't mean that other shifts wasn't tried. And in fact the text specifically states that it was, and the reason for it (ocean-atmosphere lag). I'll overlook your personal opinion on Solanki's claims about cosmic rays, as that is purely WP:OR - it would be really nice if you could stop making these, since this isn't a forum for opinion. --Kim D. Petersen 00:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the main results of climate commitment studies, was that even if the forcing went flat, the climate is committed to an increasing temperature for decades and to storing heat into the ocean for centuries, and you are here talking about trying shifts to achieve correlations. Since climate commitment was barely mentioned in the tar, and the studies of Meehl and Wigley weren't until 2005, perhaps Solanki in 2002 should be given a break.
 * Under this climate commitment understanding, what you look for in the charts, is not matching slopes, but a new level of forcing having been achieved and maintained above the level of prior centuries and the temperature rising in response.  The periodic nature of solar forcing, and even slight dips in solar forcing, that are still above levels that have not yet been adjusted to by the oceans, still can result in a monotonically increasing temperature.  Even in a circumstance in which solar forcing should be causing monotonically increasing temperatures, other intervening influences such as volcanoes and aerosols, etc can give the curves quite different shapes which would frustrate simple curve matching exercises such as this.  Even more sophisticated analyses such as the new one I am looking at by Tung and Camp, that find a solar signature over the short term solar cycle, underestimate the total climate sensitivity to solar, since they would filter out the DC (flat) contribution.--Africangenesis 09:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

citation formatting completed
I have just completed a section of citation formatting for readability and ease of finding the end of a citation. I know it make the differences look screwy, so I took care to do all the formmatting at once,without any other edits for a one time transition. The formatting takes advantage of two characteristics. Therefore we can find the next ref by looking for the at the beginning of a line. We can find where the text resumes by finding the /ref by itself on a line, and the very next line is the resumption of the text. The only exception is where there are two references in a row, in that case, I put the /ref and the new ref on the same line, and then also make sure to being the next line of the new ref with a space as usually. I do NOT suggest that we enforce this on editors, just that we fix it, for our own benefit when we see it. -- regards,--Africangenesis 14:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Within references, we can have a space at the beginning of a line, and within the text we cannot. So I leave the ref at the end of the text and begin the first line of the reference with a space.
 * Paragraph spacing requires two newlines. Therefore, at the end of ref, which is a /ref, we can have the /ref on a line by itself.  The text can resume at the very beginning of the next line
 * This is a horrible idea, in my honest opinion. It was fine as is (i.e. before the "text macros"). ~ UBeR 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And actually, looking at it now, it's even harder to read! ~ UBeR 22:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should share your techniques, how is having to only look for markers the beginning of lines, "harder" than having to search through blocks of text for the markers?--Africangenesis 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because looking at a properly formatted article for long enough, you're used to the proper format. It's quite a bit more difficult looking at sentences that break after each full stop. Could you imagine writing a paper with a break after each sentence? Probably not, so there's no reason to with this article, which hundreds of people seemed to edit just fine, except for you. ~ UBeR 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed fix for the Model Projections Paragraph
I have added a POV tag to the article page, because without something of the kind like I propose below, undue weight is being given to the projections, by featuring them without qualification and in the introductory section of the article. I have added this after the discussions up to the date/time in my signature. --Africangenesis 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have taken the tag off. The proposed text below is, in my view and that of a number of other contributers below, inappropriately emphasising one of many critiques of a complicated set of modelling problems, is OR in the nature of its emphasis and is POV whereas the original text represents models as models with a range of outcomes and doesn't try to claim that there is a systematic uncorrected flawing. --BozMo talk 20:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the peer reviewed literature that documents uncorrected AND correlated errors. Read the POV page, undue weight is a part of POV, the tag I added was valid and the evidence shows it.  You don't counter citations I have provided by saying it is just one of many documented problems in the models, you counter it by rehabilitating the models in some way with the peer reviewed literature, frankly, I don't think that can be done, so having the projections at all, other than as a matter of curiousity, is probably giving them undue weight.--Africangenesis 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "don't be huffy because your OR is being rejected " evidently William M Connelley would like to close the discussion of the evidence prematurely, perhaps he fears people will be able to shed their "preconceived ideologically driven opinions" --Africangenesis 21:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Its the edit of the beast :-). Meanwhile, your implied assertion that the albedo error is (a) be models biggest error and (b) significantly relevant to the projection range remains OR, until you can find it from a reliable source William M. Connolley 21:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't imply (a) so that is taken care of. Roesch is a reliable source "These substantial deviations are still far too high to meet the required accuracy of surface albedos in GCMs.", presumably Stroeve's co-author Scambos is also: "Because of this disparity, the shrinking of summertime ice is about thirty years ahead of the climate model projections."  How is this OR?--Africangenesis 22:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course you imply (a) - putting the albedo stuff there is meaningless otherwise. I haven't read the paper (I assume the R quote is from the paper?); the S quote appears to be from a press release about sea ice, not model T projections - where do you source the S quote from? William M. Connolley 22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't imply (a), and I don't believe (a), and the error doesn't have to be the largest error to be larger than the energy imbalance. In a nonlinear system you can't hand wave away errors of this size.  There is no evidence that other or larger errors can restore the models skill.  The only hope for cancelling this error somehow was meta-ensembles, and the fact that this bias is correlated in the same direction in all the models, eliminates any meta-ensemble benefit for this error.  This error is large enough.  Yes the S quote is from their press release.  The other quote from the citation is from the paper.  The Roesch quote is from the full text of the paper.--Africangenesis 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The existing text

