Talk:Climate change/Archive 38

lede syntax
"Since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation"--although context implies "projected continuation [of this increase]," grammar permits "projected continuation [of the twentieth century]." I'm unsure how best to fix it, but have no doubt it should change. I hope my colleagues here won't mind if I go ahead and implement my best try: "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans ongoing since the mid-twentieth century."

I realize that "ongoing" might seem less of a hedge than "projected," but if a process is projected to continue, it is understood to be ongoing. If there is any logical distinction between the two phrases, it would be that "ongoing" makes no claim about the future. Cyrusc (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be much risk of confusion. The clause is important enough that I think it should stay in the article until a satisfactory alternative can be constructed.  In the mean time, I propose that a comma should be used to separate the "...ongoing..." clause from the participial phrase "...since the mid-twentieth century":
 * Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans ongoing since the mid-twentieth century, and its projected continuation.
 * Cheers, silly rabbit  (  talk  ) 20:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The comma is a better solution. I agree that "and its projected continuation" is worth keeping so long as the grammar is clear. Cyrusc (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

NASA JPL has also projected cooling for the next 30 years, so this lede is imcomplete at best. Warming or cooling? NASA's got it covered whatever happens -- and don't forget it's a "scientific consensus."Kauffner (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pacific Ocean cooling is not global cooling. And you'd be taken more seriously if you posted NASA's article directly instead of linking to a blog. Jason Patton (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the press release from NASA. Don't kid yourself about PDO not being global.  The pacific ocean is larger than the entire Earths land surface area and accounts for one-third of the earths surface area which means it's SST should outweigh all the land station temp data in HadCRUT.  January and February temps were La Nina related and that is a pacific ocean event that affects global climate.  “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”  If the last flip (to warm) was in 1977 with cold flip in 1946 and a warm flip in 1905, it would be interesting to correct HadCRUT3 data with an estimate of the natural PDO cycle contribution.  It would also be interesting to know whether the PDO affects SST of the NH as much as the SH as the weighting of NH and SH are equal in HadCRUT where a natural oscillating phenomenon that might be inherently biased would inject that into the dataset.  Also, if the presumption is that if the forcings are constant, the PDO variation in SST temperature is merely an accounting problem with a net sum of 0.  However, the ocean has a depth.  If some of that temperature cycle moves warm water from the surface to a depth and vice versa, the net energy change is still 0 but HadCRUT would see a net SST change and a non-error signal in global mean temps.  Are there any estimates of PDO affects on net SST temps? --DHeyward (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all the OP's comment that NASA is "projected cooling for the next 30 years" is nonsense. Second, while its correct that El Niña/La Niña can mask the trend - this is not the case for the PDO, the mechanism is different. And there is no indications at all in the NASA article that warming will stop or even turn to cooling. Sorry.
 * And please leave the speculation of "last flip" etc. to other forums - this is not the place to discuss original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by speculation of "last flip"? Previous PDO's are pretty well documented.  Basically I was asking for any research that include natural phenomenon like PDO as systemic variation as opposed to just random error.  We include volcanoes and solar variation as systemic error in the article, but not events like PDO.  A "cool PDO" enhances La Nina, and diminshes El Nino.  It seems like there is a lot of research into PDO and SST as well as thermocline variations associated with PDO but I didn't see this mentioned in the datasets descriptions of sources of variability.  I could have missed it though.   Since PDO isn't predictable and and it's mechanism is unknown it would certainly be silly to say it will cool for 30 years but Willis' quote about natural phenomenon  masking and enhancing global warming signatures is very relevant especially since he is talking about long term climate and not simply annual weather variation.  Unaccounted for systemic variation in climate models I would think would be problematic and an area of research.   --DHeyward (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * At the minimum, it calls into doubt mentioning any "recent warming" or "recent cooling" in the article since the timelines that Willis' et all consider when discussing GW trends are on the order of centuries. If phenomena such as PDO are 20-30 years, anything that short is meaningless to discuss in the GW article.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Stick
Anyone have the Mann software to look at the potential hockeystick here?. --DHeyward (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox created
Following the excellent examples in other articles, I have created an infobox for this and related articles. See Template:Global warming infobox. I hope it's helpful and suitable for inclusion in other related articles. Please edit as needed - I gave a shot at categorizing all the related articles, but the groupings could be improved or expanded. =Axlq 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you aware about the existing one (collapsed at the very bottom of the article)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am. Several other articles (see Intelligent Design for example) have both. When I go to an encyclopedia article that will have several branchings-off, I like to see them listed in an infobox up at the top, not in a hidden place down at the bottom. =Axlq 18:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't really care what ID does ( to the contrary, they don't have a template at the bottom ). It should be removed. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't bother to look, did you? Intelligent Design does indeed have a template at the bottom, as well as the top right.
 * In any case, I put in that template so we can discuss it. I don't mind if consensus leads to its removal. However, it's useful to list at the top the closeley related articles as if they were part of a series covering different aspects of the same topic. The template at the bottom is, and should be, more comprehensive, listing relevant related articles. =Axlq 18:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be any rationale here for not having this infobox. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd like to see it go, even though I think it looks nice. The problem is that a lot of the articles dealing with global warming include graphs in the lead.  On large screen resolutions (800x600, 1024x768), the graph combined with the infobox causes the lead text to be smushed or shoved down the page.  It's just too much for the article. Jason Patton (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Jason Patton, the article lead gets unreadable in 800x600 because the template and the graphs eat up all the space. I'm not exactly sure how many that are running at that resolution anymore though. Can we somehow make it flow differently? So that it [template] floats further down, if there isn't spacing enough? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on a small screen and the template now takes up too much space at the top William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If the lead picture in global warming articles is some sort of graph, that can easily be incorporated into the infobox, instead of the sunrise-over-earth picture I used. I also browse in a small window (my display is 1024x768 but my browser is usually around 800x700) and didn't have a problem with reading the lead. I notice someone put the other pics below the infobox, though.

I just made the template a bit narrower by decreasing the font size and shrinking the image. Anyone is free to edit that infobox to improve it. =Axlq 05:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Having just seen the info box removed, it seems to me that the article is diminished without it. Without the explanation in the edit summary the removal would have seemed a clear-cut case of vandalism. --Pleasantville (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All the info is in the article, as well as the infobox at the bottom. Readers are not lost without it. And it's ugly. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible tidbit for this article
After a couple contributions I made to this article a couple years back which resulted in significant negative feedback, I'm adding a tidbit here and will allow you all to fight over whether it should be in this article or not. I found information regarding changes to the jet stream location in both hemispheres during the 1979-2001 period in a news article, which is now included within the jet stream article. Whether you think it is due to global warming or some other climate cycle I leave up to you all. Just making you aware of its existence. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just looked at "jet stream". OK... so there is a change. But is it linked to GW? That page doesn't say so, and I'd say until there is a fairly strong suggestion of connection, it should probably stay off this page William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the Page
The first citation is incorrect. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes 'most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations.'" The closest quote I can find in the citation is "It is very likely that the observed increase in methane concentration is due to anthropogenic activities, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel use, but relative contributions from different source types are not well determined" (pg 3). This is a very different statement. In the table assessing the probability of human causation the IPCC concludes that humans contribute to the range ranges from 50% to 66% (see pg 8 and footnote 6). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.123.227 (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Its from the SPM, as it says page 10. Why did you put your comment here where no-one will ever see it? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page locked for anyone to edit? There seems to be a large number of unsubstantiated opinions here being presented as fact. One glaring example is the statement: "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]"
 * Simply, This page is locked for editing, against IP vandals. Logged in users can edit it.

