Talk:Climate change/Archive 41

"This article is about the current period of increasing global temperature"
This headline is misleading. It should read: "This article is about the theory regarding a current belief of increasing global temperature" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.90.132 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree. By the 3rd or 4th line it had already jumped on the theory that man has caused global warming. This is completely irrelevant. The article should deal with the wider aspects of Global Warming from a planetary phenomenon not social. How did Venus end up with runaway global warming? How does this compare to Earth? As it stands it's propaganda -- Finalreminder (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, "....the theory regarding a current belief of increasing global temperature". So, not even about "a current belief of increasing global temperature", but the "theory" about that "belief". So, that clearly is a psychological topic that has nothing to do with the physical theory of global warming. Count Iblis (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

maybe not "....the theory regarding a current belief of increasing global temperature", but i think the header should be changed. according to global temperature reports, the planet has been cooling down over the past few years. http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/july-2008-update-on-global-temperature-ncdc/ whether this is a long term cooling, or short to be followed by long term heating, only time will tell. But our current readings show the world to be cooling down, not heating up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parischampagne (talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You wont get far on a 5 year trend. Check back in 2012. While I agree that it is POV to have the article discussing the theory AGW as post-tense reality (notice especially that AGW links to this page) pointing out that only Hansen's "adjusted" temperature log shows warming 2002-2008 is too flimsy to change the lead, and you would get significant resistance from many regulars here to even adding it a section, or even merely updating the temperature graphics to include the recent plateau (or include a graph of sat data, both of which are less alarming than the two surface sets). Jaimaster (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Temp graphic is uptodate 2007, as 2008 isnt over yet--207.161.31.216 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (One of the) temp graphics is... (just inserting a word you omitted) Jaimaster (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a quote from the IPCC report. This represents the consensus of dozens of the world's experts on climate change, and it thus somewhat more reliable than a blog posting somewhere or other.  Let's not try and pretend that climate change isn't a real phenomenon, happening now.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level
 * IPCC report 2007 Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  12:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am about to add yet another comment here that I expect will soon be erased because it is an 'Incovenient' truth. The bottom line from all the reading and research I have done on this issue is that the mechanism which is supposed to cause man made global warming, called radiative forcing, is based only on a computer simulated model which has no real world statistical data to back it up. The conclusion can only be that the few thermographs which I posted on this talk page and were removed by the editors had more data than is presented in the radiative forcing article. For those of you that read this I will say goodbye for now because I don't think anyone will let this comment ride.Hotflashhome (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The original comment is absolutely correct - "global warming" without any qualification should refer to any planet at any point in space-time. Most of space-time is inaccessible to us, at least in practice, but for example an article titled "Global warming" should at least include the timing, cause(s) and progress of GW on Venus and at various times in the Earth's history when geochmical and fossil evidence indicate that GW probably occurred.
 * Of course that's only logic. I don't expect it will change the content of this article or lead to most of its current content being moved to e.g. "The debate about contemporary global warming on Earth". -- Philcha (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Already covered in the FAQ. Raul654 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What specific parts of my last comment are covered in Talk:Global_warming/FAQ? -- Philcha (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What the FAQ has to do with your comment is that it debunks the canard that global warming has anything to do with planets other than earth. Raul654 (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the article at this page name should contain all of the information at Geologic temperature record, Paleoclimatology, Climate change, Solar variation and much of the information at Atmosphere of Venus? This article is already pretty long, so I don't think it makes sense to make it longer.  We've got to chop up the information into digestible pieces somehow, and this article is already very much a summary; trying to cram more subjects into it would make it necessary to make the summaries very very brief.  People do use the phrase "global warming" to refer to the recent and projected future climate change; check out the first references in this article.  The naming conventions suggest that we use the most common name for a topic in the article title, and that we use multiple articles to cover large topics.  If you've got a specific idea about re-organizing this set of articles, by all means, please bring it up here.  But please address the other existing articles on this range of subjects in your re-organization; this single article can't handle the entire set of related topics.  - Enuja (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well what would make most sense to me would be to have an overview article at "Global warming", which covered all aspects of global warming - i.e. whenever temperatures increase across a globe, such as Earth or Venus. Each section of this would probably merit its own article, for example "The runaway greenhouse effect on Venus", "Contemporary global warming", and "Global warming events in Earth History".  You are quite right that all the pertinent points of the articles you list above should be mentioned in this article, but of course there isn't the scope to present all of the gory details here: that's what the more focussed articles should be for. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  12:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Effects on Global Warming of Drilling for Methane Hydrates
Methane Hydrates have been an area of interest to oilmen since the seventies. The clamoring to be able to go into environmentally sensitive areas and drill for them has been noisome since the eighties. The Japanese spent the nineties mapping them and building the rigs to go after them offshore. Present estimates of their extent are something like 10^16 cubic tons. In 2000 the US passed a methane Hydrate Bill encouraging their exploitation which has already begun in the artic. According to the USGS the problem with using them is that the release of methane into the atmosphere is 10 times as damaging as CO2. Other sources such as the IPCC say 25 times as damaging. Their release due to the present levels of warming in Siberian bogs is already causing accelerated warming beyond what anyone expected for another two or three decades. Recent massive releases off Santa Barbera and North Carolina are making oil companies push for permission to go drilling for them regardless of the cost to fish stocks, reefs, or global warming. Why is there almost no discussion of them in this article 69.39.100.2 (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See Clathrate Gun Hypothesis to which this article is linked. --BozMo talk 11:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at it before I commented above. I'm just curious why people don't make the connection between offshore drilling and offshore drilling for methane hydrates (or clathrates). Its clearly not the oil and gas that are big attractions or the reason the MSM is getting all hot and sweaty pushing for it, and yet all this article has to say about this imminent planet killer is a relatively uncommented link? 69.39.100.2 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article reflects a consensus of attention given in the scientific literature. We may well make the connection and have concerns but the job of Wikipedia is to reflect consensus not form an independent opinion. Were some of the authors here to write editorials Methane Clathrates might feature more but there is also an element of it being something which was briefly over-estimated as a novelty problem and people need to catch up on its importance. At present it isn't very attractive to develop because as for all gas transport is an issue: therefore it is not an immediate source of greenhouse gas except via the possible gun. --BozMo talk 18:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is in need of updating
Okay i know it's bold to edit this article as my first but you have to start somewhere...