Climate models referenced by the IPCC project that global surface temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The range of values reflects the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions and results of models with differences in climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. This reflects the large heat capacity of the ocean

The proposed text

Climate models referenced by the IPCC reflect too much solar energy into space when compared to the actual climate, due to a positive surface albedo bias, and an ice-albedo feedback to global warming that is too low. These models project that global surface temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The range of projections reflects the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions and results of models with differences in climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized. This reflects the large heat capacity of the oceans.

References

Discussion

Note, the existing paragraph is the third paragraph of the introduction and projects a range of global surface temperatures produced only by models of different sensitivities under different greenhouse gas scenerios. The range does not reflect any of the known errors in the models. My proposed text adds some perspective, to the rather idealized POV that has been presented, based upon model diagnostic work published in the peer reviewed literature. I am for brief introductions, so I am open to the whole paragraph being moved to the model section, but it is POV to allow the projections without the perspective in near proximity. I tried having the projections as the first sentence, but chose having the perspective first as it read better, because it did not break up the flow of the later sentences. This is because the rest of the paragraph goes on as if the projections are true. I am open to an intelligible reordering that reads smoothly. I limited this to two citations, that are particularly relevant to relative attribution among the competing forcings but there are numerous other citations among the IPCC diagnostic subprojects, and earlier work.

Keep in mind that the errors found by Roesch are several times the global energy imbalance that we are trying to attribute and project with the models. See the discussion by searching the May archives

The article cited for the model ice-albedo feedback problems was discussed above and is the subject of its own article, although it doesn't seem to be wiki-linkable. --Africangenesis 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I extract from the May archive, the relevant part of the Roesch information forward here along with a longer quote in the citation than I proposed for the article proper, for your information:


 * Another result of that paper was that the surface albedo feedback was, as expected, also a positive enhancer of the warming in *ALL* the models. This, despite *ALL* the models evidently still getting the surface albedo too high, i.e. biased against the warming, solar, CO2 or otherwise, relative to two sets of satellite observations, as reported in the Roesch diagnostic study.  For perspective, this correlated mean positive surface albedo bias of 0.016 or 0.019, when applied to the globally and averaged solar flux at the earth's surface of 198w/m^2, is over 3w/m^2, when the total energy imbalance the models are being used to attribute and project, is less than 1w/m^2.