Where is the proof of this? The citations used are simply links to other sites claiming the same thing, but also not providing any real proof.
 * Proof in the beliefs of scientists, or proof of global warming?
 * What do you really want proof of? In the scientific process proof comes as part of the package i.e.
 * A) The Emperical data,
 * B) The conclusions of that data
 * C) The hypothesis, the design of the experment
 * D) The measurement and analysis of data from the experement
 * E) The intrepretation of the results
 * F) The publication process including
 * 1. The writing of the paper
 * 2. The submission of the paper to refreed journals,
 * 3. The review by peers
 * 4. The feedback of peers
 * 5. The incorporation of feedback into the paper
 * 6. The final publication of the paper
 * You can see from this process that it is an extensive process, and some of the most important beginning work has begun,
 * It also points to how the process works, and also how it doesn't work.
 * It works by using the scientific process, and peer review to produce a uniformly high quality product,
 * It does not work due to fudging of the data, and the length of time of the process.
 * The "I wanna see it with my own eyes" type proof can be seen:
 * Go and measure the tempture outside your window, with a themometer that can resolve at least 1/4 of a degree.
 * Check the devistation due to the increased occurence of storms.
 * i.e. current
 * Talk to the principal scientists who have been studying this for a few decades.
 * NOTE: WHAT FOLLOWS IS NOT PRIMARY RESEARCH
 * A good example is that prior to 2000, no one believed that the lack of ozone in the south pole was a health risk.
 * The principal scientist was a skin doctor in Punta Arneas, Chile.
 * His paper was flatly rejected for poor grammer.
 * While his paper was being published, 177/8 ( deaths/years ) x 2 years, 44 people died of carconima.
 * While that number does not seem significant, consider that it occured in a city of 100,000 people,
 * And that that rate, 22/100,000 or 220/1,000,000 people:
 * If the equlvelant ozone hole passes over the Northern Hemisphere, with a population of 2.6~3.1 billion...
 * What does your math work out is the result?
 * The doctors paper was accepted in 2000, published in a refreed journal, and is now accepted as fact.
 * I will write about two subsiquent examples of the process later....71.193.2.115 (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I know there are a number of lists available showing a growing number of individual, highly credible scientists who very clearly dispute the contention of alarming anthropogenic global warming. But I cannot find anywhere any lists of credible scientists who belief alarming anthropogenic global warming is a problem. That is not to say there are none, but it occurs to me the only way of proving a consensus one way or another would be for both sides to create a list of actual scientists (not political organizations) and compare. I can very quickly find a list of at least 400 credible scientists on the skeptic side. Check out the site below as proof.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Can anyone point out to me a list of at least 400 scientists who are "true believers"? If not, how can anyone rationally claim that "....the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ill just make a large list RIGHT HERE.
 * 
 * Sir David King: "' The world's temperature is on course to rise by more than three degrees Centigrade despite efforts to combat global warming, Britain's chief scientist has warned. Sir David King issued a stark wake-up call that climate change could cause devastating consequences such as famine and drought for hundreds of millions of people unless the world's politicians take more urgent action.'"


 * The page is semi-protected due to frequent vandalism. It is not "locked for anyone to edit", but only protected against edits from anonymous IP addresses and very new users.
 * As for your other point: That is how WIkipedia works. We reflect what reliable sources say. For scientific topics, those are peer-reviewed papers or formal statements by the world's most respected scientific organizations, not blogs by politicians. See scientific opinion on climate change for more opinions. Your list of 400 has been discussed before. Of those 400, many are not scientists, and many support the IPCC consensus. See Project Steve for the significance of lists in science... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "We reflect what reliable sources say." I have never ever seen such a bold faced lie in print since I read about the communist threat. The prinical scientist at Goddard space flight center says "We have pushed back the recovery of the ozone hole from 75 years to 150 years, with our improved model" And EVERYONE goes out of their way to prove him a liar, and attack both his principals and methods. The Spokesman for the Whitehouse said "We have nothing to worry about, The ozone hole is on its way to recovery right now." Without any ANY scientific fact, and you would use that as a reliable source. There is a scientific list for the flat earth society, despite the fact that the ancient greeks proved the curvture of the earth. When the artic ozone hole opens large enough to pass over billions of people... [www.livescience.com/environment/080424-sulfur-ozone-hole.html] "Because atmospheric circulation patterns over the Arctic tend to 'wobble,' this Arctic ozone hole even could sweep over populated areas,", [www.theozonehole.com/recordlow.htm] "'Chemical losses in the total column of ozone over the Arctic have varied between about ... 24 April 2008 Ozone Hole Recovery May Reshape Southern Hemisphere'"

Make your own conclusions, because you certainlly dont listen to either PhDs or renouned experts, or as you like to say reliable sources.
 * In a study of emstimlogy, in the book "Life Extension: A practical scientific approach" Dirk Person and Sandy Shaw wrote a chapter on who you should believe, and came to the conclusion that the more a paper was cited, and refrenced, the more likely it was scientific truth, and likely to reflect actualy reality vs a constructed limited mode. Does wikipedia have a definition of reliable source?


 * Stephen, my specific argument above was not related to the "science". It was related to consensus. Wiki defines consensus as "... a general agreement among the members of a given group or community." The only way of determining consensus would be to take a poll.  Polls are not in the domain of "peer-reviewed papers".  None of the references cited by the author as proof that "...the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions", have taken any kind of poll or survey of scientists with knowledge of climate change.  On the contrary, the link you provided to scientific opinion on climate change do list a few surveys, but these appear to be in direct contradiction to the claims of "the overwhelming majority".  The facts are closer to 50/50, with only slightly more agreeing with anthropogenic global warming.  Clearly the above statement is someones opinion, not fact. I *PROMISE* to post a picture of the ozone hole from Oct 15 of this year as PROOF that global climate change, both exists, and you can see for yourself. if the ozone hole is NOT the largest on record, we can go back to believeing the whitehouse's version of reality. Do you have the expertize to analize it or would you prefer the work of a PhD in a refreed journal? your call.


 * Thank you for clarifying the pages protection from very new users. Rest assured I will be doing my part to make valid corrections when my status allows it as this page is in dire need of revision.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Evaluating polls and gauging consensus, especially on complex topics, is highly non-trivial. Doing that usually requires original research. Therefore we rely on qualified sources to do this for us. And of course the design and execution of reliable polls is something you will find in peer-reviewed papers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you please please point out to me which "qualified source" or "peer-reviewed paper", being used as proof of a consensus, has taken an actual poll of scientists with knowledge of climate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 12:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Peer reviewed papers do not very often take polls. In fact, they are usually quite passive. Do you assume a poll is the only way to gauge scientific consensus? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A poll is the only way to gauge consensus of an entire group, yes. A peer reviewed paper only proves that the paper is accepted by those who reviewed the paper, not the an entire group of qualified scientists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you define "the entire group"? And who are the "qualified scientists?" In science what counts are peer reviewed papers, talks at conferences etc.. In principle your qualifications as a scientist do not count at all. I.e. Mr. Nobody can publish a paper in Nature that completely overturns some theory. Now, the peer reviewed papers in the leading journals show no dissent at all and at conferences you never hear climate sceptics. So, I would actually be in favor of saying that AGW has been unanimously accepted and not just that there is an overwelming consensus in favor it because that suggests that in the relvant forum of scientific discourse there is still some dissent while in reality there isn't. Count Iblis (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Peer-reviewed papers are a useful way to advance science. However the peer-review process is not without it's flaws and it's goal is not to establish consensus. See Peer review   Also, not all peer reviewed papers agree with the conclusions of the IPCC. Check out http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8 for proof.  A survey or poll of all scientists with knowledge of climate change, if done correctly, would be the only way to prove conslusively whether or not a consensus exists.  None of the currently documented surveys of scientists show a consensus.  --Sirwells (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then call an RFC to get outside opinions. "The National Academy of Sciences, the joint science academies of the major industrialized nations, and the American Meteorological Society says there's a consensus, but I think they're wrong" should garner some interesting responses. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No they don't. They agree that climate change is an issue which can mean global cooling. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure that's what they're referring to. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To Raymond, what evidence do these groups have to back up thier claim? You put too much weight on appealing to the authority of "the establishment".  Politics permeates every facet of all organizations in life, whether we want it to or not.  Just because someone with authority is making the claim, does not make it true.  Peer-review is not immune to politics.  In fact, on issues as controversial as global warming, peer-review is extremely prone to politics.  (not unlike the behavior of the gatekeepers of this article). --Sirwells (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia we cite information as it is conveyed in reliable sources. See WP:V. If you think your opinion constitutes a more reliable source of information than National Academy of Sciences, go ahead and call that RfC. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinions which are not supported by facts do not belong, period. I'll ask again, where is the evidence being used by the National Academy of Science to support it's opinion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A good place to start, Sirwells, is with the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, namely, Working Group I's contribution. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Whooah stop everything! I just followed up on the links to what the National Academy of Science's really said. They are not even claiming there is a consensus among all credible scientists. You people have taken thier quotes out of context. All they say is that they brought together some scientists, engineers and public officials (of thier selective choosing) to write reports, and those "...reports have assessed consensus findings on the sciences...." Not even remotely close to the same thing. --Sirwells (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are referring to above. Please clarify.  (The "the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]" bit is sourced by the Royal Society's info sheet on climate change and Oreskes 2004.) - Enuja (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears my original message has become difficult to read because some have inserted thier comments into my comments at awkward locations. I'm repeating my original comment and question below to make this thread less confusing for others to follow. Let's try and stay on topic. Enuja, I hope this clarifies things for you:

''Why is this page locked for anyone to edit? There seems to be a large number of unsubstantiated opinions here being presented as fact. One glaring example is the statement: "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[9][10]"

''Where is the proof of this? The citations used are simply links to other sites claiming the same thing, but also not providing any real proof.