I was quite surprised to see, that the article refers to an IPCC report from 2005 that says that the sea level would rise several meters. The new 2007 IPCC report says that sea levels are only expected to rise between 0.22 til 0.44 meters by the mid-2090s above 1990 levels.

I couldn't edit the article so i hope someone here sees my post, and that we can bring the entire article up to date.

Lau Joergensen (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Corrected according to AR4 - which says 0.18 - 0.59 meters. (Fig SPM.3). Note that this is excluding rapid dynamic ice changes - which is the reason for the lowering. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I always thought that the main reason for the predicted sea level rise was thermal expansion? Any chance you could clear this up for me? Deamon138 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For historical sea level rise you'll want the IPCC Working Group I report, chapter 5 which is on oceans and sea level. Note esp section 5.5.6, "Total Budget of the Global Mean Sea Level Change."  The Cliff's Notes version is that about half of recent sea level rise has been due to thermal expansion. For projected sea level change see Chapter 10, section 10.6. The fraction of sea level rise attributable to thermal expansion varies between about half and 2/3, depending on the emission scenario used. As Kim notes, rapid ice changes are omitted so the IPCC estimates are inherently conservative. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My CNs in the FAQ
I have added some CNs in the fact. In many cases I am not challenging the statements but if this is to be the end-all repository of common responses to the FAQs, it seems to make sense to have references for the more significant claims being made there, IMHO.

The FAQ also has the following statement:

Emphasis is mine. As we all know there is a de facto ban on using anything but peer-reviewed sources so perhaps this statement should actually reflect that fact?

Also, I note that the material contained in these responses to the questions is completely one-sided. Do we have a situation here where skeptical views from peer-reviewed sources need not apply? This is how it appears at any rate. Perhaps that is just my perspective. --GoRight (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Citations are good. Some of the cn tags are unnecessary (e.g., they are attached to points that are clarified a couple of sentences later), and some are simply gratuitous -- do we really need citations to the fact that much of Greenland lies under an ice sheet??? but it would be good to fill in the others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "do we really need citations to the fact that much of Greenland lies under an ice sheet???" - I think the point is that the text suggests that the size of the habitable areas has not changed significantly since the Norse settled there. The citation was in relation to this claim, not the claim of the existence of the ice sheet.  I have placed moved it to the end of the sentence.  If it is truly gratuitous then simply remove it. --GoRight (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Do we have a situation here where skeptical views from peer-reviewed sources need not apply?" I don't think anyone is talking about skeptical views. The need for peer reviewed sources is most applicable to fringe views i.e. exceptional claims require exceptional sources. A good example of an exceptional claim that would require peer review sources would be "Global Warming causes Earthquakes". :P Deamon138 (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, this claim was put forth by a proponent of the "so called" AGW consensus, not be me. :P  --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I don't think anyone who says that Global Warming causes earthquakes is part of the AGW consensus. As far as I'm aware, most scientists will say that AGW won't cause earthquakes, so whoever says it does isn't part of the consensus. Deamon138 (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that it's worth putting effort into the FAQ. Supposedly the FAQ represents the "consensus of editors here." As far as I know, there has been no survey or discussion (at least not since I've been editing GW pages, which would be well over a year) to indicate that this represents the consensus of anyone. Oren0 (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the stuff in the FAQ is very basic factual information -- things that aren't in dispute in the scientific literature but sometimes are misconceptions in the general pubic, like the observed CO2 increase coming from volcanoes or the oceans. We should probably take out the "consensus of editors here" bit because it's not really necessary. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed "consensus of editors here" until and unless it's demonstrated that this is the case. Oren0 (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict) It certainly gets used and billed like it is the bottom line consensus,, , , and it reads like it is a definitive work.  If it provides no real value perhaps it should be deleted?  --GoRight (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's useful, but it should probably be trimmed to include, as Short Brigade Harvester Boris suggested "very basic factual information". People do post arguing, on this talk page, that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, that it is clearly documented that other planets have the same current climate trends as earth, that carbon dioxide is a small percentage of the total greenhouse gases, so any change it can't change climate.  For things like that with simple explinations, it's useful for all of the regular editors here to have a well-written explination/set of references to point people to instead of re-writing it all of the time.  Sure, the FAQ could use some work, but it's still really useful.  - Enuja (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The FAQ seems to me a bit too long -- FAQs by their nature are supposed to be short. But I'm not sure what to cut. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest to merge Mars, Jupiter and Pluto. Really no point having an entry for each of them. Splette :) How's my driving? 03:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikibooks
Please add following wikibooks template to the page:

Thanks, KVDP (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, it's already on there... Deamon138 (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, the wikiversity template is however not yet there:


 * Done. Any others missing? Deamon138 (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So why does my description of the recent global temperature changes keep getting deleted?
If as stated at the top of the article: "This article is about the current period of increasing global temperature." Then why does my straightforward description of recent global temperature changes keep getting deleted?? Rameses (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I have not yet deleted it, but I would do so because it is wrong, or at least misleading. Global warming is not a primarily generic term, but describes a process has been ongoing for about 100 years, and global cooling is not a generic term either, but usually refers to the 1970s perception of a long-term cooling that never manifested itself. The graph is perfectly understandable without your commentary - as you yourself write, your addition is straightforward. So Strunk and White would apply even if the description would be correct. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The first line of the article reads: "Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation." This is a flawed statement as the current period of global warming clearly only extends from 1998 back to 1977. Before that there was an even longer 31 year period of global cooling from 1945 to 1977.  If you do not want this information under the graph then I guess it belongs in the first paragraph?   Rameses (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that interpretation of the temperature trend derived from the predominant view appearing in reliable sources on the topic, such as articles in academic journals? Or is it your own interpretation of the data? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look at the graph again, and do some reading, especially about noise and trends. Also find some reliable sources. If you are in doubt: any source that claims "global warming stopped in 1998" is not reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about ones that claim that "there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?" :)  --GoRight (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that it is not possible to even define what the proper average global temperature should be and has been over history. Given that much of the globe is covered in water, where are the temperature records over the last 150 years for that part of the earth? What is being discovered is that temperature records have been influenced by where the measurements are taking place. Many locations, and we're talking significant percentages, are in places where cities or human effects have caused the measured increases in temperatures. We've measured less than a 1C increase in temperature since the end of a little ice age and the models still cannot accurately explain it so why can't the verbage about recent temperatures be included? Who loses something from that inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showman60 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To say not to look at articles that say there has been no warming since 1998 is like saying don't look at that data look at our theory. Theory is suppose to follow data, that's just a fundamental assumption in science, and in most temperature metrics, there has been a negative trend in temperature since 1998, and if this year cools off any more, could see global temperatures like they were back in the 80's. I just think something is fundamentally flawed when a 5% of C02 occurs over a decade and temperatures decrease, give or take the anomalies. If another 10 year trend from this point forward continues the temperature decrease then I say this this theory on anthropogenic global warming is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.130.191 (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific standards
The consensus reached by the editors of this article about what appropriate sources are, weight, etc. some time ago are consistent with a new proposal for wiki science articles, see here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hope the proposal will pass. Splette :) How's my driving? 14:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not hopeful. There are too many energetic proponents of nonsense on this site, and too many admins and influential editors who side with them out of a well-meaning but ultimately pernicious concern for "fairness." Basil &quot;Basil&quot; Fawlty (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientist Predicts Ice Age Within 10 Years
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.milenio.com/mexico/milenio/nota.asp?id=651680&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=es&tl=en

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm

http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUKPEK161570._CH_.242020080204

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/global-warming-northeast-skies-through-a-snowy/74175/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-544088/It-coldest-Easter-40-years--spring-weather-April.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-tom-skilling-explainer-13aug13,0,918946.story

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/spotless-days-400-and-counting/

http://lostestate.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/sun-seems-eerily-calm/

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/

plz add this.

suns sunspot activity had diminished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.105.241 (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Typically the standard for inclusion in a FA-quality science article is that the sources should be peer-reviewed scientific literature. Not everything in this article conforms to that, and we're kinda trying (slowly) to prune away some of the less-reliably-sourced claims.


 * In any case, if you can find something from a scientific journal, it would make a good addition to the article. I'll look around, but I'm lazy and I have a few other RL projects going on at the moment, so it'll be a little while before I do anything. J. Langton (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you add it to the Global cooling article.--Work permit (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * These are news articles at best, and blogs at worst...none deserves to be mentioned here.--Seba5618 (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)