 * --Africangenesis 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * oppose - WP:Undue weight. I've emailed Dr. Roesch about the paper, and have received an answer - which i'll willingly forward (i've tried to forward to Africangenesis - but you haven't got an email addy registered with the wiki). I hope Dr. Roesch himself will chime in here, but i can quote relevant sections if not. Here is the last part:
 * Summarizing, it can be stated that the forcing error due to surface albedo is not overly important compared to other common errors in state-of-the-art climate models. However, I don't want to state that we can neglect the errors in the surface SW energy balance induced by biased surface albedos. This certainly applies on a more regional scale.
 * Regarding the future climate scenarios: It is fundamental to note that predicted CHANGES in the climate are not (necessarily) related to present-day errors and vice-versa.
 * --Kim D. Petersen 16:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've mostly kept quiet on this, wondering if AG would eventually catch on that the implications of the Roesch paper aren't what he thinks they are. But it's helpful to have Roesch's input. Raymond Arritt 17:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kim, I have set up my email now. Please forward the message.  Thanx.  I think you are underestimating what Roesch is saying.  I agree with him, and may have stated it here myself, that other model errors are much larger.  However, that is different than saying the implications are not what I say they are.  It is Roesch himself in his paper that puts the errors he found in global perspective, just as I quoted.  While there are larger errors, you won't get him to deny that these errors are larger than the global energy imbalance of 0.75 to 0.8W/m^2 per Hansen.  Perhaps he can help us get that into the article.  Yes, this global implication comes from errors that are far larger locally, 10s to 100s of watts/m^2, and mainly in the higher lattitudes.  While these errors certainly apply "on a more regional scale", the regions are coupled non-linearly, and as his global error figures show, they are large enough to dwarf the energy imblance.  He is correct that the predicted changes in the climate are not necessarily related to present day errors in one respect.  That is, once the model climatologies get warm enough to signficantly reduce the temperate snow cover, the surface albedo error he documents will be much smaller.  However, the predicted changes in the climate ARE NECESSARILY connected to the future predicted changes, because these are the same models.  The models were able to match the present day climate while having these large surface albedo errors, they are getting that missing energy from someplace else where they weren't supposed to.  Once they are warm enough to significantly reduce the snow cover, that wrong compensating source of energy will no longer be restrained.  The release of this constraint is probably why the temperature rises projected take off in the latter half of the century.--Africangenesis 21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Raymond, you will find that having the errors Roesch documents be smaller than the other documented errors in the models does not help your cause. In addition to being easy to related to the energy imbalance, the other signifance of the Roesch results is that ALL the models have the bias.  Note that in my other cite ALL the models are also involved.  I do hope Roesch shows up, because perhaps he can also help us get the larger model errors in the article.  I thought they would be harder, because they differ between the models and for the most part are not correlated like these.  Keep in mind that whatever Roesch's intuition is (and that is all it could be at this time), about the coupling of these regional errors to the oceans and the rest of the climate, he can't know what the coupling to the climate is of the compensating errors that the models used to match the recent climate energy imbalance, unless there is new research that we are unaware of.  That compensating error coupling may be both quite global and direct.
 * Raymond, you will find that having the errors Roesch documents be smaller than the other documented errors in the models does not help your cause. In addition to being easy to related to the energy imbalance, the other signifance of the Roesch results is that ALL the models have the bias.  Note that in my other cite ALL the models are also involved.  I do hope Roesch shows up, because perhaps he can also help us get the larger model errors in the article.  I thought they would be harder, because they differ between the models and for the most part are not correlated like these.  Keep in mind that whatever Roesch's intuition is (and that is all it could be at this time), about the coupling of these regional errors to the oceans and the rest of the climate, he can't know what the coupling to the climate is of the compensating errors that the models used to match the recent climate energy imbalance, unless there is new research that we are unaware of.  That compensating error coupling may be both quite global and direct.