''I know there are a number of lists available showing a growing number of individual, highly credible scientists who very clearly dispute the contention of alarming anthropogenic global warming. But I cannot find anywhere any lists of credible scientists who belief alarming anthropogenic global warming is a problem. That is not to say there are none, but it occurs to me the only way of proving a consensus one way or another would be for both sides to create a list of actual scientists (not political organizations) and compare. I can very quickly find a list of at least 400 credible scientists on the skeptic side. Check out the site below as proof.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

''Can anyone point out to me a list of at least 400 scientists who are "true believers"? If not, how can anyone rationally claim that "....the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions."''?--Sirwells (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all the EPW source is not a reliable source - its effectively the blog posting of Marc Morano for Inhofe. Secondly that source does not contain 400 scientists - nor can it be said that most of them sceptical or even critical of the consensus. (there have been several attempts (both elsewhere and on Wikipedia) to examine the list. For instance my own project on it (User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Inhofe), for the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming to see if any of them where possible candidates. (you are welcome to join up in the categorizations). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In the 3rd paragraph of the lead of this article, the US National Academy of Sciences, like the rest of the national academies of G8 countries, are correctly cited as having signed statements saying that anthropogenic global warming is a real problem. Other  societies have said so, too.  When you talk about 400 people (or scientists or whatever), you are talking about individual scientists, so that's covered in the "individual scientists have voiced disagreement" bit.  As I said above, the overwhelming consensus bit comes from the Royal Society.  There are different sources for different parts of that paragraph, but everything in it is properly sourced, so I don't understand any problems you are having with it.  Is there a part of it that is not, in your opinion, supported by an appropriate source?  If so, please say what isn't sourced or what problem there is with which source for which statement. -  Enuja (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the problem as I see it. When one speaks of "consensus", there needs to be some sort of real statistic to back it up.  For example, of 100,000 scientists with pHD that would supply them with knowledge of climate change, X believe anthropogenic global warming is real, Y do not.  The only evidence being used as "proof" of of an "overwhelming consensus"  amounts to editorial comments coming from bureaucracies.  But these sources do not provide any proof, so one must conclude they are merely expressing an opinion based on some anecdotal evidence.  The only hard evidence, where someone actually measured the number of scientists who believe one way or another by taking a an actual survey idicates there is no consensus at all. Surely you folks can see the lunacy in placing more weight on a few written statements, claiming "everyone believes it", over actual surveys where someone actually asked everyone whether or not they believe it and documented the results.  A consensus means measuring how many individual scientists agree, not whether or not some bureaucracy said so.--Sirwells (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, if you're convinced of the merits of your argument please call a request for comment on the issue. Alternatively, you could make a post to the reliable sources noticeboard arguing that a statement by the National Academy of Sciences is not a reliable source. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Will you PLEASE stop trying to twist this into an argument of whether or not the NAC is a "reliable source"? It's very annoying.  Thanks.--Sirwells (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to make you so upset, but I'm confused. On the one hand you seem to implicitly allow that NAS is a reliable source, but on the other hand you say they're wrong about the existence of a consensus. That does not seem internally consistent. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus on Wikipedia means whatever stands on the page (due to agreement on the talk page or because no-one disagrees). There is a consensus among people who edit this page that there are enough reliable sources to legitimately state that a scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic sources.  This consensus regularly withstands challenges to the consensus (so it's not on the page just because no-body cares), so the only way to change it, I suspect, would be to find a recent reliable source that disagrees. (And, Raymond Arritt, it's the Royal Society, not the National Academy of Sciences, that's used as the source for the statement Sirwells has a problem with.)  - Enuja (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, although the Royal Society hosts the website on which the statement appears, the actual signatories to the statement are the national science academies of various nations. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you both a hypothetical question. Let's assume for the sake of argument there were 1000 scientists who think AGW is a problem and 1000 who think it's nonsense.  If a goverment gave away grant money to fill 1000 research jobs to do research on various problems associated with global warming, who do you think would fill those jobs?--Sirwells (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what this has to do with the article but I'll answer just for fun. Presumably the people who receive the funds (not "fill those jobs" -- that's not how grant funds are disbursed) would be whoever managed to get their proposal successfully through the peer review process. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is critical to the article because the article says there is a consensus, "...of scientists working on climate change." The article would be factually incorrect and not supported by any sources without this phrasing.  My point is that grant money for global warming studies does not go to people who do not believe it AGW is a problem, thus any claim saying that most people working on climate change believe AGW is a problem can be explained by political/economic reasons and does not prove that ALL scientists who have sufficient education to have a crebible opinon are of similar opinion.  As I've pointed out before, the only way to establish what all scientists think would be to take a survey or poll.--Sirwells (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "My point is that grant money for global warming studies does not go to people who do not believe it AGW is a problem." This is demonstrably wrong. Pat Michaels gets federal grant money; John Christy gets NASA and NSF funding; etc. etc. It's quite odd that you take others to task for inadequate verification and yet decline to verify your own contentions. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Raymond, I don't think Sirwells has a problem with the "over thirty scientific societies" part but instead has a problem with the "overwhelming majority of scientists" part.

Sirwells, what government are you talking about? The US government, headed by a president who spent a lot of time being very vocal about being skeptical of anthropogenic global warming until recently? Yes, there is a lot of effect-of-global warming work being done in the big, well funded LTER (Long Term Ecological Research Network) sites (along with a lot of other, completely unrelated work), but most researchers are professors (or their students or employees) who get small grants to fund their work but live off of teaching money. And even if grants only went out to people who "believed" in anthropogenic global warming, if it wasn't happening, their research would come back with data that said so! And that data would get published, and people would change their minds! If there is no anthropogenic global warming, the evidence will eventually lean that way, and the consensus on what is happening will change. And none of this matters, because Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth. So, be patient. To link an amusing comic ->. - Enuja (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Enuja, it is extremely naive to assume that researchers being paid grant money to research various aspect of AGW would report anything other than the IPCC's so-called "consensus" view. When one compares all the availiable evidence in the forms of surveys,  polls and lists of individual scientists, it becomes clear that the overwelming majority of ALL scientists (not just those being paid to study AGW) do NOT share the IPCC's so-called "consensus" view.  Also, it looks to me that Wikipedia is not about verifiability at all (at least not on this article), it's about alarmists having enough "gatekeepers" to control the article.--Sirwells (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My favorite Shakespeare play is King Lear. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Raymond, I ignored your above comment ("This is demonstrably wrong. Pat Michaels gets federal grant money; John Christy gets NASA and NSF funding; etc. etc. .") because it's nonsense. Are we supposed to be shocked that you can find a few examples of scientists, getting paid NASA/NSF funding, who do not believe AGW is a problem.  Obviously age, job security, reputation and career goals would be factors which might allow some to be remain objective  My cousin loves Shakespeare plays but hates King Lear.  If I were to provide a grant for someone to write about King Lear, who do you think would get it, you or my cousin?--Sirwells (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone is not as he should be, he has misfortune, and it does not further him to undertake anything. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ScienceDaily Articles
It seems that an older ScienceDaily article was suggested, though a much more recent article has superceded it. Not WP:RS, of course. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm Skyemoor (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Credidibility of CSIRO / Victoria University research.
The following research is being reported by the CSIRO and its main conclusions seem somewhat extreme. Can someone who is expert or familiar with this work comment with regard to its respectability prior to consideration for inclusion.

http://www.csiro.au/news/KyotoProtocolConference-CETF.html

The research – to be published in the journal; Global Environmental Change – provides five key conclusions:

-CO2 emissions grow by 3.1 per cent per annum over 2004–2030

-Atmospheric CO2 concentration levels >900 ppm CO2-e are achieved by 2100.

-Even if severe emission cuts are implemented from 2030, warming of 2.2 – 4.7°C could occur by 2100, whereas if the current high emissions path is followed, the most likely range is 3.4 – 7.2°C

-Four key vulnerabilities assessed with high risks of adverse impacts for coral reefs, ocean circulation, melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and species extinction

-The current policy mix cannot adequately manage these risks, which can be reduced but not eliminated by early global action over the period 2010–2015. Theo Pardilla (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * At a first glance, it looks like good work to me. Both CSIRO and VU are major and recognized research institutions in Australia. Global Environmental Change is published by a recognized science publisher and papers seem to be highly visible. However, we should at least wait until the paper is actually published, and, if possible, until there has been some time for discussion, before we incorporate it as one post-AR4 opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK we should at least wait until then, thank you. Theo Pardilla (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is just the kind of environmentalist trash that does real science a lot of harm. "if we carry on like we did in the past .... " Hasn't anyone heard that the cost of oil is soring - hasn't anyone an ounce of common sense and can realise that as oil prices increase the amount of fossil fuel consumption will decrease, and doesn't anyone realise that almost every oil field outside the middle east is near exhaustion, and doesn't anyone realise that the credit crunch is about to drop the western oil-guzzling economies into recession (i.e. reduced energy use)? Does anyone that contributes to this article have a real job and know anything about economic realities outside University? 88.111.115.56 (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Added request for citation in Global_warming
I have added a request for citation for the following statement, as it contradicts all the statistics that I have on climate change.
 * China may have passed the U.S. in total annual greenhouse gas emissions according to some recent studies.

The article that is provided as a reference for that paragraph says nothing about recent studies, and only includes the following line, which is hardly the same thing as the statement above:
 * Rapidly growing China is poised to overtake the United States as the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases

Either a proper reference should be provided (and should highlight the contentious nature of this claim), or the sentence should be changed to reflect the given reference, or it should be removed completely. I don't like to jump in change articles that I don't regularly contribute to as I don't know the history of them, but hopefully someone who is familiar can decide the most appropriate course of action. Cheers, JenLouise (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry just realised that this sentence was referring to total greenhouse emissions for the two countries not emissions per capita (per capita, the US emissions are about 20.6t compared to China's 2.2t according to information from the UN). Therefore the statement above is not so contentious, but still needs an appropriate source for the "recent studies" it mentions. Cheers, JenLouise (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion copied and pasted from User talk:Sirwells

 * More Discussion Follows***** (belongs here, Enuja tried and derail this debate by claiming it is "germane??" to the article.  huh?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 May 2008

That would be "not germane", actually. I'm leaving this here, although I'd like to restate that I don't think a conversation about consensus and science is directly relevant to building this article. This is background knowledge needed to build the article, but it is not about the article, so much of it shouldn't be on the this talk page. Enuja (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm replying here instead of on Talk:Global warming because I don't think this is germane to the article. It is not naive to think that scientists report the actual results of their experiments instead of falsifying them. Falsified data is very rare, and people figure it out when they can't replicate the results. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja (talk)


 * No, but it is naive to think that a scientists who is being paid to study, for example, the effects of man-made global warming on the population of rainbow trout, would not be predisposed to believe humans are causing man-made global warming. --Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you think the consensus of the IPCC comes from in the first place? It comes from reading the literature. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja (talk)

It comes from cherry-picked literature, written by, in many cases, the very same people who write reports for the IPCC. I have yet to see any raw numbers indicative of there being "overwhelmingly" more scientists who "believe" vs "don't believe". The IPCC was tasked by the United Nations to prove that AGW is a significant problem. That is exactly what they did. There is not a single source being used as proof of consensus which is backed by any data in the form of surveys or polls. This so-called "consensus" is a house of cards which will eventually come crumbling down as the earth's climate continues to not get warmer and in fact get cooler as the current studies (which people like you have blocked from gettig on wikipedia) our now predicting.--Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a huge number of working climate scientists have serious problems with the IPCC: however, they think it is far, far too conservative. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja (talk)


 * Oh Really? Let's see this list of the "huge number of climate scientists" who think the IPCC is too conservative. For that matter, let's see the list of scientists who even mildly agree with the IPCC. Because I've looked all over google and there is none. The IPCC reports includes a list of a small handful of actual authors. --Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here you have all the lead authors for the AR4 WG1 report (The Physical Science Basis) [1], here are the ones for the WG2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) [2], and finally those from the WG3 (Mitigation) [3]. Quite a lot more than a handful.... for the WG1: there are 22 coordinating lead authors, 118 lead authors and 28 review editors. (plus of course the regular authors (contributing authors - 53 for chapter 5 alone) and all the reviewers). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You can find the complete list of authors for the WG1 report after the glossary in this pdf [4] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll see your few hundred and raise you 22,000. http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 May 2008  I think that this was added by Sirwells during the move of this section from the user talk page to here.  Enuja (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, they support the conclusions of the IPCC, because at least (and probably more than) what the IPCC says is true. If you do, in fact, have recent polls of scientists that say that their is no consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change, please bring that information to the relevant pages. added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja (talk)


 * I'm not the one claiming there is a consensus, therefore the burden of proof is not mine to bear. But if you insist, I suggest you start by looking at the most recent polls documented on wikipedia. (2003 I believe). --Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you mean when you say that it is obvious that the majority of climate scientists (or people with equivalent area education) don't buy the IPCC. I do not of any data that says this, much less any data that makes it obvious. (Lists of people's names are pretty useless, and not relevant.) added to User talk:Sirwells on 05:23, 18 May 2008 by Enuja (talk)


 * How convenient of you to say that, since "lists are meaningless" excuses you from having to provide any actual proof of your above statement that "a huge number of ...scientists... think IPCC is too conservative. " I guess I should just have faith right? I mean that is the essense of your arguments. Can you relly not see the resemblance to religious doctrine in your logic? It's really very simple, show me some PROOF of an "overwhelming consensus". If you can't, your just another global warming zealot.--Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you've got new data and published analysis, please share it with the other people who edit these pages. - Enuja (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC) added to User talk:Sirwells


 * What would be the point of that, the global warming wiki gatekeepers would show up within minutes to ensure the article remains in it's current biased state.--Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't work in a climate field, my boss did his post-doc on a grant that existed to get people with directly opposite views about a system to work on it together to figure out what was really going on. Science really is about testing hypotheses, and people really do use money from grants to test things, not just to support existing consensus. Where everyone agrees, future research is actually really hard to get funding for. Luckily for climate change funding, we don't understand everything about the climate or about the future. - Enuja (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC) added to User talk:Sirwells


 * What did your boss research? Was it controversial? Where is the grant to get people with opposite views on global warming to come together? --Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I try not to discuss my past, other people's past, or my opinions on article talk pages. It simply isn't relevant. - Enuja (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You were the one using your boss's research as an example to try and somehow convince me that research grants don't mostly go to people who have already made up thier mind about AGW. If you are now saying it's irrelevant, I suggest you should not have brought it up in the first place. --Sirwells (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you figure out who knows enough about climate change to be part of a scientific consensus or controversy? The only methods I can think of are "who publishes on climate change" "who is a member of related scientific society" and "who goes to relevant scientific meetings". What criteria could we use? A poll of a randomized sample of authors and society members would be good. Bray and von Storch, 1996 looks to be the most recent of that sort (although it doesn't look randomized). The only good, up to date information that exists on what scientists think about climate change is statements published by scientific societies and the IPCC report itself. - Enuja (talk)