 * There are two types of handwaving the modelers try to do when confronted with errors such as this. One is that the errors overall are far larger, and the other is that the meta-ensembles where "independent" model results are combined will tend to cancel out the errors.  The important thing about the two studies I have cited is that the errors are correlated and cannot be claimed to cancel out. --Africangenesis 21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOR. The fact that your OR is erroneous is beside the point; even if it were correct, it would still be OR. (Free hint: d/dt.) Raymond Arritt 23:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanx for the original research compliment, however, you are going to have to be more specific, I am unaware of what you are characterizing as OR.--Africangenesis 23:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspected that could be the case. Raymond Arritt 01:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can't back up your statement, it doesn't matter what you suspect.--Africangenesis 01:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll bite. What you've done is essentially to give the pearagraph a new topic sentence:
 * Climate models referenced by the IPCC reflect too much solar energy into space when compared to the actual climate, due to a positive surface albedo bias,[2] and an ice-albedo feedback to global warming that is too low.[3][4]
 * Point by point: (1) What merits this being the topic sentence? In other words, do you have sources that say these two errors are the unifying or most important aspect of climate projections? If you do not, giving them pride of place as the topic sentence in a discussion of warming projections is OR. (2) What's the relationship of the albedo bias to the rate of warming? The author of the cited paper doesn't connect the two; thus, your implication that they're related is a textbook example of OR. (One can easily show that to first order there's no relationship of the albedo error to the rate of warming -- but that's not relevant to the present matter, and indeed it would be OR on my part to show this.) (3) The low ice-albedo feedback is supported by two footnotes. Footnote [3] is an unreferenced statement, which although probably correct, in its present form is OR. There are some other issues but that'll do for now. Raymond Arritt 03:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First, let me compliment and thank you on being unafraid to bite, we should have the freedom and courage of the whiteboard here.


 * Point (1), no pride involved, unless it is that of the modelers who have pride that the models can run for a few centuries without falling off a cliff. That is no mean achievement, however, it does not prove model skill for projecting this warming.  Both cites are on albedo feedbacks to warming, in both, the models get the sign of the feedbacks right, i.e., both are melting the snow and ice.  In both, ALL the models get it too low and reflect too much solar energy into space at this part of the climate.  The most important part of climate projections is whether the modelers are just conducting this as an intellectual exercise, or whether the projections have something to do with the climate.  The IPCC and the modelers are using the projections for the latter, so the quality and independence of the models are of the utmost importance.  I don't know whether these two are the most important aspect of the climate projections.  I know that the Roesch result is several times the global energy imbalance reported by Hansen, since Roesch presented the globally and annually averaged bias vis'a'vis the observations.  The arctic feedback may not be as important since it is at such a high lattitude and is chiefly in the northern hemisphere, and some of it due to thinner ice in the observations, and not completely due to reduced ice extent.  I'd like to ask Roesch if some of this albedo effect is also in his calculations.  The arctic citation has been a widely reported criticism of the models, although most of the news focus has been on the increased rate of melting and the concern that the cap will entirely disappear seasonally.  While other model errors should perhaps also be given primacy over the projections, and perhaps also cause the model projections to be de-emphasized back to the model sections, these two have the advantage of giving enough pause and proper perspective to the reader, by being a correlated bias against the chief competition to the AGW hypothesis for the warming component, a significant solar component.


 * Point (2), I don't connect them to the rate of warming. I suspect that the rate of model warming will be right for a decade or so, and that one can probably get the rate of warming correct to a 1st order just by projecting the observations.  Keep in mind that the models are trying to project a nonlinear system, so they have to get more than just a "rate of warming" right.  The arctic paper definitely emphasizes the tipping point to the complete cap melting and the models likely having that wrong by decades.  Even if one assumed linearity the errors Roesch documents are larger than the energy imbalance.


 * It was Roesch's conclusion that the models did not get the surface albedos accurate enough. "These substantial deviations are still far too high to meet the required accuracy of surface albedos in GCMs." Presumably their accuracy is needed for projection and attribution, and not just because this is a pet specialty of his.  I don't have the citation handy, but I believe there are published recommendations for how accurate the surface albedos need to be.