Rename article
Shouldn't (more) appropriate title go like: global climate change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.76.122 (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC) — Apis (talk ) 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * No. See WP:COMMONNAME. While GW concentrates on just one effect, it is the name under which the current climate change is best known. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Climate change" a bit like having an article on "sea level change" - except the whole article is about the way the flood is coming and we will all be drowned by what is really a natural phenomena called a tide. No, keep the title and turn the article into a historic commentary on the hysteria that surrounded a miniscule upward swing in global temperatures at the end of the 20th century. 88.111.115.56 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I get the formatting wrong...
 * Let's revisit this... Global Climate Change is becoming the scientific and popularly dominate term, replacing global warming. Additionally, global climate change is a more fitting description since local effects may not include warming on an seasonal or multi-year basis.  As the popular rhetoric adjusts so should the heading of Wikipedia's preeminent article on the subject.  Let's rename this section to Global Climate Change.  It truly is a matter of when we make this adjustment, not if. New comment by  06:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC) advocating rename article
 * If there was a major change it probably should be renamed yes. But I don't agree there is any. And I don't agree about your suggestion being more fitting either, "global warming" is pretty much what it's about, small variations aside. ''

Climate is up for GA
I'm leaving a note on this page, since it is one of the more active climate articles on wikipedia. So far, no one from the meteorology or tropical cyclone projects has come forward to review it after four weeks. One of you all should have enough knowledge to know if it is ready or not for GA, and if not, why. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick look shows some omissions, factual errors, and grammatical errors. Pretty good overall, though. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to avoid confusion: This article should indeed not receive GA status, as the community has already recognized it as a featured article, and has confirmed this status in a review. The article climate is under GA review. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I got rid of the off topic discussion that either belongs here or not at all. I personally don't see how this thread requires anymore discussion. Jason Patton (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The GW article should be delisted as a GA. It is too biased.209.59.50.192 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is precisely the kind of discussion I removed before. This thread is not about global warming's quality status' (which is FA, not GA, see Stephan's post above).  Anyway, if you think the article is too biased, then I invite you to improve it, keeping WP:RS and WP:FRINGE in mind being that this is a scientific article. Jason Patton (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Entire article should be scrapped. It's being used as a propoganda tool.  --Sirwells (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

— Apis (talk ) 03:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * Yes, by the global warming deniers... but I like to believe there still is some hope, so lets keep it a little while longer. ''


 * You are wrong sir. The 'deniers' aren't the ones standing-by like stink on sh!t, ready to instantly 'undo' anything and everything which may cast doubt on thier global warming gospel.--Sirwells (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This article summarizes what can be found in the peer reviewed literature. "Gospel" coming from the scientific community has been proven to be far more reliable than non peer reviewed "gospel" :) Count Iblis (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-NPOV and old climate data
I'm a bit new to making changes to controversial wikipedia articles. I and others have requested changes to be made with respect to the non-NPOV stance of this article (i.e. I don't need the overall tone of the article to agree with my point of view, but obvious and major proof of recent global COOLING trends for example might be germane to an article on global warming.) -- due to all this I would like to motion that we work on bringing this article some balance.

A little NPOV, just a LITTLE, would be nice. Editors should not be threatening to block people when they try to inject some dissenting opinion into a controversial topic. Global warming is a controversial topic, but one wouldn't think so from reading this article.

Thanks!

bjquinn (talk)


 * You need a reliable source that shows that any recent cooling is significant in relation to global warming.  The topic has already been discussed above. Jason Patton (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Significance is a POV. I'm merely showing data from reliable sources (in fact, the same sources that the article uses to indicate global warming). The data currently cited is old. Why would anyone resist updating this article with the most recent information from the very sources the article currently cites?

bjquinn (talk)


 * Significance of a trend in climatic data is determined by climate scientists, whose peer-reviewed works are cited in the article. If you want to make an updated graph that shows the entire span of the dataset, that might be acceptable. Otherwise you need a source to show that the 20 years your graph used are significant in the context of the current global climate change since it is not representative of the entire dataset available. Jason Patton (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Then I propose to start out with we update the first paragraph where it states - "The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005."  This should be updated with the data for the hundred years ending 2007.  There are myriad sources for that data.  I propose to make no additional comments to the sentence, paragraph, images or the rest of the article at this time.  I simply would like to change the above mentioned numbers into line with data ending 2007.  If I change that, citing an appropriate source, will my changes be scraped?  bjquinn (talk)
 * I think that's reasonable. I haven't seen any source that says the 100 years ending 2005 are any more significant than the 100 years ending 2007. Oren0 (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that the current data comes from the IPCC, who releases reports rather infrequently. Which other sources would be acceptable to the editors of this article? Bjquinn (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously you would require a source as notable as the IPCC. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd propose to use the IPCC's sources then. :)  Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS, etc.  How about those guys.  Are they notable enough? Bjquinn (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For the sake of discussion, and by no means intended to be a citable source, I would offer my own obsservation. Putting a line through the 1906-2005 Hadley data gives a slope of 0.737 C/century (consistent with the 0.74 in the article).  Putting a similar line through 1908-2007 gives a slope of 0.754 C/century.  In other words a steeper trend because 1908-1911 were among the coldest years of record, while 1906-1907 were somewhat warmer.  Any credible estimate of the systematic error is going to tell you that the uncertainty in the trend is larger than the differences we are talking about, but I wanted to point out that updating the window is by no means guaranteed to lead to smaller numbers and in this case is perhaps as likely to be as large or (slightly) larger.  Dragons flight (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a rolling 100 years should either not be considered significant or should be supported by additional time periods to give the reader multiple perspectives on the data. 100 years is a fairly arbitrary choice for a time span and combined with the fact that 1908-1911 were abnormally cold (as Dragons flight mentioned) I believe it skews the results.  I'm not suggesting we do 1912-2007 to make up for it, but perhaps we should supplement the arbitrary 100 year period with additional data, even (or especially) in the opening paragraph.  Bjquinn (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I mentioned below, the "temperature anomaly" seems to be a fairly standard method of measuring temperature differential. HadCRUT for example derives the anomaly from current temperature increase over the average of 1961-1990.  This would lend much more statistical significance to the number we present on the article.  The current statistic uses no more than two data points - 2005 and the abnormally cold year 100 years before it.  I think it's irresponsible to try to establish trends with only two data points. Bjquinn (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Significance is determined by the data. Not by the most prominent opinion. If so most prominent climate organizations are predicting a "lull" in warming for the next few years. That's not relevant? If a tenth of the data sample, the past ten years of cooling or null warming, is irrelevant then climate science really is a different kind of science. But catastrophic global warming is just around the corner, I assure you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.143.91 (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Those who determine significace are not Wikipedia editors. Nor do Wikipedia editors draw conclusions from the data. We use reliable sources, which are quoted and referenced. If that means data is a little out of date, so be it. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to propose that NASA is a reliable source. If I add that to the article, will it be scraped? Bjquinn (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be fine depending what the NASA reference says. If it says "based on North American data only" and is a cleaner at NASA writing in the inflight magazine of "cheapair" then we might have a problem. A review of lots of data sources is probably better than one but in principle you are 100% right that the 100 years to 2007 is better than to 2005. --BozMo talk 14:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If significance is not determined by a wikipedia editor, then what authority does such an editor have to block a quote or picture from a reputable source? Bjquinn has a point, the data in this article is misrepresented. Very few question the data on climate change but the interpretation of that data is controversial. Interpret it however you choose, the fact is the Earth has cooled in the last 10 years and from this article you would think all research stopped in 2004. It has been 3 years and there is dissenting opinion. If it is not possible to reach a neutral tone then at least link to a global cooling page and allow them a non neutral tone to balance this one. Otherwise, this page is a blight on the open source community. -BLeavitt
 * All you need to do is find such dissenting opinion in the leading peer reviewed journals like Science of Nature. Count Iblis (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See below, how about this article? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf - which says "we make the following forecast... North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade" Bjquinn (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, if taken completely out of context that would seem to be a dissenting opinion. You left out the last half of the sentence: "...as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming." Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not taking it out of context, I was getting to the point. Let's put the whole sentence on the article then.  YOU, sir, took out the   other half of the sentence which clearly states (both out of context AND in context) "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade".  As I've often been told here, this article is about GLOBAL WARMING.  Whether it's anthropogenic or not isn't the point I'm trying to get at. Bjquinn (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) This is early 2008. How are results from the 2007 IPCC report old or out of date? The IPCC report is drawing from the published data available at the time it was written (mid to late last year), so it's absolutely fine to include more recent published data and analysis (but you are unlikely to find it, since the last IPCC report was so recent). We don't need to use just Science and Nature as peer-reviewed sources. There are other peer-reviewed journals out there, and any reputable one will do. I think it makes sense to update the article; but I also think we have been updating the article. Instead of complaining that the IPCC doesn't release reports often enough, make sure all of the IPCC references are to the 2007 report. If you read a news story, find the peer-reviewed article that the news story was based on, read the article, figure which sub-topic of global warming it's about, edit that Wikipedia sub-article, then go to the summary section in this article of the article you've edited, see if the information in the sub-article you changed is in this article, and change it here as well if needed. It makes sense to update this article whenever possible, but work from the bottom up. Change the details, then change the summaries to reflect any differences in details. - Enuja (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article states the following: "The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005." It's the "hundred years ending in 2005" part that's out of date.  In fact, there shouldn't be much resistance to this change since if you look at the data straight from the sources (i.e. http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly), 1907 and 1908 were significantly colder than 1906, so the temperature drop and 2007 won't affect the final number much, yet it brings the article up to date.  Bjquinn (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I don't have a strong opinion which chunk of 100 years we use, the recently released 2007 IPCC report includes the up to 2005 data? Why?  I'm not sure, but maybe because recent data gets updated and corrected more often than old data.  If we use the more recent chunk of time, we can't use the IPCC as a reference, so those two things together make me wonder if updating that particular data is really the best way to go.  Again, there are pretty good arguments on both sides, but this, to me, is really a non-issue.  The two possibilities are essentially indistinguishable.  What we actually need to try hard to stay abreast of is the published literature, not some one hundred year moving window of data.
 * Please be with your language; I certainly hope the editors here aren't resistant to change things because the data or analysis doesn't make them happy. We should update everything for the same reason; there is good peer-reviewed new stuff out there.  It really, really shouldn't matter which "side" looks better from new stuff.  - Enuja (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to consider using data periods other than 100 years. Unfortunately, it just so happens to be exactly the 100 year window (not the "temperature anomaly", or last 10, 20, 30, 50 or 5000 years) that make the global warming theory look most viable.  It so happens that the years of the late 1800s and early 1900s (the years recently targeted by the beginning of the rolling 100 year period) were abnormally cold.  As Enuja mentioned, maybe it doesn't make sense to specifically update the IPCC data (since there's no update since 2005), but if the IPCC has no recent data, I think we'd be well served by adding another source with more recent data, if not replacing the reference to the IPCC data altogether, or moving it down the article.  In addition, if we did this, perhaps there wouldn't be any necessity to specifically choose the 100 year window, since it was an arbitrary time window chosen by the IPCC anyway.  I think the "temperature anomaly" is the generally accepted measurement of global warming. Bjquinn (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bj: To return to the beginning of all this: ''This should be updated with the data for the hundred years ending 2007. There are myriad sources for that data. I propose to make no additional comments to the sentence, paragraph, images or the rest of the article at this time.'' Now you discover the obvious: it makes no difference. So you need to pick different time intervals to find this mythical cooling trend. But there is no cooling trend, so its a waste of time. Adding junk from Watts won't work, for the obvious reason William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, if it makes no difference, then let's update it and start a precedent of keeping that rolling 100 years current. Secondly, not all four of the generally accepted temperature data sources agree exactly.  It makes more of a difference on some than it does on the others.  HadCRUT3 tends to make things look "worse" than the other sources do.  Lastly, I'd like anyone here to tell me that a single statistic with only two data points (i.e. ANY rolling 100 year period) is relevant or responsible.  I'd again like to propose that we consider alternative ways of portraying the actual temperature change.  Other people here have agreed with this sentiment.  Also, you accuse me of needing to find different time intervals to find a cooling trend.  One could also say that your time intervals have been selected just as conveniently to find your "mythical" warming trend. Bjquinn (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement that "Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the [last] hundred years", has never consisted of simply taking a difference between two data points. The IPCC and others filter out the short-term weather fluctuations before defining the change in climate. Dragons flight (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry guv but you've lost the plot. Here's a reminder Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png. The warming is obvious. So instead of only a single statistic we could display, errm, a graph of the actual data... oh, wait... William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. Then I propose we remove the sentence in the first paragraph about surface temperature increasing and instead refer them to the graph to draw their own conclusions. Also, we should move up the longer term graphs (i.e. "Ice Age Temperature Changes") lest a reader think that this sort of warming is geologically unprecedented.  Bjquinn (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to forget the article is the text. Illustrations, including graphs, illustrate the text. Let the reader read the article, note the references, then draw their own conclusions. And also this article is not about temperature changes in previous geological eras, it is about human induced temperature change occurring now. My opinion? No, the opinion of the organisations and scientists referenced in the article. If you disagree, find better references. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested insertion of new paper into recent section

 * *I'm* not the one suggesting that the article is not the text, Mr. Connolley is.  I suggested improving the text, so he said it wasn't necessary since we have graphs.  Then I suggested eliminating a one-sided statistic since Mr. Connolley thought the graph says it all, and now you say it's not necessary since it's all about the text.  I suggest you recommend to me a better reference than the temperature data sources themselves.  And that you figure a way out to agree amongst yourselves the best way to prevent me from being able to make any modifications to this article, rather than contradicting yourselves.  Bjquinn (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and by the way, how about this article from NATURE (because that's basically the only valid source, or so I've been told many times) that believes that global warming is on hold for a while and which says "we make the following forecast... North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade" - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf Bjquinn (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its cr*p. You need to learn to be more... skeptical. See here William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's crap then, is it? My how the tables have turned!  I've been scolded a dozen times by people telling me that I must find a "reliable source", or specifically a source from "Science or Nature" - a peer reviewed source.  I've watched others here be scolded a dozen times for linking to something that came from a blog or something like that.  And now I find a reliable source, an article from Nature no less, and I'm responded to by a link to a blog post??!?   I will not read that blog post you link to any more than you would have read a blog post I had linked you to, or if I had linked you to NewsMax or something.  This is absurd.  I've been told here several times that it's not the personal opinion of the editors that makes an edit stand, it's the reliability of the source.  There's something wrong with Nature now then, is there?  Because it contains something you don't agree with?  If you contend that this source is not reliable enough to be used as a source on this article, then I contend that ALL statements whose source is Nature will have to be removed from this article.  This is hypocrisy of the highest order. Bjquinn (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you asked what people thought, I replied. Its a poor paper. It is, however, unquestionably a WP:RS; that alone doesn't mean it gets to go in though William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need to make room somewhere for the recently published prediction that the next decade or so is going to be at a flat global temperature as a shorter-term oscillation masks the current anthropogenic warming. I know William Connelley doesn't like to include recently published papers, but, since it takes quite some time for refutations to be published most of the time, I strongly disagree. We should consider all papers published in any one journal as equally reliable, no matter if the paper is from 1908 or 2008. Papers often need to be put in context, (include papers with the opposite conclusion, toss out old papers when a bunch of new ones change the story, include in the text the date of publication for something so fresh off the presses that it hasn't been vetted outside of the peer review process) but that's not too hard. - Enuja (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as there is a little time for the scientific community to respond (not the case for hot of the press publishings), adding new papers is fine. Otherwise, it should be done with caution. But, I'd agree with your general idea. It should be put into context at the least.  Aar on Sc hulz  02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. Admittedly, I think a fairly important part of the context (and the context I think you're referring to) is that the article does NOT attempt to refute anthropogenic warming.  It merely states that the projected anthropogenic warming will be temporarily overwhelmed/offset by unrelated factors.  However, I DO think that it would be fairly germane to an article on global warming that a recent article in Nature thinks there won't be any of it for a while.  And, respectfully, let's not go overboard with the "context" and playing down the article TOO much - after all, as I've seen suggested numerous times here - technically, there's a sub-article for what causes warming.  This is an article on warming itself, which may, according to this source, be nonexistent in the short term.  But in principle I think that we are in agreement.  Bjquinn (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest a way to put this - suggestions for improvement are welcome. How about something like this - "One study suggests that 'global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.'"  It's not very creative, but it's directly from the source, I believe it includes the full context, and is an appropriate summary, being the concluding sentence of the abstract for the article itself.  I don't think burying this link deep down in the article is appropriate.  Perhaps it's not necessary to include this in the leading paragraph, but such a major projection from a reputable source should at least be above the "contents" block.  Bjquinn (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you are over-inflating it. It should go nowhere near the lead. Its not a major projection. Its a fairly minor one that happens to have had the luck to hit Nature. It also has some rather major flaws. This paper should not go in without context; a bare minimum is the papers own admission that its "forced" prediction has wrose skill than the "unforced" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, ok so does anyone *other* than Mr. Connolley have an opinion? Bjquinn (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Sure. My view is that it the world won't come to an end if we wait to see how much impact this paper has. Being a reliable source is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion here. There are hundreds of journal articles published on climate change every year; they all satisfy the definition of a reliable source, but there's no way we can reference every one of them. Let's see how it shakes out -- Will the paper become a classic? Will it be refuted? Or will it settle in as one more worthwhile but not revolutionary article out of thousands? If I had to make a bet I'd choose the third option, but let's wait and see. See The world will not end tomorrow. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, the world won't end, but I seriously doubt there would be so much hesitancy to include a source if it indicated that global warming was on a sudden dramatic rise. I counter that the world won't end either if we do include this article, and after all, if you go check, the article was received by Nature on June 25 2007, and accepted on March 14 this year.  It's not like it's the latest hot-off-the-presses sports score or something.  Nature waited almost nine months to accept it, and a month and a half more to publish it.  Bjquinn (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of mentioning it in Global Warming. We can expand the paragraph on El Niño and write about this study and perhaps other studies about fluctuations in the climate that are important over a time scale of several years. Count Iblis (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I guess that's a reasonable enough place to put it. As badly as I wanted it above the "contents" block, after I reread the opening paragraphs, I couldn't think of a way to reference this article without badly breaking the flow.  I think a reference to this source would be a reasonable balance against the references to NASA data, which have been targeted (by skeptics, anyway) as a bit revisionist and more world will end tommorrowish than some of the other temperature data sources.  Does anyone have a problem with pretty much outright quoting the source as I suggested above, or is there an easier-to-read paraphrase we can agree on? Bjquinn (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to have been any response for a while. I acknowledge that there has been a couple of negative reactions to using this article, but the majority seems to be willing to add it.  If I add it into Global Warming, and basically quote the source outright (as I've suggested above), am I going to draw a revert? Or, I'm certainly up for suggestions on how to otherwise improve this reference or Global Warming in general. Bjquinn (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you quote the source, use quotation marks. Otherwise, we as wikipedia are violating the copyright of the source.  It's much, much preferable to paraphrase than to quote.  - Enuja (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this for a paraphrase - "One recent study suggests that temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations may offset the expected human-caused warming during this period." This sentence should perhaps be added in Global Warming right after "... the strongest El Niño in the past century occurred during that year" and right before "Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect".  Bjquinn (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to chime in here. I'm in favor of adding it.  It comes from the same journal as most of the other material on this article.  (Although that journal should not be given any more weight than any other scientific journal.)  The opinion of the individual who claims it is "cr*p" is irrelevant.  This article should not be about someone's opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I would like to add this, but I'm hoping to solicit more input on how to word it. I had initially wanted to opt for the direct quote (less issues with controversial wording, etc.), but Enuja suggested that it's much better to paraphrase than to quote. That's understandable. I offered a possible paraphrase, but I find it more awkward than the direct quote. I found myself struggling to say it any other way as well as the quote itself. If there aren't any suggestions (or other objections) for a while, I'll just add it (as described a few posts above. Bjquinn (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Add what? And how would you calculate it? Whats your methodology - and what would your sentence look like? These are all unanswered in the above (although i could be wrong). Are you just going to subtract two yearly averages or are you going to reflect a moving average etc. etc. Try making an actual suggestion here first. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but you have obviously not read the entire thread (although I can understand why, since it's quite long). Perhaps I should change the title (~DONE).  If you read the previous 10 posts or so, you'll notice that the issue has now become how to word a reference to the article in Nature that projects no warming for the next 10 years or so, after which point anthropogenic warming is expected to again overwhelm the natural climate variations that will cause an expected decadal-scale cooling.  The original suggestion had all the problems you mentioned, and this article is a better-sourced way to indicate related trends.  Bjquinn (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing the introduction to the article, to reflect a single paper, that has received mostly flac amongst scientific commentators, and that only supports very short term fluctuations (and continued warming), as opposed to reflecting the literature up to that point, is definitively a no-go, considering the undue weight you would put on it. So i'm rather surprised that you would even consider it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, i have read the whole thread. At no point in this thread do you actually answer my questions. But lets assume for a moment that you did... Whats the problem in summarizing it, and answering my questions? (i changed the headline back - as that is what people where commenting on. Not your new revision). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, ok, I only changed the title for your benefit. It wasn't for mine.  Again, still no offense, but you must NOT have read the whole thread.  If you did, you'd notice that for the past week or so, the suggestion has NOT been to change the introduction to the article, it's been to add a single sentence to Global Warming (you can see proof in my post from May 8).  Further, to answer your questions - Question 1 : "Add what?".  This is answered in my May 3 post - an article from Nature that can be seen at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf.  Question 2 : "And how would you calculate it?"  This is answered in many previous posts (take the May 3 or 8 posts for example) which indicate that there is, in fact no calculation to be done.  I won't calculate anything, I'll simply use the article as my source.  Question 3 : "Whats your methodology - and what would your sentence look like?"  Answered in a May 5 and May 8 posts of mine, I have thus far suggested two options - either a direct quote ("One study suggests that 'global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.'") or a paraphrase ("One recent study suggests that temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations may offset the expected human-caused warming during this period.")  Question 4 : "Are you just going to subtract two yearly averages or are you going to reflect a moving average etc. etc."  See answer to Question 2.  I've accepted Enuja's suggestion that this be added in the Global Warming section due to concerns (that you have also expressed) that it deals with short term trends.  Global Warming is an appropriate place for such projected short term trends.  As for the claim that the article "has received mostly flac amongst scientific commentators", that's a subjective statement that you'll have to find a reputable source for.  The topic of this thread has shifted slightly due to requests others have made of me to use only reputable sources for my information.  The result is indicating the same potential trend (short-term cooling or temperature stability) using a different method (an article from Nature projecting out 10+ years instead of recent raw NASA/HadCRUT3/Satellite data, which many commentators on this thread had a problem with).  Have I missed any of your other questions? Bjquinn (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its become painfully obvious that yuo're desperate to get some mention of cooling into this. Now that you've realised that the data don't support that, no matter how tortured, you're puffing up this rather poor study. I doubt it should go in at all; if it does, it should go in with some balance; the obvious balance is RC William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, why not? It's painfully obvious that you're desperate to get some mention of warming into this.  It's a peer reviewed study, just like I was told I had to have.  I haven't discovered that the data doesn't support cooling, I've just discovered a reputable source that expresses a similar sentiment, which is (as everyone here has suggested) a better idea than my original, due to the inherent complexities with just making up my own stuff out of raw data.  I'm afraid that you've posted a link to your blog again.  You've got to be kidding.  Bjquinn (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