 * Point (3), I was only explaining, in case it wasn't clear, what was the referent of the term "low" in the statement. This is not OR. I didn't want to burden the text with a statement that might be too pedantic. It might be a bit confusing to the readers that albedos that are too "high" mean that the model feedbacks are too "low".  Not, OR, just an explanation.
 * Thanx again for the feedback.--Africangenesis 13:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The need for such a long explanation only reinforces the appearance that your original statement was WP:OR. Look at some of the language you're using: "may not be as important...", "I'd like to ask Roesch if...", "Presumably their accuracy is needed...", etc. etc. Again, I think you mean well, but you are genuinely unable to distinguish the basic information given in citations from your own interpretation and synthesis of said information. Raymond Arritt 19:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when is a long discussion of the evidence OR? There is nothing wrong with understanding the research and its implications.  My proposed text is rather tame, and contains no OR that you have been able to point out.  We could be more verbose and actually quote the peer reviewed text about how bad the models are.  Yes, it does make the projections look rather worthless, but what evidence is there that is not a natural and justified conclusion?  Many who have been labeled "deniers" have said as much.  But this is being said in peer reviewed literature, although not in abstracts the Orieskes would have picked up.  Instead of addressing the language and length, can you point to something that is OR?--Africangenesis 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanx for the email Kim. I assume after reading that, that we'll be going for some stronger statement.  The surface albedo bias is just maybe one-third of the total positive radiative bias in the models of 9W/m^2. I'll have to track down that paper.  However, with the wide variation he mentioned perhaps they are not all biased in the same direction, despite correlated bias in the surface albedo.--Africangenesis 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Turns out I already had the full text Wild papers, just hadn't gotten around to reading them yet.--Africangenesis 01:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Opposed, this is OR without some connection (via good sources) of the errors to the projections. All models have errors, this is no surprise; there is no reason to pick out this error William M. Connolley 14:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you going to participate honestly or not? Which sources weren't good, you haven't read the comments if you say there is "no reason".  The errors are connected to the projections by the size and importance of the errors and the use of the models for this purpose. Here is a cite which hopefully will inspire you to participate. From a BookTV interview on Al Gore's book "The Assault on Reason"
 * --Africangenesis 14:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's generally accepted that accusing an editor who simply disagrees with you of dishonesty ("Are you going to participate honestly or not?") isn't helpful. Raymond Arritt 19:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of flinging around accusations of dishonesty, why not read what I wrote? Your sources are good scientific papers. What you don't have is a connection to the projections at all, let alone via good sources. Your asserting the connection is OR, as several people have pointed out to you. And citing irrelevant chunks of book review won't make it any less OR William M. Connolley 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was intellectual honesty I was referring to. You were not assuming good faith.  I did read what you wrote, you accussed me of proposing changes with "no reason", the sources you are saying are "no good" are peer reviewed, unlike the IPCC process.  And unless you find evidence that the projections were not model based, the errors are connected to projections.  So instead of uncommunicative dismissals that don't show any consideration of my good faith efforts, why don't you explain how in a nonlinear system, models can be validated for attributing such a small energy imbalance, given that they disagree with the observations and each other to this extent.  If doing so would jeapardize your job, come back anonymously, so we can improve the article.--Africangenesis 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This whole exchange is beginning to border on the surreal. Raymond Arritt 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you had to see this. This is what happens when someone threatens WP:OWN, evidence no longer matters. We get, denial and dismissal, rather than discussion of the evidence.--Africangenesis 22:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you had to see this. This is what happens when someone threatens WP:OWN, evidence no longer matters. We get, denial and dismissal, rather than discussion of the evidence.--Africangenesis 22:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Holocene maximum
Regarding the holocene maximum (which occured approximately 6000 years ago); how come there is no mention of this in the current article? It seems like a very significant piece of information in relation to global warming, and there already exist other graphs in the article which deal with time periods before the holocene maximum. Perhaps some mention of this, plus this image may improve the article? --Rebroad 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The holocene maximum has little relation to present global warming. See e.g., this reference. As an aside your graph looks like it was taken from The Great Global Warming Swindle, which cannot be relied upon for factual information. Raymond Arritt 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Raymond, thanks for the link, but unfortunately it's rather too much to read. Fancy quoting the relevant section please? Many thanks, --Rebroad 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a more up to date image using a wider range of more recent reconstructions from diverse sources would be better than the outdated chart that was picked up and re-used for The Great Global Warming Swindle. You'll note that exact temperature reconstruction over this time range is sketchy, but averaging globally over the various local proxy records gives a relatively low Holocene maximum, with which modern temperatures (2004 is labelled in the chart) are on par with. It also shows how current warming compares with the general trend of the last 6000 years. -- Leland McInnes 15:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raymond & Leland. Thanks for your quick replies. I understood that the "Great Global Warming Swindle" graph is using IPCC data. Is this correct? Is this data not reliable? If not, why not? Thanks, --Rebroad 16:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebroad, The Great Global Warming Swindle doesn't exactly have a good record on graphs. At least two of those shown in the movie where either fakes or manipulated. (see the article). The graph "might" be from the IPCC - but in that case its from a very old report, at a time where the proxy evidence was rather small. Arritt might chime in on this. --Kim D. Petersen 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain but I think it's a schematic cartoon from the first IPCC report back in 1990. It's not based on data as such, but is more of a conceptual illustration that "we believe this is roughly what the temperature record looked like since the last glacial maximum." (Notice how smooth the curve is. Real geophysical data tend to be noisy.) One might ask why TGGWS didn't use a modern reconstruction but chose to use an obsolete graph that -- by pure coincidence, of course -- happened to support the point they were arguing.  Raymond Arritt 17:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is correct? CO2->Temp or Temp->CO2?
Ok, simple and quick question. Which follows which? Temperature lags behind CO2 levels, or CO2 lags behind temperature levels? Many thanks!! --Rebroad 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Both. In logical terms, "A causes B" does not preclude "B causes A."  Or in everyday terms -- which came first, the chicken or the egg? Raymond Arritt 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In historical records, CO2 followed temperature. Temperature was changing for entirely different reasons in the past. Today, I tihnk it could be reasonably said that temperature follows CO2. ~ UBeR 17:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Under the right conditions, both statements are TRUE. Notice that the statement
 * (A causes B) AND (B causes A)