— Apis (talk ) 00:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * What is so special about "global surface temperature increase might be temporarily offset over the next 10 years" that it should be mentioned? Anyway, any study would have to be weighted against what the other sources are saying so that a single source isn't given to much weight. ''
 * Um, ok so if 10 year trends aren't important, let's scrape the past couple decades. How's everybody feel about that?  Seriously, when a source indicates severe global warming (even if it's from a blog), the standards for inclusion here are surprisingly low.  For an article that indicates temperature stability, it's not good enough that it's from Nature, as long as we have a blog post at real climate or some other "reputable" blog that discounts it.  Besides, there are hundreds of sources already included in this article that point to the conclusions you're trying to make.  I think adding this one sentence isn't going to upset your "balance", but the source itself is important (after all Mr. Connolley's blog bothered to try to discredit it).  I've been told in this thread to find a "reputable source", which was a deterrent to my attempts to make changes.  I guess the assumption was that I wouldn't find one.  Well, I did, and now suddenly it's "oh wait, no, see what we meant was, it has to be a reputable source that Mr. Connolley doesn't think is cr*p and that we can't find a blog post discounting it, and that also indicates apocalyptic global warming".  This is the definition of one-sided.  Bjquinn (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) No, William Connolley, a blog post is not a good way to add context for a new study.

Bjquinn, I'm sorry I haven't been more helpful with putting this new article into the paper. In order to make wording or context suggestions, I'd need to carefully read the Global Warming section and all of its references, and I haven't had time to do that recently. As a suggestion, the context that William posts in one of his blog posts (this Science article) might be good to use. But I have no comment on actual wording until I do some work I simply don't have time for right now. Hopefully someone else does, or you should just be bold and put it in yourself (but, from a quick glance, your paraphrase is still much too similar to the article's text). - Enuja (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking again at the Recent section, I don't think this article fits. It looks like it would fit better in Global warming, adding to the existing one-sentence paragraph on clouds in models (broadening the paragraph to include ocean circulation). Another thing to do would be to go to the Global climate model article and these new sources there. I haven't even read all of that article, though, so I can't help you with which articles should be where in that article. - Enuja (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? It's true that the article comes to the conclusions it does because of the model it chooses to follow, but it seems that the impact of the article is more geared towards projected short term warming rather than being a revolutionary climate model itself.  Maybe the "recent" section isn't appropriate simply because "recent" implies past, not future.  We could reword the name of the section to "short term temperature variation"/"short term warming" rather than "recent" or something like that, to cover both recent past and near future.  Otherwise, possibly a "near future"/"future warming in the short term" section would be appropriate, where we could of course refer to several other studies in addition to the one I've brought up (of which most would be pro-warming, I'd assume). Bjquinn (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for brief synopsis of U.S. global warming policies in Environmental policy of the United States
I'm trying to fill-out the newly-created Environmental policy of the United States article, and I was hoping someone could help me by creating a two or three paragraph blurb on what the United States has done in relation to global warming. Kyoto, feet-dragging, potential for carbon cap in the upcoming election, etc. Thanks in advance! johnpseudo 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone post some proof?
I don't understand this global warming dogma. I can tell that no one with a science background has written in this section. It describes that global warming is an average increase in temperature, but that is about far as it goes. Is anyone else picking that fact up? It doesn't even explain the act of global warming. Probably because there is no consensus. Every time I ask someone the process of global warming, I hear a different theory. I know green house gases is an easy answer, but the "how" doesn't get answered. Let me think of a few theories off the top of my head.

Rays of light, bounce off the oceans, come back up and get trapped by the CO2. Rays of light, go into the ocean, heating it, this heat rises and can't escape because of the CO2. The CO2 in the atmosphere filters out the Earth's long wave radiation, which in turn, changes which radiation the Earth blocks from the sun.

That was just a few running through my head that I've heard lately. Since there is such a consensus (according to Al Gore), I'm sure someone can clear that up for me. After we clear up that, we can get to the proof. The actual study and information that shows greenhouse gases are responsible for warming. I noticed most of the "proof" posted is just correlated information and the "effects" of global warming. Granted, you have to post the effects of global warming in this article, but it doesn't constitute proof. Do I really need to show the fallacy in correlated "proof"? All I seem to get is the "greenhouse gases went up and temperature went up, therefore greenhouse gases made temperature go up." That's not science. That's retardation.

Hope someone can come up with the proof. I've been waiting for too many years for it.

Cheers! --Capitalist Shrugged (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Science does not do "proofs". Proofs are relegated to the realm of mathematics. Science offers theories (supported by various degrees of evidence) and observations. The basic mechanisms of global warming are covered in the article - you might want to dig deeper, e.g. into Attribution of recent climate change and Greenhouse effect. We know about the greenhouse effect for a lot longer than we can accurately determine the temperature of the Earth - Arrhenius identified the basic mechanism over a hundred years ago - not from correlation, but from understanding the basic properties of CO2. The Sun is about 6000K, and hence radiates primarily in the visual wavelengths. Earth atmosphere is mostly transparent at that wavelength, so incoming radiation hits the ground and warms it. Earth is about 280K, and hence radiates primarily in the infrared. CO2 is opaque to this wavelength, and hence the infrared radiation cannot easily escape if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere. This creates an imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation - and the Earth warms. There is a remarkable consensus about this. Don't take Al Gore's word for it, check Scientific opinion on climate change. And don't expect easy answers for complex scientific problems. There is a reason why we have universities and those offer science classes. Despite your impression, several scientists, some of which specialize in climatolgy, have contributed to this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What Stephan Schulz failed to mention is C02 has a relatively narrow absorption spectrum in the infrared, primarily at 10 um and a little at 2 and 4 um. For this reason "green-house" warming from a doubling of C02 can only account for nominally 1 degree C of warming. To produce further warming the models assume a relatively modest warming of 1 degree will increase water vapor concentration in the atmosphere and since H20 is more abundant then C02 and has a much broader (integrated) absorption spectrum in the infrared it is therefore a much more potent greenhouse gas. And bingo, 1 degree of warming from C02 multiplies between 2 and 6 according to the IPCC and you get 2.5 to 6 degrees of warming from that initial doubling of C02. They call this “climate sensitivity” or a positive feedback from an increase in anthropogenic green house gases.


 * This sounds very good in theory. The problem I see from this, and tell me where I’m going wrong here, is as follows:


 * 1) The climate record has no evidence of dangerous positive feedbacks from C02. In-fact temperature change precedes changes in C02. Or as Richard Lindzen put it, you’ll find no one claiming cancer causes smoking.
 * 2) The physics suggest the climate probably has negative feedback from things like precipitation systems, as Roy Spencer believes. Meaning, more green house warming from C02 causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which causes more precipitation. And those in the “energy balance” camp, its possible the extra energy in the system can be contained in those precipitation systems. From the newer NASA climate instrumentation spinning around the earth compelling data has been generated in support of negative feedback mechanisms. While I have seen no evidence of positive feedback.
 * 3) This one is my favorite: It just sounds ridiculous! The implication is the climate system will go into run away feedback (i.e. Hansen). Kind of like pointing a microphone directly at a speaker, or a super critical nuclear explosion. If the climate was really sitting on the edge of a cliff, it probably would have fallen over by now from events like tectonic plate shifts and giant celestial impact like what killed off the dinosaurs. Plus that, C02 can only absorb so much energy. Once those absorption bands saturate the warming effect of green house gases roll off logarithmically. Kind like 10^-8 torr is as much of a vacuum as 10^-3 torr, except to maybe the ion gauge, or your experiment inside, but to humans, a point of diminishing returns, it sucks just as much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.143.91 (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Capitalist Shrugged, you have quite accureately summed up the whole global warming debate. I searched a long time and eventually found a paper that actually made a scientific case to support a link between CO2 and warming (and found about a dozen papers casting doubt on that link). The paper is decades old, is very seldom quoted and is kept hidden by the global warming evangelists which is just about all you need to know about it as "proof". Basically, global warming is simply the assertion by those who believe in this religion that a period of warming at the end of the 20th century was caused by the evil of mankind. The fact that temperatures have been declining in the 21st century, is conveniently ignored, as is the scientific requirement for proof (global warming is a special type of "science" where no proof is required) The reason you don't find much credible on the page, is that no decent scientist will waste their time on this subject. Bugsy (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to see your "dozen papers" that go against AGW. Oren0 (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oren0, I have just listened to a whole question and answer session of politicains by the public about energy and global warming was not mentioned once. When oil prices are starting to rocket and the credit crunch continues to bite, who gives a damn about global warming? It was fun whilst it lasted but whether we like it or not, whether you believe the world is cooling or still heading for a massive 2C meltdown the public aren't interested any more because they have found some much more critical and they are ignoring us! 88.109.233.83 (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming is the product of too many industrial companies polluting the world in gas. This is a very important subject of the world today. Every time something happens, like hurricane or tornadoes, the world's population becomes very paranoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.136.55 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Effects of live stock
I think that the relative contribution of different anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases should go into Attribution of recent climate change instead of into this higher level article. User:Tressor recently added this paragraph to the Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere section. Do other editors think this paragraph belongs where it is now, in Attribution of recent climate change, or somewhere else? - Enuja (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore it - he's another Scibaby sockpuppet. Raul654 (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Geez, I thought for a second you meant that Enuja was a Scibaby sock. That was sort of mind-blowing. Then I figured it out. MastCell Talk 06:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)