is the definition of "positive feedback". The fact that the planet did NOT overheat 100 years ago is proof that either
 * Something is preventing positive feedback (and NONE of the models indicate whatever that something is)

or that
 * Positive feedback started about 1650, but it is very slow

or that
 * CO2 has already reached saturation and that increasing it no longer has ANY effect on global temperature.

Deciding which statement is correct IS the "Global Warming" argument.

It is relatively easy to produce a lab experiment where adding some CO2 increases temperature. But, at some point, adding more has no effect. It is not clear how to apply these results. With respect to the real world, the Ice Core data is pretty clear - temperature changes either lead CO2 changes, or they are not correlated. However, note that "cause and effect" ... either way ... is an unproven theory (at current temperatures and pressures). Correlation must never be used to suggest "cause". Q Science 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the solar people! William M. Connolley 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"potentially serious inconsistency"
I'm going to add a section under the Model subheading which describes the serious inconsistency that's been pointed out in Temp Trends in the Lower Atmosphere. The gist is 'all models project tropical amplification' which is consistent with the Greenhouse Effect Theory, but no observations show tropical amplification.[]....unless someone else would rather take a stab.65.12.145.148 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Belongs on Satellite temperature measurements where it also is already. The gist here (iirc) is that the conculusion of the CCSP is that its more likely to be an observation error than a model error. --Kim D. Petersen 02:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It belongs here too. Under Climate Model, the discussion of the limitation of climate models.65.12.145.148 03:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That it is a limitation in models would be your own WP:OR i believe, since the CCSP says: "The favored explanation for this is residual error in the observations, but the issue is still open.".
 * But under all circumstances its not something that you'd add here - you should add it to the correct subarticle(s), and then given that the weight of the issue is large enough, it will be mentioned in the summary of that article. --Kim D. Petersen 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Satellite record surely is not the place as there is rightfully no section for GCMs there. I'll check GW Controversy page.67.141.235.203 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)